# What do we need the stock market for?



## Fsharpmajor

My 'modest proposal' (after Jonathan Swift) is to abolish it.

These crashes are, seen in their best light, self-fulfilling prophecies arising from mob psychology, and in their worst light, the deliberate consequences of predatory short-selling. Either way, stock market crashes are destabilizing entire countries whose finances are *already* in a perilous state.

Enough is enough. Of course everybody who holds shares will lose all their money. Too bad. Your casino is a blight, so it's being torn down.

Feel free to discuss.


----------



## Chris

What would pension funds do without the stock market? Put the money in the Post Office? Buy Greek bonds?


----------



## science

To get capital from the people who hold it and don't want (or know how) to do anything productive with it to people who want to do something productive with it (and hopefully know how) but don't have any. Without that, there's no internet, no color tv, no industrial revolution, no tea in Britain, no sugar in your bowl. 

Also, I think you may be attributing some problems with bond markets to stock markets. They're indirectly related because often investors have to sell one to buy the other, and because some stocks re-invest in bonds, but in principle they're separate. 

What we need to do is not tear down the stock markets, but start regulating them responsibly again - especially in the USA. That will probably require the Republican Party to collapse, or some kind of populist movement to emerge, or such a huge crisis that even the Lords of Finance realize they need to be regulated, or probably even two of these at once.


----------



## Kopachris

The problem with stock/bond markets is not their existence, but the fact that people who trade in them often use money that isn't theirs. In '29, it was trading on margin. In '08 it was using leverage. It would be much better if a law were enacted preventing people from gambling with money that isn't theirs.

The stock/bond markets themselves are actually very good, as they allow investors to provide capital for corporations. That's especially important for startups--in the beginning, Microsoft basically lived off of investment capital, since they didn't have anything to sell yet. Investment capital allows corporations to pay wages, build buildings, and stock up on inventory. Without it, starting a business would be limited to only the very rich.


----------



## starthrower

Regulation is necessary, but the whole system has been corrupted. Seems like everyone is going for short term profits, and to hell with the future. Politicians look the other way, and the predatory activity continues with impunity.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

:lol:

Only a classical music forum would come up with these idealisms, like many other threads around here about social and economic issues, with naive understanding of real world experiences, from the burqa to the stock market.

As for this particular thread, it would be fair to assume that if the stock market were to be abolished or regulated or whatever based on what naive idealism that have been suggested above, then even the computer you used to type those very words and the mouse you used to click the "Reply" button would have likely cost many times more than what you paid for, or maybe you would not even have had the choice of buying those particular products you paid for, to say the very least.


----------



## starthrower

That's a load of crap! Artificial entities need to be regulated. I'm not advocating abolishment, but to equate the need for regulation with naive idealism is ridiculous.


----------



## Kopachris

Well, the stock market isn't an artificial entity like a corporation is. A stock market is just like any other market. We talk about the stock market in the same way that we talk about the computer market, or the landscaping market, or the automotive market--as a concept that encompasses all of the economic activities happening with a certain type of good or service. (Individual stock exchanges, however, are artificial entities like corporations.) Regulating the stock market isn't like regulating certain corporations, but like regulating any other market where goods and services are traded. Maybe if you'd explain in more detail the kind of regulation you have in mind?


----------



## TxllxT

Basically the root of the stock market problems is IMO that the economic decisionmakers do not want to pay attention to the fact that most consumers have so many goods piled up & piling up in their homes, that they stop with consuming. We've got a ten year old Citroen car that uses diesel at a rate of 1 litre to 20 kilometres  , the flatscreen we watch is one year old , the hifi five years old , we changed our lightbulbs to LED that will last more than a lifetime  , we have our house sufficiently isolated  ; in short: we have enough commodities around us to enjoy and like to keep it this way. Why is this micro-economic way of life not sustainable on a macro-economic scale?


----------



## Almaviva

It's called capitalism. Are you proposing to replace it with... what? Sorry, no can do.


----------



## Almaviva

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol:
> 
> Only a classical music forum would come up with these idealisms, like many other threads around here about social and economic issues, with naive understanding of real world experiences, from the burqa to the stock market.
> 
> As for this particular thread, it would be fair to assume that if the stock market were to be abolished or regulated or whatever based on what naive idealism that have been suggested above, then even the computer you used to type those very words and the mouse you used to click the "Reply" button would have likely cost many times more than what you paid for, or maybe you would not even have had the choice of buying those particular products you paid for, to say the very least.


The burqa debate wasn't naive. Read the most recent issue of The Economist; in one of the main articles it pretty much says what I was saying.


----------



## Couchie

The stock market is a joke. I have to laugh at individuals who manage their own portfolio and day-trade, it's such a dream, just go into a damn casino and splash money down on the roulette table. All you're doing is feeding high-frequency-trading supercomputers sitting in Goldman Sachs which make hundreds of algorithmic trades a second, exploiting inefficiencies inherent in the structure of the stock market itself, siphoning off money like clockwork.






In addition to the above abortion, the only other thing I see banks doing is senselessly speculating with ever increasingly contrived financial instruments, really just billion-dollar roulette, and the 2008 crash has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the banks are simply unable or unwilling to manage their own risk sanely. That responsibility must simply be taken away from them. The people who think the answer is further deregulation: please, gather your thoughts, write them down, bind them into a book, and then start a religion.


----------



## Kopachris

Couchie said:


> The stock market is a joke. I have to laugh at individuals who manage their own portfolio and day-trade, it's such a dream, just go into a damn casino and splash money down on the roulette table. All you're doing is feeding high-frequency-trading supercomputers sitting in Goldman Sachs which make hundreds of algorithmic trades a second, exploiting inefficiencies inherent in the structure of the stock market itself, siphoning off money like clockwork.


Sounds pretty serious to me!

I still maintain that the primary purpose of the stock market should be (but not necessarily _is_) to make it easier for corporations to gain investment capital. If people can make money buying and selling shares of a corporation, more power to 'em. Just don't start using other people's money to do it with! That's like taking out a high-interest loan to pay off a low-interest one. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Couchie

Kopachris said:


> Sounds pretty serious to me!
> 
> I still maintain that the primary purpose of the stock market should be (but not necessarily _is_) to make it easier for corporations to gain investment capital.


