Ron Paul Bailout Article on CNN

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 21:27
VIEWED: 6751
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:21 PM

Hello,

I found this on CNN when I woke up. I'm sure it's the sort of commentary bound to create controversy and incite debate here.

--Anthony

From: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html

By Ron Paul
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who ran for his party's nomination for president this year. He is a doctor who specializes in obstetrics/gynecology and says he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s and was elected again to Congress in 1996. Rep. Paul serves on the House Financial Services Committee.

Rep. Ron Paul says the government's solution to the crisis is the same as the cause of it -- too much government.

(CNN) -- Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of w

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, February 7, 2009 6:15 PM

$78 Billion Rip-Off

WHOZIT

Saturday, February 7, 2009 6:23 PM

He's 100% correct! And now Barney (The mush mouth Queen) Frank and Chris (The Drunk) Dodd are the ones who are in charge on fixing it. FYI, they're the ones who caused it! The inmates are running the Looney Bin!

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 7, 2009 8:31 PM

I was reading some comments on another article about Ron Paul a couple weeks ago. One stuck with. The author spoke dismissively about Ron Paul. He said "Ron Paul may be right, but he just not a viable candidate. His positions are fringe and not in synch with mainstream public opinion." (emphasis mine)

This was meant to be a criticism of Ron Paul, but I couldn't help but see it as a sad commentary of just how deluded mainstream public opinion can be. Being right is just not popular.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SKYWALKEN

Friday, March 13, 2009 9:15 PM

Congressman Paul would have been a MUCH better candidate for the GOP in 2000 and 2004 than that liberal GWB.

RUE

Saturday, March 14, 2009 3:35 AM

"For years (many Americans) thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing."

That was the Bush administration line, which Ron Paul seems only too happy to parrot. But most average people didn't FEEL it was true. What they knew was that they were working harder, working longer hours, just to edge backwards over time.

I don't know who Ron Paul thinks he was speaking for, or to, when he declaimed that. It's not me or anyone I know.

Perhaps he's speaking for the nabobs in Washington ?

His little treatise goes downhill from there. Virtually ALL of the points he tries to make are not true. I just don't have time to get into them now.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That was the Bush administration line, which Ron Paul seems only too happy to parrot. But most average people didn't FEEL it was true. What they knew was that they were working harder, working longer hours, just to edge backwards over time.

Gotta work on that reading comprehension there rue. His point, far from parroting, is that Bush was wrong.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 14, 2009 7:02 AM

Ron Paul is an idiot, bent on warping facts to meet his ideology... pretty much like Rapo with his head stuck up Limbaugh's ass. Virtually everything RP ays about the economy is wrong. For example his characterization of Fannie/Freddie having a monopoly on housing is 85% wrong. Yet another reason why RP won't become Prez.

I'm kinda busy right now but I'll be happy to dedconstruct his idiocy, line by line, when I have a chance.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, March 14, 2009 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ron Paul is an idiot, bent on warping facts to meet his ideology...

Good answer! Good answer!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:27 AM

Quote:
Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot. For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression. Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Although Fannie and Freddie together held a majority of new mortgages, they only held about 15% of "at risk" loans. Also, consider that Fannie and Freddie NEVER loaned mortgages or wrote the terms of those mortgages, they only bought them AFTER the mortgages had been made by banks. http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:LHLICYRqxfEJ:www.mcclatchydc.com/
251/story/53802.html+fannie+freddie+market+share&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Quote:
Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

Again, that's utter nonsense. Banks and mortgage companies made bad loans because they were GREEDY. About 30-50% of the peeps holding mortgages with "toxic" feature would have qualified for traditional loans. But the banks thought they could loan out $ on onerous terms because they counted on the collateral - the price of the house- to keep going up. Was it stupid? Yes. Shortsighted? Yes. Greedy? Yes, yes, and yes. But the risk managers for the banks have done some soul-searching since then. You should read what they say about themselves.

Quote:
These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom.

Loose money was definitely a problem. BUT THE FEDERAL RESERVE, AS O2B KEEPS POINTING OUT, IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT! It is a private institution of banks, which was -at the time- under the control of Greenspan. Greenspan has since said that HE WAS MISTAKEN in believing that self interest would keep the banks from doing anything as stupid as they did! (And if Greenspan- a committed free-marketeer- can learn from experience, why can't Ron Paul?)

Quote:
The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering. When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable. Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand. In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically. This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and othe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:36 PM

I suppose you feel that the trillions of dollars that are being spent today that we can never afford to pay back without defaulting on our debt and ruining the US dollars, and/or being slaves in a generation or two is a much better solution Signy?

And why are we saying that deficit spending is only about 1.5 Trillion this year when we've clearly spent or have "budgeted" twice that figure already and it's only mid-March?

If we want to be factual about deficit spending here, we're likely to see the deficit double this year alone by December 31st, and probably won't manage to cut that figure in half by 2012, let alone ever getting down to the half trillion dollar credit card bill-per-year that Obama keeps talking about.

(Before anyone claims I'm bashing their beloved Obama, might I point out that I was just as adamant against Bushes spending policies as well as 80% of the shit his administration was pulling
otherwise, and I have plenty of posts for you to browse through to prove that point)
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:52 PM

I think Signym's point was that Ron Paul's solution for preventing the current economic situation is actually what caused it in the first place, so that his economic policies would do much more harm than good. That the bailouts are being done now, because people with Ron Paul's economic ideology got their way back then.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:01 PM

Wow... that's not true.

There hasn't been a "free" market in the US for nearly 100 years. It's been as free as Big Daddy Government allowed it to be.

"Deregulation" was bullshit, because it was still deeply regulated and only appeared to be deregulated from certain angles.

The scary thing about Ron Paul for most folk is that things would be tough NOW as opposed to later. (And they should be, given our collective idiocy and carelessness) What Obama has given us today is the promise that soon things won't be so bad, but no plans or even intentions of ever paying our debts back. He's just the next stooge in a long line of stooges who were at the helm while all of this was going on.

Kennedy, who happened to be much more conservative than any Republican administration I've lived through, tried to stop it by backing the US dollar with Silver, and we all know how that ended up.

I just laugh when I think that the Liberals preach the word of Darwinism and Survival of the Fittest as being how we got to where we are today, but every policy they enforce, whether it fiscal or social, seems to work in direct contrast with Survival of the Fittest.

Survival of the Fittest is something I absolutely believe in, by the way, I just haven't been sold that it couldn't have been the way that everything was constructed. I'm also aware of the fact that all of this very well could have been one gigantic accident..... I'm also aware of the fact that the Universe as we understand it could be just a petri dish in some high school class of beings so huge we could never in our minds understand the significance of our relative insignificance.

Just making that point about Liberals to prove a point, and I'm not in any way refuting it because of my possible believe in a God of sorts.

My thought is there should only be about half the people on the planet that there are now or less. I'm certainly not saying that it should be Americans and other choice countries over others, and I can't say that I'm aware of a means to make this happen that I wouldn't be against, I'm just saying that there are too many to support now allover. Don't go calling me Hitler Cit.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Wow... that's not true.

Actually, it's completely true. The New Deal put regulatory structures in place that prevented a major economic collapse for forty-fifty years, and over the same period the US became the biggest and most powerful economy in the world.

So much for regulation destorying America's competitiveness.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
"Deregulation" was bullshit, because it was still regulated and only appeared to be deregulated from certain angles.

Yes, Deregulation was bullshit, but not because it was the remaining regulations caused the problems. That's an argument that simply doesn't hold up. Say you've got a dam, and you start pulling bricks out. Water bursts through the holes and floods the village. You say "It's not the bricks we took out that caused the flood, it's that there's still bricks there!"

It makes no sense. Everywhere things were deregulated, that's where there were problems. The Savings and Loans deregulation ended with the savings and Loans crisis just a few years later. Wider banking deregulation gave us the present crisis. Feel free to believe that's not the case, that Free market ideology is always correct, regardless of how often the evidence says otherwise, but the reality of the situation really isn't with you.

It was the deregulation of industry that allowed this to happen. Assuming it was the remaining regulations that some how magically allowed corporations to take advantage of the deregulated aspects of the markets that brought us to this point, is just plain asinine.

Quote:
I just laugh when I think that the Liberals preach the word of Darwinism and survival of the fittest as being how we got to where we are today, but every policy they enforce, whether it fiscal or social, seems to work in direct contrast with Survival of the Fittest.

It's funny how people who really want to see something as funny can twist it into something that doesn't even resemble itself.

Perhaps you just don't want to see the arguments of these "liberals" so you choose not to understand them. It's easier to think your opposition is wrong if you never bother to listen to them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
A lot of stuff...

I'm not going to argue quite a bit of that at this point, although there is a lot I don't agree with as well. You do bring up some good points, although I don't agree that they render my own unimportant or ill-informed.

I'm willing to admit that there was much good that came out of the 40-50 years you speak of. I believe that there was good to come out of all of the years and all of the administrations and US practices up until now as well.

Let us not forget the many Civil Liberty wins the people have gained and have become so accostomed to that they not only take them for granted a lot of the time, but they feel even that they are entitled to them without having to do anything but punch a card in a Diebold machine once every four years.

