PDA

View Full Version : Contract FROM America.



PoliCon
05-25-2010, 12:21 AM
We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items and advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ĎAll-of-the-AboveĒ Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

Candidates & Elected Officials: Have you Signed the Contract from America?

May 24, 2010

The Contract from America serves as a clarion call for those who recognize the importance of free market principles, limited government, and individual liberty. It is the natural extension of a movement that began in the local communities and quickly spread across America in response to unprecedented government expansion, reckless spending, and a blatant disregard by our leaders of the nationís founding principles.

Now itís your turn. Do you support the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom? Will you join us?

Activist who wish to sign the Contract from America, please click here. Candidates and elected officials use the form below.

http://www.thecontract.org/

Send it to your local candidates and demand that they sign it. :)

Rockntractor
05-25-2010, 12:44 AM
9. Stop the Pork
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/sittingPig.gif?t=1274759002

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 04:47 AM
Deregulate financial markets and lower taxes for the wealthy. Prevent higher wages for workers and expand the concentration of wealth in the top 10%

malloc
05-25-2010, 05:30 AM
I thought you would have absorbed via osmosis more Scientific Economic Law by now by just being in proximity to these forums. Apparently, despite all offered evidence to the contrary, and all complete rebuttals to your novice economic ideas thus yet offered, you still stick to that "Tax the Rich", "Free the Poor" crap which is obviously ingrained into your DNA, because all manner of logic, reason, and real Economic Science has completely alluded you.


BTW, the Contract from America is old news. I actually think I have a post on it from a while ago.

Zathras
05-25-2010, 05:37 AM
I thought you would have absorbed via osmosis more Scientific Economic Law by now by just being in proximity to these forums. Apparently, despite all offered evidence to the contrary, and all complete rebuttals to your novice economic ideas thus yet offered, you still stick to that "Tax the Rich", "Free the Poor" crap which is obviously ingrained into your DNA, because all manner of logic, reason, and real Economic Science has completely alluded you.

Wee Wee can't help himself...he's a progressive and doesn't know any better. They only way you can fix his level of stupid is with a frontal lobotomy and that only has a 50/50 chance of working.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-25-2010, 07:22 AM
Deregulate financial markets and lower taxes for the wealthy. Prevent higher wages for workers and expand the concentration of wealth in the top 10%

You DO know that government interference is what cause the current problem, don't you???

FlaGator
05-25-2010, 07:41 AM
Deregulate financial markets and lower taxes for the wealthy. Prevent higher wages for workers and expand the concentration of wealth in the top 10%

That doesn't appear to be well though out commentary. It appears to be the same talking points used at Democratic Underground when ever they are faced with the agenda supported by voters on the right.

namvet
05-25-2010, 10:13 AM
http://www.thecontract.org/

Send it to your local candidates and demand that they sign it. :)

that's way to complicated for a democrap. spending taxpayers $$$ to solve problems is much easier. if that don't work just keep throwing more on the fire

PoliCon
05-25-2010, 10:19 AM
Deregulate financial markets and lower taxes for the wealthy. Prevent higher wages for workers and expand the concentration of wealth in the top 10%

I've always wondered - what do tonsils look like from underneath?

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 05:18 PM
You DO know that government interference is what cause the current problem, don't you???

That's a silly oversimplification.

There were many parties at work, and part of the problem is that regular banks that give out loans and take deposits were also allowed to participate in risky multi-trillion dollar derivative gambling.

This singling out of one particular party (government regulators) and imposing one single solution (deregulate), is a blatant push by the financial industry to have more room to gamble away and pass the risk on to tax payers (by being "too big to fail")

There is a structural problem at work here, not just some bad guy or one bad idea or a bad policy.

There was recently a bill going through the senate to stop Too Big To Fail, but the important amendments that would actually reform the market it didn't even get to the bill and the bill itself preventing too big to fail was voted down by every single republican.

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 05:23 PM
Dodd introduced an amendment specifically singling out fanny and freddie for examination, the bill was still voted down unanimously by one party.

About the issue with banks and risky gambling. Large banks are federally insured banks, they have the government backing to do what they do because they are necessary for communities. However, the high-end financial gambling that goes on behind the scenes, trading off lottery tickets then selling tickets for those tickets and so on, that's absurd and that ONLY benefits those wealthy traders.

A bill was introduced to seperate the government-backed banks that serve communities and give out loans and take deposits, from the financial institutions that participate in high-end gambling, so that the tax payer wont have to foot the bill when it collapses.