It's primary purpose is as a plaything for banks to bet on and exploit, some would even say manipulate. Their tremendous influence on the stock market is clearly exposed by the 2010 "Flash Crash". Faulty computer algorithms in response to an unusual trade sent the entire market spiralling into hell in a matter of minutes, even the most stable stocks like P&G went haywire; it shows the extent to which stock price can be divorced from legitimate valuation by market forces.


----------



## science

In this case it sounds like your problem is with hedge funds - which is different than a problem with the stock market as a whole.


----------



## starthrower

Almaviva said:


> It's called capitalism. Are you proposing to replace it with... what? Sorry, no can do.


And just what form of capitalism do we have these days? It sure isn't free enterprise and fair competition. It's mega mergers, bailouts, bloated monopolies in the banking, media, retail, and energy industries which is bad for the economy and the majority of citizens. In short, socialism for the corporate elite, or fascism.

But the underlying problem in America is the general ignorance and/or apathy of the average citizen who is swindled into believing the the lie of trickle down economics. It hasn't worked for 30 years, but the phonies in congress continue to tell us they can't tax the wealthy because it will hurt the economy. What's left to hurt? If low taxes on the wealthy really worked to create jobs and prosperity, then why after a decade of tax cuts is the economy failing, the jobs nonexistent, and the government broke?


----------



## Kopachris

This is relevant to our conversation:


----------



## Almaviva

starthrower said:


> And just what form of capitalism do we have these days? It sure isn't free enterprise and fair competition. It's mega mergers, bailouts, bloated monopolies in the banking, media, retail, and energy industries which is bad for the economy and the majority of citizens. In short, socialism for the corporate elite, or fascism.
> 
> But the underlying problem in America is the general ignorance and/or apathy of the average citizen who is swindled into believing the the lie of trickle down economics. It hasn't worked for 30 years, but the phonies in congress continue to tell us they can't tax the wealthy because it will hurt the economy. What's left to hurt? If low taxes on the wealthy really worked to create jobs and prosperity, then why after a decade of tax cuts is the economy failing, the jobs nonexistent, and the government broke?


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> As for this particular thread, it would be fair to assume that if the stock market were to be abolished or regulated or whatever based on what naive idealism that have been suggested above, then even the computer you used to type those very words and the mouse you used to click the "Reply" button would have likely cost many times more than what you paid for, or maybe you would not even have had the choice of buying those particular products you paid for, to say the very least.


My post was, as I stated, a "modest proposal" after Jonathan Swift. A modest proposal is a satirical device involving an outrageous suggestion. It's intended to make people think. Swift's original proposal was a solution to Irish poverty which involved the poor selling their babies to the rich for the dinner table.


----------



## Guest

For those who think that a stock market is unnecessary, I would suggest you go look throughout the world at the countries that operate with stock markets vs. those that don't. Compare the standards of living. Consider the fact that you even have the technology to do so. Consider that the automobile you are able to drive, the grocery store you can walk/drive to, the computer you have to discuss classical music, the vast supplies of classical music, the stereo systems you have to enjoy that music, etc., is really pretty unique to countries that have the wealth that can only exist in a capitalist society. As the great Milton Friedman once said, capitalism is necessary, but not sufficient, for liberty. As imperfect as capitalism is, the fact is that it is the best system this planet has ever devised for creating wealth and liberty. The common thread of the most free countries in this world's history is that they have been based on capitalist systems. Compare Western Europe and the United States to those nations behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.

Of course you need laws governing markets, but this notion that the more they are regulated, the better they will run is ludicrous. I know everybody blames the latest crisis on a lack of regulation, but are you serious? This could only have happened with excessive government intrusion. Think about it. Would these various financial entities really have risked as much as they did had they not known that government would step in and bail them out? If they knew they would have to shoulder all the risk on their own, and that they could cease to exist as a result, I doubt they would have gambled as they did. Government guarantees every bank account. When a car company goes under because of decades of bad business decisions and strangling union concessions, the government steps in and props them up. 

There is risk in markets. But that is also where the profitability comes in. The problem is we now have too many artificial measures prohibiting markets from functioning properly. People take more stupid risks when they are certain that someone will come bail them out. Greece spent ridiculously and promised things that it couldn't afford, because politicians fully believed that there would always be someone there to bail them out - and guess what, there was. Politicians in the U.S. - Republicans and Democrats alike - spent recklessly, to the point that we now regularly spend $1-2 trillion a year more than we take in, and just assume that there will always be someone out there that will buy up every dollar of debt we want to run up, and our credit rating will not suffer from such insane borrowing. Now you get S&P downgrading us, and people want to shoot the messenger, as if the problem is S&P's - they aren't the ones spending like it is going out of style.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> Would these various financial entities really have risked as much as they did had they not known that government would step in and bail them out? If they knew they would have to shoulder all the risk on their own, and that they could cease to exist as a result, I doubt they would have gambled as they did.


It's a bit of a Catch-22 situation for governments, though. If a bank does get in trouble, and you allow it to fail, the rest go down like dominoes. I'm not sure about the USA, but it nearly happened in this country in 2008, starting with the bank run on Northern Rock. In Iceland it did actually happen, because the Icelandic government didn't have the funds to cover the losses of its banks, whether it wanted to or not. George W Bush allowed Lehman Brothers to fall, and personally I was glad to see him do it, if it taught the likes of Goldman-Sachs et al. a lesson or two about risk. However, one economist in this country (Anatole Kaletsky) blames the fall of Lehman Brothers for triggering the 2008 financial crisis. So what's the answer?

LATER EDIT: Canada, which does regulate its banks fairly strictly, probably now has the healthiest financial sector in the G20. Up until 2008 the banks were looking across the border and lamenting the opportunities they thought they were missing. Nowadays, they like to congratulate themselves, rather than the government, for their financial health, and they're busy buying up American assets.


----------



## science

Freud believed in a death instinct, a kind of evil twin to the libido. There is an idea that we should neither regulate banks nor bail them out, but simply live with the pain as they repeatedly destroy our economies, leaving millions homeless and jobless, in business cycles of ever-increasing volatility. 