Many of these sociatal wins weren't met until after the date you place the fall of the American Economy.

Let us condemn the many infringements on our personal liberties, personal wealth, and the previous truth that you had to work hard to survive, in all of those years combined, and hopefully in the future do it in some place not as benign and impotent as an obscure chatroom on the outskirts of the Verse.

Quote:
Quote:
I just laugh when I think that the Liberals preach the word of Darwinism and survival of the fittest as being how we got to where we are today, but every policy they enforce, whether it fiscal or social, seems to work in direct contrast with Survival of the Fittest.

It's funny how people who really want to see something as funny can twist it into something that doesn't even resemble itself.

Perhaps you just don't want to see the arguments of these "liberals" so you choose not to understand them. It's easier to think your opposition is wrong if you never bother to listen to them.

If you included the rest of that entire spiel, you'd see that I very much agree with Survival of the Fittest. What I am speaking about here, in a more concise and easy to understand way is that every dime the Liberal way of thinking spends, and in many cases never earned, is to help people who can't help themselves.

It just seems to me to be counter intuitive to the way things have gone on this planet the last few million years or so.... Maybe I'm wrong...

The one thing we can seem to agree upon is that Bush didn't start the fire. 40-50 years would put that date right around the late eighties, early ninetys.

Surely it goes at least back to Carter though.

How many tax dollars would the Panama Canal have been brining in for us. Think of all those hard working Californians who wouldn't have had IOU's on their tax refunds.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:44 PM

Just for clarification: Do you think that just because a number of liberals believe in evolution, one aspect of which is natural selection, that they should believe in survival of the fittest as a social policy?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:52 PM

That is a very valid question AR, and one that doesn't have an easy answer.

Basically, all I'm doing is pointing out the irrefutable truth that we as a human society are changing the way the game has been played for millions or more years, and in only the last 100 years or so have we become so successful and made such staggering leaps and bounds at it.

Who am I to say this is not the next step of evolution? It would be one that never took place on this grand a scale as we've ever learned about on a text book.

I'm not opposed to that being the truth, I just don't like the idea of China having so much hand in our relationship and watching the National Debt blow up to find out the answer to that question. There's got to be a better way.

~6

BTW... it is a bit presumptuous to believe that all "Liberals" believe in Darwinism, just as it is for all libs to believe that all "Conservatives" think it's blasphemy.

There's a lot of middle ground we have all seemed to have lost as the puppet masters have perfected the art of divide and conquer.

Thank you for pointing out the error of my words.

PPS... I happen to believe in Evolution as well. I also happen to believe that somebody could have used that as a tool to make what we are today. Or not....

Don't you love it when people say either way that they know the answer to that question?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Many of these sociatal wins weren't met until after the date you place the fall of the American Economy.

What? I'm not sure I put a definite date on anything, and my look at it the 'fall' of the modern American economy would be the real start of deregulation, that is the 80's.

If you're referring to the New Deal, and when the US became an economic powerhouse, then it wasn't until after the second world war that the US became number one. The US political, economic and military mastery of the second half of the 20th century is much more about the damage brought on everyone else by the First and Second World Wars, rather than any sort of American "exceptionalism". Regardless, my point was you can't blame regulation for making the US economy less competitive, when it went too number one during the New Deal structures, and it's actually been losing competitiveness under Regeanite Deregulation. Seems disingenuous to me.

Quote:
Let us condemn the many infringements on our personal liberties, personal wealth, and the previous truth that you had to work hard to survive, in all of those years combined, and hopefully in the future do it in some place not as benign and impotent as an obscure chatroom on the outskirts of the Verse.

I think everything is a balance. Living with no regulatory structure means that you can 'conceptually' do anything, because there's no law saying you can't, but in reality you can do a lot less because there's big corporations with more clout, invested in preventing anyone else carving out a share for themselves, who also are unconstrained.

Point is, regulation means everyone is on the same playing field. Even though you don't have the market clout of a corporation, regulation means that both you and the corporation have to compete on your economic wits, they can't freeze you out because they're bigger and stronger than you. Too much regulation is as bad as no regulation, because then the corporation can use it's much greater political clout to regulate you out of the market, but that's not an argument for no regulation, that's an argument to get the balance right. There's too extremes, too much, and not enough, somewhere in the middle is where we need to be.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
It just seems to me to be counter intuitive to the way things have gone on this planet the last few million years or so.... Maybe I'm wrong...

Social policy is aimed at how we should structure civilisation, Darwinian Survival of the Fittest and Evolution, are how the natural world works.

How human dominance has worked, is not survival of the fittest. We are not the fittest species. We are weak with few natural weapons. We are dominant because we are intelligent, and stepped outside of survival of the fittest. We changed our world so that survival of the fittest no longer applies to us. That is what civilisation is. Civilisation is not the natural world, by definition. It isn't supposed to be, and we sure as hell don't want it to be. Civilisation is a construct that allows us to take control of the natural world, and it's what has allowed us to prevent survival of the fittest putting us in a lions belly.

As I said, we as a species are successful not because we are fittest, but because we're smart enough to make survival of the fittest not apply any more. That is survival of the fittest in a way, but it's survival of the fittest on OUR terms, not natures. We use the construct of civilisation so that we don't have to play by natures rules, and that is why we have been successful.

Given the purpose of civilisation, and the reasons for our dominance, it is actually social Darwinism that would seem counter intuitive. We've succeeded by side stepping the rules of the natural world, so now you (indefinite article, not you personally) want to put natures rules back in place?

EDIT:

Quote:
Surely it goes at least back to Carter though.

Actually you're right, but it was under Reagan t

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Many of these sociatal wins weren't met until after the date you place the fall of the American Economy.
What? I'm not sure I put a definite date on anything, and my look at it the 'fall' of the modern American economy would be the real start of deregulation, that is the 80's.

Well, you did say 40-50 years after WWII, although you didn't put an exact date on it. However your 80's reference is pretty much exactly where I put you at, so I don't see what the issue is here.

Quote:
If you're referring to the New Deal, and when the US became an economic powerhouse, then it wasn't until after the second world war that the US became number one. The US political, economic and military mastery of the second half of the 20th century is much more about the damage brought on everyone else by the First and Second World Wars, rather than any sort of American "exceptionalism". Regardless, my point was you can't blame regulation for making the US economy less competitive, when it went too number one during the New Deal structures, and it's actually been losing competitiveness under Regeanite Deregulation. Seems disingenuous to me.

Don't twist my words by using other words I agree with Cit. I actually don't disagree with anything you said there.

However, when you centrally hold most of the cards, it's easy to paint a world picture that has allowed our leaders here, until recent times, to exploit most of the rest of the world by intimidation, power, and a populous that was almost 100% behind Americanism, if still suffering from many societal ills like racism and feminism at the time.

Tell me where it's all gotten us now though? Things may not have been envisioned at the New Deal's conception the way they've turned out today, but it was one of the many stepping stones that got us all to this point.

Quote:
Quote:
Let us condemn the many infringements on our personal liberties, personal wealth, and the previous truth that you had to work hard to survive, in all of those years combined, and hopefully in the future do it in some place not as benign and impotent as an obscure chatroom on the outskirts of the Verse.

I think everything is a balance. Living with no regulatory structure means that you can 'conceptually' do anything, because there's no law saying you can't, but in reality you can do a lot less because there's big corporations with more clout, invested in preventing anyone else carving out a share for themselves, who also are unconstrained.

Sure.... and like PJ O'Rourke said, A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.

Who watches the Watchers Cit? How is the Government, mine, yours, and countless other countries Governments automatically any better than mob bosses that took a cut (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) and protected their neighborhoods? Larger, sure.... but better....? In the long run.......?

Quote:
Point is, regulation means everyone is on the same playing field.

Haha... now that's funny. I agree with a lot of your views on deregulation, but as a very large and all-encompassing statement, this is priceless to think that you actually believe that is true. Looks good on a piece of paper, but doesn't work in the much-less-than-perfect-world we live in.

Just ask George Harrison's ghost if the loss of "My Sweet Lord" (which is a sarcastic song, btw), was fair when any retard-rap artist out there today can "sample" any tune made by real artists out there and sell a few million albums.

Why ask a ghost? Just ask Mick Jagger if he's enjoying spending the royalties that the Verve should have been getting for "Bittersweet Symphony" the last decade.

Things just don't work right, at all, on that big a scale, ever.... There is just too much money to be made and greed, envy, gluttony and lust change the game EVERY time so even things that start out with purely benevolent in

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think Signym's point was that Ron Paul's solution for preventing the current economic situation is actually what caused it in the first place, so that his economic policies would do much more harm than good. That the bailouts are being done now, because people with Ron Paul's economic ideology got their way back then.

I suspect we'll discover the veracity of this opinion over the next ten years or so, one way or another.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I suspect we'll discover the veracity of this opinion over the next ten years or so, one way or another.

Yep...

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yep...

