Rising gas prices are due to free market forces...

reply to post by hawkiye


The Commerce clause is not restricted by the constitution only to prevent tariffs, the wording is not there, and that was not the intent, or it would have been restricted only to cover tariffs. That is a false argument.

Just because you have one case where it appears that the fed gov over stepped its boundaries does not mean that all interstate commerce regulation should be ended and restricted to a narrow definition, that ignores a whole variety of actions aimed at preventing states from writing law enabling them to engage in unfair trade practices.

And the whole video is filled with propaganda rhetoric, blame it on the commies nonsense that destroys its credibility.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


All you are showing is that when free market preaching politicians get the power, they immediately work to give advantages to big business.

More reason not to support they politicians who claim they are for the Free Market, when all their efforts go against Free Markets as most who believe in Free Markets believe it should work.

Thanks for proving us right.

Stop supporting the republicans who have encouraged lobbyists for big corporations to take over our government.

reply to post by poet1b

All you are showing is that when free market preaching politicians get the power, they immediately work to give advantages to big business.

Um, so it's only the conservatives and yet the liberals receive more support from lobbyists? More platitudes and cliche statements without proof. This is the theme of the arguments against "free market" within the entirety of this thread.

reply to post by Bugman82


My answers have shown with logic and reason why your claims are false, and often the links provided by your side do not back claims, and in fact use cliches and platitudes.

Why don't you answer the questions you have been asked?

Over and over it has been proven that the big corporations are in fact doing this on purpose, and the argument on your side is to blame government because big corporations manage to succeed at times in their criminal activities.

Your false argument is that because crime still exists, we should get rid of law enforcement. That is a ridiculous position. How can you support such nonsense?

reply to post by poet1b


Now is your chance to ask me questions front and center. I already asked mine above and still haven't received any answers from you. They are still sitting there and awaiting you. However, I am willing right now to answer any questions you have.

Ask away friend. I'm here for another 3 hours.

reply to post by Bugman82


Got any links to the actual article where this chart supposedly came from?

Again you are engaging in posting said claims without any link to the sources involved. Rather than post a link to the article with the source, you only provide a unverifiable chart, that I can not find on the blog itself. And the chart only refers to a narrow period in time from several years ago, yet you claim it proves all lobbyists support the democrats more than the republicans, when your earlier chart clearly shows that while Republicans were in charge of congress, lobbying increased.

If you don't provide links to the sources of these charts, you are posting unverified claims.

This is what I get when I try to back track the link.

www.brennancenter.org...

Our apologies. It appears the page you requested could not be found.

On January 16, 2008, we launched a re-designed BrennanCenter.org website. As a result, some links may be outdated or broken.

If You Came Here From An Outside Source

They more than likely used an outdated link. Let us know. And let the referring site know. Thank you.

What the heck.

reply to post by Bugman82


LOL, so your shift ends in three hours? Are you admitting that you are a paid political shill?

No one put you in charge of who gets to ask what questions when or who should answer first. You have yet to answer any of my questions.

reply to post by poet1b


www.brennancenter.org...

I linked the article even though it says the source in the bottom left hand side of the picture. The source of the information is the WSJ analysis of House Findings.

reply to post by poet1b


and no I'm not a paid shill........I am currently in graduate school and am writing response posts for my online classes at the same time that I'm responding here. My we are testy this morning aren't we?

I'm still awaiting your questions.........in other words, start asking. I am here and willing to respond.

reply to post by Bugman82


And your links states this,

Not only are total contributions nearly split between parties, but lobbyists are remaining relatively loyal to the party they choose to contribute to.

www.brennancenter.org...

So the link you provided does not back your claims.

reply to post by Bugman82


Sensitive this morning aren't we, after coming out with big unsubstantiated claims. Can't take a joke?

Start with the question I asked above.

Your false argument is that because crime still exists, we should get rid of law enforcement. That is a ridiculous position. How can you support such nonsense?

reply to post by poet1b


Yes it does support by claim. "Relatively even" does not mean even. It means it is close but as you can tell by the graph Democrats do receive several million more. However, this is still succinct enough to smash your claim that it is the evil conservatives who are the only evil ones when it comes to lobbying.

and in a response to your notion that:

Your false argument is that because crime still exists, we should get rid of law enforcement. That is a ridiculous position. How can you support such nonsense?

