World Politics

[DrC0721]

All I know is that Republicans and Democrats are more of the same. When Obama got elected, I at least had a little hope that our foreign policy could not be worst than what it was with Bush. Sure enough, it is.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112346/obama-ran-against-bush-but-now.html

That being said, I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and will do so in 2012. Gary Johnson and him are the only Republican candidates representing real change unlike Romneycare Mitt who flips flops to what ever can get him elected.

 

[Oldman]

All I know is that Republicans and Democrats are more of the same. When Obama got elected, I at least had a little hope that our foreign policy could not be worst than what it was with Bush. Sure enough, it is.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112346/obama-ran-against-bush-but-now.html

That being said, I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and will do so in 2012. Gary Johnson and him are the only Republican candidates representing real change unlike Romneycare Mitt who flips flops to what ever can get him elected.

Republican and Democrat incumbents are very similar because their campaign contributions come from the same point, to some degree.
As for Presidential administrations and how they differ: if the international and domestic pressures are strong enough and crisis demanding enough they are stuck doing what will generate an outcome. Idealogues never want to deal with the practical realities of immediate issues but they are absolutely real. The message or excuse about why we are in Afghanistan or how we will improve the economy may sound different from each camp but realistically both sides know they are relatively helpless to promote immediate progress. What a learned voter should be considering is the short term damage done by a majority bent on repaying their major contributors like the Oil companies or Insurance industry. You will personally pay for that.

 

[rhubroma]

This is just weak. I have a responsibility first to provide for myself and family before I look to government redistribution. I have an obligation to help others who can not provide for themselves. That is hardly what you describe.

I realize you need to denigrate those you disagree with but let's try and keep it somewhat accurate, shall we?

The good-looking person in a photograph is invariably the ugliest, the happy one unvariably the unhappiest.

 

[Anonymous]

Things that make you go... hmmmmm

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): "With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It's not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery."

THAT'S bound to be controversial.

 

[redtreviso]

Things that make you go... hmmmmm




THAT'S bound to be controversial.

your kind..

 

[gregod]

You have missed the point. Government mandated minimum wage has destroyed entry level jobs.

...

This is not quite true. There have been numerous studies by both freshwater and saltwater economists that have shown that businesses that pay above the mandated minimum wage have overall lower employment costs when absenteeism, productivity and employee turnover are considered. There are certain caveats. But the main important caveat is that the wage paid varies with the cost of living in the community. Those companies closest to a living wage had the best cost/benefit ratios.

Also, I suspect you are misusing the term "entry level job". The definition of entry level job as it relates to economics is a job where there is a potential for a career. Generally, few entry level jobs start anywhere near the minimum wage. However, "low-skilled" jobs are most likely at or near minimum wage regardless of length of service.

As for whether or not the government should be involved in setting the market, this is a separate philosophical point. As stated above, companies that paid above the minimum wage (with certain caveats) for low skilled work often out-performed competitors that paid lower wages. However, should the government be involved in telling a company how to act in its own best interests? Companies have economists also, and they are aware of the studies. In spite of this, companies often still work to drive low skilled wages even lower despite the economic consequences. One reason is that efficiency is very difficult demonstrate to a shareholder, while lower payroll is easy. Lower productivity and higher training costs, etc. are missed in the shareholder analysis.

One argument for government intervention in wages (i.e. a minimum wage) is that in a downturn in the economy competitive market pressure works to lower wages, further depressing the economy and further creating downward pressure on wages. Government intervention through worker protection can protect both workers and companies. In the absence of unions for low skilled work, only the government can protect workers on the margins of the economy. This protection can in the end serve to benefit companies, as well and give them cover with shareholders.

This is a simplistic explanation, but I hope it gives you food for thought.

 

[redtreviso]

The Right Wing's Account of the Financial Crisis Has Been Destroyed

As the worldwide financial crisis blossomed in September of 2008, I was stunned by the speed at which the right wing media was able to create a simple narrative that explained what had happened and who was to blame. While Democrats and mainstream media figures continued to mumble about ARMs and CDOs, every right winger in the country knew by October that the culprit was the newly minted financial conglomerate FFF&D(Fannie, Freddie, Frank, and Dodd).

