Well I don't base my opinion about climate change on what I hear on talk radio. I base it on an examination of the arguments coming from both camps. And with an admitted lack of omniscience, I still think that the arguments in defense of global warming are far stronger than the ones against it.
Dove, it's refreshing to see that evidence has not totally lost its place to politics. A quick Google search, as you point out, indicates there are indeed two (or three, or a dozen) camps, and from those you've formed an opinion based on what seems to be the weight of evidence. Nor have you stated (nor implied) that this opinion is decided fact, nor stated that any other viewpoint flies in the face of what is "obviously" true, nor any other such sophistry. Bravo; I salute your response.
|
Actually the Time article says Coke.
Pepsi, he's from Chicago.
See this just proves that all his tripe about change is just politics as usual. He drinks the same damn thing my grandfather was drinking and you espect me to believe he is going to change the way washington handles itself? And people have the gall to say he's different, Yeesh he drinks coke people do I need to spell it out for you, just another suit who do the exact same thing every other suit in washington does.
(is that definitive enough for you kirth or do I need further opinion based on what I've heard third hand ;) ?)
See this just proves that all his tripe about change is just politics as usual. He drinks the same damn thing my grandfather was drinking and you espect me to believe he is going to change the way washington handles itself? And people have the gall to say he's different, Yeesh he drinks coke people do I need to spell it out for you, just another suit who do the exact same thing every other suit in washington does.(is that definitive enough for you kirth or do I need further opinion based on what I've heard third hand ;) ?)
I drink Vault Zero. Does that mean I should run in 2012 on the (real) change ticket?
I drink Vault Zero. Does that mean I should run in 2012 on the (real) change ticket?
By 2012, Vault Zero will "just be more of the same".
I drink Vault Zero. Does that mean I should run in 2012 on the (real) change ticket?By 2012, Vault Zero will "just be more of the same".
Ok, what if, instead of that, I just tweet my mundane actions every five minutes on Twitter, so that the people can get to know the real me? I'll still be drinking Vault Zero, but I'll be a hip man of the people.
|
...Given that top economists and economic historians fall on BOTH sides of the issue...
Well, Kirth, the party's over.
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist and unapologetic liberal, is no longer enamored with our President's fiscal plan.
Furthermore, Frank Rich, also an unapologetic liberal, had this to say about the Obama administration's handling (and lying) about the A.I.G. bonus flak:
Published: March 21, 2009
A CHARMING visit with Jay Leno won’t fix it. A 90 percent tax on bankers’ bonuses won’t fix it. Firing Timothy Geithner won’t fix it. Unless and until Barack Obama addresses the full depth of Americans’ anger with his full arsenal of policy smarts and political gifts, his presidency and, worse, our economy will be paralyzed. It would be foolish to dismiss as hyperbole the stark warning delivered by Paulette Altmaier of Cupertino, Calif., in a letter to the editor published by The Times last week: “President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived.”
Six weeks ago I wrote in this space that the country’s surge of populist rage could devour the president’s best-laid plans, including the essential Act II of the bank rescue, if he didn’t get in front of it. The occasion then was the Tom Daschle firestorm. The White House seemed utterly blindsided by the public’s revulsion at the moneyed insiders’ culture illuminated by Daschle’s post-Senate career. Yet last week’s events suggest that the administration learned nothing from that brush with disaster.
Otherwise it never would have used Lawrence Summers, the chief economic adviser, as a messenger just as the A.I.G. rage was reaching a full boil last weekend. Summers is so tone-deaf that he makes Geithner seem like Bobby Kennedy.
Bob Schieffer of CBS asked Summers the simple question that has haunted the American public since the bailouts began last fall: “Do you know, Dr. Summers, what the banks have done with all of this money that has been funneled to them through these bailouts?” What followed was a monologue of evasion that, translated into English, amounted to: Not really, but you little folk needn’t worry about it.
Yet even as Summers spoke, A.I.G. was belatedly confirming what he would not. It has, in essence, been laundering its $170 billion in taxpayers’ money by paying off its reckless partners in gambling and greed, from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup on Wall Street to Société Générale and Deutsche Bank abroad.
Summers was even more highhanded in addressing the “retention bonuses” handed to the very employees who brokered all those bad bets. After reciting the requisite outrage talking point, he delivered a patronizing lecture to viewers of ABC’s “This Week” on how our “tradition of upholding law” made it impossible to abrogate the bonus agreements. It never occurred to Summers that Americans might know that contracts are renegotiated all the time — most conspicuously of late by the United Automobile Workers, which consented to givebacks as its contribution to the Detroit bailout plan. Nor did he note, for all his supposed reverence for the law, that the A.I.G. unit being rewarded with these bonuses is now under legal investigation by British and American authorities.
Within 24 hours, Summers’s stand was discarded by Obama, who tardily (and impotently) vowed to “pursue every single legal avenue” to block the bonuses. The question is not just why the White House was the last to learn about bonuses that Democratic congressmen had sought hearings about back in December, but why it was so slow to realize that the public’s anger couldn’t be sated by Summers’s legalese or by constant reiteration of the word outrage. By the time Obama acted, even the G.O.P. leader Mitch McConnell was ahead of him in full (if hypocritical) fulmination.
The left wing component of the media is finally waking up from the fog of their "13 year old girl at Shea watching the Beatles" moment, and are actually starting to report the news.
Maybe it has to do with Obama's rapidly falling poll numbers. Nothing says "loss of newspaper sales" like being out of touch with main street (to use Krome's words). And the NY Times is in BIG fiscal trouble. Maybe they'll save themselves by going back to the days when all Americans considered them the Paper of Record, and not just the Liberal Establishment.
"Pinch" Sulzburger about ran great grandpappy's paper into the ground...
|
...Given that top economists and economic historians fall on BOTH sides of the issue...Well, Kirth, the party's over.
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist and unapologetic liberal, is no longer enamored with our President's fiscal plan.
Furthermore, Frank Rich, also an unapologetic liberal, had this to say about the Obama administration's handling (and lying) about the A.I.G. bonus flak:
The left wing component of the media is finally waking up from the fog of their "13 year old girl at Shea watching the Beatles" moment, and are actually starting to report the news.
Maybe it has to do with Obama's rapidly falling poll numbers. Nothing says "loss of newspaper sales" like being out of touch with main street (to use Krome's words). And the NY Times is in BIG fiscal trouble. Maybe they'll save themselves by going back to the days when all Americans considered them the Paper of Record, and not just the Liberal Establishment.
"Pinch" Sulzburger about ran great grandpappy's paper into the ground...
Well, the problem with the AIG thing is that it has come out that Chris Dodd, at President Obama's request, specifically inserted language into the stimulis bill that made it legal for AIG to pay out these bonuses. Now that some Americans are upset over it, they seem to be playing damage control by making it seem like they had never heard about it and would have opposed it if they had known about it.Of course it doesn't help that, according to opensecrets.org, Obama and Dodd were the two biggest recipents of AIG campaign donations.
|
|
My point is, the honeymoon is over, apparently. The press has stopped giving their "Messiah" a pass, and, amazingly, they're starting to understand something I've known since, oh, February of '08: Obama's in over his head, makes very poor decisions regarding the people he surrounds himself with, and he is too naive to successfully negotiate foreign relations (must have stung, after saying he'd meet Iran without conditions, to have the Ayatollah flip the script and place a list of conditions IRAN demands before sitting down. Oh, and there wasn't ONE PERSON on staff who knew about DVD regions?).
It isn't like we really had much of a choice, though. McCain would have been just as bad on a lot of the issues. I wonder when the American people are going to start demanding substance from their leaders, and not just flowery words read off a teleprompter...
I wonder when the American people are going to start demanding substance from their leaders, and not just flowery words read off a teleprompter...
Never happen, not when presidential elections are nothing more than glorified popularity contests...
I wonder when the American people are going to start demanding substance from their leaders, and not just flowery words read off a teleprompter...Never happen, not when presidential elections are nothing more than glorified popularity contests...
QFT. The sad thing is some of our greatest presidents of the past(Washington, Lincoln, etc.) couldn't get elected today because they wouldn't appeal to our pop culture.
QFT. The sad thing is some of our greatest presidents of the past(Washington, Lincoln, etc.) couldn't get elected today because they wouldn't appeal to our pop culture.I wonder when the American people are going to start demanding substance from their leaders, and not just flowery words read off a teleprompter...Never happen, not when presidential elections are nothing more than glorified popularity contests...
Washington! That fraud! He >lied< about his military record! Why the Delaware Boat Veterans are against him!
The more things change, the more they stay the same. It was ALWAYS a popularity contest, the problem I see now is a gradual shift in the perception of government's functions among the voters. Now everyone wants the government to take care of everything for them.
|
|
You know the only thing I want to come out of this mess from government, actual legislation that prevents companies from becoming "too big to fail" I know that sounds weird from an anti-legislation guy like me. But I think if given the choice between heavy handed legislation that might have ramifications on big business, and multi-billion and now suspected multi-trillion dollar bailouts, I choose the heavy handed legislation because I can't imagine the ramifications being worse than those of the bailouts we don't have money for.
the problem I see now is a gradual shift in the perception of government's functions among the voters. Now everyone wants the government to take care of everything for them.
You mean like Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans (sharply limited federal powers) vs. Hamilton's Federalists (federal government assumes national debt, creation of a national bank, etc.)? That debate, too, has been going on since at least 1792 (and much of it since before the Constitution was even drafted).
|
|
The press has stopped giving their "Messiah" a pass, and, amazingly, they're starting to understand something I've known since, oh, February of '08: Obama's in over his head, makes very poor decisions regarding the people he surrounds himself with, and he is too naive to successfully negotiate foreign relations (must have stung, after saying he'd meet Iran without conditions, to have the Ayatollah flip the script and place a list of conditions IRAN demands before sitting down. Oh, and there wasn't ONE PERSON on staff who knew about DVD regions?).
Do you mean Media, Lapdog for Obama?
Do you mean Media, Lapdog for Obama?
How is the Internet not a communication medium? Or is the site indicting iteself?
|
|
the problem I see now is a gradual shift in the perception of government's functions among the voters. Now everyone wants the government to take care of everything for them.You mean like Jefferson's Republicans (more limited federal powers) vs. Hamilton's Federalists (creation of a national bank, etc.)? That debate, too, has been going on since before the Constitution was even drafted.
Yep. Funny you should mention Jefferson. Modern Democrats need to stop referencing him (and Modern Republicans need to stop bringing up Reagan, for that matter), as they have nothing in common with the man. He would probably be a Libertarian by today's standards.
I'm sure, as much as Jefferson couldn't stand Burr (Burr was a vagabond of the highest order, and an a$$ to boot, by all accounts), he had to smile a little when Burr took out his rival. Two birds with one stone and all.
Unfortunately, the Federalists pretty much won out, though.
the problem I see now is a gradual shift in the perception of government's functions among the voters. Now everyone wants the government to take care of everything for them.You mean like Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans (sharply limited federal powers) vs. Hamilton's Federalists (federal government assumes national debt, creation of a national bank, etc.)? That debate, too, has been going on since at least 1792 (and much of it since before the Constitution was even drafted).
Oh that has been argued for many a moon too. But as Derek just pointed out, the Federalists have slowly been waxing in power ever since the early days. And nowadays I sense a much more dependent attitude on government that I don't think our forefathers (even the Federalists) had.
|
|
You know the only thing I want to come out of this mess from government, actual legislation that prevents companies from becoming "too big to fail" I know that sounds weird from an anti-legislation guy like me. But I think if given the choice between heavy handed legislation that might have ramifications on big business, and multi-billion and now suspected multi-trillion dollar bailouts, I choose the heavy handed legislation because I can't imagine the ramifications being worse than those of the bailouts we don't have money for.
There is no such thing as "too big to fail". It's political doublespeak for "Where are all of our campaign donations and bribes going to come from if these companies fail". The free market only works if it is free. You make good decisions, you succeed (generally speaking. Stuff happens, though), if you make bad decisions, you fail. A.I.G. couldn't pay the idiots who ran the company in the ground bonuses if the government had just let the market do what the market dictated.
Pumping money into institutions without removing the cancer of incompetent, crooked executives only interested in lining their pockets and not the fiscal health of their company is idiotic, reckless and criminal.
Hey, a$$holes in Washington: IT'S OUR FREAKING MONEY. NOT YOURS. YOU ARE ALL CRIMINALS.
|
|
Yep. Funny you should mention Jefferson. Modern Democrats need to stop referencing him (and Modern Republicans need to stop bringing up Reagan, for that matter), as they have nothing in common with the man. He would probably be a Libertarian by today's standards.
I just read a great book, Six Frigates, talking about Jefferson's reluctance to finance a national navy or army. He preferred sticking to the militia/privateer plan so as not to spend a ton of taxpayer money in peacetime.
He would probably be a Libertarian by today's standards.
But not a Texas "Libertarian," which, as near as I can tell, translates to "Republicans aren't anywhere near Republican enough."
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Contrasting with that are the reports coming from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hate of the U.S. is up in Afghanistan, and the Taliban have seized control of at least one province in Pakistan and are threatening more. Obama intends to stick his neck into that, and the Democrats are blithely following after him. What will happen if that blows up their faces, particularly with Obama thinking he can just get Muslims to like us by talking nice, seemingly oblivious that intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be as offensive to the same groups as intervention in Iraq was?Well at least Obama has hasn't forgotten who actually caused 911, like Bush did. You know, Twin Towers collapsing killing American civilians? Caused by Bin Laden and his Taliban cronies... the event that Iraq played no part in... the war that Bush gave up on and turned over to the UN to lead...
Wow...I have tried more and more to stay out of political discussion on these boards, but I can't let that one go.
This country may never hear the truth, that Jamie Gorelick caused the information gap that facilitated 9/11, and also ran Fannie Mae into the ground ith her zero years of finance experience. But sine we put one of the people directly responsible for 9/11 incharge of the (entirely not-)bipartisan commission to review what went wrong with 9/11, we should still review the report.
The 9/11 commission report clearly indicates a relationship between Hussein and Al Quaeda. Other intelligence suggested a training grounds where Al Quaeda trained for plane hijackings on Iraqi soil. There were financial connections. Saddam Hussein did not specifically finance 9/11 (although who can follow that much money through that many channels over ten years of panning..). But there was a long relationship between the two entities. Moreover, Hussein financed a lot of terrorism, and as an out-of-control tyrant giving the UN, the USA, the AEC and everyone else the finger, he had to be a crucial part of any effort to oppose terrorism. Note that our troops were fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq. Several times, we have hunted captured or killed a high-ranking figure of "Al Quaeda in Iraq".
As for Bush abandoning the effort in Afghanistan, I am not sure what you mean. First, the UN wants control of every military effort worldwide, and I can't think of a worse thing to happen than a group that corrupt calling the shots. Second, Afghanistan has had free elections, Afghan military is involved just like Iraq military, but there's not as much urban fighting in Afghanistan, so we send more troops and more rebuilding forces to Iraqi cities. I'd be delighted to hear, very specifically, how anyone would do anything differently. Bush said repeatedly it's in the hands of the commanding officers who know best, and he asked them repeatedly if they had everything they needed.
What we don't need is yet another naysayer offering a "John Edwards" (meaning weak and offering no details) answer about Afghanistan. "I'd make sure we kept our ear to the ground and focused on capturing Bin Laden" is not a plan that involves the weather mountains, local political climate, embedded spies, or any other detail that the good folks looking for Bin Laden have to account for while we sit here and wonder why something so easy has been so hard.
So...I know there are good people who oppose war, but there are a lot of people who are just as partisan at the outset of their opinions as any congressman. I submit to anyone who forms their opinion of the war based on a dislike for Republicans that we are all in this together, and that evil exists that we didn't create. Finally, I submit that by the year 2009, it's pretty fricking clear that the media at large has an agenda and rewarding conservative thought is not on the menu. While you do some research and look for examples, this year is a good time to learn that just because Chris Matthews says something over and over again does not make it true.
|
|
He would probably be a Libertarian by today's standards.But not a Texas "Libertarian," which, as near as I can tell, translates to "Republicans aren't anywhere near Republican enough."
