21 total posts
So the Democrats were the party of slavery and they changed
So the Republicans were the party of getting rid of slavery and they changed.
Looks like they switched sides.
How did Reps change?
Remember that Johnson (a president who used the 'n' word frequently) did NOT want to sign that Civil Rights Bill before you answer........
I didn't say he did but we still had
southern Democrats back then (remember he was from Texas).
Tell me how Republicans haven't changed since Lincoln or even Eisenhower?
YOU said Republicans have changed.....
Show me where they have changed regarding slavery? When it was the Dems who tried to keep segregation going (remember Wallace?)
The GOP goes for financial slavery today
When Eisenhower was President, he believed in a living wage. Show me one conservative that believes that now.
The only financial slaves are the ones
that the Democrats have kept that way for tens of years already, Diana....they only pay attention to them when they need a vote from them. They have had the longest running but highest unemployment numbers for over 50 years, the highest crime rates, the highest numbers of children born out of wedlock, the highest number of race on race killings/deaths, etc. and the Democrats have never done anything about any of it except to throw money at more welfare and more unemployment benefits rather than allow companies to do so what they do best...........put people to work. If it wasn't for NAFTA and other stupid treaties that screwed the workers here, we would still have competitive markets for manufacturing and industry. We have been turned into a 'consumer' country rather than a 'manufacturing' country thanks to crap that Dems put into place. And I blame a number of 'progressive' Republicans for going along with it.
Who is it that is blocking a minimum wage increase?
Who is it that is blocking repairing the infrastructure?
Who is giving lots of money to oil and gas companies and blocking green energy?
The minimum wage issue
has been argued forever here, Diana.....Dems always want to give the house away, while Republicans would like to keep the roof on it at least.
Infrastructure......nobody is blocking it. We are demanding accounting to show where they have actually spent the money before we give them more. Billions in stimulus money has been wasted....there was no reason why they couldn't have held a good chunk of that money in reserve until those 'shovel ready' jobs actually WERE ready and used it at that point.
Green energy is a joke and a waste of taxpayer money because no matter how much you pour into it, the PUBLIC CONSUMER can't afford it....and doesn't buy it. Leave it to the private sector to determine when the actual buyer is ready for it and it will finally take off, but stop using federal taxpayer funds for failing ideas.
Money to oil and gas companies began as a Democrat idea......and has carried forward by both parties via tax credits ever since; however, you conveniently forget about the billions of dollars combined that they DO pay in taxes every year. When tax reform can finally be achieved, perhaps the subsidies that I also am opposed to will cease. BUT that means that ALL subsidies, including agriculture ones, will have to end before I'm happy. I'm sick of paying huge farming conglomerates to NOT grow a product based on GLOBAL crap.....This is what has forced small farmers out of the market completely.
RE: but stop using federal taxpayer funds for failing ideas.
BUT IF/WHEN they do fail....the government will bail them out, no money upfront but if it fails...we're here for you?
Elizabeth Warren came out swinging against a Capitol Hill compromise that she says undermines protections established after the financial crisis.
She blasted a change to the government funding bill as "the worst of government for the rich and powerful." Major banks lobbied for the provision, which "would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system," she said
I can't count the number of times you're railed on about "BANKS and bailouts" now you're strangely silent. Well, not that strangely.
Minimum wage?.....in your face?
In a memo from November 7, O'Reilly encouraged Republicans to establish control with their new win by raising the minimum wage to $10 per hour.
Strangely silent? Hardly
There are other threads that have been overlapping many topics and I've responded in nearly all of them.....Keep up, JP.
Elizabeth Warren, as I've said before, is viewed by many Conservatives as the same type of 'nut-case' that liberals see in Ted Cruz..........extreme leftists love her as much as they hate Cruz.
I noticed you were silent on Pelosi's originally being one of those who actually wrote the House bill, until Warren put pressure on her, and then her heart was broken....
I don't see anything in the bill that passed that said the banks would be bailed out....but again you are totally silent about the FM/FM new rule that forces banks to again lower their standards of home loans to having only 3% down...which is what caused the housing collapse in the first place.
