gojin wrote:The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed in 1999 and effectively reversed the Glass-Steagall act(which dealt with bank regulation). Gramm-Leach-Bliley was originally introduced by Republicans but was stalemated by house Democrats until they added language which added some privacy protection and "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities"(equal access to 'economic opportunities' even if you can't repay the loan). Incase you are wondering the vote to add this ammendment to the bill was 241-132. Republicans voted 58 yay/131 nay. Dems voted 182 yay/1 nay.
During the Bush administration the GOP tried on 2 seperate occasions to repeal the act but were shot down thanks to notable efforts by Senator Christopher Dodd(D-Connecticut) and Congressman Barney Frank(D-Mass). This despite Alan Greenspan advising G-L-B be repealed as well.
Sure, I'll do my homework and look into this. I'm interested if a bill passed 9 years ago can single-handedly bring the economy to its knees.
You know when people spend money on cruises, trips and even foreign-brand cars... it helps the economy. And as far as who needs the money more between John McCain and Joe the Plumber? Its a moot point, under Obama they both get the hell taxed out of them.
It helps siphon money out of the country, and considering our some 10.5 trillion dollar hole, I don't think that's what we really need.
As for McCain and Joe the Plumber, it's not a moot point at all. Joe the Plumber isn't hurt by Obama, but the RNC wants you to think that so they have something to use to relate to the common person since they weren't successful at trying the same with McCain and Palin when monetary figures, houses, cars, expensive clothing, and so forth were put on the headlines of several media outlets.
Joseph Wurzelbacher makes roughly $40,000 a year. That's about $210,000 off the minimum to get taxed. Which means he saves more with Obama than McCain. As for the business situation, there's a few things in the way of that, such as Wurzelbacher only considering to get it (which means this situation might ever even come to be), his not even being applicable to buy it from what I recall, and the business barely meets the limit. Assuming the company made the projected $251k to $280k anyway, only $1k to $30k would get hit with the 3% tax. Leaving you with about $30 to $900 difference. Which I believe was actually more affordable than what McCain was planning to do with health care. And it was also the same rate Clinton had. Which, BTW, was when the economy was booming, whether you believe he was responsible for the 1945 and 2008 recessions or not.
Trying to argue John the US Senator and Joe the Unlicensed Plumber are on the same financial level is ridiculous. I doubt McCain has a $1,182 lien on one of his houses, either.
I wont defend why we went into Iraq but remember when you say 'the war' you are referring to the War on Terror...
I'm speaking specifically of Iraq, not Afghanistan, Pakistan, and etc. We invaded Iraq for the WMDs we never found, and to overthrow the evil 9-11 mastermind guy that had nothing to do with 9-11 in roughly one week with barely any resistance. So what are we still doing there, besides attempting to make Iraq into the 51st state? And please don't say 'to fite terrer' when we're losing our control in Afghanistan, which was actually the focal point to this War on Terror.
Not to mention, now we have Iran to deal with. Iraq and Iran used to keep each other in check, but now that we've gone and stomped Iraq into a bloody mess, Iran is free to grow without burden of its competitive rival.
It may not be as easy as you thought it would have been, one objective after the next like you mentioned, but wars are never easy.
You mean, it's not as easy as the Bush administration encouraged people it would be.
Much is made of McCain stating he would have us there 50 or 100 years if needed but people forget that we have been in Japan and Germany since '45 and Korea since '50.
I wasn't aware the situations in Japan, Germany, and Korea were as intense as they are in Iraq. And to give a rough idea of how hard these places are to regulate, Iraq positions 5th in the Failed State Index, while Japan, Germany, South Korea, and North Korea place 163rd, 155th, 153rd, and 15th respectively. US being 161st.
The U.S. is developing a bad habit of cutting loose when things get tough but I guess its a direct corrolation to the newer generations' way of thinking full of self-depracation and a distinct lack of self-accountability.
Or because we realize pouring more and more time and energy into ineffectively trying to save the rest of the world while letting our own country fall apart will eventually ruin us.
It undoubtebly weakens us as a country and will continue to do so.
Yes, because turning Iraq into an admirable country at the expense of putting ours into poverty will do nothing short than strengthen our position as a leading figure in the world.