Here is an interesting article from NYTIMES conservative David Brooks.
The mother of all no brainers
I think it is a very interesting article. Brooks have some valid points about how the GOP is not a normal party any more. In essence they have been offered 80% of what they want and still they might say no out of pure political reasons.
Do you all remember McCains slogan .... Country first.... well i guess that notion does not apply any more.
Thoughts?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Here is an interesting article from NYTIMES conservative David Brooks.
The mother of all no brainers
I think it is a very interesting article. Brooks have some valid points about how the GOP is not a normal party any more. In essence they have been offered 80% of what they want and still they might say no out of pure political reasons.
Do you all remember McCains slogan .... Country first.... well i guess that notion does not apply any more.
The Democrats have absolutely no room whatsoever to claim an upperhand on policy here.
They have offered no means of creating a climate to foster small business growth. Read United We Stand by Ross Perot. He has been right on the money for years.
As goes the mid-housing market and small businesses (combine both and you have the middle class), go the country
Republicans are too concerned with big business and Dems are too concerned with the minority small interest groups.
0
The Democrats have absolutely no room whatsoever to claim an upperhand on policy here.
They have offered no means of creating a climate to foster small business growth. Read United We Stand by Ross Perot. He has been right on the money for years.
As goes the mid-housing market and small businesses (combine both and you have the middle class), go the country
Republicans are too concerned with big business and Dems are too concerned with the minority small interest groups.
Funny.... but I don't recall any compromising going on a few years ago during Medical Reform. Repubs weren't in any position then to win concessions... but just saying. This was the type of Democratic Party we were dealing with..
Now he wants to lay shame on Repubs for standing up for what they believe in.
0
Funny.... but I don't recall any compromising going on a few years ago during Medical Reform. Repubs weren't in any position then to win concessions... but just saying. This was the type of Democratic Party we were dealing with..
Now he wants to lay shame on Repubs for standing up for what they believe in.
When I see cuts to military and closure of corporate loopholes and freebies then I will wake up.
Agreed... Personally, I would approve of both if they happened..
There is no reason by big companies like GE should pay less than their fair share, only because they have the capacity to hire more lobbyists & attorneys to find these loopholes.
Simplify the Tax Code by removing all loopholes, and decreasing the marginal tax rate on all corporations.
This would put companies on more equal footing.... and dare I say, increase government revenue at the same.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Its all party line hocus pocus.
Blue is blue, red is red.
When I see cuts to military and closure of corporate loopholes and freebies then I will wake up.
Agreed... Personally, I would approve of both if they happened..
There is no reason by big companies like GE should pay less than their fair share, only because they have the capacity to hire more lobbyists & attorneys to find these loopholes.
Simplify the Tax Code by removing all loopholes, and decreasing the marginal tax rate on all corporations.
This would put companies on more equal footing.... and dare I say, increase government revenue at the same.
The Democrats have absolutely no room whatsoever to claim an upperhand on policy here.
They have offered no means of creating a climate to foster small business growth. Read United We Stand by Ross Perot. He has been right on the money for years.
As goes the mid-housing market and small businesses (combine both and you have the middle class), go the country
Republicans are too concerned with big business and Dems are too concerned with the minority small interest groups.
and there in lies the problem. The solution is to decouple the two from eachother. There was an article yesterday about Buffet saying that the economy will recover when housing does. By his (and yours?) assertion, what we need to 'fix the economy' is for housing to get back to being more un-affordable. Until you understand this concept and why it is everything that is wrong with the political economy today, you will always feel as confused as the next guy as to why things are the way they are, and why there are no solutions. It is by design
Rising real estate (land values) MAKE US ALL COLLECTIVELY POORER , so long as the rents that are sucked from the land are funneled into the private pockets of a very small segment of the population. This is a very macro, and simple concept, and the reason it is hard for many to understand is that your entire public educations purpose was to confuse you into believing otherwise.
