Kasz216 said:
spaceguy said:
Kasz216 said:
spaceguy said:
badgenome said:
spaceguy said:
However this is the result of bush Deregulating wall street and banks. Presidents have the power to regulate and deregulate.
|
Damn that George Bush for repealing Glass-Steagall!
|
I fully blame Clinton for that and it was also a republican congress bill that did that. President can only choose to not enforce regulations. Yes glass steagal was removed and under GOP control of congress. clinton should have vetoed the bill.
|
I'm guessing you haven't looked at the voting percentages for Glass Steagal.
It was a giagantic bipartisan bill that got more democratic votes for it, then the bail out of the banks got Republican votes.
The fact that you can't even stick to your own premise... in the thread you created is really sort of sad.
|
You do this all the time, So don't go calling people sad when you flop just as much. I posted a graph just for the hell of it, not to change subject. The fact of the matter is that the congress spends the money. How have I changed that. GOP Policies have been overwhelmingly in control since the 1980's and clinton was the move to the right to get back some power.
You claim to be fair then use Koch brother funded organizations to prove your points.
One being the heritage foundation. You only see dollars and not human well being.
Thats the difference between you and I. You only see profits for today, not the workers conditions, health care and home life. Thats the difference of the right, GREED!!! You don't want to pay for the Public schools, roads, water ways, police, firefighters, Massive defense to protect your business. You think it's all you and no one else. That's bullsh-t. I run a business, I also pay more than you would to my employee's and I don't forget how I got there. I didn't do it on my own, no one did.
So good for you, you lack empathy.
|
Well, that was a completely pointless off topic rant. So... good show on that.
I mean, for one, the majority of the Bush era tax cuts went to the "not rich".
The difference between you and I is... I really don't have a political side I play for.
I totally want to pay for shcools, roads, water ways, police, firefighters and defense.
Though however not massive defense as that seems excessive... we could really afford to close down a lot of our military bases and military aid.
While roads I think should be almost completely state funded. More and more of our roadway burden is shifting on the federal budget and that leads to congressmen making every road deal they can think of just to get money to their state, even if it's completely worthess infrastructure like the many "roads to nowhere."
Schools. Should be federally funded... but by done by private groups who have laws supporting full transperancy and who do student entrance by lottery if choice exceeds capacity. Therefore better schools will keep going on and gain in prominence with their better teaching measures proving successful, and poor ones will be replaced.
Public schools should only be used as a "baseline" for areas where private schools can't really succeed, like rural montana and such.
As for the graphs i use... the difference is... i look into their methods. As for why it might sway right wing... it's because well... economics are a rightwing dominated profession. Right wing people just tend to be methodologically better at statistics. It's like complaining that I cited a liberal for Sociology. Sociology is predominantly liberal.
I mean heck, your graph is supporting the bailout of wallstreet. Which, usually people try and stick on to the right. (Despite the voting record being the opposite) when in reality, the banks should of been allowed to fail, and the Tarp funds used to either strengthen banks who did the right thing, or directly help the people most effected by the problem.
Oh, and as to what i would pay my employees. I think i'd pay them pretty well. I mean i have the job I have now mostly because I don't care about money. Give me a couple million dollars and i'd stretch that out for life more or less.
To me, after setting up an ensured retirement, 50,000 a year would probably end up excessive based on my tastes. I generally expect i'd set up some sort of profit sharing program after that... or just give the rest to charity.
Of course, that's what I would do. I don't believe in forcing everybody to think and act in the same way as myself.
|