Boiled down to a single sentence, here is the right wing's account of the crisis:

""Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, with the help of ACORN thugs, forced numerous financial institutions to purchase millions of bundled subprime junk mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and convinced all the credit rating agencies that these securities were free of risk, thereby injecting a time bomb of fraudulent financial instruments into the world economy that exploded when high gas prices caused large numbers of mortgage defaults."""

To see how quickly this narrative took hold, watch this John McCain campaign ad from late September 2008. This has been the story put forth by Fox News and right wing talk radio from the very beginning of the crisis up to this day, despite numerous debunkings. Most recently, House Speaker John Boehner was caught parroting the zombie talking point.

It's time to cut this zombie's head off and drive a stake through its heart. The tools we need to do this have been available for months. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission released its reports in January explaining the causes of the financial meltdown. In the commission's primary report and one of two dissenting reports, it was explained that numerous factors were to blame for the financial crisis.

Only the conclusions of a single member of the ten-person bipartisan commission, Peter Wallison, support this right wing fairy tale. Wallison, John Boehner's pick for the commission, released the second dissenting report, in which he claims subprime and non-traditional mortages are entirely to blame for the crisis.

The three other Republican members of the commission, all with strong conservative bonafides, identified ten major causes of the crisis. They rejected the right wing narrative as a far too simplistic an explanation for what occured.

It should be stated forcefully and often by Democrats, liberals, and anyone with an interest in the truth, that the FFF&D theory about the financial crisis is a far-right fringe notion even among conservatives. The results of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission prove it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1093872

read it and weep scott

 

[Anonymous]

read it and weep scott

Well that settles everything then. YOU posted it. The democratic underground posted it... there you have it.

You went awfully quiet after your Ben Franklin quotes. What happened? Your clock clean enough nowadays?

 

[Anonymous]

This is not quite true. There have been numerous studies by both freshwater and saltwater economists that have shown that businesses that pay above the mandated minimum wage have overall lower employment costs when absenteeism, productivity and employee turnover are considered. There are certain caveats. But the main important caveat is that the wage paid varies with the cost of living in the community. Those companies closest to a living wage had the best cost/benefit ratios.

Also, I suspect you are misusing the term "entry level job". The definition of entry level job as it relates to economics is a job where there is a potential for a career. Generally, few entry level jobs start anywhere near the minimum wage. However, "low-skilled" jobs are most likely at or near minimum wage regardless of length of service.

As for whether or not the government should be involved in setting the market, this is a separate philosophical point. As stated above, companies that paid above the minimum wage (with certain caveats) for low skilled work often out-performed competitors that paid lower wages. However, should the government be involved in telling a company how to act in its own best interests? Companies have economists also, and they are aware of the studies. In spite of this, companies often still work to drive low skilled wages even lower despite the economic consequences. One reason is that efficiency is very difficult demonstrate to a shareholder, while lower payroll is easy. Lower productivity and higher training costs, etc. are missed in the shareholder analysis.

One argument for government intervention in wages (i.e. a minimum wage) is that in a downturn in the economy competitive market pressure works to lower wages, further depressing the economy and further creating downward pressure on wages. Government intervention through worker protection can protect both workers and companies. In the absence of unions for low skilled work, only the government can protect workers on the margins of the economy. This protection can in the end serve to benefit companies, as well and give them cover with shareholders.

This is a simplistic explanation, but I hope it gives you food for thought.

Fair enough.

"Entry Level" was is reference to youth unemployment (those entering the job market for the first time or early in their working life).

 

[redtreviso]

Well that settles everything then. YOU posted it. The democratic underground posted it... there you have it.

You went awfully quiet afer you Ben Franklin quotes. What happened? Your clock clean enough nowadays?

afer you? a few too many last night?

I didn't read your cato heritage generated sh!t... I guess Ben Franklin is not a good founding father huh? The concept he spoke of doesn't penetrate the firewall of the right wing mental illness.

As for the democratic underground post.. It had a link to the actual report..But since it included your opinion about Dodd and Frank being a cause I used it. Also it described how your opinion was formed.. Poodle

http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/report/conclusions

 

[Anonymous]

afer you? a few too many last night?

I didn't read your cato heritage generated sh!t... I guess Ben Franklin is not a good founding father huh? The concept he spoke of doesn't penetrate the firewall of the right wing mental illness.

As for the democratic underground post.. It had a link to the actual report..But since it included your opinion about Dodd and Frank being a cause I used it. Also it described how your opinion was formed.. Poodle

http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/report/conclusions

Between being a lousy typist and speller I do have my challenges.