Again, this amendment was blocked.

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 05:27 PM
They are simply betting on things they dont own, it's not even real investment, it's pure gambling and the same institutions that do this are the ones financing our housing, our small businesses, and our personal banking.


But Mr. Dorgan noted that there are trillions of dollars in outstanding naked credit default swaps, which he described as essentially pure gambling that puts the broader financial system at risk.

“It’s just a flat-out bet,” he said. “It’s not an investment. It’s just a bet.” Mr. Dorgan added, “There’s about $10.9 trillion in credit default swaps held by commercial banks. Those are institutions, by the way, whose deposits are insured by us, by the American taxpayer.”

Mr. Dorgan continued, “It ought to be a no-brainer. It’s not a no-brainer in this chamber, apparently. A naked C.D.S. purchase means that you take out insurance on bonds without actually owning them. It’s a purely speculative gamble. There’s not one social or economic benefit. Now my amendment is trying to shut this down. But I’m being blocked by those who don’t want us to get tough on Wall Street.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/dorgan-is-retiring-but-not-relenting/

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 05:29 PM
that's way to complicated for a democrap. spending taxpayers $$$ to solve problems is much easier. if that don't work just keep throwing more on the fire

No no no, the whole idea is to PREVENT tax payer money from bailing out financial institutions, to PREVENT banks or other entities from being "TOO BIG TO FAIL", and to hold the people who run these banks, the executives at the top, personally responsible for their company's failings, rather than using tax money to prop them up with billions of dollars while they turn around and pay themselves 50 million.

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 05:31 PM
Some aspects of the financial institution are necessary, home loans, small business loans, personal accounts, retirement accounts, ect. and for that reason they have government backing, others are not necessary and are just for the gambling money making of wealthy wall street traders and board of directors. The idea is to seperate the two, so that the government doesn't have to prop up the latter, whiel the former stays safe and secure.

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 05:32 PM
However, the same people who own these institutions advertise on the media outlets that constantly spray the same message that it's simple, it's one thing, it's government that's bad, so get all the regulations out of the way. It should be obvious how that message is biased.

PoliCon
05-25-2010, 05:55 PM
That's a silly oversimplification. I like how it's "a silly oversimplification" when you oppose it - but not when you make/support the simplifications yourself. :rolleyes:


There were many parties at work, and part of the problem is that regular banks that give out loans and take deposits were also allowed to participate in risky multi-trillion dollar derivative gambling. No - the problem is that the government DEMANDED that banks make risky sub-prime loans.


This singling out of one particular party (government regulators) and imposing one single solution (deregulate), is a blatant push by the financial industry to have more room to gamble away and pass the risk on to tax payers (by being "too big to fail") red herring.


There is a structural problem at work here, not just some bad guy or one bad idea or a bad policy. yes - and the structure is government and the problem is their interference in our lives.


There was recently a bill going through the senate to stop Too Big To Fail, but the important amendments that would actually reform the market it didn't even get to the bill and the bill itself preventing too big to fail was voted down by every single republican.another unsubstantiated claim by wee wee - how surprising. :rolleyes: Could you try to not be a fucktard and try supplying sources - PREFERABLY LINKS - to the claims you make? I PROMISE YOU it will not kill you to provide links. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
05-25-2010, 05:56 PM
Dodd introduced an amendment specifically singling out fanny and freddie for examination, the bill was still voted down unanimously by one party.

About the issue with banks and risky gambling. Large banks are federally insured banks, they have the government backing to do what they do because they are necessary for communities. However, the high-end financial gambling that goes on behind the scenes, trading off lottery tickets then selling tickets for those tickets and so on, that's absurd and that ONLY benefits those wealthy traders.

A bill was introduced to seperate the government-backed banks that serve communities and give out loans and take deposits, from the financial institutions that participate in high-end gambling, so that the tax payer wont have to foot the bill when it collapses.

Again, this amendment was blocked.
more unsubstantiated claims from wee wee. :rolleyes: Without evidence to support your claims - I call bullshit.

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 06:02 PM
Sure here's one

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-financial-reform-ends-too-big-to-fail-era/19487196




But perhaps most importantly, the bill provides the government with a crucial power that it did not have when the financial crisis exploded in 2008: the ability to unwind and dismantle a systemically risky financial institution that is about to collapse.

In other words, banks would no longer be too big to fail.