The bankers say, "Don't worry, trust us. We will self-regulate this time." Of course they know best. The politicians say, "You can't do anything to hurt the job creators." Of course they're uninfluenced by the money they receive from the banks. The voters say, "Keep yer guvamint hayunds off a mah mayudicayur." Of course they are fully informed individuals, with a solid understanding of where their interests lie, and a sound skepticism of demagoguery. We refuse to de-fang the snake, and we're not supposed to help ourselves when it bites. 

I think Freud may have been right.


----------



## GoneBaroque

It seems to me that a large part of the problem are those in the media who equate the fluctuations of the "stock market" (whatever it is conceived to be) with a barometer of the economic health of a country when in reality the economic health of a country is the value of the goods and services of that nation. During the Seventeenth Century one of the Popes (whose name I cannot recall) decried the accumulation of wealth without producing a good or service to achieve it to be morally irresponsible. as an examp;le I would cite commodity speculation which seems to achieve no other purpose. Perhaps someone better versed in Economics than the 6 or 8 courses I had in college can enlighten me.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

GoneBaroque said:


> During the Seventeenth Century one of the Popes (whose name I cannot recall) decried the accumulation of wealth without producing a good or service to achieve it to be morally irresponsible.


I would have thought that accumulating wealth without providing a good or service is pretty much what the established churches are all about.


----------



## Guest

GoneBaroque said:


> It seems to me that a large part of the problem are those in the media who equate the fluctuations of the "stock market" (whatever it is conceived to be) with a barometer of the economic health of a country when in reality the economic health of a country is the value of the goods and services of that nation. During the Seventeenth Century one of the Popes (whose name I cannot recall) decried the accumulation of wealth without producing a good or service to achieve it to be morally irresponsible. as an examp;le I would cite commodity speculation which seems to achieve no other purpose. Perhaps someone better versed in Economics than the 6 or 8 courses I had in college can enlighten me.


Commodity speculation, though, is not really the problem. Honestly, all of that money pouring in one way or another provides the capital needed to fund the economy.

What needs to be understood is that markets will self-regulate in terms of prices. With no other forces, the market will dictate the right price. If someone will buy at the price asked, that is the price. If a lot of people want to buy, and continue to buy as the price increases, the price will rise. If nobody is buying, the price will drop until it reaches the point that people will want to buy it.

With the housing market, prices were artificially high. Borrowing money was cheap - people didn't look at the price of the house, only at what their monthly payment would be. No down payments were required in too many instances - people were taking huge risks with little or no knowledge of what they were doing. Same with government now - too many people running up debt in Washington, not asking how much they owe, only what the monthly payment is. Problem is, as everybody knows, at some point you have simply borrowed too much, and when tough times come, you don't have the wherewithal to cover it.

Is it wrong to let a large company fall due to bad business practices, regardless of the impact on the overall economy? I would suggest that they shouldn't have ever gotten to that point that they could take on such risks. But not by government telling them no, rather by taking away all the incentives they had to behave poorly. Where did so many of those bad mortgages come from? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - government-sponsored entities. You could get FHA loans (government backed) for no money down, with poor credit. They would sell them to be bundled. Government entities don't make decisions based on sound economic policy - they make them based on political policy. Get a lot of people in houses, regardless of their ability to afford them - because home ownership was the new "right" that government had discovered we were all entitled to. Especially in minority communities. Because there are social ills we have to spend our way out of. A 20% down-payment used to be the minimum with buying a house, and you would get financing from the bank. They would scrutinize you, because they were taking a risk lending you that much money, so the down payment went a long way towards convincing them you were good for it.

Now, FHA loans are at least 40% of new mortgages. And they only require 3.5% down! That is a measly $3500 down for every $100,000 of house you buy. You can buy a $200,000 home for only $7000 down! We still haven't learned our lesson.

Everybody has come to look at government, not as a protector of our rights, but rather an entity that bestows upon us our every need - so why should it shock us that now businesses think the same way? Why should corporate welfare be so bad when just about every other group in this country gets welfare?!?

Maybe it was wrong to let Lehman Brothers fall - but the government/business mindset that allowed it to get to where it was in the first place, with government thinking it can control everything, and businesses willing to bow to every whim of government to keep the gravy train flowing to them, needs to stop. Maybe we do need to let some more of these things fall. In the short run, it will be painful, but do we really like all of these long-term effects we are now experiencing as a result of propping up bad businesses? We are now in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression. The Carter recession at the end of his administration was already turning around by this point under Reagan, and we had double digit inflation and unemployment.

We need to realize what it took the Soviet Union decades to realize - you just can't plan an economy. It doesn't work. Nobody has the knowledge to foresee all the factors at play. The market can self correct, if you let it. But government always thinks it needs to do something - politicians worry that they always need to be doing something, no matter how little they know of what is going on. How many politicians in Washington, or in any government, for that matter, have a real grasp of economic issues? So they get out there and "do something" often making the situation worse.

Maybe the Tea Party group doesn't have all the answers, but at least they understand the concept that, when you find yourself at the bottom of a really deep hole, stop digging! If we are in such a financial crisis, why are we continuing to spend trillions of dollars more a year than we earn? And selling our debt to China, which, let's be honest, really doesn't have our best interests at heart. We are pinning our financial security on Red China dictators buying our debt - you know, those same guys who authorized the tanks to gun down the protestors in Tiananmen Square. To the tune of $1-2 trillion dollars in new debt a year.


----------



## Almaviva

Fellow Americans, how do you all feel being 11% poorer, given the Dow's drops last week and this week (more of the same tomorrow, I suppose)?


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> Is it wrong to let a large company fall due to bad business practices, regardless of the impact on the overall economy? I would suggest that they shouldn't have ever gotten to that point that they could take on such risks. But not by government telling them no, rather by taking away all the incentives they had to behave poorly. *Where did so many of those bad mortgages come from? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - government-sponsored entities.* You could get FHA loans (government backed) for no money down, with poor credit. They would sell them to be bundled. Government entities don't make decisions based on sound economic policy - they make them based on political policy. Get a lot of people in houses, regardless of their ability to afford them - because home ownership was the new "right" that government had discovered we were all entitled to. Especially in minority communities. Because there are social ills we have to spend our way out of. A 20% down-payment used to be the minimum with buying a house, and you would get financing from the bank. They would scrutinize you, because they were taking a risk lending you that much money, so the down payment went a long way towards convincing them you were good for it.


