AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Many much larger capital projects have been undertaken by private sector mining, petroleum and manufacturing companies. You are simply dead wrong on this.

Yes, but presumably, they do so for a profit. Why would these companies get involved in projects that cannot possibly turn a profit, such as the new Bay Bridge?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Advocate,

The Republicans did not control the Senate in 2007 or 2008. The Democrats could pass ANY bill in the world that they wanted and present it to the President. Then if he failed to sign it, you could blame it on him. They didn't. He didn't. He did on multiple occasions ask them to do so.

I don't give President Bush a pass as he could have been much more vocal and forceful and could have gone to the people to ask THEM to lean on Congress to act, and he didn't as that was not his style. I don't give the GOP members of Congress a pass either on failing, when they had the majority, to rein in really stupid and dangerous activities of Fannie and Freddie at the urging of ACORN and other activist groups abetted by members of Congress such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

But you can't lay it all at the feet of the Republicans and sooner or later even President Obama won't be able to blame it all on the previous administration when it becomes obvious to everybody that he didn't do anything as a Senator to try to repair anything and he doesn't have a clue how to do it now.

But partisan demonization is not useful at this time and is at least part of why we are in the mess that we are in. Looking to see what the problems are and the best approach to address them no matter who is in charge and no matter who gets the credit is the MACean way to deal with problems.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Many much larger capital projects have been undertaken by private sector mining, petroleum and manufacturing companies. You are simply dead wrong on this.

Yes, but presumably, they do so for a profit. Why would these companies get involved in projects that cannot possibly turn a profit, such as the new Bay Bridge?

Cycloptichorn

Why in the world would you want Congress to do it at taxpayer expense when the private sector can do it without draining the public treasury and produce profits that can be taxed and increase the national revenues?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The Republicans did not control the Senate in 2007 or 2008. The Democrats could pass ANY bill in the world that they wanted and present it to the President. Then if he failed to sign it, you could blame it on him. They didn't. He didn't. He did on multiple occasions ask them to do so.

It is impossible that you could have written this, if you paid any attention to the Senate in 2007 and 08. The Republicans used the Filibuster constantly to keep Dems from passing bills which had 50 votes or more. The canard that they could 'pass any bills they wanted' is ridiculous. This historical record simply does not support your contention.

ACORN, Fannie and Freddie are not the cause of our financial collapse. The unregulated Credit Default Swap market is. Even without a housing crash, that market would have crashed sooner or later, thanks to it's setup and AIG's lack of funding.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Many much larger capital projects have been undertaken by private sector mining, petroleum and manufacturing companies. You are simply dead wrong on this.

Yes, but presumably, they do so for a profit. Why would these companies get involved in projects that cannot possibly turn a profit, such as the new Bay Bridge?

Cycloptichorn

Why in the world would you want Congress to do it at taxpayer expense when the private sector can do it without draining the public treasury and produce profits that can be taxed and increase the national revenues?

So, you claim that public bridges can now be built without using taxpayer funds at all? And that projects which cannot feasibly produce a profit will be undertaken by private industry for what, fun?

You haven't really put much thought into this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You weren't speaking of bridges. You were speaking of public versus private expenditures. The only reason public money would be involved in the Bay bridge is because nobody in the private sector would have ownership of the right of way. So, if a bridge is built, the cities who do own the right of way have to commission the project. But they can certainly commission it to the private sector and I spelled out exactly how I think that should be done.

But that wasn't the argument here. The argument was the issue of private versus public money. I was making the case for why private money, when possible and practical, is the best choice every single time.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You weren't speaking of bridges. You were speaking of public versus private expenditures. The only reason public money would be involved in a bridge is because nobody in the private sector would have ownership of the right of way. So, if a bridge is built, the cities who do own the right of way have to commission the project.

But that wasn't the argument here. The argument was whether the private sector could and would take on a project of that magnitude on their own. It could and does all the time.

>Gyargh!<

I have consistently been saying that the Government funds projects for which there cannot be a profit made off of it. If private industry wants to drill oil wells or build giant buildings, fine; what of it? Our government typically only funds projects which are not projected to be revenue producing. Private industry does not do this. Therefore, there is a huge amount of work which the gov. must undertake, for private industry wants no part of it.

This specifically rebuts your concept that Private industry is always the better way to go.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The Republicans did not control the Senate in 2007 or 2008. The Democrats could pass ANY bill in the world that they wanted and present it to the President. Then if he failed to sign it, you could blame it on him. They didn't. He didn't. He did on multiple occasions ask them to do so.

It is impossible that you could have written this, if you paid any attention to the Senate in 2007 and 08. The Republicans used the Filibuster constantly to keep Dems from passing bills which had 50 votes or more. The canard that they could 'pass any bills they wanted' is ridiculous. This historical record simply does not support your contention.