In September 2008, the mortgage giant American International Group was teetering on the brink of collapse, after it issued billions of dollars of credit default swaps that it couldn't honor. Because it was connected to many, if not all, of the largest financial firms in the country, AIG's collapse into an uncontrolled bankruptcy would have sent a shock through the financial system.

These "credit default swaps" are the gambling I'm talking about, passing off risks from party to party without actually owning the investment, knowing full well that the mortages were bad. Everyone suffered EXCEPT the people engaging in these practices, who profited with millions of dollars.


However, I should eat my own words for a moment and note that there were 4 republicans who did vote for this bill, unfortunately the important amendments designed to restructure the system to prevent this from being a reoccuring problem never even got through to the bill.

PoliCon
05-25-2010, 06:03 PM
Sure here's one

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-financial-reform-ends-too-big-to-fail-era/19487196



These "credit default swaps" are the gambling I'm talking about, passing off risks from party to party without actually owning the investment, knowing full well that the mortages were bad. Everyone suffered EXCEPT the people engaging in these practices, who profited with millions of dollars.


However, I should eat my own words for a moment and note that there were 4 republicans who did vote for this bill, unfortunately the important amendments designed to restructure the system to prevent this from being a reoccuring problem never even got through to the bill.

HEY FUCKTARD - you're attacking a symptom not the disease. The credit default swaps would not exist if the government did not demand that sub-prime loans be issued. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 06:09 PM
more unsubstantiated claims from wee wee. :rolleyes: Without evidence to support your claims - I call bullshit.

I was incorrect about the Republicans voting it down unanimously, 4 voted for it. Other than that, it's all true.

The Republicans were looking unidimensionally at getting rid of fannie and freddie. Do they need to be reformed? Absolutely, no one is doubting that, but to simply dissolve them in a few years is ridiculous, they've been around for decades (and others like them) and they've done a lot of good despite their screw ups recently.

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 06:10 PM
HEY FUCKTARD - you're attacking a symptom not the disease. The credit default swaps would not exist if the government did not demand that sub-prime loans be issued. :rolleyes:

Why wouldn't they? There is always risk with any investment and these credit default swaps are a way to gamble with them? There is a LOT of money in this, why would they just stop credit default swaps?

Megaguns91
05-25-2010, 06:11 PM
That's a silly oversimplification.

There were many parties at work, and part of the problem is that regular banks that give out loans and take deposits were also allowed to participate in risky multi-trillion dollar derivative gambling.

This singling out of one particular party (government regulators) and imposing one single solution (deregulate), is a blatant push by the financial industry to have more room to gamble away and pass the risk on to tax payers (by being "too big to fail")

There is a structural problem at work here, not just some bad guy or one bad idea or a bad policy.

There was recently a bill going through the senate to stop Too Big To Fail, but the important amendments that would actually reform the market it didn't even get to the bill and the bill itself preventing too big to fail was voted down by every single republican.

Have you ever been a business owner?

PoliCon
05-25-2010, 06:14 PM
Why wouldn't they? There is always risk with any investment and these credit default swaps are a way to gamble with them? There is a LOT of money in this, why would they just stop credit default swaps?

the credit default swaps were created because of - *GASP* CREDIT DEFAULTS! The industry had a set standard of risk which they applies evenly across the board and then along comes the government who tells the industry that they have to offer more loans in risky sectors and to risky people or they're gonna get slammed with discrimination cases. So the banks started offering loans to these bad credit risks and credit default swaps are the RESULT of government interference and demands for sub-prime loans. You are attacking the SYMPTOM not the cause.

djones520
05-25-2010, 06:16 PM
I was incorrect about the Republicans voting it down unanimously, 4 voted for it. Other than that, it's all true.

The Republicans were looking unidimensionally at getting rid of fannie and freddie. Do they need to be reformed? Absolutely, no one is doubting that, but to simply dissolve them in a few years is ridiculous, they've been around for decades (and others like them) and they've done a lot of good despite their screw ups recently.

And when the Republicans offered something up?


What taxpayers are hoping for is the expiration of federal charters for these destructive too-big-to-fail institutions. Those hopes were ignored again as the Senate voted down the McCain amendment, 56-43. Only two Democrats, Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Russ Feingold (Wisconsin), voted with every Republican to reform the companies

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704250104575238641146885632.html

Read the rest of that story. Dodd introduced that bill after voting against this amendment. He introduced a bill that would do NOTHING at all. Just authorized the treasury department to conduct an investigation. So instead of voting for real action, that was proposed by the Republicans, he helped shut them down, then through out a bill that did nothing at all but pay lip service.

