ร่างพระราชบัญญัติการเงินที่สนับสนุนโดยวุฒิสมาชิกด็อด (D-CT) ไม่ได้ให้การปฏิรูปที่แท้จริงและเต็มไปด้วยข้อบกพร่อง รวมถึงการคงไว้ซึ่งวัฒนธรรม “ใหญ่เกินกว่าจะล้มเหลว” ที่นำไปสู่วิกฤตการณ์ทางการเงิน .
Table of Contents
Images related to the topic financial bill
A Wall Street Bailout Bill
Search related to the topic A Wall Street Bailout Bill
#Wall #Street #Bailout #Bill
A Wall Street Bailout Bill
financial bill
ดูวิธีการทำเงินออนไลน์ล่าสุดทั้งหมด: ดูเพิ่มเติมที่นี่
ดูวิธีการทำเงินออนไลน์ล่าสุดทั้งหมด: ดูเพิ่มเติมที่นี่
The only specific plan Obama has laid out is his plan to redistribute the wealth
don't slouch, stand straight.
No more bailouts. Search "Bankrupt Is The New Black" and join the movement.
Why does the Heritage foundation treat its viewers like idiots?
Read pages 1039-1040 of Dodd's bill. They're trying to take your personal checking and savings accounts folks. Simultaneously, a lot of discussion on how they can get their hands on your pensions/401Ks. Greece and a few more EU slave countries are simply pilot programs for all this. The U.S. is the big prize though and will not be far behind. My advice: 1) stop direct dep. of your paycheck(assuming you have a job) 2) get a paper check instead and cash it 3) buy silver and pay all bills in cash.
@arubberball
Voiceovers . . . . not the same thing. The video would've been just as effective if it had just a voiceover.
And I don't see how massages have anything to do with this.
But anywho . . . maybe Heritage didn't get her permission to use her likeness in the video. That's usually the only reason someone would go through the expense of showing an actor without actually showing the actor's face. So she can't sue. Otherwise, it's just wasteful. Why not just go with a voiceover?
@vcdaniels so, your saying every video, or commercial has to show the person face to give it creditability? with your thinking, this would eliminate voice-overs entirely. most people will attack the massager, when they can't disprove, or argue the message.
@arubberball
I'm looking for that and I don't see it anywhere. I've scrolled up and down 8 times and YouTube highlights all of your comments so it should be easy to spot. But it does remind me of pornos or other videos where you don't want your identity associated with the content and so they have your face cropped off, digitized, blacked out, blurred or otherwise censored. I mean, if you're proud of what you're saying and you believe in it, don't hide your face – hold your head up & say it.
@vcdaniels "TELL IT, COLORED LADY WITH NO HEAD!! Proudly display your belief in this ad by cropping your identity at the shoulders!" is this your comment? if so you are indeed thick. love people who only see things through the black and white prism. her race has nothing to do with the video.
@arubberball
Whatever do you mean? From what I see on the all comments page for this video, I didn't make a comment.
@shalcall : wow.. let's see. I have provided detailed historical facts and citation (Christina Romer's recent work and PBS's program on neocons) to prove that you have no idea (though I'm skeptical that you have any background in banking/money background to understand it). You got some balls to come back and claim that I don't know much about mainstream economics b/c I presented some additional fact that criticizes your religion (ie, liberalism).
Well, let's not waste time.
@shalcall : of course, that's precisely my point – your claim that the ownership of military as being "socialistic" makes nonsense. Under your broad definition, pretty much every gov't would be "socialistic".
Furthermore, I have demonstrated that US military in the WW2 era didn't possess the characteristics of socialism – in that the US wasn't always the kind of militaristic empire it is now and there wasn't much military to speak of.
@shalcall : ok, here we go again – if you want to learn about the origin of neoconservatives – go watch PBS's "Arguing the World". I have summarized this many times here – they were once trotskyites who became influential intellectual figures under JFK+LBJ – Patrick Moynihan (as JFK's undersec of labor), Nathan Bell, Daniel Glazer, Irving Kristol, etc. They switched their political party in mid-80's from the demo party to the repubs at Reagan's invitation (starting with Jean Kirkpatrick)
@tooltalk Look, thanks for being somewhat civil, but I think you're a bit crazy. To blame any political decision with negative consequences as liberal and to say "modern liberalism is the root of all problems" is just nuts with no support whatsoever in reality. To call neoconservatives under the Bush administration liberals makes me fear what you think actual conservatism is.
