When will the spending stop??

[Sunstone]

Who cares when the spending will stop. Right now, jobs are more important than spending.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't quite understand this...
The UK housing market and mortgage lenders are back in profit, as are the Banks, that the Government now part owns. The so called Toxic debts part of the the housing market has also returned to profit
However the UK is less far out of the recession than the USA.

German national trade figures are the best since reunification. With only a few exceptions trade in Europe is improving.

I do not understand how your "Nationalised" part of the house market still requires more cash, unless it is being syphoned off in some illegal way.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Who cares when the spending will stop. Right now, jobs are more important than spending.

This.

 

[Kathryn]

Damn, it feels good to be a gansta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL9ihXiFAko
OK - PLEASE open this and let it play while you're enjoying the following pics!
(Unfortunately, for propriety's sake, this is the edited version of the song, but play the real one in your mind.)

 

[MissAlice]

Damn, it feels good to be a gansta.

Indeed it pays well to be one hell of a politician.

Let them eat cake....

 

[Kathryn]

Keep singin'!

DAMN IT FEELS GOOD TO BE A GANSTA!

 

[Darkness]

Who cares when the spending will stop. Right now, jobs are more important than spending.

We should get all of our infrastructure and green investment spending done now, while we can still borrow at very low interest rates. The yield on 10-year treasury notes is only 2.68 per cent.

 

[Kathryn]

What we need is more of THIS:

 

[Kathryn]

Harharharhhhar, look at these little jewels I found on YouTube:

[youtube]ur3s-2GvBWc[/youtube]
YouTube - Feels Good to be Obama

[youtube]yycRN2yYEwQ[/youtube]
YouTube - Re: FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON YOU (IRAN WAR) PART 1

 

[Darkness]

What we need is more of THIS:

Haha... conservatives are funny, and the Tea Party scares the **** out of me.

 

[Kathryn]

Haha... conservatives are funny, and the Tea Party scares the **** out of me.

Just so you know - not all those pictures were from Tea Party events. In fact, you may take note that the first photo is of an anti-Iraq war rally, and front and center is an anti-Bush sign.

My point is that we the people should not forget that we have the right to dissent - and that sometimes dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Washington (and just about every federal building nationwide) is full of corrupt fatcats milking the system, living off OUR backs, and enjoying a never ending stream of favors from their various special interest groups.

They either have basically forgotten that the American public truly exists (coccooned as they are in their mansions and offices and surrounded by pandering wannabees), or they think we are so stupid that we will not see through their corruption - and take action.

On the second possibility - they may be right.

I say, run 'em out on a rail - the whole lot of them. The exceptions to their overall corruption are so few and far between as to be a negligible group (and pretty much powerless).

 

[Darkness]

Just so you know - not all those pictures were from Tea Party events. In fact, you may take note that the first photo is of an anti-Iraq war rally, and front and center is an anti-Bush sign.

I am not exactly a supporter of the anti-war rallies. Their attitude seems to be, "Our soldiers are dying. I don't give a damn about the lives of Iraqis and Afghans." I like to think of myself as a leftist more in line with the foreign policy views of Michael Walzer.

My point is that we the people should not forget that we have the right to dissent - and that sometimes dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

And sometimes dissent is just plain scary; like when my friend, who is a conservative, was being screamed at by Tea Party protestors, even though he was on their side policy-wise.

Washington (and just about every federal building nationwide) is full of corrupt fatcats milking the system, living off OUR backs, and enjoying a never ending stream of favors from their various special interest groups.

Wall Street is also full of corrupt fatcats milking the system, yet those on the right seem to ignore this, or at least downplay it to irrelevance.

They either have basically forgotten that the American public truly exists (coccooned as they are in their mansions and offices and surrounded by pandering wannabees), or they think we are so stupid that we will not see through their corruption - and take action.

On the second possibility - they may be right.

I do not hold quite as pessimistic a view of politicians. I was proud of the Democratic party for assisting the middle-class by passing health insurance reform, in the face of vitrolic opposition.

I say, run 'em out on a rail - the whole lot of them. The exceptions to their overall corruption are so few and far between as to be a negligible group (and pretty much powerless).

I say, we switch over to a system of public campaign financing and cut special interests out altogether.

 

[Kathryn]

I am not exactly a supporter of the anti-war rallies. Their attitude seems to be, "Our soldiers are dying. I don't give a damn about the lives of Iraqis and Afghans."

Wow. I have never picked up on the attitude that you mentioned. Most anti-war rallies seem, in my opinion, to be filled with people from a wide range of ideologies, united by a common purpose - STOP THE WAR. Some are there because of the fiscal side of it (it's part of what's breaking our economy), some are there because they believe human rights issues are at stake, and others (like myself) don't want their kids dying for a cause that's never really been clearly defined. For most, it's a combination of the above.

And sometimes dissent is just plain scary; like when my friend, who is a conservative, was being screamed at by Tea Party protestors, even though he was on their side policy-wise.

