The question now is whether an Obama presidency with democrat majorities in both houses of Congress will light the afterburner on our express elevator ride to Hell.
The big question will be the Blue Dog Democrats. The ones who won big in 2006 by being conservative, and who have wanted to stay in office, thus Pelosi's grand vision has been brought to a screeching halt.
What Mark (and Mark, before you hit and run again, let me preempt you with the thread where you blatantly lied and the one where, among other things, you failed to even start to define what separates "good capitalism" from bad, or socialism. You again say "Oh, of course that's silly, but you've yet to prove that your conclusions are in any way trustable, reliable, and predictable.) will miss, yet again, is that 2006 wasn't a watershed movement left, but a rejection of the movement left by the Republicans.
Those Democrats are on thin ice - if they go hard left, they'll be out, next election, and the local D's will be hard hit with the collateral damage.
If Obama's elected, I imagine we'll see a lot of "He wants to do what? We never saw that coming!. Big if. I think HRC, if she's going to pull something, needs to soon. I'm expecting some of the media to stop the fawning attention in the next week. Or maybe the Clinton's power is gone. (Or she got a USSC seat offer.)
I keep wondering why the McCain does not present exactly this kind of information as the reason why they think the Pfleger/Wright/Ayers connection is important.
I keep wondering why, in the last debate, McCain did not say "When Sen. Obama says he wants to share the wealth, that means he does not think that you own your own property. He thinks property is held in common. He thinks that if someone earns more money, it is not his, it belongs to the people, to do with what they want, and to give to whomever they choose. And this, my friends, is called socialism."
But then I remember why Kim DuToit calls Republicans "the Stupid Party."
"When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans."
[...]
"Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans."
If this is true, then why is Obama on the verge of winning?
As an example of socialism that the Obamassiah wants to implement, and a marvelously clear example of why it doesn't work (it's been tried, y'see), one need only read the Story of the Day. It's available here and here.
It's about (yes, again ...) free health care from the gubmint. Here is the money quote from Fox News:
"HONOLULU — Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
"Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program.""
Golly. You mean that, if the gubmint makes something available for free, then people will line up to take it, even if they could pay for it themselves? Naw, that can't be true, can it?
This illustrates and to a remarkable degree it validates the prediction that, if the almighty feddle gubmint puts in place any form of universal health care, it will inevitably collapse into a universal free health care system that is paid for by taxes.
Two things, how is Mr. Delphia measuring the far-rightedness of The Smallest Minority? "... when you are as far right as you are." I can reply, "When you are as far left as you are, you think socialism is capitalism, because you know that to your left are the commies, and you know you're not a commie." You presume upon states of mind and then draw conclusions. I prefer not to go into specifics of the ideas of capitlism, socialism or communism in the limited comment space. Perhaps Kevin may want to, I don't. Secondly, the words "You can change an idea but you can't change a belief" are quickly followed by what to my so, so, too far right "problem here is" eyes the words: "I find it hard to believe that they would chuck all that to be subservient to a communist or socialist state. It's not going to happen." Is this an idea, or a belief? Anyone, anyone, Vladimir?
ACORN is there to insure victory.
The national face of socialism is one in which industry and capital (banks) are joined at the comfortable Government hip (or tit), so Buffet benefits regardless - he's not subservient when he's incorporated into the powerful machinery of Government.
And something Rick pointed out at Traction Control when Obama said, "If you get sick, you can go Bankrupt", but in the Federal Plan, it will be cheaper and pre-existing conditions don’t count...
In other words, the policies that destroyed the mortgage industry and the worldwide economy can also bankrupt the medical industry.
U-J, I thought I read a few weeks back that someone did an analysis of the Blue Dogs and discovered, perhaps unsurprisingly, that they lied and are proving to be very non-conservative in action, now that they're in office.
Damn, but I do like this. The title is "What Would Milton Friedman Say?"
To quote it properly would be to quote the whole thing, and you can read it there as easily as here. But I like the end the best:
""If this election goes the way it looks as though it's going to go," says Tom[as MaCurdy, a student of Milton Friedman], "then the political system is about to get a major overcorrection to the left. And that means the American people are about to get an extreme illustration of just how badly government intervention screws stuff up."
""If Milton were here," Tom says, "he'd tell us to remember what happened during the Clinton administration. After just two years, the Republicans ended up in control of both houses of Congress."
It really shows what has shaped Obama's economic policies in a very accurate way as opposed to the paranoid delusions that are circulating out there. As long as we are on the subject of the University of Chicago, one of Obama's two main economic advisers is Austan Goolsbee, a current professor there. Here is George Will's take on him..
Obama's other advisor is Jeffrey Liebman, professor at Harvard.
I find it interesting that Kevin did not mention either of these men in this long post of Obama's associations. These two men are going to be directly responsible for shaping Obama's economic policies and one of them is from UOC, where laissez faire was born. Hey, maybe I should be nervous :)
Let's take a look at who Kevin has listed...
First up we have Obama's dad, who I believe left him when he was very young and died before the writing of DOMF which, Kevin, was well before he decided to run for President. It's been well documented that Obama's dad was not much of part of his son's life...which is what makes his story so typical in the era of deadbeat dads.
Next we have Frank...gasp! A stinking Commie! Guys, c'mon. Kevin is not Joe McCarthy and this is not the year 1952, which quite oddly many of you have not moved past..a large mistake to be sure considering the actual threats we face as opposed to the manufactured ones. And you wonder why I compare some of you to the propaganda of Germany in the 1930s...when I hear "known associations with Communists," I can't help but think of a certain fire...:)
As far as Frank's hideously sinister and evil influence over Obama, check this out.
Then we have Reverend Wright. Obviously they had a close, personal relationship. So what? Does that mean that they could never have possibly disagree on anything? That Obama simply bowed in front of him and said, "I will do thy bidding, master." I have a close personal relationship with last in line and we disagree a lot. Am I going to get in trouble in the future for "knowing him?"
In fact, Obama's relationship with Wright epitomizes his entire life's relationships...gather information from people you disagree with and learn more about alternate perspectives. I realize this is a tough nut to crack in the dogma here but sometimes people (that includes all of you and I)....are (shudder, shiver, gasping) WRONG!
Just out of curiosity, are there any black people that read this blog? I would like to hear their view of Black Liberation Theology.
Next is Ayers, Chicago Citizen of the Year in 1997 and fellow board member of Barack Obama and...Walter Annenberg, Republican and friend to Ronald Reagan. Oh no...does that mean that Reagan had shadowy ties to shadowy people too? Say it ain't so...
"an avowedly Marxist organization dedicated to overthrowing the U.S. government."
The last 15 years have pretty much shown that the only ones with any serious dedication and muscle to overthrown the government come from the right..not the left. Any Marxists blow up any Federal buildings lately? Bomb abortions clinics? The Olympics? The question...what is the NRA going to do about it...implies what exactly, again, Kevin?
"What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?"
So...people like Warren Buffet, Paul Volker, William H. Donaldson (fomer W appointee), David Ruder (Reagan appointee) venture capitalists Bill Ruckleshaus and Bob Nelson, and Christopher Buckley for crying out loud...they are going to overthrow the government too?
While you are looking at the military list of supporters, review the other lists. Are you saying that all of these people are part of the new Communist Conspiracy?
As usual, you're so wrong you can't even see right. Senator Joe McCarthy has been vindicated and proven very correct in the hindsight of history.
What you're thinking about is the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Senator McCarthy. The House Committee. I know, it's a huge jump for you. I can see why Black Liberation Theology produces YEGO.
The rest of your comment is about as bad - you repeat a lot of what has been said before without a single correction or note as to what we said in reply to it.
Gell-Mann Amnesia strikes again!
Not a bit of that matters to the point that not once, not once, has Obama ever fought the tide. Not once has he ever championed a divisive bill. Not once has he bucked his patrons and party. Not once has he ever had to convince people. Not once, Mark.
He's voted on divisive bills. But he's never proposed or led one. His (2! in the Senate!) bills have passed by overwhelming majorities. (Lucky for him, not many people voted "present".)
His Community Work was working for the Machine, not against it.
We don't have any idea how he'll actually respond if he's elected and has to actually fight.
Advisors are great.
But you like to point to every scrap and hint of possibility that he is so different than his record, speeches, and writings paint him.
You've certainly never cut yourself on Occam's Razor.
So...people like Warren Buffet, Paul Volker, William H. Donaldson (fomer W appointee), David Ruder (Reagan appointee) venture capitalists Bill Ruckleshaus and Bob Nelson, and Christopher Buckley for crying out loud...they are going to overthrow the government too?
Not if they can get Obama voted in. Then they just take it over, no overthrow needed.
You really don't see that, do you?
You're so incapable of seeing the evils of socialism that it blinds you to the ambition of others, and when they decide (could/might/are) to use socialism for their own goals?
Socialism, Fascism, Communism, whichever face of it - it's great for the guys at the top.
As I, and others, have demonstrated many, many, many, MANY, MANY times, you're incapable of coming up with analysis of your own. Here's more proof of that. You look for some affiliation, some "fact", and that's all you need. Context, irrelevant. Patterns, unneeded. Honesty, well, we've covered that in great, graphic detail.
And, I'm sorry, the stupidity inherent in this sentence apparently made me miss it the first time: Then we have Reverend Wright. Obviously they had a close, personal relationship. So what? Does that mean that they could never have possibly disagree on anything?
"Does that mean..." doesn't prove that he did. In fact, as I did mention above, he's never publicly ever fought anything that could have disadvantaged him. You're basing 20 years of association, assistance with his books, his obvious ties... to the outside possibility he might have disagreed with him.
And, you think you're... defending him by arguing this ineptly and dishonestly?
In fact, Obama's relationship with Wright epitomizes his entire life's relationships...gather information from people you disagree with and learn more about alternate perspectives.
Hear that, guys? If a Republican candidate hangs out with Skinheads and the KKK, we can count on Mark to defend him, because it's all about gathering information and learning more about alternate perspectives!
Mark, I belonged to a church in town that I really liked. My pastor was instrumental in my conversion, he educated me in Lutheran theology, and baptized me. Last year I asked his advice on something very important, and the answer I got distressed me deeply. It's the only thing this man ever said that I disagreed with, but it was enough of a divergence that I could not continue in that church -- I quit the next week and never looked back. The fact that Obama could sit in a pew week after week for years listening to Wright's sermons gives EVERY indication that he bought a great deal, if not all, of what Wright preached.
I shudder to think of what other "alternate" perspectives Obama's willing to entertain.
"Senator Joe McCarthy has been vindicated and proven very correct in the hindsight of history."
Really...the part when he went after the army...that was alright? And Unix, the fact that you support Senator McCarthy's efforts proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you care not a wit about individual freedom and liberty.
"the evils of socialism"
"Socialism, Fascism, Communism, whichever face of it - it's great for the guys at the top."
I'm sorry...it's laughable at this point. You are so far out of touch with what any of these words mean it's ridiculous. Just out of curiosity, have you ever lived abroad? Or is the rest of the world just rolled into one giant lump of evil based on your ignorance like this....?
http://www.msxnet.org/humour/america
"I shudder to think of what other "alternate" perspectives Obama's willing to entertain."
Well, Sarah, if you read the NYT article you will see that he was very influenced by his time at UOC. I think you are going to find more in common with him than you think...should he become president. The question is whether you will give him credit or lapse into dogma and continue to pursue the "he's a Marxist-terrorist-America hater" ignorant bullshit.
Really...the part when he went after the army...that was alright? And Unix, the fact that you support Senator McCarthy's efforts proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you care not a wit about individual freedom and liberty.
I'm sorry...it's laughable at this point. You are so far out of touch with what any of these words mean it's ridiculous.
When you find things "laughable" that means that you've got no reasonable answer. So you "laugh" it off - proving that you're wrong, and that you know it.
You sneer, because you can't convince. The facts are against you. So "That's just laughable!"
Nevermind it's a eminently good answer to your ignorant question. You asked it, remember. I just answered it with the obvious reason, and now even you realize that you set yourself up.
You call us brainwashed, and then you repeat factually disproven memes.
Mark, you've proven yourself to be a dishonest debater many, many, many times over. I've accurately compared you to the scheming Vizzini in "The Princess Bride". Just like Vizzini, you're secure in your intellectual superiority - a claim that utterly fails any reasonable claim.
You support any sort of insane anti-Bush conspiracy. It might be true It might!
And then you deny the truth obvious to almost all of us, of the systemic attempts to destroy freedom and liberty. Starting with the public school system No! Bullshit! Not the case!
Your very efforts prove what you try and deny. You look for conspiracies everywhere, believing them to be like you see on TV, in books.
While failing to see how people actually work in the real world. So you can insist that Warren Buffett Supports Obama! Without considering what's in it for Warren Buffett.
You can sneer at McCarthy, without knowing a damn thing about him other than what you've been fed. But it's OK! The Media would NEVER mislead you! They're really right wing! Really! Despite that every major media outlet is staffed (for all practical purposes) entirely by members of one political party. They wouldn't do that! Evil Business Corporation! Note how much money Hollywood and the media are losing? But you'll note the biggest "offenders" are making a shitload. (They're not paying 80% taxes, either.)
Yes, Mark, you prove "Really! this time we'll do it right, we'll do it HARDER! is exactly what Obama and his followers promise us.
Even the honest followers. Even the ones who don't, unlike you, deliberately lie repeatedly. Even the people who have the best intentions. The best ideals.
Because, just like you, their ideals have nothing to do with freedom and liberty. No, they're worried about "fairness" and "justice".
The question is whether you will give him credit or lapse into dogma and continue to pursue the "he's a Marxist-terrorist-America hater" ignorant bullshit.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, would be more thrilled if prosperity and freedom abounded under an Obama presidency. Trust me, if it happens, I'll be the first one to give him credit. However, I'm typically not given to fantasy, Mark. Obama's voting record, the company he keeps, and the things he says when he thinks he's only amongst friends, supports the assertion that he's a Marxist America-hater.
"I'm sorry...it's laughable at this point. You are so far out of touch with what any of these words mean it's ridiculous. Just out of curiosity, have you ever lived abroad? Or is the rest of the world just rolled into one giant lump of evil based on your ignorance like this....?"
You stupid, arrogant little twit, I've been all over the world. I've lived in parts of the world you couldn't even find on a map. And for you to make that kind of statement only shows just what kind of little hermetic bubble you live in. I'VE LIVED IN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. I'VE SEEN THE DAMAGE THAT SOCIALISM CAN DO FIRST HAND.
Out of touch? No, I've actually touched the ideas that you toss out. And they're repulsive. Disgusting. Destructive.
Go back to guzzling kool-aid and destroying the minds of your students. The adults will be out here trying to limit the damage that useful idiots like you cause, and dealing with the real world.
Marx believed that Capitalism would collapse.
Mark believes in creating "good Capitalism".
Marx insists "From each, according to ability, to each according to need."
Mark insists "From each, according to fairness, and to each, according to what sob story they can come up with."
Marx planned to indoctrinate the children with his ideology.
Mark ... Oh, wait.
The problem is more that Markadelphia doesn't think Obama is a socialist.
And somehow, in spite of his lecturing, I don't think Mark has been around that much. I lived in British Columbia most of my life, which at various times has suffered under socialist governments. The socialist New Democratic Party, for instance, managed to take the B.C. economy from #2 in the nation and move it to dead last by the end of their reign of stupidity. My husband grew up in socialist Finland, which is actually very oppressive. His mother was a card-carrying Marxist, and so he's been to many communist countries, every single one of them poor, oppressed, and miserable. So I have no frigging clue what Mark is talking about, or where he's been that's not like these places.
Sarah, I haven't been to Finland but I know people who have lived there. I wouldn't call their views of it "oppressive." I live in Minnesota and know many Canadians. They like some things here better and some things there better. They don't view socialism as evil at all.
But you're right. I don't think Barack Obama is a socialist. It just isn't true. And it's not a "problem" either. The problem starts with a view point, such as yours, which is so far right that everyone else is liberal...or a socialist. That's fine. That's your point of view. Bear in mind the perspective, though. I do what to understand this, though. How is Barack Obama going to make our country like Finland?
"How is Barack Obama going to make our country like Finland?"
He'll head it that direction by the classic Marxist method of redistributing the wealth, as he himself put it. Redistributing wealth was literally his justification, on camera, for higher taxes. That means taking wealth from those who have it and giving it to those who don't. The root of that is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Now, tell us again, you pathetic, lying fool, how that isn't socialism.
My head is spinning. Obama says himself he wants to redistribute the wealth, but Mark and his fellow travelers insist that he is a good capitalist, hell, he's the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan. He says that the Left really doesn't support Che, etc. and are really reasonable, but I dare him to put a McCain/Palin bumpersticker on his car and park it in one of those reasonable neighborhoods. Face it Mark, we aren't buying your BS, hell, I can't make up my mind what BS you are trying to peddle. You write post after post about how great redistributionist social justicy policies are, then you say that Obama isn't really for that stuff, even though he spent his entire adult life advocating those exact policies.
Whether or not someone likes a system doesn't determine whether it's socialism, and whether or not someone likes socialism doesn't determine whether it's an evil system -- although I'd ask your Canadian acquaintances why they're in Minnesota instead of Canada. The fact is that socialist policies took the #2 economy in Canada and flushed it down the toilet. I notice you didn't address that point.
As for Finns, they themselves are not oppressive, but the implementation of the Finnish socialist policies is dreadfully oppressive. The male suicide rate (and alcoholism rate) in Finland is one of the highest in the civilized world, and DON'T tell me it has anything to do with the seasons. This is what happens when you take very masculine, strong-willed men and crush them with something as overly-feminized as socialism. Yet Finns are as paradoxical as Canadians in that they can simultaneously hold two opposing views. They're all for freedom and prosperity, but then they go absolutely batsh!t if anyone suggests doing away with the social programs that cost them zillions of dollars in taxes and invite all kinds of unwanted government intrusion. This is why most Finns who come to the U.S. end up much happier, but they don't really understand why. My husband, the born-American that he is, is the exception.
Think about it a bit more deeply, Sam. Markadoofus wants desperately to be thought of as a guy who really knows his stuff, a guy who really has a lock on reality. Now, just how intelligent does he have to be to be more intelligent than anyone who is stupid enough to agree with what he says? He's really impressive, isn't he?
Herein lies the difference between the Markadelphias of the world and I. One reads or listens to what another says or states and believes it without scrutiny. I on the other hand look at what one does, how one acts and what one votes for before accepting any statement as fact. What is more, it is a long tradition amongst marxists, socialists and others of their ilk to lie, lie consistenly and lie big, so big that the lie takes on the aura of truth. Sorry, we are not buying any of that any more. I left a socialist country 39 years ago to become an American and it will simply not do to import or accept a home grown version (if he is an American which is yet to be proven)of what I left behind; no matter how glib and facile the speaker, it is still snake oil with poison he is selling. BTW, how goes the word cadence and structure analysis of his two books in comparison to the writings of one Mr. Ayers? Hmmm?
Hey Kevin, on that Accuracy in Media bit - anyone who can describe Alan Keyes as "colorful and outspoken" has a more creative imagination then just about any Leftist.
That should be considered the understatement of the century.
A coworker at my last job was a gung-ho Alan Keyes supporter. He gave me one of Keyes' pamphlets, which I tried to read, only to fall asleep on the toilet.
Markadelphia (the Liar) (Like Robin Williams, but less funny and more obnoxious): I don't think Barack Obama is a socialist. It just isn't true.
This is where being you being a proven liar presents a problem.
You're no longer allowed to reasonably judge truth and falsehood. Your mere words aren't enough. (As well as the fact that the facts are irrefutable that he's had a Marxist background, a long history of Marxist rhetoric, attended a Marxist Church for 20 years, and his biggest supporters include many avowed Marxists.)
It's possible that he's, somehow, a free-market capitalist. But it ain't real likely.
And your word is worth less than mud, so your assurance that it's not true... is more evidence that it is exactly the case.
If you're still around, I'd be interested in what your definition of socialism is. What do you think are its defining tenets and hallmarks? How do you think it stands in opposition to the free market?
"Now, tell us again, you pathetic, lying fool, how that isn't socialism."
I find it fascinating when someone like myself brings up several stark truths and realities that the only way some here can counter them is to prove that they are a "lies." Essentially, DJ, when someone hits you or Unix with some ideas that don't fit into your dogma, you frenetically search for ways they "lie"." Thus, everything they say is a lie. Well, I kind half to be, don't I? Because even if I am right about one little thing, that's the end of all that is holy in Dogma Land.
It's really quite silly when you think about it.
As far as the definition of socialism goes, I believe we have covered this before. No biggie, though, I'll go again.
Socialism is state ownership of goods and the ownership of said goods with the intent to redistribute them equally amongst the populace. The goal of any socialist society is to provide equality for everyone, regardless of how much or how little they work. The government will take care of everyone.
It stands in opposition to the free market by claiming to eliminate the "survival of the fittest" mentality that the free market has. It is alternative to "dog eat dog" and employs a "dogs share with other dogs" meme.
Take a look at our country. The top one percent own and earn most of the wealth in this country. This is never going to change. An Obama presidency might change this a little bit with the rescinding of the cap gains tax cuts (a necessity for increased revenue) but for the most part our economy and class system will stay largely intact. He's going to have to or our country will fail. And it will be because of the narrow minded vision of conservative ideology...not just economically but in all other areas of government.
When Obama talks about "sharing the wealth", he is speaking to a fundamental truth about capitalism: it does better when more people have more money to spend. This is a basic tenet of Bill Clinton. How well did the economy do under him? So well that the right threw a hissy fit and spent years trying to bring him down. Some still are blaming Clinton for our problems. The fact is that we have a growth problem in this country. This is due to inequality and the great wealth grab of this decade, as Krugman put it. No doubt, in a capitalistic society, inequality is the order of the day. But this sort of gross inequality? To the point of where the backbone of our culture (the middle class) is destroyed? We now see the evidence of what bad capitalism produces...of the American Oligarchy.
If Obama were truly a socialist, he would have the government seize ownership of all of nation's corporations and his government would control all distribution of goods and services in an equal fashion to all citizens. Gone would be the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffets of the world and they would be replaced The State.
Now, many of you will counter with the argument that taxes on small businesses force companies into a sort of socialist equality. I say if small businesses are paying that much in taxes, they need to hire an accountant that is not a fucking moron. The belief that Barack Obama is going to somehow purposefully hold back Joe the Plumber's business is completely wrong.
For whatever reason, many of you are severely hyper sensitive to government control of anything. The leap to socialism for all of you is about one inch...maybe less. For me it involves a much more drastic step, as defined above, that is never going to happen in this country. In fact, Senator Obama and Paul Volker discussed yesterday their plans to re-privatize the nation's banks.
So, I'd like to re-issue my challenge to all you: should Obama win and our economy starts to do better and we still basically have the same wonderful capitalism we have today, will you admit that you were wrong?
"So, I'd like to re-issue my challenge to all you: should Obama win and our economy starts to do better and we still basically have the same wonderful capitalism we have today, will you admit that you were wrong?"
Well now Mark, that depends on just how he does it. One of the major pieces of Bill Clinton's economic success is that in 1996 he financed the national debt with *5 year loans*. This didn't actually solve any problems, it just put them off *until after he was out of office*, so the resulting problems could be blamed on someone else.
Does that mean Bill Clinton was our economic savior and Bush was Satan? No, it means that Bill Clinton shoved his problems off on his successor so he wouldn't be held accountable for them. In 1996, he had every reason to believe that it would be HIS OWN VICE PRESIDENT who would get screwed by that policy. Evidently that didn't cost him any sleep.
Another means by which Bill Clinton made the economy all wonderful and fuzzy was by demanding back in 1992 that Fannie and Freddie create the false housing bubble that recently popped. It took 16 years to see the results of that, so now it's "all Bush's fault".
Also, like most of the voting public, you seem unaware that Congress has much more power over the economy than the President does. The Fannie/Freddie fiasco could not have happened without Dodd/Frank/Clay/Waters/Obama/Kerry et al. going to bat to make SURE it happened, to the point of accusations of racism when anyone warned that *GASP* making subprime loans to people who CANNOT PAY THEM BACK is a recipe for bankruptcy.
I'll admit I'm wrong about Obama when I see what he DOES, not just what he takes credit for. Just like *any other President*.
"The top one percent own and earn most of the wealth in this country."
Income and wealth are not the same thing. One owns wealth. One earns income. The gubmint and the IRS understand this; the income tax taxes income, not wealth.
The top one percent earn 18 percent of all income earned by individuals. That is not "most". As to ownership of wealth, I do not examine the issue here.
"This is never going to change. An Obama presidency might change this a little bit ..."
So, it is "never going to change" except that an "Obama presidency might change this". You still don't understand credibility, do you boy? You still can't express yourself in any form other than hype and self-contradictory jibberish, can you?
"... with the rescinding of the cap gains tax cuts (a necessity for increased revenue) ..."
When the capital gains tax rate was cut during the Bush administration, revenue from capital gains increased. When Obama was asked why he would increase the capital gains tax rate, given that doing so would decrease the revenue it would produce, he stated that he would do so anyway out of "fairness." He admitted that it would result in reduced revenue.
So, you are stating that Obama would do something to produce a given result, but Obama has stated that it would produce the opposite result.
Sigh ...
And you're a teacher.
It's just not worth the effort of trying to discuss anything with you. It's difficult to decide which takes the most effort to endure, your fundamental dishonesty, your lying, your abuse of and insults to our intelligence, your abysmal inability to understand the simplest concepts, your refusal to admit that reality is what it is, or your inablility to express yourself other than through hype and self-contradictory blather.
Go away until you grow up. You're trying to deal with grownups, and you're just not up to it.
I find it fascinating when someone like myself brings up several stark truths and realities
Why did I not have to read any further to know two things: 1) what was about to follow was largely fantasy and 2) the poster was markadelphia? This is of course a rhetorical question for I well know the answer - that this is the standard pattern for markadelphia, as it is for any true-believer (left or right).
Now, having read the rest I will address one 'point' of markadelphia's - that Obama is no more a socialist then Bush is. He is also no less one. I will not attempt to disabuse him of his fantasies about economics otherwise.
Hmm, Grumpy, just checking to see if there any Republicans on the list of yours in regards to the housing fiasco. Don't see any...well, their intentions were probably just misunderstood and any mistakes they made, I'm sure, were the fault of the liberals.
"When the capital gains tax rate was cut during the Bush administration, revenue from capital gains increased"
I don't know where you are getting your information from DJ but I get mine from...the Bush administration itself.
"Prodded by the White House, Treasury economists have calculated how much extra growth would result from making the Bush tax cuts permanent. They have concluded that economic output would rise by about 0.5 percent in the first six years and by an additional 0.2 percent in the "long term." Since the federal government collects around 18 percent of gross domestic product in taxes, enlarging GDP by 0.7 percent would result in extra tax revenue equivalent to 0.13 percent of GDP. That would offset less than a tenth of the revenue that would be lost because of the tax cuts."
When you are ready to unshackle yourself from your restrictive ideology and look at the scene with a width of vision, I'll be waiting.
Bottom line: kids today have (access to) lots of information, but no wisdom.
Well, nothing new there. Books aren't read; the obvious shallowness of internet information, the skimming, the hyperlinks, the breadth of the survey substituting for any real knowledge.
...
Sounds much like former assistant secretary of education Charles Finn's book, with Diane Ravitch, "What Do Our 17 Year Olds Know?" You can guess the answer. Approximately 8000 seventeen year olds in multiple choice testing: half thought he book 1984 is about the end of the human race in a nuclear war; 35% didn't know Watergate was after 1950. 30% didn't know Aesop wrote fables. Jim Crow laws were good for blacks. Etc, you get the idea.
Except it isn't all their fault. Kids are only as dumb as they're allowed to be. ... The system does not even allow them an opportunity for knowledge that they could lazily opt out of. The system offers only no knowledge.
...
It's popular to blame parents or teachers, but I'll be a little more specific in my blame: the parents and teachers of the "Dumbest Generation" are themselves so dumb they not only don't know the information themselves, they don't even know what knowledge exists that is important to pass on. And I can prove it: the above book What Do Our 17 Year Olds Know? was written in 1987. Those dumb 17 year olds are parents and teachers now. You think they started to read more when they hit 35? Say what you want about the conclusions of The Closing of the American Mind ("Students these days are, in general, nice. I choose the word carefully. They are not particularly moral or noble") but accept that it was also written in 1987, about 1987 college kids-- who are now adults.
They're dumb, all right; but they don't know it. They have a unsettling feeling that something is lacking.
Many professional parents and teachers I know fall back on empty words-- "classical education" or "the use of primary texts" but they don't know what those terms mean. They nod respectfully at Aeschylus, but they don't have the first clue whether he fought for the Greeks or the Trojans.
...
But then we have the third ingredient: the internet allows people to think they actually know quite a lot. Furthermore, the internet reinforces a type of thinking that further perpetuates the delusion that people have considerable knowledge.
...
I am observing that the Dumbest Generation of Narcissists In The History of The World is not even remotely conscious of their ignorance or their narcissism, and technology lets them get away with it-- they actually think they think they know, they actually believe they have chosen what they think is important. And they are now parents and teachers and doctors and leaders. As far as I can tell, this simultaneous conjunction of ignorance and unconsciousness has never happened before in history.
I find it fascinating when someone like myself brings up several stark truths and realities that the only way some here can counter them is to prove that they are a "lies." Essentially, DJ, when someone hits you or Unix with some ideas that don't fit into your dogma, you frenetically search for ways they "lie"." Thus, everything they say is a lie. Well, I kind half to be, don't I?
No, Mark.
You lie because you're dishonest. What you say cannot be trusted, because we know you lie. You lie about little things, you lie about big things.
falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus. False in one thing, false in all things.
That doesn't mean that everything you say is a lie. But that since you deliberately lieunashamedly, that nothing you say can be trusted.
You would do well to study what I linked above (you won't: you can't).
You claim to bring the truth.
But we know you - quite nakedly - lie.
That you do not understand critical thought - though you aspire and claim to teach it.
You do not understand what a theory is, and so misuse the word constantly.
You do not understand how to weight testimony. (Believing that a "primary source" (which is a misnomer as you use it) that you like is unimpeachable and true.)
We don't need to "frenetically search" for anything. It's right there for all to see.
You are not a honest debater, you make up, lie, and cover up for your own flaws and failures. You're incapable of revealing "truth" to us intentionally (unintentionally sometimes you are quite revealing).
You lie openly and unabashedly. You attempt to deceive and trick deliberately.
You try, and fail miserably to demand respect for your "expertise" which is demonstrably sub-par and elementary, when it's not totally wrong, or a flat-out-lie.
Many of your other arguments are also fallacious and misleading - but those are merely secondary to the facts before us.
U-J: I once saw a final exam from a *rural Missouri Junior High School*, dated 1896. Personally, I doubt very much whether more than 50% of today's American college graduates could pass it, as it required very comprehensive knowledge in a very wide range of subjects.
I know for certain *I* couldn't have passed it at the time.
Given that, I'd suggest that we are at least in our 4th or 5th generation of being dumbed down.
**************************************
"Hmm, Grumpy, just checking to see if there any Republicans on the list of yours in regards to the housing fiasco. Don't see any...well, their intentions were probably just misunderstood and any mistakes they made, I'm sure, were the fault of the liberals."
Mark, the reason you couldn't find any Republicans in my list is because I couldn't find any to put there. Granted, I only did a fairly light skim for the more obvious movers and shakers. That's who I came up with. By all means, feel free to educate me on the full list of who:
1) Supported the idea of making loans to people based on minority status *rather than on their ability to repay said loans* GOVERNMENT POLICY,
2) flatly lied, claiming that Fannie and Freddie were solvent, that there was no problem with subprime loans as "financial affirmative action", and
3) screamed "racism" when anyone tried to warn them that making high risk loans (larger percentage of defaulters) without charging high risk interest rates (covering the losses of those more common defaults) equals BANKRUPTCY.
Absolutely, Mark. I am 100% open to hearing the opposing point of view, and I make no claims to knowing it all, or for that matter to having even made a full study of it. That would take more time and energy than I'm willing to commit to a non-paying gig.
Doubtless the situation is much more complex than it appears to me. I make no claims of being an economic or financial wizard, either. But the 3 points named above seemed a blatantly obvious recipe for disaster, even to my poor economically subliterate self. And the demonstrable fact that those things DID occur, led by those I named, suggests willful blindness, deliberately ignoring the facts because they were politically inconvenient. And now the price of that deliberate ignorance is (counting all the bailouts, rescues and stimulus packages) closing in on the trillion dollar mark. Paid by US.
By all means Mark, find me some Republicans to add to the list. I will happily get on my soapbox and rant that they should be voted out of public office, punishment to be so light simply because we aren't *allowed* to stand them against a wall, offer them a final cigarette, and fill them full of bullet holes. But be prepared to document it. I can find video of Frank, Waters and Clay defending that policy and/or making accusations of racism against those who disagreed, taken from C-Span. I can find congressional records of Clinton putting it in place, and various liberal Democrats praising it. Nancy Pelosi can say all she wants that it's the fault of "the failed Bush policies of the last eight years", but I expect something with a little more meat in it than that. Show me the paper trail and do the math.
How about John McCain? Richard Shelby? Jeff Sessions? Ted Stevens? Lisa Murkowski? Jon Kyl? Wayne Allard? Larry Craig? Mike Crapo? Chuck Grassly? Sam Brownback? Mitch McConnell? Jim Burning? Thad Cochran? Kit Bond? Chuck Hagel? Judd Gregg? Pete Domenci? Gordon Smith? Arlen Specter? George Voinovich? Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Orin Hatch? Robert Bennett? Mike Enzi?
All of these Senators voted to over turn Glass-Stegall which was one of the major causes of the problems we have today. Even President Clinton is at fault here, for signing Graham Leach Bliley into law. Know anyone in investments, Grumpy? I know several, including an owner of a major investment firm here in Minneapolis. Why don't you ask them what they think caused our current problems?
All of them pointed me to this bill as a major cause. As Paul Krugman recently stated in an interview, "If it weren't for the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our money would not be safe"
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:
Senate 53-44.
House: 343-86
After conference committee:
Senate: 90-8-1
House: 362-57-15
Signed by President Bill Clinton.
90 to 8, with 1 abstention. My, my. How shockingly the Republicans were at fault. Notice the massive shift in support from the original bill to the conference committee version?
Seems odd that the Senate would shift that much, no?
Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act
Remember that CRA? The one that you've been sneering at that was irrelevant? That its expansion was irrelevant? Want to scream about banks being allowed to sell insurance? Let's not forget what was traded for that.
Notice that in trade for this bill (which had quite a lot of good reasons for it), the CRA was liberalized.
As we were saying, you've got a simplistic view at best.
Hell, your stated desires for a leader are completely at odds for who you're supporting!
"With the global financial system unraveling, economists and political leaders are coming to doubt some of Greenspan's most closely held views: that markets can exact self-discipline, that central bankers should generally not try to prick bubbles in the price of houses or tech stocks, that a policymaker's most powerful tool to encourage growth is to stay out of the way."
""I made a mistake," Greenspan said, "in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
No shit. But hey, by all means, keep blaming the government for our current problems. Meanwhile, I'll be looking for an appropriate balance that actually solves the problem with ideas not ideology.
Meanwhile, I'll be looking for an appropriate balance that actually solves the problem with ideas not ideology.
You! Not looking for ideology!
Hee. Mark, you really ought to go on the road.
Or at least comment some place where we know that you're (you know what's coming) not telling the truth!.
Now, Billy Beck has you beat on "ideological partisan", that's for sure. But I think you're a odds-on-favorite for 2nd.
Of course, to dismiss ideology you'd have to understand it, and you've proven you don't, and can't synthesize information into analysis.
markets can exact self-discipline
Funny thing, Mark. Markets always do. Unless something interferes with them.
Which is what we've been trying to explain to you. The Government stepped in and changed the risk/reward ratio, without changing the underlying risk.
Your ideology is that that cannot be the problem, and instead, government should push down on the scale and unbalance it further
Or, as a wise man once said: DO IT AGAIN, ONLY THIS TIME HARDER!
"The Government stepped in and changed the risk/reward ratio, without changing the underlying risk."
So, let me see if I get this straight. You, Unix, know more about what is causing our current financial problems than Alan Greenspan? Re-read the quotes up above..admitting he was wrong and made a mistake for LACK of government oversight.
Bearing that in mind, why would Greenspan say "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms"?
Well, only the one eye, and that's just legally, I can see OK, it's just distorted. (20/10 with the right contacts!)
But far more importantly, Mark, this again shows how DJ has you pegged correctly.
You cannot and will not delve deeper than the very surface of something.
admitting he was wrong and made a mistake for LACK of government oversight.
No, he didn't. Not in the manner to which you're referring. But that would require knowledge, learning, understanding more than what the headline is.
"Markets always do"
Dude, seriously. How fucking blind can you be?
They do, Mark. The current situation is in large part, the market correcting itself.
Granted, this would require some knowledge of you of Economics. Which in S.C., land of the 50th-in-the-nation-SAT scores, they taught us in high school.
Now, I'm not the economist in the family, that would be my father. But I did take 2 years worth of it when I was in college and seriously pondered going back and getting my masters in it. But I'm not an expert.
But what I can see, is that the markets were artificially inflated and distorted due to several types of government action. Monetary. Regulatory. Immigration enforcement.
Those things distorted the market massively - much more massively than anything any corporation (save the government-run ones) did.
You don't understand any of those reasons, how they interrelate. Much as you can't understand why invading Iraq was such a requirement in the war on terror. Yes, we know that you can't see past the easy first level.
You'd do yourself a service if you, yourself understood that. (And stopped lying about things, but that's always a good idea.)
Yes, Mark, the Markets always correct. Even with government interaction. It's called "The Law Of Unintended Consequences". You want to believe in a "Law of Intentions and Unicorn Farts" that will magically make it all better.
You (in the general, since You< mark, can't predict even the most obvious) can't even start to predict the consequences, much less the unintended ones, if you don't understand that Intention, Unicorn Farts, and Magic Beans don't exist.
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
Kevin, let's continue that thought, hypothetically, shall we?
"The gubmint made a mistake in presuming that forcing banks and others to act in ways that did not protect their shareholders and their equity would have no deleterious consequences."
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/10/markadelphia-comments.html (67 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
The question now is whether an Obama presidency with democrat majorities in both houses of Congress will light the afterburner on our express elevator ride to Hell.
The big question will be the Blue Dog Democrats. The ones who won big in 2006 by being conservative, and who have wanted to stay in office, thus Pelosi's grand vision has been brought to a screeching halt.
What Mark (and Mark, before you hit and run again, let me preempt you with the thread where you blatantly lied and the one where, among other things, you failed to even start to define what separates "good capitalism" from bad, or socialism. You again say "Oh, of course that's silly, but you've yet to prove that your conclusions are in any way trustable, reliable, and predictable.) will miss, yet again, is that 2006 wasn't a watershed movement left, but a rejection of the movement left by the Republicans.
Those Democrats are on thin ice - if they go hard left, they'll be out, next election, and the local D's will be hard hit with the collateral damage.
If Obama's elected, I imagine we'll see a lot of "He wants to do what? We never saw that coming!. Big if. I think HRC, if she's going to pull something, needs to soon. I'm expecting some of the media to stop the fawning attention in the next week. Or maybe the Clinton's power is gone. (Or she got a USSC seat offer.)
" I am a collectivist"
"I beleive in collective salvation"
Direct quotes from stump speaches. These are statements framed in marxist code.
I keep wondering why the McCain does not present exactly this kind of information as the reason why they think the Pfleger/Wright/Ayers connection is important.
I keep wondering why, in the last debate, McCain did not say "When Sen. Obama says he wants to share the wealth, that means he does not think that you own your own property. He thinks property is held in common. He thinks that if someone earns more money, it is not his, it belongs to the people, to do with what they want, and to give to whomever they choose. And this, my friends, is called socialism."
But then I remember why Kim DuToit calls Republicans "the Stupid Party."
Isn't it ironic that the party which favors the right of self-defense and champions the Second Amendment can't rise to defend itself?
Oh, and mighty well done, Kevin.
This Gallup poll is amazing. The money quote is:
"When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans."
[...]
"Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans."
If this is true, then why is Obama on the verge of winning?
If this is true, then why is Obama on the verge of winning?
Because mostly, they don't know.
As an example of socialism that the Obamassiah wants to implement, and a marvelously clear example of why it doesn't work (it's been tried, y'see), one need only read the Story of the Day. It's available here and here.
It's about (yes, again ...) free health care from the gubmint. Here is the money quote from Fox News:
"HONOLULU — Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
"Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program.""
Golly. You mean that, if the gubmint makes something available for free, then people will line up to take it, even if they could pay for it themselves? Naw, that can't be true, can it?
This illustrates and to a remarkable degree it validates the prediction that, if the almighty feddle gubmint puts in place any form of universal health care, it will inevitably collapse into a universal free health care system that is paid for by taxes.
And Obama favors it.
Two things, how is Mr. Delphia measuring the far-rightedness of The Smallest Minority? "... when you are as far right as you are." I can reply, "When you are as far left as you are, you think socialism is capitalism, because you know that to your left are the commies, and you know you're not a commie." You presume upon states of mind and then draw conclusions. I prefer not to go into specifics of the ideas of capitlism, socialism or communism in the limited comment space. Perhaps Kevin may want to, I don't. Secondly, the words "You can change an idea but you can't change a belief" are quickly followed by what to my so, so, too far right "problem here is" eyes the words: "I find it hard to believe that they would chuck all that to be subservient to a communist or socialist state. It's not going to happen." Is this an idea, or a belief? Anyone, anyone, Vladimir?
Well done, Kevin!
"After being expelled from Socialist Action in 1999, we formed Socialist Workers Organization "
Isn't there a Monty Python skit about that?
"That would fit the available evidence."
Tch, tch, Kevin, you just need to ask your self the right questions! Evidence is only needed to support your current world view.
ACORN is there to insure victory.
The national face of socialism is one in which industry and capital (banks) are joined at the comfortable Government hip (or tit), so Buffet benefits regardless - he's not subservient when he's incorporated into the powerful machinery of Government.
And something Rick pointed out at Traction Control when Obama said, "If you get sick, you can go Bankrupt", but in the Federal Plan, it will be cheaper and pre-existing conditions don’t count...
In other words, the policies that destroyed the mortgage industry and the worldwide economy can also bankrupt the medical industry.
Here is what happens when someone who doesn't undertand economics has influence over it.
"I have to admit, though, Markadelphia has contributed to the creation of some really good posts here!"
And he has precipitated some really good comments. Sadly and pathetically, he has not reciprocated.
U-J, I thought I read a few weeks back that someone did an analysis of the Blue Dogs and discovered, perhaps unsurprisingly, that they lied and are proving to be very non-conservative in action, now that they're in office.
Damn, but I do like this. The title is "What Would Milton Friedman Say?"
To quote it properly would be to quote the whole thing, and you can read it there as easily as here. But I like the end the best:
""If this election goes the way it looks as though it's going to go," says Tom[as MaCurdy, a student of Milton Friedman], "then the political system is about to get a major overcorrection to the left. And that means the American people are about to get an extreme illustration of just how badly government intervention screws stuff up."
""If Milton were here," Tom says, "he'd tell us to remember what happened during the Clinton administration. After just two years, the Republicans ended up in control of both houses of Congress."
We live in interesting times, don't we?
Sorry folks, busy day at school.
DJ brings up Milton Friedman. I would remind everyone of this article which, as far as I know, only Unix has read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=David%20Leonhardt&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It really shows what has shaped Obama's economic policies in a very accurate way as opposed to the paranoid delusions that are circulating out there. As long as we are on the subject of the University of Chicago, one of Obama's two main economic advisers is Austan Goolsbee, a current professor there. Here is George Will's take on him..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302003.html
Obama's other advisor is Jeffrey Liebman, professor at Harvard.
I find it interesting that Kevin did not mention either of these men in this long post of Obama's associations. These two men are going to be directly responsible for shaping Obama's economic policies and one of them is from UOC, where laissez faire was born. Hey, maybe I should be nervous :)
Let's take a look at who Kevin has listed...
First up we have Obama's dad, who I believe left him when he was very young and died before the writing of DOMF which, Kevin, was well before he decided to run for President. It's been well documented that Obama's dad was not much of part of his son's life...which is what makes his story so typical in the era of deadbeat dads.
Next we have Frank...gasp! A stinking Commie! Guys, c'mon. Kevin is not Joe McCarthy and this is not the year 1952, which quite oddly many of you have not moved past..a large mistake to be sure considering the actual threats we face as opposed to the manufactured ones. And you wonder why I compare some of you to the propaganda of Germany in the 1930s...when I hear "known associations with Communists," I can't help but think of a certain fire...:)
As far as Frank's hideously sinister and evil influence over Obama, check this out.
http://obama.3cdn.net/a74586f9067028c40a_5km6vrqwa.pdf
Then we have Reverend Wright. Obviously they had a close, personal relationship. So what? Does that mean that they could never have possibly disagree on anything? That Obama simply bowed in front of him and said, "I will do thy bidding, master." I have a close personal relationship with last in line and we disagree a lot. Am I going to get in trouble in the future for "knowing him?"
In fact, Obama's relationship with Wright epitomizes his entire life's relationships...gather information from people you disagree with and learn more about alternate perspectives. I realize this is a tough nut to crack in the dogma here but sometimes people (that includes all of you and I)....are (shudder, shiver, gasping) WRONG!
Just out of curiosity, are there any black people that read this blog? I would like to hear their view of Black Liberation Theology.
Next is Ayers, Chicago Citizen of the Year in 1997 and fellow board member of Barack Obama and...Walter Annenberg, Republican and friend to Ronald Reagan. Oh no...does that mean that Reagan had shadowy ties to shadowy people too? Say it ain't so...
"an avowedly Marxist organization dedicated to overthrowing the U.S. government."
The last 15 years have pretty much shown that the only ones with any serious dedication and muscle to overthrown the government come from the right..not the left. Any Marxists blow up any Federal buildings lately? Bomb abortions clinics? The Olympics? The question...what is the NRA going to do about it...implies what exactly, again, Kevin?
"What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?"
So...people like Warren Buffet, Paul Volker, William H. Donaldson (fomer W appointee), David Ruder (Reagan appointee) venture capitalists Bill Ruckleshaus and Bob Nelson, and Christopher Buckley for crying out loud...they are going to overthrow the government too?
How about some military guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2008#Military
While you are looking at the military list of supporters, review the other lists. Are you saying that all of these people are part of the new Communist Conspiracy?
Maybe I was wrong...maybe Kevin is Joe McCarthy.
Maybe I was wrong...maybe Kevin is Joe McCarthy.
As usual, you're so wrong you can't even see right.
Senator Joe McCarthy has been vindicated and proven very correct in the hindsight of history.
What you're thinking about is the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Senator McCarthy. The House Committee. I know, it's a huge jump for you. I can see why Black Liberation Theology produces YEGO.
The rest of your comment is about as bad - you repeat a lot of what has been said before without a single correction or note as to what we said in reply to it.
Gell-Mann Amnesia strikes again!
Not a bit of that matters to the point that not once, not once, has Obama ever fought the tide. Not once has he ever championed a divisive bill. Not once has he bucked his patrons and party. Not once has he ever had to convince people. Not once, Mark.
He's voted on divisive bills. But he's never proposed or led one. His (2! in the Senate!) bills have passed by overwhelming majorities. (Lucky for him, not many people voted "present".)
His Community Work was working for the Machine, not against it.
We don't have any idea how he'll actually respond if he's elected and has to actually fight.
Advisors are great.
But you like to point to every scrap and hint of possibility that he is so different than his record, speeches, and writings paint him.
You've certainly never cut yourself on Occam's Razor.
Or you're just flatly dishonest. Oh.. wait...
So...people like Warren Buffet, Paul Volker, William H. Donaldson (fomer W appointee), David Ruder (Reagan appointee) venture capitalists Bill Ruckleshaus and Bob Nelson, and Christopher Buckley for crying out loud...they are going to overthrow the government too?
Not if they can get Obama voted in. Then they just take it over, no overthrow needed.
You really don't see that, do you?
You're so incapable of seeing the evils of socialism that it blinds you to the ambition of others, and when they decide (could/might/are) to use socialism for their own goals?
Socialism, Fascism, Communism, whichever face of it - it's great for the guys at the top.
As I, and others, have demonstrated many, many, many, MANY, MANY times, you're incapable of coming up with analysis of your own. Here's more proof of that. You look for some affiliation, some "fact", and that's all you need. Context, irrelevant. Patterns, unneeded. Honesty, well, we've covered that in great, graphic detail.
And, I'm sorry, the stupidity inherent in this sentence apparently made me miss it the first time:
Then we have Reverend Wright. Obviously they had a close, personal relationship. So what? Does that mean that they could never have possibly disagree on anything?
"Does that mean..." doesn't prove that he did. In fact, as I did mention above, he's never publicly ever fought anything that could have disadvantaged him. You're basing 20 years of association, assistance with his books, his obvious ties... to the outside possibility he might have disagreed with him.
And, you think you're... defending him by arguing this ineptly and dishonestly?
"[..] by arguing this ineptly and dishonestly?"
Does he know any other way?
In fact, Obama's relationship with Wright epitomizes his entire life's relationships...gather information from people you disagree with and learn more about alternate perspectives.
Hear that, guys? If a Republican candidate hangs out with Skinheads and the KKK, we can count on Mark to defend him, because it's all about gathering information and learning more about alternate perspectives!
Mark, I belonged to a church in town that I really liked. My pastor was instrumental in my conversion, he educated me in Lutheran theology, and baptized me. Last year I asked his advice on something very important, and the answer I got distressed me deeply. It's the only thing this man ever said that I disagreed with, but it was enough of a divergence that I could not continue in that church -- I quit the next week and never looked back. The fact that Obama could sit in a pew week after week for years listening to Wright's sermons gives EVERY indication that he bought a great deal, if not all, of what Wright preached.
I shudder to think of what other "alternate" perspectives Obama's willing to entertain.
"I shudder to think of what other "alternate" perspectives Obama's willing to entertain."
Or hide, or lie about.
"Senator Joe McCarthy has been vindicated and proven very correct in the hindsight of history."
Really...the part when he went after the army...that was alright? And Unix, the fact that you support Senator McCarthy's efforts proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you care not a wit about individual freedom and liberty.
"the evils of socialism"
"Socialism, Fascism, Communism, whichever face of it - it's great for the guys at the top."
I'm sorry...it's laughable at this point. You are so far out of touch with what any of these words mean it's ridiculous. Just out of curiosity, have you ever lived abroad? Or is the rest of the world just rolled into one giant lump of evil based on your ignorance like this....?
http://www.msxnet.org/humour/america
"I shudder to think of what other "alternate" perspectives Obama's willing to entertain."
Well, Sarah, if you read the NYT article you will see that he was very influenced by his time at UOC. I think you are going to find more in common with him than you think...should he become president. The question is whether you will give him credit or lapse into dogma and continue to pursue the "he's a Marxist-terrorist-America hater" ignorant bullshit.
Really...the part when he went after the army...that was alright? And Unix, the fact that you support Senator McCarthy's efforts proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you care not a wit about individual freedom and liberty.
I'm sorry...it's laughable at this point. You are so far out of touch with what any of these words mean it's ridiculous.
When you find things "laughable" that means that you've got no reasonable answer. So you "laugh" it off - proving that you're wrong, and that you know it.
You sneer, because you can't convince. The facts are against you. So "That's just laughable!"
Nevermind it's a eminently good answer to your ignorant question. You asked it, remember. I just answered it with the obvious reason, and now even you realize that you set yourself up.
You call us brainwashed, and then you repeat factually disproven memes.
Mark, you've proven yourself to be a dishonest debater many, many, many times over. I've accurately compared you to the scheming Vizzini in "The Princess Bride". Just like Vizzini, you're secure in your intellectual superiority - a claim that utterly fails any reasonable claim.
You support any sort of insane anti-Bush conspiracy. It might be true It might!
And then you deny the truth obvious to almost all of us, of the systemic attempts to destroy freedom and liberty. Starting with the public school system No! Bullshit! Not the case!
Your very efforts prove what you try and deny. You look for conspiracies everywhere, believing them to be like you see on TV, in books.
While failing to see how people actually work in the real world. So you can insist that Warren Buffett Supports Obama! Without considering what's in it for Warren Buffett.
You can sneer at McCarthy, without knowing a damn thing about him other than what you've been fed. But it's OK! The Media would NEVER mislead you! They're really right wing! Really! Despite that every major media outlet is staffed (for all practical purposes) entirely by members of one political party. They wouldn't do that! Evil Business Corporation! Note how much money Hollywood and the media are losing? But you'll note the biggest "offenders" are making a shitload. (They're not paying 80% taxes, either.)
Yes, Mark, you prove "Really! this time we'll do it right, we'll do it HARDER! is exactly what Obama and his followers promise us.
Even the honest followers. Even the ones who don't, unlike you, deliberately lie repeatedly. Even the people who have the best intentions. The best ideals.
Because, just like you, their ideals have nothing to do with freedom and liberty. No, they're worried about "fairness" and "justice".
The question is whether you will give him credit or lapse into dogma and continue to pursue the "he's a Marxist-terrorist-America hater" ignorant bullshit.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, would be more thrilled if prosperity and freedom abounded under an Obama presidency. Trust me, if it happens, I'll be the first one to give him credit. However, I'm typically not given to fantasy, Mark. Obama's voting record, the company he keeps, and the things he says when he thinks he's only amongst friends, supports the assertion that he's a Marxist America-hater.
Still don't understand credibility, do you, teacher boy? Still don't have a clue why you don't understand it, do you?
"I'm sorry...it's laughable at this point. You are so far out of touch with what any of these words mean it's ridiculous. Just out of curiosity, have you ever lived abroad? Or is the rest of the world just rolled into one giant lump of evil based on your ignorance like this....?"
You stupid, arrogant little twit, I've been all over the world. I've lived in parts of the world you couldn't even find on a map. And for you to make that kind of statement only shows just what kind of little hermetic bubble you live in. I'VE LIVED IN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. I'VE SEEN THE DAMAGE THAT SOCIALISM CAN DO FIRST HAND.
Out of touch? No, I've actually touched the ideas that you toss out. And they're repulsive. Disgusting. Destructive.
Go back to guzzling kool-aid and destroying the minds of your students. The adults will be out here trying to limit the damage that useful idiots like you cause, and dealing with the real world.
Was that MARXADELPHIA, or MARKADELPHIA? I'm not sure.
There's a difference?
DJ:
Yes, and you know better.
Marx believed that Capitalism would collapse.
Mark believes in creating "good Capitalism".
Marx insists "From each, according to ability, to each according to need."
Mark insists "From each, according to fairness, and to each, according to what sob story they can come up with."
Marx planned to indoctrinate the children with his ideology.
Mark ... Oh, wait.
Dave,
The problem is more that Markadelphia doesn't think Obama is a socialist.
And somehow, in spite of his lecturing, I don't think Mark has been around that much. I lived in British Columbia most of my life, which at various times has suffered under socialist governments. The socialist New Democratic Party, for instance, managed to take the B.C. economy from #2 in the nation and move it to dead last by the end of their reign of stupidity. My husband grew up in socialist Finland, which is actually very oppressive. His mother was a card-carrying Marxist, and so he's been to many communist countries, every single one of them poor, oppressed, and miserable. So I have no frigging clue what Mark is talking about, or where he's been that's not like these places.
Sarah, I haven't been to Finland but I know people who have lived there. I wouldn't call their views of it "oppressive." I live in Minnesota and know many Canadians. They like some things here better and some things there better. They don't view socialism as evil at all.
But you're right. I don't think Barack Obama is a socialist. It just isn't true. And it's not a "problem" either. The problem starts with a view point, such as yours, which is so far right that everyone else is liberal...or a socialist. That's fine. That's your point of view. Bear in mind the perspective, though. I do what to understand this, though. How is Barack Obama going to make our country like Finland?
"How is Barack Obama going to make our country like Finland?"
He'll head it that direction by the classic Marxist method of redistributing the wealth, as he himself put it. Redistributing wealth was literally his justification, on camera, for higher taxes. That means taking wealth from those who have it and giving it to those who don't. The root of that is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Now, tell us again, you pathetic, lying fool, how that isn't socialism.
My head is spinning. Obama says himself he wants to redistribute the wealth, but Mark and his fellow travelers insist that he is a good capitalist, hell, he's the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan. He says that the Left really doesn't support Che, etc. and are really reasonable, but I dare him to put a McCain/Palin bumpersticker on his car and park it in one of those reasonable neighborhoods. Face it Mark, we aren't buying your BS, hell, I can't make up my mind what BS you are trying to peddle. You write post after post about how great redistributionist social justicy policies are, then you say that Obama isn't really for that stuff, even though he spent his entire adult life advocating those exact policies.
Mark,
Whether or not someone likes a system doesn't determine whether it's socialism, and whether or not someone likes socialism doesn't determine whether it's an evil system -- although I'd ask your Canadian acquaintances why they're in Minnesota instead of Canada. The fact is that socialist policies took the #2 economy in Canada and flushed it down the toilet. I notice you didn't address that point.
As for Finns, they themselves are not oppressive, but the implementation of the Finnish socialist policies is dreadfully oppressive. The male suicide rate (and alcoholism rate) in Finland is one of the highest in the civilized world, and DON'T tell me it has anything to do with the seasons. This is what happens when you take very masculine, strong-willed men and crush them with something as overly-feminized as socialism. Yet Finns are as paradoxical as Canadians in that they can simultaneously hold two opposing views. They're all for freedom and prosperity, but then they go absolutely batsh!t if anyone suggests doing away with the social programs that cost them zillions of dollars in taxes and invite all kinds of unwanted government intrusion. This is why most Finns who come to the U.S. end up much happier, but they don't really understand why. My husband, the born-American that he is, is the exception.
Think about it a bit more deeply, Sam. Markadoofus wants desperately to be thought of as a guy who really knows his stuff, a guy who really has a lock on reality. Now, just how intelligent does he have to be to be more intelligent than anyone who is stupid enough to agree with what he says? He's really impressive, isn't he?
Herein lies the difference between the Markadelphias of the world and I. One reads or listens to what another says or states and believes it without scrutiny. I on the other hand look at what one does, how one acts and what one votes for before accepting any statement as fact. What is more, it is a long tradition amongst marxists, socialists and others of their ilk to lie, lie consistenly and lie big, so big that the lie takes on the aura of truth. Sorry, we are not buying any of that any more. I left a socialist country 39 years ago to become an American and it will simply not do to import or accept a home grown version (if he is an American which is yet to be proven)of what I left behind; no matter how glib and facile the speaker, it is still snake oil with poison he is selling. BTW, how goes the word cadence and structure analysis of his two books in comparison to the writings of one Mr. Ayers? Hmmm?
Hey Kevin, on that Accuracy in Media bit - anyone who can describe Alan Keyes as "colorful and outspoken" has a more creative imagination then just about any Leftist.
That should be considered the understatement of the century.
". . .anyone who can describe Alan Keyes as "colorful and outspoken" has a more creative imagination then just about any Leftist."
Ohmygod yes.
A coworker at my last job was a gung-ho Alan Keyes supporter. He gave me one of Keyes' pamphlets, which I tried to read, only to fall asleep on the toilet.
No, I'm not making this up.
Markadelphia (the Liar) (Like Robin Williams, but less funny and more obnoxious):
I don't think Barack Obama is a socialist. It just isn't true.
This is where being you being a proven liar presents a problem.
You're no longer allowed to reasonably judge truth and falsehood. Your mere words aren't enough. (As well as the fact that the facts are irrefutable that he's had a Marxist background, a long history of Marxist rhetoric, attended a Marxist Church for 20 years, and his biggest supporters include many avowed Marxists.)
It's possible that he's, somehow, a free-market capitalist. But it ain't real likely.
And your word is worth less than mud, so your assurance that it's not true... is more evidence that it is exactly the case.
DJ:
I doan believe you. Video or it didn't happen. :)
I'll remember the camera next time.
Mark,
If you're still around, I'd be interested in what your definition of socialism is. What do you think are its defining tenets and hallmarks? How do you think it stands in opposition to the free market?
"Now, tell us again, you pathetic, lying fool, how that isn't socialism."
I find it fascinating when someone like myself brings up several stark truths and realities that the only way some here can counter them is to prove that they are a "lies." Essentially, DJ, when someone hits you or Unix with some ideas that don't fit into your dogma, you frenetically search for ways they "lie"." Thus, everything they say is a lie. Well, I kind half to be, don't I? Because even if I am right about one little thing, that's the end of all that is holy in Dogma Land.
It's really quite silly when you think about it.
As far as the definition of socialism goes, I believe we have covered this before. No biggie, though, I'll go again.
Socialism is state ownership of goods and the ownership of said goods with the intent to redistribute them equally amongst the populace. The goal of any socialist society is to provide equality for everyone, regardless of how much or how little they work. The government will take care of everyone.
It stands in opposition to the free market by claiming to eliminate the "survival of the fittest" mentality that the free market has. It is alternative to "dog eat dog" and employs a "dogs share with other dogs" meme.
Take a look at our country. The top one percent own and earn most of the wealth in this country. This is never going to change. An Obama presidency might change this a little bit with the rescinding of the cap gains tax cuts (a necessity for increased revenue) but for the most part our economy and class system will stay largely intact. He's going to have to or our country will fail. And it will be because of the narrow minded vision of conservative ideology...not just economically but in all other areas of government.
When Obama talks about "sharing the wealth", he is speaking to a fundamental truth about capitalism: it does better when more people have more money to spend. This is a basic tenet of Bill Clinton. How well did the economy do under him? So well that the right threw a hissy fit and spent years trying to bring him down. Some still are blaming Clinton for our problems. The fact is that we have a growth problem in this country. This is due to inequality and the great wealth grab of this decade, as Krugman put it. No doubt, in a capitalistic society, inequality is the order of the day. But this sort of gross inequality? To the point of where the backbone of our culture (the middle class) is destroyed? We now see the evidence of what bad capitalism produces...of the American Oligarchy.
If Obama were truly a socialist, he would have the government seize ownership of all of nation's corporations and his government would control all distribution of goods and services in an equal fashion to all citizens. Gone would be the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffets of the world and they would be replaced The State.
Now, many of you will counter with the argument that taxes on small businesses force companies into a sort of socialist equality. I say if small businesses are paying that much in taxes, they need to hire an accountant that is not a fucking moron. The belief that Barack Obama is going to somehow purposefully hold back Joe the Plumber's business is completely wrong.
For whatever reason, many of you are severely hyper sensitive to government control of anything. The leap to socialism for all of you is about one inch...maybe less. For me it involves a much more drastic step, as defined above, that is never going to happen in this country. In fact, Senator Obama and Paul Volker discussed yesterday their plans to re-privatize the nation's banks.
So, I'd like to re-issue my challenge to all you: should Obama win and our economy starts to do better and we still basically have the same wonderful capitalism we have today, will you admit that you were wrong?
"So, I'd like to re-issue my challenge to all you: should Obama win and our economy starts to do better and we still basically have the same wonderful capitalism we have today, will you admit that you were wrong?"
Well now Mark, that depends on just how he does it. One of the major pieces of Bill Clinton's economic success is that in 1996 he financed the national debt with *5 year loans*. This didn't actually solve any problems, it just put them off *until after he was out of office*, so the resulting problems could be blamed on someone else.
Does that mean Bill Clinton was our economic savior and Bush was Satan? No, it means that Bill Clinton shoved his problems off on his successor so he wouldn't be held accountable for them. In 1996, he had every reason to believe that it would be HIS OWN VICE PRESIDENT who would get screwed by that policy. Evidently that didn't cost him any sleep.
Another means by which Bill Clinton made the economy all wonderful and fuzzy was by demanding back in 1992 that Fannie and Freddie create the false housing bubble that recently popped. It took 16 years to see the results of that, so now it's "all Bush's fault".
Also, like most of the voting public, you seem unaware that Congress has much more power over the economy than the President does. The Fannie/Freddie fiasco could not have happened without Dodd/Frank/Clay/Waters/Obama/Kerry et al. going to bat to make SURE it happened, to the point of accusations of racism when anyone warned that *GASP* making subprime loans to people who CANNOT PAY THEM BACK is a recipe for bankruptcy.
I'll admit I'm wrong about Obama when I see what he DOES, not just what he takes credit for. Just like *any other President*.
It's tip of the iceberg time, folks.
"The top one percent own and earn most of the wealth in this country."
Income and wealth are not the same thing. One owns wealth. One earns income. The gubmint and the IRS understand this; the income tax taxes income, not wealth.
The top one percent earn 18 percent of all income earned by individuals. That is not "most". As to ownership of wealth, I do not examine the issue here.
"This is never going to change. An Obama presidency might change this a little bit ..."
So, it is "never going to change" except that an "Obama presidency might change this". You still don't understand credibility, do you boy? You still can't express yourself in any form other than hype and self-contradictory jibberish, can you?
"... with the rescinding of the cap gains tax cuts (a necessity for increased revenue) ..."
When the capital gains tax rate was cut during the Bush administration, revenue from capital gains increased. When Obama was asked why he would increase the capital gains tax rate, given that doing so would decrease the revenue it would produce, he stated that he would do so anyway out of "fairness." He admitted that it would result in reduced revenue.
So, you are stating that Obama would do something to produce a given result, but Obama has stated that it would produce the opposite result.
Sigh ...
And you're a teacher.
It's just not worth the effort of trying to discuss anything with you. It's difficult to decide which takes the most effort to endure, your fundamental dishonesty, your lying, your abuse of and insults to our intelligence, your abysmal inability to understand the simplest concepts, your refusal to admit that reality is what it is, or your inablility to express yourself other than through hype and self-contradictory blather.
Go away until you grow up. You're trying to deal with grownups, and you're just not up to it.
Ditto, DJ and Grumpy. Well said.
I find it fascinating when someone like myself brings up several stark truths and realities
Why did I not have to read any further to know two things: 1) what was about to follow was largely fantasy and 2) the poster was markadelphia? This is of course a rhetorical question for I well know the answer - that this is the standard pattern for markadelphia, as it is for any true-believer (left or right).
Now, having read the rest I will address one 'point' of markadelphia's - that Obama is no more a socialist then Bush is. He is also no less one. I will not attempt to disabuse him of his fantasies about economics otherwise.
Hmm, Grumpy, just checking to see if there any Republicans on the list of yours in regards to the housing fiasco. Don't see any...well, their intentions were probably just misunderstood and any mistakes they made, I'm sure, were the fault of the liberals.
"When the capital gains tax rate was cut during the Bush administration, revenue from capital gains increased"
I don't know where you are getting your information from DJ but I get mine from...the Bush administration itself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501801.html
"Prodded by the White House, Treasury economists have calculated how much extra growth would result from making the Bush tax cuts permanent. They have concluded that economic output would rise by about 0.5 percent in the first six years and by an additional 0.2 percent in the "long term." Since the federal government collects around 18 percent of gross domestic product in taxes, enlarging GDP by 0.7 percent would result in extra tax revenue equivalent to 0.13 percent of GDP. That would offset less than a tenth of the revenue that would be lost because of the tax cuts."
When you are ready to unshackle yourself from your restrictive ideology and look at the scene with a width of vision, I'll be waiting.
"When you are ready to unshackle yourself from your restrictive ideology and look at the scene with a width of vision, I'll be waiting."
Who the hell gives a shit what you're waiting for?
We're still waiting for the slightest demonstration of plain, simply honesty from you, and you give no evidence of understanding what it is!
"When you are ready to unshackle yourself from your restrictive ideology and look at the scene with a width of vision, I'll be waiting."
Uh-huh. So, are you taking your ball and going home now?
DJ, Russell, Juris, GOF:
Might I commend to you to The Last Psychiatrist.
Well done, U-J.
The analogy is that buying a piano does not make one a pianist. The availability of the internet is much like buying everyone a piano.
I find it fascinating when someone like myself brings up several stark truths and realities that the only way some here can counter them is to prove that they are a "lies." Essentially, DJ, when someone hits you or Unix with some ideas that don't fit into your dogma, you frenetically search for ways they "lie"." Thus, everything they say is a lie. Well, I kind half to be, don't I?
No, Mark.
You lie because you're dishonest. What you say cannot be trusted, because we know you lie. You lie about little things, you lie about big things.
falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus. False in one thing, false in all things.
That doesn't mean that everything you say is a lie. But that since you deliberately lie unashamedly, that nothing you say can be trusted.
You would do well to study what I linked above (you won't: you can't).
You claim to bring the truth.
But we know you - quite nakedly - lie.
That you do not understand critical thought - though you aspire and claim to teach it.
You do not understand what a theory is, and so misuse the word constantly.
You do not understand how to weight testimony. (Believing that a "primary source" (which is a misnomer as you use it) that you like is unimpeachable and true.)
We don't need to "frenetically search" for anything. It's right there for all to see.
You are not a honest debater, you make up, lie, and cover up for your own flaws and failures. You're incapable of revealing "truth" to us intentionally (unintentionally sometimes you are quite revealing).
You lie openly and unabashedly. You attempt to deceive and trick deliberately.
You try, and fail miserably to demand respect for your "expertise" which is demonstrably sub-par and elementary, when it's not totally wrong, or a flat-out-lie.
Many of your other arguments are also fallacious and misleading - but those are merely secondary to the facts before us.
U-J: I once saw a final exam from a *rural Missouri Junior High School*, dated 1896. Personally, I doubt very much whether more than 50% of today's American college graduates could pass it, as it required very comprehensive knowledge in a very wide range of subjects.
I know for certain *I* couldn't have passed it at the time.
Given that, I'd suggest that we are at least in our 4th or 5th generation of being dumbed down.
**************************************
"Hmm, Grumpy, just checking to see if there any Republicans on the list of yours in regards to the housing fiasco. Don't see any...well, their intentions were probably just misunderstood and any mistakes they made, I'm sure, were the fault of the liberals."
Mark, the reason you couldn't find any Republicans in my list is because I couldn't find any to put there. Granted, I only did a fairly light skim for the more obvious movers and shakers. That's who I came up with. By all means, feel free to educate me on the full list of who:
1) Supported the idea of making loans to people based on minority status *rather than on their ability to repay said loans* GOVERNMENT POLICY,
2) flatly lied, claiming that Fannie and Freddie were solvent, that there was no problem with subprime loans as "financial affirmative action", and
3) screamed "racism" when anyone tried to warn them that making high risk loans (larger percentage of defaulters) without charging high risk interest rates (covering the losses of those more common defaults) equals BANKRUPTCY.
Absolutely, Mark. I am 100% open to hearing the opposing point of view, and I make no claims to knowing it all, or for that matter to having even made a full study of it. That would take more time and energy than I'm willing to commit to a non-paying gig.
Doubtless the situation is much more complex than it appears to me. I make no claims of being an economic or financial wizard, either. But the 3 points named above seemed a blatantly obvious recipe for disaster, even to my poor economically subliterate self. And the demonstrable fact that those things DID occur, led by those I named, suggests willful blindness, deliberately ignoring the facts because they were politically inconvenient. And now the price of that deliberate ignorance is (counting all the bailouts, rescues and stimulus packages) closing in on the trillion dollar mark. Paid by US.
By all means Mark, find me some Republicans to add to the list. I will happily get on my soapbox and rant that they should be voted out of public office, punishment to be so light simply because we aren't *allowed* to stand them against a wall, offer them a final cigarette, and fill them full of bullet holes. But be prepared to document it. I can find video of Frank, Waters and Clay defending that policy and/or making accusations of racism against those who disagreed, taken from C-Span. I can find congressional records of Clinton putting it in place, and various liberal Democrats praising it. Nancy Pelosi can say all she wants that it's the fault of "the failed Bush policies of the last eight years", but I expect something with a little more meat in it than that. Show me the paper trail and do the math.
"Well, I kind half to be, don't I? "
And you make rude noises about how George W. Bush speaks.
And you're a teacher.
I think what you meant was, "I kind of have to be." That's "kind of", not "kind", and "have to", not "half to".
Golly, dude. I wonder what your students say about you when you aren't there. Can you say, "laughingstock"?
"Supported the idea of making loans to people based on minority status *rather than on their ability to repay said loans* GOVERNMENT POLICY"
Complete bullshit and not the cause of our current problems. Facts and links here.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2008/10/usual-crap.html
"Find me some Republicans to add to the list."
How about John McCain? Richard Shelby? Jeff Sessions? Ted Stevens? Lisa Murkowski? Jon Kyl? Wayne Allard? Larry Craig? Mike Crapo? Chuck Grassly? Sam Brownback? Mitch McConnell? Jim Burning? Thad Cochran? Kit Bond? Chuck Hagel? Judd Gregg? Pete Domenci? Gordon Smith? Arlen Specter? George Voinovich? Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Orin Hatch? Robert Bennett? Mike Enzi?
All of these Senators voted to over turn Glass-Stegall which was one of the major causes of the problems we have today. Even President Clinton is at fault here, for signing Graham Leach Bliley into law. Know anyone in investments, Grumpy? I know several, including an owner of a major investment firm here in Minneapolis. Why don't you ask them what they think caused our current problems?
All of them pointed me to this bill as a major cause. As Paul Krugman recently stated in an interview, "If it weren't for the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our money would not be safe"
...and that includes YOURS!
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:
Senate 53-44.
House: 343-86
After conference committee:
Senate: 90-8-1
House: 362-57-15
Signed by President Bill Clinton.
90 to 8, with 1 abstention. My, my. How shockingly the Republicans were at fault. Notice the massive shift in support from the original bill to the conference committee version?
Seems odd that the Senate would shift that much, no?
Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act
Remember that CRA? The one that you've been sneering at that was irrelevant? That its expansion was irrelevant? Want to scream about banks being allowed to sell insurance? Let's not forget what was traded for that.
Notice that in trade for this bill (which had quite a lot of good reasons for it), the CRA was liberalized.
As we were saying, you've got a simplistic view at best.
Hell, your stated desires for a leader are completely at odds for who you're supporting!
Unless you're... not telling the truth. Again.
Don't know if anyone is still reading down here but here is a link you should read...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102300193.html
"With the global financial system unraveling, economists and political leaders are coming to doubt some of Greenspan's most closely held views: that markets can exact self-discipline, that central bankers should generally not try to prick bubbles in the price of houses or tech stocks, that a policymaker's most powerful tool to encourage growth is to stay out of the way."
""I made a mistake," Greenspan said, "in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
No shit. But hey, by all means, keep blaming the government for our current problems. Meanwhile, I'll be looking for an appropriate balance that actually solves the problem with ideas not ideology.
Meanwhile, I'll be looking for an appropriate balance that actually solves the problem with ideas not ideology.
You! Not looking for ideology!
Hee. Mark, you really ought to go on the road.
Or at least comment some place where we know that you're (you know what's coming) not telling the truth!.
Now, Billy Beck has you beat on "ideological partisan", that's for sure. But I think you're a odds-on-favorite for 2nd.
Of course, to dismiss ideology you'd have to understand it, and you've proven you don't, and can't synthesize information into analysis.
markets can exact self-discipline
Funny thing, Mark. Markets always do. Unless something interferes with them.
Which is what we've been trying to explain to you. The Government stepped in and changed the risk/reward ratio, without changing the underlying risk.
Your ideology is that that cannot be the problem, and instead, government should push down on the scale and unbalance it further
Or, as a wise man once said:
DO IT AGAIN, ONLY THIS TIME HARDER!
"The Government stepped in and changed the risk/reward ratio, without changing the underlying risk."
So, let me see if I get this straight. You, Unix, know more about what is causing our current financial problems than Alan Greenspan? Re-read the quotes up above..admitting he was wrong and made a mistake for LACK of government oversight.
"Markets always do"
Dude, seriously. How fucking blind can you be?
"Dude, seriously. How fucking blind can you be?"
Dude, seriously. Look in a fucking mirror.
Mark, are you familiar with the Tulip Craze?
I don't think Alan Greenspan isn't.
Bearing that in mind, why would Greenspan say "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms"?
Just askin'.
How fucking blind can you be?
Well, only the one eye, and that's just legally, I can see OK, it's just distorted. (20/10 with the right contacts!)
But far more importantly, Mark, this again shows how DJ has you pegged correctly.
You cannot and will not delve deeper than the very surface of something.
admitting he was wrong and made a mistake for LACK of government oversight.
No, he didn't. Not in the manner to which you're referring. But that would require knowledge, learning, understanding more than what the headline is.
"Markets always do"
Dude, seriously. How fucking blind can you be?
They do, Mark. The current situation is in large part, the market correcting itself.
Granted, this would require some knowledge of you of Economics. Which in S.C., land of the 50th-in-the-nation-SAT scores, they taught us in high school.
Now, I'm not the economist in the family, that would be my father. But I did take 2 years worth of it when I was in college and seriously pondered going back and getting my masters in it. But I'm not an expert.
But what I can see, is that the markets were artificially inflated and distorted due to several types of government action. Monetary. Regulatory. Immigration enforcement.
Those things distorted the market massively - much more massively than anything any corporation (save the government-run ones) did.
You don't understand any of those reasons, how they interrelate. Much as you can't understand why invading Iraq was such a requirement in the war on terror. Yes, we know that you can't see past the easy first level.
You'd do yourself a service if you, yourself understood that. (And stopped lying about things, but that's always a good idea.)
Yes, Mark, the Markets always correct. Even with government interaction. It's called "The Law Of Unintended Consequences". You want to believe in a "Law of Intentions and Unicorn Farts" that will magically make it all better.
You (in the general, since You< mark, can't predict even the most obvious) can't even start to predict the consequences, much less the unintended ones, if you don't understand that Intention, Unicorn Farts, and Magic Beans don't exist.
Whoops.
Dammit.
...
if you don't understand that Intention, Unicorn Farts, and Magic Beans don't exist as a correct method of making policy.
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
Kevin, let's continue that thought, hypothetically, shall we?
"The gubmint made a mistake in presuming that forcing banks and others to act in ways that did not protect their shareholders and their equity would have no deleterious consequences."
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>