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 06:19 PM
the credit default swaps were created because of - *GASP* CREDIT DEFAULTS! The industry had a set standard of risk which they applies evenly across the board and then along comes the government who tells the industry that they have to offer more loans in risky sectors and to risky people or they're gonna get slammed with discrimination cases. So the banks started offering loans to these bad credit risks and credit default swaps are the RESULT of government interference and demands for sub-prime loans. You are attacking the SYMPTOM not the cause.

Let's say for the sake of argument this is all true.

If the banks offering loans weren't the same institutions that participate in risky speculation trading and financial gambling, then the banks themselves would take the hit and the government (through the FDIC) would have to foot the bill.

However, as it currently stands, they use these bad loans to build an entire house of cards, with no limit and no ceiling, and then when it collapses, the fallout is FAR worse, and the government STILL has to foot the bill and the banks are left standing, and the executives are paid millions.

Megaguns91
05-25-2010, 06:21 PM
Let's say for the sake of argument this is all true.

If the banks offering loans weren't the same institutions that participate in risky speculation trading and financial gambling, then the banks themselves would take the hit and the government (through the FDIC) would have to foot the bill.

However, as it currently stands, they use these bad loans to build an entire house of cards, with no limit and no ceiling, and then when it collapses, the fallout is FAR worse, and the government STILL has to foot the bill and the banks are left standing, and the executives are paid millions.

Who do you have to thank for that dipshit? Do EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LOANS ring a bell? Clinton era? Yeah. Your libtard fucking leaders created that fiasco. Now you're bitching about it as if it's the conservative's fault. Typical fucking liberal squeeze.





Forgive my French. :mad:

PoliCon
05-25-2010, 06:22 PM
which is who's fault? Who laid the foundation for your house of cards fucktard? Who demanded that banks make bad loans?? Why blocked any attempts towards oversight of these bad loans? I'll give you a hint - it's not the GOP.

PoliCon
05-25-2010, 06:22 PM
Who do you have to thank for that dipshit? Do EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LOANS ring a bell? Clinton era? Yeah. Your libtard fucking leaders created that fiasco. Now you're bitching about it as if it's the conservative's fault. Typical fucking liberal squeeze.





Forgive my French. :mad:
actually - the roots of the issue go back to the carter administration.

Megaguns91
05-25-2010, 06:24 PM
actually - the roots of the issue go back to the carter administration.

Equal Op. Lending and Fair Housing Act were enacted by Clinton in 93, though. That's as far back as I can remember being taught about :p :D

Constitutionally Speaking
05-25-2010, 06:25 PM
That's a silly oversimplification.

There were many parties at work, and part of the problem is that regular banks that give out loans and take deposits were also allowed to participate in risky multi-trillion dollar derivative gambling.

This singling out of one particular party (government regulators) and imposing one single solution (deregulate), is a blatant push by the financial industry to have more room to gamble away and pass the risk on to tax payers (by being "too big to fail")

There is a structural problem at work here, not just some bad guy or one bad idea or a bad policy.

There was recently a bill going through the senate to stop Too Big To Fail, but the important amendments that would actually reform the market it didn't even get to the bill and the bill itself preventing too big to fail was voted down by every single republican.


I'll grant you that it was an oversimplification but only because there were so MANY ways that the government interfered.

It is not necessarily that the regulations were to blame, as there should be some oversight, especially when taxpayer money was used as a guarantee. But stop and think for a minute: Why was taxpayer money used by Fannie and Freddie in the first place??? Did that not create a "no lose" situation in the market that just BEGGED unscrupulous lenders to swoop in??? Any time there is a government backed guarantee, you are looking for trouble, and that is what we got. If you want to blame the mortgage companies or Wall Street, look no further than this guarantee - they were simply reacting to the incentives that government put there in the first place. When the Republicans DID try to reign this type of abuse in, the Democrats castigated them for doing so. They actually wanted to tighten up the regulations in this area and were prevented from doing so. Just look at the contempt the Democrats treated the Republicans with when they pointed the instability out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&playnext_from=TL&videos=1na2mvRG8pA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_2D4mK95NQ&playnext_from=TL&videos=1na2mvRG8pA

In addition to the guarantees that Fannie and Freddie offered, the CRA was increasingly used to pressure and "force" banks into making loans that they would not have otherwise made. The whole securitization of these mortgages was devised as a way to minimize the risk that the government placed on these companies with these mortgages. The securitization was a way to spread the risk out and theoretically this would work - spreading out the risk so that if a few went bad, the security that was created would still be good because it was combined with good loans. As I said, theoretically this would have worked - except in this case, because so many mortgages were bad, it spread the risk alright - and the risk was greater than what the good mortgages could overcome. Because of this instead of reducing the risk and therefore heading off any crisis, it merely spread the poison and greatly expanded the crisis. But again, it was government interfering in the marketplace that caused this. The securitization was a reaction to the government interfering.

