What Happened to the American Theocracy?
by BradfordPresident Obama is basking in his success as commander in chief having presided over a hostage rescue enabled by U.S. Navy seals. Three shots and three dead pirates. One prisoner and a freed capitan. If it had been Obama's predecessor we might be listening to complaints about a lack of consultation with our allies, not allowing the UN to mediate, a cowboy approach or even compromising the position of the "moderate" pirate faction. 
Things are changing now that Bush is gone. Note the advance of the 'critical analysis' policy in parts of the USA. But when the lightening rod departed, with it went the ability to drum up a high degree of threatiness. It's hard to convince others that local school board changes signify the theocracy is at hand. That reminds me. What happened to the great American theocracy?
The American theocracy used to be one of those topics that surfaced in discussions about evolution, creation and intelligent design. But Obama managed to dismantle it before he took office. What a commander in chief! Rambo got nuthin on you Obama.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Bradford,
Unfortunately, Obama is not omnipotent. He cannot make ID any less vacuous than it already is. Discovery's CSC is still a propaganda mill financed by Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and bent on promoting creationism. ID research is still nonexistent.
Some things never change.
Comment by olegt — April 14, 2009 @ 5:45 am
April 14th, 2009 at 6:56 am
olegt wrote:
O ye of little faith.
That's right, you should be shaking in your shoes. A vacuous, thinly manufactured, unresearched quasi-religious bunch of claptrap can easily destroy the strongest, best supported, extensively researched field of science ever devised by mankind.
This much is true.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 14, 2009 @ 6:56 am
April 14th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
American theocracy is still alive & well, just read this and remember to take a good long mental-health break afterwards:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/03/mr_sandefur_wishes_to_exempt_h.html
Comment by hblavatsky — April 14, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
For now we've managed to overwhelmingly vote it out of office and replace it with an apparently intelligent and reasoned leader.
I'm sure it will be back and that the historical revisionists will continue to publish books about how our founding fathers really wanted a theocracy.
You seem to be working on quite the imagined persecution complex. I seem to remember the nation cheering when Bush, with global support, invaded a guilty nation. It was only when he made up false evidence to invade an unrelated nation with no support that people started to make the complaints you mention.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 14, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Unfortunately, if the history of religion tells us anything it's that very often religion does defeat reason. Reason offers no sweet fairy tales to comfort weak minds which means it's often the less attractive option, and sweet lies likely have a much larger marketing budget. The only reason science competes at all with religion is because of the undeniable truth fueling it.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 14, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
hblavatsky wrote:
Yes, it is very evident that Dr. Egnor wants fundamentalist (or whatever the Lakoffian adjective du jour is) Christianity taught in schools because he happens to say that… somewhere in the article… I'm sure it's in there somewhere… still looking… oh well, it's probably in the lines between the lines encrypted in backwards Catonese.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 14, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
….who thinks that Austrian is a language, and that Europe adopted democracy after seeing us do it. Yep, bunch of freakin geniuses.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
It's so undeniable that it's in danger of toppling from the gasps of a supposedly dying ideology.
You guys crack me up with the threatiness thing.
If Darwinism was a building, you guys would be out in front of it, yelling at passers-by about how strong it was and how thick the girders were, how if we don't believe it's the strongest building ever that we don't think any building in town is strong and that we shouldn't be living indoors.
Then, when a slight breeze blows towards it, you scream like little schoolgirls about it being a hurricane and rush to one side of it to hold it up to keep it from collapsing.
You need to make up your minds on whether the structure is the Chrysler Building or a rickety WWII surplus tent.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 14, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Cantonese, not Catonese.
It's got to be Caturday somewhere.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 14, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Todd B, Olegt and others, theocracy has a meaning. In the English language one can detail what that is by resorting to a dictionary. Theocracies are not declared by fiat. They do not acquire credibility through proclamations by left wing loons. The theocracy never existed. This is worse than vacuousness. This is evidence of argument based on fraudulent claims.
Comment by Bradford — April 14, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Yes, it is very evident that Dr. Egnor wants fundamentalist (or whatever the Lakoffian adjective du jour is) Christianity taught in schools because he happens to say that… somewhere in the article… I'm sure it's in there somewhere… still looking… oh well, it's probably in the lines between the lines encrypted in backwards Catonese.
Dr. Egnor thinks that teaching the theory of Evolution (which he quaintly calls Darwinism) in public schools is unconstitutional. He thinks that teaching a theory which forms the basis of modern biology is "teaching atheism on the public dime". The only reason he claims he does not want ID taught in schools is that he believes that there are not enough qualified teachers. He also states plainly that his motivations are religious.
I'd say that on the basis of his own words, Dr. Egnor is a theocrat. Luckily he does not live in a theocracy!
I wonder, where exactly would one study to become qualified in Intelligent Design? Presumably at a bible school?
HB
Comment by hblavatsky — April 14, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Precisely the point. The USA has never been a theocracy anti-Bushism notwithstanding.
Start with some courses in molecular biology or biochemistry and then explain how what you have learned explains the causal trail of life extending back to its origin.
Comment by Bradford — April 14, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Bradford,
I have never suggested that the US is, or at some point was, a theocracy. Neither do I view creationism of any sort as a serious challenge to evolutionary biology. So I guess nothing has changed.
Comment by olegt — April 14, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Hi Chunkdz,
You wrote…
I found the video of Obama saying "Austrian" here.
I couldn't find your Obama reference concerning Europe's democracy.
Personally, I like a president who isn't afraid to hold lots of press conferences for appropriate issues (e.g. the economy) yet wisely avoids creating drama when it would be harmful (e.g. pirates holding hostage).
The downside of holding lots of press conferences with many questions is that an inevitable slip will occur.
If this is the worst you can come up with considering how much Obama talks, I would say he is doing very well in that department.
But to stay on the thread's topic….
Many people consider us a Christian Nation claiming a special status "Under God" because we declare our "Trust in God".
Some hold this view proudly as Americans and wish to "…replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Others holding this view seek to wage a holy war against the corrupt Christian Nation.
Meanwhile, the 1956 decision to ignore the 1st Amendment and officially modify the Pledge of Allegiance is becoming more and more engrained to the point that young people are beginning to think "we have always been a Christian Nation".
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Of course,……………… umm, ………..without the, umm, ……..teleprompter, uhh, he, ummm, would still……ummmm, be……., ummhhh, ……………..considered a…. umm, brilliant…., ummm, …. orator.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Have you ever even read the first amendment, douchebag?
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I have never suggested that the US is, or at some point was, a theocracy. Neither do I view creationism of any sort as a serious challenge to evolutionary biology. So I guess nothing has changed.
Yes, not much has changed.
But can I be permitted to speculate what Bradford really meant by starting this thread? The suggestion seems to be that since the "theocons" seem to be declining in political strength the evolutionists are by implication over-reacting in their criticisms of the ID movement?
My own position is that even though the IDers have yet to establish anything even vaguely like a scientific controversy they have been quite successful at inserting this topic into America's ongoing culture-wars, and thus establishing a political controversy.
There's certainly nothing wrong with constantly reminding ID proponents that ID currently lacks anything resembling a testable hypothesis and right now amounts to nothing substantially more than traditional teleology with modern-sounding words. It also seems fair to continue to criticize ID's proponents for failing to present any evidence to back up their propositions.
Comment by hblavatsky — April 14, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Hi Chuckdz,
Do you think a smiley face will cover up your impoliteness?
Here is a hint, unless all you want to do is preach to Freepers (link) or Freeper-wanna-bes then it helps to provide references.
Do you have a reference for your Obama/European democracy slur?
As for the First Amendment, maybe you need to read it…
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I bolded the part that a lot of people appear to try to ignore. Note, it does not say "a religion", it says "religion" period.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
hblavatsky wrote:
In the words (or word) of the illustrious olegt: Bullshit.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 14, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
angryoldfatman,
You may have to eat your words (or word): hblavatsky has summarized Egnor's latest rant pretty well.
Comment by olegt — April 14, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Hi Thought Prevaricator,
I hope not!
Is there a liberal equivalent to Freeper?
It wasn't a slur. It was actually his handpicked "foreign policy expert" who believed that America invented democracy. Staggering intellect is not really a hallmark of this administration. If you want to argue that it is, that's a debate I'd love to have.
Oh, thanks douchebag. I never noticed that phrase until you bolded it for me!
Yes, and I'm aware that putting "under God" in the pledge did not establish religion in America, therefore it did not violate the establishment clause.
It seems that douchbags like you appear to try to ignore the fact that the same congress that wrote the 1st amendment also started every session of congress in prayer to God. Perhaps they were just a bunch of dumbasses, praying to God just before they constitutionally outlawed prayer to God. Every subsequent congress since then might also be a bunch of dumbasses since prayer to God is still part of the congressional session to this day.
You see, maybe, just maybe, the founders of this nation had a bad taste in their mouths regarding government run religion. And maybe, just maybe, they decided that they wanted to keep the governments nose out of religion, not the other way around.
Or maybe you think they were such dumbasses that they actually prayed to God during a session of congress for guidance in the proper way to keep prayer to God out of the government.
Personally, I think it's more likely that you are the dumbass.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Hi Chunkdz,
You wrote…
Probably. I think the DailyKos is often considered the liberal equivalent of FreeRepublic.
It is clear that you meant it as "A disparaging remark"
You still haven't provided a reference.
The law was "…respecting an establishment of religion…" in America.
Did congress ever pass a law for this?
As I said, quite a few people ignore the first part and only read the amendment as providing freedom OF religion not the freedom FROM religion.
Meanwhile, you can keep hurling insults and posting smiley faces instead of thinking through your arguments.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
"For now we've managed to overwhelmingly vote it out of office and replace it with an apparently intelligent and reasoned leader"
That's about the god damnest thing I've ever read in my life. If you really think that you're an idiot. The anti-American, pro-Soviet style, globalist backers were behind Bush, and they're behind Obama just the same. Just be ready for the jolt in your standard of living.
Mark my words.
[profanity omitted]
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 14, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
kornbelt888,
Soviets? Globalist backers behind both Bush and Obama? How many Ameros does your tin-foil hat cost?
Comment by olegt — April 14, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Google it.
I still don't see religion being established by a law. I see God being acknowledged by a law.
Actually the same congress that wrote the Bill of Rights also appropriated federal dollars for government chaplains. The federal budget is law.
That's freedom from government established religion. Maybe you think the first congress was a bunch of dumbasses who tried to rid the government of religion and then stupidly passed a budget that legislated the funding for missionaries and chaplains.
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
olegt,
you are new aren't you.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 14, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
kornbelt888,
Enlighten me!
Comment by olegt — April 14, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
April 14th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Hi Chuckdz,
Nah, I would rather just assume you are misstating or exaggerating a claim you won't even bother to support.
lol
Please reread what you wrote. If you can't see the irony in this, then you are probably a lost cause.