ACORN, Fannie and Freddie are not the cause of our financial collapse. The unregulated Credit Default Swap market is. Even without a housing crash, that market would have crashed sooner or later, thanks to it's setup and AIG's lack of funding.

Cycloptichorn

Okay, show me where the Republicans filibustered any bill--that is ANY bill--that would have reined in the excesses that brought Fannie and Freddie down or otherwise dealt with the approaching financial crisis or responded to President Bush's call for action. Show me any bill that the Democrats introduced regarding that. And show me where the Democrats allowed ANY Republican bill out of committee to even be debated, much less voted on.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The Republicans did not control the Senate in 2007 or 2008. The Democrats could pass ANY bill in the world that they wanted and present it to the President. Then if he failed to sign it, you could blame it on him. They didn't. He didn't. He did on multiple occasions ask them to do so.

It is impossible that you could have written this, if you paid any attention to the Senate in 2007 and 08. The Republicans used the Filibuster constantly to keep Dems from passing bills which had 50 votes or more. The canard that they could 'pass any bills they wanted' is ridiculous. This historical record simply does not support your contention.

ACORN, Fannie and Freddie are not the cause of our financial collapse. The unregulated Credit Default Swap market is. Even without a housing crash, that market would have crashed sooner or later, thanks to it's setup and AIG's lack of funding.

Cycloptichorn

Okay, show me where the Republicans filibustered any bill--that is ANY bill--that would have reined in the excesses that brought Fannie and Freddie down or otherwise dealt with the approaching financial crisis or responded to President Bush's call for action. Show me any bill that the Democrats introduced regarding that. And show me where the Democrats allowed ANY Republican bill out of committee to even be debated, much less voted on.

But, you didn't say that. You said that they could pass 'any bill in the world they wanted.' That is clearly a lie and you know it.

If you wish to retract your statement and put another one in it's place, that's fine with me. But admit that you were incorrect in your wording first.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

You weren't speaking of bridges. You were speaking of public versus private expenditures. The only reason public money would be involved in a bridge is because nobody in the private sector would have ownership of the right of way. So, if a bridge is built, the cities who do own the right of way have to commission the project.

But that wasn't the argument here. The argument was whether the private sector could and would take on a project of that magnitude on their own. It could and does all the time.

>Gyargh!<

I have consistently been saying that the Government funds projects for which there cannot be a profit made off of it. If private industry wants to drill oil wells or build giant buildings, fine; what of it? Our government typically only funds projects which are not projected to be revenue producing. Private industry does not do this. Therefore, there is a huge amount of work which the gov. must undertake, for private industry wants no part of it.

This specifically rebuts your concept that Private industry is always the better way to go.

Cycloptichorn

I didn't say that private industry is always the better way to go. Try again.

However, if the government would allow private industry to do everything that it can do more effectively, efficiently, and economically rather than government undertaking to do those things, we would need a whole lot less government consuming monies that do little other than support government. The monies expended in the private sector most often produce profits that are subject to tax as well as create jobs producing incomes subject to tax, but, with less government to fund, more of the profits and incomes are left over to invest and plow into new projects, more jobs are created, and there is more prosperity for everybody.

Government consumes money but generates very little of it. Government shrinks real monies available for the people to use and produces little or nothing other than more government.

There are Constitutional functions that the government can and must do and it is necessary that it be able to fund those necessary functions. Otherwise the debate here is on whether the people want to turn their money over to the government to spend on their behalf or whether they get more bang for their buck if they spend it themselves. The Modern American Conservative (classical liberal) does not trust government to put the people ahead of its own power and interests and therefore does not wish to entrust government with any more than government has to do.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But, you didn't say that. You said that they could pass 'any bill in the world they wanted.' That is clearly a lie and you know it.

If you wish to retract your statement and put another one in it's place, that's fine with me. But admit that you were incorrect in your wording first.

Cycloptichorn

Your lack of reading comprehension does not make Fox a liar. It is plain to me what she was talking about and referring to. That you can't follow the conversation gives no responsibility to her for explaining it further to you.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

But, you didn't say that. You said that they could pass 'any bill in the world they wanted.' That is clearly a lie and you know it.

If you wish to retract your statement and put another one in it's place, that's fine with me. But admit that you were incorrect in your wording first.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, they can pass any bill they want. All they have to do is set aside the filibuster rule and do it. The GOP threatened the Democrats with just that 'nuclear option' many times when the GOP was in power and the Democrats were filibustering just about everything. They never did, but they could have. And so can the Democrats and should if the GOP was blocking a bill that would help prevent a deep recession or depression. Wouldn't you agree?

And even setting that aside, the Democrats never introduced a bill regarding this for the GOP to filibuster. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't even introduce a bill because the GOP might filibuster it?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But, you didn't say that. You said that they could pass 'any bill in the world they wanted.' That is clearly a lie and you know it.

If you wish to retract your statement and put another one in it's place, that's fine with me. But admit that you were incorrect in your wording first.

Cycloptichorn

Your lack of reading comprehension does not make Fox a liar. It is plain to me what she was talking about and referring to. That you can't follow the conversation gives no responsibility to her for explaining it further to you.

McG, you wouldn't understand **** if you had a mouthful. So save it. Fox was incorrect in her statement attempting to blame the financial crisis on the Dems, and you also know it.

The funniest part about this whole idiotic line of reasoning, is that by 2007 it was too late to stop the crisis from happening. Nothing the Dems could have done then would have made a lick of difference in the end. Of course, you have to have a basic understanding of the problem to see this, which you guys don't have apparently.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
But, you didn't say that. You said that they could pass 'any bill in the world they wanted.' That is clearly a lie and you know it.

If you wish to retract your statement and put another one in it's place, that's fine with me. But admit that you were incorrect in your wording first.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, they can pass any bill they want. All they have to do is set aside the filibuster rule and do it. The GOP threatened the Democrats with just that 'nuclear option' many times when the GOP was in power and the Democrats were filibustering just about everything. They never did, but they could have. And so can the Democrats and should if the GOP was blocking a bill that would help prevent a deep recession or depression. Wouldn't you agree?

It's a little ridiculous to claim that the Dems could pass any bill they wanted - IF they changed the rules of how bills pass. It's like saying:

Quote:

If we had some pizza, we could have pizza and beer!

... if we had beer.

The Dems used the filibuster just a handful of times between 2000-2006. The Republicans have used it more in the two years since then, than the Dems did during that whole period.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I didn't blame the financial crisis on the Democrats, but I damn sure can see that it wasn't all the GOP's fault. McG suggested that your reading comprehension isn't up to par today. That's three times in a row now that supports his observation about that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

And show me where the Democrats allowed ANY Republican bill out of committee to even be debated, much less voted on.

I hope you don't think McCain is a liar Fox when he wrote this letter in 2006.

Quote:

Therefore, we offer you our support in bringing the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) to the floor and allowing the Senate to debate the merits of this bill, which was passed by the Senate Banking Committee.

The bill passed out of committee but was never brought to a vote by the GOP leadership. News stories reveal an intense lobbying of GOP Senators in the Senate to prevent the bill from coming to a vote.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-10-20-fannie-freddie_N.htm

The House had already passed the legislation before GOP Senators helped to kill it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't blame the financial crisis on the Democrats, but I damn sure can see that it wasn't all the GOP's fault. McG suggested that your reading comprehension isn't up to par today. That's three times in a row now that supports his observation about that.

It was primarily the GOP's fault, because they were the ones in charge of the Regulatory agencies which chose not to oversee the Credit Default Swap market. Bush's handling of the SEC was terrible, and he sure was a Republican; does the buck not stop at the top? Are those in charge no longer held responsible for what happens on their watch?

It was also the GOP who pushed through the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagal act... though the Dems surely helped.

You and McG can complain about what you 'meant,' but it's quite clear what you actually said; which was a falsehood, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The GOP threatened the Democrats with just that 'nuclear option' many times when the GOP was in power and the Democrats were filibustering just about everything.

Bull. The GOP minority in 2007/2008 used the filibuster procedures many, many more times than the Dems ever did in the preceding years. That's a matter of record. <shrugs>

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't even introduce a bill because the GOP might filibuster it?

Sure. The idea that the filibusterers would need to speechify through the night in order to maintain a filibuster is a Hollywood myth. Short of going the way of the nuclear option, it's all but impossible to break a filibuster once the opposition minority decides to embark on one. So yeah, you could still force it to but that would just be for PR purposes. There's little practical use to it.

1 Reply

@parados,

Yes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had paid a large amount to have the bill killed and with the impending election, enough Republicans who were fighting to keep their seats were targeted for smear campaigns and did not vote for it. (That alone should have triggered a federal investigation and probable criminal violations.)

From your link:

Quote:

Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th

So you can't blame all of that one on the Republicans either.

1 Reply

@nimh,

In my opinion, you are seeing this through highly partisan eyes. The nuclear option was threated when the Democrats were using the filibuster to block almost all of President Bush's appointments. If the Democrats opposed the legislation that the GOP proposed, you can be sure they had no qualms about filibusering it, but why should they? The GOP was behaving more like Democrats and was giving the Democrats pretty much most of what they wanted. That was what cost the GOP the majority in both the House and Senate in the 2006 election. They and the President were behaving more like Democrats, with detrimental results, than they were behaving like Republicans. And they disgusted us all.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know