Poll suggests 1 in 5 Americans cannot make simple factual assessments

[Guard Dog]

Are you aware that the bailouts to banks and the auto industry were loans which have been almost completely (or completely) repaid in full with interest? That includes the $800 billion dollar "bailout".

Not correct my friend. The eight biggest banks (BOA, Citicorp, etc) and 14 of the smaller banks did repay with interest within the year. Without diving into the technical minutia that first bailout was "hold" money. It was taken not to use but to insure against emergency and insolvency. If you accepted a 100 billion dollar loan that you repaid with interest within the year, during as down economy I might add, would it be fair to say you probably did not need it to begin with? Now, the "bailout money" paid to Freddie Mac and Fannie May, GM, AIG, and several other names I could mention is a whole horse of another color. These institutions, particualrly GM, accepted the low interest loans back in '08 then recieved a second "bailout" in '09 under Obamas TARP program. They took taxpayer provided money from TARP and used it to pay back the taxpayer provided bailout loans. Of course, under the TARP the government took an ownership interest along with the money so really it never has to be paid back now because they would only be paying themselves anyway.

 

It's called a Ponzi Scheme Krezack. In the US if a private citizen uses one to rip off investors we put him in prision for hundreds of years. But when politicians do it to save the jobs of union voters who donate millions of dollars to their campaigns they are lauded for it in the media and ignorant fools in internet message boards point out what a great thing it is. Of course the taxpayers still got royally screwed over but the upshot is since the media is backing the poiticians they never report the truth of it anyway so at least the taxpayers never have to hear how badly they've been screwed.

 

But don't take my word for it. Do a little reading yourself. This wil get you started:

 

http://politifi.com/news/GM-Repays-Bailout...ney-521292.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22...-bailout-money/

[Gorgon]

What's the alternative. Let banks go bust and bring about a crisis ?, or MORE legislation making them less competitive by increasing the amount they have to hold in reserve.

 

Banks aren't reliable corner stones in the economy anymore as much as dancing on a knife's edge to maximise profits. They were the bloody idiots who ran up all the bad debt. Well, bank sub contractors specialising in the housing market really.

[Guard Dog]

What's the alternative. Let banks go bust and bring about a crisis ?, or MORE legislation making them less competitive by increasing the amount they have to hold in reserve.

 

Banks aren't reliable corner stones in the economy anymore as much as dancing on a knife's edge to maximise profits. They were the bloody idiots who ran up all the bad debt. Well, bank sub contractors specialising in the housing market really.

There was no alternative to the first bailout. TARP was another matter. But do not kid yourself Gorgon. This financial crisis was entirely caused by the incompetence of several Congresses, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W Bush. If you want to find out why, search my posting history, I wrote a very detailed and dead on accurate explanation of just what happened and why in the next to last election thread in '08. But is you want to look it up on your own look up the Glass-Stengal Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, the Gramm-Leach-Biliey Act, and the subsequent changes to the CRA under GW Bush and Clinton. Yes there were some bad acts by financial institution but none of it, none at all would have happened without the complicitcy of the US Government and politicians who care more about amassing power than remembering the lessons of 1929.

[Guard Dog]

Here is an excellent article that is spot on for this topic. Read and become wise: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

[Walsingham]

My own take on the banking failure is that the sector failed to develop sensible risk management and investment models. Instead they simply set a more or less arbitrary industry standard and worked around that. Utter crap. And it's not stopped. They're still using the same models but with the sensitivity dialled up. Which means of course that in the long run that sensitivity will ebb away, and we'll be back where we started.

 

My solution to that is that the financial modelling used should be open to investors by law, and subject to academic review by tradition.

 

~~

 

Shifting back to the military question, Monte is spot on. Full dominance has benefits far in excess of parity. Dominance forces opponents not to test the dominance (which is cheap), and there are economies of scale. Or at least there ought to be.

 

Having said that, I do think US military force needs to be rebalanced. Forcing opponents into asymmetric warfare is fine, so long as you have a massive assymetric capability waiting for the bastards. The US doesn't. I'd therefore back dropping two damned carrier groups and having a dedicated peace support division, incorporating construction, gendarmes, psyops, and spec forces.

[Cogar66]

About Obama being a muslim:

 

 

 

 

About the mosque:

 

[Enoch]

My own take on the banking failure is that the sector failed to develop sensible risk management and investment models. Instead they simply set a more or less arbitrary industry standard and worked around that. Utter crap. And it's not stopped. They're still using the same models but with the sensitivity dialled up. Which means of course that in the long run that sensitivity will ebb away, and we'll be back where we started.

The reality of the "too big to fail" status that the top banks find themselves in is that excessive risk is not a problem-- the problem that these firms must avoid is unusual risk. So long as the big banks (and the small banks that emulate them) are all similar in the types of risk they take on, any failure will by "systemic" and will necessitate government intervention to avert a wholesale financial collapse. They can do some ridiculous crazy stuff, just as long as all their rivals are doing the same ridiculous crazy stuff.

 

The problems in the financial industry and in the economy generally are a result of a generation of crappy leadership, both in business and in government. There are serious problems that have needed addressing for a long time, but the incentives for all the leaders involved is to dodge the real issues and do whatever they can to maintain the status quo just long enough that the next guy gets the blame when things fall apart. Sadly, I have seen no evidence that the current administration's approach in this regard is much different from the half-dozen that preceded it.

 

 

And GD's recitation of the government responses to the crisis is ... confused. I don't know what this "first bailout" he's talking about is, but the TARP program was initiated with the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (a well-dogeared copy of which is somewhere on my desk) in October of 2008. The auto bailout was rolled into TARP and done under its authority when efforts to pass a separate auto bill (which was supported by the lame-duck Bush administration) stalled in Congress. Much of the work in developing the program that was eventually put into action had been done under the supervision of Bush appointees. Although the scope and direction of the Stimulus act passed in February '09 (the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," which primarily funds projects administered at the state level and isn't much related to the financial industry issues dealt with by the TARP) was certainly different under a Democratic administration & Congress than it would have been had the GOP ticket won the election, there really hasn't been much difference at all in how the two administrations involved have dealt with the financial markets and run the TARP.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The problems in the financial industry and in the economy generally are a result of a generation of crappy leadership, both in business and in government. There are serious problems that have needed addressing for a long time, but the incentives for all the leaders involved is to dodge the real issues and do whatever they can to maintain the status quo just long enough that the next guy gets the blame when things fall apart. Sadly, I have seen no evidence that the current administration's approach in this regard is much different from the half-dozen that preceded it.

Welcome to history.

[Monte Carlo]

Jean Cretien, PM of Canada who helped pull them out of their own financial tsunami in the 90's:

 

The worst enemies of Capitalism are capitalists: they can never be rich enough.

 

Note: Monte is a centre-right free-marketeer with libertarian instincts, yet I find this statement strangely compelling.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's the peace loving Rauf supporting Iranian government's brutal crack down after the fraudulent election: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-...u_b_218249.html

[Thorton_AP]

I see the peace loving Rauf supporting the decision of the President that doesn't encourage violence between the two countries.

 

In fact, I don't really see anything in there that contradicts any "peace loving" perspective you're trying to discredit.

[Hurlshort]

Here's the peace loving Rauf supporting Iranian government's brutal crack down after the fraudulent election: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-...u_b_218249.html

 

Uh, what? That isn't even what the article is about? You are just making up stuff now.

[Humodour]

Here's the peace loving Rauf supporting Iranian government's brutal crack down after the fraudulent election: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-...u_b_218249.html

 

Uh, what? That isn't even what the article is about? You are just making up stuff now.

 

Yes, but you see, sufficiently unlikely events are impossible and thus acts of god.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Sigh, you have to get past the weasel words to see what he's really saying:

 

As the protests continued, violence abated.

Yes, because the Basij thugs beat, shot, and tortured protesters until they gave up.

 

Khamenei indicated that the voices have been heard and respected.

 

All that set the right tone.

What a great leader he is indeed, so loving of his own people.

 

But he also said that opponents who did not believe the election results should challenge them through legal means.

How magnanimous of him, I'm sure they'll get very far, with the Iranian legal system being so famously independent and impartial. What's that about sentencing a woman to be stoned to death? Can't hear you, sorry.

 

After the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took the Shiite concept of the Rightly Guided Imam and created the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, which means the rule of the jurisprudent. This institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law. The Council of Guardians serves to ensure these principles.

Wow, sounds great. May be we can get something like that going in the US too.

 

Before the election, the Iranian government allowed an unprecedented degree of political discourse so that the election would establish a legitimate ruler.

 

He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution -- to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.

Well, of course, everyone knows there's no rule like Islamic rule, Khomeini said so.

[Hurlshort]

I'm pretty sure if we read between the lines on WoD's posts we would get "Everything Islam is evil"

Edited August 25, 2010 by Hurlshot

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, everything Islamist is evil, big difference.

[Oblarg]

No, everything Islamist is evil, big difference.

 

I just hope you're willing to accept that a Christian theocracy wouldn't be any better - that's the fundamental point that most people miss.

[Volourn]

"I just hope you're willing to accept that a Christian theocracy wouldn't be any better"

 

And?

[Oblarg]

"I just hope you're willing to accept that a Christian theocracy wouldn't be any better"

 

And?

 

And that's something that many people fail to recognize. The problem is not with Islamic theocracy, it's with theocracy itself.

[Guard Dog]

No, everything Islamist is evil, big difference.

 

I just hope you're willing to accept that a Christian theocracy wouldn't be any better - that's the fundamental point that most people miss.

No one is aking for one of those either.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, I've never advocated Christian theocracy or any other kind of theocracy. And I don't think it's many that fail to recognize that.

[lord of flies]

He's gone and he's never coming back. Hopefully the same will be said about this fool in 2012 and hopefully he will be limited in his radical leftist agenda by the loss of the US House this November. It would be really great if they lost the Senate too, that would neuter him all together and we can have a nice quiet run into 2012 where we can get rid of him altogether.

Speaking as a radical leftist, I can say conclusively that Barack Hussein Obama, the current President of the United States, is not a radical leftist.

Yeah, poor old Al-Qaida was just pushed and pushed 'till it had to act.

Osama bin Laden is only a political figure of any import because the US was backing the mujahideen, which included bin Laden.

Wrong, the belief in God is incompatible with Marxism/Leninism, it's the opiate of the people.

Who is Gennady Zyuganov?

The only way to stop it now is to immediately freeze spending, then begin rolling it back by repealing these massive entitlement plans like Obamacare, Welfare, government workers benefits, etc.

The only person that "Obamacare" gives any entitlement to is the insurance companies.

On top of that, tax cuts on the evil corporations is a must. It is not just about raising revenue, it's about spurring growth.

We're spending money too fast! Out of control spending! Okay, let's cut taxes! Woo!

The tax code needs to be altered so that the lower incomes also pay federal taxrs, not just the upper incomes. A national sales tax in lieu of income tax would accomplish this.

Sales tax ****ing sucks and there's a reason that the progressive tax was instituted. HINT: The guy who was the President when it was instituted was one of the most extraordinarily (for his time, at least) reactionary Presidents the USA has ever had.

Make welfare recipients take mandatory drug tests, no pass, no welfare check.

Okay, now welfare recipients buy clean urine.

Close half of our foriegn bases and build new ones along the mexican border. No only do we maintain our high alert their very presence their aids the border patrol.

You do realize we aren't at war with Mexico, right?

And the democrats are going to continue trying to convert us to a Planned Economic model.

Haha, I ****ing wish.

No one is aking for one of those either.

What about the Republican Party's base?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Wrong, the belief in God is incompatible with Marxism/Leninism, it's the opiate of the people.

Who is Gennady Zyuganov?

A big Christian, is he?

his Communist Party of the Russian Federation joined hands with numerous other left-wing and right-wing nationalist forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennady_Zyuganov I guess in the post Soviet era he has to be pragmatic, this would never fly in the good old Soviet days.

 

No one is aking for one of those either.

What about the Republican Party's base?

False.

[Oblarg]

Wrong, the belief in God is incompatible with Marxism/Leninism, it's the opiate of the people.

Who is Gennady Zyuganov?

A big Christian, is he?

his Communist Party of the Russian Federation joined hands with numerous other left-wing and right-wing nationalist forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennady_Zyuganov I guess in the post Soviet era he has to be pragmatic, this would never fly in the good old Soviet days.

 

No one is aking for one of those either.

What about the Republican Party's base?

False.

 

I guess you didn't see that Texas GOP election platform that was posted a while ago?

[Wrath of Dagon]

I did see it, I don't recall anything about repealing the Constitution and having a dictatorship of priests. Which denomination did they recommend would take over btw?