55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

That's exactly what GW Bush did, and he created the biggest deficit after Clinton left him with a surplus.


17 .4 billion to bailout auto manufacturers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:07 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
That's what I've been saying; conservatives prefer war that spends money in other countries that destroys and kills over helping our own citizens with health care.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

That's what I've been saying; conservatives prefer war that spends money in other countries that destroys and kills over helping our own citizens with health care.


guess it pays better.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:21 pm
@joefromchicago,
Almost correct, Joe! I'm not sure "that congress is not authorized to print paper money." I'm also not sure that congress is authorized to print paper money.

But I am sure that Congress and the president are not granted the power by the Constitution to "transfer wealth," where "transfer wealth" means: transfer the property of those who lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:27 pm
you mean like taking my money and giving it to the oil companies? the other corporations? so they don't have to pay taxes?

and capital gains taxes?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:34 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Article I.
Section 8.The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

Isn't making loans to veterans or other employees or to RETIRED employees of the Federal Government part of the paying for providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States? I THINK IT IS! YOU THINK IT ISN'T! Ok, tell me why you think it isn't!
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:43 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTredOnMe wrote:
you mean like taking my money and giving it to the oil companies? the other corporations? so they don't have to pay taxes?

and capital gains taxes?

Yes, if that is what the feds have done or are doing in addition to other kinds of taking and giving (i.e., "transfers of wealth"), which I have discussed.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 07:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
conservatives prefer war that spends money in other countries that destroys and kills over helping our own citizens with health care.

Nonsense!

Conservatives prefer spending money on securing our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Sometimes a war is required to obtain or maintain that security. We prefer avoidance of war if that can be done without losing our security to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 08:07 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
conservatives prefer war that spends money in other countries that destroys and kills over helping our own citizens with health care.

Nonsense!

Conservatives prefer spending money on securing our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Sometimes a war is required to obtain or maintain that security. We prefer avoidance of war if that can be done without losing our security to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


so where are those weapons of mass destruction, by the way?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 08:07 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
conservatives prefer war that spends money in other countries that destroys and kills over helping our own citizens with health care.

Nonsense!

Conservatives prefer spending money on securing our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Sometimes a war is required to obtain or maintain that security. We prefer avoidance of war if that can be done without losing our security to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is nonsense, in fact more citizens have died in wars overseen by Democratic presidents than Republican, and if you take the Civil War out of it, which I think would be justified because it was both Republican and Democrat led forces opposing each other, if that war was eliminated the numbers would be overwhelming on the Democrat side. If ci wants to load the following website, he can see for himself.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/american-wars.html
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 08:10 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

so where are those weapons of mass destruction, by the way?

They could possibly be in Syria by the way. And some were in Iraq at one time, just ask the people whose relatives were slaughtered by them.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 08:33 pm
@Diest TKO,
Then what does that make me?
I am a conservative, and I supported a liberal democrat for President, if he had run.

I did NOT support Obama or Hillary, but I am on record as saying that I would have supported and voted for Evan Bayh (D-In).

He is far more liberal than I like, and I would not have supported most of his positions, but IMHO it was the "intangibles" that I liked about him.
Those are the things that define what kind of person he is, not his positions and policies.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 09:03 pm
@okie,
okie, Why don't you ask them? You're the one making those claims. You want it both ways again? LOL
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 09:50 pm
@ican711nm,
If making loans to former Federal employees provides for the general welfare, wouldn't that mean that making loans to anyone provides for the general welfare.

No one can reasonably argue that making housing loans to veterans in some way provides for the common defense.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 10:21 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
are we sure that hasn't always been the case? meaning when it comes to what the currency is based on, "why gold?". can't eat it wait, i take that back. i have had a couple of indian dishes where they drizzle a small amount of melted gold over it..... can't burn it to cook or stay warm. pretty much all it does is look nice.

in other words and similarly to your thought, isn't then gold the standard because because the government says it's the standard ?

same with wampum or those sticks (can't remember what they are called...) ?

Gold has an intrinsic worth -- it's a very useful metal. But you're right, we could have had a silver standard or copper standard or cowrie shell standard just as easily.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 10:26 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Almost correct, Joe! I'm not sure "that congress is not authorized to print paper money." I'm also not sure that congress is authorized to print paper money.

Why are you unsure? You're sure that the constitution doesn't say anything about transfering wealth, and so you've concluded, on that basis, that congress can't transfer wealth. Well, the constitution doesn't say anything about printing money either. So why aren't you as sure about the unconstitutionality of printing money as you are about the unconstitutionality of transfering wealth? What additional information do you need to make up your mind?

ican711nm wrote:
But I am sure that Congress and the president are not granted the power by the Constitution to "transfer wealth," where "transfer wealth" means: transfer the property of those who lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

You still haven't explained how TARP transfered wealth. To whom did the government give money?
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 10:33 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Then what does that make me?
I am a conservative, and I supported a liberal democrat for President, if he had run.

