Poor America... Poor democracy...

[Hurlshort]

No, it's cause and effect.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Humodour]

No, it's cause and effect.

 

Nah, p sure it's just you being rude.

[Guard Dog]

@GD: Right now, the Obama Admin's political future looks a little like the Clinton Admin at the same point in its rule. Some high-profile failures and a still-floundering economy have everyone down on their chances, and it looks like the opposition is going to make some serious gains in Congress in the fall. But I don't see anybody in the GOP who would be a particularly effective or credible challenger in 2012.

 

Yep I concur. 2012 is an eternity away politically speaking. And on the other side the Republican party has done nothing, zilch, nada, to deserve anyones votes other than not being Democrats. Plus the libertarian wing of the Republicans (the "Tea Party" and "9-12" coalitions) has risen so far that they are now drowning out the neo-cons, rockafellers, and buckley Republicans which threatens Republican unity because there is no strong leader (like Reagan) to unify them all. Romney is the most likely to get the nod because it is his turn. Thats the way they work. But you can bet the Tea Partiers and 9-12ers will not have him.

 

The Democrats on the other hand have managed to piss off everyone because they are catagoricaly opposed to any kind of freedom, social or economic and so far their solution to everything is to seize it and let the government take over. Obama has been petty, arrogant, condescending and downright insulting to eveyday Americans. The department of homeland security has been paying special attention gun-owners, veterans, small governments advocates (i.e. Republicans) as potential terrorists meanwhile real terrorists are sneaking bombs on planes and Obama will not even call that terrorisim. Congress has been ramming through a health care bill that does nothing to address health care costs aside from throwing people in jail who do not wish to purchase their garbage plan. In the absolute height of arrogance and hubris they have done all of this with exactly 0 input from opponents and insulting their constituents as "Nazis" when the voice their opposition. They are absolutely heedless of the fact that 61% of the country is against them and their only response is "we know whats best for you".

 

I talk to people all the time who are sick to the point of disgust with both of them (Repubs & Dems). There has never been a better time for a 3rd party to rise to power but there just is not one that has the wherwithal to do so, and no political leaders to galvanize two or three of them together into one powerful one. I'm hopin Obama will get a strong primary challenge. I can think of at least five democrats I'd rather have than him, I can think of dozens of Repubs.

 

I have a Labrador Retriever that I know has a better command of economics than Obama has and he is never nasty, condescending or insulting. Maybe he should run. Cosmo for President!

[Trenitay]

The department of homeland security has been paying special attention gun-owners, veterans, small governments advocates (i.e. Republicans) as potential terrorists meanwhile real terrorists are sneaking bombs on planes and Obama will not even call that terrorisim.

 

Do you have any proof of that? I don't think the government ever took any interest in our guns. Also, he did call those events terrorism, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that he didn't.

 

Congress has been ramming through a health care bill that does nothing to address health care costs aside from throwing people in jail who do not wish to purchase their garbage plan. In the absolute height of arrogance and hubris they have done all of this with exactly 0 input from opponents and insulting their constituents as "Nazis" when the voice their opposition.

 

I've seen more who are against this thing calling Obama a nazi, than the other way around

[Guard Dog]

The department of homeland security has been paying special attention gun-owners, veterans, small governments advocates (i.e. Republicans) as potential terrorists meanwhile real terrorists are sneaking bombs on planes and Obama will not even call that terrorisim.

 

Do you have any proof of that? I don't think the government ever took any interest in our guns. Also, he did call those events terrorism, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that he didn't.

 

Congress has been ramming through a health care bill that does nothing to address health care costs aside from throwing people in jail who do not wish to purchase their garbage plan. In the absolute height of arrogance and hubris they have done all of this with exactly 0 input from opponents and insulting their constituents as "Nazis" when the voice their opposition.

 

I've seen more who are against this thing calling Obama a nazi, than the other way around

http://www.uspoliticalnonsense.com/2009/04...ing-extremists/

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/16/po...ry4949431.shtml

Napolitano:Right Wing Greater Threat Than Al-Qaeida

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/a...icals-on-right/

 

I can easily post hundreds of more links.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Humodour]

Needs moar anecdotal evidence, Guard Dog. Don't forget to throw in some references to socialism, too.

[Enoch]

Yeah, the thing from Napolitano was an absolutely idiotic thing for her to sign her name to, and was written in a quite ham-handed fashion, as if they wanted to fuel the paranoia of wacky conspiracy theorists. But it's not like there haven't been issues of violence by domestic terrorist/separatist groups-- it's definitely something that I want DHS monitoring.

 

The rest of GD's rant is what you get when every news item is read with the mindset of always assuming the absolute worst about people you have already decided to dislike, and ignoring any evidence that they may, in fact, be human. Sadly, this is how more and more Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have been viewing the world lately.

