These tea party people....

Riven, I'm not saying it is fair. the US system does need changing. But those who have paid for health insurance there, don't want a system where you are condemned to die because of not being allowed to get a life-saving cancer drug due to your postcode. Or also where thousands of pensioners will go blind, after paying national insurance all their lives, because of the postcode lottery

Thousands lose sight due to NHS postcode lottery

I have heard US broadcasters flabbergasted by what they see as socialist rationing by bureaucrats. They don't want that system.

Agree with you complimentary. Up and down the land, working class, middle class and upper class people are united in thinking that we are not really represented. If any party said that it would scrap the five bins every household needs and scrap planned congestion charges etc., it would win a massive majority. But these things will never happen. Only in America can things like that happen. None of the parties are ideal, but the Tories are by far the best of a bad bunch.

That's what has happened in America. None of the parties are ideal there either, which is why a populist grassroots party has sprung up out of nowhere.

Claig thanks for the link. I watched the speech and found it uplifting! I myself stood as an PPC last election, and the amount of people who told me that the elite at Westminster "do not represent the people" if I had a fiver for every person that told me this, I would have bought myself a new coat!
Even Cameron and I know you're a supporter of his,does not understand how many people think. I questioned him on the Equalities Bill and how I thought it would efffect my children in the future, in regards to the choosing of those with 'perceived characteristics' and he said to me "how else are we going to recruit more ethnic minorities into jobs?". My response was, "well not by chooshing someone for the colour of their skin!" Cameron did not get it, his children will not be effected by the Equalities Bill as they have the name Cameron. That is why I think he is the best of bad bunch. He is one of the political elite.

If people keep their money they either spend it, in which case it goes to businesses, or they save it, in which case it goes to banks and in theory they should lend it to businesses. It circulates the money in the real economy. Instead we handed over money to the banks and they didn't circulate it enough back to businesses, but used it to shore up their balance sheets and pay out bonuses etc.

And if I've got this correct, there is a conspiracy between government and big business to acheive, what exactly?

Claig - So tell me again - WHY is global warming being used as a trojan horse for overpopulation?

Letting people keep their money != People having enough cash to run their business.

complimentary, we haven't got them here, because the progressives dominate our main broadcast and print media and ridicule them at every stage. But the time of the progressives is passing, and things may change one day.

George Monbiot is a journalist on the Guardian. He is one of the foremost proponents of global warming and climate change theory. I think he could be classed as a progressive. Reading his columns is not very instructive, but is educational in ascertaining how desperate the progressives are getting as they lose the climate change argument. He has a list of the top ten "climate change deniers" and Sarah Palin is on the list.

The more I hear about Sarah, the more I am starting to like her and the Tea Party. Here is what Sarah, a Vice-Presidential candidate, said about global warming

Global Warming is Junk Science

Progressives like Monbiodiversity must be apoplectic. Someone has called their bluff, and they don't like it.

Well said Claig! Why have we not got some 'tea party' lot here, or are we here, but not listened too? Oh by the way what is 'Monbiots?' (excuse the ignorance!)

'If you want the governement to give the banks money to lend to people, why not just get the government to lend to people?'

that's what the Tea Party are about. It's not the government's money, it's the people's money, and instead of the government lending the people's money back to them, the Tea Party want the government to stop taking it away from them with high taxes. It's good old conservative philosophy, let the people keep their earnings, they can make the decision about how to spend it rather than some progressive government bureaucrat who wants to spend it on global warming conferences or some such progressive scheme.

The collapse was a derivatives crash, due to gambling, not due to people not being able to pay back their loans, as the progressives tell us. Here is the editor-at-large of the Washington Times

"The 2007 U.S. subprime mortgage global disaster was also derivatives-driven - and provoked the biggest financial and economic disaster since the Great Depression."

and he says there may yet be another derivatives crash coming

"Today's massive new derivatives bubble is driving the domestic and global economies, far outstripping the subprime-credit meltdown."

It is a quid pro quo - the money has been leant not given away. If you want the governement to give the banks money to lend to people, why not just get the government to lend to people?

What you are saying is 'Here is £10 to pay your debt to Jack, but I want you to lend £5 of it to Jill'

It was a credit bubble. Coallateralisation meant that lenders thought they weren't carrying any risk of default, so they leant without checking credit worthiness and made money on the commission. This meant that they had to keep borrowing more money against their long term assets to pay short term obligations. As soon as somebody said 'Hang on, how can we be sure this stuff we are lending you money against is worth anything?' they couldn't raise the money to pay their expenses.

or even his brother, A. Crime Fatcat

who is the author of "Subprime : A primer"
Could it be A. Prime Fatcat?

Lehman survived the Wall Street Crash, but didn't survive a sub-prime crisis caused by a property crash. Something doesn't add up. It was derivatives that brought them down, not ordinary people not being able to pay their mortgages.

It wasn't a case of banks lending out money to ordinary people, it was a case of banks begging the government to loan them our money. The Tea Party is right that there should have been a quid pro quo, the government should have nationalised teh banks and forced them to lend money to businesses to keep the people employed, rather than doling out our money in bonusues, corporate hospitality and more gambling.

docs.google.com/present/view?revision=_latest&fs=true&skipauth=true&pli=1&id=ddv7hj34_03774hsc7

"the American economy wouldn't have gone down the crapper. That's what the fatcats say, don't believe them"

Belief belongs with the Archbishops and Mullahs but we can learn lessons from history. The effects of the Wall Street Crash, for example, were pretty stark and long-lasting.

And on the sub-prime situation. Even if you don't think it actualy led to the credit crunch, banks were hardly likely to lend yet more money to the same asset/job/cash/orderbook-poor people afterwards were they? Same problem as we have here... 'lend out more money'.. we demand from the banks... 'but don't lend it to people who can't pay it back'.

'And why would banks lend money to people who couldn't afford it, seeing as how that was the way the crisis got started in the first place?'

that's what the fatcats tell us, don't believe it. It started due to their gambling in the derivative markets. We've had many housing crashes in history but none of them led to the financial crisis that they gave us.

'Whereas if the American banks and subsequently the economy had gone down the crapper'

the American economy wouldn't have gone down the crapper. That's what the fatcats say, don't believe them. The Tea Party doesn't believe them, and that's what makes teh progressives angry, since it blows their whole pretence. The fatcats very possibly would have gone down the crapper, as opposed to teh situation now, where we are paying their pensions.

Oh and if anything stops the republicans regaining the presidency, it will be the tea party nut nuts.

They LIKE paying more for healthcare than pretty much anyone else in the world.

Whereas if the American banks and subsequently the economy had gone down the crapper, millions of Americans would have seen their jobs & homes saved? And why would banks lend money to people who couldn't afford it, seeing as how that was the way the crisis got started in the first place?

Now if they'd had a stronger welfare state in position before it happened.... maybe the outcome for ordinary Americans would have been rosier than it was?