It is my understanding that only 14 out of 88 members of congress attended any part of the Constitutional Convention. The first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, opposed the practice as being unconstitutional.
Humans have the remarkable ability to rationalize and/or find excuses to do just about anything they want. In this case the excuses were it was an established tradition predating the constitution and that the budget allocation was merely a token amount (less than what the lowest paid assistant clerk was paid). Besides, what's the harm? Surely, no one would try to use this as a precedent? Right?
James Madison had an opinion on this…
"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
…
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles" link
The tyranny of the majority is quite capable of ignoring the constitution through rationalization and excuses.
Adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1956 was unconstitutional and this violation should be rectified before it becomes another precedent used to further erode our freedom FROM religion.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 14, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Hi, guys. Been busy of late, just dropped by to see what's new. Love what you've done with the place! The whole neo-evo-retro thing is totally fabulous, in a stylishly FoxBot sort of way.
What happened to the American Theocracy? Still as Forrest Gump dumb as it ever was, still being led around on nose rings by corporate lobbyists, media hatemongers and people who really are rich. Still more than willing to beg, "how high?" when told by their betters to jump.
Yep, the peasants are revolting. Best get them to aim their pitchforks at anyone but Wall Street gamblers, greedhead bankers, or the IMF, which began its 'audit' of U.S. economic books on September 30 of '08 (which also just happens to be the very day the then-President desperately insisted $750 billion had to be in the hands of the guilty parties).
Save The Rich, everything else is mere distraction.
P.S. If you're planning to attend a teabagging, remember to breathe through your nose. It'll help keep you from gagging, I heard.
Comment by Joy — April 15, 2009 @ 1:09 am
April 15th, 2009 at 8:51 am
olegt wrote:
Misrepresenting and lying does not equal summarizing. Stick to staring at oscilloscopes, doc.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 15, 2009 @ 8:51 am
April 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am
O, I hear the notes of Shut up and sing.
And I don't do oscilloscopes, angryoldfatman. Try again.
Comment by olegt — April 15, 2009 @ 9:03 am
April 15th, 2009 at 9:51 am
olegt wrote:
Wrong song, Doc.
My bad. I thought all of your talk about oscillators would mean that you used oscilloscopes at some point.
Perhaps you can stare at Egnor's article instead and at least "quote mine" something instead of relying on a hack's assertion. Try being at least as industrious as half of the YECs.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 15, 2009 @ 9:51 am
April 15th, 2009 at 9:53 am
AOFM, I included a link to Egnor's rant on the assumption that you have a mouse and are able to click. Let me know if you still need me to post the relevant quotes.
Comment by olegt — April 15, 2009 @ 9:53 am
April 15th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
olegt,
You can start with this and this.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 15, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
kornbelt888,
Carroll's book is available for free here. Here is how the story ends:
The book (written in 1949 and published in 1981) doesn't convey a sense of a conspiracy active today. Why don't you skip to the chase and quote Phyllis Schlafly directly?
Comment by olegt — April 15, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
When you read those two volumes and get a good grasp of the information, then we can discuss what organizations today relate to it.
I'll take this as my cue that you are not seriously interested in the subject. Good luck to you.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 15, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
kornbelt888,
You are asking me to read 1700 pages of text and are not going to tell me why? You're not being serious yourself.
Comment by olegt — April 15, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
You might want to check the thermite thread for tips on how to interpret conspiracies, but to help you out, here's a brief run-down on what's going on in this case: You see, the Bible clearly identifies Jesus as "the Truth", and thus any attempt to promote the truth is equivalent to staging a military coup to overthrow the government and install God in the Oval Office. Now it should be obvious that this represents a serious threat to freedom(TM) — why, with an Omniscient Entity running the state, the implications for privacy issues alone are too frightful to contemplate!
Thus it can be seen that those trying to propagate limited transmission of the facts are the true patriots here, fighting the good fight for Partial-truth, justice, and the American way!!!
Comment by DL — April 15, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
TelicThoughts was once the bastion of left-wing ID.
Joy was part of the Daily Kos weblog. Bilbo said he was on the left on many issues.
Just to set the record straight, I'm a right winger. I attended a Tea Party today. I just wanted the left-leaning ID proponents to know that not all TTers are conservatives.
It's good that ID not be completely associated with the religious right and big business.
I don't think government should be involved in evangelism for Christ, that's he church's role, not the government. I don't want NEA teachers, the Federal Government, the state government teaching he Bible or Christian doctrine to kids. That's a recipie for disaster. Teaching the Bible is the church's role, not the Government's.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 15, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
olegt wrote:
I clicked it and read it when hblavatsky put it up before you did, I clicked it and read it when I visited ENV the day Egnor's article was posted, and I clicked and read the rest of Egnor's articles on ENV following that one, and I clicked and read Egnor's articles on ENV before that one.
Egnor is an interesting writer and I follow his work on ENV.
I've already asked you to do so, and you have shown that your work ethic is typical of government employees.
I'd prefer that you continue repeating baseless secondhand assertions without so much as an out-of-context quote to support them so that I can find new ways to insult you.
In the meantime, so you (and hblavatsky, provided you both are not the same person) don't forget, I'll provide the following guide for how you're supposed to reach your conclusions on the subject.
1. Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism/MET/Collisionology is all of science.
2. Religion (that is, Christianity), with its propagation of ignorance, stupidity, insanity, and/or wickedness (h/t Dick-to-the-Dawk) is the only reason why people reject D/ND/MET/M-O-U-S-E.
3. Given #1 and #2, all people who reject D/ND/MET/B-I-N-G-O are ignorant, stupid, insane, evil religious nuts who are anti-science.
4. Anybody who uses any form of the word "Darwinism" to name MET should be corrected on the spot, because Darwin got some things wrong.
5. Subtly deny that Darwin got anything wrong.
6. The correct name for MET/Darwinism/bumptogetherism is different every time somebody asks, and should be as unwieldy as possible.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 15, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Oh, and hats off to DL for making me chuckle.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 15, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Spoken like a good culture warrior.
Well, douchebag, you may want to look at other laws which acknowledge God without establishing religion. Take for instance the laws regarding oaths of office which mandate the use of "so help me God". Of course, the laws don't require that you say "so help me God" anymore than citizens are required by law to recite the pledge of allegience. You can just shut your trap without fear of the government coming to arrest you. All thanks to the Bill of Rights. God bless America.
It's my understanding that the Bill of Rights was ratified by every state in the Union.
And it was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court as late as 1983. You act as if dissent doesn't occur in a democracy.
You make this painfully obvious.
The same James Madison who served on the joint government committee to nominate government funded chaplains in 1789? Yes, it appears he later had a change of heart but it was a little late by that time as states were already in the process of ratifying the document, and Madison's opinion was apparently that of minority dissent.
It is interesting that you quote Madison's document. Notice that Madison's objections all refer to the "short history" of free religion in America after the Bill of Rights was written. Nowhere does he cite any Pre-revolutionary historical grievance regarding the dangerous encroachment of religion upon government. Why is this notable?
Because the constitution, Thought Prevaricator, is largely a reaction to the opressive rule of a despotic government. There is ample precedent to justify wanting to keep government's nose out of religion. There is little, however, to justify the notion that religion posed some kind of threat to their precious newly formed government. (I suppose we could go all the way back to Henry VIII for a gross example of religion encroaching upon government but Henry pretty much told the Pope to kiss off, and the founding fathers didn't really care much for tyrannical Kings anyway.)
The constitution's overarching theme is basically that people should be free, free, free, and government should be limited, limited, limited.
So let's do as you suggested and think this through.
You expect us to believe that the founders arbitrarily came up with the notion that religion was a threat to the government who's powers they were busily trying to limit.
You expect us to believe that they prayed for wisdom before they eliminated prayer from government.
You expect us to believe that they were so stupid that they forgot what they had just voted on then went on to write laws which funded chaplains and missionaries.
You expect us to believe that after they had succesfully rid government of the dangers of religion, they celebrated by asking the President to proclaim a National day of prayer and thanksgiving to the Almighty God.
I suppose it is possible that the founding fathers really were a bunch of disingenuous morons.
But isn't it more likely that you are just another douchebag revisionist liberal?
I should add, Thought Prevaricator, that you are a worthy debate opponent…
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I just realized, Alan Keys is a much better example of a genuine American theocrat.
Believe it or not, Mr. Keys once served as a diplomat during the Reagan administration. While that administration was not particularly religious it did understand that power can be secured by building a base: In this case Reagan's base did include a theocratic element of which Keys was but one example.
Comment by hblavatsky — April 15, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Quoting from Joy's link:
Americans are smart enough to know that protests are most important during times of crisis, particularly mismanaged ones. Of course anyone who disputes the notion that the government is a savior must be a peasant- pass the grey poupon please. I mean after all what is wrong with people who think we ought to protest governmental policies which reward ill-managed business practices with massive bailouts courtesy of the taxpayers. Who would find that odious but a peasant? We know that those in Washington are taking care of us right? And they are so scary smart in thinking anyone opposed to their policy must be a peasant. Oh but a disillusioned sense of how important and smart they are is what sustains radical leftists.
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I've got nothing to add to the political side of this little dustup, but I would like to say – man, haven't seen Triumph the Insult-Comic Dog in a while. Thanks for that.
Comment by nullasalus — April 15, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Sal:
Yeah. The Good Old Days. I remember!
I am still an active member of the DKos community, involved in other things here and there too.
I believe he still is too. At least, I know that this…
and this…
and this…
and this…
…are certainly not expressions of his views/actions [Teabagging in San Francisco today].
It has been made abundantly clear that our presence here is unwelcome, Sal. Bilbo's hanging in on an issue for which there is quite a bit of evidence and/or open questions nobody wants to answer, and it really is sort of humorous from where I sit that y'all can't see how it relates. But it's a dead end, as usual when dealing with ideologues. Seems it works both ways.
I for one actually do have better – and, from what I've seen recently, more interesting – things to do with my life and time.
Well, you're going to need to play a bit of catch-up then, because that's precisely where you are right now.
Cheers!
Comment by Joy — April 15, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Bradford:
And I think it's just a wonderful thing that all these angry teabaggers (have they never bothered to check the Urban Dictionary? Sheesh!!!) don't even have to be herded into barbed wire cages the government euphemistically called "Free Speech Zones" in order to have their say.
Since I remember barely having time to pull my grandkids out of the way when the local pigs started swinging their clubs for no apparent reason during a smallish, perfectly peaceful protest of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq (BEFORE it occurred, while the Congress was still debating), I am happy for the change. I was also openly called a "traitor" for being there by all the so-"leftist" mainstream media as well as every FoxBot teabagger who showed up anywhere today to make their own statements. For which I would never call them "traitor," though some of them probably do qualify as seditious.
This looks a lot like some Change We Need in the less than three months Obama has occupied the White House. Very nice.