[Guard Dog]

The rest of GD's rant is what you get when every news item is read with the mindset of always assuming the absolute worst about people you have already decided to dislike, and ignoring any evidence that they may, in fact, be human. Sadly, this is how more and more Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have been viewing the world lately.

Even you must admit, there hasn't been much to like about Obama's administration or the 114th Congress.

 

As for his ignorace on economics, take for example his comment about raising fees on banks that "pay their CEOs million dollar bonuses". He either does not realize (then he's ignorant) or dosen't care (then he's heartless) about who actually PAYS fees and taxes the government levies on banks, companies etc.

 

It really is not hard to think the worst of people when that is all you recieve from them. From my perspective, I want small, limited, and non intrusive government at the federal level. The government with the most influence over me should be in Nashville, not Washington. Because that is the government I have the most influence over. That is NOT what Obama and the left is serving up. Far, far from it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's not unusual for all the candidates to look like midgets before the campaign. Once they go through that, someone always emerges who looks like a credible candidate, at least to half of the population.

[lord of flies]

The rest of GD's rant is what you get when every news item is read with the mindset of always assuming the absolute worst about people you have already decided to dislike, and ignoring any evidence that they may, in fact, be human. Sadly, this is how more and more Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have been viewing the world lately.

Even you must admit, there hasn't been much to like about Obama's administration or the 114th Congress.

 

As for his ignorace on economics, take for example his comment about raising fees on banks that "pay their CEOs million dollar bonuses". He either does not realize (then he's ignorant) or dosen't care (then he's heartless) about who actually PAYS fees and taxes the government levies on banks, companies etc.

 

It really is not hard to think the worst of people when that is all you recieve from them. From my perspective, I want small, limited, and non intrusive government at the federal level. The government with the most influence over me should be in Nashville, not Washington. Because that is the government I have the most influence over. That is NOT what Obama and the left is serving up. Far, far from it.

THE LEFT. OOGA BOOGA. SOCIALISM.

 

There is no left wing in the United States.

[~Di]

...I'd trade Obama for Hillary Clinton right now if I could.

 

Should have listened to me! Hillary would have been awesome... also, qualified for the office.

 

Although I preferred Obama over McClain, I rather feared that although he could talk the talk, his non-existent record of any accomplishment beyond getting elected to one office then immediately running for a higher one implied that he wouldn't be able to walk the walk. So far, he's not really followed up on any of his campaign promises. I realize he's only been in office for a year, but that's still 25% of his term and zero accomplishment so far... except of course handing over billions to corporations bankrupted by corrupt officials.

 

I'm hoping he ups his game... soon. But frankly, I just don't think he has the experience or know-how to do it.

Edited January 30, 2010 by ~Di

[Calax]

GD, I think his potshot at the banks was more about the fact that they're tossing out bonus money again, but haven't lessened the restrictions on loaning out money, AND they're using money that the tax payers gave them to make those bonuses.

 

Honestly the banks just seem to have said "money!? What money!?" while wiping the green paper off their collar. It's hard to play the victim when you caused the mess that you're in and you're still perpetuating the same business practices as previous.

 

As to the 114th congress, it feels more like the democratic side just hasn't gotten it's stuff together to act as a unified force. That may change in the coming months as they've just been yelled at by their party leader to get off their collective asses and do something. If there's one thing the republicans are good at it's always staying together, even if their idea of "protection" comes over as downright fascist.

[Trenitay]

I don't know if the republicans are actually staying together all that well right now. A lot of them seem to have different ideas.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, bankers caused it all by themselves. Always good to find a scape goat to throw stones at. Btw, I read the TARP is only going to wind up costing $25 billion or so, as most of the money has been paid back.

[Humodour]

The rest of GD's rant is what you get when every news item is read with the mindset of always assuming the absolute worst about people you have already decided to dislike, and ignoring any evidence that they may, in fact, be human. Sadly, this is how more and more Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have been viewing the world lately.

 

Yes, and it's really really frustrating trying to discuss politics with someone like that. To the point that it's probably not viable.

[Calax]

Yes, bankers caused it all by themselves. Always good to find a scape goat to throw stones at. Btw, I read the TARP is only going to wind up costing $25 billion or so, as most of the money has been paid back.

Well, banks operating with less regulation preventing them from loaning out WAYY more than they could handle, coupled with loaning out money to people who wouldn't be able to afford it with subprime mortgages, then looked on socked when the mortgages defaulted costing the bank money that it didn't have...

 

We bailed them out and get basically nothing in return, and both administrations have been to timid about them due to "confidence" to actually impose some sort of sanction to prevent the same thing from happening again.