I did NOT support Obama or Hillary, but I am on record as saying that I would have supported and voted for Evan Bayh (D-In).

He is far more liberal than I like, and I would not have supported most of his positions, but IMHO it was the "intangibles" that I liked about him.
Those are the things that define what kind of person he is, not his positions and policies.

I don't think it MAKES you anything.

I'm only offering my impressions of a few politicians. I'm sure you or others could have different impressions. Of posters on the right half of the political spectrum here, you're pretty moderate. I can't tell you who you'd vote for in any match up.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 11:12 pm
I haven't seen much accounting re what any of the recipients of the TARP funds have actually done with the money, and nobody seems to know for sure. Nobody is requiring the banks to show what they did with the funds they received. I think, given the track record of the government in general, it is reasonable to speculate that if everything was truly on the up and up and no favored individuals or entities were benefitting from the program, we would have a better accounting.

But here's a generialized summary as of the first of July:

Quote:
REUTERS FACTBOX: Where has the bailout money gone?
July 1, 2009 - Staff - Reuters

The Treasury said on Tuesday that 16 banks received $3.63 billion from the government's $700 billion financial rescue fund bringing total disbursements to date to a net $371 billion.

The Treasury's latest transaction report, for June 26, includes $3.4 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP, funds for Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.

Six insurers won government approval for federal bailout money last month and the Connecticut-based Hartford is the first of them to take the bailout money.

Following is an outline of funds spent or pledged from the U.S. bailout fund so far:

-- An unspecified amount pledged to recapitalize some of the country's largest banks, if needed, in the wake of regulatory "stress tests." Regulators required 10 of the 19 banks tested to raise a combined $74.6 billion.

-- The Treasury has allotted $100 billion to seed its public-private plan to buy up to $500 billion worth of toxic assets. The figure includes $25 billion to expand the Federal Reserve's Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility, or TALF, to accept so-called legacy assets as collateral.

-- In its latest transaction report, the Treasury said it had net investments of $133.07 billion under its original Capital Purchase Program, which was initially pegged at $250 billion. This figure reflects repayments of $68 billion made by 10 of the largest U.S. banks on June 17.

-- $50 billion pledged to reduce mortgage foreclosures by providing incentives to lenders and servicers to modify loans. It has allocated $17.98 billion in potential incentives to 23 firms so far.

-- $20 billion investment in Citigroup (C.N) as part of a package in which the government agreed to share in losses on $301 billion of assets. In addition, the Treasury has disbursed $5 billion as part of its second-loss guarantee. The $20 billion is in addition to $25 billion disbursed as part of the Capital Purchase Program.

-- $20 billion investment in Bank of America (BAC.N) as part of a package in which the government agreed to share in losses on $118 billion of assets. In addition, the Treasury has pledged to cover up to $7.5 billion in potential losses as part of a second-loss guarantee. The $20 billion is in addition to $25 billion disbursed as part of the Capital Purchase Program.

-- $69.84 billion preferred stock investment in troubled insurer American International Group (AIG.N). This was reduced by $165 million from an earlier commitment, representing the amount of controversial bonuses paid by AIG in March.

-- $79.97 billion has been disbursed to the U.S. auto industry, including bankruptcy financing and other loans to GM and Chrysler LLC, $5 billion in support for auto parts suppliers, and a $12.5 billion investment in GMAC LLC.

Of the total amount, the department said it made available up to $30.10 billion in bankruptcy financing for General Motors (GMGMQ.PK) on June 3.

-- $20 billion has been shifted to a special purpose vehicle to cover potential losses on $200 billion in lending under the Fed's TALF. Treasury officials say they intend to provide an additional $35 billion to enlarge this program for lending against recently originated securities. When considered in conjunction with the $25 billion being set aside to expand TALF to cover older securities, the Treasury has said it intends to commit $80 billion to TALF.

-- $15 billion pledged to purchase securities backed by Small Business Administration loans.
http://www.tarptales.org/node/1029
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 09:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Well, it seems that we are seeing some return on this money -

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/tarpprofits-1.jpg

If Citigroup manages to survive, we will profit billions of dollars off of them.

There is still a good chance that the TARP program will turn out to be revenue neutral, or a much smaller loss than originally anticipated.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 10:12 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, it seems that we are seeing some return on this money -


Rebuttal:
Quote:
The Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget raised its 10-year tally of deficits expected through 2019 to $9.05 trillion, nearly $2 trillion more than it projected in February. That would represent 5.1 percent of the economy’s estimated gross domestic product for the decade, a higher level than is generally considered healthy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/business/economy/26deficit.html?_r=1


I don't consider unsustainable deficits to be an acceptable return on our money. What if instead of the goverment spending us into oblivion, it had chosen to restrain spending for anything we didn't absolutely have to do, and rather focus on relaxing all but the most necessary regulations and providing incentives for busineses to begin to hire and take reasonable risks again and other measures that encourage the private sector to recover and grow.

I think if we had done that we would be seeing ourselves climbing out of the mess by now.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 06:23:30