We are not going to agree, you are too far out there and you don't know much about mainstream economics.
@vcdaniels you can't be that thick?
@shalcall : trained bureaucrats know how to run your life better than you could?
No, i'ts pointless to blame one political party over another – I'm saying that modern liberalism is at the root of all problems (neoconservatives under Bush for instance are hardcore warfare/welfare liberals who were once influential under JFK/LBJ.) Political parties are mere vehicle for promoting ideas, nothing more.
@shalcall : are you denying that liberals believe in the notion of "as-you-go" constitution? or that libs' support of global gov'ts – be it the UN, NATO – and their roles in so-called peace missions in places like Somalia, Serbia, Sudan etc? Are you saying that this has nothing to do with internationalism pioneered by Wilson, JFK, LBJ? Do u not see that liberals' intervention in all things economics and geo-political matters are based on fallacious belief that a few wise, benevolent Ivy
@tooltalk How you can blame our military expansion during the 20th century on liberals alone is beyond me. I'm not a fan of war, probably because I'm a veteran of the current one. You're not going to find me defending police actions in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq. But I will say that all of those actions had broad bipartisan support. I agree we should spend much less money on defense.
But I think you'd have to be blind to think that one side is responsible for our military industrial complex.
@shalcall : by providing direct monetary (or in-kind) payments & subsidies to single-mothers, elders, students, disabled, farmers, artists, and other special interests groups (like GM or wall street)… And these are what make your gov't socialistic.
@tooltalk First of all, North Korea (Kim Il Sung) is a socialist country. It uses a socialist economic system. Politically it is a dictatorship. Nazi Germany was politically fascist, but clearly had a mixed economy as well. This is not a "liberal" definition, it's simply the definition. I never said we're all socialists. I said the U.S. had a mixed economy with varying degrees of capitalism and socialism depending on the sector. It's mostly capitalism.
@shalcall : thx to liberals – their "evolving constitution" and warfarism – the war declaration has become more or less obsolete and, starting with the Korean war, the US now was in a permanent state of wars with 500+ military bases in 100+ countries. (Also note that the founders had no problem using letter of marque for privateers to fight pirates or enemies -).
Now, LBJ's war on poverty on the other hand was a explicit socialistic policy in that it served to achieve certain economic goals –
@shalcall : south. You see, the whole point the "declaration of war" was for congress to authorize raising money and army for your prez (aka, commander-in-chief). Again, up until the ww2, most Americans didn't pay much taxes to begin with, partly b/c there was no permanent standing military (hence, no socialization at least by my definition). The exorbitant that we now pay didn't even start until the ww2 when the payroll tax was first implemented (to reduce the money supply).
@shalcall : socialism vs. capitalism – we are talking about different types of economic systems. The judicial (small claims courts, judges), national defense (military), political (your representatives, senators) functions are not economic functions of your gov't. In another word, the purpose of these gov't functions isn't to achieve some economic goals.
Historically speaking, the US didn't really have much of a permanent standing army until the ww2 had ended – that's also when everything went
@shalcall : ok. your silly liberal definition is a bit messed up.
Under your rather very broad loose definition, even the Nazi's were socialists, so were Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung, Pinochet, etc. In fact, any state with standing army (or any gov't agencies like DMVs, Small Claims Court) is a socialistic gov't – all feudal princes were, according to your definition, "socialistic". We are all, umm, "socialists" using your logic.
Now, seriously – as I pointed out earlier, when we discuss
@tooltalk If you want to go point by point, national defense is socialistic simply by definition. The Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, and other intelligence agencies are wholly owned and administered by the federal government. There is no competition among private defense companies to win contracts for the primary defense of the U.S. No market decides how much National Defense is worth.