Or maybe not. I can certainly imagine a scenario a decade from now. Let's say the economy is still in the shitter, or the recovery has been long and slow. We'll still be having the same damned argument. We'll be claiming the sluggish economy is because of the Keynsian/statist nonsense and they'll be saying it would have been much worse without it. Or the converse, the economy is booming and we're warning that it's all another bubble waiting to burst. Hell, we're still arguing over the "Great Depression" some seventy years after the fact....yada, yada, yada...

Unfortunately, there's no end to our ability to rationalize the "facts" to fit our favored narrative. It's kind of ironic really, that while the real differences tend to be in our core values (e.g. security and fairness vs. liberty and justice), the arguments tend to be over how to interpret practical outcomes. Like we're looking for proof that our values "perform" better. And I don't know about the rest of you, but that's really not the important thing with me. For example, I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one, assuming such a choice had to be made - whereas others might say they'd rather have a society that was secure even if it sacrificed prosperity....

Am I off track here? Too much with the philosophizing?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:22 PM

Reminds me of a joke I heard once Sarge....

Written on a bathroom stall.....

"God is Dead" ~Nietzsche

Written right below.....

"Nietzsche is Dead" ~God

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:28 PM

Jack, you think that this is all new, but we're really treading very old ground and recycling old arguments.

In the 1920s, Harding and Coolidge cut the top tax rate from 77% to 25% by 1925. This led to income inequity which was equalled only in 2008.

There were no regulations on speculating on credit. That created both a land and stock market bubble. (Roaring '20s.)

The Fed existed, but not the FDIC. And there were no liquidity requirements on banks, which were limited only by their (one would hope) PRUDENT self-interest.

One would have thought this was the PERFECT recipes for economic growth! Instead, it led to a crash of historic proportions.

At the beginning of the Great Depression of 1929 (which Herbert Hoover inherited) there was a passionate discussion on taxes, deficits, and regulation.

Quote:
Hoover was one of the most able men to be elected as President and also one of the unluckiest. He was inaugurated on 4 March 1929. Seven months later the Stock Market crashed. The new President was a believer in self-reliance and self-help and was loathe to see government intervention in economic affairs. He sought to encourage expansion through a tax cut and by urging business to expand. Spending measures passed by Congress that threatened a balanced budget were rejected. As the ranks of the unemployed swelled, Hoover's popularity plummeted. Soup kitchens became common sights. Many factories became desolate sites. The production index fell to its lowest point in the country's history

Altho the Federal Reserve existed, it did nothing to support failing banks. Hoover took your stance, and flogged that theory through his entire administration while the economy collapsed around him.

While campaiging in 1932, Roosevelt promised a balanced budget. He quickly realized that was not the answer.

Quote:
When he first took over the presidency, Roosevelt had the backing of many segments of society -- not only the general public but bankers and businessmen. The depression affected everyone. Business was hurt badly; government borrowing was far more acceptable to the business community than higher taxes. Such was the attitude until 1936, when bankers and businessmen began to change their views. As recovery began to take effect, the deficit was not considered necessary. Even though he did not favor greater debt, Roosevelt had his priorities. Convinced that deficits were temporary and not a permanent fact of fiscal life, he was exultant about the pump-priming consequences of spending.

After the economy improved, FDR tried reining in the Federal deficit

Quote:
By 1937, the depression had eased somewhat and FDR sought to balance the budget by cutting government spending. But in the fall and winter of 1937-38, conditions worsened again, partly because of these cuts, and FDR had to seek additional funds to meet the crisis. The depression didn’t actually end until the beginning of World War II when the defense economy put the unemployed who were not called to military service back to work.

Which, BTW, called for even greater deficit spending. AT one point, the Federal deficit was as high as 50% of government spending. I just shake my head sometimes. To hear Ron Paul re-propose the same policies which not only failed catastrophically in the 1920s but also failed in the 1980s and 2000s is the hallmark of a person incapable of learning from experience, or even recognizing reality. THAT is why he will never become President: his mind is ossified.

My answer wouldn't be based SOLEY on deficit spending, BTW. I'd nationalize every failed institution- including GM, AIG, Merrill (who gave themselves $3.6 BILLION dollars in bonuses just before they were rescued by BoA!) confiscate top management's holding and throw their asses in jail for fraud. I's soak the rich through taxes, immediately implement single-payer healthcare, and start rebuilding our infrastructure. That infrastructure includes PEOPLE: Instead of starving education (like Bush did),

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Don't twist my words by using other words I agree with Cit.

I didn't twist any of your words.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Tell me where it's all gotten us now though? Things may not have been envisioned at the New Deal's conception the way they've turned out today, but it was one of the many stepping stones that got us all to this point.

The New Deal didn't bring America to this point. The dismantling of the New Deal did.

Quote:
Who watches the Watchers Cit? How is the Government, mine, yours, and countless other countries Governments automatically any better than mob bosses that took a cut (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) and protected their neighborhoods? Larger, sure.... but better....? In the long run.......?

You regulate government the same as you regulate anything else.

Quote:
Haha... now that's funny. I agree with a lot of your views on deregulation, but as a very large and all-encompassing statement, this is priceless to think that you actually believe that is true. Looks good on a piece of paper, but doesn't work in the much-less-than-perfect-world we live in.

Not as funny as believing giving unrestrained power to a massive corporation will give you a level playing field. You see no law as level. Conceptually it is, in reality it is not. I'm interested in a real level one, not one we can pretend is level.

Quote:
Things just don't work right, at all, on that big a scale, ever.... There is just too much money to be made and greed, envy, gluttony and lust change the game EVERY time so even things that start out with purely benevolent intentions end up with blackened hearts that will never be satiated by any stimulus until they are disposed of. Maybe it's just the Human Condition...

I have no idea what this has to do with anything I said.

Quote:
Dur...

And yet I have to point it out.

Quote:
Wow... I just believe that our intelligence makes us the fittest. What you're saying here REALLY sounds Christian Cit.

And you REALLY sound like someone who can't support their argument. Firstly, what does me sounding like a Christian have to do with anything? Secondly, if you think what I'm saying sounds 'Christian', there's really three possibilities:
1) You don't know what Christians sound like,
2) You haven't bothered to read and certainly don't understand my post or what I'm talking about,
3) Both of the above.

Personally I suspect you were just trying to piss me off. Mission failed I'm afraid

.

Quote:
It's also what's allowed us to create this more often than not shitty world and perpetuate it to infinity or destruction. Dem's aren't going to fix that. Go ahead and hate Reps because of the environment, but the real Conservatives actually fought for animal and ecological protection in the 70's and before.

No they didn't. And drop the "You love dems and hate Reps" nonsense. I'm not invested in either of you're political parties.

Quote:
Now you just sound like a self-loathing Narcissus here.

And you sound like a politician. How can one possibly be a self loathing Narcissus anyway? Narcissus was someone who loved himself to the exclusion of all others, you can't be that and self loathing at the same time, they're mutually exclusive. If you're going to try and insult me, at least use insults that make sense please.

Quote:
Sounds like we've gotten so good at Surviving and being the Fittest, that we truly earn the title of the Fittest that Survived, being that we are the ones who won the challenge round in Survival of the Fittest.

Yes, because we stopped playing natures rules. Because we created civilisation, which makes our species fitter by defending individuals that aren't.

Quote:
We were successful many generations ago in civilization. I'm talking when there were so many less of us and we were at a balance with nature and different "tribes" had

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Unfortunately, there's no end to our ability to rationalize the "facts" to fit our favored narrative. It's kind of ironic really, that while the real differences tend to be in our core values (e.g. security and fairness vs. liberty and justice), the arguments tend to be over how to interpret practical outcomes. Like we're looking for proof that our values "perform" better. And I don't know about the rest of you, but that's really not the important thing with me. For example, I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one, assuming such a choice had to be made - whereas others might say they'd rather have a society that was secure even if it sacrificed prosperity....

of course that applies to you as much as any one.

I don't believe getting rid of all regulations will make us free in any meaningful sense. You seem to see freedom as no one telling you you can't do something, I see freedom as being able to do something.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:00 PM

Quote:
What I am speaking about here, in a more concise and easy to understand way is that every dime the Liberal way of thinking spends, and in many cases never earned, is to help people who can't help themselves. It just seems to me to be counter intuitive to the way things have gone on this planet the last few million years or so.... Maybe I'm wrong...

You're absolutely wrong. Look at our biology. Human babies are helpless. They can't walk, or even HANG ON for a year... that means that at least ONE adult is tied up carrying the little bugger around for that period of time, inhibiting the caregiver's ability to find food ... Let me put it this way: It doesn't matter what a skillful hunter and manly-man the male is. If he comes home to find his baby or female dead... and that happens more times than not... the species ends.

So whether it is the elder female lugging the infant around while the mother searches for grubs or frogs or roots, or the male bringing in the game for "those who can't help themselves", survival of the human species rests on COOPERATION. It's built into our biology.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:08 PM

Quote:
Unfortunately, there's no end to our ability to rationalize the "facts" to fit our favored narrative.

yes. But if you try an experiment several times and it still doesn't work, what does that make you? Sarge, we HAVE been there/ done that. Peeps weren't any stupider in 1929 and 1979 then than they are today: they talked about their theories. They predicted outcomes. They made conscious choices. The experiments have been run both ways. Your policies were tried. Other policies were tried. The results are in. Have been in. Several times.

Quote:
I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one

Since that is not how most people think, If that statement is emblematic of the RP supporters, that places you in the vanishing minority. And then you wonder WHY RP doesn't get traction???

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KWICKO

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:13 PM

Quote:
For example, I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one, assuming such a choice had to be made - whereas others might say they'd rather have a society that was secure even if it sacrificed prosperity....

But you're not being offered those choices. What you've been offered in recent years is the choice between a free society and a secure society - but never both.

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Reminds me of a joke I heard once Sarge....

Written on a bathroom stall.....

"God is Dead" ~Nietzsche

Written right below.....

"Nietzsche is Dead" ~God

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

Reminds me of a t-shirt I used to have:

"God is dead, and I want his job."

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:48 PM

Quote:
For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing.

I'm LOVIN' THIS !!

Ron Paul is no relation to me. Just so you know, rue, that it wasn't JUST me, and it sure as hell wasn't just some " Bush talking points " I repeated when I correctly stated the economy was on fire. For the very reasons Ron Paul stated, growth, low unemployment and increased productivity, the economy WAS expanding.

Now, if you want to base this expansion on a house of cards, blame it on borrowed $$, then have at it. But the same level of blame / credit then should be applied to Clinton's economy, which rode the coat tails of the dot com bubble.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:08 PM

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin.

I will say this, if you REALLY want to get to the root of the slide of dominos, house of cards, you have three critical periods to investigate.

1860-1877 = Political Framework
1904-1918 = Social/Legal Framework
1930-1933 = Economic Framework
2010-2015 = Epic Disaster

At this point, it's all but unavoidable, and all we can hope for is the good fortune to survive riding it out.

-Frem

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:14 PM

Rapo, mis-quoting an idiot to prove your idiocy doesn't get any points. But.... here's a clue as to the real meaning of that phrase...

Quote:
For years they thought the economy was booming

And for years "they thought Saddam had WMD. I know its your own particular mental disability to confuse opinion with fact, so I'm not going to point and laugh (too loudly).

Quote:
I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one

Sarge, if you're now making the choice between freedom (capitalism) and prosperity, it sounds like you've given up on the idea of capitalism being the road to prosperity.

Quote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin.

AFA "freedom" is concerned... Ben was taking about political freedom. Not the freedom of the robber baron.

-------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:23 PM

Freedom to make what one can IS freedom, Sig. As soon as you come to understand that, you'll know what the Founders and Ben were really talking about.

Aside from your petty attempts to toss insults mixed in w/ your revisionist history, I'll remind you EVERYONE "thought " Saddam had WMD, not just the so called 'war mongers' or Neo Cons.

EVERY gorram one thought that. Stop a moment and let that sink in for a bit.

p.s. And I didn't misquote anyone, so spare me your misplaced indignation.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:36 PM

Quote:
EVERY gorram one thought that.

Yes Saddam "had" WMD. But we didn't invade because of WMD that he "had" up to 1990. SO everyone rought Saddam has WMD in 2002. except me. So, not "everyone" was as abyssmally stupid as you were.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That is a very valid question AR, and one that doesn't have an easy answer.

Basically, all I'm doing is pointing out the irrefutable truth that we as a human society are changing the way the game has been played for millions or more years, and in only the last 100 years or so have we become so successful and made such staggering leaps and bounds at it.

Who am I to say this is not the next step of evolution? It would be one that never took place on this grand a scale as we've ever learned about on a text book.

But the assets of scientific progress that brought down mortality rates from disease and sickness, prolonged average life spans and improved mobility and quality of life for those with chronic conditions... those are a direct result of steady development. There was no genetic or evolutionary leap responsible, just the amassing and applying of knowledge, as we have done since forever.

The fact that we could amass this amount of knowledge is directly due to the fact that humans always tend to cooperate. Like pack or herd animals we rely on cooperation, it's our big asset, and since we cooperate on such a sophisticated level, we have managed to sustain ever growing numbers.

Since cooperation is our natural mode, though it is not untempered by territorialism and aggression, I don't think it would be very healthy for us to try and adopt a non-cooperation strategy like "survival of the fittest" to reduce our harmfully large numbers.

1) How do you measure fitness?
2) How do you suppress the natural human inclination to ease the suffering of other human beings?
3) How do you respond to the increasing anxiety of the "unfit" if they are not aided through cooperation?
4) When and how do you start cooperating again?

To me, the solution for overpopulation seems pretty simple: Just have less children.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
EVERY gorram one thought that.
Yes Saddam "had" WMD. But we didn't invade because of WMD that he "had" up to 1990. SO everyone rought Saddam has WMD in 2002. except me. So, not "everyone" was as abyssmally stupid as you were.

Funny, becasue these folks , who had access to top INTEL from 2 different administrations, came to a different conclusion than you. What vast network of intel did YOU rely on , Siggy ?

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I bel

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, if you're now making the choice between freedom (capitalism) and prosperity, it sounds like you've given up on the idea of capitalism being the road to prosperity.

I was never on that train. Free market capitalism appeals to me because it offers a relatively benign path for people who have an excessive desire for material gain, and affords the rest of us the freedom to live how we choose. If overall prosperity is the goal, I'd guess there are systems that would drive us there more efficiently, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live under them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:48 PM

Rapo: A billion flies eat shit. Feel free to count yourself among them.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
of course that applies to you as much as any one.

Uh,yeah. That was sorta the point.

Quote:
I don't believe getting rid of all regulations will make us free in any meaningful sense.

Neither do I.

Quote:
You seem to see freedom as no one telling you you can't do something, I see freedom as being able to do something.

I've noticed that difference in perspective before. But it seems like a distortion of the concept.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've noticed that difference in perspective before. But it seems like a distortion of the concept.

I'd say the same for your own. As far as I can see, you might as well say you have the freedom to live on the Moon, after all there is no law saying you can't.

Just because there's no law saying you can't, doesn't mean you can. What's the point in being 'free' to do something, because there's no law against doing it, if you're prevented from doing it through some other means? How is that any workable concept of freedom?

It would seem to me that if freedom is only "no law say you can't", then it is just something you have 'on paper'. I have to say if all freedom is, is something a piece of paper says you have rather than something you actually have, then there really is no point in fighting for it.

So I'd say the concept of freedom being just having no laws barring you from something, is the distortion, because freedom is supposed to be something you have, not something you're told you're allowed.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So I'd say the concept of freedom being just having no laws barring you from something, is the distortion, because freedom is supposed to be something you have, not something you're told you're allowed.

Well, you have the "freedom" to say that I suppose. But as far as the political concept of freedom is concerned, it's mostly understood in the sense of being free from constraint. The ability to do something is as separate issue from the political freedom to do so.

Regardless, the two concepts are different and clarity would suggest we use different words for them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, you have the "freedom" to say that I suppose. But as far as the political concept of freedom is concerned, it's mostly understood in the sense of being free from constraint. The ability to do something is as separate issue from the political freedom to do so.

Regardless, the two concepts are different and clarity would suggest we use different words for them.

Actually I think the concept of political freedom includes the idea of stopping anyone taking it away or constraining it. It's not just the government that can prevent you doing something.

You seem to think I mean you're only free to live on the moon if you get free moon flights, but that's not what I mean. I mean that if you recognise you need rules and laws to prevent government from passing laws to take away a freedom, then you also need laws to prevent people other than governments taking your freedom. That the only threat to freedom isn't a tyrannical government, so removing all laws won't mean everyone is free. It'll mean a small group has 100% freedom, while everyone else has 0%. But there'll still be no laws.

EDITED.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Actually I think the concept of political freedom includes the idea of stopping anyone taking it away or constraining it. It's not just the government that can prevent you doing something.

Right. Or, rather, the that applies to the kind of freedom I'm talking about. I assume you're referring to the 'freedom from constraint' sort of freedom and not 'ability-freedom'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:12 PM

Please see edit.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I mean that if you recognise you need rules and laws to prevent government from passing laws to take away a freedom, then you also need laws to prevent people other than governments taking your freedom. That the only threat to freedom isn't a tyrannical government, so removing all laws won't mean everyone is free. It'll mean a small group has 100% freedom, while everyone else has 0%. But there'll still be no laws.

Ok, I see what you mean. I totally agree.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:09 PM

6-String

I have just enough time to address only one of your mistakes.
"I just laugh when I think that the Liberals preach the word of Darwinism and Survival of the Fittest as being how we got to where we are today ..."

Liberals DON'T believe in social Darwinism or Survival of the Fittest. (Though it's ironically true that many religious ideologues and far-right conservatives who wouldn't touch the theory of evolution if their lives depended on it do believe in social 'Darwinism'.)

So what specifically is wrong with your statement ? The question is, where to begin ...

1) The scientific theory of the evolution of species through natural selection as proposed by Darwin has nothing to do with social 'Darwinism'.
2) As social 'Darwinism' was never proposed by or supported by Darwin, I will remove Darwin's name and call it TWOAAAM. - the war of all against all meme.
3) TWOAAAM is not a scientific theory, it is a social meme.

4) TWOAAAM is actually in conflict with the theory of evolution, as Darwin never proposed direct individual conflict or competition as a mechanism of evolution. Rather he proposed that existing differences meant some could exploit one aspect of the environment better, while others could exploit a different aspect of the environment better - and so each group was successively selected for a different niche.
5) Human group cooperation is arguably THE reason for the success (numbers-wise) of the human species.
6) TWOAAAM has never been shown to be particularly helpful to the species, and is therefore not a factor in human success.

7) As a theory, the scientific theory of evolution requires as much 'belief' as the theory of gravity - which is, none.
8) Belief is antithetical to science, which seeks to constantly question. Therefore, strictly speaking, one cannot have a belief in a scientific theory.
9) OTOH belief is essential to religion, which seeks to eliminate all questions.

10) Liberals, who in general support mutual cooperation for mutual gain do not subscribe to TWOAAAM.
11) In contrast, Repubicans and Libertarians often DO support TWOAAAM.

I hope this helps you understand why your claim is literally completely untrue.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rapo: A billion flies eat shit. Feel free to count yourself among them.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Now why would I ever want to stoop to your pathetically tacky level ?

I'll pass, thanks anyways.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:32 PM

Sarge, how am I supposed to interpret I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one? Sounds as if you're suggesting that a choice had to be made.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:50 PM

"I'll remind you EVERYONE "thought " Saddam had WMD, not just the so called 'war mongers' or Neo Cons."

I guess when you say 'EVERYONE', you don't count the 23 senators and 133 representatives who voted against the war as 'people' - OR the tens of miilions who demonstrated against it in the US and worldwide, OR the UN members who didn't give Bush a pass. Right ?

Oh, that's right, it's just another Rap'Fact' ™.

Senators who voted against
21 democrats
1 independent
1 repubican

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN); Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Representatives who voted against
126 democrats
1 independent
6 repubicans

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington)
John Baldacci (D-Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
John Hostettler (R-Indiana)
Amo Houghton (R-New York)
Jay Inslee (D-Washington)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio)
Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
Dale Kildee (D-Michigan)
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Michigan)
Jerry Kleczka (D-Wisconsin)
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
John LaFalce (D-New York)
James Langevin (D-Rhode Island)
Rick Larsen (D-Washington)
John Larson (D-Connecticut)
Jim Leach (R-Iowa)
Barbara Lee (D-California)
Sandy Levin (D-Michigan)
John Lewis (D-Georgia)
Bill Lipinski (D-Illinois)
Zoe Lofgren (D-California)
James Maloney (D-Connecticut)
the late Robert Matsui (D-California)
Karen McCarthy (D-Missouri)
Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota)
Jim McDermott-D-Washington)
Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts)
Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia)
Carrie Meek (D-Florida)
Gregory Meeks (D-New York)
Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey)
Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-California)
George Miller (D-California)
Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia)
Jim Moran (D-Virginia)
Connie Morella (D-Maryland)
Jerrold Nadler (D-New York)
Grace Napolitano (D-California)
Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts)
Jim Oberstar (D-Minnesota)
David Obey (D-Wisconsin)
John Olver (D-Massachusetts)
Major Owens (D-New York)
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-New Jersey)
Ed Pastor (D-Arizona)
Ron Paul (R-Texas)
Donald Payne (D-New Jersey)
Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
David Price (D-North Carolina)
Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia)
Charles Rangel (D-New

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:55 PM

Congressional votes don't = fact. Sorry rue rue

*edit* - It's like Barry Obama, saying he's against earmarks, but then signs a bill with some 9000 earmarks in it.

WTF does THAT prove ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:59 PM

And besides, a vote to go to war isn't the same as standing up and saying Saddam is a bad man, and we need to make sure he doesn't do something truly horrific.

But thanks for a complete and total straw man argument, again.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 12:05 AM

So they 'knew' SOOoooooooooo .... well that Hussein had WMD's and was a threat that they voted against disarming him ! Yep.

Is your failure the failure to understand that 'everyone' means no one left on the other side - for example the people who voted against, the people who demonstrated against, and the UN members ? Is it a failure to understand that just b/c people disagree with you they don't disappear off the face of the planet ? Is it a serious problem with numbers - like 95% of 'them' who don't pay taxes, and the 100% who 'knew' Hussein had WMDs ? Is it a failure of logic ?

Or do you just really, really want to be crazy someday ? Keep on at it ! PLEASE ! It would make me happy ! I am SO waiting for you to finally go off the edge !

***************************************************************

BAD DOG ! Quiet !

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 16, 2009 12:12 AM

rue,

Nothing you've said addresses the issue that everyone DID know that Saddam was trouble. That they later chose to vote against the war doesn't change one god damn thing.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, how am I supposed to interpret I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one? Sounds as if you're suggesting that a choice had to be made.

For starters, you could read the rest of the sentence which went something like "assuming such a choice had to be made". I don't, in fact, see the two as mutually exclusive in any way. Freedom is quite compatible with prosperity. But prosperity is not the point in my view and if I did have to choose one over the other, I'd pick freedom.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 12:20 AM

Trouble ? Yes. A bad guy ? Yes.

Had WMDs, as in "everyone knew Saddam had WMD" ? no.
Was a threat ? No.

If only you could just keep your own arguments straight ! But, being confused about your own thoughts is first sign of serious mental illness, so, I have hope !

***************************************************************

SIT !

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 16, 2009 1:12 AM

rue,

you're the one who attempted to confuse the issue here, not I.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 2:44 AM

Anyway, AnthonyT, here is the rest of what I have to say about Ron Paul's ahem analysis.

Fannie Mae was created as a government agency in 1938 if memory serves well. (An early error - it has NEVER written loans as Paul claims.) In 1968 Johnson privatized it and it ceased to be a government entity at that time. So all that time - between 1938 and 1968 - that 'excessive' bit of government seemed to function without causing undue problems for people, the government or the economy.

Its companion, Freddie Mac, was created in 1970 to 'compete' with Fannie Mae. It is also not a government entity.

Neither one is or has been a government function for roughly 40 years.

Still, things went along OK for quite a while afterwards.

So, we have two entities in place that performed well without problems for many, many years - 80 and 40, respectively. I would say that long period of good performance argues against them as the cause of the problem.

Could it have been that 'troublesome' Community Reinvestment Act ? Let's take a look at Countrywide. For years it was THE single largest mortgage lender. With roughly 33% of its home loans delinquent, in default, or in foreclosure, and ready to fold, it was bought up by BofA. It's the best example of toxic mortgage indigestion one can find. The only problem - the Countrywide arm making loans was NOT A BANK. Being NOT A BANK it wasn't subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. If Countrywide could do SO badly without the prod of that act, it argues that the CRA was not, and is not, the cause of the problem. Another reason to believe it's not the CRA is the timeline. The CRA was passed in 1977. For the last 30 years it didn't seem to be a problem. So it probably wasn't, or isn't. Finally, many other private lenders also not subject to the CRA went the way of Countrywide. Those facts absolve the CRA as the cause of the problem.

SignyM covered the fact that the Fed is not a government entity, and also that making fresh money available out of nowhere is an inevitable consequence of capitalism.

Some put the problem at the feet of repealing important regulations - for example, repealing the prohibition against commercial banking merging with investment banking in Glass-Steagall Act (1933).

So far, there doesn't seem to be a single example of how that bad government meddling created the current problem. The only thing we have to go on, after all the chaff has been thrown away, is, apparently, Paul's say-so.

If you look at the data, you'll see that most of the toxic mortgages - the ones going belly-up today - were written after 2000. Elliot Spitzer puts the height of predatory lending at 2003.

"In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation."

In 2004 investment banks were freed from onerous capitalization requirements:

"But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency’s failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.

On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks.

They wanted an exemp

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 16, 2009 2:52 AM

Quote:
I was reading some comments on another article about Ron Paul a couple weeks ago. One stuck with. The author spoke dismissively about Ron Paul. He said "Ron Paul may be right, but he just not a viable candidate. His positions are fringe and not in synch with mainstream public opinion." (emphasis mine)

This was meant to be a criticism of Ron Paul, but I couldn't help but see it as a sad commentary of just how deluded mainstream public opinion can be. Being right is just not popular.

SergeantX

The media is lying. The whole thing is a sham. Everyone supported ron paul, that's why he had more campaign contributors than anyone else. But the system is rigged.

Being right isn't about being popular, but in the end, most people like the guy who is right. It might take some of them some time.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, March 16, 2009 2:52 AM

Quote:
I was reading some comments on another article about Ron Paul a couple weeks ago. One stuck with. The author spoke dismissively about Ron Paul. He said "Ron Paul may be right, but he just not a viable candidate. His positions are fringe and not in synch with mainstream public opinion." (emphasis mine)

This was meant to be a criticism of Ron Paul, but I couldn't help but see it as a sad commentary of just how deluded mainstream public opinion can be. Being right is just not popular.

SergeantX

The media is lying. The whole thing is a sham. Everyone supported ron paul, that's why he had more campaign contributors than anyone else. But the system is rigged.

Being right isn't about being popular, but in the end, most people like the guy who is right. It might take some of them some time.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Further, Ron Paul uses religious rhetoric - by calling this a moral problem ...

LOL... you're kidding, right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:02 AM

"Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort." Ron Paul

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort."

Heh... rue, "moral hazard" is a legal term, with a very specific meaning that has nothing at all to do with religion and is only indirectly related to morality.

googled it for you:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moralhazard.asp

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:09 AM

And then he goes on to use it in a non-legal way:

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

'Precedent' is not in the legal definition of 'moral hazard'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
'Precedent' is not in the legal definition of 'moral hazard'.

You're just diggin' this hole deeper rue, because, yes, it is.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:15 AM

"moral hazard
n.
A risk to an insurance company resulting from uncertainty about the honesty of the insured."

If you wish to use a recently coined variation it might apply to finance, but it's not part of the definition per se. Further, apparently he sees gradations of moral hazard, because the one HE'S thinking of is a "moral hazard of the worst sort". Not, one guesses, the routine insurance kind, as defined.

Using your link (which you posted after the fact, which is why I feel perfectly free to post this after the fact)

What Does Moral Hazard Mean?
The risk that a party to a transaction has not entered into the contract in good faith, has provided misleading information about its assets, liabilities or credit capacity, or has an incentive to take unusual risks in a desperate attempt to earn a profit before the contract settles.

Investopedia explains Moral Hazard
Moral hazard can be present any time two parties come into agreement with one another. Each party in a contract may have the opportunity to gain from acting contrary to the principles laid out by the agreement. For example, when a salesperson is paid a flat salary with no commissions for his or her sales, there is a danger that the salesperson may not try very hard to sell the business owner's goods because the wage stays the same regardless of how much or how little the owner benefits from the salesperson's work.

Moral hazard can be somewhat reduced by the placing of responsibilities on both parties of a contract. In the example of the salesperson, the manager may decide to pay a wage comprised of both salary and commissions. With such a wage, the salesperson would have more incentive not only to produce more profits but also to prevent losses for the company.

NOTHING here about precedent. NOTHING here about ASSumptions - for example, the ASSumptions he says companies and banks will make about the future interests of the federal govenment. NOTHING about restrictions and requirements the government may place on companies as the price of its involvement.

Using even your loosey-goosey definitions, it's clear Paul is using moral hazard in a moral sense - as a temptation - not as a risk in a contract.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:23 AM

S,wenyways, does anyone have anything intelligent to say about the lack of cogent facts in Ron Paul's so-called analysis ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:32 AM

Good grief rue. You could just admit you made a mistake and move on. I'm not saying that disproves your entire post or anything. Hell, I'd have probably made the same mistake myself if I'd never heard of the term.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:38 AM

See my post above. Paul is not using the term 'moral hazard' in an accepted legal sense, which deals with CONTRACTS. He's talking about assumptions and temptations by business. He may THINK he's using a legal term, but he's not. And neither are you.

He would have been better off using the words he needed - assumption and temptation. I suspect he either didn't know the legal definition, or if he did, he used the phrase anyway b/c it had more pejorative impact. Something that resonates with his message, which is his assumption of economic righteousness.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
See my post above. Paul is not using the term in an accepted legal sense, which deals with CONTRACTS. He's talking about assumptions and temptations by business. He may THINK he's using a legal term, but he's not. And neither are you.

He would have been better off using the words he needed - assumption and temptation. I suspect he either didn't know the legal definition, or if he did, he used the phrase anyway b/c it had more perjorative impact

LOL... ok. Have it your way. You clearly are never wrong.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
rue,

you're the one who attempted to confuse the issue here, not I.

How is Rue attempting to confuse the issue here?

Did you or did you not post this:

Quote:

Aside from your petty attempts to toss insults mixed in w/ your revisionist history, I'll remind you EVERYONE "thought " Saddam had WMD, not just the so called 'war mongers' or Neo Cons.

EVERY gorram one thought that. Stop a moment and let that sink in for a bit.

EVERY gorram one.

So introducing solid evidence that bluntly contradicts your claim that 100% of the people on Earth thought Saddam had WMD is "attempting to confuse the issue"?

Interesting.

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:48 AM

"LOL... ok. Have it your way. You clearly are never wrong."

No - clearly the problem is you think Ron Paul is never wrong - such as your attempt to explain that he didn't really write this, because he must have meant the opposite: "For years they (many Americans) thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing."

***************************************************************

Ron Raul is sloppy. His facts are non-existant, his language is sloppy, his logic is flawed, his rhetoric propagandized.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No - clearly the problem is you think Ron Paul is never wrong - such as your attempt to explain that he didn't really write this, because he must have meant the opposite: "For years they (many Americans) thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing."

Rue, you saw "moral hazard" and interpreted it as "religious rhetoric". You either didn't know the term, in which case it was an honest mistake, or you are deliberately equivocating (I can look that one up for you too, if you like).

I don't have a clue what your issue is with the second quote. Many Americans did think that. It was illusory, as he goes on to point out. I suppose you stopped reading where your quote ends and went off half-cocked. Anyway, once again, I'm done talking to you.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Monday, March 16, 2009 4:49 AM

(CNN) -- Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. http://www.isae.it/not_cons_ing_02_09.pdf
see p1 Consumer confidence dropped steeply in 2002 and never recovered. This assertion is clearly a lie which can be uncovered by the most casual of searches. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.
Is this a thesis, or an unsupported assertion?

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply deeply is an unsupported and pejorative word in housing policy and developed numerous numerous is an unsupported and pejorative word programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market this is lie, as neither agency made loans, and is an attempt to paint the agencies as being responsible for the problem, especially especially is clearly the wrong word here, as it was exclusively the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed bestowed is an unsupported and pejorative word upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing forcing is an unsupported and pejorative word banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.This is a lie, as NO bank was 'forced' into unsafe lending, NO bank was 'forced' into predatory lending, and NO non-bank lending agencies - who were the biggest part of the problem - were covered by the CRA.

These governmental governmental is an lie measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The only way he can make this case is by lying about Fannie, Freddie and the CRA, which he did in every case. The key measure by which the Fed presenting the Fed as a government agency is a lie caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money this is an unsupported assertion and not from demand from consumers this is an unsupported assertion, the result is malinvestment this is an unsupported assertion, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand this is an unsupported assertion. (Basically, the entire paragraph is fiction.)

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate this is an unsupported assertion. (What he is describing is capital looking for a profit. It happens whether or not loans are made to peons.) When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically. But this is not the essence of the problem. The problem is that too many predatory loans were written and then sold. When defaults started to occur, it crashed both the lending market and the housing market. Banks found they didn't know if they could lend money to each other or to borrowers. Tight credit and repo

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 4:59 AM

Crapo, you've said over and over again "everyone" thought that Saddam had WMD. So Rue comes up with quite a few Congressional names who DIDN'T think Saddam has WMD, and you shift the argument!

A billion flies eat shit and you're one of them. Just don't get all tweaked when not "everyone" cares to share your meal!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 5:06 AM

Quote:
For starters, you could read the rest of the sentence which went something like "assuming such a choice had to be made". I don't, in fact, see the two as mutually exclusive in any way. Freedom is quite compatible with prosperity. But prosperity is not the point in my view and if I did have to choose one over the other, I'd pick freedom.

But that's a little like saying if I had to choose between rice and the color orange... I'm trying to figure out your definition of freedom, because you used the word in a very puzzling way.

---------------------------------
Ron Paul is an idiot.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 5:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm trying to figure out your definition of freedom, because you used the word in a very puzzling way.

How so?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Monday, March 16, 2009 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Actually the concept of a moral hazard is that a precedent has been set that causes people to do something dangerous, believing they'd be bailed out. The bailout of the savings and loans crisis (caused by the deregulation of that industry, just saying) arguably set a precedent of government bailout of those that make risky financial decisions, thereby providing a moral hazard for this recent market crisis.

Moral Hazard is pretty much exactly that, a precedent. The reason the bailouts have constituted a moral hazard, is because:
a) The people who should be thrown to wall are being insulated by them. The bailouts are supposed to protect everyone else from their bad decisions, they should still be hurt by them. Any business that required a bailout should have been forcibly restructured. If it requires a bailout, it's on the verge of collapse. If it collapses, management loses their jobs, and the Shareholders lose their investment. They should gain nothing from the Government stepping in to protect us from their decisions.
b) At the same time as tacitly saying, we'll pick up the tabs for your fuck ups, we also deregulated. So we told these greedy fuckers "feel free to make really stupid decisions gambling on short term gain, not only will we not stop you, we let you keep the winnings and we'll cover your losses!"

What the fuck did people really expect was going to happen? We extended a group of compulsive gamblers an inexhaustible line of other peoples credit, sent them to Vegas, and told them they could keep the winnings. Now we're all acting surprised that these fuckers spanked it all on Roulette? Hello?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 3:50 PM

Quote:
Aside from your petty attempts to toss insults mixed in w/ your revisionist history, I'll remind you EVERYONE "thought " Saddam had WMD, not just the so called 'war mongers' or Neo Cons.

EVERY gorram one thought that. Stop a moment and let that sink in for a bit.- Rapo

Every gorram one- Kwicko

Let THAT sink in a bit!

Now, Rapo... man up. Don't just slink out of this thread like you always do, only to reappear later with the same delusions that you carry around with you like a sack of rotted heads. Admit you were WRONG... WRONG. Admit it, like you say you do. (heh heh heh)

SAY IT RAPO: I WAS WRONG. NOT "EVERYONE" KNEW SADDAM HAD WMD. Say it loud, say it proud! And move on.

Now's your chance to be a man.

Don't blow it.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 5:17 PM

Did rapo bail on yet another thread?

Did one of his pet delusions get handed to him on a platter? Is he too invested in his delusion to admit that it was mistaken??? Or will he learn from experience? Tune into to our NEXT episode of...

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, March 16, 2009 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

"...SignyM covered the fact that the Fed is not a government entity, and also that making fresh money available out of nowhere is an inevitable consequence of capitalism.

Some put the problem at the feet of repealing important regulations - for example, repealing the prohibition against commercial banking merging with investment banking in Glass-Steagall Act (1933).

So far, there doesn't seem to be a single example of how that bad government meddling created the current problem. The only thing we have to go on, after all the chaff has been thrown away, is, apparently, Paul's say-so.

If you look at the data, you'll see that most of the toxic mortgages - the ones going belly-up today - were written after 2000. Elliot Spitzer puts the height of predatory lending at 2003.

"In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation."

In 2004 investment banks were freed from onerous capitalization requirements:

"But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency’s failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.

On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks.

They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments."

"...while some are surprised at the current national and world economic crisis, others, including Brown, had seen it coming.

In “Web of Debt,” Brown explains our current “debt-based” private banking monetary system and its history, and the ominous role the private bankers have played in shaping national and world events for their own benefit, amassing great wealth and power, and the myth of the free market and the current events on Wall Street, all with fascinating, highly referenced, and understandable detail. She explains that much of history has been a struggle between the public interest and private banks, connecting the dots with a tale of intrigue that leaves the reader enlightened with how the world really works.

Brown explains that the current financial crisis is an end of a 300-year Ponzi scheme known as “Fractional Reserve Banking” run by the private banks, including the Federal Reserve. She further states that this is an opportune time to change the system now that it is collapsing -- to a system where the people, i.e., Congress, take back the constitutional authority to create money (currently residing unconstitutionally in the hands of private bankers) for the good of the people, with the possibility of funding the government with fees and reasonable profits from public banking in lieu of the income tax.

Since the subject matter of “Web of Debt” is

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 5:52 PM

SARGE

Quote:
... if you recognise you need rules and laws to prevent government from passing laws to take away a freedom, then you also need laws to prevent people other than governments taking your freedom. That the only threat to freedom isn't a tyrannical government, so removing all laws won't mean everyone is free. It'll mean a small group has 100% freedom, while everyone else has 0%. But there'll still be no laws.- Citizen

Ok, I see what you mean. I totally agree.- Sagre

I'm trying to figure out your definition of freedom, because you used the word in a very puzzling way.-Signy

How so?- Sarge

Umm... I guess to me there's no such thing as abstract freedom. It's always in context: Freedom from (freedom from hunger, fear, oppression) or freedom to (freedom to think, acquire, associate.) So, when you antithetically juxtapose "freedom" and "prosperity" that means you're defining "freedom" in such as way that the two could be mutually exclusive... even if only hypothetically.

My interpretation is that you use the word "freedom" primarily to mean the freedom to disassociate from an economic activity. I think the reason why you like capitalism is not because its necessarily fairer (it doesn't reward love, friendship or moral insight) or because it offers greater prosperity to everyone but because it offers a way to interact with people on a VERY LIMITED basis: the "marketplace", which one presumably enters into by choice. So the connection YOU see between "freedom" and "prosperity" is that in some way you recognize that greater prosperity, greater technological advances, even greater "fairness" might come at the cost of losing that freedom to disassociate. Is my interpretation correct?

Now YOUR idea is that "the marketplace" under capitalism is voluntary. I think that "the marketplace" under capitalism is a great deal more coercive and offers far fewer real choices than you think because of the very real differences in power between the players. That there are more forms of "power" than the gun, and one of those forms is economic power. (Another is power over modes of communication.) But that's another story.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, March 16, 2009 6:03 PM

- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2009-03-02
Excerpt

At first sight, the budget proposal has all the appearances of an expansionary program, a demand oriented "Second New Deal" geared towards creating employment, rebuilding shattered social programs and reviving the real economy.
The realities are otherwise. Obama's promise is based on a mammoth austerity program. The entire fiscal structure is shattered, turned upside down.
To reach these stated objectives, a significant hike in public spending on social programs (health, education, housing, social security) would be required as well as the implementation of a large scale public investment program. Major shifts in the composition of public expenditure would also be required: i.e. a move out of a war economy, requiring a movement out of military related spending in favour of civilian programs.
In actuality, what we are dealing with is the most drastic curtailment in public spending in American history, leading to social havoc and the potential impoverishment of millions of people.
The Obama promise largely serves the interests of Wall Street, the defence contractors and the oil conglomerates. In turn, the Bush-Obama bank "bailouts" are leading America into a spiralling public debt crisis. The economic and social dislocations are potentially devastating.
Obama's budget submitted to Congress on February 26, 2009 envisages outlays for the 2010 fiscal year (commencing October 1st 2009) of $3.94 trillion, an increase of 32 percent. Total government revenues for the 2010 fiscal year, according to preliminary estimates by the Bureau of Budget, are of the order of $2.381 trillion.
The predicted budget deficit (according to the president's speech) is of the order of $1.75 trillion, almost 12 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product.
War and Wall Street
This is a "War Budget". The austerity measures hit all major federal spending programs with the exception of: 1. Defence and the Middle East War: 2. the Wall Street bank bailout, 3. Interest payments on a staggering public debt.
The budget diverts tax revenues into financing the war. It legitimizes the fraudulent transfers of tax dollars to the financial elites under the "bank bailouts".
The pattern of deficit spending is not expansionary. We are not dealing with a Keynesian style deficit, which stimulates investment and consumer demand, leading to an expansion of production and employment.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12517

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 6:24 PM

O2B

Quote:
The problem of “interest.” As explained by Brown: “The problem is that banks create only the principal and not the interest necessary to pay back their loans. Since bank lending is essentially the only source of new money in the system, someone somewhere must continually be taking out new loans just to create enough ‘money’ (or ‘credit’) to service the old loans composing the money supply.” Thus, the private bankers’ system of “debt-based” money requires a continuous inflationary cycle of loans to increase the money supply to pay the interest."

We should be able to do without "credit" altogether (or at least the lending of money which the lender does not have) by requiring 100% capitalization. The EU, which has done so many things right, did one thing terribly wrong... under Basel It allowed even lower capitalization rates than the US banks! US banks have 20:1 debt ratios- which I thought was horrific to begin with. But the EU banks allowed an astounding 35:1!! And, they are paying for it!!!

However, I DO see the necessity of "interest". Even if bank loans are 100% capitalized, there is no guarantee that the money it loans out will be returned. Some businesses fail, for example. So the bank maybe should charge an interest rate which reflects the average return, accounting for potential losses.

I don't see any other way out of that dilemma, do you???

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 6:29 PM

RAPO... are you bailing out of YET ANOTHER thread?

Are you too afraid to admit that one of your pet mantras... that "everyone" thought that Saddam had WMD... was WRONG?

Just as you couldn't admit that I had predicted the meltdown?

And that the final UN Resolution on Iraq (UN R1441) rescinded all previous resolutions and was therefore the only one that legally counted?

Do something different. Don't just weasel out, take your lumps. Man up.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Monday, March 16, 2009 6:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
US banks have 20:1 debt ratios- which I thought was horrific to begin with.

Actually major US banks averaged 30:1 capitalisation.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:05 PM

Signym,

I'm speaking of freedom in the political sense - i.e. freedom of action, freedom from constraint aka "liberty". Obviously, in any society consisting of more than one person, there's no such thing as unlimited freedom. Giving up some freedom is the sacrifice required to enjoy the advantages of civilized society. The libertarian ideal is that you retain the freedom to act as you please as long as your actions don't interfere with anyone else's freedom to do likewise.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
when you antithetically juxtapose "freedom" and "prosperity" that means you're defining "freedom" in such as way that the two could be mutually exclusive... even if only hypothetically.

The whole point of the post where this came up was just that we have different priorities in terms of basic values. Some of us are more concerned with freedom, some more concerned with security, some with prosperity, etc... It's possible, even common, that government policy sacrifices certain values in favor of others. I could imagine a plan that, while it might lead to national prosperity, would crush much of what we consider basic liberty. Fascism is an example of a something that might afford us greater prosperity at the cost of freedom.

That's not always the case. In fact, I tend to think it's the opposite - free societies tend to be more prosperous. But that's mostly an irrelevant perk to me in terms of government policy. Naturally I'd choose prosperity over poverty, all things being equal. But from my point of view, prosperity should not be a primary goal of government.

Quote:
My interpretation is that you use the word "freedom" primarily to mean the freedom to disassociate from an economic activity.]

