Minority Leader Mitch McConnell won't even allow a Wall St. reform bill to the floor of the Senate!!

4/26/2010 8:28:52 PM

Your mature thread titles lend credence to your well thought out and masterfully articulated arguments.

4/26/2010 8:36:20 PM

I'm just reporting the news.

Quote :

"GOP senators block debate on finance bill The 57-41 vote, marking the first showdown over the financial overhaul, slows but probably won't stop the legislation. By Janet Hook, Tribune Washington Bureau 5:11 PM PDT, April 26, 2010 Reporting from Washington Senate Republicans on Monday united to block legislation that would make the most far-reaching changes in financial-industry regulation since the Great Depression, slowing but probably not stopping a bill that has been propelled by angry voters who want to crack down on Wall Street. "

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-finance-reform-20100427,0,7030866,print.story


[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 8:55 PM. Reason : ...]

4/26/2010 8:54:39 PM

"GOP senators block debate on finance bill"

v.

"GOP Sucks the Dick of Wall Street"

4/26/2010 8:57:39 PM

Same shit, different title.

4/26/2010 8:59:54 PM

Quote :

"Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for his part, said the GOP was opposing the motion to begin debate because it believed the Democrats' plan did not do enough to ensure that the government would not again foot the bill for bailing out institutions deemed "too big to fail.""

What a dick sucker.

4/26/2010 9:01:57 PM

Do you know what Mitch McConnell is referring to?

4/26/2010 9:05:22 PM

I thought I did.

However, please enlighten me.

4/26/2010 9:11:24 PM

Harry Reid voted No in the senate... fucking GOP dick sucker.

^It will basically be a rush to get to be "too big to fail" so those institutions will have cheaper credit available to them bc they are now backed by taxpayer money. (less risk to lender)

4/26/2010 9:18:08 PM

Quote :

""In fact, if you look at it carefully, it will lead to endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street banks," McConnell said at a press conference on April 14, adding that it "actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks" and that it sets up "in perpetuity the potential for additional taxpayer bailouts of large institutions." "

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/20/mitch-mcconnell/bank-bailouts-not-bill-liquidation/

4/26/2010 9:21:07 PM

Quote :

" Harry Reid voted No in the senate... fucking GOP dick sucker. ^It will basically be a rush to get to be "too big to fail" so those institutions will have cheaper credit available to them bc they are now backed by taxpayer money. (less risk to lender) "

Obviously you're too ignorant to know that Reid had to vote against it in order for him to bring it back up in the Senate.

4/26/2010 9:23:10 PM

Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any business.

4/27/2010 12:52:37 AM

so you're in favor of moving forward with changing the status quo such that we don't put the taxpayers on the hook for these banks shady investments?

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 1:04 AM. Reason : ie bringing the matter up for debate. instead of continued backroom dealing.]

4/27/2010 1:02:45 AM

^
I am not in favor of gov't forcing businesses of their choice to set up their own bail-out funds. If they fail, they fail. It's not the gov't's role to make everyone's life all rosy and trouble-free.

The goal of this bill is not to protect workers, but to bring more gov't control over our capitalistic system.

4/27/2010 1:33:29 AM

capitalism doesn't work without some gov't control

4/27/2010 1:35:54 AM

Ron Paul weighs In...

Quote :

"Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist. Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers. A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single-payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges.” Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare. Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade. To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda. When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades. Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution."

4/27/2010 2:44:47 AM

This thread could have been useful if it had been executed properly. Maybe next time, chief.

4/27/2010 6:26:52 AM

Quote :

"Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government"

lolwut?

socialism is when government controls business but corporatism is when government controls businesses.

4/27/2010 8:53:29 AM

direct vs indirect

4/27/2010 9:28:54 AM

does this thread really need to be in soapbox?

4/27/2010 9:30:07 AM

does any thread really need to be in soap box?