Sweeping social change is rarely accomplished quietly. And public protests, regardless of ideology or purpose, are usually pretty emotionally charged.

How many large protests have you actually attended?

Wall Street is also full of corrupt fatcats milking the system, yet those on the right seem to ignore this, or at least downplay it to irrelevance.

I do not hold quite as pessimistic a view of politicians.

Well, of course huge, corrupt businesses are backing corrupt politicians. The political system has to have financial backing, and most politicians don't really know how to run a profitable business - their money has to come from somewhere!

This is one reason why communism or socialism never really work when it comes to abolishing the upper class and special class privileges. When you take away the opportunity for your average guy to become wealthy, you take away a large incentive for working profitably. This decreases profits and taxes, and the money well dries up - unless you keep some corrupt fat cats around and keep their privileges intact.

Which is, of course, ideologically hypocritical.

I say, we switch over to a system of public campaign financing and cut special interests out altogether

So you really would be OK if your tax dollars were being spent to finance a right wing conservative who was opposed to abortion, immigration reform, and/or affirmative action?

I know it may not seem like a big deal to you now, but if you're ever lucky enough (or work hard enough for enough years like my husband and me) to actually have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year, you might feel a bit more opinionated about that idea.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Revoltingest]

And sometimes dissent is just plain scary; like when my friend, who is a conservative, was being screamed at by Tea Party protestors, even though he was on their side policy-wise.

The Tea Partiers are nothing compared to Viet Nam era anti-war protesters. We had much violence on both sides of that donnybrook.
Such is the nature of heated disagreement....so beware those who say raucus dissent is wrong, for that is to say that all dissent is wrong.

Wall Street is also full of corrupt fatcats milking the system, yet those on the right seem to ignore this, or at least downplay it to irrelevance.

I also note that both parties accept large campaign contributions from these "fat-cats". The left is no different, since we observe regimes
of both parties doling out the same massive bail-outs to the very same Wall St firms.

I say, we switch over to a system of public campaign financing and cut special interests out altogether.

"Special interests" are not special. The term exists only to demonize some other group's interests. Who in this list is not a special interest: big business, small business, homeowners, home builders, black folk, white folk, men, women, transgenders, straights, gays, government, the faithful, the faithless, farmers, fishermen, firemen, the military, police, the handicapped? If you have gov't as the sole source of campaign funding, then you give complete power to control elections to those currently in power. They, of course, have a "special interest" in maintaining their power. Sure, sure, it's neater, cleaner & simpler than the chaos we have now with so many groups participating....but beware efficient elections controlled entirely by the leaders de jour, for they are the most dangerous special interest of all.
http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/washington/mowing_down_the-grassroots.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6GJQGUUdAw

I prefer elections to be like BBQed ribs - spicy, messy & loads'o fun.

 

[Falvlun]

I say, run 'em out on a rail - the whole lot of them. The exceptions to their overall corruption are so few and far between as to be a negligible group (and pretty much powerless).

And who do you suggest replaces them? Anyone you elect will just be more of the same.

Unfortunately, I don't think the problem is the people: it's the system. The system attracts the sort of people that are willing to play the system-- namely, exactly the sort of people we don't want in office if we are trying to change the system.

So the question is: How do we change the system?

 

[Kathryn]

And who do you suggest replaces them? Anyone you elect will just be more of the same.

Unfortunately, I don't think the problem is the people: it's the system. The system attracts the sort of people that are willing to play the system-- namely, exactly the sort of people we don't want in office if we are trying to change the system.

So the question is: How do we change the system?

We start by voting OUT the ones we know are corrupt. And we hold the rest accountable.

But holding people accountable is not easy, ya know? It takes vigilance. It takes work. It's hard and dissappointing sometimes, and frustrating, and often requires great personal sacrifice. Most people aren't up for all that - they've got 125 channels on a 54" screen they can watch. They can sit there and laugh at the folks on the Jerry Springer show and think about how much smarter they are than those fools.

Meanwhile their house of cards is about to fall in around their ears. Make that OUR house of cards falling down around OUR ears.

I dunno - I'd rather throw my lot in with those who say "You'll have to pry my cold, dead fingers off my gun," than those whose cold, dead fingers will be holding nothing more than the remote control.

But hey, that's just me.

And I do blame the people as well as the system. We haven't stuck to strong, proven principles. We have exactly the government we deserve.

 

[Alceste]

It's a valid question though - the anti-government crowd makes a lot of fuss about running the politicians who are in the pocket of big business out of town, but then who do they offer up to replace them? Nutcases like Sharron Angle, and Rand Paul. Not to mention the queen of corruption AND lunacy herself heading up the whole show - Sarah Palin.

Methinks the cure is far worse than the disease.

 

[Falvlun]

We start by voting OUT the ones we know are corrupt. And we hold the rest accountable.

But that's just it. Politicians seem to be disproportionally corrupt. Why is that? Two possible reasons, with perhaps both coming into play: 1) The system attracts corrupt people and 2) The system corrupts people.