Enjoy your term as Grand Poobah, Bradford. Looks like you're having lots of fun with it already.
Comment by Joy — April 15, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Just to pipe up again…
Joy, I'd probably be classified as rather right-wing (though really, I don't get along with much of anyone.) But I certainly 'welcome you' here. And I've long been critical of bringing up extraneous political stuff up both on here and at UD. I see no reason to associate ID with any causes, left or right. But then, I'm just one guy. It helps that I have a low regard for almost all things political.
Ah well.
Comment by nullasalus — April 15, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
What the hell is left-wing ID?
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
April 15th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Hi Joy. Please take me with you. I'll bring the rhubarb pie.
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Joy:
I do think it is wonderful that we do not live in a culture that tolerates Gulags which is one of the reasons I find Tea Party hostility hard to fathom. Greg of Red Eye revealed that tea bagging is a description of a form of oral sex performed within the gay community. Critics of those lacking blind faith in government think they are being oh so sheek in employing the term as a put down of Tea Party protestors. But why would self-proclaimed defenders of gay rights think the term is a put down? I actually thought tea bags had something to do with tea and American history.
BTW, has that infamous coverage by a CNN reporter been recorded on Youtube? Does anyone know? For the uninitiated a "reporter" at one of the Tea Party locations interviewed a protestor as part of her news story for CNN. She asked him a question and as he stood holding a baby and talking she interrupted him and started to debate him. After a hostile exchange she then launches into a commentary attacking "right-wingers" and just generally flinging the usual talking points into what was supposed to be news coverage. Having been on the receiving end of fair and balanced barbs I was wondering when it became professional for reporters to debate those they interview in the field. Do reporters now think they are the story?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 10:50 am
April 16th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Joy:
Not by me. For what it is worth I prefer that people discuss issues in a civil and honest way and welcome the participation of all who are willing to do so. That includes Bilbo and Joy.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 10:58 am
April 16th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Here is a youtube link:
It's On! Showdown Between CNN Reporter & Chicago Tea Party Guests.
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 10:59 am
April 16th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Thanks Olegt. The reporter argues with the man holding the baby asking him if he is aware that Illinois received 50 billion dollars in the stimulus package. Her point is what- that the federal government giving 50 billion to a state should comfort those concerned with irresponsible tax and spending policies? But again, why is she debating the protestors? What happened to professionalism in journalism?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 11:11 am
April 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Bradford,
Watch the video again. Susan Roesgen was not debating the protesters. She was asking questions. That's what journalists do.
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 11:19 am
April 16th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Olegt:
Asking questions is an effective debating tool. Only a leftist ideologue could think there is a point to asking someone, who thinks there is too much irresponsible government spending, if he is aware that 50 billlion has been paid by Peter to Paul. The federal government passes the money to the states. Anyone listening to the protestors knows this is not the type of thing they like. So the purpose of the question is not to elicit new information, as would be expected of a field reporter, but rather to insert her own view of government into the mix. BTW, where is the evidence supporting her contention that Fox is behind the Tea Perties? Was that assertion a question too?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 11:29 am
April 16th, 2009 at 11:34 am
It's not restricted to the gay community. All sorts of people tea bag. Even {gasp} married people.
Commercial tea bags were introduced in 1904. The flo-thru tea bag was patented in 1952. A proud American tradition.
It's an obvious joke, like when Bart Simpson calls Moe and asks for Ivanna Tinkle or Amanda Huggenkiss. Most commentators can't say anything, but can't help but snicker when people use the term "tea bagging". Conservatives Rally Around "Teabagging".
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2009 @ 11:34 am
April 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I probably associate with conservatives more often than you and can tell you the most common phrase used in discussions among conservatives was tea party, not tea bagging. But I make no apologies for not having known the sexual connotation attached to that phrase. Nor do I think it a sign of peasantry that tea bagging might be used by those thinking (reasonably) that they were alluding to an incident in American history.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 11:40 am
April 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Why should you? It's just a silly joke. You're Moe saying there's a call for Ivan Nuglibutt.
Hopefully, they don't actually think that they dumped tea bags into Boston Harbor
I heard they had legal problems when they tried to teabag the Potomac River. Then they tried to teabag in Lafayette Square, but were turned away. Finally, when they teabagged the White House, the event was shut down.
Meanwhile, a truck full of tea bags wandered aimlessly about the city.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2009 @ 11:56 am
April 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Bradford wrote:
I am hardly a leftist ideologue and I think it was a good question. And I don't think it is irresponsible to use tax money for stimulating the economy at a time of a deep recession. It would be irresponsible to let the economy stall.
That was not a question, it was a summary of her report at the end of the footage for the viewers. And the Fox News Channel did heavily promote the tea parties, so I don't see anything wrong with that statement.
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 11:57 am
April 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
"Tea bagging". Yes, very droll. Say it again because it's so funny. Grade 2 was a great time, wasn't it?
Thanks for the yucks, Joy – good to see you back.
And for the MSNBC skit, Zach. That parody was so good you'd almost have thought it was shot at a real news studio.
Comment by Pez — April 16, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Olegt:
Which of course begs the question of how transferring money from the federal to state treasuries jump starts the economy. The revelations are in the details of the spending. There is no evidence that state spending promotes prosperity. But the real difficulty from your POV is that specific government funding projects do not create jobs or prosperity because the expenses are not wealth creators or the spending will not take effect until well into the future when economic conditions will have hopefully changed.
BTW, where is the evidence supporting her contention that Fox is behind the Tea Perties? Was that assertion a question too?
It was an unsubstantiated series of emotional rants. An opportunity to insert editorial into a news story. Very unprofessional.
It covered the protests but unless there is hard evidence of funding or organizational input of the protests themselves by Fox (as opposed to Fox's coverage of them which Fox would be expected to promote- Fox is in business after all and lives by the number of viewers it attracts) the reporter's allegations of Fox promoting the protests are baseless. Does CNN ever promote its news coverage?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Bradford wrote:
So when a state government hires a contractor to build a road or to overhaul a bridge, no jobs are created? Could you explain that to me?
Here is a transcript of that part of Roesgren's report:
Let's see how your assessment holds. Anti-government: check. Anti-CNN: check. Highly promoted by the Right-wing conservative network, Fox: check (see below). Not really family viewing: check (if I were an American, I would not let a small child see my compatriots compare my president to Hitler).
Fox heavily promoted the tea parties in advance. Here's Glenn Beck asking his viewers to come to "FNC Tax Day tea parties" and "celebrate with Fox News."
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
This from Yahoo news for the benefit of those asserting that government spending translates into increased prosperity.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, you're fighting a straw man. The stimulus is not meant to increase prosperity. It's a desperate measure meant to prevent the economy from slipping into a full-blown depression. I should, perhaps, point out that the use of federal money for this purpose is not Obama's invention: Bush's economic team started working on it.
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Olegt:
First, a tiny percentage of the spending fits this type of scenario. Second, this is what I was referring to when alluding to money that does not actually affect anything until well into the future. Those bridge contracts are not yet bridges and payments are often years down the road. Nothing wrong with bridges but the stimulus economic claim is a separate issue.
There's the real problem. Anti-CNN? How dare they.
Fox promoted its coverage of a protest event. If the protest were about gay rights or racism this would be a non-issue.
Beck is a commentator like Olbermann- know what I mean?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Bradford wrote:
It would be more convincing if you presented the actual percentage and we could see how tiny it is. I am familiar with how the stimulus is going to be spent by the federal agencies such as the NSF. All the money must be spent by September 2010. So it is short-term.
Weak defense. It wasn't just Beck. Here's a summary of who promoted the parties at Media Matters. Watch the video of Fox & Friends.
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
From wikipedia:
If there is a cable news outlet to blame I'd say it is primarily CNBC for airing Rick Santelli's angry comments. That seems to have really fanned the flames.
But I suppose it is more fun to imagine that Rupert Murdoch planned it all.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled emotional fix.
Comment by chunkdz — April 16, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Olegt:
Let's be honest about what is going on. I watched the clip. Fox has a conservative slant. CNN, MSNBC and the mainstream media have a leftist slant. That is not awcknowledged. That's the dishonest part. The news is slanted- mostly to the left.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Bradford,
I am not sure what you are trying to say in your latest comment. Should Roesgren's report have ended with a disclaimer "And we remind our viewers that CNN is a left-wing network?"
Once you're done regurgitating stale Free Republic memes, tell us whether you still stick with your assessment of Roesgren's report,
Comment by olegt — April 16, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Olegt:
The way it should have gone down is with the reporter allowing those interviewed to give uninterrupted responses not tainted by the Roesgren's personal views which are irrelevant to the story covered. Unlike Beck she is not a commentator. A better analogy is to Fox's White House correspondent Wendel Goler. I've never seen Goler make his own views a centerpiece of the stories he covers.
Are you denying that MSNBC and NBC for starters are leftist in their coverage? What kind of memes are you regurgitating?
I stand by my statement:
It was an unsubstantiated series of emotional rants. An opportunity to insert editorial into a news story. Very unprofessional.
If the reporter has evidence that right wing organizations organized the tea parties then she should produce the evidence. I can tell you from first hand experience that the protests were organized principally through the internet. I was encouraged to participate in messages e-mailed to me and others were as well. What leftists are having trouble coming to grips with is the idea that many ordinary people are fed up with the power grab going on in Washington D.C. Unlike many of you we do not need the government to provide meaning to our lives. We certainly do not desire a loss of personal freedom at the expense of increasing power in the hands of politicians.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
April 16th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
CNN's White House correspondent is Ed Henry.
Maybe Fox Reporter Griff Jenkins would be a "better analogy".
Here is an example of his work.
And here is a New York Times article summarizing Fox News' version of 60 Minutes. It includes the following…
"Ten of the last 12 people confronted by Mr. O’Reilly’s crews were either outwardly liberal or had criticized Republicans. Fox staffers insist, however, that Mr. O’Reilly is not partisan…"
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 16, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Joy's photos showed quotes by Ayn Rand.
I have several Atheist friends and the atheism shouldn't necessarily be associated with left-wing fiscal policies.
Ayn Rand (generally an atheist as far as I know) said:
What is the equivalent of Obama's stimulus? Let's have us all today go run up charges on our credit cards to "stimulate the economy".
How much money is that 1 Trillion "stimulus" and other initiatives?
That would be in the ball park of $10,000 to $20,000 per family (depending on how we count families). Do we think this will do any meaningful lasting good? Is there reason to think Washington is any wiser at using tax dollars than individuals?
This is like saying, let's go bail out GM, let's have Americans forcefully induced to buy lousy cars built with union labor to save GM. But that's what this administration and Bush's liberal leaning Republican tax and spend administration were doing. Now Obama is going even farther.
Federally subsidized wages is generally a bad idea. In Cuba 93% of the workers are employees of the state earni an average of $17 a month (or some ridiculously low number). We have scientific evidence socialism doesn't work. How many failed examples do we need to be convinced of what is unwise fiscal policy?
So oddly enough, I find myself allied with the Ayn Rander atheists on fiscal policy.
The problem with the Obama administration is that the fundamental problems were not being addressed, namely the problem of toxic assets and appropriate regulatory oversight over usage of leverage, derivative contracts, and systemic problems. Instead, we have tax and spend on social programs and the the punishment of tech industries tied to health care, aerosapce, and defense.
"Stimulus" is just about as meaningful as asking every American household to go out on a spending spree to save the economy. And Americans will pay, $10,000 to $20,000 per family isn't anything to sneeze at.
The solution to financial problems is supporting small business, free enterprise, innovation, and entrepreneurship, not more social programs. America has had tech leadership because of filthy rich billionaires like Bill Gates and innovative physicists turned Silicon Valley executives, not because we feed unwed welfare mothers (like Octumom) and provide for their health care. Those are the hard cruel facts. The human condition has been improved by the likes of Bill Gates, whether we like it or not.
TARP is driving brilliant minds out of corporate America. Companies must fire talented foreign workers arbitrarily. Companies hire foreign workers because American companies should recruit the top talent the world has to offer, and sometimes that comes from overseas. Just look at our grad schools to see where the brains come from, they come from all over the world, not just the USA. Now TARP is driving talent out. Talented employees of financial firms are bailing because of the attack on bonuses. Now your banking will slowly go overseas. Isn't that reassuring?
Ayn Rand is very wise on matters of fiscal policy.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 17, 2009 @ 12:36 am
April 17th, 2009 at 8:22 am
You must be kidding. Ayn Rand's philosophy informed the very people who led the world into the financial crisis.
It's not the same at all. People are afraid to spend. It takes coordinated action. Nor would consumer spending fix the immediate problem of liquidity in the capital markets.
The banking system was in free fall. It required immediate infusions of cash to keep the system from collapsing. The failed banks in the U.S. could have been nationalized, but the government wanted to leave as much control with the private sector as possible, and nationalization is not politically palatable in the United States.
Don't worry. Within the next several months significant regulatory oversight will be proposed, and enacted—assuming it can get past Republican obstruction in the U.S. Senate. And what does regulatory oversight have to do with Ayn Rand?
Comment by Zachriel — April 17, 2009 @ 8:22 am
April 17th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Sal, you don't get it either. Half a trillion to keep the states going is pittance to 12.5 trillion and counting to bail out the primary movers and shakers on the Wall Street end. As Galbraith mentioned once, "no nation in debt to itself is in any danger of collapse." The stimulus is debt to ourselves – flush from the Fed per its allotted powers. The states are being kept going (for as long as that's possible) because if that doesn't happen everything blows apart – all that we have or ever hoped to have. We take the world with us.
The problem is that the ponzi scheme created a bubble of false valuation that never had a dime behind it, and they sold it to someone else. Now demand payment in full has been called and there's no money in the bank(s) to pay it with. In fact, money itself has lost its ability to command faith in valuation. The Wizard's curtain is drawn open and the little man has been revealed.
The Randroid greedheads always knew they were going to stick us with the bills, they'd just planned on doing it by installments over a term of decades. Then the IMF came off some recent audits with serious questions about the stability of the construct, and exerted their power under the terms of the globalization plan we'd signed on to more than half a century ago. Bretton Woods, I'm sure you must have encountered that sometime during your extensive education.
The nation's books had to be on the table for IMF audit by the close of the fiscal year. That's the Fed, the major Wall Street houses, AIG, the entire gang of thieves we now know better than we ever cared to know. September 20, 2008. There were no actual assets/valuation on tap to cover anything outstanding on the bubble, much less the real debt they'd run up just for fun. Only a crazy ponzi scheme "everybody knew" was out of hand. They'd learned back in the '80s by tanking the S&Ls that stealing the people's life savings was easy as pie, no personal ramifications, just take the money and run. This time they got caught with their pants down and their teabags hanging out. And there will still be no personal ramifications for the engineers. We the People get to enjoy those.
The IMF now calls the shots and holds the chits. They've done to the US the same thing they've done to so many smaller debtor nations when the bills came due – ordered "austerity measures." That means we'll go to 25% unemployment at least, major and minor businesses will disappear across the landscape, a significant chunk of Americans will lose their homes and property regardless of whether they're current on the mortgage, we ain't seen nuttin' yet.
Everything is forfeit. It's a real crisis, 'we' are no longer in charge and will not regain charge any time soon. We are being liquidated, sold at auction. You don't really think Obama, coming into this mess just 3 months ago with more than $5 trillion we didn't have (on top of the real debt) already sunk, had any independent choices for his "economic team," do you? Tim Geithner is the US's IMF Governor. Ben Bernanke's the alternate. They represent ~17% of the organization's total votes. Check out what Joseph Stiglitz (former Senior VP of the World Bank) has been trying to tell us about all this. It's… enlightening. William Greider's got a new book coming too.
If you guys weren't so busy ranting and raving at tossed scarecrows and fuzzy distractions in mirrors, you'd possibly be able to see that politics is the least of our real problems currently. We are all going down with the American Titanic, wallowing in hate is just what they want you to do. Better to have the peasants chasing each other around with torches and pitchforks than coming after the real Lords of Power as they sneak away in their cushy lifeboat. And you guys are falling right into their trap.
I felt sorry for the teabaggers. They're angry, they're scared, the sane ones do know it's not about Obama, but they sure as hell don't know what's truly happening. There's lots of talk, but none of it means much and all of it portends serious violence. I figure many of them went home from their meet-ups and cried out of helplessness and frustration. They aren't familiar with the hopelessness of The Show. Didn't know that speaking or assembling or marching in public means precisely zip to the Way Things Are.
That's just how we felt when 30 million of us threw a protest against war in Iraq and nobody noticed. You could catch a clue by simply looking without hatred or rancor at what we decided to do instead. Then maybe recognize that for all we did manage to accomplish by working so hard and giving so much, we are still right here on the deck with you while the band plays "Nearer My God to Thee." We like it no better than you do, maybe even less because we DID win.
Yet here you guys all are foaming at the mouth and babbling incoherently in terror of shadows and ghosts, turning in feral ferocity on your equally helpless family members, friends, neighbors and countrymen as if that can cure what ails you. Divide and conquer, brought to you courtesy of the Koch family, the RNC and Fox News. The oldest trick in the book.
I am not surprised you're a Randroid. That side of you has been evident for awhile. Maybe y'all can go full secessionist next. There would be nothing Obama could really do if any state wants out. It wouldn't matter a bit – we're all still going down with the Titanic.
What we need to do is buck up and grow a spine. Stop being WATBs, stop tilting at windmills, try to understand reality, and deal as best we can. Shooting at shadows is only going to get somebody killed. It's not going to patch the hole that damned iceberg dug in the hull.
You [figurative, to this crazy 'movement' you've embraced] call yourselves Christians, but grouse bitterly against the very idea of reaching out to your fellow man and doing that which your Lord demands of you. You think you're grand 'Patriots' while you speak sedition and talk of secession and stockpile weapons to use against your neighbors in need. YOU espouse those Randian slogans and don't even see what a hypocrite they make of you! Or maybe you just don't care, since your professed faith was shallow all along.
There's nothing like a real crisis to separate the sheep from the goats. There is evil, hypocrisy and grotesque ugliness here. I want no part of it. Get Thee Behind Me, Satan.
Comment by Joy — April 17, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Joy, it was actually your teammate Thought Prevaricator who insulted you and your fellow Daily Kosians, calling you the left wing equivalent of "Freepers".
I think it's probably narrow sighted to think that vitriol and demagoguery only manifest on one side of the political spectrum. There's no shortage of it on both ends of the rainbow and everywhere inbetween.
Now, about that rhubarb pie…do you like it with strawberries? I sometimes add a little qumquat rind.
Comment by chunkdz — April 17, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
heh heh Love-Joy said teabaggers again heh heh
snort That's funny
Comment by Pez — April 17, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Bradford wrote:
The evidence is available for all to see. The main organizers of the parties were FreedomWorks, dontGO, and Americans for Prosperity. The latter group even has a list of talking points on its web site (PDF file). Here is AFP's board of directors. Feel free to have a look and tell us which way that organization leans.
I can't speak for everyone, but I, like you, "do not need the government to provide meaning" to my life. In my view, governments exist to provide some services. Shocking, I know.
Comment by olegt — April 17, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Hi Bradford,
To Joy's statement "It has been made abundantly clear that our presence here is unwelcome…"
You responded with…
This is your thread to monitor. As in most, if not all threads, I have been discussing the thread's "issues in a civil and honest way".
Yet I have been repeatedly called…
a douchebag
a liar (aka "Prevaricator")
a dumbass
and, lastly, worthy of being pooped on.
Things like this tend to make it "abundantly clear that our presence here is unwelcome." Especially when nothing is said or done about it.
Personally, things like this don't tend to bother me because it is clearly immature and I have a thick skin. After all, I have been known to post on After the Bar Closes. But, even there, these kinds of personal attacks between AtBC commenters would get kicked to the Bathroom Wall thread.
While I would normally continue to ignore these comments, I have now been accused of insulting Joy. And, since it would do me no good to address this with the perpetrator directly, I am appealing to you because of your sense of fair play and your declaration that opposing opinions are actually welcome (instead of just tolerated) at Telic Thoughts.
I eagerly await your response.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 17, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Hi TP,
I was personally offended by the douchebag comment as well and was hoping it had some significance in terms of past history with you that you and chunkdz were privy to.
What is it you want Bradford to do about it?
What do you want him to do with Joy's comments?
ps.
By the way. What then was your point in reference to "Freepers" and providing a a definition?
And what is your point when you constantly imply that people are not thinking for themselves, are following the herd, are "shield-bashing", are victims of group think, are nothing but culture warriors, etc?
Are you not being insulting and unwelcoming?
Comment by Pez — April 17, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I'm sorry TP. Truce?
Comment by chunkdz — April 17, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I guess chunkdz line was a freedom of expression joke?
Comment by Pez — April 17, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Hi Chunkdz,
Apology accepted.
For my part, I will try to be a little less provocative in our exchanges.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 17, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Hi Pez,
To my comment concerning ChuckDZ you asked…
Nothing now that it appears it may have resolved itself.
At the time, I expected Bradford would say something similar to what you did.
I don't understand the question. I suspect this has been overtaken by events.
Commenters on the Free Republic blog call themselves Freepers (link).
I frequent the site often (but banned from commenting). I use it to understand the background of attacks on Democrats and/or Obama.
This is where I found out about ChuckDZ's reference to Obama saying "Austrian". This allowed me to quickly find the video and see it in context.
While I suspect ChuckDZ didn't need the term "Freeper" defined, I provided a link to the Free Republic web site for those who didn't know about it.