You are putting words in my mouth and I never said such a thing. I have only ever pointed out that fraud is often times based on government intervention such as we've seen with the bailouts. Banks and corporations had billions of dollars thrown at them when they should have failed. They were fraudsters and took advantage of people and a free market system would not have bailed them out. A free market system would not have rewarded their failures and fraud with billions of dollars. A free market would have allowed them to fail, fall into bankruptcy, and be prosecuted for their crimes instead of building a bubble of protection around them.

reply to post by Bugman82


It shows democrats received more in a very narrow time frame from from an outdated article. Doesn't support your claim that democrats receive more. You would have to look at much larger time frames.

And where did I make this claim you are are trying to put on me?

evil conservatives who are the only evil ones when it comes to lobbying.

Yeah, no "cliches and platitudes" here on your part.

Oh, and 1.3 million more does not equate to several million more.

reply to post by poet1b

All you are showing is that when free market preaching politicians get the power, they immediately work to give advantages to big business. More reason not to support they politicians who claim they are for the Free Market, when all their efforts go against Free Markets as most who believe in Free Markets believe it should work. Thanks for proving us right. Stop supporting the republicans who have encouraged lobbyists for big corporations to take over our government.

You said above it is the republicans who encouraged lobbyists for big corporations to take over our government. This is a false notion considering the fact that democrats do in fact have more lobbying money thrown their way. Yes, it is a small amount more, but this still shatters your notion that it is all because of the conservatives.

Anyways, I don't identify myself with conservative republicans. I am libertarian and despise most of what the Republican Party stands for.

oh, and as your claim that $1.3 million isn't several million........you forgot to add on the $2 million difference in money given to party committees.

reply to post by Bugman82


You didn't answer the question, you wrote around it.

The people bailed out were the investors who would have gotten screwed, while the real crooks would have walked away with their ill-gotten gains. This supposed free market system would not have done anything.

Only government could have prosecuted the crooks, and that is currently being carried out.

You are still blaming government for the crooked actions of business. Government didn't force these crooks to falsify credit rating of bonds.

The idea of Free Markets being to get rid of regulations, laws to prevent criminal activity, still means you are supporting getting rid of the police because crimes are still being committed. Why?

Answer the question.

Originally posted by Bugman82
You said above it is the republicans who encouraged lobbyists for big corporations to take over our government. This is a false notion considering the fact that democrats do in fact have more lobbying money thrown their way. Yes, it is a small amount more, but this still shatters your notion that it is all because of the conservatives.

You seem to be leaving out a pretty important detail; Who are the lobbyists? Just saying Democrats get more money does in no way prove they get more money for big corporations. There are lots and lots and lots of lobbyists.

reply to post by LErickson





Notice how Goldman Sachs gave far more to Obama than either Republican candidate and the total amount he has received. Why on earth would big banks support Obama if he is against them?

reply to post by Bugman82


My contention is that republicans back big business more than democrats, and the rise of lobbyists while the republicans were in charge does prove that, along with republican efforts to get rid of laws that prevent fraudulent business activities. Your chart shatters nothing, you grossly exaggerate on this.

reply to post by Bugman82


The top five contributors to both republican candidate were financial corporations. Not so with Obama, by your own links.

Again, your link does not support your claims.

And Again, no link to the source of the chart to verify the information provided, and to evaluate the data.

reply to post by poet1b


I already stated my position and am rather confused by your assertion that I am for getting rid of police.

Also, the idea that government didn't force them to do those evils things is rather absurd. Without government intervention the banks would have had no opportunity to commit the fraud in the first place. The free market would have found them out.

Why?

As I've stated numerous times it is the Federal Reserve monetary policy that allows fraud to go unseen. The Federal Reserve determines interest rates, bond values, and many other values. This is forced and not according the the true value of these assets. This allows huge amounts of credit to flow into the system that spurs large corporations. This "capital" isn't real because the values aren't real. This is what allowed Bear Sterns and Freddie / Fannie to grow so large so quickly and to hide under this blanket of credit. Who knew about the bubble? Ron Paul and free market analysts. Who did not? Ben Bernanke and the Keynesians.





Why was the free market analysis right and seeing things 5 years before they happened and Ben Bernanke missing all of this? It was because he and his friends were complicit in the fraud. Explain the predictions please. How did this happen if it was being predicted 5 years head of time?