Unlike liberals here and elsewhere, I have no problem disagreeing with Republican/Conservative ideas, including Bill O........and some that GWB endorsed like the illegal immigrant reform he wanted to do. I've yet to see a liberal, especially here in SE, EVER disagree with another liberal idea. Instead they defend that idea as if it came straight from God.
RE: I noticed you were silent
I noticed you were silent on Pelosi's originally being one of those who actually wrote the House bill,
"one of those"...?
Does that mean SHE put the part thatwould let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system,?
A Yes OR No answer will suffice....no need to divert and deflect.
IF she had read it AFTER she helped write it, she approved until Warren 'showed her the error of her ways'....
IF she didn't bother to read it, like Obamacare, she STILL helped write it and approved of it before Warren 'showed her the error of her ways'.....
Warren put pressure on the far left wing..........and Pelosi caved to her.
She either read it and approved or she didn't read it and still approved until Warren......
RE: Who knows?
Since no one knows...I'll take that as a NO.
RE: I have no problem disagreeing with
Those posts have been around for a long time
go hunt for them.....or keep waiting anxiously for things I won't hunt up FOR you. I'm surprised that you haven't kept them in your archives since you are so good at trying to throw my others posts at me when you are inclined to do so.
As for your link regarding the bailouts for banks.......The banks wouldn't BE making risky loans if the Treasury/FM/FM hadn't also directed them two days before the bill was introduced for a vote to now accept lower standards again in MAKING those loans. You can't fault one for trying to protect themselves and not fault the other for forcing them to do just that. AND do you believe that the taxpayer wouldn't BE on that hook again if FM/FM weren't guaranteeing them with taxpayer money in the first place? FM/FM have repeatedly asked for their OWN bailouts.......
Have the government get OUT of the homebuying/lending business and the problem just may solve itself. They issue orders to banks to do one thing and when they do and it turns out badly, they sue the banks......
And that wasn't a NO......assume whatever you want, you usually do.
RE: As for your link regarding the bailouts for banks.......
As for your link regarding the bailouts for banks.......The banks wouldn't BE making risky loans if the Treasury/FM/FM
the latest Congressional budget didn't give them anymore bailout opportunities.
The White House said on Wednesday it "strongly opposes" the provision.
"The main purpose...is to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program; this bill should not be used as a vehicle to add entirely unrelated financial regulatory provisions," the White House said.
"If Wall Street gets the upside in big bonuses from its high-risk derivatives deals, then it should also have to pay the downside for any losses," Kelleher wrote.
"Dodd-Frank forced too-big-to-fail banks to move potentially toxic speculation in derivatives out of their government-insured banks," Trumka said in a statement. "Wall Street's friends in Congress are trying to once again put the public on the hook for the most dangerous aspects of the financial system."
NO mention of FM/FM..you're fixated on that ...Concerned that someone can buy a house with 3% down...yet you don't see a problem with insuring "derivative trading".
It wasn't that long ago that you had GE and Banks in your sights...NOW I think I've gone deaf.
An Explanation of Derivatives and How They Work
A derivative is anything that is valued based upon some other asset. In other words, it derives its value from something else.
In the case of GE stock options, for instance, whether the stock option makes money, loses money, or breaks even depends entirely upon what General Electric shares do. Thus, the options "derive" their value from GE stock. They are a derivative.
Derivatives are used by banks to protect themselves from interest rates changes.
Why Are Derivatives Dangerous
Although derivatives can help make the economy function by reducing risk for farmers, oil companies, startup employees, and more, left unchecked, they can introduce "systematic risk"
Of course the bill doesn't mention FM/FM
RE: Of course the bill doesn't mention FM/FM
Of course the bill doesn't mention FM/FM The Congress has nothing to do with that agency....
OK...I'm talking about one thing (derivatives something the bill deals with) and you're responding about another (something the bill has nothing to do with)...Doesn't that make any back and forth pointless?
I'm talking about what's IN THE BILL...You're talking about what's NOT IN THE BILL.
It all makes sense now.
Actually it was Citigroup that wrote and
slipped in the part about getting rid of Dodd-Franks and guarantee that the taxpayer will bail them out if the lose. And it wasn't Democrats that slipped it in.
You want to keep bailing the banks out so they can gamble? I know I don't.