Off Topic · Warren Buffet's opinion on the economy (page 4)
loweyecue wrote:It's incredible that right in the face of the mortgage crisis that drove the country to the brink of collapse these "fiscally conservative" dumbass republicans can ask for more deregulation and people STILL VOTE for them. Reprehensible, Incomprehensible and blatantly ridiculous. In the end people get the government they deserve... It's the political equivalent of saying I will elect you so you can take all my money give it to the richest people in the country and turn me into a cash flow statistic as long as I have a job and then label me a lazy ass socialist living off the land and other people's money when I can no longer work. And for good measure I want to make sure that you pay insurance companies with my money to deny me coverage when I am sick so I can die quickly.Stupid is as stupid does.
i literally have no idea how a woman can vote Republican with all of the indecency around abortion.
martin wrote:loweyecue wrote:It's incredible that right in the face of the mortgage crisis that drove the country to the brink of collapse these "fiscally conservative" dumbass republicans can ask for more deregulation and people STILL VOTE for them. Reprehensible, Incomprehensible and blatantly ridiculous. In the end people get the government they deserve... It's the political equivalent of saying I will elect you so you can take all my money give it to the richest people in the country and turn me into a cash flow statistic as long as I have a job and then label me a lazy ass socialist living off the land and other people's money when I can no longer work. And for good measure I want to make sure that you pay insurance companies with my money to deny me coverage when I am sick so I can die quickly.Stupid is as stupid does.
i literally have no idea how a woman can vote Republican with all of the indecency around abortion.
It's amazing, isn't it. The Republicans stir the emotions of people through hatred and fear. It's not an intellectual choice. Same thing with the low to middle income people voting Republican. It's all based on emotion, not reason and facts. If these people really understood what the Republican policies would do to them and their children, they wouldn't vote Republican.
Feds sue big banks over sales of risky investmentsLawsuit....documents that "contained misstatements and omissions of material facts concerning the quality of the underlying mortgage loans, the creditworthiness of the borrowers, and the practices used to originate such loans."
I find it interesting that we have been bailing out the banks and now we are suing them. It would be very ironic if we/gov't had to give the banks additional bailout money to pay for these lawsuits if the banks lost and were heavily penalized. :-) That might mean more bank shares to the gov't, which is OK. I'm waiting to see how this pans out. I think they will compromise and the banks will get a slap on the wrist. The gov't will be able to show that they confronted the big banks. And then business will go on as usual.
Loweyecue - I will respond to your post soon. It will take more time.
Markji wrote:Well, looks like the Gov't may finally be going after the big banks for their toxic mortgage sales to Freddie and Fannie Mae. Taking the banks to court for fraud.
Feds sue big banks over sales of risky investmentsLawsuit....documents that "contained misstatements and omissions of material facts concerning the quality of the underlying mortgage loans, the creditworthiness of the borrowers, and the practices used to originate such loans."
I find it interesting that we have been bailing out the banks and now we are suing them. It would be very ironic if we/gov't had to give the banks additional bailout money to pay for these lawsuits if the banks lost and were heavily penalized. :-) That might mean more bank shares to the gov't, which is OK. I'm waiting to see how this pans out. I think they will compromise and the banks will get a slap on the wrist. The gov't will be able to show that they confronted the big banks. And then business will go on as usual.Loweyecue - I will respond to your post soon. It will take more time.
Looking forward to your post.
I am actually OK with the idea of bailing out banks and then sueing them. Not my favorite method but I can live with it. If we let the banks crash and burn like Lehman Bros the bottom would have come off teh market. All kinds of panic and run on banks would have ensued leading to complete chaos. Bailing them out but then sueing them allows you to hold them accountable in a maangeable way where the impact is not as drastic. Having said that I don't beleive anything will come off it, some laywer will find some obscure technicality and a right wing judge will be happy to grant the banks all the leeway they need to evade any penalties. Eventually they will pay some ridiculous amount like a hundred million in damages after causing losses in the 100 billions if not trillions. The system is totally compromised.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-02...
But what was I thinking? I voted for a guy with initials BO. So when the GOP asks him to bend over, all he does is ask how much?
Clean energy policy my ass.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's not directly related to the thread, just venting.
loweyecue wrote:BENEDICT ARNOLD!!http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-02...
But what was I thinking? I voted for a guy with initials BO. So when the GOP asks him to bend over, all he does is ask how much?
Clean energy policy my ass.Yeah, yeah, I know it's not directly related to the thread, just venting.
"No. 2 on David Letterman’s Top Ten List of the president’s plans for Labor Day: “Pretty much whatever the Republicans tell him he can do."
From Dowd and The Times
The Last Moderate
JOE NOCERA
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinio...
Jim Cooper, a Blue Dog Democrat who represents the Nashville area, was first elected to Congress in 1982. He was 28, and if it’s not quite right to say he’s been there ever since — he spent eight years in the private sector after losing the race for Al Gore’s Senate seat — he’s still been a congressman most of his adult life.
You’d think that Cooper’s tenure would ensure him the privileges of seniority. It doesn’t. A mild-mannered man, you’d think he’d have friends on both sides of the aisle. Not so. He’s loathed by Republicans for being in the wrong party, and scorned by Democrats for his fiscal conservatism. At the least, you’d think that he’d be respected for his institutional memory. Wrong again.
The reason is that Cooper is the House’s conscience, a lonely voice for civility in this ugly era. He remembers when compromise was not a dirty word and politicians put country ahead of party. And he’s not afraid to talk about it. “We’ve gone from Brigadoon to Lord of the Flies,” he likes to say.
I first heard him lament the state of Congress during one of those “get Elizabeth Warren” hearings held earlier this year. When it was Cooper’s turn to question her, he turned instead to the Republicans. “This Congress is viewed as dysfunctional,” he said, “and this alleged hearing is one of the reasons why. It too easily degenerates into a partisan food fight.” He pleaded with the junior members to change their mean-spirited ways before they became ingrained.
With Congress back in session this week — and the mean-spirited wrangling about to begin anew — I thought it would be useful to ask Cooper how Congress became so dysfunctional. His answer surprised me. He said almost nothing about the Tea Party. Instead, he focused on the internal dynamics of Congress itself.
To Cooper, the true villain is not the Tea Party; it’s Newt Gingrich. In the 1980s, when Tip O’Neill was speaker of the House, “Congress was functional,” Cooper told me. “Committees worked. Tip saw his role as speaker of the whole House, not just the Democrats.”
Gingrich was a new kind of speaker: deeply partisan and startlingly power-hungry. “His first move was to get rid of the Democratic Study Group, which analyzed bills, and which was so trusted that Republicans as well as Democrats relied on it,” Cooper recalled. “This was his way of preventing us from knowing what we were voting on. Today,” he added, “the ignorance around here is staggering. Nobody has any idea what they’re voting on.”
In the O’Neill era, when an important issue was being debated, there were often several legislative alternatives. But, under Gingrich, “that was eliminated in favor of one partisan bill,” said Cooper. That continued after the Democrats retook the House in 2006. “We no longer search for the best ideas or the best policies,” he said. “There was only one health care bill offered. One Dodd-Frank. Now you are either an ally or a traitor.”
Cooper was rolling now. “The real problem with big issues like Medicare is that both parties have to be brave at the same time,” he said. “Every pollster will tell you not to do that to get partisan advantage. Too many people here are willing to deliberately harm the country for partisan gain. That is borderline treason.
“This is not a collegial body anymore,” he said. “It is more like gang behavior. Members walk into the chamber full of hatred. They believe the worst lies about the other side. Two senators stopped by my office just a few hours ago. Why? They had a plot to nail somebody on the other side. That’s what Congress has come to.”
Inevitably, Cooper turned to the subject of money in politics. “Money changes hands here way too much,” he said. “Members buy their way onto committees. When I first came to Congress, the party was supposed to help you. Now, when a new member is sworn in, he or she is told what their dues are — how much they are expected to raise for the party for the next election. It’s worse in the Senate. It turns the whole place into a money machine.”
Cooper had lots more to say: about how redistricting has fostered extremism, on both the left and the right; about how Congress has become incapable of legislating on behalf of the nation; about how we are living through a new McCarthyism, aimed at destroying innocent people who want to serve their country by coming to Washington to run an agency or department.
“We survived McCarthy,” he said, suddenly, sounding a small, surprising note of optimism. “We’ll survive this.” I hope he’s right. As I prepared to leave, he added, “You can’t lose hope.”
So, yes: Let’s all hope that the next few, critical months for Congress will be better than the last few. For the country’s sake, they have to be.
Markji wrote:Martin, great article. This is exactly what I was referring to when I posted I wanted a 3rd party to rise up - one that is "Moderate". Jim Cooper embodies that.
let me ask you, does it give you another perspective on what Obama (perhaps) is trying to do through compromise? Albeit he is obviously failing and probably should switch tactics.
Not saying I think Obama is carrying on like I would like him to, but it gives me pause for about a second.
martin wrote:Markji wrote:Martin, great article. This is exactly what I was referring to when I posted I wanted a 3rd party to rise up - one that is "Moderate". Jim Cooper embodies that.let me ask you, does it give you another perspective on what Obama (perhaps) is trying to do through compromise? Albeit he is obviously failing and probably should switch tactics.
Not saying I think Obama is carrying on like I would like him to, but it gives me pause for about a second.
Good point regarding Obama. He is trying to be fair and be open to Republican inputs, but they have squashed every attempt at conciliation and compromise. So, yeah, what to do? The country has become very divided and Congress is dysfunctional.
I'd like to see the Dems become stronger and more forceful in their agenda but that won't bring the country together. On the surface the situation looks pretty hopeless. From the end of the article:
“We survived McCarthy,” he said, suddenly, sounding a small, surprising note of optimism. “We’ll survive this.” I hope he’s right. As I prepared to leave, he added, “You can’t lose hope.”
So, yes: Let’s all hope that the next few, critical months for Congress will be better than the last few. For the country’s sake, they have to be.
This indicates great despair and the only course they see is hope. But we need to do something in addition to just hoping. The only way around all of this is too go to a deeper level. Get rid of the stress, hatred and tension in the country and in the political arena. Only way I know of is through big groups of people meditating. I know it may sound far out, but it does work. A lot of published studies in peer review journals have bee published.
http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/summary_brie...
I participated in the project in Wash, DC in 1993. The results were more than some numbers on a chart. The entire atmosphere changed. Downtown Wash, DC lightened up. The feeling was very palpable. When the change happened, it was like the difference between night and day.
loweyecue wrote:Nice read Martin, thanks for posting that. I think the distinction being made between corporations being treated as people or not is a legal technicality. For mainstream people not about to indulge in co
Complicated legalese it amounts to the same. But the takeaway from this is just how belligerent the current right wing orthodoxy in the Supreme Court is and how much they are willing to interpret the law to fit their ideology.
Funny, I bet you didn't have a problem with this when it's a left-wing ideology
loweyecue wrote:
The country is run based on a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and Judiciary. Based on what we are seeing now the judiciary has been compromised the executive is held hostage by the legislative, essentially there are no checks on place against right wing agenda being pushed down our throats. We are toast.
Yeah, and don't forget, we rightwingnuts are the ones taking names this time around. Boy oh boy, didn't that four years go by quick.
jrodmc wrote:loweyecue wrote:Nice read Martin, thanks for posting that. I think the distinction being made between corporations being treated as people or not is a legal technicality. For mainstream people not about to indulge in co
Complicated legalese it amounts to the same. But the takeaway from this is just how belligerent the current right wing orthodoxy in the Supreme Court is and how much they are willing to interpret the law to fit their ideology.Funny, I bet you didn't have a problem with this when it's a left-wing ideology
loweyecue wrote:
The country is run based on a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and Judiciary. Based on what we are seeing now the judiciary has been compromised the executive is held hostage by the legislative, essentially there are no checks on place against right wing agenda being pushed down our throats. We are toast.Yeah, and don't forget, we rightwingnuts are the ones taking names this time around. Boy oh boy, didn't that four years go by quick.
Wow, you must be a mind reader if you know what I do and don't have problems with. I am suitably impressed. Now go ahead and lay out your plan to fix this financial mess. I am all ears, then we can discuss it.
loweyecue wrote:jrodmc wrote:loweyecue wrote:Nice read Martin, thanks for posting that. I think the distinction being made between corporations being treated as people or not is a legal technicality. For mainstream people not about to indulge in co
Complicated legalese it amounts to the same. But the takeaway from this is just how belligerent the current right wing orthodoxy in the Supreme Court is and how much they are willing to interpret the law to fit their ideology.Funny, I bet you didn't have a problem with this when it's a left-wing ideology
loweyecue wrote:
The country is run based on a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and Judiciary. Based on what we are seeing now the judiciary has been compromised the executive is held hostage by the legislative, essentially there are no checks on place against right wing agenda being pushed down our throats. We are toast.Yeah, and don't forget, we rightwingnuts are the ones taking names this time around. Boy oh boy, didn't that four years go by quick.
Wow, you must be a mind reader if you know what I do and don't have problems with. I am suitably impressed. Now go ahead and lay out your plan to fix this financial mess. I am all ears, then we can discuss it.
I said I "bet", that doesn't mean I know.
If I could lay out a plan to fix corporate greed, I wouldn't be wasting time here in Mudville. What I do know is you don't look to the SC to legislate ethics from the bench, if that's what you're proposing or complaining about.
By the way, who's ideology are SC justices supposed to interpret the law by, anyway?
jrodmc wrote:loweyecue wrote:jrodmc wrote:loweyecue wrote:Nice read Martin, thanks for posting that. I think the distinction being made between corporations being treated as people or not is a legal technicality. For mainstream people not about to indulge in co
Complicated legalese it amounts to the same. But the takeaway from this is just how belligerent the current right wing orthodoxy in the Supreme Court is and how much they are willing to interpret the law to fit their ideology.Funny, I bet you didn't have a problem with this when it's a left-wing ideology
loweyecue wrote:
The country is run based on a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and Judiciary. Based on what we are seeing now the judiciary has been compromised the executive is held hostage by the legislative, essentially there are no checks on place against right wing agenda being pushed down our throats. We are toast.Yeah, and don't forget, we rightwingnuts are the ones taking names this time around. Boy oh boy, didn't that four years go by quick.
Wow, you must be a mind reader if you know what I do and don't have problems with. I am suitably impressed. Now go ahead and lay out your plan to fix this financial mess. I am all ears, then we can discuss it.
I said I "bet", that doesn't mean I know.
If I could lay out a plan to fix corporate greed, I wouldn't be wasting time here in Mudville. What I do know is you don't look to the SC to legislate ethics from the bench, if that's what you're proposing or complaining about.By the way, who's ideology are SC justices supposed to interpret the law by, anyway?
We don't need to fix corporate greed we need to protect exploitation of vulnerable people by corporations. The idea that Govt is somehow evil and needs to be dismantled and corporations should be allowed to run wild is completely ridiculous. Govt is the ONLY protection we have against corporate greed. If the right wing wishlist comes true every company will evolve into Enron because there will be nothing holding them back.
The SC essentially formalized the foundation for a "corporatocracy". The SC should be upholding the law, the current ultra right majority is more focused on politics than on law. They have started us down the path towards Fascism, this is how pre WW2 Germany started as well. Corporations don't need civil liberties, all the people in those corporations can express themselves freely. In one decision we went from the premise ( however tenuous) of a Govt elected by the people to one that is now "openly" elected by corporations.
I am a first generation immigrant, I came here because it was then the greatest country in the world which fiercely defended, cherished and enjoyed civil liberties, freedom of thought and action etc. Over the years I have seen hardworking people becoming slaves to corporations through debt/financing based exploitation. I have seen people lose all their hard earned savings as big banks and corporations manipulate markets and profit from the demise of the small investors. I also see every single widely espoused right wing agenda being in direct support of even more power being given to these corporations and I am sickened and disgusted by it.
martin wrote:Markji wrote:Martin, great article. This is exactly what I was referring to when I posted I wanted a 3rd party to rise up - one that is "Moderate". Jim Cooper embodies that.let me ask you, does it give you another perspective on what Obama (perhaps) is trying to do through compromise? Albeit he is obviously failing and probably should switch tactics.
Not saying I think Obama is carrying on like I would like him to, but it gives me pause for about a second.
I think Obama tried to lead by example, show people he would compromise with the expectation that they would see how it works and follow his lead. The reality is he is getting owned in every negotiation because the ones he is trying to lead by example don't give a flip about leadership. Where I fault him is putting his blind faith n bipartisanship ahead of the nterests of teh country. He needs to understand that his job is first to fdo what is best for the country and to promote bipartisanship at the expense of the people that elected him falls far short of my expectations of him.
Striking the right balance is very very hard in politics especially when it's so rigidly partisan. But if you basically capitulate on major issues in your attempt to play the "adult" in charge of the precocious bunch of partisan idiots, then people will stop following you very soon. He needs to propose a bold plan of action and then hammer it through and the heck with being bipartisan. Instead he peddles some vague dream like solution that no one understands and he becomes the laughing stock of the right. Thr country desperately needs leadership and ACTION, what he is doing is trying to be "nice and fair". He probably would have been very effective in different time under different circumstances. But he just isn't doing the job he needs to be doing right now.
http://www.businessinsider.com/prepare-n...
This is definitely worth a read even if you don't give a flip about politics and or the stock market. When TSHTF you want to have some survival plan.
loweyecue wrote: When TSHTF you want to have some survival plan.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I like that this rhymes. That is definite t-shirt/signature line material.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution.
"We the people" possibly much to your chagrin, includes billionaires. Promote, not provide the general Welfare. And they weren't talking handouts then.
And you might want to remember how this country was started right? Something about taxation, remember THAT line?