I take exception to the suggestion I imply people "…are nothing but culture warriors". I offer that we are all culture warriors to varying degrees, but we are also more than that.
OTOH, I have trouble feeling a need to apologize for promoting independent thinking. My calls for people to think for themselves shouldn't be insulting to those who are thinking for themselves. For example, I get an occasional person who admonishes me to do my own independent thinking. My quick response is that I already am.
There is a fine line between provoking thought and being insulting. I clearly try to motivate others to defend their positions. It is the emotional response that motivates me and others to make the effort to post thoughtful and reasoned comments.
I think Telic Thoughts is one of the best blogs in existence. It strikes a very good balance between the heavy-handed moderation of Uncommon Descent and the InsultFest of After the Bar Closes.
Where else is the taboo subjects of religion and politics discussed with minimal namecalling?
I would like to think I am one of the many people who keeps TT interesting. Sure, it is often frustrating for all sides, but just as good stories require conflict so do successful blogs.
At least that is my independent thinking opinion on it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 17, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Lol! But I doubt that they use the "definition" that you linked to:
The hilarious irony is that TP, the self-proclaimed independent thinker, says on the one hand that the Daily Kos is the left wing equivalent of Free Republic.
So where does TP go when he needs a label for those right wingers who read Free Republic?
Why, The Daily Kos website, of course!
TP, you are a priceless gem! The poster child for blind ideology!
No argument here!
Comment by chunkdz — April 17, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
There may have been a time when America borrowed almost entirely from Americans but this is no longer the case. We are heavily dependent as a nation on foreign sources of capital. The Chinese are a major source and their consequent leverage with us is much too great for my comfort zone.
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Olegt:
Yes. Police, firefighters, sanitation, water supplies, national defense and more. The tea parties are not objecting to essential services. You do not suffer from the misapprehension that trillions in expenditures are essential do you?
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Olegt:
I do not see Fox as an organizer or any evidence of it although they certainly promoted their coverage. There is much disgust among ordinary Americans with both parties. The time might be right for a third party. Difficult but not impossible if the economy continues to go south.
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Zachriel:
Leaving as much control as possible with the private sector is not evidenced by making it difficult for banks to repay loans they were pressured to accept in the first place. And since when does an administration get into influencing who becomes CEO of a major US company? Sounds like expanded control over the private sector. Control follows money.
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
One of us is confused TP. I indicated that Goler was Fox's White House correspondent, not CNN's. BTW, you're right about the insults. It was over the top.
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Hi ChuckDZ,
Here is the full definition shown in the link…
That being said, I am embarrassed
that I didn't remember I had linked to DailyKos' definition. I thought I had linked to Free Republic itself.
Thank you for pointing it out to me.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 17, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
As sometimes happens, I was being too subtle.
Roesgren isn't a senior CNN reporter and definately not a a White House correspondent yet you thought it was a good analogy to compare her to one of the most senior reporters Fox has.
I suggested a more appropriate analogy would be to compare apples to apples. That is why I linked to Fox reporter Griff Jenkins using his reporter's microphone to further his agenda.
Thank you for voicing that.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 17, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
?!? You mean you thought that Free Republic refers to it's own readers as: ?
You become less believable everytime you hit the "post comment" button.
TP, it's obvious to everyone that you meant your comment (ie: freepers and freeper wannabes) as a derogatory, polemic insult. Why not just admit it? All this backpedaling simply makes you look silly. Really. Using the labels of one extremely partisan group to denigrate your perceived enemies doesn't make you look like an independent thinker. It makes you look like just another silly shield bashing demagogue.
Actually, you know what it makes you, TP?
A Freeper. Simply use your own provided definition and interchange the words 'left' and 'right'.
Comment by chunkdz — April 17, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Hi ChuckDZ,
In an effort to uphold my end of the truce, I will simply once again provide the entire definition you shortened…
Hopefully, you won't find this too provocative.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 17, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
April 17th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Truce doesn't mean you can post any BS you want and not get called on it. It means I won't call you a douche anymore.
Of course not. Why would anyone think that repeating bigoted, polemic, vitriolic stereotyping spawned from the most bitterly partisan left-wing blog in America would be "provocative"?
Especially when it was brought to us by such a rational self-proclaimed "freethinker" as yourself?
What a joke.
Comment by chunkdz — April 17, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 8:20 am
You can keep ignoring the point. The banking system was in meltdown and threatening to take everyone down with them. Correcting the problem required government intervention. I'm glad you're sticking up for rich CEO's, but as they share much of the blame, their jobs are expendable.
Bankruptcy would have been the preferred option, but the global extent of the crisis made this much too weak and blunt a tool. Yes, now it's a political problem, and that's very unfortunate. But that comes from a lack of regulatory oversight and a culture of unaccountability. So much for conservatism.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2009 @ 8:20 am
April 18th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Those poor bankers. The political elite 'pressured' them to make billions of dollars collectively over the past decades. It's really funny, though, when there is money to be made, then bankers were 'pressured' into lending. Now, that politicians feel it's crucial that banks start lending again, bankers easily resist making loans (even though they are getting money from the government specifically with the purpose of lending it out).
How does that work, Bradford? That when there is profit to be made, supposedly bankers were pressured to lend money against their will, while now, as the prospects of profit are a little less clear, those very same bankers are able to resist all this pressure to lend?
Comment by hrun — April 18, 2009 @ 9:55 am
April 18th, 2009 at 10:33 am
The "Stimulus" plan has nothing to do with putting cash infusions into banks. The fact that the public conflates the two was used by politicians to their advantage.
Again, the idea of saving banks in this way is equivalent practically to having every family run up $10,000 to $20,000 on their credit card to "save" the banking system. Most don't realize this is about what happens in a deficit spending bailout.
TARP was at least a little better (and TARP is not "stimulus"). The banks were in debt to the government, and the banks pay the money back ASAP. Goldman Sachs is planning to pay TARP back, same with JP Morgan Chase. A few banks are already paying TARP back. In fact the Government strong-armed good banks to accept TARP in order to conceal the identity of weak banks. Bad idea. It's painfully apparrent to the whole universe who the bad banks are!
The problem with "stimulus" (unlike TARP) is we don't get our money back. The federal government will decide to waste it on your behalf on businesses and inudsustries of suspect economic value.
As far as altruism goes, I'm for each individual helping his fellow man as he so chooses, not as Fidel Castro (or some other dictator on his moral high horse) chooses for the individuals. Government shouldn't dictate we feed Octumom's kids. I feel sorry for her kids, but it's not governments business putting guns to peoples head to make us pay for her indiscretions.
Finally we see the results of government equalization of outcomes. We call that the utopia of Cuba.
Socialist slavery bad, capitalist freedom good.
PS
regulation is not the same as taxation, requiring insurers and bankers to maintain enough cash to back their transactions is not the same as taxation. But the government installing CEO's and controlling hiring, firing, and compensation decisions is socialism, not regulation.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 18, 2009 @ 10:33 am
April 18th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Bradford says:
I don't know, how long has the FDIC been around? The private capital markets seem to be taking a view quite contrary to yours. Why did the lightly regulated, not subject to govt seizure, investment banks seek to become highly regulated subject to govt seizure commercial banks in the last year?
Doesn't sound like the mere thought of it gives them the heebie jeebies.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 18, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Yes, it is a minority of the stimulus bill. The biggest portion is tax cuts. So much for the anti-tax protests. And since the stimulus was meant to be in the near future, there is only so much infrastructure that can been done in the next couple of years. But it doesn't require that the bridge be a bridge before it has a stumulative effect. Indeed, with business down, the bridge probably isn't "needed" now. But businesses conducting more business (i.e. the construction companies and their suppliers) with more employees stimulates other sectors, and down the road when business picks up, the improved infrastructure will have a positive effect.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 18, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
And again, it's not equivalent *practically*. People are individually afraid to spend. It takes coordinated action. The alternative was tried in the early twentieth century. Allowing the system to collapse is not a reasonable course.
Happens whenever the courts are charged with that power during bankruptcies, or whenever regulators take over failed institutions to protect depositors. The existing mechanisms, however, are woefully inadequate to the monumental scale of the problem.
You might shake your fist at the sky, rail against the unfairness of it all, but the underlying problem remains.
Oh, I get it now. You're creating a cartoon position to show how silly it is to oversimplify complex economic problems. Good work!
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
And how does wasteful government spending cure the problem of toxic assets on the bank balance sheets again? You think building bridges to nowhere will cure the dastardly work of predatory loan originaors and ACORN socialistists who put help get people loans that couldn't afford them. How does wasteful government spending remove the toxic assets they helped create from bank balance sheets. How does socialist slavery unwind Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), and support defaulting Credit Default Swaps (CDSs). Explain how socialism is curing the real problem.
What really is happening is a bait and switch. Politicians used the banking crisis to usher in more socialism. Like an unethical doctor, it's in the unethical doctor's interest to keep the patient sick and keep bilking him and his family of wealth. They don't cure the patient's real problem. That is by design.
And by the way, Goldman Sachs just had a record quarter in earnings. It had nothing to do with "stimulus" or TARP. Goldman Sachs is an expert at profiting from the stupidity and corruption in the government, and the pain and misery of others, and there is plenty of it.
And in the interest of disclosure, I made money trading Goldman Sachs derivatives. There is no shortage of government stupidity, and you can take that to the bank, Goldman did, I did, and will keep doing it so long as voters keep electing stupidity into the US congress and White House.
At least my conscience is clear that I didn't help elect the present administration into office, but since they're in now, I'll do what I can to profit from the abundance of government stupidity that is great supply in the present era.
I'm very sorry to see the USA going down the road of pain, but I'm not betting on a great era of prosperity as long as socialism creeps into our economic system. I sold my stock holdings in Jan 2008, just before the crash, I'm not planning on buying any anytime soon, not while the likes of Pelosi are in power.
By the way here is how a graduate of Texas Christian University made $6,000,000,000 for his hedgefund on the socialist stupidity and regulatory incompetence of the Federal government.
God I hope you're wrong
Here is Bass's sobering assessment of the current situation:
Kyle Bass Looks Forward
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 18, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
The "tax cuts" have nothing to do with trillions in stimulus, bailout and day to day government expenditures recently enacted. These expenditures must be funded. Either they will be funded through borrowing or the money supply will be increased. Neither prospect comes with a free lunch tag attached. Eventually taxpayers get stuck with a bill in the form of inevitable tax increases, increased inflation or increased debt that will be passed on to posterity.
You have not mentioned that "tax cuts" are now given in the form of rebates to those not paying taxes. IOW, not only can some recover the entire amount deducted for taxes, but they can receive above and beyond making the IRS a welfare dispensing agency. Someone pays for this. Protestors are not mind numbed to reality as many Americans are.