You read the Franklin quotes. It just took you a while to process the fact that MoveOn didn't provide you anything except what they know followers like you will regurgitate.

As for your idol, Barney Frank.... Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, before, during and after the meltdown (couldn't possibly have been involved, either directly or indirectly...Pffff).

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."

Guess who bottled this up?? Yes, your boy.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

The OFHEO report in 2004....

Some choice quotes from 2003...

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable." Critics "exaggerate a threat of safety" and "conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see."

"I believe that we, as the federal government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals."

"I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing and possibly moving into something that is more explicitly a subsidy. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."


I could go on and on but it's a complete waste of bandwidth, terribly boring and has already been covered in depth in this very thread.

Nice diversion tho.

Have a nice day.

 

[redtreviso]

Between being a lousy typist and speller I do have my challenges.

You read the Franklin quotes. It just took you a while to process the fact that MoveOn didn't provide you anything except what they know followers like you will regurgitate.

As for your idol, Barney Frank.... Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, before, during and after the meltdown (couldn't possibly have been involved, either directly or indirectly...Pffff).



Guess who bottled this up?? Yes, your boy.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

The OFHEO report in 2004....

Some choice quotes from 2003...

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable." Critics "exaggerate a threat of safety" and "conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see."

"I believe that we, as the federal government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals."

"I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing and possibly moving into something that is more explicitly a subsidy. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."


I could go on and on but it's a complete waste of bandwidth, terribly boring and has already been covered in depth in this very thread.

Nice diversion tho.

Have a nice day.

Sorry but you are wrong.. The whole F and F fiasco started way back..(try reading the report)..This was Greenspan's baby..How to loot f and f via fed reserve funds...or vise versa.. Frank and Dodd had no role until after the fact..Isn't that always the case?? These people are all full on Republican until federal prison is looming over their heads then they shmooz democrats to get protection.

Have a nice day too.. and your horse

 

[redtreviso]

Car thief Darrel Issa(R-Socal)

""At a hearing today of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is expected to attack a Presidential plan to require government contractors to disclose their contributions to political groups. The hearing is a bold move for Issa, who only months ago founded the House Transparency Caucus with the declaration that "sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant."

The disclosure rule at issue is really just a small-bore response to last year's sweeping Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which opened the floodgates to corporate cash in elections. It focuses exclusively on federal contractors because they presumably have more incentive than other private companies to bribe and influence politicians. So why is Issa throwing a fit?

The answer, as with most things in politics, probably involves money. The union-backed group Chamber Watch has tallied up how much dark money went last year to support Republicans on the Oversight Committee and the Small Business Committee, which is co-hosting the hearing.""

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/hypocrisy-darell-issa

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry but you are wrong.. The whole F and F fiasco started way back..(try reading the report)..This was Greenspan's baby..How to loot f and f via fed reserve funds...or vise versa.. Frank and Dodd had no role until after the fact..Isn't that always the case?? These people are all full on Republican until federal prison is looming over their heads then they shmooz democrats to get protection.

Have a nice day too.. and your horse

Wrong about what??

Barney Frank chairing the committee?

Barney Frank opposing Bush Admin regulation redo in 2003?

Barney Frank publicly commenting on how sound F&F were in 2004?

Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury."

Barney Frank publicly condemning OFHEO in 2004 when the report suggested things Mr. Frank didn't want to hear?

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were not making positive comments about the financial health in 2008 (about 2 months before the creation of the conservatorship)?

“They have more than adequate capital, in fact more than the law requires,'' Dodd, a
Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said on CNN's
“Late Edition” today. “They have access to capital markets. They're in good shape.” “To
suggest somehow they're in major trouble is not accurate,” Dodd said.

On July 15, 2008 Senator Dodd also said:
In considering the state of our economy, in particularly turmoil in recent days, it is important
to distinguish between fear and facts. In our markets today, far too many actions are being
driven by fear and ignoring crucial facts.
One such fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have core strengths that are helping
them weather the stormy seas of today's financial markets. They are adequately capitalized.
They are able to act as the debt markets. They have solid portfolios with relatively few risky
subprime mortgages. They are well-regulated and they have played a vital role in
maintaining the flow of affordable mortgage credit, even during these volatile times.

Barney Frank receiving a letter dated 12/3/2004 from the Federal Housing Finance Agency stating (among other things)?

"On November 15, 2004 Fannie Mae filed a Form 12b-25 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Fannie Mae indicated that its external auditors could not complete their reviews of its financial statements and noted the possibility of up to a $9 billion loss dating back to 2001. As a result, OHFEO has determined it will not provide a monthly capital classification at this time."

Just to refresh.... I never stated Barney Frank to be "the cause". There are a bunch of people who should be in prison. Barney frank is one of them, imo.
Chris Dodd, Cris Cox (SEC Chair, a republican btw), Mozilo, Hank Greenberg, these two assclowns;

The list goes on and on....


Wake up already.

 

[redtreviso]

Wrong about what??

Barney Frank chairing the committee?

Barney Frank opposing Bush Admin regulation redo in 2003?

Barney Frank publicly commenting on how sound F&F were in 2004?



Barney Frank publicly condemning OFHEO in 2004 when the report suggested things Mr. Frank didn't want to hear?

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were not making positive comments about the financial health in 2008 (about 2 months before the creation of the conservatorship)?



Barney Frank receiving a letter dated 12/3/2004 from the Federal Housing Finance Agency stating (among other things)?


Just to refresh.... I never stated Barney Frank to be "the cause". There are a bunch of people who should be in prison. Barney frank is one of them, imo.
Chris Dodd, Cris Cox (SEC Chair, a republican btw), Mozilo, Hank Greenberg, these two assclowns;

The list goes on and on....


Wake up already.

Congress was controlled by WHO??? both houses and the presidency..and then there was their heavenly father PHIL F GRAMM!

 

[Anonymous]

Congress was controlled by WHO??? both houses and the presidency..and then there was their heavenly father PHIL F GRAMM!

Ok Boy Scout... so Frank and Dodd were involved. Imagine that.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I agree mostly with the Dodd Frank bill itself, but Dodd was a total hypocrite, and a crook, and Frank as partisan as it gets. If you look purely at regulatory change, I agree with what they were trying to attempt. But these guys have so much campaign/lobby baggage, it's beyond disturbing. Dodd probably belongs in prison.

Again, this goes back to the crux of my argument. The root of problems in politics is money=power=law/rules/taxes. Until we curb the bribery; in the forms of campaign donations and lobbying, nothing is going to change, no matter which party is in there. I've long ago grown tired of the "other party is more corrupt" argument, which how so much of this plays out. It's a sick system.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree mostly with the Dodd Frank bill itself, but Dodd was a total hypocrite, and a crook, and Frank as partisan as it gets. If you look purely at regulatory change, I agree with what they were trying to attempt. But these guys have so much campaign/lobby baggage, it's beyond disturbing. Dodd probably belongs in prison.

Again, this goes back to the crux of my argument. The root of problems in politics is money=power=law/rules/taxes. Until we curb the bribery; in the forms of campaign donations and lobbying, nothing is going to change, no matter which party is in there. I've long ago grown tired of the "other party is more corrupt" argument, which how so much of this plays out. It's a sick system.

Agreed. Which is what makes me roll my eyes when the sides attempt to blame each other without even a passing thought of how corrupt it has all become.

 

[redtreviso]

Agreed. Which is what makes me roll my eyes when the sides attempt to blame each other without even a passing thought of how corrupt it has all become.

YOU ARE SO F FULL OF IT SCOTT...You pass along blame to Dodd and Frank almost verbatim from the GOP machine. When things are written about this fiasco Dodd and Frank don't even merit a mention until the cows had already left the barn.. Dodd is corrupt..pffft;..He got a discount loan from countrywide so they say..That just proves it.. A discount LOAN????????????????????????
How many times you think O"really or somebody has tried to make that the smoking gun?? Meanwhile the Phil Gramms and Greenspans and Bush get a complete pass from you. Once again.. You are the street gang member blaming the uncooperative witness who lets you get away with the crime.

 

[Anonymous]

YOU ARE SO F FULL OF IT SCOTT...You pass along blame to Dodd and Frank almost verbatim from the GOP machine. When things are written about this fiasco Dodd and Frank don't even merit a mention until the cows had already left the barn.. Dodd is corrupt..pffft;..He got a discount loan from countrywide so they say..That just proves it.. A discount LOAN????????????????????????
How many times you think O"really or somebody has tried to make that the smoking gun?? Meanwhile the Phil Gramms and Greenspans and Bush get a complete pass from you. Once again.. You are the street gang member blaming the uncooperative witness who lets you get away with the crime.