Learning is about more then simply acquiring new knowledge/information, and insights; it is also crucial to unlearn old knowledge that has outlived its relevance. Thus, forgetting is probably at least as important as learning,,,,,
Michael Pollan posits that pot smokers benefit from anandamide in that the brain utilizes it for the utility of forgetting, and argues that it's at least as important to be able to forget/unlearn as it is to remember, and i agree
get youself some good smoke
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
The Democrats have absolutely no room whatsoever to claim an upperhand on policy here.
They have offered no means of creating a climate to foster small business growth. Read United We Stand by Ross Perot. He has been right on the money for years.
As goes the mid-housing market and small businesses (combine both and you have the middle class), go the country
Republicans are too concerned with big business and Dems are too concerned with the minority small interest groups.
and there in lies the problem. The solution is to decouple the two from eachother. There was an article yesterday about Buffet saying that the economy will recover when housing does. By his (and yours?) assertion, what we need to 'fix the economy' is for housing to get back to being more un-affordable. Until you understand this concept and why it is everything that is wrong with the political economy today, you will always feel as confused as the next guy as to why things are the way they are, and why there are no solutions. It is by design
Rising real estate (land values) MAKE US ALL COLLECTIVELY POORER , so long as the rents that are sucked from the land are funneled into the private pockets of a very small segment of the population. This is a very macro, and simple concept, and the reason it is hard for many to understand is that your entire public educations purpose was to confuse you into believing otherwise.
Learning is about more then simply acquiring new knowledge/information, and insights; it is also crucial to unlearn old knowledge that has outlived its relevance. Thus, forgetting is probably at least as important as learning,,,,,
Michael Pollan posits that pot smokers benefit from anandamide in that the brain utilizes it for the utility of forgetting, and argues that it's at least as important to be able to forget/unlearn as it is to remember, and i agree
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no
matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in
order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to
raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say
no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars
and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them
that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse
than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse
to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation
makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But
the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to
stain their nation’s honor.
1)the last two times a 2/1 spending cut/tax raise was promised the cuts did not happen but the raise did.....this will be the case again and many know it
2)well i think intellectuals and scholars have helped put us in this position. you can listen to a fancy talker and a bunch of pie charts and wind up believing most anything. facts are....we have a spending disorder on the level of a pathologic shopper. when should the credit cards be chopped up
3)MORAL DECENCY?????????? is it moral to do 20% of the actual cuts needed over 10 years.....3-4 trillion is a joke. is it decent to PRINT MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR.....thats a default in a way. is it morally decent to saddle future generations with the gluttonous excesses of this credit card fiscal policy.
IF WE DONT DEFAULT, WE WILL NEVER DEAL WITH OUR ISSUES.
if we cant get these issues handled before the boomers reach entitlement age and fewer workers are left to loot for the spending coffers, we are in serious trouble
david brooks is not a conservative by the way, a moderate at best.
0
so here is the mans analysis
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no
matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in
order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to
raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say
no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars
and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them
that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse
than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse
to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation
makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But
the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to
stain their nation’s honor.
1)the last two times a 2/1 spending cut/tax raise was promised the cuts did not happen but the raise did.....this will be the case again and many know it
2)well i think intellectuals and scholars have helped put us in this position. you can listen to a fancy talker and a bunch of pie charts and wind up believing most anything. facts are....we have a spending disorder on the level of a pathologic shopper. when should the credit cards be chopped up
3)MORAL DECENCY?????????? is it moral to do 20% of the actual cuts needed over 10 years.....3-4 trillion is a joke. is it decent to PRINT MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR.....thats a default in a way. is it morally decent to saddle future generations with the gluttonous excesses of this credit card fiscal policy.