The third ignored reality is the increasing tax burden imposed by states. I live in NJ which has a 7% sales tax, heavy property taxes, expensive and highly trafficked toll roads and a state income tax to boot. Many states are in fiscal trouble including our largest state. The problem is power hungry public office holders recklessly spending America's future.
This is all nice in theory but I'll repeat a question posed before. At what point would you conclude that the spending spree is not producing the theorized outcome? How many years of recession and how many job losses and industry failures would it take to convince the free spenders that the idea is flawed? If the honest answer is that there is nothing or practically nothing that woud convince Obama supporters that government spending is not stimulative then you are operating on dogma and placing blind faith in it.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I can give you the answer supplied by one bank not in need of bailout funds but which accepted them anyway. When the funds were offered the bank was told a refusal to accept the money would lead to an audit. The board, realizing the desire of the government and not wishing an adversial relationship, accepted the loans. Subsequently the bank was informed that although the money amounted to 2% of bank assets the government would assume a regulatory role in business practices which included salary approval for employees. The money came with a hefty interest rate. Most discouraging was the necessity to get the approval of the federal government to repay the loan. This is about power Roger and officeholders in D.C. thinking they have the right to exert it. Many of the rest of us are determined to resist. We do not need big daddy G.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
hrun:
Sound lending practices used for decades were revised to effect social engineering. Everyone should own their own home. Nice, except that those who cannot afford to do so do not become more financially capable by discarding sound rules that would have disqualified them in the first place.
There is one and only one good reason to lend- the reasonable anticipation of a good return in the form of interest and a good expectation that the borrower will be able to repay the loan.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Zachriel:
If I wanted to stick up for rich execs and were a politician I would appoint Geithner to a cabinet post. Government intervention was badly flawed as history will show. Now to your next point:
To the contrary, a bankruptcy judge would have more detailed knowledge of actual business problems and greater latitude in dealing with creditors under already existing laws. Judges are also isolated from political pressures. When the initial bailout bill was voted down and passage of a bill was far from certain there was no collapse despite the fearmongering. We had the time to deal with this in a way that would have averted a dramatic expansion of governmental power. But expanded power is exactly what leftist extremists want.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
By STUART VARNEY
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
April 18th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
The economy will have a nice short term pop because of all the Fed actions, but it won't be real, but smoke and mirrors (just like the housing bubble).
This will happen just in time to get the congress re-elected, and the sharp traders and hedge fund managers positioned to profit from the impending judgement day.
The current administration's energy policy will be a fiasco and tax payers will pay dearly for the CAP and Trade taxes on emissions. Do we really think congressional waste will usher in a glorious green energy environmental utopia?
For green energy to succeed, some serious science and engineering economics have to be applied to make green energy a superior value over oil and coal. Government taxation isn't the solution.
That's the problem with socialism, all the cures are defined in terms of government taxation, spending, ill-advised regulation, price controls, subsidies, welfare. Socialism is based on the belief that passing enough laws will usher in a utopia and eliminate corruption. We have an example of that, Cuba.
The real solution is innovation, entrepreneurship, and fair trade practices.
Did government welfare programs develop the internet, silicon valley, etc. The internet grew out of the high tech culture of DOD DARPA, etc. How about the many good pharmaceuticals and medical procedures saving lives? Did that come out of government regulation and taxation?
What a nation really needs first and foremost is God's blessing, secondly, it needs people to have wisdom and moral integrity. A nation with an abundance of unwed moms and absentee fathers is ripe for all sorts of social unrest. A nation where financeers have no concience, and are quite willing to resort to predatory business practices can't prosper. A nation tha punishes achievement and rewards mediocrity (like GM) can't prosper.
Do I want the Government to usher in a Theocracy (the topic of this thread). Heck, no. That's one sure way to drive people's hearts away from Christ, let the Government be involved the business of evangelism.
People have to stop believing the Government will bail them out. The government is full of empty promises from politicians. The One who provides is God, and if God doesn't provide we're screwed, because the Government isn't going to be of much help.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 18, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 7:00 am
Salvador T. Cordova Says:
Not only politicians, but some posters here:
You seem to deliberately conflate the two when convenient. The stimulus wasn't aimed at the toxic assets. That was the TARP's focus. And "ACORN socialists" had essentially nothing to do with the real estate bubble and subsequent collapse. Amazing how little defenders of capiltalism and free markets know about them.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 19, 2009 @ 7:00 am
April 19th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Bradford says:
You were talking about the stimulus bill earlier. You now want to confuse the issue by throwing in everything including the kitchen sink. If you wish to contest my assertion that approximately 1/3 of the Stimulus Bill's $787 billion in costs were in the form of tax cuts, feel free to do so. But general biching about the Federal govt spending a lot of money is neither news nor productive.
And other than the strawman you created in your mind, who is arguing that point? It is you who introduced the concept of a "free lunch". Not I. Not Obama or his allies.
Nonsense. There is no shortage of candidates promising lower taxes. But the voters aren't voting for them. Because the voters generally like the services provided. Sure, a lot of voters want to cut the services they don't like, but keep their own. But the actual govt is a collection of voters with diverse wish lists. That's the nature of politics. You can ignore that at the risk of marginalizing your opinions.
As is any claim about what today's actions will mean for the future. Now that we've agreed upon the incredibly obvious:
I don't think we can ever know that. A comment that has been made quite frequently by commentators on both the left and the right. Correlation does not equal causation. If things continue to limp along, we don't know whether we were better off for the TARP or Stimulus. We can't know what the alternate reality would have given us.
But the Stimulus bill is what it is. It isn't an authorization to spend $787 billion every year into the future. It isn't a rational position to assume that this single bill, for all its flaws, implies we must continue to do the same ad infinitum.
You seem to be the dogmatic one. Not I. Most of the rational observers on the left and right are unsure what the future holds and what the optimal strategy is at this point, and that all options are fraught with potential downsides. You seem to be convinced that you know what won't work, but haven't really been able to convice anybody that what we should do. I asked you for some links in another thread to folks who were proposing better solutions. Instead you linked to folks not engaged in the debate on what should be in the stimulus bill, at the time it was being debated, but instead looking backwards at what had failed in the past. Yes, hindsight is so much easier that foresight, but the future belongs to those who look ahead and are willing to engage in proposals and take a risk that they will be wrong, rather than sit and bitch about the world not being perfect.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 19, 2009 @ 7:49 am
April 19th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Of course. There were massive losses in the banking sector, and the guarantee provided by the FDIC puts the govt, and therefore the taxpayer, at risk. So, the FDIC wanted to make sure that any bank out there was solvent, and if not, that the FDIC take steps to protect the taxpayer. That's what your banked signed on for when they became an FDIC bank. They are not a "victim" of anything. If they were adequately capitalized, then an audit would have discovered that. If not, the FDIC would have taken them over, tried to have another bank take them over, or replaced the Mgmt and dissolved the bank, as they have been doing for decades. Your bank knows, or should have known, this is the way it works.
This is the way the FDIC works, and has worked for decades. The TARP program was started under Bush.
You have every right to not put your money in, nor buy stock in, an FDIC bank. You don't have a veto on other folks appreciating its role in preventing bank runs as the crisis unfolded last fall. It isn't a principled position to want only the benefits and not the costs. That's the free lunch you referenced earlier.
Fractional reserve banking systems are susceptible to runs. Govt has played a role in reducing this fear. I can certainly understand a principled libertarians avoiding FDIC institutions. But the institutions themselves SIGNED ON FOR THIS VERY REGULATION.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 19, 2009 @ 8:09 am
April 19th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I think this captures the lack of principles in Bradford's arguments over this issue. From another thread:
And from this thread:
He's complaining about the two complimentary positions. The lack of oversight and the excercise of oversight. I can understand somebody with a principled position on either side, but to try to argue both at the same time is rather foolish. It leads the observer to think that it isn't about principles, but about bitching.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 19, 2009 @ 8:59 am
April 19th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Toxic assets are an example of wasteful corporate spending. Unfortunately, propping up the economy will require stimulus. As I said, you can rail about it, or pretend the problem doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it go away.
No, but it will help prevent an economic collapse and minimize the pain caused by unbridled capitalism. Besides, most bridges, unlike Palin's, actually link places together and lead to greater growth.
(It's funny how you mix private capitalists "predatory loan originators" with the community group, ACORN.)
Cartoon versions of the world don't enhance your argument. All modern societies are mixtures of government, corporate and private associations. The last several years have seen the failure of an imbalance between these power structures. The people are left holding the bag.
The economic crisis was ushered in by the Bush Administration, and is consistent with the pattern of their other debacles.
That's nice. It is only natural to profit, even if at the expense of others. That's why only coordinated action by governments can take the actions required to avoid a further decline in the markets. It's unfortunate, but the non-reality based community broke the economy and everyone else is left holding the bag.
I think "study what they did", means like studying the Great Depression.
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2009 @ 10:50 am
April 19th, 2009 at 11:22 am
No bank was force to offer risky loans. It was a speculative bubble, Tulipmania. It was based on the belief that housing prices would always go up, and that the risk could be unloaded on others. That and lack of oversight.
Banks have never been required to offer bad loans.
In fact, the Great Depression showed the terrible consequences of standing by while markets collapsed. It led to terrible suffering, and the political instability that helped lead the world to war.
Yes, allowing banks to fail worked quite well in the early years of the Great Depression. Assuming by working quite well, you mean a total economic collapse and massive unemployment.
Just because most people can't see the flow of capital in the banking system doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it's not important. The system was in seizure. That's why the Bush Administration had to act when they did. (They should have acted far sooner to prevent the problem.)
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2009 @ 11:22 am
April 19th, 2009 at 11:33 am
In fact, the government is crucial in scientific research and development. Some of the greatest engineering projects in U.S. history were U.S. government projects. From the electrification of the South to the Moon landings.
Waving around the term "socialism" like a talisman doesn't constitute an argument. Almost everyone agrees that the government should not generally control the means of production. However, almost everyone agrees, and nearly every modern economic system implements, a mix of strategies. Bankruptcy courts, regulating the quality of food, funding science, and extensive regulation of the banking industry, are all government interventions in the economy.
Sometimes I think you're just pulling our legs. What does DOD stand for?
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2009 @ 11:33 am
April 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
chunk:
I was not alluding, I was POINTING to FoxNews as a propaganda outlet. It wouldn't hurt you to recognize the obvious, because anyone who's not a FoxBot can see it clearly. Remember I mentioned the 30 million people worldwide who protested in early 2003 against Bush's pre-emptive war in Iraq? The one being sold with lies that were KNOWN to be lies at the time, remember? Here is what FoxNews had to say about those who didn't buy the lies:
O'Reilly -
Do you agree that protesting government policy in public means you are "anti-American?" Did O'Reilly call the teabaggers "anti-American?"
John Gibson -
Saddam had no WMDs, was not a threat to the United States. He had no connection to bin Laden or 9-11. That's what's true now, and it was true all along.
And the fight? In my city it was started by the cops as part of their effort to force the protesters out of the park and on to the street where they could be arrested for blocking traffic. Maybe 150 people of all ages, some balloons, a few signs, blankets and sandwiches. A peaceful picnic with speakers, not a riot. Dozens were injured, including an 8-year old and an 86-year old. It cost the notorious KKK-affiliated police chief and his supporters on the city council their jobs. Seems the voters understood much better than they did that "protecting the public" did not include indiscriminately bashing the heads of men, women and children peacefully assembled on a Saturday afternoon in the park exercising their 1st amendment rights.
Fox News host Fred Barnes on Feb. 17, 2003 -
and…
and…
Only chickenhawks and Vikings love war, and the Vikings warred themselves to death hundreds of years ago. Every professional warrior I've ever known hates war. A good many of them spoke out against war in Iraq too. George Bush and Dick Cheney know nothing of war, they never fought one.
Nearly six years later we've lost more than 4200 of our daughters sons, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. Eight times that many have suffered crippling injuries. Iraqi civilian dead may top a million so far, and their injury rate is at least as high as ours. Until very recently our nation had a policy of kidnapping, rendering and torturing prisoners of war and assorted nobodies off the streets henchmen turned in for the reward money – these are war crimes we didn't let fly under the "just following orders" excuse at Nuremberg. It costs us $10-12 billion a month, every month. Is that a good investment in your book?
Do you believe it is morally wrong to be against war? Is it morally wrong and anti-American for American citizens in good standing to speak, write, assemble and/or petition their government for redress of grievance on administration plans to start illegal and unnecessary wars? And if so, how do you square that with amendment #1 of the US Constitution?
chunk:
Sure, Kos gets its share of crazies. Just like Red State and Free Republic. And TT, as this thread demonstrates so well. Then there's the traffic to Kos himself…
LOL! Hitler was a Marxist? Who knew?
A stupid f—ing what? This paragon of conservative virtue will wish death on the President, but is too sensitive to spell out a curse word. Weird.
Wow. Devastating.
Plus a couple I'd have turned over to the police, threatening death to him, his wife and children. Markos gets these regularly so I suppose he's quite used to them, and fairly confident as a veteran of his ability to protect himself and his family. Or maybe he's just experienced enough to know a cowardly wackaloon when he sees one. That's just some of the weekly hate mail.
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Sal:
Yeah. Half a trillion to keep the states going (unemployment extensions, food stamp and medicaid increases, some infrastructure make-work projects, emergency funding for socialist things like schools, universities and hospitals, etc.) is so very heinous compared to as much as $12 trillion to bail out Wall Street gamblers for fake money they invented whole cloth, with hundreds of millions of that going to bonuses for the very criminals who engineered and ran the ponzi scheme! Half of that on the books before Obama took office, most of it before the election. On top of the $4.5 trillion+ debt to China for Bush's adventure in Iraq. Plus interest, of course.
The infusion to banks was SUPPOSED to go to free up credit to the producers. The banks decided to pass it out amongst themselves and ship it offshore instead, which they have been allowed to do by the Fed, WB and IMF – you don't really think this heist isn't being stage-managed, do you? Neither the executive nor the legislative branch of the US government has direct control over the Federal Reserve system. The Fed tells Congress what it wants in the way of regs/no regs, Congress obliges, presidents sign off on it.
Sal:
Um, earth to Salvador… where do you think the money comes from to fund [100%] DOD? DARPA and the etc's.? Who also funds the university research hospitals and labs? You're either clueless or dishonest in lobbing this claptrap and expecting not to be called on it.
With Randroids it's often hard to tell.
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Joy wrote:
Saddam had no WMDs, was not a threat to the United States.
So then, President Bill Clinton was mistaken then about Saddams WMD‘s?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 19, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
The $12 trillion figure is wrong.
In any case, two wrongs don't make a right, and I didn't favor a Wall Street bailout. Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi in company with George Bush and Goldman-Sachs-Senior-Partner-serving-as-Treasury-Secretary Henry Paulson helped put those bail outs together. That's another example of tax and spend an waste and issues with conflict-of-interest.
But the 700 Billion TARP bailout is a repayable loan, and several banks have repaid or are already lining up to repay since they don't want their executive bonuses crimped anymore: ergo, a lot of banks didn't need TARP in the first place! The solution was to let these banks feel a little pain. They had the capital to endure it.
DOD DARPA (Department of Defense, Defense Advance Research Projects Agency) is not a government welfare program. It is not stimulus. It is not socialism. It is a valid use of taxpayer money for national defense. Such expenditures can hardly be considered welfare.
General waste of taxpayer money. How about people paying for their own schooling and hospitalization or that of people they choose? What a novel idea. How about individuals, families, and charities taking care of people instead of the government.
The USA throws more money at public schools and has among the worst school systems. Apparently more money isn't the answer. Maybe more accountability is in order.
Universities are still in relatively good shape since the government isn't completely running them. Boy, can't you just wait to see our universities and top grad schools end up like government run public schools.
Or how about our healthcare system running like your local Veterans Administration Hospital.
What a wonderful socialist utopia we can look forward to.
As far as basic research in universities, I'm for that. But isn't it interesting so many great innovations in medicine and engineering didn't come from government grants?
I'm fine with Uncle Sam building super-colliders and space probes versus feeding the Octumoms of the world. Everyone stands to gain from basic research.
Much better to have the USA leading in engineering that pot-holes-in-road filling.
Randroid? I like that.
Well, no need to worry, Joy You'll have your socialist utopia if Pelosi has her way. You may look forward to the socialist Utopia you've been hoping for. For you and your grand kids. The right wing theocracy is gone from power. Socialist prosperity based on taxing and spending is on its way.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Bradford, you made the arguments that banks were pressured into making bad loans. You have no evidence to back it up. EVEN NOW, when the government thinks lending is crucial, and EVEN NOW, when the government is willing to essentially fire CEOs, they are still unable to pressure the banks into making loans the banks don't want to make.
Let's face the real truth, the bank made all those shitty loans because it made the people making the loans rich. Now they are not making loans, because they don't have the expectation that these loans will make them rich. It's as simple as that.
Comment by hrun — April 19, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ACORN-SPECIAL-REPORTACORNs-sweet-billion-dollar-reward-39461537.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ACORN-Tactics-39485852.html
re: Clinton, Iraq and Joy's contentions, here's a previous thread where we discussed it.
http://telicthoughts.com/open-thread-nose/#comment-203269
Comment by Pez — April 19, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Pez's links, although critical of ACORN, provide no case that they or the CRA had any significant effect on the banking industry or the housing bubble.
Indeed, two were from 2009 and one from 2008. Certainly if the banks were being forced to do something against their better judgement in the mid-1990's, something that could cause their financial ruin, you'd think they would have pointed it out then. Where are the contemporaneous reports about banks setting aside reserves to cover such losses? If they sold everything to Fannie or Freddie, how can there still be toxic assets on the books, since Bush guaranteed all the Fannie/Freddie bonds?
Why has no bank stepped forward to make such a case? Why didn't Greenspan blame this on ACORN and the CRA, instead of admitting he had misjudged how irrationally markets can behave?
I'm willing to look at any evidence anybody has that a clumsy $40 million non-profit could bring the global capital markets to their knees, but it's gonna take more than a just-so story spun by political conservatives.
We have pretty solid testimonial evidence that the lowering of Freddie / Fannie standards came as a result of pressure from Countrywide, a major provider of loans to F/F, and hedge fund investors, who wanted to make more money in a booming mortgage market. But none implicating ACORN or CRA by anybody involved.
Interesting.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 19, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
JAD:
Reagan supplied the original WMDs in 1983 for Saddam to use against Iran ("ability to wage war against his neighbors"), and maintained supply through the duration of that conflict. There were never any nukes, of course, the whole yellowcake fraud was used by Cheney to expose the CIA's counterproliferation operation in the region and decimate the division – get them out of the way after they'd busted the A.Q. Khan op, designed to funnel nuclear technology to the region. What Saddam got from Reagan/Bush-I ready-made were primarily chemical weapons, which he found more useful against his own Kurds than Iranian troops. There was no capacity to produce them.
So yeah. Clinton was mistaken about Saddam's WMDs. Cheney and Rumsfeld knew better, played their designated roles. As always when world events make no sense, follow the money. You'll end up at the doorsteps of some notorious war profiteers like Haliburton and Carlisle. The nation got sold to China for the privilege. Those who sold us made out like bandits…
Sal:
Well, you'd have a hard time convincing me that We the People get anything useful out of CERN's attempts to create black holes and find wiggly Higgs. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you. But you missed the boat on Octomom – I expressed my disgust with that grotesquely unethical situation awhile back and was informed by the posters here that I was some sort of evil eugenicist for thinking an unmarried mother of 6 with no visible means of support needed a tubal ligation more than she needed 8 more children all at one time.
It's about damned time! Though I don't hold my breath for Pelosi, she's a total sell-out with significant financial ties to the status quo of behind-the-scenes movers and shakers (again, follow the money). She's as crooked as anyone in Congress, has enabled everything BushCo did to this nation from the beginning. And maybe you've gotten filthy rich being a perpetual student, but I just got a tax cut. And since the government is not a bank, I'm not stupid enough to have ever believed it's supposed to hoard the money it takes in to support all those socialist endeavors governments support because that's their job.
I hear Bush & Co. are relocating to Paraguay, no doubt before the World Court gets an indictment it can enforce. I'm sure they'll run it just like the Randian Utopia you've been hoping for. I'm sure there's room for a bright, ideologically committed kid like you. Send us a post card once you get settled!
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
blockquote:
By July of 1991, ACORN’s legislative campaign began to bear fruit. As the Chicago Tribune put it, “Housing activists have been pushing hard to improve housing for the poor by extracting greater financial support from the country’s two highly profitable secondary mortgage-market companies. Thanks to the help of sympathetic lawmakers, it appeared…that they may succeed.” The Tribune went on to explain that House Democrat Henry Gonzales had announced that Fannie and Freddie had agreed to commit $3.5 billion to low-income housing in 1992 and 1993, in addition to a just-announced $10 billion “affordable housing loan program” by Fannie Mae. The article emphasizes ACORN pressure and notes that Fannie and Freddie had been fighting against the plan as recently as a week before agreement was reached. Fannie and Freddie gave in only to stave off even more restrictive legislation floated by congressional Democrats.
ACORN’s efforts to undermine credit standards in the late 1980s taught it a valuable lesson. However much pressure ACORN put on banks to lower credit standards, tough requirements in the “secondary market” run by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac served as a barrier to change. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up mortgages en masse, bundle them, and sell them to investors on the world market. Back then, Fannie and Freddie refused to buy loans that failed to meet high credit standards.
…
So the eighties taught ACORN that a high-pressure, Alinskyite outside strategy wouldn’t be enough. Their Washington lobbyists would have to bring inside pressure on the government to undercut credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Only then would local banks consider making loans available to customers with bad credit histories, low wages, virtually nothing in the bank, and even bankruptcies on record.
…
As early as 1987, ACORN began pressuring Fannie and Freddie to review their standards, with modest results. By 1989, ACORN had lured Fannie Mae into the first of many “pilot projects” designed to help local banks lower credit standards. But it was all small potatoes until the serious pressure began in early 1991. At that point, Democratic Senator Allan Dixon convened a Senate subcommittee hearing at which an ACORN representative gave key testimony. It’s probably not a coincidence that Dixon, like Obama, was an Illinois Democrat, since Chicago has long been a stronghold of ACORN influence.
…
A mere month later, ACORN Housing Corporation president, George Butts made news by complaining to a House Banking subcommittee that ACORN’s efforts to pressure banks using CRA were still being hamstrung by Fannie and Freddie. Butts also demanded still more data on the race, gender, and income of loan applicants. Many news reports over the ensuing months point to ACORN as the key source of pressure on congress for a further reduction of credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result of this pressure, ACORN was eventually permitted to redraft many of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s loan guideline.
…
With the advent of the Clinton administration, however, ACORN’s fortunes took a positive turn. Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisnersos pledged to meet monthly with ACORN representatives. For ACORN, those meetings bore fruit.
Another factor working in ACORN’s favor was that its increasing success with local banks turned those banks into allies in the battle with Fannie and Freddie. Precisely because ACORN’s local pressure tactics were working, banks themselves now wanted Fannie and Freddie to loosen their standards still further, so as to buy up still more of the high-risk loans they’d made at ACORN’s insistence. So by the 1993, a grand alliance of ACORN, national Democrats, and local bankers looking for someone to lessen the risks imposed on them by CRA and ACORN were uniting to pressure Fannie and Freddie to loosen credit standards still further.
…
At this point, both ACORN and the Clinton administration were working together to impose large numerical targets or “set asides” (really a sort of poor and minority loan quota system) on Fannie and Freddie. ACORN called for at least half of Fannie and Freddie loans to go to low-income customers. At first the Clinton administration offered a set-aside of 30 percent. But eventually ACORN got what it wanted. In early 1994, the Clinton administration floated plans for committing $1 trillion in loans to low- and moderate-income home-buyers, which would amount to about half of Fannie Mae’s business by the end of the decade. Wall Street Analysts attributed Fannie Mae’s willingness to go along with the change to the need to protect itself against still more severe “congressional attack.” News reports also highlighted praise for the change from ACORN’s head lobbyist, Deepak Bhargava.
…
Finally, in June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: “Out homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.” Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers “who have historically been excluded from homeownership.”
Disaster
In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with “dog-food” wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN. At both the local and national levels, then, ACORN served as the critical catalyst, levering pressure created by the Community Reinvestment Act and pull with Democratic politicians to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a pattern of high-risk loans.
Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
Comment by Pez — April 19, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Bailing out greed-heads? Like ACORN?
http://rightvoices.com/2008/09/26/why-is-acorn-in-the-bailout/
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/acorn-to-get-bailout-money-starting-the-next-mortgage-crisis-today/
http://pumaeyes.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/acorn-positioned-for-some-obama-stimulus-scratch/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/06/28/heroic-detroit-paper-portrayals-acorn-ignored-its-sordid-history
Comment by Pez — April 19, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Hitler was a Marxist? Who knew?
Everyone but leftist dogmatists.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
Comment by Pez — April 19, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Well done, as always, Raevmo,
You are a treat.
1) There's lots of blame to go around. Reality's like that.
2) Jesus was raised from the dead. Nothing is more real.
3) Keep your bridge. I'll make my purchases here in the real world.
Comment by Pez — April 19, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Not just ACORN
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1238510994.pdf
Comment by Pez — April 19, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
April 19th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I can understand being duped. It's not like there's not a concerted duping effort ongoing and all.
Keep right on flailing at shadows and ghosts, smokey reflections in mirrors. That's just what you're supposed to be doing so you don't notice that cushy life-yacht speeding away with the first class passengers who were taking bets on the "Unsinkable" claim while the ship headed for that iceberg…
No surprises here.
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
April 20th, 2009 at 1:04 am
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
Howard Husock
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/husock.htm
On CDCs
http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_3_dont_let_cdcs.html
Comment by Pez — April 20, 2009 @ 1:04 am
April 20th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Thanks Pez for continuing to make my point. All this stuff happening in the 90's, yet nothing comes of it. No wave of bank failures, or credit markets freezing up. Your latest article says:
We don't have to wonder anymore. That article was written in late 1999 or very early 2000. Since then we've had the collapse of the internet stock bubble, and a recession. Far from any major real estate disruption, or credit collapse, housing continued to appreciate most places. The Bush administration replaced the Clinton administration that had been friendly to ACORN and the CRA. Yet no sign of a collapse. Indeed, the folks who were involved in rationalizing the CDS's and the lack of any underwriting standards that caused our massive crisis, performed various historical studies, including on the time frame in the early Bush years recession, and found little in the way of massive defaults. Hence they concluded that mortgage instruments were risk free. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — April 20, 2009 @ 5:25 am
April 20th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Wrong. I've posted links to many articles in previous threads. It will not be a problem to do the same in upcoming ones.
Your problem hrun is that it does not matter what Obama Inc. think about when banks should loan. That's a business decision to be made by each individual bank. One obvious reason for loan slowdowns is a depressed economy.
The real truth is that some bankers are greedy and selfish. The same applies to politicians.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2009 @ 7:10 am
April 20th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Pez quoting:
…
Pez, you're right that the current economic crisis had its causal genesis in unwise governmental actions motivated by the urge for social engineering. The fact that our economy does not go into a tailspin soon after a dumb regulatory act is enacted only testifies to the time frame between causes and the effects evident in the world's largest economy.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2009 @ 7:16 am
April 20th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Zachriel:
Forced? As in a gun to the head? No, but lending practices were altered, in part, as a consequence of governmental policies.
A long established loan approval review process was altered with encouragement from the federal government.
The history of this crisis is not yet written. Unlike analysts like you historians will have the benefit of hindsight and greater objectivity.
Garbage Zach. Bankruptcy judges do not promote business failure To the contrary arrangements are made, having the force of judicial edict, which enable businesses to extricate themselves from problems. Bankruptcy for one helps protect a business from its creditors.
You make the classic mistake of assuming the option taken was the only one available. This is an argument for a remedy that is grounded in invincible ignorance.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2009 @ 7:35 am
April 20th, 2009 at 7:45 am
RogerRabbit:
Your argument points out your stupidity Roger. From the outset I've pointed out that the judicial bankruptcy option was the preferred one. Threads containing related comments go back to September 2008. The regulatory oversight should have been the perspective of bankruptcy judges. You cherry pick my comments to suit your own lack of principle.
The lack of oversight referred to in the first highlighted quote references a lack of strings attached to money forked over- an incomprehensible lending practice.
The second highlighted quote alludes to the judicial option. That comment was made in an exchange with Zachriel. You left out the context. Not surprising.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2009 @ 7:45 am
April 20th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I cannot convince those with close minds nor would I attempt to. Dogmatism is evident when one adopts a position that is unprovable by new evidence. That's the position of many supporting the stimulus bill. If a stimulus bill does not get the economy going then it should be viewed as a failure. The point of my falsification question was to elicit a response as to what evidence would count as evidence of failure. It's a straightforward question not requiring obfuscatory responses.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2009 @ 8:00 am
April 20th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Before the Great Depression, there was a well-established boom-and-bust cycle with greater and greater swings as the economies of the world industrialized. Allowing the "natural" collapse of banks in the early 1930's helped plung the world into a prolonged economic depression. In the aftermath, regulatory mechanisms were put in place, mechanisms that have until recently prevented a recurrence, a recurrence accompanied by a step back from those very regulatory mechanisms. This seems to confirm the basic theory. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Comment by Zachriel — April 20, 2009 @ 8:34 am
April 20th, 2009 at 8:49 am
None of us are anarchists making an argument that government should not exist or be almost completely passive. Selfishness and greed are qualities inevitably found among humans. For that reason some oversight is needed. That however does not excuse the panicky response to economic danger signals that took place in Sept. and Oct. 2008. Nor does it provide a justification for a bill labeled as an economic stimulus. In these exchanges I've been arguing that evidence counts in economic and social science fields. Whether recently enacted legislation, intending to deal with our economic woes, is successful will ultimately be judged by history. Lending reforms are in order but I would argue that an appreciation of government's limited capacity to effect economic growth is also called for.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2009 @ 8:49 am
April 20th, 2009 at 9:28 am
And I pointed to that evidence.
Just because you don't directly observe the internals of the capital markets doesn't mean they don't exist. The system had a seizure. The seizure, as dangerous as it was, was due to an even more dangerous underlying condition which still exists. Rising markets camouflaged all manner of sins, including lack of transparency. Real accountability would mean the decapitation of most of the capital markets, but that would also mean economic collapse. It's a bitter pill. The only solace is that the problem can be overcome.
As for the stimulus, the global economy is still shedding jobs at an alarming rate. Of course, long-term economic health requires a more reasonable balance between government spending and receipts. That will require reining in spending and increased taxes which, if you are a typical voter, may not be politically plausible.
Comment by Zachriel — April 20, 2009 @ 9:28 am
April 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am
We have empirical examples that government meddling in private industry should be the last resort, not the first resort.
America can not compete in the global economy if the goverment keeps wasting money that corporations need to be competitive. Even a compromise of 5% to 10% in price, not to mention the weak quality of union-labor, will ensure the US will not be globally competitive for very long.
Wasting money by creating larger and larger beuracracies which induce more and more inefficiencies in business can't possibly work. Filling pot holes and building bridges to no where, giving food stamps and health care to non-producers will not keep America competitive. Those are the hard cruel facts.
For what it's worth, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I cashed out my stock holdings in January 2008 when the Dow Industrials were around 12500. I'm not planning on buying stocks in American companies right now. If you really believe the stimulus will work, feel free to buy stocks now and hope the industrials make 50% to 100% in the next 3 years, because that's what it will take just to bring the market back to 2008 levels.
I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being practical. I sure as heck don't think business and the economy are going to return to full capacity under the Pelosi administration, and if I'm right, I'll be profiting from the obvious government stupidity. To paraphrase an old saying, "If you can't beat government stupidity, try to profit from it."
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 20, 2009 @ 11:18 am
April 20th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I think there is plenty of waste in government and if it took a tax increase to put us back on track I would endorse it.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
April 20th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Modern economies require a strong partnership between the private and public sectors. Business prospers when there is prudent oversight.
Comment by Zachriel — April 20, 2009 @ 2:58 pm