Severe misinformation here. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not issue the subprime mortgages responsible for the majority of the mess - the private sector did, at lending standards far below the ones Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were held to. Only Republicans could reduce this crisis down to an affordable housing issue to be blamed on social spending and the poor.  Let's not forget these ridiculous mortgages were made possible by Reagan's adjustable-rate deregulation.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Fellow Americans, how do you all feel being 11% poorer, given the Dow's drops last week and this week (more of the same tomorrow, I suppose)?


I think the notion that we can run up the debt with impunity has had its day in the sun and been revealed for the sham it is. I think that budget gimmicks that create mirages of fiscal solvency need to be revealed for the frauds they are, and politicians that engage in such falsehoods to excuse further spending should be prosecuted as fully as any Enron exec. And I think that people who think that we shouldn't cut government spending because they don't want their government checks to be cut, everybody else be damned, should be lined up and slapped, then told to go sit in the back while the grownups sit down with the checkbook and go about balancing the account.

And I think Obama should shut the hell up, because every time he talks, the market tanks! Before he spoke, the market was down 300. After he spoke, it was down 600. Clearly nobody has confidence in this man at this point - his ratings are down near 40.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> Severe misinformation here. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not issue the subprime mortgages responsible for the majority of the mess - the private sector did, at lending standards far below the ones Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were held to. Only Republicans could reduce this crisis down to an affordable housing issue to be blamed on social spending and the poor.  Let's not forget these ridiculous mortgages were made possible by Reagan's adjustable-rate deregulation.


You misrepresent my statement - that is only one aspect of my entire argument, only one example of the larger problem I was describing.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> You misrepresent my statement - that is only one aspect of my entire argument, only one example of the larger problem I was describing.


The rest is not really an argument, just a restatement of the Republican mantra that greed needs no restriction. I mean, you bring up the Soviet Union in there and everything.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> The rest is not really an argument, just a restatement of the Republican mantra that greed needs no restriction. I mean, you bring up the Soviet Union in there and everything.


I said nothing of greed - ask yourself, what is more beneficial to society in general, when the economy is going strong, or when it is tanking? When businesses are profitable, the economy is strong, and the whole country benefits. You may call it greed, but there is a difference. We all have greed to some extent - wanting something at someone else's expense. But in a true market, greed is tempered by the desires of others. It doesn't matter how greedy a company is, if nobody wants to buy what they are selling. I think what has happened here was more a result of greed - companies taking huge risks knowing that the government would prop them up should they fall. Public risk, private gain. THAT is greed, not a company providing a product that people want at a price that people are willing to pay. It goes bad when the government starts telling the company what they should charge, or telling people what they should buy.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> I said nothing of greed - ask yourself, what is more beneficial to society in general, when the economy is going strong, or when it is tanking? When businesses are profitable, the economy is strong, and the whole country benefits. You may call it greed, but there is a difference. We all have greed to some extent - wanting something at someone else's expense. But in a true market, greed is tempered by the desires of others. *It doesn't matter how greedy a company is, if nobody wants to buy what they are selling. * I think what has happened here was more a result of greed - companies taking huge risks knowing that the government would prop them up should they fall. Public risk, private gain. THAT is greed, not a company providing a product that people want at a price that people are willing to pay. It goes bad when the government starts telling the company what they should charge, or telling people what they should buy.


Well the 2008 crisis just goes to show how these 18th-century market principles are outdated.

*Individuals are greedy* - want the best house possible, are willing to enter risky AR mortgages to get it.

*Mortgage brokers are greedy *- want to broker as many mortgages as possible, don't care about the quality of the mortgage itself, just about completing the transaction.

*Banks are greedy* - more mortgages = more money. In the past they would be wary of issuing mortgages with high risk of default, but with the advent of mortgage-backed securities, they're able to pass this risk on to the person who buys the security. The result is that they issued more and more mortgages to be able to package more securities, with rapidly declining issuing standards.

*Rating agencies are greedy* - The 3 credit rating agencies compete with each other to rate the slices of MBS that the banks sell to investors. The better you rate the bank's securities, the more inclined banks are to use your agency... the result was packages comprising horrible F-mortgages were inflated to bear A-level ratings.

*Investors are greedy* - Buy up these overrated MBSs like hotcakes without realizing the huge risk they cary.

Now the housing market crashes, houses are foreclosed, the securities become worthless, the investors holding them go bankrupt, and system-wide destabilization is incurred where even the largest banks come crashing down and need to be bailed out.

And you're telling me the solution is a more "hands-off" approach?


----------



## science

One thing needs to be clarified: the markets are falling because of US growth prospects, not because of the US debt. During the big fall, treasuries rose - which means that people want to loan the US govt more of their money.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> One thing needs to be clarified: the markets are falling because of US growth prospects, not because of the US debt. During the big fall, treasuries rose - which means that people want to loan the US govt more of their money.


Because the US growth is not strong enough to bear the growth of the debt. The two are inseparable. I could suffer a decrease in my income and have it not impact my credit rating, so long as I am still able to meet my debt obligations. If my growth is slowing, and at the same time I have drastically increased my deficit spending, and add to that the impending crisis of all of the unfunded entitlement program obligations, and it is amazing that our credit rating has only just now been downgraded. These were the issues that led to the credit downgrade, and that is what led to the massive drop today in the market. And the market also reacted to a clear lack of faith in the president - a 300 point drop prior to his speech, then a near-immediate additional 300-point drop just following his speech.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> Because the US growth is not strong enough to bear the growth of the debt. The two are inseparable. I could suffer a decrease in my income and have it not impact my credit rating, so long as I am still able to meet my debt obligations. If my growth is slowing, and at the same time I have drastically increased my deficit spending, and add to that the impending crisis of all of the unfunded entitlement program obligations, and it is amazing that our credit rating has only just now been downgraded. These were the issues that led to the credit downgrade, and that is what led to the massive drop today in the market. And the market also reacted to a clear lack of faith in the president - a 300 point drop prior to his speech, then a near-immediate additional 300-point drop just following his speech.


I side with Obama a bit, the move had political motivations. Does nobody else see the irony of this downgrade when the crisis was greatly facilitated by the failure of S&P et al to deliver competent mortgage security ratings in the first place? I mean, even their downgrade calculation had a $2 trillion dollar error in it. Why are these morons still in business?


----------



## Almaviva

Dr. Mike, I think even you might be able to realize by now that unregulated markets don't regulate themselves any longer and the "free market" ideal doesn't work as well in the 21th century as it did in the past. Countries that are still doing relatively well among this turmoil such as some Southeastern Asian countries and Brazil do NOT practice small government. Recent The Economist (a conservative magazine) editorials have been bashing governments such as the US and Germany and Japan for hands-off approaches and praising those of countries who have been implementing difficult decisions such as high taxation and controlled spending for economic stimulation with well regulated markets to maintain responsible growth. Republicans need to seriously update their notions of macro-economy. "Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes, deregulate, free profits for all, weeee!!!!" doesn't work anymore and leads to the disaster we're facing.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> I side with Obama a bit, the move had political motivations. Does nobody else see the irony of this downgrade when the crisis was greatly facilitated by the failure of S&P et al to deliver competent mortgage security ratings in the first place? I mean, even their downgrade calculation had a $2 trillion dollar error in it. Why are these morons still in business?


Now you are being misleading. Their miscalculation was actually only $300 billion. They don't do 10-year projections, they only go out 5 years, because they find it is more applicable to the current political situation. And they are right - 10-year projections are useless. Back in 2001, the CBO projected a budget surplus by 2011. See how well that worked? The Obama administration extrapolated their error.

But let's talk about $2 trillion errors. Remember the last time we had an actual budget from this government, back when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House? The Obama administration predicted a total of $7 trillion in deficits over 10 years. The CBO, though, was saying it was more like $9 trillion. Then, on a Friday afternoon, as Obama was heading out to Martha's Vineyard, the White House very quietly released a statement saying that they had made a calculating error, and that the 10-year projection was actually $9 trillion! Does anybody remember that? That was an actual $2 trillion error, unlike the S&P error. And a lot of it also has to do with what baseline you use for making your predictions.

I do think that S&P is being more cautious, after not catching the housing bubble. But they also warned the White House and Congress WELL before this happened of what would prevent a credit downgrade - at least $4 trillion in deficit cuts over 10 years. They didn't comment on whether that should be spending cuts or tax increases. But they did say that the projections for entitlement spending shortfalls were a huge concern - and the most recent deal had a total of $0 in entitlement spending cuts. And keep in mind that originally Democrats wanted a "clean" rise in the debt ceiling - meaning not tying it to anything. Were that plan to have passed, They wouldn't have been less than $2 trillion away from the cuts suggested by S&P - they would have been $4 trillion away. Keep in mind also that S&P said that the Simpson-Bowles plan - the plan from the commission that Obama appointed and then completely ignored - would have prevented the downgrade. They also said that the Ryan budget plan would have prevented the downgrade. So they could have gone with either a conservative plan, or a bipartisan plan put forward by a commission appointed by Obama himself.

And what about the fact that S&P first upgraded the US to AAA status back in the '40s during the Depression? Gee, maybe that was also politically motivated - but I don't think Democrats were complaining about S&P then.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Dr. Mike, I think even you might be able to realize by now that unregulated markets don't regulate themselves any longer and the "free market" ideal doesn't work as well in the 21th century as it did in the past. Countries that are still doing relatively well among this turmoil such as some Southeastern Asian countries and Brazil do NOT practice small government. Recent The Economist (a conservative magazine) editorials have been bashing governments such as the US and Germany and Japan for hands-off approaches and praising those of countries who have been implementing difficult decisions such as high taxation and controlled spending for economic stimulation with well regulated markets to maintain responsible growth. Republicans need to seriously update their notions of macro-economy. "Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes, deregulate, free profits for all, weeee!!!!" doesn't work anymore and leads to the disaster we're facing.


Canada is doing relatively well - and they have much lower corporate income tax rates than the US. But what are these countries you reference? How big are they?

I still stand by my point. If all the companies that were bailed out did not believe that the US government would bail them out, I guarantee you we would not have had as reckless of practices as we did. People get really bold when it is other people's money they are gambling with. Or just look at the mentality of the Greeks rioting in the streets - other countries are having to bail their country out, but they don't think they should have to cut back at all.

You all create a straw man with me (sorry Alma, but the references to straw men are your legacy!) - I have never said that markets should be completely unregulated. But the problem here is the other extreme - too much government intrusion. Markets can self-correct. But government doesn't like to let them. They like the status quo to be maintained. Case-in-point - ethanols subsidies. Even Al Gore admits that ethanol is not a good alternative - in the long run, it actually has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline, because you are getting more countries clearing more land for growing ethanol-producing crops. It drives food prices up. And the normal market would do away with this. But politicians prop up the ethanol industry - not because it is better for the climate, or it is economically preferrable - they want to prop it up to procure votes from farmers. Politicians artificially impact the market to benefit certain constituents and ensure their re-election. The Community Re-investment Act is a case in point - policy that pressured banks to lend to individuals that were high risk, because they wanted to right what they perceived as social wrongs. That doesn't account for all the bad mortgages, but a significant amount of those bad mortgage-backed securities contained those bad mortgages.

Yes, we want to cut things like corporate income taxes - because we have some of the highest in the world! Why on earth would any company relocate to the US when it is one of the most expensive countries in which to work? Why do you think so many states that have low or non-existent state income taxes are seeing a net influx of people while high tax states are losing people? In the late 80's and early 90's, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho experienced growth as companies fled California and its high taxation and regulation. Even the Democratic governor of New York has realized that the high taxes in his state were driving people and businesses away - so he cut taxes! The Mayor of New York realized that the high taxes on wealthy people were driving the wealthy from the city, and thus they were losing tax revenues, even though they were making the "wealthy" pay more of their "fair share."

As to The Economist - for Europe, yes, it is conservative. But don't expect to see American conservatives in love with it. They have some good ideas, and several bad ones. They do periodically have love affairs with Keynseian economic practices. They support government healthcare and education spending. They are for carbon taxes.

You like how well Brazil and some Southeastern Asian countries are weathering the storm - but I'm not sure I'd be willing to relocate there. I think that is a very relative comparison. For example - how much of the fiscal security that Brazil has stems from the fact that they are getting money pumped to them to exploit oil exploration, including money from the US? How much more money could we be making - revenues into the government coffers - if we were as supportive of US oil exploration as we are of Brazilian oil exploration? If it is such a bad idea, why support it in Brazil? Wouldn't the money be better spent locally?


----------



## Guest

I love how the Democrats have their talking points out there that the credit downgrade is to be blamed on the Tea Party. S&P warned that something needed to be done about entitlement spending to prevent the downgrade. Democrats wouldn't touch entitlement spending, whereas the Tea Party was calling for entitlement reform. But it must be the Tea Party's fault. Democrats haven't passed a budget in over 2 years - part of that time was when they controlled both houses of Congress, but wouldn't pass a budget with an election looming. S&P has warned that the lack of political will to effectively address financial problems was one of the causes of the downgrade - but rather than blaming Democrats for lacking the will to pass a budget, the blame lays at the feet of a bunch of retirees getting together and protesting excessive government spending. S&P warned that the recent skyrocketing deficit spending was partially a factor in downgrading the credit rating. But the Tea Party - which has fought against out of control deficit spending is being blamed by Democrats. Every reason that S&P gives for the credit downgrade points to the fecklessness and failure to act by Democrats - but they blame it on the Tea Party. Facts are irrelevant to them.


----------



## Almaviva

Dr. Mike, highlighting straw men is fair game. You may be right that this time I did use one, sorry for that. I see a difference between personally attacking a member and pointing to the use of fallacies which is OK as far as civilized debates go. When you tell me I've used a straw man I don't feel personally attacked, and I hope you don't either when I point to the same when it's your turn to reach for one.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> And the market also reacted to a clear lack of faith in the president - a 300 point drop prior to his speech, then a near-immediate additional 300-point drop just following his speech.


Oh sure. It was Obama's fault.
My team lost the game. It must have been Obama's fault.
I jammed my big toe. It hurts like hell. It must have been Obama's fault.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Oh sure. It was Obama's fault.
> My team lost the game. It must have been Obama's fault.
> I jammed my big toe. It hurts like hell. It must have been Obama's fault.


Do you have another explanation for the sudden drop that occurred immediately following his speech? It dropped initially ~300 points, and was fairly steady. Then he gave his speech, and it immediately dropped a further 300.

Come on, Alma. When are you going to concede that any of this is Obama's fault? His policies haven't worked. His treasury secretary told us in no uncertain terms back in April that there was no chance we would get a credit downgrade. We were told by his team of economic advisors that if his stimulus bill was passed, unemployment wouldn't exceed 8%. We were told that the stimulus bill would fund lots of shovel-ready jobs that would rebuild our infrastructure. We were told he was going to appoint a commission to make recommendations to help our financial situation. We were told that if the debt ceiling weren't raised, we would default, and then we would get a credit downgrade. We were told he would get us out of Iraq. He railed against the surge in Iraq, and said it didn't do anything. Then he had his own surge in Afghanistan. He told us how disastrous the Bush tax cuts were, then he extended them, but now he is claiming again that it is good to raise taxes at a time of a poor economy. He was going to be post-partisan. He ignored the recommendations of his own debt commission and submitted a budget that failed in a Democrat-led Senate 97-0. His party hasn't passed a budget in more than 2 years, even though they controlled the House and Senate since 2006, and the White House since 2008, and only just lost the House in 2010. The estimates for his healthcare plan continue to increase. The last time Democrats passed a budget, it was projected to lead to $7 trillion in deficits over a decade - but then they discovered an accounting error, and the actual amount is $9 trillion over a decade. He has increased the number of drone attacks in countries with which we are not at war. He has entangled us in an increasingly pointless military action in Libya under the pretext of averting a humanitarian crisis, but what is he doing about the civilians being slaughtered in Syria?

Tell me, Alma, when you will assign any blame to this man. He is the first president in the history of this country to preside over a credit downgrade. That is his legacy. By this point in his administration, Reagan was experiencing real improvements in the economy from what he had inherited from Carter. Obama is doing nothing that Reagan did, and surprise, we are seeing the opposite effect - the economy is getting worse, our credit has been downgraded, we are in the crapper. I realize Obama inherited a bad situation - but you know what? He campaigned claiming to be the man who could fix it. So yes, I am going to judge him by that. Sorry - we don't appoint kings for life. You get 4 years to prove you are the right man for the job. He clearly isn't doing it. Please - tell me by what measure this man has been any kind of success? I know liberals are ecstatic that someone finally passed "healthcare reform," but what exactly has that done for us? He has two signature pieces of legislation - the stimulus bill and the healthcare bill. The stimulus bill has just been a smashing success, hasn't it? And the healthcare bill? The more we learn about it, the less we like it - exactly the opposite of Nancy Pelosi's prediction.

We know entitlement programs are going to start sinking this country, just like they are in Europe. But Democrats avoid decisions to fix them like Vampires avoid garlic. In 10 years time, Medicare will be bankrupt. As the baby boomers really start to retire, Social Security is going to be in real trouble. Democrats oppose anything and everything that seeks to do anything to avoid these crises. Their solution to everything is Keynseian deficit spending - to the tune of trillions of dollars in debt financed by China. Most people, when they are hurting, will turn to family and friends to lend them a hand - the United States turns to the mean neighbor down the street who really doesn't like us and gives us the finger every chance they get. Yeah, great plan.

Exactly how long will you continue to blame George W. Bush for every problem? I suppose it is the epitome of the liberal mindset - it is never my fault, it must be someone else's fault, and therefore I am owed.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> I suppose it is the epitome of the liberal mindset - it is never my fault, it must be someone else's fault, and therefore I am owed.


We're all a bunch of leeches. We're getting pretty biggity too.

But seriously - Obama's biggest fault is that he hasn't fought the Tea Party more vigorously. He should've fought for a bigger stimulus, he should've ended the Bush tax cuts, he should'nt have compromised so much on health care reform or this budget deal. He hoped he could reason with them.

He didn't see that they were opposed to him personally, not to his policies. Or, more likely, he realizes that, but he knows it's bad politics to point it out. He's trying to appear to be the most reasonable guy in the room. It's his best chance, but then, he has no chance.

The market knows that the S&P downgrade was a joke. Your ad hoc interpretation of the market's behavior doesn't change or explain the fact that 10 year yields are just above 2%. There is no arguing with that.

Your victories here are temporary. You will cut some entitlements and maybe you'll keep taxes low for about 6 more years. You'll get your man in 2012 because liberals are abandoning Obama and the Tea Party will be out in force. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. But unless he's much wiser than Bush or Obama have been, 2016 will probably see the most liberal president since LBJ elected. This time it'll be a white guy, the Tea Party won't exist, and we'll get the 3rd New Deal. Taxes aren't going to stay at this level forever. The bottom 60% is eventually going to figure out where its interests lie.


----------



## Almaviva

@ Dr.Mike - OK, the markets have rallied today. So if we follow your logic, it's gotta be thanks to Obama, right?

As you may very well know, Dr.Mike, presidents get too much credit when the economy goes well, but ALSO too much blame when it doesn't.

Who knows what coincidence has made stocks go steady for a bit then further down in a chaotic trading day yesterday - but no, you won't miss your opportunity to blame Obama, right?

So now, give him credit. They went up by almost 450 points today.

I am *quite sure* that you'll dismiss that the rally might have had anything to do with Obama at all (or to his nominee in the Fed acting under his policy). That's a double standard.

There were multiple problems leading to yesterday's drop (including the action of many people on your side of the political spectrum) but you had to construct it as Obama's fault.

Now I'm waiting for you to be coherent and thank Obama for today's rally.

As for being owed, I have *never* received any Federal benefit or entitlement of any sort. My income disqualifies me. I do pay a *huge* tax bill every year. So I'm definitely not the kind of liberal who thinks like this. I'd say that your statement about liberals is a generalization. We liberals are not all the leeches you guys imagine.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> The bottom 60% is eventually going to figure out where its interests lie.


I'm not so sure. I hope so, but there's so much brainwashing, sometimes I doubt the ability of those folks to see the light.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> I'm not so sure. I hope so, but there's so much brainwashing, sometimes I doubt the ability of those folks to see the light.


The bottom 50% already pays nothing in federal income taxes - what exactly do they need to wake up to? Should we be paying them more?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> The bottom 50% already pays nothing in federal income taxes - what exactly do they need to wake up to? Should we be paying them more?


 Huh... waking up to the fact that the Republican Party supports policies that work against them?
Although, I wouldn't be the best person to blame them, because the Democrats support policies that work against me. I'm (far from being the leech that you imagine) in the income bracket that would have the most to lose if Obama's tax policies got implemented, and I still support the man, mind you. So I think I'm as misguided as they're being.


----------



## samurai

So I guess it is fine with some of our more conservative members that the Tea Party of which they are so proud was willing for this country--for the first time *ever *in its history--to default on its already incurred obligations, all to score political points against the Democrats. In fact, they were not only willing to engage in such treasonous--yes, treasonous--behavior, they were and still are proud of it! Rush Limbaugh had openly stated on his program some time back that he hoped President Obama's financial plan would fail. And these are the type of people we are supposed to "compromise" with? They view the very concept as a dirty word and anathema to their beliefs. What great patriotic Americans, eh? :devil:
Not for nothing, but their demi-god, Reagan raised the debt ceiling numerous times during his reign, without a peep and all on "clean votes" {without it being tied to any other considerations such as "entitlement programs"}. So tell me, am I missing some nuance here?


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> So I guess it is fine with some of our more conservative members that the Tea Party of which they are so proud was willing for this country--for the first time *ever *in its history--to default on its already incurred obligations, all to score political points against the Democrats. In fact, they were not only willing to engage in such treasonous--yes, treasonous--behavior, they were and still are proud of it! Rush Limbaugh had openly stated on his program some time back that he hoped President Obama's financial plan would fail. And these are the type of people we are supposed to "compromise" with? They view the very concept as a dirty word and anathema to their beliefs. What great patriotic Americans, eh? :devil:
> Not for nothing, but their demi-god, Reagan raised the debt ceiling numerous times during his reign, without a peep and all on "clean votes" {without it being tied to any other considerations such as "entitlement programs"}. So tell me, am I missing some nuance here?


Wow, you all really cannot help yourselves misrepresenting the Tea Party. Yeah, you all have it pegged - their biggest desire was to have the country default. Of course, what is the bigger threat to defaulting - overspending, or cutting up the credit cards? Help me if I'm wrong here - if I max out my credit card, and don't get a credit increase, does that mean I am defaulting, or does defaulting mean when you don't make your debt payments? Do you all really not know how this works? Failing to raise the debt ceiling would not result in a default - we make enough money each month to pay our debt obligations. What would have happened is that then the government would have had to make some tough choices on what non-debt-related expenses to not pay. But nice that you all are so ignorant of the reality of what the difference is between not raising the debt ceiling and defaulting - and calling Tea Party members treasonous. Despicable is what you all are - how much whining did we hear from liberals imagining that Republicans were questioning their patriotism during the Bush administration (Democrats love imaginary controversies), and now I listen to pathetic crap peddled here.

I know that Alma always talks about how much he respects me while disagreeing, but with statements like this, I find it hard to say the same about some of you. I really have no respect for so many demagogues on here who seem to have so much hate for people that are really just concerned that the government is spending way too much - an opinion that seems to have near universal concurrence. The people that think we should control spending are being accused of being treasonous. Pathetic - really pathetic.


----------



## samurai

@DrMike, There you go again, not addressing the main point of my post; I guess that's your selective response process again, huh? {Not answering certain issues that are raised, as you made clear from our last "discussion"}. SO again, are you denying that the TEa Party did not engage in this treasonous behavior? And again, getting back to the original discussion {aside from waste and fraud} what exactly do you propose cutting in the entitlement programs and whom? Btw , if you choose not to answer, I'd completely understand; I almost decided to exercise your method of not responding to things {or people} I don't wish to debate. And by the way, the government is not an individual household, and can't be run as such, and never has been. p.s. Hope my "tone" was more to your liking this go around.


----------



## Guest

By way of education here - the 14th amendment, far from giving the president some imaginary power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling and bypassing Congress, does mandate that the government honor its debt obligations. Were the debt ceiling not to have been raised, then the Treasury would have been constitutionally obligated to pay our debt obligations. Regardless of what else was payed, that would have to be payed. And we make enough in tax revenues to cover the monthly debt bill and then some. So this argument that we would have defaulted had the debt ceiling not been raised is a bald-faced lie. The only way it could have happened is if the Treasury Secretary decided to violate his constitutional oath and not pay our debt obligations. It would be like maxing out the credit card and then refusing to pay the monthly payment, even if you make enough money to be able to do so.