 

The hypocrisy shown during the "recovery" was... amazing. We bailed out the banks with no strings attached loans because we needed "confidence" to get the economy running, as if the banks were simply a perpetual motion machine. Then when the auto industry (who have more jobs under their control, but are also horribly mismanaged with "bailout" money) asks to be saved we end up putting all sorts of strings on it so that the American taxpayer can earn money back.

 

I personally would go with "many strings" because if you screw up so badly (and they admitted they screwed up) that you tossed the economy into a tailspin, you shouldn't be let off the hook because you need confidence. THe bonuses are similar in that the economy is failing, but multi million dollar bonuses are being paid out because somebody managed to hit a marker while causing this. The bank heads were called before congress twice and gave a sum total of "dude, I'm sorry... can I go?" as their response to questions. No offers to help their customers, no offer to help the people who saved their asses, nothing. And even AFTER they got the money to save them so that they'd start lending to help out the guys who'd lost their houses because their jobs died due to the economy, they didn't let out any money except to people who's credit score was almost perfect.

 

Honestly, I'm willing to bet that if the current handling of the banks continues, 10 years from now we'll be in the same situation, just different faces. The banks have had almost 0 overall sanctions placed against them because of this fiasco, and instead just got effectively a free loan from the government.

 

As to Obama and the congress, they'll need to actually do some work otherwise a LOT of seats may change hands (and not just democratic seats, republican ones too) because the population is sick and tired of just seeing them sit on their hands. Well sit on their hands and spend money on things that studies have show to be totally ineffective (see: Abstinence only education).

[Walsingham]

I won't pretend to understand it fully, but I have relatives who are heavily into banking and insurance, and they reactfar more mildly to government regulation than most internet capitalists. Which is because *fanfare* the banking industry, and commerce in general is already regulated. Regulated by laws which help protect investors and protect society as a whole. It's therefore not heretical in my opinion to suggest that capitalism and regulation are consistent with each other.

[Humodour]

I'm going to drum on about Australia again, so for anybody sick of that, avert your eyes: Australia has a moderately regulated finance and banking sector. We also happen to have one of the top 5 most prosperous AND stable banking sectors in the world. None of our 4 biggest banks are allowed to even consider merging. During the financial 'crisis', our banks all turned a profit and expanded overseas acquisitions. Most economists agree that the sector did so well because of about 25 consecutive years of good government regulation from both the major parties. Thank you, regulation!

 

You don't want less regulation, you want smart regulation; evidence-based policy.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

I'm going to drum on about Australia again, so for anybody sick of that, avert your eyes: Australia has a moderately regulated finance and banking sector. We also happen to have one of the top 5 most prosperous AND stable banking sectors in the world. None of our 4 biggest banks are allowed to even consider merging. During the financial 'crisis', our banks all turned a profit and expanded overseas acquisitions. Most economists agree that the sector did so well because of about 25 consecutive years of good government regulation from both the major parties. Thank you, regulation!

 

You don't want less regulation, you want smart regulation; evidence-based policy.

 

Couldn't agree more without making a small statue of you.

[Guard Dog]

I'm going to drum on about Australia again, so for anybody sick of that, avert your eyes: Australia has a fairly heavily regulated finance and banking sector. We also happen to have one of the top 5 most prosperous AND stable banking sectors in the world. None of our 4 biggest banks are allowed to even consider merging. During the financial 'crisis', our banks all turned a profit (I think it was all of them) and expanded overseas acquisitions. Thank you, regulation!

 

You don't want less regulation, you want smart regulation; evidence-based policy.

 

@Calax, pay attention to this, I'm covering some points you made too.

 

Following the '29 crash the Glass-Stengal act was passed that protected deposit banking from the fluctuations and risks of investment banking. It regulated interest rates and for fifty years and several rececssions prevented the financnial meltdown we are told we just avoided. I find it curious that the Democrats are screaming for banking in regulation when they are the ones who undid Glass-Stengal. In 1980 under Carter the Depository Deregulation Act, and under Clinton the Gramm-Leach-Biely Act effectively repealed Glass-Stengal and ALLOWED the banks to do the very things were are now told caused the crisis. Add to that the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter-Clinton-Bush that REQUIRED banks to write the same high risk mortgages that by and large went into default and there is your mess that Obama stammers about. Now, no matter what your political persuasion is, there is one fact that is beyond debate. The US Government CAUSED this current mess by meddling. Now they tell you they can solve it by meddling.

 

None of the "reforms" I've heard about resembles Glass-Stengal. All of them involve raising fees and taxes on banks and investments and barring banks from certain types of investing. All of those fees and taxes will be paid by CONSUMERS!!!!! Yes, that is how the world works kiddies. When Obama sticks his nose in the air and promises to go after "fat-cat" bankers in his cynical attempt to rouse populist anger, just remember, he is placing fees on YOU. Raising taxes on YOU. No matter what he hits the banks with, they will pass it on to you and you cannot stop him, or them. The only way to avoid it is to cash in your investmets, cash out your bank accounts and bury your money in the backyard. Which is probably not a bad plan anyway with his like in power.