Where did I say Greenspan is without blame? Gramm pushing regulatory easing is worse than Frank stopping tighter regs?? Have I got that right?

There was more to Dodd than a sweet deal, you just won't accept that. I have never given Bush a pass for this. TARP was a disaster, imo. This happened on his watch.

GOP machine my ass. I hate corruption and I don't give a flying eff what party they 'belong' to.

When's the last time you were critical of someone on the left? Never.

 

[redtreviso]

Where did I say Greenspan is without blame? Gramm pushing regulatory easing is worse than Frank stopping tighter regs?? Have I got that right?

There was more to Dodd than a sweet deal, you just won't accept that. I have never given Bush a pass for this. TARP was a disaster, imo. This happened on his watch.

GOP machine my ass. I hate corruption and I don't give a flying eff what party they 'belong' to.

When's the last time you were critical of someone on the left? Never.

Gramm(R-Switzerland) wrote the bible on commodities and banking fraud enabling legislation.. well not actually him..Lobbyists LIVING in his office did. Regulatory easing??????????????????????????????????? ROFL
You need to eat a bunch of pages of Atlas Shrugs instead of posting Heritage Foundation propaganda on message boards.

 

[Anonymous]

Gramm(R-Switzerland) wrote the bible on commodities and banking fraud enabling legislation.. well not actually him..Lobbyists LIVING in his office did. Regulatory easing??????????????????????????????????? ROFL
You need to eat a bunch of pages of Atlas Shrugs instead of posting Heritage Foundation propaganda on message boards.

Is this where I should insert a BAWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Propaganda? Dude, you accusing anyone of posting propaganda is rich beyond words.


So, when was the last time you were critical of a non-republican? Oh yeah, never.

How about that Ben Franklin guy and his take on helping the poor? Kinda sounded like a 'teach a man to fish' argument....

Klink, I'd love to continue but you bore me. And I hate being bored.

 

[redtreviso]

Is this where I should insert a BAWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Propaganda? Dude, you accusing anyone of posting propaganda is rich beyond words.


So, when was the last time you were critical of a non-republican? Oh yeah, never.

How about that Ben Franklin guy and his take on helping the poor? Kinda sounded like a 'teach a man to fish' argument....

Klink, I'd love to continue but you bore me. And I hate being bored.

conservative=bore So I'm sure you bore yourself..

I was out giving a Guerciotti a spin..

 

[redtreviso]

How scotts are made..

""How Fox News Outfoxes Americans

To understand how so many average Americans can be duped into embracing right-wing positions that go against their own interests, you must look at how Fox News (and right-wing media outlets) use faux populism and phony outrage as propaganda techniques, a topic explored by Danny Schechter in this guest essay.

By Danny Schechter
May 13, 2011


Grrrrrrrr. You can almost hear the growling in the background as the masters of attack politics go into action, virtually every hour on the hour, on the Fox News Channel.

The issues they focus on are carefully selected by top executives and then broken down into highly politicized message points. Their dominant emotion is annoyance as expressed in sarcasm and scowling; contempt is the underlying attitude.

In the Fox view, the other side is usually not just wrong but plain stupid, almost unbelievable in its softheaded naiveté and distance from reality.

A “what do you expect” question invariably tops off the argument which always ends with the Fox host a winner and the Democrat or social critic a loser on every level.""

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/05/13/how-fox-news-outfoxes-average-americans/

 

[redtreviso]

quote about guns

"I'm 20 and I'm a responsible gun own who has been around firearms my entire life. I bought a rifle about a month after I turned 18. Yet, I can't buy a handgun and I can't carry it because I'm not 21. I can buy an ak-47 but not a .22lr pistol thats life I suppose. When I turn 21 next march guess what, I STILL won't be able to carry my handgun 90% of the time because I'm a college student. I have to sacrifice my ability to defend myself because I want a decent education and an ability to move up in life. If I want to own ANY firearms I'm going to have to continue to pay more to live off campus instead of in a dorm. I won't even be able to carry my firearm before and after college any day I go, because I can't keep it in my car on campus.""


Poor little victimized coward republican *&^sy.. Try just growing a pair.