That's only a small part of the overall concept, but the freedom to choose who we associate with seems pretty fundamental.

Quote:
I think the reason why you like capitalism is not because its necessarily fairer (it doesn't reward love, friendship or moral insight) or because it offers greater prosperity to everyone but because it offers a way to interact with people on a VERY LIMITED basis: the "marketplace", which one presumably enters into by choice.

That seems a fair characterization, with the slight modification that I like it because it offers the right to choose how much you associate - as much or as little as you like. I don't think it's fair to assume that anyone who argues for this right is doing so out of anti-social motivation. In fact, my motivation is somewhat the opposite. I think the right to make this call (otherwise known as "voluntary association") is vital to healthy social interaction.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:18 PM

mmm. Okay. I thought they were required by banking regulations at 20:1 'cause the USA never bought into Basel II. But was apparently worse that I thought.

Also, 'cause of deregulation, a lot of complex financial products like Credit Default Swaps were traded "off books", so the REAL debt ratio was prolly more like 40:1. That's one of the reasons why the banks really DON'T know how "at risk" they are: the accounting is simply too complex and the interparty risk too (deliberately) hidden to make any sense out of the hash.

That's why when peeps like Ron Paul point to "government" and "regulation" as the source of the problem, I just want to bang my head into a wall. Clearly, he never did any research into to actuality of the situation, either now or in 1929 (when banks and businesses were even LESS regulated than they are now).

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
mmm. Okay. I thought they were required by banking regulations at 20:1 'cause the USA never bought into Basel II. But was apparently worse that I thought.

I don't know about what they were allowed, but I've looked at the official reports of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and a few others, and they range from 25:1 to 35:1, and it averages out at a little over 30:1.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:25 PM

Sarge: You haven't answered my question. Perhaps I wasn't too clear. WHAT KIND of freedom are you talking about?

Civil?

Religious?

Economic?

Intellectual?

It makes a difference. "Freedom from want" might conflict with "freedom from taxes". Intellectual freedom might conflict with religious freedom. "Freedom from government" might conflict with "freedom to enforce contracts". So what is YOUR definition of freedom?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:28 PM

Quote:
I don't know about what they were allowed, but I've looked at the official reports of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and a few others, and they range from 25:1 to 35:1, and it averages out at a little over 30:1.

Ah, I see. Those are (or, were) investment banks, not depository (FDIC insured) institutions. So their debt ratio was allowed by the SEC to go pretty much as high as they thought they could bear, by a 2004 SEC decision which was pushed by none other than Henry "Hank" Paulson, Bush's appointed Treasury Scy, who was then head of Goldman Sachs.

Nice hand-in-glove relationship, huh???

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I don't know about what they were allowed, but I've looked at the official reports of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and a few others, and they range from 25:1 to 35:1, and it averages out at a little over 30:1.
Ah, I see. Those are (or, were) investment banks, not depository (FDIC insured) institutions. So their debt ratio was allowed by the SEC to go pretty much as high as they thought they could bear, by a 2004 SEC decision which was pushed by none other than Henry "Hank" Paulson, Bush's appointed Treasury Scy, who was then head of Goldman Sachs.

Well, since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act there's really no real difference between an investment bank and a depository. I assume the difference is similar to our Building Societies and Banks, and the Margaret Thatcher Era breaking of the walls between the two has been similarly disastrous.

But the ones I looked at were the big ones that were at the heart of this whole mess, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, etc.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge: You haven't answered my question. Perahps I wasn't too clear. WHAT KIND of freedom are you talking about?

Civil?

Religious?

Economic?

Intellectual?

As I said, freedom of action in general. All of the above fit that definition. "Freedom from want" doesn't, as it isn't a "freedom of action" and really just means "having everything you want" which no government can guarantee people as a general rule.

When conflicts occur, you can usually determine the initiated action that caused the conflict, which would be the point where the basic concept is violated. As I said, the base stipulation is that you can't claim as a right something that violates the rights of others, unless the other party has voluntarily given up certain rights - as in a contractual obligation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:55 PM

Sarge, there are apparently two different views of "freedom", as has been told to me by non-Americans. They see freedom as "freedom from": freedom from oppression, freedom from want. We (Americans) see "freedom as "freedom to". To some extent, the two are antithetical. "Freedom to" often impinges on others' "freedom from". ie The freedom to swing your fist conflicts with my noses' freedom from violence. The freedom to acquire conflicts with my freedom from theft, force, or fraud. It's all abut finding a balance between the two.

Your view of "freedom of action" doesn't seem to take into account that your action may impinge on other's freedom FROM your action. In fact, I find that you consistently express your views of freedom oppositely: not as "freedom of action" but more as "freedom FROM action". And your "freedom from action" might conflict with other's "freedom to" attain a goal. So, I find your views rather confusing, but in sum it seems to wrap up all in taxes and government. True?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge: You haven't answered my question. Perhaps I wasn't too clear. WHAT KIND of freedom are you talking about?

Civil?

Religious?

Economic?

Intellectual?

It makes a difference. "Freedom from want" might conflict with "freedom from taxes". Intellectual freedom might conflict with religious freedom. "Freedom from government" might conflict with "freedom to enforce contracts". So what is YOUR definition of freedom?

I think it encompasses all and none

. I think Sarge is talking about freedom from other people constraint, which is over arching.

Personally I want a balance. Removing all laws and regulations (and I think sarge agrees here) won't make us free. I'd use the (somewhat inadequate) analogy of saying there's only a finite amount of freedom in a society. What I mean is that say Soviet Russia was just as free as the United States, but the freedom was held by a small group, while the freedom in the US was spread around everyone. In Soviet Russia the upper party could do whatever they wanted, Stalin for instance was completely and utterly unconstrained. He was free in away that most people could barely even imagine, but his exercising of his freedom meant everyone else in Russia had none. So I say freedom is a finite resource, and we want to find away of giving everyone equal freedom, rather than just handing it all to one person or group.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 16, 2009 8:06 PM

Sig

Everyone knew.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 16, 2009 8:11 PM

Quote:
Sig- Everyone knew.- rapo

Not me.

Now, are you going to tell ME what I did and didn't know? Are you going to tell me that (despite my many argument against invading Iraq) that I am now twisting my words to mean "anything I want them to mean", just like I was twisting my tagline "Let's party like it's 1929" to fit the circumstances?

So, let me tell you flat out: I did NOT "know" that Saddam had WMD (in 2001)

So there.

Either call me a liar or admit you were wrong.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 16, 2009 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, there are apparently two different views of "freedom", as has been told to me by non-Americans. They see freedom as "freedom from": freedom from oppression, freedom from want.

Ok, so in that sense I would say that the freedom I'm concerned with (the one I'm calling 'freedom of action', or 'liberty') is a subset of the "freedom from" category, essentially being "freedom from external constraint" or "freedom from the interference of others". That's the only one I think is an appropriate concern of government since the political concept of rights pertains to the actions of people. The freedoms you mention that don't have to do with the actions of people ("freedom from want" for example), are existential in nature.

Quote:
Your view of "freedom of action" doesn't seem to take into account that your action may impinge on other's freedom FROM your action.

That's why the corollary is necessary - you have freedom (of action) in all things that don't constrain the freedom (of action) others.

Quote:
And your "freedom from action" might conflict with other's "freedom to" attain a goal.

I suppose, though I'd say it thusly: "the actions of others actions might interfere with my freedom from constraint".

Quote:
So, I find your views rather confusing, but in sum it seems to wrap up all in taxes and government. True?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I will say that I think our disagreement generally crops up when you're dealing with the existential "freedom froms" - freedom from want, freedom from hunger, freedom from suffering etc... These freedoms don't pertain to the actions of others and imply very different policies to maintain.

"Freedom from constraint" imposes a very simple requirement on society. All we need to do to maintain it is agree not to act in ways that impose on others. The requirement is prohibitive rather than proactive. If you sit by yourself in your room you're probably not going to be violating anybody's liberty.

The existential freedoms are another matter. While they represent the best intentions - we'd all love to do away with hunger, suffering, etc.. - they imply a proactive component to maintain. It's when we attempt to establish these existential freedoms as "rights" that run into potential conflict with liberty.

The "right to health care" is a good example. If we're going to say that such a right is something that society should maintain, in particular if we're going to say it's a right that government should ensure, it's a direct proactive imposition on other people. When you say that you have the right to health care, you're saying that someone else owes it to you as a service. That IS antithetical to liberty and it's why I bristle at the idea.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:01 PM

Everyone on the Hill knew, and said so. That was clearly my meaning. They knew, because they were all briefed w/ the same intel, not from 1 but 2 different administrations. Then their politics changed, as it was expedient for them, and put party over country.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

KWICKO

Monday, March 16, 2009 9:40 PM

Quote:

Everyone on the Hill knew, and said so. That was clearly my meaning.

Oh, horseshit. You come in here with so much utter crap, on such a regular basis, that now we're supposed to glean your meaning when you make a blanket, all-encompassing statement like "EVERYONE knew. EVERY gorram one."?

Man, you ARE carrying some serious delusions...

Man up and admit you were wrong.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE