<!--quoteo(post=1878810:date=Oct 8 2011, 07:20 PM:name=ANeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ANeM @ Oct 8 2011, 07:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878810"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The majority of the bank bailouts were enacted by Bush, not Obama. But you already knew that, because you're clearly just a troll.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we wanna play the blame game, I blame Clinton for enacting the enforced housing loans-for-poorer-people initiatives that created the bubble in the first place.
But, wait, that's a fool's errand. 'Case eventually we'll just blame a cell for dividing.
If you want to play the blame game, blame the general public and the people that originally signed up to the product. Why? They weren't smart enough to realise they could not afford it. They put us in this mess, not "the banks", not "the mortgage lenders", but the public, the average person, because they lived beyond their means.
I was not playing the blame game, I was fact checking. MOOtant said something that was clearly wrong.
For the purpose of fact checking it doesn't particularly matter whether or not Clinton put into place the mechanics that brought about the problem. The point of contention here is who signed the bailouts into law. MOOtant claimed that the "Socialized Loses" seen during the bailouts were Obamas fault, which is impossible because the bailouts started before he became president. To anyone living in a linear timestream that is a clear and apparent fact.
<!--quoteo(post=1878810:date=Oct 9 2011, 04:20 AM:name=ANeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ANeM @ Oct 9 2011, 04:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878810"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The majority of the bank bailouts were enacted by Bush, not Obama.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who was the major sponsor of Obama? Who nominated Bernanke again? What did Bernanke and his folks do (yes, keep rates at 1% which keep dead banks afloat).
<!--quoteo(post=1878810:date=Oct 9 2011, 04:20 AM:name=ANeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ANeM @ Oct 9 2011, 04:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878810"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But you already knew that, because you're clearly just a troll.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How is Obama related to Bush? Do you prefer one side of them and treat all criticism directed at one side as something requiring holy war answer to balance it out?
And why do I know that your comment about being a troll is not judgement of my arguments but reversed explanation for everything else so all I said is automatically false because you said so.
Your nitpicking based on my imagined hate of Obama doesn't work that well. I agree that Bush is there to blame. But his part and Greenspan's are about making the bubble. Obama's is responsible for reaction to the bust. The irony is that probably if he had let it happen he might had been after the crisis already and even reelected though that could have been harder without Goldman Sachs friends.
<!--quoteo(post=1878763:date=Oct 9 2011, 12:43 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Oct 9 2011, 12:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878763"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unions are very harmful because they inflict political pressure. They make politicians implement policies that benefit organized union members while screwing rest of the population. In fractional reserved moving up and down so that politicians can get reelected they also do harm by making it harder to decrease wages (while they had absolutely nothing against rising wages).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That would be true if workers would be better off if unions were completely absent. History proves that claim wrong. In the absence of unions, workers get ###### with a ten-foot pole.
<!--quoteo(post=1878791:date=Oct 9 2011, 02:50 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Oct 9 2011, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1878756:date=Oct 9 2011, 12:15 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Oct 9 2011, 12:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878756"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> People are tired of being told the falsehood that the 1% create jobs<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They create them - they invest and they also buy things others produce. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That flies in the face of facts. The richest 1% have never had it better, but jobs are at a record low. If they're the alleged job-creators, then apparently they now have so much money that they can't be arsed to create jobs anymore, in which case the solution would obviously be to take a lot of their money away so they have an incentive to earn more, <i>right?</i> OR maybe that's a load of complete hogwash and they're actually not responsible for job creation at all. You know where the "job creators" phrase entered the mainstream? Fox News. One day they started using it exclusively in lieu of "rich people." And now we're all parroting it. George Orwell said that if you control the language, you control people's thoughts, and he has just been <i>proven right.</i>
<!--quoteo(post=1878756:date=Oct 8 2011, 06:15 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Oct 8 2011, 06:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878756"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, but seriously, I think, what they all have in common is a disgust for the fact that the large financial services companies at the heart of corporate economics are making record profits while the rest of the real economy suffers. People are tired of being told the falsehood that the 1% create jobs and that progressive taxation is Unamerican[tm] while socialised losses aren't. The rich never have and never will create jobs, the only thing that creates jobs is demand. So although these people protesting have no leading voice and the general message from them is incoherent and ineffective it is dangerous to ignore them, in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can agree, to some extent, with most of what you said. Like most things in life, when you're losing (ie; an individual who has no income) it's easy to look at the winner (ie; corporations) and be jealous, upset, etc. My problem, and where I disagree with you, is that it's somehow a corporations fault for the poor economic state we're currently in. The vast majority of companies in America, Enron aside, play by the rules. They aren't at fault. The people who made the rulebook should be held accountable -- the government.