Finally, mortgage rates were held artificially held low which helped create an additional bubble in the housing markets. This is where the Bush administration shares in the blame for the crisis. They pressured the FED to keep rates low.

Between the low interest rates and the influx of hundreds of thousands of previously unqualified buyers, the housing market boomed (created a bubble). Problem was that these previously unqualified actually were STILL unqualified, but they got loans anyway.

If they were able to make their payments, there NEVER would have been a crisis in the first place. PERIOD.

PoliCon
05-25-2010, 06:26 PM
Equaly Op. Lending and Fair Housing Act were enacted by Clinton in 93, though. That's as far back as I can remember being taught about :p :D

Community Reinvestment Act 1977 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/38135

Megaguns91
05-25-2010, 06:27 PM
Community Reinvestment Act 1977 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/38135

Thank you, sir :p

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 06:35 PM
Who do you have to thank for that dipshit? Do EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LOANS ring a bell? Clinton era? Yeah. Your libtard fucking leaders created that fiasco. Now you're bitching about it as if it's the conservative's fault. Typical fucking liberal squeeze.





Forgive my French. :mad:

My leaders?

I notice the common underlying premise under most of the arguments here is that the primary struggle in contemporary politics is Liberal VS Conservative

I reject this basic premise, I don't see it this way which means that many of our posts won't match up correctly because I disagree heavily with many of Democrat policies and actions, including many Obama has instituted so far.

Just like feminists see things through the lens of Patriarchy vs Femininity

and how Marxists see Capitalists vs Labor

ect. ect.

This Liberal vs Conservative paradigm is silly, imo, and does little justice to examine the reality at hand.

Megaguns91
05-25-2010, 06:38 PM
My leaders?

I notice the common underlying premise under most of the arguments here is that the primary struggle in contemporary politics is Liberal VS Conservative

I reject this basic premise, I don't see it this way which means that many of our posts won't match up correctly because I disagree heavily with many of Democrat policies and actions, including many Obama has instituted so far.

Just like feminists see things through the lens of Patriarchy vs Femininity

and how Marxists see Capitalists vs Labor

ect. ect.

This Liberal vs Conservative paradigm is silly, imo, and does little justice to examine the reality at hand.

Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

PoliCon
05-25-2010, 06:39 PM
Thank you, sir :p

sokay. :) You weren't wrong - you just weren't completely right. ;)

Megaguns91
05-25-2010, 06:44 PM
sokay. :) You weren't wrong - you just weren't completely right. ;)

I'm a woman, whatchoo want from me? ;)

Zafod
05-25-2010, 07:13 PM
anyone else notice that wee wee the pee pee boy ignored conspeaks post to him?

djones520
05-25-2010, 07:17 PM
anyone else notice that wee wee the pee pee boy ignored conspeaks post to him?

Mine as well were I showed the Dems voted nearly unanimously voting against and real actions being taken against Fannie Mae any Freddie Mac.

Zafod
05-25-2010, 07:29 PM
Mine as well were I showed the Dems voted nearly unanimously voting against and real actions being taken against Fannie Mae any Freddie Mac.

well that too.

pussy

Zafod
05-25-2010, 07:29 PM
I'm a woman, whatchoo want from me? ;)

everytime I see your name i think of big boobs.... is that wrong?

Megaguns91
05-25-2010, 07:33 PM
everytime I see your name i think of big boobs.... is that wrong?

Not by me. If you want to think of my boobs as big more power to you! :D

Wei Wu Wei
05-26-2010, 01:06 AM
Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

No, but if you want to pin political problems on me, I did vote for Obama

Jfor
05-26-2010, 10:37 AM
No, but if you want to pin political problems on me, I did vote for Obama

Just goes to show that you have the intelligence of a flea.

Zafod
05-26-2010, 12:26 PM
Not by me. If you want to think of my boobs as big more power to you! :D

I just keep thinking about your mega guns and thats what pops in my head.....

Zathras
05-26-2010, 03:39 PM
Just goes to show that you have the intelligence of a flea.

Fleas are 100 times smarter than Wee Wee.