4/27/2010 9:33:29 AM

brilliant title

I think we need more of this in the soap box

4/27/2010 9:35:53 AM

Quote :

"capitalism doesn't work without some gov't self control"

if the entire country weren't living pay check to pay check this wouldn't be a problem on many levels. We could let those companies fail and it wouldn't matter, not that we would need to because ideally people would put on their big boy pants and manage there money in such a way that $100/mo change didn't put them into a financial tail spin.

it's time for a little tort reform and then maybe everyone can grow up and accept responsibility for their own stupidity

example...

Quote :

" Hulk Hogan: My Insurance Co. Screwed Me Originally posted Apr 22nd 2010 7:04 AM PDT by TMZ Staff << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> Hulk Hogan has sued his insurance company, claiming it compromised his $30 million fortune in the near-fatal car crash caused by his son. According to the lawsuit, Wells Fargo Southeast -- which provided insurance for the Hogan family -- only paid $250,000 to John Graziano, who is severely disabled -- the result of the Nick Hogan car crash. Hulk claims the $250,000 policy limit exposed him to personal liability in settling the case. Hulk's beef -- insurance company reps never advised him his policies needed to be reevaluated given that he had teenage drivers who posed a greater financial risk. Hulk's lawsuit does not disclose how much he personally paid to settle with the Grazianos. Hulk is suing for unspecified damages. "

he suing because no one told him he should buy more insurance? The sad thing is he will probably win and everyone's insurance rates will go up to cover the added cost of insurance companies having to implement CYA policies at the workplace.

4/27/2010 10:07:09 AM

what's your savings rate?

4/27/2010 10:16:25 AM

ITT we realize it was a mistake to allow pryderi back to TWW

4/27/2010 10:18:39 AM

Quote :

"what's your savings rate?"

ah the hypocrite arguement...
cornerstone of the conservative bashing movement.
Well played sir... surely we should abandon the concept because of your oh so valid point.

However, I do actually save. I've been working for right at 3 years out of school and have put back enough to comfortably say that I could make it for about a year with no income what so ever.

4/27/2010 10:33:56 AM

Quote :

"Obviously you're too ignorant to know that Reid had to vote against it in order for him to bring it back up in the Senate. "

Right, and why did he have to do that? (he didnt have the votes) But dont start crying yet, this is politics, and they will eventually get a bill with bipartisan support.

As for Hulk Hogan, F him. He seriously is blaming the insurance company? HE signed up for the policy, had to. BTW how old was nick when he crashed?

4/27/2010 10:34:37 AM

So does pryderi make dick sucking threads that are actually about politics, or politics threads that are actually about dick sucking?

4/27/2010 11:05:24 AM

Quote :

"ITT we realize it was a mistake to allow pryderi back to TWW"

not my idea.

4/27/2010 11:51:38 AM

So, what would be the response if I were to make a similarly titled thread with equivalent OP content?

Just trying to judge what the new soapbox moderator standards are now...

4/27/2010 1:14:56 PM

The GOP voted against it again! It's like ideepthroat.com with the GOP wearing a blonde wig, on their knees in front of Wall Street.

4/27/2010 10:27:51 PM

Is this the thread where I can post about Goldman Sachs stroking Obama's cock?

Just checking...

4/28/2010 11:10:58 AM

political fellatio discussion ITT

4/28/2010 11:19:00 AM

soapbox becomes chit chat ITT

4/28/2010 2:03:20 PM

soapbox becomes shit chat ITT.

4/28/2010 2:05:33 PM

soapbox becomes dick chat ITT

4/28/2010 2:27:18 PM

Is this the thread where I post about big government giving wall street a hand job while small business is forced to do a double anal scene in the corner?

4/28/2010 4:33:17 PM

Quote :

"GOP Protects and Sucks the Dick of Wall Street "

Almost lol'd, did not, but definitely chuckled.

4/28/2010 10:27:50 PM

ITT people don't realize that ability for companies to borrow is critical for economic growth.

4/28/2010 10:31:15 PM

ITT people don't realize this is a shit chat thread ITT

4/28/2010 10:43:44 PM

^

Quote :

"soapbox becomes shit chat ITT."

4/28/2010 10:51:58 PM

how much longer until this thread gets moved eh?

4/28/2010 10:56:37 PM