It's frustrating to be an American and watch as everyone around ignores the cause of our problems. I'm not an economist so I won't pretend to know everything that needs to be done but we need a president who's able balance a budget. That would, at least, be a start.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That would be true if workers would be better off if unions were completely absent. History proves that claim wrong. In the absence of unions, workers get ###### with a ten-foot pole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unions were essential in getting worker protection laws established. Now that those laws are established their existence isn't necessary and, in many circumstances, they severely hamper a company's ability to manage costs which makes it difficult for a company to compete (locally, globally, whatever) in a rapidly changing market like the one we're in now.
<!--quoteo(post=1878865:date=Oct 9 2011, 12:08 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Oct 9 2011, 12:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878865"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What was wrong with the bank bailouts? They paid it back, I thought?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, Obama said that banks repaid bailouts. What he omitted was that they haven't repaid bailouts from Bush term. (or was it his and they repaid Bushes? the first afair) From moral point of view it's wrong, simple as that. From economic point of view it's called moral hazard, it's rewarding those who fail. From political point of view it's rewarding your campaign sponsors, good, old practice. That style of banking where CEO (not owner) can make risky bets, pay bonuses for several years and go to government to pay what he lost 10 years later is just unsustainable. It would have been a lot better if there were let's say 10 Warren Buffets each with $50B bank. Whenever a bank goes broke it just ceases to exist, there are always 9 more Buffets to take over the assets.
Workers without unions getting ######? Weren't Americans first ones able to afford cars? GM workers aren't getting ###### so far because GM is a cancer, it steals resources from productive parts of economy using politicians as proxies.
I have never said that ultra rich <=> very fine ==> lots of jobs so falsifying that statement proves nothing at all.
You can compare countries with high income taxes like Sweden and ones with relatively small ones like USA. List of wealthiest people constantly changed during last 50 years in USA while it's more or less the same in Sweden. That's the hidden goal of Buffet/Gates and so on. It's a lot easier to compete if government is helping your empire by not letting competition accumulate enough capital to get big.
Income tax is also an insane idea just like minimal wage. Countries with no minimum wage have 2-3% unemployment. Income tax is taxing *work* instead of taxing the spending. Capital gains tax is even more absurd: no one discounts inflation so given 10% inflation and 10% rise of value of your stock in USD you have to pay for upward move. If your stock were to go down by 10% no one would repay that.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1878817:date=Oct 8 2011, 07:31 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Oct 8 2011, 07:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878817"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we wanna play the blame game, I blame Clinton for enacting the enforced housing loans-for-poorer-people initiatives that created the bubble in the first place.
But, wait, that's a fool's errand. 'Case eventually we'll just blame a cell for dividing.
Let's focus on fixing ###### today shall we?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if you want to play the blame game I blame Regan for deregulating the financial industry, when it was regulated as a result of speculation which caused great depression.
What happened after we let the banks do what ever we want? Oh Savings and Loans crisis, but I was too young to remember that, it was bad thou.
<!--quoteo(post=1878876:date=Oct 9 2011, 02:53 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Oct 9 2011, 02:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878876"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unions were essential in getting worker protection laws established. Now that those laws are established their existence isn't necessary and, in many circumstances, they severely hamper a company's ability to manage costs which makes it difficult for a company to compete (locally, globally, whatever) in a rapidly changing market like the one we're in now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Their existence is still necessary. The example I mentioned <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=115080&st=60&p=1878490&#entry1878490" target="_blank">earlier in the thread</a> shows that. Corporations like Walmart have strong anti-union policies, few of their employees are union members (because they risk getting fired if they join one), and it's widely reputed as a ###### place to work at with poor pay. Do the math. Who tells you that unions are bad? Walmart & co. Who stands to gain from weakened, marginalised unions? Walmart & co. Unions don't hamper their ability to manage costs, they hamper their ability to manage costs while ALSO pulling in blasphemously high salaries for upper management. Don't expect me to shed a tear for the poor rich people who can only afford a single jacuzzi in each villa.
<!--quoteo(post=1878908:date=Oct 9 2011, 12:35 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Oct 9 2011, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878908"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Their existence is still necessary. The example I mentioned <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=115080&st=60&p=1878490&#entry1878490" target="_blank">earlier in the thread</a> shows that. Corporations like Walmart have strong anti-union policies, few of their employees are union members (because they risk getting fired if they join one), and it's widely reputed as a ###### place to work at with poor pay. Do the math. Who tells you that unions are bad? Walmart & co. Who stands to gain from weakened, marginalised unions? Walmart & co. Unions don't hamper their ability to manage costs, they hamper their ability to manage costs while ALSO pulling in blasphemously high salaries for upper management. Don't expect me to shed a tear for the poor rich people who can only afford a single jacuzzi in each villa.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you said, most of Wal-Mart's workers aren't unionized so of course the union wouldn't hamper their ability to manage costs or compete. Even if they were, not every company is a revolutionary world leader in retail sales.
Unions can cause <i>severe</i> damage to a company and, speaking in modern terms only, I think they cause more harm than good. Many companies are currently struggling right now and unions make being flexible very hard. One small example; a typical family health 80/20 or 90/10 family insurance plan will cost a company about $1,800 - $2,500 per month per employee. Often times unions are able to lock in low employee contribution percentages (around 10%) for the life of the contract (typically four years). When a medium sized company, say 700 employees with about 600 unionized, falls on hard times their hands are tied and they can't even manage their top two expenses (almost always salary and benefits for any company).
Not all corporations are big, evil, and hate their employees. Not all unions 'fight for the little guy.' I think you'd be genuinely shocked if you've seen how modern unions actually operate. Ironically you say you can't shed a tear for the CEO who can only afford one jacuzzi in his villa; ever see a union president's house? I already know the answer; you haven't.
I'm part of a union. I've seen another girl take our company to the court system through the union, lie her face off and get a payout. What's more it had a negative effect on our entire team who are also union members.
In my eyes, unions can sometimes be the most unproductive pains in the ass to the people who support them. They're in my own eyes, a waste of time and from my personal and recent experience, I wonder why I am bothering with them.
<!--quoteo(post=1878936:date=Oct 9 2011, 02:05 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Oct 9 2011, 02:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878936"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fine, I sigh and shake my head. I'm obviously not getting anywhere here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently I wasn't either. Sad you see you ignore facts. There are two sides to every story and I'm tired of people blaming corporations. I'm not saying they're always right but I don't think unions are as different from those horrible evil corporations as you think they are.
I think what lolf was getting at is how you guys already went through a "yes, unions are made by people and so they too can get corrupt, but going completely without them is a worse option" phase.
<!--quoteo(post=1878906:date=Oct 9 2011, 06:31 PM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (That_Annoying_Kid @ Oct 9 2011, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878906"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if you want to play the blame game I blame Regan for deregulating the financial industry, when it was regulated as a result of speculation which caused great depression.
What happened after we let the banks do what ever we want? Oh Savings and Loans crisis, but I was too young to remember that, it was bad thou.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you somehow don't remember that it was the Fed that set interests rates near 1% and wrote bull###### like Great Moderation? Fed gave all this money that banks used to make ###### loans. Then they got repackaged and so on and so on. But you have to remember who was the source: Fed with quiet cooperation with Bush (no recession, I want to get reelected).
There is nothing wrong with bank bankruptcy. There is nothing wrong even with losing insane amounts of money as long as this loss isn't socialized. There are only 2 ways out: strict Fed and strict banking (no bonuses, or ones paid after 20 years) or Fed free to do whatever it wants (but strict is preferred) and private banking - no socialized losses.
It's the consumer that wants unions weak. It pays off to have everyone exploit everyone rather than everyone being "nice" and getting little for their money. But it's important not to have any artificial exceptions to that rule. You clearly can't say that WS bankers getting insane premiums are being exploited, no, they abuse their position wrt government and Fed without being in a formal union.
It's also absurd how "monopolies"/oligopolies in corporations are bad and ones in employee sector are good.
And last things, statistics say that average American family didn't get better since around 1970. That's around time of leaving gold standard. Calculation was done based on real income purchase power, technological breakthroughs although important don't sum up to amount big enough to compensate that stagnation.
<!--quoteo(post=1878945:date=Oct 9 2011, 09:07 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Oct 9 2011, 09:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878945"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Apparently I wasn't either. Sad you see you ignore facts. There are two sides to every story and I'm tired of people blaming corporations. I'm not saying they're always right but I don't think unions are as different from those horrible evil corporations as you think they are.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What facts? You told your story, I told mine. We both backed up our claims. Apparently we can conclude that your unions are corrupt as hell while ours aren't. I don't really believe it (my money is on smear campaigns), but that's what the preliminary evidence points towards. We could go back and forth like this forever, and I haven't the stamina.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited October 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1878817:date=Oct 8 2011, 09:31 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Oct 8 2011, 09:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878817"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we wanna play the blame game, I blame Clinton for enacting the enforced housing loans-for-poorer-people initiatives that created the bubble in the first place.
But, wait, that's a fool's errand. 'Case eventually we'll just blame a cell for dividing.
Let's focus on fixing ###### today shall we?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Stop persisting this myth. Private loans not regulated by the CRA(the "loans for poorer people program") made up most of the subprime loans and the lions share of high risk loans. {<a href="http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/addendum_to_traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-14-08.pdf#page=2a" target="_blank">link</a> - <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->PDF Warning<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->}
<strike>Also I don't have a reference for it now, but</strike> bank loans regulated by the CRA defaulted in <strike>the same</strike> lower percentages compared to non CRA regulated loans.{<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020396" target="_blank">link</a> - PDF download}
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited October 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1878411:date=Oct 7 2011, 10:35 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Oct 7 2011, 10:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Want a clearer definition of what's happening down there? Try this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is an excellent blog post. I highly recommend everyone read the whole thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It was pretty good, but I cringed at the whole "Wall-street financed the internet and now they're protesting on it" bit. The internet was originally created by DARPA and then the laying of lines was heavily subsidized by the gov't.
Also I found his section describing the perils of populism leading to totalitarianism lack-luster. His anecdote is a bit pat and completely unverifiable, but believable. Regardless, I don't think it illustrates a coherent point. Populism propping up power hungry dictators a fair argument that's often used to (arguably) unfairly remove political opponents{<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi" target="_blank">link</a> - Roman History FTW}. However, there is no leader to attach this "power-hungry" title to yet. As applied to a group it doesn't really make sense; there are militant factions of every political group. The goal of a functioning democracy is to give these factions a voice without allowing them to stomp all over everyone else.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyways, here's how I see it: 1) Started out as literally as bunch of angry hippies. But then the NYPD screwed up, YouTube went viral, and suddenly with all this press it's turned into a real thing. So, they do have to work hard to break that hippie persona, and a bunch of "gimme" lists aren't helping them much. 2) Bull###### this is an accurate representation of the 99%. As much as my heart goes out to the people, the common theme seems to be 20s/30s people, the vast majority crippled by student loans and stuck in crap jobs. (Aside: Which ironically they would have had without going to college, except they wouldn't have the debt. This might finally cause people to realize what I and others have been saying for the past year, we have a serious College Bubble happening and need to re-evaluate people's expectations of getting a college degree.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1.) You do realize that list Spooge posted earlier was satirical and written by a conservative columnist, right? There have been no actual 'lists' released yet; the movement is just expressing anger at the status quo so far. 2.)A lot of the 99% are also middle aged and elderly homeowners that have lost a lot due to the crash. The protests at Wall St are mostly young because that is the general make up of protesters. Older people have too many responsibilities to be able to go protest like this.
Well, I guess I'll jump back in here and stir the pot some more. There's a lot of theories about where the jobs went, and I personally think it's dumb to talk about creating jobs. You don't create jobs. Jobs happen because goods and services are being exchanged. It's true the comments about controlling the language. In fact, most debates are now just tossing around talking points and slogans. Nobody even knows what the mean.
Like 'teh economy'. What does it even mean?
As far as jobs, I keep hearing that lots of companies are sitting on profits and aren't hiring because the total details of the recent health care bill haven't dropped yet. Companies can't determine the marginal cost of a new employee yet, so they can't determine if the employee will be worth. So, they're just waiting.
As far as walmart unions... I never understood that one. Would we want unions for gas station workers? Walmart isn't a career job, despite walmart trying to say it is in their stupid commercials. You don't make a career out of retail sales unless you own the retail store. It's a minimum wage 9-5 or part time that you work while you're in school or while you're working toward something better or after you retire. The only place I'd consider a union helpful at walmart is in the loading dock or stocking the very top selves. Other than that, the only things the union could fight for is to make sure you got overtime pay and maybe some political correctness if you had a bad boss. And everyone has bad bosses.
In fact if you ask me, you need a few crappy entry level jobs to motivate people to something better.
My best impression of a union was way back when GM was going under, the news was interviewing the United Auto Workers about why they kept fighting for higher pay and refused to concede anything, even though the company was going under. One particular guy they had chosen was standing in his kitchen which was roughly half the size of my flat, with a massive slab of marble forming the countertop to the island, and then started ###### that he wouldn't be able to feed his family of three if he took any sort of pay cut whatsoever.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Democracy looks like a bunch of goons preventing someone they disagree with from speaking?
Thanks. This, along with the mess that happened to Rep. Lewis in Atlanta, means I'm now completely convinced that none of these people have any idea what they're talking about. Their entire worldview is bunk. For the first time in a long time, I really can't wait for snow to fall.
<!--quoteo(post=1879234:date=Oct 11 2011, 04:04 AM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Oct 11 2011, 04:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879234"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Democracy looks like a bunch of goons preventing someone they disagree with from speaking?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fox News are like jehovah's witnesses: The moment you let them get a foot in the door, you've already lost. Shouting them down or locking them out is the only recourse. And since this is an outdoors event, lockouts are not an option.
Fox News is a propaganda organ, nothing more. Their most useful purpose is as a litmus test: If everyone in the discussion can agree on that, discussion is possible. Otherwise it'll be nothing but a dogmatic shouting match from entrenched positions. A strange game where the only winning move is not to play.
So what'll it be, Spooge? Ready to forsake Fox News and all their deeds and all their being?
My favorite part of all this is how the GOP is spinning it. It's amazing how much credibility they've lost in the last few years.
The Tea Party is, in their offhand way, threatening to kill the president if they don't win the next election. They're "the voice of the people" (according to the GOP).
The other party does the same thing, with somewhat less organization, but equally less insanity, and it's "class warfare".
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1879250:date=Oct 11 2011, 06:36 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Oct 11 2011, 06:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879250"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fox News are like jehovah's witnesses: The moment you let them get a foot in the door, you've already lost. Shouting them down or locking them out is the only recourse. And since this is an outdoors event, lockouts are not an option.
Fox News is a propaganda organ, nothing more. Their most useful purpose is as a litmus test: If everyone in the discussion can agree on that, discussion is possible. Otherwise it'll be nothing but a dogmatic shouting match from entrenched positions. A strange game where the only winning move is not to play.
So what'll it be, Spooge? Ready to forsake Fox News and all their deeds and all their being?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As ridiculously hyperbolic your post is, I really can't find fault with it. That pretty much is Fox News.
All you have to say is 'fair and balanced' and whatever you said previous is automatically valid.
But seriously, it's become cliche to hate fox news. I pretty much just listen to the radio all day, and it's a pretty big contrast between the heavy right wingers and what fox news radio reports. So... is it just the TV programs? Because that's TV. TV news has to compete with reality shows.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited October 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1879250:date=Oct 11 2011, 01:36 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Oct 11 2011, 01:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879250"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what'll it be, Spooge? Ready to forsake Fox News and all their deeds and all their being?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it's called changing the channel. I could care less about Fox News or Geraldo Rivera or Rep. Lewis. But I'm certainly not going out of my way to prevent them from speaking. I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever hearing of someone who wanted to speak at a Tea Party rally from being shouted down before they opened their mouth.
The problem with the Leftist Groupthink is that dissent isn't celebrated, it's demonized. They had no problem burning effigies in the streets just a few years ago but when some news organization exposes them as hipster Columbia undergrads who don't want to pay their outrageous student loans back, well then it's time to get the ball gag and duct tape.
Also, <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Tea Party is, in their offhand way, <b>threatening to kill the president if they don't win the next election</b>. They're "the voice of the people" (according to the GOP).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd love to see any link to support this but I won't be holding my breath.
<!--quoteo(post=1879305:date=Oct 11 2011, 03:45 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Oct 11 2011, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1879305"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever hearing of someone who wanted to speak at a Tea Party rally from being shouted down before they opened their mouth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Me neither. I don't even recall anyone trying. Considering the precedent they set by going to town hall meetings and shouting people down there when they tried to speak, I don't blame people for not wanting to make the attempt.
Comments
If we wanna play the blame game, I blame Clinton for enacting the enforced housing loans-for-poorer-people initiatives that created the bubble in the first place.
But, wait, that's a fool's errand. 'Case eventually we'll just blame a cell for dividing.
Let's focus on fixing ###### today shall we?
For the purpose of fact checking it doesn't particularly matter whether or not Clinton put into place the mechanics that brought about the problem. The point of contention here is who signed the bailouts into law.
MOOtant claimed that the "Socialized Loses" seen during the bailouts were Obamas fault, which is impossible because the bailouts started before he became president. To anyone living in a linear timestream that is a clear and apparent fact.
Who was the major sponsor of Obama? Who nominated Bernanke again? What did Bernanke and his folks do (yes, keep rates at 1% which keep dead banks afloat).
<!--quoteo(post=1878810:date=Oct 9 2011, 04:20 AM:name=ANeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ANeM @ Oct 9 2011, 04:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878810"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But you already knew that, because you're clearly just a troll.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is Obama related to Bush? Do you prefer one side of them and treat all criticism directed at one side as something requiring holy war answer to balance it out?
And why do I know that your comment about being a troll is not judgement of my arguments but reversed explanation for everything else so all I said is automatically false because you said so.
Your nitpicking based on my imagined hate of Obama doesn't work that well. I agree that Bush is there to blame. But his part and Greenspan's are about making the bubble. Obama's is responsible for reaction to the bust. The irony is that probably if he had let it happen he might had been after the crisis already and even reelected though that could have been harder without Goldman Sachs friends.
That would be true if workers would be better off if unions were completely absent. History proves that claim wrong. In the absence of unions, workers get ###### with a ten-foot pole.
<!--quoteo(post=1878791:date=Oct 9 2011, 02:50 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Oct 9 2011, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1878756:date=Oct 9 2011, 12:15 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Oct 9 2011, 12:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878756"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
People are tired of being told the falsehood that the 1% create jobs<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They create them - they invest and they also buy things others produce.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That flies in the face of facts. The richest 1% have never had it better, but jobs are at a record low. If they're the alleged job-creators, then apparently they now have so much money that they can't be arsed to create jobs anymore, in which case the solution would obviously be to take a lot of their money away so they have an incentive to earn more, <i>right?</i>
OR maybe that's a load of complete hogwash and they're actually not responsible for job creation at all.
You know where the "job creators" phrase entered the mainstream? Fox News. One day they started using it exclusively in lieu of "rich people." And now we're all parroting it. George Orwell said that if you control the language, you control people's thoughts, and he has just been <i>proven right.</i>
I can agree, to some extent, with most of what you said. Like most things in life, when you're losing (ie; an individual who has no income) it's easy to look at the winner (ie; corporations) and be jealous, upset, etc. My problem, and where I disagree with you, is that it's somehow a corporations fault for the poor economic state we're currently in. The vast majority of companies in America, Enron aside, play by the rules. They aren't at fault. The people who made the rulebook should be held accountable -- the government.
It's frustrating to be an American and watch as everyone around ignores the cause of our problems. I'm not an economist so I won't pretend to know everything that needs to be done but we need a president who's able balance a budget. That would, at least, be a start.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That would be true if workers would be better off if unions were completely absent. History proves that claim wrong. In the absence of unions, workers get ###### with a ten-foot pole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unions were essential in getting worker protection laws established. Now that those laws are established their existence isn't necessary and, in many circumstances, they severely hamper a company's ability to manage costs which makes it difficult for a company to compete (locally, globally, whatever) in a rapidly changing market like the one we're in now.
No, Obama said that banks repaid bailouts. What he omitted was that they haven't repaid bailouts from Bush term. (or was it his and they repaid Bushes? the first afair)
From moral point of view it's wrong, simple as that. From economic point of view it's called moral hazard, it's rewarding those who fail. From political point of view it's rewarding your campaign sponsors, good, old practice.
That style of banking where CEO (not owner) can make risky bets, pay bonuses for several years and go to government to pay what he lost 10 years later is just unsustainable. It would have been a lot better if there were let's say 10 Warren Buffets each with $50B bank. Whenever a bank goes broke it just ceases to exist, there are always 9 more Buffets to take over the assets.
Workers without unions getting ######? Weren't Americans first ones able to afford cars? GM workers aren't getting ###### so far because GM is a cancer, it steals resources from productive parts of economy using politicians as proxies.
I have never said that ultra rich <=> very fine ==> lots of jobs so falsifying that statement proves nothing at all.
You can compare countries with high income taxes like Sweden and ones with relatively small ones like USA. List of wealthiest people constantly changed during last 50 years in USA while it's more or less the same in Sweden. That's the hidden goal of Buffet/Gates and so on. It's a lot easier to compete if government is helping your empire by not letting competition accumulate enough capital to get big.
Income tax is also an insane idea just like minimal wage. Countries with no minimum wage have 2-3% unemployment. Income tax is taxing *work* instead of taxing the spending. Capital gains tax is even more absurd: no one discounts inflation so given 10% inflation and 10% rise of value of your stock in USD you have to pay for upward move. If your stock were to go down by 10% no one would repay that.
But, wait, that's a fool's errand. 'Case eventually we'll just blame a cell for dividing.
Let's focus on fixing ###### today shall we?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if you want to play the blame game I blame Regan for deregulating the financial industry, when it was regulated as a result of speculation which caused great depression.
What happened after we let the banks do what ever we want? Oh Savings and Loans crisis, but I was too young to remember that, it was bad thou.
Their existence is still necessary. The example I mentioned <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=115080&st=60&p=1878490&#entry1878490" target="_blank">earlier in the thread</a> shows that. Corporations like Walmart have strong anti-union policies, few of their employees are union members (because they risk getting fired if they join one), and it's widely reputed as a ###### place to work at with poor pay. Do the math. Who tells you that unions are bad? Walmart & co. Who stands to gain from weakened, marginalised unions? Walmart & co. Unions don't hamper their ability to manage costs, they hamper their ability to manage costs while ALSO pulling in blasphemously high salaries for upper management. Don't expect me to shed a tear for the poor rich people who can only afford a single jacuzzi in each villa.
Like you said, most of Wal-Mart's workers aren't unionized so of course the union wouldn't hamper their ability to manage costs or compete. Even if they were, not every company is a revolutionary world leader in retail sales.
Unions can cause <i>severe</i> damage to a company and, speaking in modern terms only, I think they cause more harm than good. Many companies are currently struggling right now and unions make being flexible very hard. One small example; a typical family health 80/20 or 90/10 family insurance plan will cost a company about $1,800 - $2,500 per month per employee. Often times unions are able to lock in low employee contribution percentages (around 10%) for the life of the contract (typically four years). When a medium sized company, say 700 employees with about 600 unionized, falls on hard times their hands are tied and they can't even manage their top two expenses (almost always salary and benefits for any company).
Not all corporations are big, evil, and hate their employees. Not all unions 'fight for the little guy.' I think you'd be genuinely shocked if you've seen how modern unions actually operate. Ironically you say you can't shed a tear for the CEO who can only afford one jacuzzi in his villa; ever see a union president's house? I already know the answer; you haven't.
I'm part of a union. I've seen another girl take our company to the court system through the union, lie her face off and get a payout. What's more it had a negative effect on our entire team who are also union members.
In my eyes, unions can sometimes be the most unproductive pains in the ass to the people who support them. They're in my own eyes, a waste of time and from my personal and recent experience, I wonder why I am bothering with them.
Apparently I wasn't either. Sad you see you ignore facts. There are two sides to every story and I'm tired of people blaming corporations. I'm not saying they're always right but I don't think unions are as different from those horrible evil corporations as you think they are.
What happened after we let the banks do what ever we want? Oh Savings and Loans crisis, but I was too young to remember that, it was bad thou.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you somehow don't remember that it was the Fed that set interests rates near 1% and wrote bull###### like Great Moderation? Fed gave all this money that banks used to make ###### loans. Then they got repackaged and so on and so on. But you have to remember who was the source: Fed with quiet cooperation with Bush (no recession, I want to get reelected).
There is nothing wrong with bank bankruptcy. There is nothing wrong even with losing insane amounts of money as long as this loss isn't socialized. There are only 2 ways out: strict Fed and strict banking (no bonuses, or ones paid after 20 years) or Fed free to do whatever it wants (but strict is preferred) and private banking - no socialized losses.
It's the consumer that wants unions weak. It pays off to have everyone exploit everyone rather than everyone being "nice" and getting little for their money. But it's important not to have any artificial exceptions to that rule. You clearly can't say that WS bankers getting insane premiums are being exploited, no, they abuse their position wrt government and Fed without being in a formal union.
It's also absurd how "monopolies"/oligopolies in corporations are bad and ones in employee sector are good.
And last things, statistics say that average American family didn't get better since around 1970. That's around time of leaving gold standard. Calculation was done based on real income purchase power, technological breakthroughs although important don't sum up to amount big enough to compensate that stagnation.
What facts? You told your story, I told mine. We both backed up our claims. Apparently we can conclude that your unions are corrupt as hell while ours aren't. I don't really believe it (my money is on smear campaigns), but that's what the preliminary evidence points towards. We could go back and forth like this forever, and I haven't the stamina.
But, wait, that's a fool's errand. 'Case eventually we'll just blame a cell for dividing.
Let's focus on fixing ###### today shall we?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop persisting this myth. Private loans not regulated by the CRA(the "loans for poorer people program") made up most of the subprime loans and the lions share of high risk loans. {<a href="http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/addendum_to_traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-14-08.pdf#page=2a" target="_blank">link</a> - <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->PDF Warning<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->}
<strike>Also I don't have a reference for it now, but</strike> bank loans regulated by the CRA defaulted in <strike>the same</strike> lower percentages compared to non CRA regulated loans.{<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020396" target="_blank">link</a> - PDF download}
That is an excellent blog post. I highly recommend everyone read the whole thing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was pretty good, but I cringed at the whole "Wall-street financed the internet and now they're protesting on it" bit. The internet was originally created by DARPA and then the laying of lines was heavily subsidized by the gov't.
Also I found his section describing the perils of populism leading to totalitarianism lack-luster. His anecdote is a bit pat and completely unverifiable, but believable. Regardless, I don't think it illustrates a coherent point. Populism propping up power hungry dictators a fair argument that's often used to (arguably) unfairly remove political opponents{<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi" target="_blank">link</a> - Roman History FTW}. However, there is no leader to attach this "power-hungry" title to yet. As applied to a group it doesn't really make sense; there are militant factions of every political group. The goal of a functioning democracy is to give these factions a voice without allowing them to stomp all over everyone else.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyways, here's how I see it:
1) Started out as literally as bunch of angry hippies. But then the NYPD screwed up, YouTube went viral, and suddenly with all this press it's turned into a real thing. So, they do have to work hard to break that hippie persona, and a bunch of "gimme" lists aren't helping them much.
2) Bull###### this is an accurate representation of the 99%. As much as my heart goes out to the people, the common theme seems to be 20s/30s people, the vast majority crippled by student loans and stuck in crap jobs. (Aside: Which ironically they would have had without going to college, except they wouldn't have the debt. This might finally cause people to realize what I and others have been saying for the past year, we have a serious College Bubble happening and need to re-evaluate people's expectations of getting a college degree.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1.) You do realize that list Spooge posted earlier was satirical and written by a conservative columnist, right? There have been no actual 'lists' released yet; the movement is just expressing anger at the status quo so far.
2.)A lot of the 99% are also middle aged and elderly homeowners that have lost a lot due to the crash. The protests at Wall St are mostly young because that is the general make up of protesters. Older people have too many responsibilities to be able to go protest like this.
Like 'teh economy'. What does it even mean?
As far as jobs, I keep hearing that lots of companies are sitting on profits and aren't hiring because the total details of the recent health care bill haven't dropped yet. Companies can't determine the marginal cost of a new employee yet, so they can't determine if the employee will be worth. So, they're just waiting.
As far as walmart unions... I never understood that one. Would we want unions for gas station workers? Walmart isn't a career job, despite walmart trying to say it is in their stupid commercials. You don't make a career out of retail sales unless you own the retail store. It's a minimum wage 9-5 or part time that you work while you're in school or while you're working toward something better or after you retire. The only place I'd consider a union helpful at walmart is in the loading dock or stocking the very top selves. Other than that, the only things the union could fight for is to make sure you got overtime pay and maybe some political correctness if you had a bad boss. And everyone has bad bosses.
In fact if you ask me, you need a few crappy entry level jobs to motivate people to something better.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UzLaYBgC_VQ"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UzLaYBgC_VQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Best thing I've seen in a while.
Thanks. This, along with the mess that happened to Rep. Lewis in Atlanta, means I'm now completely convinced that none of these people have any idea what they're talking about. Their entire worldview is bunk. For the first time in a long time, I really can't wait for snow to fall.
Fox News are like jehovah's witnesses: The moment you let them get a foot in the door, you've already lost. Shouting them down or locking them out is the only recourse. And since this is an outdoors event, lockouts are not an option.
Fox News is a propaganda organ, nothing more. Their most useful purpose is as a litmus test: If everyone in the discussion can agree on that, discussion is possible. Otherwise it'll be nothing but a dogmatic shouting match from entrenched positions. A strange game where the only winning move is not to play.
So what'll it be, Spooge? Ready to forsake Fox News and all their deeds and all their being?
The Tea Party is, in their offhand way, threatening to kill the president if they don't win the next election. They're "the voice of the people" (according to the GOP).
The other party does the same thing, with somewhat less organization, but equally less insanity, and it's "class warfare".
Fox News is a propaganda organ, nothing more. Their most useful purpose is as a litmus test: If everyone in the discussion can agree on that, discussion is possible. Otherwise it'll be nothing but a dogmatic shouting match from entrenched positions. A strange game where the only winning move is not to play.
So what'll it be, Spooge? Ready to forsake Fox News and all their deeds and all their being?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As ridiculously hyperbolic your post is, I really can't find fault with it. That pretty much is Fox News.
But seriously, it's become cliche to hate fox news. I pretty much just listen to the radio all day, and it's a pretty big contrast between the heavy right wingers and what fox news radio reports. So... is it just the TV programs? Because that's TV. TV news has to compete with reality shows.
Yes, it's called changing the channel. I could care less about Fox News or Geraldo Rivera or Rep. Lewis. But I'm certainly not going out of my way to prevent them from speaking. I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever hearing of someone who wanted to speak at a Tea Party rally from being shouted down before they opened their mouth.
The problem with the Leftist Groupthink is that dissent isn't celebrated, it's demonized. They had no problem burning effigies in the streets just a few years ago but when some news organization exposes them as hipster Columbia undergrads who don't want to pay their outrageous student loans back, well then it's time to get the ball gag and duct tape.
Also,
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Tea Party is, in their offhand way, <b>threatening to kill the president if they don't win the next election</b>. They're "the voice of the people" (according to the GOP).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd love to see any link to support this but I won't be holding my breath.
Me neither. I don't even recall anyone trying. Considering the precedent they set by going to town hall meetings and shouting people down there when they tried to speak, I don't blame people for not wanting to make the attempt.