 

And for those of you who are complaining about the banks holding the TARP money, I assure that was by design. No matter what Obama said in speeches, the last thing in the world he wanted was for TARP money to be used as loan fodder. Unless he is a fool, and I devoutly hope he is not. Think about this, TARP just about doubled the amount of dollars in circulation. So by mid 2009 there was twice the capital chasing the same amount of assets as in 2008. Does anyone else see a serious problem with that? Now since the TARP money was repaid and not loaned out, at least by the big banks, no harm was done. The smaller banks that could not pay have been closed for the most part. Again, that was by design no matter what they tell you in speeches.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

The rest of GD's rant is what you get when every news item is read with the mindset of always assuming the absolute worst about people you have already decided to dislike, and ignoring any evidence that they may, in fact, be human. Sadly, this is how more and more Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have been viewing the world lately.

 

Yes, and it's really really frustrating trying to discuss politics with someone like that. To the point that it's probably not viable.

Because I have a radically different point of view than you do? Those are the people I'd most want to engage and figure out why they think the way they do. The ones who frustrate me are the one who think a certain way and have no ability to logically explain why. I think you will agree I am able to do that.

 

Or the ones who take a position just to be antagonistic like your alt Lord of the Flies.

 

Just Kidding.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Humodour]

The rest of GD's rant is what you get when every news item is read with the mindset of always assuming the absolute worst about people you have already decided to dislike, and ignoring any evidence that they may, in fact, be human. Sadly, this is how more and more Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have been viewing the world lately.

 

Yes, and it's really really frustrating trying to discuss politics with someone like that. To the point that it's probably not viable.

Because I have a radically different point of view than you do?

 

My best friend is a Libertarian (ok probably make that a plural: friends). He often has radically different points of view, especially on economic policy, but he's patient and unassuming in defending his positions. He doesn't resort to conspiracy, gut instinct, and rumour like the economic and social conservatives I meet from America all too often do. So, no, it's not got anything to do with radically different points of view. It's got everything to do with deliberately reinforcing your own bias rather than looking at things objectively.

 

Or the ones who take a position just to be antagonistic like your alt Lord of the Flies.

 

Just Kidding.

 

Way to make my blood boil.

[Calax]

I'm going to drum on about Australia again, so for anybody sick of that, avert your eyes: Australia has a fairly heavily regulated finance and banking sector. We also happen to have one of the top 5 most prosperous AND stable banking sectors in the world. None of our 4 biggest banks are allowed to even consider merging. During the financial 'crisis', our banks all turned a profit (I think it was all of them) and expanded overseas acquisitions. Thank you, regulation!

 

You don't want less regulation, you want smart regulation; evidence-based policy.

 

@Calax, pay attention to this, I'm covering some points you made too.

 

Following the '29 crash the Glass-Stengal act was passed that protected deposit banking from the fluctuations and risks of investment banking. It regulated interest rates and for fifty years and several rececssions prevented the financnial meltdown we are told we just avoided. I find it curious that the Democrats are screaming for banking in regulation when they are the ones who undid Glass-Stengal. In 1980 under Carter the Depository Deregulation Act, and under Clinton the Gramm-Leach-Biely Act effectively repealed Glass-Stengal and ALLOWED the banks to do the very things were are now told caused the crisis. Add to that the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter-Clinton-Bush that REQUIRED banks to write the same high risk mortgages that by and large went into default and there is your mess that Obama stammers about. Now, no matter what your political persuasion is, there is one fact that is beyond debate. The US Government CAUSED this current mess by meddling. Now they tell you they can solve it by meddling.

Just gonna say, you're being disingenuous here. Neither Clinton nor Carter were the ones to institute the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. That was instituted by republicans in 1980 and 1999

 

"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999"

 

Also both McCain and Obama have proposed reenacting Glass Steagal in response to the economic crash.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...4165296326.html

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/226938

 

Enjoy your reading.

[Wrath of Dagon]

"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999"

With the endorsement of the Clinton administration, and Clinton signed it into law.

 

The problem with the US banking industry is not that it's not heavily regulated, because it is. The problem is the regulators didn't do their job. But the roots of the financial crisis are far wider than just problems with the banking system, it really has to do with us trying to borrow our way to prosperity by buying Chinese goods with the money we borrow back from the Chinese. Relatedly it was the easy money policy of the Fed and a host of other factors.

[Calax]

"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999"

With the endorsement of the Clinton administration, and Clinton signed it into law.

So, if a bill is passed and a president signs it he automatically is a supporter of said bill.