Only on fiscal matters, though. I was active in the LP here before I went away, and trust me, the Texas LP has no love for the Religious Right.
But, then, people forget that the LP was originally an offshoot of the Republican Party anyway, basically Goldwater Republicans who thought the main party was forgetting their fiscal roots. Nixon was not popular with the Goldwater crowd, so some of them split off.
Plus, Ron Paul is the quintessential "Texas" Libertarian, and there is no WAY anyone's confusing that goofball with a hard right-winger.
Kirth, I've seen both sides of that, though. A lot of people misunderstand the LP and its history. I've seen people to the right of Pinochet and to the left of Stalin claim to be libertarian, and have no idea what the party actually stands for.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
You know, I have heard twenty people talk about AIG's bonuses, and the number of people pointing out that AIG was allowed to pay contractually obligated bonuses with bailout money is frustratingly small.
AIG execs didn't run their business into the ground. Insurance companies absorb risk, and use premiums to invest in the markets to grow money. When the market suffers huge consecutive losses, everything is thrown out of whack. No one can help AIG during that time, except to guide them to minimal losses, and through the rising cost of red tape. The folks that keep them afloat until the smoke clears are paid bonuses by contract. If those people don't get their bonuses, they stop working (bad for AIG, the industry and the economy), or they sue for the money that is owed them (worse).
Take government out of the equation - establish a retail sales tax that doesn't punish success. Don't tax businesses so the US becomes a wordlwide tax haven. That's how you make jobs and create growth. Having the media and inept politicians like Barney Frank (what business has he ever run? NOTHING) downsell the economy while screwing the dollar by raising taxes and printing more money.
IN 200 YEARS, WHEN HAS THAT EVER WORKED?
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Kirth, I've seen both sides of that, though. A lot of people misunderstand the LP and its history. I've seen people to the right of Pinochet and to the left of Stalin claim to be libertarian, and have no idea what the party actually stands for.
I am with you there. When I hear Libertarians talk about entitlements and spending, I want to shake several prominent Republicans and yell "See? THEY get it! Why don't you?"
But then I meet Libertarians who make fun of Christians. I had a talk with one not long ago who railed me (as if he even knew me) for choosing my candidates for how pro-life they were.
(I interject that I am strongly prolife, but have considered prochoice candidates based on a balance of favorable positions,not just one or two)
Then I ask the guy why he won't consider campaigning and voting for fiscally strong Republicans to help get them elected, and sort out the large differences between the parties after we stopped the fiscal bleeding, and he says that he'll never vote for a Republican that doesn't suport drug legalization.
I know Republicans have been all over the map, too, so I don't judge. But it still didn't make any sense.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Oh, didn't you hear? After paying him for sex, giving him a job (Community Organizer? Diversity Coordinator?) and fixing his parking tickets, he broke u...erm..FIRED him after the press got aho..erm...he discovered the prostitution ring.
Hey, if the man's boyfriend was pimping himself and others out of Frank's own home, why do voters expect Frank to help save our economy? Hasn't he shown a blindness to coruption already?
I guess the big question to me, is where is Gorelick now, and what is she about to destroy? If I had to guess, I'd say working in the State Department, hiding campaign contributions.
|
|
You know, I have heard twenty people talk about AIG's bonuses, and the number of people pointing out that AIG was allowed to pay contractually obligated bonuses with bailout money is frustratingly small.
AIG execs didn't run their business into the ground. Insurance companies absorb risk, and use premiums to invest in the markets to grow money. When the market suffers huge consecutive losses, everything is thrown out of whack. No one can help AIG during that time, except to guide them to minimal losses, and through the rising cost of red tape. The folks that keep them afloat until the smoke clears are paid bonuses by contract. If those people don't get their bonuses, they stop working (bad for AIG, the industry and the economy), or they sue for the money that is owed them (worse).
Take government out of the equation - establish a retail sales tax that doesn't punish success. Don't tax businesses so the US becomes a wordlwide tax haven. That's how you make jobs and create growth. Having the media and inept politicians like Barney Frank (what business has he ever run? NOTHING) downsell the economy while screwing the dollar by raising taxes and printing more money.
IN 200 YEARS, WHEN HAS THAT EVER WORKED?
Hurricane Ike didn't help, either. A.I.G. underwrites a lot of insurance in Houston and Galveston (heck, we have an A.I.G. highrise on Allen Parkway), but they DID buy a TON of (now) toxic assets to back their stuff. The execs aren't blameless in this, the best I can say is that they weren't any more irresponsible than other institutions.
My problem with a lot of self-proclaimed "libertarians" is that I har them pushing for things like (a) federal troops being stationed in Texas to shoot any Mexcans who approach the border (= larger government presence, power, and responsibility); and (b) cheering for the Patriot Act (= hugely expanded Federal government powers); and (c) proposing the Fair Tax idea (an excellent initial idea, but one that in implementation would almost inevitably create a runaway black market (tax on cigarettes in NY, anyone?), punish citizens in favor of CEOs ("I didn't buy that yacht; my company did"), and one that mirrors the British taxes on goods that the colonists had to endure a bit too much for my taste).
My understanding is that a proper Libertarian would be:
1. Fiscally conservative;
2. In favor of smaller government; and
3. Laissez-faire on just about everything else.
Until I find one that follows 2 AND 3, I guess I still constitute my own 1-person political party.
|
|
And we have self-proclaimed "libertarians" pushing for federal troops being stationed in Texas to shoot any Mexcans who approach the border (= larger government presence, power, and responsibility), cheering for the Patriot Act (= hugely expanded Federal government powers), and proposing the Fair Tax idea (= large government taxes on goods, inevitably creating a runaway black market (tax on cigarettes in NY, anyone?) and not coincidentally mirroring the British taxes on goods that the colonists had to endure)...
My understanding is that a proper Libertarian would be:
1. Fiscally conservative;
2. In favor of smaller government; and
3. Laissez-faire on just about everything else.Until I find one that follows 2 AND 3, I guess I still constitute my own 1-person political party.
I can't believe you dissed me like that! You know I'm so #1, #2 and #3 it hurts!
Two person party.
:P
|
|
Remember when republicans didn't care what your religous beliefs were but did care about being Fiscally Conservative?
1. Fiscally conservative;
I'm only 38, so, um, no? ;)
Goldwater was the last, Reagan was "Goldwater lite" with better orator chops. Still, Reagan was better than anything since, imo.
The People's Cube? It is 99% political satire.
The last 1% is massive mockery of those who accidentally take it seriously.
My take is that if the satire is 100% uni-directional, then clearly they take themselves seriously enough the last 1% is fairly transparent defensiveness. In other words, if they were honestly in it for the giggles, they'd be willing to poke fun at everyone, including themselves.
|
Remember when republicans didn't care what your religous beliefs were but did care about being Fiscally Conservative?
1. Fiscally conservative;
I'm only 38, so, um, no? ;)
Goldwater was the last, Reagan was "Goldwater lite" with better orator chops. Still, Reagan was better than anything since, imo.
well we are the same age, and yeah I have to concede those points. Makes me think the past with all its problems was a golden age.
Remember when republicans didn't care what your religous beliefs were but did care about being Fiscally Conservative?
I used to be a Republican. They were still a bit too "state-should-obey-the-church" for my taste, but then again so were the Democrats... so it was a clear choice between fiscal conservatism and runaway spending. Now everyone spends like there's no tomorrow (or maybe they think the End Times are upon us, so that the debt will soon become irrelevant?), and a lot of the Democrats are trying so hard to get back their Jesus credibility that they've pretty much lost any other. Meanwhile, the Republicans think that having won the religious vote somehow gives them the right to tell everyone how they're "supposed" to live. They're both nothing but packs of jackals, as near as I can tell.
But I don't think the past was ever that much better. "Nostalgia is dangerous because is traps people into demanding a 'return' to a simplicity and perfection that can never be attained" (I might be misquoting Ellroy there; anyone have a copy of Clandestine handy?)
Well, according to the Mayans, the world is supposed to end at the conclusion of Obama's term.
Yeah, well, lots of people told us that "Y2K" would be the end of the world, too. Or the Hale-Bopp Comet: "Get on the ship! Leave your mortal containers behind!"
|
|
My take is that if the satire is 100% uni-directional, then clearly they take themselves seriously enough the last 1% is fairly transparent defensiveness. In other words, if they were honestly in it for the giggles, they'd be willing to poke fun at everyone, including themselves.
They certainly take their satire seriously, look at some of the comments.
It is however a specific political satire site, not a general one, focusing on those to the left of center, and generally to greater degrees than lesser, as well as certain particularly anti-western types.Is there some requirement to satirize everyone to be legitimate?
Well, according to the Mayans, the world is supposed to end at the conclusion of Obama's term.Yeah, well, lots of people told us that "Y2K" would be the end of the world, too. Or the Hale-Bopp Comet: "Get on the ship! Leave your mortal containers behind!"
Yep. I think when we wake up on December 21, 2012, it'll be just another day.
|
Well at least Obama has hasn't forgotten who actually caused 911, like Bush did. You know, Twin Towers collapsing killing American civilians? Caused by Bin Laden and his Taliban cronies... the event that Iraq played no part in... the war that Bush gave up on and turned over to the UN to lead...
Looking at this a month later, when last week Obama said his plan in Afghanistan was not to fight, but to negotiate with the 'peaceful Taliban'...
|
|
You know the only thing I want to come out of this mess from government, actual legislation that prevents companies from becoming "too big to fail" I know that sounds weird from an anti-legislation guy like me. But I think if given the choice between heavy handed legislation that might have ramifications on big business, and multi-billion and now suspected multi-trillion dollar bailouts, I choose the heavy handed legislation because I can't imagine the ramifications being worse than those of the bailouts we don't have money for.
There is no such thing as "too big to fail". It's political doublespeak for "Where are all of our campaign donations and bribes going to come from if these companies fail". The free market only works if it is free. You make good decisions, you succeed (generally speaking. Stuff happens, though), if you make bad decisions, you fail. A.I.G. couldn't pay the idiots who ran the company in the ground bonuses if the government had just let the market do what the market dictated.
Pumping money into institutions without removing the cancer of incompetent, crooked executives only interested in lining their pockets and not the fiscal health of their company is idiotic, reckless and criminal.
Hey, a$$holes in Washington: IT'S OUR FREAKING MONEY. NOT YOURS. YOU ARE ALL CRIMINALS.
I understand that, but there is a problem with a company that large and with it's fingers in so many pies that it suddenly facing massive downsizing and bankruptcy can harm the economy, I personally believe that occasional periods of harm are actually beneficial in the long run, but the problem is convincing the entire nation of that. I don't believe in too big to fail, but the problem is, I'm not washington. If our government believes a company can get too big to fail, and it's proven that it can then fail. I'd rather they just disallow companies from getting to that size then afterword uses that annoying mantra as an excuse to throw the companies billions.
It's like my problem I have with them saying that it's okay to constantly have inflation, but deflation is a terrible thing for the economy (and yes I understand the ramifications of deflation) and must be avoided at all costs. No, you need to have both. Staving off deflation in a recession only causes it to stretch out because hey when prices go down, people can afford to buy more but if things stay at their inflated rate and people aren't getting new sources of income what are they going to do, they're going to only spend money on necessities. A system that only has inflation without deflation ever is one where more and more people wind up spending there lives in an ever growing middle lower class.
Anywho I'm gonna stop ranting now.
Seriously, I think "Don't Believe the Hype", by Public Enemy, should be standard listening when you get a voter registration card...
Do I get a clock medallion to go with my card? Ooh, SWEET!
|
|
If our government believes a company can get too big to fail, and it's proven that it can then fail. I'd rather they just disallow companies from getting to that size then afterword uses that annoying mantra as an excuse to throw the companies billions.
isn't this part of what the monopoly law(s) were for?