IF WE DONT DEFAULT, WE WILL NEVER DEAL WITH OUR ISSUES.
if we cant get these issues handled before the boomers reach entitlement age and fewer workers are left to loot for the spending coffers, we are in serious trouble
david brooks is not a conservative by the way, a moderate at best.
im confused why cuts in govt spending HAVE to be accompanied by raises in taxes? we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. cut the f'in spending.
dont get me wrong, i think the loopholes need to be closed. but i hardly think its the mother of all no brainers, its not like they are talking about making it against the law to kill someone.
and as someone earlier said, why now all the support for compromise in congress? why did that same principle apply during health care reform? why was there no coverage that pelosi threw out all the concessions make in committee? seems just a TAD hypocritical.
0
im confused why cuts in govt spending HAVE to be accompanied by raises in taxes? we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. cut the f'in spending.
dont get me wrong, i think the loopholes need to be closed. but i hardly think its the mother of all no brainers, its not like they are talking about making it against the law to kill someone.
and as someone earlier said, why now all the support for compromise in congress? why did that same principle apply during health care reform? why was there no coverage that pelosi threw out all the concessions make in committee? seems just a TAD hypocritical.
Mikael--to respond to your statement in post 5, I agree that the all or nothing approach is an issue, but my point was the Dem plan doesn't offer anything to spur the economy. Raising the debt ceiling only works if there is a plan in place.
Where is the plan to generate incentives to start/expand small businesses? Where is the plan to reduce the housing crisis?
As BE eluded to, things have been tied into the housing crisis for so long....people can't borrow against their former single largest piece of equity and that is how the middle class has been surviving for years.
Why haven't banks been "encouraged" to offer small business loans? Why is it harder to get a small business loan or extension of credit than any other time in history? What was the purpose of bailing out the banks?
As an aside, I don't consider any comparison to this situation and the health care act. The Republicans never offered a counter plan. In fact, they haven't offered a true health insurance plan for reformation since the days of Newt (and ironiclly, that plan called for mandatory health insurance purchases). Their way of compromise was saying no.
0
Mikael--to respond to your statement in post 5, I agree that the all or nothing approach is an issue, but my point was the Dem plan doesn't offer anything to spur the economy. Raising the debt ceiling only works if there is a plan in place.
Where is the plan to generate incentives to start/expand small businesses? Where is the plan to reduce the housing crisis?
As BE eluded to, things have been tied into the housing crisis for so long....people can't borrow against their former single largest piece of equity and that is how the middle class has been surviving for years.
Why haven't banks been "encouraged" to offer small business loans? Why is it harder to get a small business loan or extension of credit than any other time in history? What was the purpose of bailing out the banks?
As an aside, I don't consider any comparison to this situation and the health care act. The Republicans never offered a counter plan. In fact, they haven't offered a true health insurance plan for reformation since the days of Newt (and ironiclly, that plan called for mandatory health insurance purchases). Their way of compromise was saying no.
JN.. or should I say Steveshane...my only point is that one cannot ompromise with a yes or no vote when those saying no don't offer an alternative. <handshake>
0
<confused guy emoticon>
JN.. or should I say Steveshane...my only point is that one cannot ompromise with a yes or no vote when those saying no don't offer an alternative. <handshake>
Mikael--to respond to your statement in post 5, I agree that the all or nothing approach is an issue, but my point was the Dem plan doesn't offer anything to spur the economy. Raising the debt ceiling only works if there is a plan in place.
Where is the plan to generate incentives to start/expand small businesses? Where is the plan to reduce the housing crisis?
As BE eluded to, things have been tied into the housing crisis for so long....people can't borrow against their former single largest piece of equity and that is how the middle class has been surviving for years.
Why haven't banks been "encouraged" to offer small business loans? Why is it harder to get a small business loan or extension of credit than any other time in history? What was the purpose of bailing out the banks?
As an aside, I don't consider any comparison to this situation and the health care act. The Republicans never offered a counter plan. In fact, they haven't offered a true health insurance plan for reformation since the days of Newt (and ironiclly, that plan called for mandatory health insurance purchases). Their way of compromise was saying no.
Why haven't banks been "encouraged" to offer small business loans? Encouraged? That's a creative way of saying a bank should offer a loan to a business , if even if it means taking on more "risk"... Please , we've been down that road before. Banks should be prudent in the current environment.
Why
is it harder to get a small business loan or extension of credit than
any other time in history? Maybe because few qualify.
What was the purpose of bailing out the
banks? I kind of like the idea of not having Great Depression 2.0
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Mikael--to respond to your statement in post 5, I agree that the all or nothing approach is an issue, but my point was the Dem plan doesn't offer anything to spur the economy. Raising the debt ceiling only works if there is a plan in place.
Where is the plan to generate incentives to start/expand small businesses? Where is the plan to reduce the housing crisis?
As BE eluded to, things have been tied into the housing crisis for so long....people can't borrow against their former single largest piece of equity and that is how the middle class has been surviving for years.
Why haven't banks been "encouraged" to offer small business loans? Why is it harder to get a small business loan or extension of credit than any other time in history? What was the purpose of bailing out the banks?
As an aside, I don't consider any comparison to this situation and the health care act. The Republicans never offered a counter plan. In fact, they haven't offered a true health insurance plan for reformation since the days of Newt (and ironiclly, that plan called for mandatory health insurance purchases). Their way of compromise was saying no.
Why haven't banks been "encouraged" to offer small business loans? Encouraged? That's a creative way of saying a bank should offer a loan to a business , if even if it means taking on more "risk"... Please , we've been down that road before. Banks should be prudent in the current environment.
Why
is it harder to get a small business loan or extension of credit than
any other time in history? Maybe because few qualify.
What was the purpose of bailing out the
banks? I kind of like the idea of not having Great Depression 2.0
not sure who steveshane is, the j in my name stands for jeff, but HR 3400 was the republicans alternative. and the republicans made many alternative suggestions, some even accepted by democrats in committee, but pelosi threw those out the window the first chance she had. im not quite sure what you wanted them to do, the democrats controlled every branch, and would have had a filibuster proof majority had kennedy not died. the democrats were, during the majority if not all of the formation of the bill, in a position where they didnt even have to give republicans the time of day.
0
not sure who steveshane is, the j in my name stands for jeff, but HR 3400 was the republicans alternative. and the republicans made many alternative suggestions, some even accepted by democrats in committee, but pelosi threw those out the window the first chance she had. im not quite sure what you wanted them to do, the democrats controlled every branch, and would have had a filibuster proof majority had kennedy not died. the democrats were, during the majority if not all of the formation of the bill, in a position where they didnt even have to give republicans the time of day.
Why haven't banks been "encouraged" to offer small business loans? Encouraged? That's a creative way of saying a bank should offer a loan to a business , if even if it means taking on more "risk"... Please , we've been down that road before. Banks should be prudent in the current environment.
Why
is it harder to get a small business loan or extension of credit than
any other time in history? Maybe because few qualify.
What was the purpose of bailing out the
banks? I kind of like the idea of not having Great Depression 2.0
the banks got the money with the understanding they would be loaning to small business(i think) yet of course since it was 0 interest and tons of folks were going down...the banks just tucked it away for 3% and made money. risks/investments in small businesses are essential to propel the economy forward. there is no capital even for solid / solvent small businesses that wish to expand. i have a buddy that makes 500K/yr, owns most of his house and has assets and minimal debt.....800 credit rating.....TURNED DOWN FOR AN EXPANSION LOAN. now how the heck does that even make sense unless you factor in the no risk category of investing free tarp money as a better alternative. i have an 800, decent income and minimal debt yet would not qualify either...yet i'd love to know who would. great depression 2.0 is here if one looks at real unemployment levels and realize its not going to get better and those relying on artificially high housing prices returning are going to wait a long time.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
Why haven't banks been "encouraged" to offer small business loans? Encouraged? That's a creative way of saying a bank should offer a loan to a business , if even if it means taking on more "risk"... Please , we've been down that road before. Banks should be prudent in the current environment.
Why
is it harder to get a small business loan or extension of credit than
any other time in history? Maybe because few qualify.