@shalcall : where was crash under Eisenhower? There were three brief recessions under Eisenhower – artificially induced by the Fed to prevent economy from overheating – while still maintaining low inflation, low unemployment, and *long-term* growth. The 20's likewise was prosperous, until Ben Strong's easy policy in 1927 created asset bubble (from non-intervention to intervention).
Well, let's look at national defense first, how is it socialistic?
@godgunsncountry Tell me something. What was unemployment in 1932? What was unemployment in 1929?
@tooltalk Really? I have to prove how certain services are economic functions? So, FedEx and UPS serve no purpose. We don't need a postal service, but we have a government controlled one. No other entity can touch your mailbox. We don't need a federal army (e.g. Xe aka Blackwater). We don't allow easy entry into the energy market. We don't need public schools, etc. etc.
We have a mixed economy.
And btw, the 20's and 50's bubbles also ended in crashes. What's your point?
@shalcall : some of the most volatile decades in US history.
@shalcall: ok, then you need to prove why/how then military / postal services serves (or DMV for that matter) economic functions, meaning socialistic (eg, distributing wealth) as you claim.
No, as I described earlier, much of so-called gov't intervention, be it regulation or public monopolies, didn't start until 1930's and later greatly expanded in the 60's – unlike your claims that US has always been a mixed economy from the day one.
No, the 90's bubble ended in crash. The 60's and 70's were
@shalcall : Asia to equally grandios expansion of the welfare system. It's not an overstatement to say all presidents after LBJ were elected to minimize / undo LBJ's mess in the 60s (all through Clinton to now Obama). The immediate consequence of such policy failures was the "lost 70's" – the collapse of the Brettonwood system, stagflation, 11% inflation, etc. In another word, a whole decade long economic instability had all to do with the irresponsible policies set earlier. The OPEC's oil
@godgunsncountry Smoot-Hawley is a straw man? Oh God, go wiki international trade and then get back to me.
@tooltalk The U.S. has a mixed economy. This is not up for debate. We have a post office, the government owns many different sectors of the economy, most states own or heavily regulate the means of production for electricity and gas. We do not have a completely capitalistic economy nor a socialistic one. I don't even understand how you can deny that.
How are you defining economic prosperity? If it's sustained economic growth, then the 1960's and the 1990's were much better.
@shalcall : Yes, the fact that all other industrialized nations were practically in ruin after the WW2 probably helped the US rise to the top (manufacturing nation), but more importantly, the US was the world economic power b/c it was a nation of savers (just the way China is now), and a fiscally prudent one.
Much of this relative peace & prosperity changed after liberals' changing of economic policies in US – from being fiscally conservatives to short-term deficit spending-binge on wars in
@shalcall : go read Christina Romer's, Obama's chair of economic counsels, work on "causes and consequences of a mistaken revolution" – *mistaken* referring to LBJ's misguided liberal macroeconomic policies to finance his delusional liberal policies. The paper isn't all that technical, shouldn't be too difficult for anyone with introductory money/banking background to understand.
Now, the point I'm making with the LBJ's policies which affect the country's economic nearly 50 years later is this
@shalcall : of the two cited decades – contrary to your claim that somehow socialistic policies (ie, in your own terms "mixed economy") are at the base of US's success. Then, I cited LBJ's warfare / welfare policies after the starting point of the economic decline in US.
I say that you need to go take some econ classes. Rather than me having to describe all the macroeconomic policy shifted under LBJ to finance his liberal excesses (ie, the Great Society, the War in Vietnam), I suggest you
@shalcall : I see too many liberal fallacies in your statement, so let's take one at a time.
Firstly, your premise that US's had a mixed economy is, to start, is fallacious (just plain unintelligent nonsense).
Secondly, I cited two most economic prosperous decades in US economic history (1920's and 1950's) as proofs that fiscal conservatism (eg, budget surpluses and reduction in national debt) & non-interventionism (eg, no welfare state) as the main attribute to economic successes of
@godgunsncountry said, ". . .guess what happened when this country imposed your 'mixed economy' for the first time… you might have heard of it, it was called the Great Depression"
That sounds like you're rewriting history. Hoover was president when the Great Depression began, he helped worsen it with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and in his 4 years unemployment rose to 25%. Conservatives like to forget that Hoover was president for the first 4 years of the depression.