So you get rid of the corrupt politicians, but you are only getting corrupt people to replace them, or you find a nice guy to elect who eventually subcumbs to corruption because otherwise he can't do a thing in this corrupt system.

Vigilance is all well and good. It's a start, but it's not necessarily the ultimate solution. You elect a guy to senate. In his first year he proves to be corrupt; well, you've got another 5 years you've got to live with him before your vigilance pays off and you can vote him out.

We need people more interested in how government works than simply in who is working for the government.

And I do blame the people as well as the system. We haven't stuck to strong, proven principles. We have exactly the government we deserve.

Of course people are accountable for their actions. But it appears that the current governmental system both attracts and creates crooks. We need a system in which it isn't so easy (and almost necessary) to be a crook.

 

[Darkness]

Wow. I have never picked up on the attitude that you mentioned. Most anti-war rallies seem, in my opinion, to be filled with people from a wide range of ideologies, united by a common purpose - STOP THE WAR. Some are there because of the fiscal side of it (it's part of what's breaking our economy), some are there because they believe human rights issues are at stake, and others (like myself) don't want their kids dying for a cause that's never really been clearly defined. For most, it's a combination of the above.

This is exactly the reason I should not post at 2:30 in the morning, after coming back from a karaoke bar.

Sweeping social change is rarely accomplished quietly. And public protests, regardless of ideology or purpose, are usually pretty emotionally charged.

How many large protests have you actually attended?

None. I am not exactly the "take it to the streets" kind of guy.

Well, of course huge, corrupt businesses are backing corrupt politicians. The political system has to have financial backing, and most politicians don't really know how to run a profitable business - their money has to come from somewhere!

I say it is a blessing and a curse that politicians don't usually know how to run a business. Business people only know one thing, and that is making money. I want a more moral foundation than that; though sometimes politicians knowledge of economic issues is appalling. I am in favour of electing economics professors, and voting against anyone who went to business school in college.

This is one reason why communism or socialism never really work when it comes to abolishing the upper class and special class privileges. When you take away the opportunity for your average guy to become wealthy, you take away a large incentive for working profitably. This decreases profits and taxes, and the money well dries up - unless you keep some corrupt fat cats around and keep their privileges intact.

Which is, of course, ideologically hypocritical.

Modern socialism does not seek the abolition of the upper-class.

So you really would be OK if your tax dollars were being spent to finance a right wing conservative who was opposed to abortion, immigration reform, and/or affirmative action?

Yes. The state has a right to spend our money as it deems functional, though, there is a limit.

I know it may not seem like a big deal to you now, but if you're ever lucky enough (or work hard enough for enough years like my husband and me) to actually have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year, you might feel a bit more opinionated about that idea.

I'm just sayin'.

I doubt it. I view taxes as my patriotic duty and a way I support the community and the nation. I have a strong moral compunction to believe that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest burden. A progressive tax system builds solidarity, and shows that we are all in this together. I do not only believe in civil liberties and rights, but also civil duties.

 

[Darkness]

The Tea Partiers are nothing compared to Viet Nam era anti-war protesters. We had much violence on both sides of that donnybrook.
Such is the nature of heated disagreement....so beware those who say raucus dissent is wrong, for that is to say that all dissent is wrong.

Yeah, the Vietnam Era must have been scary ****. It is not that I believe dissent is wrong, but I have a reason to worry, if the Tea Party's libertarian economic policies are realised. I have a lot of health problems, so a strong social safety-net is a plus for me.

I also note that both parties accept large campaign contributions from these "fat-cats". The left is no different, since we observe regimes
of both parties doling out the same massive bail-outs to the very same Wall St firms.

Yeah, but the United States has no true left-wing movement. The Democratic Progressive Caucus only claims 83 Congressmen (Senate and House), while there are 54 Democratic Congressmen in the Blue Dog Coalition. By most objective political standards, the Democratic party is centre-right, more so than the UK Conservative Party.

"Special interests" are not special. The term exists only to demonize some other group's interests. Who in this list is not a special interest: big business, small business, homeowners, home builders, black folk, white folk, men, women, transgenders, straights, gays, government, the faithful, the faithless, farmers, fishermen, firemen, the military, police, the handicapped? If you have gov't as the sole source of campaign funding, then you give complete power to control elections to those currently in power. They, of course, have a "special interest" in maintaining their power. Sure, sure, it's neater, cleaner & simpler than the chaos we have now with so many groups participating....but beware efficient elections controlled entirely by the leaders de jour, for they are the most dangerous special interest of all.
http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/washington/mowing_down_the-grassroots.pdf
[youtube]M6GJQGUUdAw[/youtube]
YouTube - Institute for Justice & Washington Activists are Protecting Grassroots Activism

I prefer elections to be like BBQed ribs - spicy, messy & loads'o fun.

With re-election rates from congressmen above 90 per cent in most cases, it wouldn't hurt to experiment. Our politicians can't really be any more entrenched than they already are. And, I am going to have you make me BBQed ribs. :yes: