| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
I wonder? |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
Are taxpayers funding Organizing for America? If they are they shouldn't be since it's nothing more than a campaign tool for Obama's never-ending campaign: http://bigjournalism.com/jsexton/2010/04/16/turning-the-tables -on-organizing-for-america-aka-fun-with-astroturf/ |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes. Are taxpayers funding the tea party events Denise? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Only those who want to Grinch. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I guess they're both the same then Denise. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't see any taxpayer funds in Obama's budget going to Tea Party groups: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125977 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I don’t see it going to Organizing for America either – I guess they are the same Denise. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Federal taxpayer money goes to support public schools. quote: I don't believe that schools that are funded by taxpayer dollars should be agents of propaganda like this. And time is money, the teachers' time and the students' time, that is being monopolized by Organizing for America. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: A lot of atheists would probably agree with you Denise.  So your gripe is that the Democrats are reaching out to kids and trying to get them involved in the political process through an organisation funded by the DNC. That’s wrong how exactly? I haven’t checked but I’d be absolutely amazed if the Republicans weren’t doing exactly the same – so what’s the problem and how exactly does the reference to taxpayers come into all this? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
They are utilizing teachers' time (paid for by the taxpayer) and students' time (financed by the taxpayer) to propagandize for their political point of view. Neither political party should be doing this. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://biggovernment.com/libertychick/2010/04/18/indoctrination-on-campus-seiu-arrests-give-new-meaning-to-cutting-class/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What do you know about the situation, Denise, other than what the "Liberty Chick" says? And why is it that you would take her word that what she says is the only and correct side of the story? You post it here as if it were a given that this is in fact the case. Since I know nothing of the situation other than what I've read here and am left with significant questions, I wonder if you seem to have posted this way because you have decided against anything that has "union" and "college loan" attached to it. You certainly appear to be taking a position. I don't know if there's enough to decide one way or the other. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Just an example of SEIU thuggery at its finest. They've got those community organzing skills down pat! I know Danny Glover got arrested the other day at one of their protests. Andy Stern said he wanted to get arrested but for some reason didn't, Maybe he changed his mind at the last minute. I wonder if the new 'government only' student loans will only be given to kids who agree to attend colleges that allow these union and community organizing folks to recruit and brainwsh them? I guess private colleges who don't accept government financed student loans will now have to rethink that or become a thing of the past, since kids won't be able to get any other kind of loan. I also wonder how many people lost their jobs to the government take-over of the student loan industry. So much for freedon. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" The government now has absolute control over student loans. |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“Obama wants all federal loans to come straight from Uncle Sam, which would create a net savings of $62 billion through 2020, according to figures last week from the Congressional Budget Office. That's money that could go back into financial aid. The current setup "wastes taxpayer dollars on subsidies to student loan companies," says Pedro de la Torre with Campus Progress, a youth advocacy group supporting the president's plan. "We think money should be going to student aid to help low- and middle-income students to afford college." http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-03-21/business/bal-bz.ambrose21mar21_1_direct-lending-student-loan-student-aid |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
But what about Freedom Fries? "This week, at global food service company Sodexo's annual shareholder meeting in Paris, France, this mounting frustration will play out on a different stage. While Sodexo's top executives and investors celebrate record 2009 profits, hundreds of the company's front line food service workers, from across the United States and Europe, are gathering to share a very different story." Sodexo: A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing is Still a Wolf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitch-ackerman/sodexo-a-wolf-in-sheeps-c_b_435688.html U.S. Union Plans to Serve Up a Protest at Sodexo's Annual Meeting “Sodexo and its U.S. workers have clashed before. Sodexo initially fought a race-bias suit filed by thousands of black employees in the United States, who charged that they were barred from promotions and segregated within Sodexo; the company agreed to settle for $80 million in 2005.” “Since 2000, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has carried out at least 132 enforcement inspections arising from incidents at or complaints about conditions at Sodexo or its units.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/business/global/25iht-sodexo.html?pagewanted=1 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: The best our Pip dictionary Application would do was quote: Apparently, Denise, you are again suffering from a case of language inflation. Unions and community organization are now in your mind the purview here of people that are cruel and vicious and are ruffians, robbers and murderers. I would suspect that you would have quite a few people who might give you a dispute about that. I suspect that none of them were part of the Kali cult that was apparently wiped out in 1839, not even, in all likelihood, by extension. You'd have to prove that. quote: This is an interesting an poisonous piece of speculation here. Because of its structure, it appears to avoid libel while giving free reign for fantasy to build absurdity upon absurdity, unmortared by the cement of reality testing. You leave out, Oh, so many things. First, you don't like government spending of taxpayer monies at all. So any cutbacks should be welcome to you. Second, That the government was not giving the money to the kids, it was giving money to the banks, so the banks could make a profit on it. That's corporate welfare, a taxpayer giveaway to people who don't need the money in the first place to underwrite loans so that the banks can't loose money on them. That's anti-capitalist. The banks should be taking the risk to make money; not doing so is what you should be calling socialism, isn't it? Third, the government loses money by doing so, so that's what you'd call "waste and fraud in Government," isn't it? Fourth, if the banks wish to make student loans, the government hasn't said that they can't. They are still free to do so. They are simply angry that now they must do so in a free market, with competition that says that it's in the interest of the country to have a well educated citizenry, and is willing to put its money where its mouth is. Had the banks been less greedy about their lending rates in the past, and had they been more aware of "enlightened self interest" rather than simply "self-interest" then they wouldn't have created the conditions where it was in the interest of the government and the people to change policy. Now they must actually compete. Fifth, the loans the government offers are not interest free loans. The government should make a profit on them, enough to cover the defaults and to increase the loan pool that they have to operate with in the first place. It should be a government program that may actually make money. Nobody says that private colleges have to accept government loans. They can accept private bank loans or make whatever other arrangements they wish to make with the students. They will need to compete for money and for students with other colleges in a competitive environment. Feel free to wonder how many people lost their jobs to the Government take-over of the Student loan industry. While you think about that, think about how many people lost their jobs in the funeral industry when the government mandated seat belts and air bags and saved perhaps tens of thousands of lives a year. I share your grief. If the banks wish to compete, the market is still there. It simply won't be a subsidized market any more. Unless you want to campaign for a heavily subsidized banking industry so we can be sure that those banks make sure they have big big profits without taking those risks. That is what you say you want, now, isn't it? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
LOL, I think you are the one engaging in language inflation, Bob. Just because I call someone a thug doesn't mean that I am calling that someone one of the more extreme definitions of that word. The banks are no longer allowed, thanks to the tacked on takeover of the student loan business to the healthcare bill to make student loans. Only the federal government can make those loans now. Private loans will no longer be allowed. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Nonsense, Denise. Show me where it says that. The Government has stopped subsidizing banks loans to people who want to borrow money to go to college, yes. Who says that banks can't make unsubsidized loans? It's a free country. Just because the government has stopped giving the banks a guaranteed profit on those loans doesn't mean that it can't make loans the same way it can make loans to anybody. I suspect that the banks wouldn't have made the loans in the first place if the government hadn't underwritten them. Why should the govenment give taxpayer money away to banks as profit, when it's the students who need it? The government can make a profit without the middlemen. It's that socialism that you're always complaining about to give that money to the banks; it's what you'd call "a takeover of the banks," isn't it? This way, the banks can get out of the business they never wanted to be in in the first place or compete for student business with the government at a fair interest rate. I don't think the banks are interested in fair competition; I think they want the government give-away and subsidy. That puts them in competition for people who are starving for government money. Are you actually telling me that you'd rather support the rich after complaining about the government bail-out, and then allow the impoverished to starve? I have trouble believing that. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Tucked into the legislation President Obama signed Tuesday is an important change that didn't get near the attention of health care reform: a sweeping overhaul of the nation's student loan program. The law changes how student loans are administered. Borrowers used to be able to get college loans from either banks or the federal government. In return for administering loans to students, private banks received federal subsidies to provide student loans. Under the new law, private banks will no longer handle federally backed student loans. Instead, the federal government will be the only lender to students. Supporters say the overhaul eliminates the fees banks get to act as the middlemen, saving the government billions of dollars. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/30/student.aid.faqs/index.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
That's right, Denise. The Government no longer pays fees to the banks or subsidizes them for loaning money to students. That's what I said, that's what the government said. That doesn't mean banks can't loan money to students. It only means that the government isn't subsidizing its own competitors, and if the banks want to make the loans they will have to do so without getting money from the government to do so and without having the loans guaranteed. They wouldn't have to be paid to do business and make money by the government. They can still do business, if they choose. The government thinks that it can not only do business, but also make enough money to fund the program in the process. Apparently the banks want more. They want to money without taking the risk by having the government guarantee the repayment and then, on top of that, get fees paid in addition. Then they want to say that not getting things their way is an assault on Freedom. And you want to believe them. So far, you seem to have proven my point for me. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Do you call that fair competition between the government and the private banks, Bob? How could they possibly be able to offer competitive interest rates with the feds while having to be responsible for potential defaults on those loans, something the government doesn't have to worry about. The government can just print more money. Granting student loans under these conditions would be fiscally irreponsible for the private banks and lenders. The government has too much of an edge. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Having the power to print more money and doing so are two different things, Denise. When you do that, you get runaway inflation, like in the Weimar Republic. A loaf of bread used to cost a wheelbarrow full of Reichsmarks, literally. Granted, thinks feel expensive, but they aren't Weimar Republic expensive. How can they afford to compete with the government? By offering loans at competitive rates if they feel that there is enough profit in there for them. Private banks have to face the same issues of defaults that the government faces in their other business loan ventures, when they make other sorts of loans. They simply want to make loans where the profit is higher and the risk is lower, as in credit card type investments, where the profits can be what was once called usury and was considered, literally, a sin. They will tack on as many fees and charges and raise their rates as high as they can get away with, and they will weep very loudly if anything threatens their profit margins. It may be that they don't consider making student loans very profitable. Maybe they won't want to make them. Did they make them before the government bribed them and underwrote their profits to do so? If they did, they should be able to continue now unless they feel there's a better use for their money. They have the freedom to make that choice. Why should the federal government be forced to subsidize bank profits, costing the taxpayers money, when the government can provide more loans to more people more cheaply and still make enough of a profit to keep the program going on its own? Are you campaigning for higher taxes and subsidizing bank profits? The government can only print more money if it wants to get in trouble with the voters about the economy. That's a lot of what got the Republicans voted out of office in 2008, remember? Not a smart idea. The government can offer the loans at less cost to taxpayers. The banks are upset at not getting corporate welfare, and you're upset at not giving it to them. If you want to get upset at p[potential layoffs in banking, why haven't you been screaming bloody murder every time there's a bank merger and substantial numbers of employees are laid off as cost savings in the consolidation? The total number of layoffs have been likely far larger — most any redundant positions are gone as opposed to a few positions localized in the loan departments. You haven't voiced any upset about that; why about this? This is a case of something the government can do more cheaply and better. I suspect that's why. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So has the government stopped printing money since 2008? I don't believe that banks should get corporate welfare. I also don't believe that the government should make themselves the only viable game in town either. And that's just what they have done with the student loan industry. This administration seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bath water. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Bob, you're assuming the government can do it well. Most people, I think, would suggest there's not a lot of history to support that kind of assumption. People out to make an honest profit always seem to do just about everything better than the government can. Denise, the initial question is really pretty simple. Do you want what is best for the banking industry or do you want what is best for our college students? If you really intend to argue in favor of the banks, honestly, I don't think you're going to find a lot of support. The initial question, of course, isn't just pretty simple; it's also too simple. It looks only at the short term benefits of the legislation and, like Bob, assumes the government can push those benefits into the long term. I'm skeptical, to say the least. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The treasury prints enough money to replace the money that's taken out of circulation through the process of wear and tear. Old, worn-out money is returned to the Fed and destroyed and enough new money is printed to replace it and to keep roughly the same amount in circulation. This is done year in and year out by the treasury department under the supervision of the Secret Service, one of whose duties is to keep track of counterfeiting and problems with the currency. You don't want to overprint or underprint. Part of the problem with counterfeiting is that it is an attack on the economy, which is why it's taken so seriously. It can have serious economic consequences for the country. This is one of the reasons that the currency color was changed a few years back, because of successful counterfeiting attacks on the economy from the Becca Valley. The change in currency was to counter the risk of inflation, among other things. The government never stops printing money. It is also very careful about how much money that it prints to avoid some of these problems. If you print too much, you devalue the dollar, right? You keep asserting that the government is the only game in town with student loans. The government makes policy; that's the business of government. The policy has been that an educated population is a desirable thing. The government thus set about building incentives to educate the people. They offered loans to veterans, for example, who wanted to go to school. Where were the banks before this? Were they offering low cost loans to veterans or to anybody who wanted to go to school? Not that I know of. Those loans paid off very well for the country. It was a good government policy. The banks could have offered loans to folks if they'd wanted to. It probably would have saved the taxpayers money. Were you yelling at the banks, demanding that they offer such a product? I suspect you would have mentioned such a thing if it had been true. Still, the banks were free to decide to offer or not offer, as they saw fit. When the government offered to subsidize bank loans, guarantee repayment to the banks and paid fees, then suddenly there was what you call "a student loan industry." There was no student loan industry. There was a welfare line of bankers standing in line in front of the Government offices with their hands out for taxpayer money. Every time they could find a student to loan it to, they got money from the government and the taxpayers. What sort of an industry is that, Denise? It was a bloated hand-out program. Now the policy was that we wanted to encourage education, not that we bribe bankers, who were sucking a large part of the education money out of the pockets of the students and the universities and away from the use intended for it by the taxpayers. The government decided that it didn't want to pay the bribe any more. Now there appears to be enough money in the fund so that the government can loan the same money to the same number of students or more and actually make a good profit on that money, even with the expected rate of defaults. If the government can make a profit on that money, even with the defaults, so can private bankers. It simply won't be the usurious rate of profit they like to get. They won't be sucking your blood, my blood and the blood of students to get it. They'll actually have to settle for the same amount of profit that the government will make. Considering that the government didn't have to let them be part of the business in the first place, I'd say they've had a mighty generous ride so far. I'd also have to say that the government can't afford to keep them on the dole, and that people who are actually in need of money so that they can eat or have a roof over their heads would have to come first. Exactly what you think is the baby and what you think is the bathwater in your analogy escapes me, so I can't really comment on that. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/SprinJ/2010/SprinJ20100421_low.jpg |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm arguing in favor of private industry/free markets vs. government control/monopoly, Ron. There should be a way to address concerns and problems without government takeovers of one section of the economy after the other. I guess I would say that the baby is the free market system/capitalism and the bath water is any associated problems, Bob. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So, uh, you don't think the government should be involved in education at all, Denise? It's private school or nothing? Private financing or nothing? You don't believe that we, as a society, need to invest in the education of our children? Especially if doing so is at the expense of the private sector? Sorry, Denise, but again, I honestly don't think you'll get a lot of support for that perspective. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Well, Denise, nobody's actually offered you that set of options, have they? What reality has offered you is something of an in-between situation, and what you seem to want to argue is the extreme form of the right wing side of things. It's an extremely confusing argument, because it confuses economic and political systems, which are related but do not have to be identical things. The choices you have are between more moderate actual situations. There is no actual free-market capitalist system that I know of in the world. As countries approach that state, the capitalists can't help but try to meddle in the government to tilt it to their own advantage at the expense of other capitalists or other governments, and we have monopolies emerge that try to ossify the status quo forever. Governments tend to function as controls on the excesses of such institutions. We need the tension between both to function. Most government has to find someplace between the left and the right where it can function to nurture its institutions and help its people thrive. It has to find a pragmatic balance between greed and charity in there someplace. My position is that most people have very little trouble with the greed side oif that equation, and it's the charity side of it that we need to work on. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Not at all Ron. I just think there is a better solution than government takeovers. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, don't you see the possibility of government being the biggest monopoly of all? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Not if they are an elected, representative government, Denise. Also, Monopoly is pretty much an economic thing, isn't it? The notion of "a monopoly on power" is pretty much a monopoly by metaphor rather than a literal monopoly, though the word may have stretched its meaning by now. Governments retain power by legitimacy, technically speaking; that is, by the acceptance of the governed. That comes from the bottom up. Monopoly comes from the top down. Of course, you could make another argument. I'd be interested in hearing it. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
When the government is taking over one economic sector after the other, I'd call that an economic thing, Bob, as well as a monopoly of power. A government that ceases to represent their constituents, but rather their own party's ideology first and foremost, is no longer a bottom up representative government, but rather a top down monopoly. Dare I say, aren't we all socialists now? (according to that Time Magazine cover right after the innauguration), and perhaps even heading toward communism, the ultimate goal, after all, of socialism, isn't it? I think Lenin said that, or was it Marx? How much more of our industry has to be taken over by the government before we are taken over that threshold? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
According to the GM ads, GM has paid off it debt now. It should be free from the government, if that's true. Denise, being untrusting is a good thing. It's protective of you, your friends and your liberty. It needs to respond to evidence to the contrary as well, however. My issue here is that you are not suspicious enough, and that your suspicions are selective — that is that they are directed mostly at the left, and that you seem to ignore the dangers and assaults on your freedom by the right as well. If you want to be suspicious of the Democrats, that's fine, and probably healthy; but to confine you suspicions there is to be far far too trusting, and to put your liberties at risk. Those are my thoughts. I'm aware of dangers on the left. I simply don't place them where you do, being a bit more familiar with them than you are. I know that there are crazy Leftists out there, I simply identify them differently than you do. The ones that scare me are the ones who say things like, "If you want to make omlets, you've got to break eggs." Those folks scare me. I also get very nervous about people who want to talk about somebody's committment to "the revolution." They scare me too. Just thought you'd like to know. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – Declaring themselves short of patience, Democrats set an initial showdown vote for next Monday on legislation to clamp new regulations on the financial industry while Republicans insisted on more bargaining. Democrats short on patience?? Who knew???  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You really wouldn't know it after the delay they had to put up with on the health care legislation, would you? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm not impressed with GM's paying back its debt, Bob, when that was only part of the deal with the government. The other part was the government becoming a majority shareholder in GM as a part of the bailout deal, which they still are. I am suspicious of more than just the Progressives, Bob. But right now they are the ones who are pounding us over the head with their Marxist ideology and ramming their socialist agenda down our throats and utilizing their Alinsky-style tactics in an attempt to discredit any opposition to their 'vision' of a 'fundamentally transformed America'. My only wish is that if they feel the need to so fundamentally transform this great country, that they would move to some other country that better suits their ideal. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise, if you check into the facts about the GM payback, you may see how it's a scam. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks Mike. The news of the pay back didn't sit right with me, knowing they were still losing money. I guess good PR for the President is the name of the game. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/more_than_meets_the_eye_to_gm.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Take a deep breath, Denise. "Socialist agenda and Marxist ideology?" There is only one socialist in the Government that I know of. His name is Bernie Sanders, and he was elected. If you don't like him or his ideology, speak to his constituents. The rest of the elected officials were also just that — elected officials, and if you don't like them, speak to their constituents. I seriously doubt that many of their constituents would believe that that are either Marxist or Socialist. I voted for the President, and I think he's barely a Democrat, let alone a Marxist, let alone a socialist. Now this isn't the sort of thing where we can have polls to determine what the truth is, these fellas either are or aren't Marxists and socialists, and the fact that calling them that is popular in your neck of the woods has very little to do with what the reality of the situation actually is. If you think these accusations are actually true, then why not lay out what you think the actual definition of a Marxist is. Then we'll try to get it honed down to something as measurable as we can in terms that are as concrete as we can get them, and we'll actually try to check it out instead of just throwing nasty (to many people) accusations and hoping that they stick. As for your wish that "they would move to some other country that better suits their ideal," I am not surprised that you would feel that way. Imagine how the indians felt. In a Democracy, so long as they conform to the constitution, what makes you think your ideals have a better right to be here that theirs? Especially since it's not entirely clear to me that you have any clear idea of exactly what their ideas actually are. You seem to be pretty heavy with misinformation, and whatever the folks on the Radical Right have been doing to this country for years doesn't seem to have moved to you criticism of their actions along the way. Even now, you remain critical of this administration rather than the actions of the last one, which got us into this mess in the first place. I don't have to tell you that you have a right to your opinion; you've voiced it very clearly. While I won't say that this administration is faultless, I do say that my areas for disagreement would probably be different than yours in many ways. And what, specifically, did you find so objectionable about Saul Alinsky's tactics that you would condemn them in this fashion? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Some common sense from Sarah Palin about Financial Reform: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/note.php?note_id=382303098434&id=24718773587 How many in the current administration are former Goldman Sachs employees? I know what Marxism, Socialism and Communism are, Bob, although I'm sure we have different views of their ideologies. How many of the people that this president surrounds himself with are self-professed Marxists, Socialists and Communists? How many are Mao admirers? In what sense does the Left conform to the Constitution, you know, that document that Obama disparages as being a list of negative liberties, one that attempts to constrain government and also the document that he believes didn't allow the Warren Court 'to go far enough' in addressing redistributive justice? What I find objectionable about Alinsky tactics are its 'ends justify the means mentality'. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: What do you think should be done to reform the financial sector Denise. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
This article goes into detail about what could work: http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/curbing-risk-on-wall-street |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
What do you think will work Denise? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I like the idea of moving beyond the 'too big to fail' concept and requiring banks to have a sufficient capital to debt ratio, enough of a cushion to make corrections, and the concept of senior and junior debt and to pay off the senior debt in full if it goes into receivership. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
So you’d reduce leverage? So far so good, leverage is a major issue and I agree that the current system needs some serious reform in that area. How would you regulate and measure the rate of capitalisation? BTW so far you aren’t a million miles from the currently proposed legislation. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I give; how many? quote: That's an oxymoron, Denise. You are conflating Marxism, Socialism and Communism here with "evil," I suspect, and then acknowledge that their ideologies don't reflect that definition. Perhaps, even, that in Italy, France, Germany, Spain and many other countries where these parties function as part of the regular political structure there are many who would be quite puzzled by what you're saying, since they live with these parties on an ongoing basis with very little trouble at all. Social Democratic parties, which are a bit further to the left than our Democratic party are often the party of preference in many of these places, and they do very well indeed. quote: Again, I give; how many? And so what? Are you worried that their ideas are so appealing that they'll take over the country by acclamation? This is the same sort of thinking that the Radical Right expresses about homosexuality, that it's like a disease that you can catch. This is a country that supposed to be founded on the open discussion of ideas. If I can listen to you, you can listen to me, too. Or at least we can try. quote: When was the last time you read The Bill of Rights, Denise? For your convenience, I’ve reprinted the original 10 for you, below. As you read them, I ask that you look at the way the language is cast. Only one of the ten Amendments is cast in the positive. That is amendment six, the one about trials and due process. All the rest are in the negative to limit what the government can do. The sixth is in the positive, telling the government what it must do. Obama was correct. That is the way the framers put it. He is not disparaging the constitution, he is looking at it with a clear and exact focus, at the actual text. You might try the same. I have no idea what you mean by “Redistributive Justice.” Perhaps you could clarify that for me by giving me a reference to the text of some speech that President Obama gave so I could get some notion of the context he used the phrase in? Sometimes, these phrases crop up from the right without there being any support at all, like “death Panels,” which was a fiction made up out of the whole cloth, so a clear reference would help me address your question. I do assume it was a sincere one, and I’ll try my best to give you a straight answer. Amendment I 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. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. quote: If I’d said that about The Tea Party folks, you’d really want to know where in the Dickens I’d come up with such an absurd notion, wouldn’t you now, Denise? So I hope you won’t fault me when I do the same here. Where did you get such an idea? Not from the Alinsky I heard speak. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'd have to leave that to the experts, Grinch. My main concern is that any new regulations do not give the executive branch the ability to bypass congress for the approval of any proposed 'rescuing', and that politics play no part in the picking of winners and losers. Yes, Bob, I know it is a list of negative liberties, as it should be, to constrain the government. That is what Obama disparages. This is from a speech he made while still an Ill senator: quote: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/457 I would say that Social Democrats have taken over our Democratic Party. You'll have to define 'very well indeed'. Have these other countries that you mention had the same level of liberty and economic freedom that we have had here? Or are they saddled with ever increasing taxes and regulation in an attempt to fund their cradle to grave entitlements? I only have to look at Alinsky adherents to see what his philosphies have wrought in society, ACORN and SEIU for example. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s pretty much the essence of the proposed legislation too Denise, though the idea of ‘rescuing’ is replaced with a controlled break up of any financial entity that fails. It won’t work though. The proposed legislation doesn’t go anywhere near far enough to regulate the financial industry. They’ve already gone back to doing the kind of things that caused this mess in the first place, only now they’re emboldened because they know that the government will bail them out when it all goes pear shaped. Which is likely to be sooner rather than later. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: So what you're saying is that The President felt that if we really wanted to address the racial and economic inequities in the country, we'd need to do it through community action such as voting drives and job training programs and educational programs rather than simply by bringing law suits. He felt that law suits really didn't do enough to establish the goals of the civil rights movement. I tend to agree with him. Voting and political action are the ways that most minority groups have found redress historically against the difficulties they've faced. The Italians, the Irish and the Jews all faced many difficulties, and while the courts may have helped, it was really becoming part of the electorial and social fabric of the country that helped them the most. The Irish back in my old neighborhood in Boston still remember bitterly those times when there were signs out for rooms to let and for jobs with No Irish Need Apply as part of the Ad; and with No Dogs or Irish as part of the housing Ads as well. They had to organize to make sure they were accepted, as did the Italians and the Jews as well. quote: Wish it were so, Denise, but they're still simply Democrats, and mostly middle of the road Democrats at that. In England, Labor has drifted to the right, and they're starting to look like our Clinton Democrats where they used to look more like socialists, and I'm afraid that here in the United States it's very much the same. I'd be interested in knowing what the Observant Mr. Grinch thinks about this, first because he's in a much better position than I am to comment on Great Britain and her politics (not to mention the politics in the various parts of the Common Market), but he has a different take on U.S. politics than I do — much more objective, I think — and I'd simply like to know what his observations are. quote: I'd say that they feel they have much the same, but I couldn't swear to it, Denise. I know that some Britons I've known feel they have more because their constitution and bill of rights is unwritten. I was surprised to hear that, but it does make sense from their point of view. Some of them feel saddled with debt, others feel that they get well taken care of for what they pay and that the trade off is good. All of them vote, and can and do change their governments from time to time, depending on what they feel they need at the time. They are democracies, and mostly their democracies fit the countries that vote the democracies into power. They go through the same swings of feeling about us as we go through about them, I suppose. Feeling that this sort of thing is entirely one sided would be a mistake. Almost all of them are justifiably proud of themselves, as we are as well. That shouldn't be a surprise to you, though. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Always happy to oblige when it comes to offering an opinion. Has the British Labour party moved to the right? Yes they have Bob, but it’s all relative, the political parties in the UK aren’t really comparable with those in the US because the central point from which right or left are measured are different in both systems. An American centralist would be classed as a right winger in the UK and a centralist in the UK would be.. well it’d be someone like you Bob. Not only are both systems centred in different positions on the political spectrum the distance between mainstream right and mainstream left is much narrower with a very defined gap and distance between the mainstream and the extremes of each side. To give you some idea of the difference Bob the average Conservative in the UK would have rejected the recent health care bill as being way too right wing and the average right-winger in the US would be a target voter for the British National Party in the UK. BTW in case you wondered I’m a member of the conservative party in the UK – if I’m right that would make me a centralist in the US, which probably explains why you see my opinions as somewhat objective. Hope that helps. quote: Kick off a thread Bob and I’ll be more than happy to compare notes. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: This is the section that most bothers me, Bob, where he characterizes the Founder's intent as an interpretation and the Warren Court's agreement with that interpretation that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, as if there could possibly be another legitimate interpretation, as if he believes that there should be a way to break free from those interpreted essential constraints. And of course I disagree with the concept of Redistribution of Wealth and Redistributive Justice in a free society no matter the vehicles chosen to advance them. I believe that the very concept strikes at the very heart and spirit of the Constitution, in that it advocates the taking of one man's property and the giving of it to another. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Now I'm more confused, Grinch. If the proposed legislation replaces rescuing with a controlled breakup, how could they then continue to rely on bailouts? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Ever heard of a catch 22 Denise? Well if the financial reform bill passes in it’s current form you’re about to create a real humdinger. The idea is that a fund is created, paid for by the banks themselves, that is used to break up any bank that defaults. It’s a half decent idea but the size of the fund is critical – originally a figure of 250 billion was suggested, but those banker friendly politicians managed to knock 200 billion off that. That might not have mattered too much if the size of the banks or their risk was reduced but the politicians didn’t like that idea either. So if the bill passes you’ll still have 58% of the financial market held by the 10 biggest banks, and because the restrictions on risky dealings haven’t been curtailed they’re just carrying on like they did before and at some point the whole thing will go bang. At that point 50 billion will be about as useful as a chocolate fire truck, whichever government is in charge will have to bail them out all over again because they really are too big to fail. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Some concerns about the current legislation: http://www.bigskybusiness.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1217:groups-call-financial-regulation-bill-an-attack-on-main-street&catid=20:national&Itemid=120 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Got a link to the speech itself, Denise? I'm not familiar with it, and I'd do better if I could read the whole thing at once. For example, it doesn't sound to me like we're reading the portion of text you're presenting in the same way. I need to look back and see what the referent was to the initial "It." But it looks to me as though he's saying that we don't know what the framers were saying exactly in the original text, and that even our initial reading of the constitution, given the way the language has changed and the way the structure of the language and thought has changed may not be what the framers thought it would be. I wrote a reply to Ron a few postings back where I talk about some issues in the text of the second amendment that should offer an example of what I mean. I use an 18th century definition of the word "militia" to talk about what the framers may have meant, and talk about how the meaning of that word today is different than it was at that time. I don't pretend to be a scholar in the field, I'm simply talking about some of the modern difficulty in reading an 18th century document and assuming we know what it says. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't, sometimes it's in the middle. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Serious concerns? They aren’t serious concerns Denise, serious concerns would have words like ‘leverage’, ‘naked credit default swap’ and ‘derivatives’ in them. Your representatives have climbed into bed with the wall street wingnuts that caused the recession, both Republican and Democrat politicians are being bought off to water down legislation that might rein them in and avert a crisis. With the health care bill a half arsed solution was disappointing but not totally disastrous – you can fix the mistakes later. When it comes to financial reform you don’t have that luxury, if you don’t get it right this time those bozos on wall street will go right on taking big risks for big bucks only the next time they screw up your economy is unlikely to recover. The most serious concern you should have is that the proposed bill doesn’t go anyway near far enough. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The referent to the initial "It" was the Warren Court, as can be seen by the immediately preceding sentence in my firt post, Bob. Here is the link that was in the article that I had linked to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck I think the ocncerns listed are extremely serious, Grinch. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Any financial reform is a sham if it doesn't include Fannie and Freddie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Any financial reform that included Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie Mae would be incredibly overcomplicated Denise, slowing down legislation that needs to be put into place as soon as possible. The former GSE’s underwrite around 58% of the American mortgage market but the source of the subprime mortgages were financial institutions, regulate them and you automatically reduce the risk to the GSE’s. That’s not to say that the GSE's don’t need reform, they most certainly do and the current administration has stated its intention to do just that, but in terms of urgency the GSE’s are, quite rightly in my opinion, a secondary priority. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I see what you mean, Denise. Sorry I didn't make the connection. But there is more than one interpretation, as I pointed out, and the cases I mentioned come only from differences in textual interpretation, that is what the actual intention was that the Framers had in using the language they used. It's something like textual criticism in literary criticism in that way and asking what Pope or Prior meant by certain word choices. It's hard to say from more than 200 years distance. And that doesn't include political differences. The Framers clearly never intended women to have the vote. I don't know that they felt women were less than men, I think they didn't think about the subject at all; it was outside their purview and outside the purview of all but the most radical of thinkers at the time. That would be radical left wing thinkers, by the way, just to stake out some territory for my folks. The attitudes about slavery at the time were mixed, and you might enjoy researching them yourself. It's very clear that the intention of the Framers was that slavery continue. The counting of Blacks as three fifths of a person was a fiction that enabled the less populous southern states to have a greater number of congressmen than they otherwise would have had. The southern states pretty much refused to sign on to the new Country without that compromise. It didn't mean that they thought that the slaves would ever become actual citizens. I would hope that these are differences that you would have with the original framers. While there is in the constitution enshrined at least the very strong presumption that people can be property, there is nowhere in the constitution the presumption that property can be a person. That is a legal fiction that allows corporations a sort of legal life with rights of their own. If you were consistent about you views, and you certainly don't have to be, this would be a place where you might at least consider baulking. Allowing corporations to make contributions to political parties is an easy way to legalize bribery. Got to go to bed now. My eyelids are so heavy they're snapping the matchsticks I'm using to prop them open. My best, BK |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What are other legitimate interpretations, Bob, for the idea that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: You are asking me to offer a critique of Obama's idea about the Constitution — one I happen to share, by the way — as though the comment was a piece of text from the constitution itself. You've confused two layers of reality here. I could comment about Obama's idea, or I could comment about the text, but commenting about the one is not the same as commenting about the other. The Map is not the territory, to use a line from General Semantics. About the text itself, Obama is explicit: quote: It doesn't say that it has to be nice to you, for example, or say you're a swell person. It doesn't have to be nice to your spouse or like your in-laws. In the meantime, the government has taken on a lot of things. It's decided to build roads and sewers for you, for example, and to tax you to pay for them, and you've sent people to congress to push for these things. You've decided that having safe cars and food that doesn't kill you is important, as well as drugs that won't do things to you that they shouldn't do. So now the government does a lot for you and you expect it to, and get upset when it doesn't do it right. If you want an answer to the question of other interpretations, I did address that in relationship to the second amendment. You can probably do much that same thing with a lot of the areas of text if you have anything like a scholarly understanding of the document, which I do not. Did you not understand something I said about the Second Amendment, though? I've always thought the text there was fairly slippery. And as for my points about linguistic drift, I think they're fairly straightforward, though perhaps you'd like to ask something more specific that will seriously confuse me. It happens very easily. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"If President Obama's financial regulations are adopted, there will be fewer loans, credit will be more costly, and individuals will face more risk. Obama argues today that his reforms are necessary to prevent 'a second Great Depression' from occurring, but he does nothing to fix what the government did. Nothing is done to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite their problems with fraud and costing taxpayers $400 billion in bailouts. Nothing is done to change government regulations that force banks to make risky mortgages. The powers that would be given to the president and the Federal Reserve are unprecedented. The bill gives the government the power to regulate the capital, liquidity and permissible activities for a long list of firms, including securities firms, insurance companies, bank holding companies, hedge funds, finance companies as well as others. The government will be also able to limit the size of these companies. ... In another of his proposals ... Obama says that he wants to stop government bailouts of companies. And that should be the goal. Otherwise, firms have an incentive to take too many risks when they keep their profits but taxpayers pick up their losses. Who wouldn't head straight to Las Vegas if you got to keep your winnings and the taxpayers picked up your losses? But Obama's solution ... is to still allow bailouts, but try to prevent them from becoming necessary by stopping financial institutions from taking what he considers to be risky behavior. ... The government caused the current financial crisis by forcing banks to make bad mortgages. And the solution is less, not more, government control." --economist John R. Lott Jr. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. He also said this, Bob. That is what I was asking you about. In what other ways, other than a charter of negative liberties, can it be legitimatly be interpreted? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What was the context of the debate, Denise? When did it happen? To whom was he responding? If I go back and take postings out of context, they might sound a bit of a puzzle as well. Given a context, they might seem less so. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It wasn't a debate, it was a radio interview. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
But Denise, you said it was a speech! I really have to look at this text. Is this one of those right wing edited for media propaganda pieces that get you all hot under the collar, or is this just an interview you ran across? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
He's such a great orator even his interviews sound like speeches! The radio program was referenced in the article. Maybe you can check with them to see if they have the entire interview in their archives. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Google it, Bob. It's pretty much all over the Internet. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'll check out the actual full text when I get the time. In the meantime, this edited piece of im-proper-gander is worth every electron it's printed on, and no more, near as I can tell. They play text and tell the listeners what to think while they do it. And what's with the testy comments, Ron? Do you think I go cruising all over right wing sites in my spare time? I have difficulty sorting through the few news feeds I sign up for, and doing the reading and writing I need to. Gee wiz! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Didn't mean to be "testy," Bob, just in a hurry. And, uh, it would seem a little difficult to justify calling Google a right wing site? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Nope, Ron, Not Google. I was commenting on your "All over the web" remark. I'm not an all over the web kind of guy unless I'm actively researching something. I looked at Denise's web reference and was somewhat dismayed, since it was clearly an edited version of an interview, excerpted, with the inflammatory parts highlighted and edited together to produce a piece that was specifically designed to get the Republican Base seriously upset. I immediately thought back to the sort of stuff that the Republican Propaganda Machine produced on the ACORN scandal that turned out to be about a hundred eighty degrees from true from misleading edits. My level of thrill was not high. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
