|
Title: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: Uisce Beatha on March 22, 2009, 12:17:19 PM I'm sure you'll get around to having a go at the Obama/Geithner massive fail as soon as you have a moment.
[sm_devil] Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: MFAWG on March 22, 2009, 12:21:47 PM Has it failed yet?
Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: Fuzzy on March 22, 2009, 12:45:54 PM :)
One can only imagine if R-McCain had won and the same circumstances were playing out today with AIG, etc.* *Already on record as saying this is the biggest money grab in history and is a bipartisan effort. Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: spacey on March 22, 2009, 12:51:50 PM Judging by the letters to the editor in the local paper, I'd say the only thing that has really failed so far is the theory that an economic crisis decades in the making can be solved in 3 months.
Assuming the AIG thing is what we're talking about, I think it's sort of complicated. It seems to me if you're going to help an organization out with its financial obligations, you can't really pick and choose which of those financial obligations you feel good about them fulfilling. If they're contractually obligated to paying bonuses, I have a hard time forcing myself to believe it's any different than any other financial obligation, including to a foreign bank. Sure it's easy, as a middle income earning, middle class dwelling person to go all Korprit Hate and and feel like I'm getting screwed while rich people get richer on the backs of the taxpayer. But I don't think you can buy off on the concept of governmental support of an organization (which, let us not forget predated the Obama administration) and not buy off on the idea that if that organization made stupid decisions, some of the money is going to go to pay for things you think are ridiculous. Perhaps it's Geithner's fault for not asking specifically where the money was going, perhaps not. In the grand scheme of things $165 million is pretty small potatoes, but it's a number that's big enough to attract attention. I'm sure someones head will roll, and it will probably be Geithner's. But the reality I see it is that it's knee-jerk reaction to public outrage. One has to wonder how much sooner we could find our way out of this mess if we took away everyone's internet and cable TV. If we're talking about something else, please disregard my comments. Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: stroh on March 22, 2009, 12:55:51 PM I was busy.
Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: birdymaker on March 22, 2009, 01:38:28 PM Nothing to do with the previous administration that's for sure. Whats it been 60 days? 8)
Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: birdymaker on March 22, 2009, 01:40:24 PM :) One can only imagine if R-McCain had won and the same circumstances were playing out today with AIG, etc.* *Already on record as saying this is the biggest money grab in history and is a bipartisan effort. Best thing ever happened to John Mccain was losing that election you can bet on that. He walks around every day going "phew". ;D Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: MFAWG on March 22, 2009, 01:58:59 PM Are we talking about AIG or the apparent plan to do essentially what Shrub SAID he was going to do in September and then decided not to AFTER getting the money from Congress?
Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: hobbit on March 25, 2009, 02:01:45 PM :) One can only imagine if R-McCain had won and the same circumstances were playing out today with AIG, etc.* *Already on record as saying this is the biggest money grab in history and is a bipartisan effort. I just imagined it - and had to stabilize myself for fear of falling out of my chair laughing. Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: Blader on March 25, 2009, 02:50:41 PM Can't say as I understand a lick of the Geithner plan.
But what I do understand is that nobody likes it. At all. Not the libs, not the howler monkeys, not the wall street money guys, not the economists. As a dyed in the wool contrarian, whose major principle is to zig when everyone else around me is zagging, I feel compelled to declare my intention to give full support to HRH Obama and to this Geithner feller. btw, saw a bit of criticism of Geithner from a Ibanker type that really cracked me up, as he dismissed the idea that Geithner would some how be a palatable character on Wall St.. This particular Wall St Barron declared (and I paraphrase), "Geithner is nothing but a $500K guy. A regulator. He's not one of us." Wall Street = American Royalty Title: Re: Y'all are just busy I guess... Post by: MFAWG on March 25, 2009, 10:40:37 PM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofeudalism
Quote Neofeudalism literally means "new feudalism" and implies a contemporary rebirth of policies of governance and economy reminiscent of those present in many pre-industrial feudal societies. The concept is one in which government policies are instituted with the effect (deliberate or otherwise) of systematically increasing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor while increasing the power of the rich and decreasing the power of the poor (also see wealth condensation). This effect is considered to be similar to the effects of traditional feudalism. Quote In his 2003 book Hegemony or Survival, American intellectual and political dissident Noam Chomsky writes: Eliminating social programs has goals that go well beyond concentration of wealth and power. Social Security, public schools, and other such deviations from the “right way” that US military power is to impose on the world, as frankly declared, are based on evil doctrines, among them the pernicious belief that we should care, as a community, whether the disabled widow on the other side of town can make it through the day, or the child next door should have a chance for a decent future. These evil doctrines derive from the principle of sympathy that was taken to be the core of human nature by Adam Smith and David Hume, a principle that must be driven from the mind. Privatization has other benefits. If working people depend on the stock market for their pensions, health care, and other means of survival, they have a stake in undermining their own interests: opposing wage increases, health and safety regulations, and other measures that might cut into profits that flow to the benefactors on whom they must rely, in a manner reminiscent of feudalism...[4 The philosopher-poet Joe Strummer had it COMPLETELY right when he wrote: Quote What are we gonna do now? Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew? ’Cos working for the clampdown They put up a poster saying we earn more than you! When we're working for the clampdown We will teach our twisted speech To the young believers We will train our blue-eyed men To be young believers The judge said five to ten but I say double that again I'm not working for the clampdown No man born with a living soul Can be working for the clampdown Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall How can you refuse it? Let fury have the hour, anger can be power D'you know that you can use it? The voices in your head are calling Stop wasting your time, there's nothing coming Only a fool would think someone could save you The men at the factory are old and cunning You don't owe nothing, so boy get runnin' It's the best years of your life they want to steal But, you grow up and you calm down and You're working for the clampdown You start wearing the blue and brown and You're working for the clampdown So you got someone to boss around It makes you feel big now You drift until you brutalize You made your first kill now |