What was the purpose of bailing out the
banks? I kind of like the idea of not having Great Depression 2.0
the banks got the money with the understanding they would be loaning to small business(i think) yet of course since it was 0 interest and tons of folks were going down...the banks just tucked it away for 3% and made money. risks/investments in small businesses are essential to propel the economy forward. there is no capital even for solid / solvent small businesses that wish to expand. i have a buddy that makes 500K/yr, owns most of his house and has assets and minimal debt.....800 credit rating.....TURNED DOWN FOR AN EXPANSION LOAN. now how the heck does that even make sense unless you factor in the no risk category of investing free tarp money as a better alternative. i have an 800, decent income and minimal debt yet would not qualify either...yet i'd love to know who would. great depression 2.0 is here if one looks at real unemployment levels and realize its not going to get better and those relying on artificially high housing prices returning are going to wait a long time.
the banks got the money with the understanding they would be loaning to small business(i think) yet of course since it was 0 interest and tons of folks were going down...the banks just tucked it away for 3% and made money. risks/investments in small businesses are essential to propel the economy forward. there is no capital even for solid / solvent small businesses that wish to expand. i have a buddy that makes 500K/yr, owns most of his house and has assets and minimal debt.....800 credit rating.....TURNED DOWN FOR AN EXPANSION LOAN. now how the heck does that even make sense unless you factor in the no risk category of investing free tarp money as a better alternative. i have an 800, decent income and minimal debt yet would not qualify either...yet i'd love to know who would. great depression 2.0 is here if one looks at real unemployment levels and realize its not going to get better and those relying on artificially high housing prices returning are going to wait a long time.
Absotfrigginlutely.
The banks were bailed out precisely for this. I have no problem whatsoever with banks being cautious right now.
But freezing small business lending only perpetuates, not cures.
0
Quote Originally Posted by drJ:
the banks got the money with the understanding they would be loaning to small business(i think) yet of course since it was 0 interest and tons of folks were going down...the banks just tucked it away for 3% and made money. risks/investments in small businesses are essential to propel the economy forward. there is no capital even for solid / solvent small businesses that wish to expand. i have a buddy that makes 500K/yr, owns most of his house and has assets and minimal debt.....800 credit rating.....TURNED DOWN FOR AN EXPANSION LOAN. now how the heck does that even make sense unless you factor in the no risk category of investing free tarp money as a better alternative. i have an 800, decent income and minimal debt yet would not qualify either...yet i'd love to know who would. great depression 2.0 is here if one looks at real unemployment levels and realize its not going to get better and those relying on artificially high housing prices returning are going to wait a long time.
Absotfrigginlutely.
The banks were bailed out precisely for this. I have no problem whatsoever with banks being cautious right now.
But freezing small business lending only perpetuates, not cures.
not sure who steveshane is, the j in my name stands for jeff, but HR 3400 was the republicans alternative. and the republicans made many alternative suggestions, some even accepted by democrats in committee, but pelosi threw those out the window the first chance she had. im not quite sure what you wanted them to do, the democrats controlled every branch, and would have had a filibuster proof majority had kennedy not died. the democrats were, during the majority if not all of the formation of the bill, in a position where they didnt even have to give republicans the time of day.
HR3400 was only an act that amended the current tax code to allow a tax credit for insurance in high risk pools.
It was never an alternative to ObamaCare,
0
Quote Originally Posted by jinvegas:
not sure who steveshane is, the j in my name stands for jeff, but HR 3400 was the republicans alternative. and the republicans made many alternative suggestions, some even accepted by democrats in committee, but pelosi threw those out the window the first chance she had. im not quite sure what you wanted them to do, the democrats controlled every branch, and would have had a filibuster proof majority had kennedy not died. the democrats were, during the majority if not all of the formation of the bill, in a position where they didnt even have to give republicans the time of day.
HR3400 was only an act that amended the current tax code to allow a tax credit for insurance in high risk pools.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