So if we are going to throw around words like treason, I will happily label anybody who repeats this line a bald-faced liar. Or at best, inexcusably ignorant.


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> @DrMike, There you go again, not addressing the main point of my post; I guess that's your selective response process again, huh? {Not answering certain issues that are raised, as you made clear from our last "discussion"}. SO again, are you denying that the TEa Party did not engage in this treasonous behavior? And again, getting back to the original discussion {aside from waste and fraud} what exactly do you propose cutting in the entitlement programs and whom? Btw , if you choose not to answer, I'd completely understand; I almost decided to exercise your method of not responding to things {or people} I don't wish to debate. And by the way, the government is not an individual household, and can't be run as such, and never has been. p.s. Hope my "tone" was more to your liking this go around.


I think it was quite obvious what I thought of your idea that the Tea Party was engaged in treasonous behavior, but if you need it spelled out, I think it is utter **** Their behavior was not that of one seeking to overthrow the government or kill the sovereign, it was not a violation of allegiance to the state, and it was not treachery, a breach of trust, or faith. They want to see the government exist - but they want politicians to act in accordance with the constitution and they don't want politicians to drive the country over a financial cliff. They want to save the country, and see this financial mess as putting our country in crisis. They see reckless deficit spending as harmful to the country, and want it stopped. Unless you have some other definition of treason that I am unaware of, I submit that you don't know what treason is, and that you labeled the Tea Party as such out of ignorance to their motives.

I don't have the entire scheme of the entitlement programs before me, so I think it is ridiculous when you all think you have scored points by thinking you have backed me into a rhetorical corner because I don't give you specific things to cut. Why don't you try to give me specific revisions of the tax code you would like to see changed - give me in detail every loophole you want closed and tell me the specific changes you would make. My mom is an accountant, and I have seen manuals explaining the tax code - it would drive you mad trying to fathom it all. But I have given numerous examples in the past of what needs to change. We need to increase the retirement age, so that we are no longer paying out benefits based on the life expectancy of an individual living in the 1940's or the 1960's. We need means testing. We need to guarantee benefits to those retiring in the near term, but begin to reform the system for younger people who still have some time. Give them the option to opt out. We need to make social security like true insurance. You pay into it, but if you don't really need it, you don't get a pay out. Payments should only be for those legitimately in need, not to anybody who made a good living and simply didn't feel like they should have any responsibility for their retirement. And for crying out loud, we don't need to make social security payments to Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates. Medicaid should be turned over to the states and give them block grants from the government.

I'm sorry if I haven't given you all the minutiae of entitlement reform - but just in this short post, I have proposed more than the all of the Democrats in the House, Senate, and White House combined.

I don't care about your tone. My issue was with the substance of your post, which I thought was disrespectful of people that weren't brainwashed to your line of thinking. Tone is irrelevant to me. I just have no respect for the substance of so many of the posts of similar content to yours.

I'm not going to call you treasonous, because nothing you have said is treasonous. I just find it despicable.


----------



## Guest

To all the smug liberals - I will tell you what started the Tea Party. It is you. I was not a Tea Party member before now, but listening to the hateful, condescending, ignorant things that you people say about this group makes me realize that I am a Tea Party member.

I think government is out of control. Not just Obama, but Bush as well. Politicians spending out of control, not giving a damn what it does to the long-term security of our nation. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a bunch of narcissistic pricks in government who think that rules apply to everybody but them. And then we have people that think like you - that enable them. People who validate their reckless policies of spending like debts and deficits mean nothing. People who care nothing for what happens 10 years from now, so long as you get your "fair share" now. People who think that they should have whatever they want, and force the more productive members of society to pay ever more of their income, because they owe it to you. It is irrelevant to you that the top 2% of income earners in this country pay more than the entire bottom 50% - to you, it is impossible for the "rich" to ever pay enough. They could be taxed at 99%, and you'd still think they weren't paying their fair share - because make no mistake, you could tax them at 100%, and it could not cover all of the expenses of this government, which is now regularly spending $1-2 trillion per year more than they take in in revenues.

And because people think this is wrong, you call them treasonous. You may not like them, but you create them, with every smug, condescending statement. Your arrogant attitude that you know so much more than them swells their ranks. These are people that are educated and informed. They probably have a better understanding of fiscal issues than you do. And they do that rare thing in this political atmosphere - they care more about the future than the present.


----------



## Almaviva

What do I do with you, Dr. Mike?

You're kind of an essential part to this debate but at times you get so angry that you lose your cool and engage in personal attacks. How can one call this - " Despicable is what you all are" (recovered from one of your posts above) - other than a personal attack? So do I give you a pass because you're one against many (like I've been stressing lately, and supporting you), or do I call you on it and apply to you the same Terms of Service we've been applying to others? I sincerely don't know. I wish you'd just ask me to delete for you that part of your post, or do it yourself if you can still edit.

As for our opinion of the Tea Party, I was just reading the latest issue of The Economist. Look at what they say:

"Worse, the poisonous politics of the past few weeks have created new sorts of uncertainty. Now that the tea-partiers have used default successfully as a political weapon, it will surely be used again. The refusal to compromise is wreaking damage. At best, the politicians will have slowed a sputtering expansion; at worst they will have killed off the recovery and inflicted lasting harm on the world's most impressive prosperity machine."

In another part of the editorial: "ludicrously irresponsible bout of fiscal brinkmanship."

Some pages later:

"The president, it is true, did not lose the fight because he lost the argument. He lost because he was not willing to be as reckless as the Republicans."

"The Republicans in effect pointed a pistol at the economy and threatened to pull the trigger if they were denied. An alarming number of them sounded crazy enough to carry out this threat."

There are other attacks on the Tea Party's ideologues in other pages of the magazine - I don't want to go find them right now, too much trouble. 

So members who have expressed doubts about the Tea Party here are not alone, and are backed by the editors of the most prestigious financial magazine in the world.

Are we really as far-off the reality as you say, Dr. Mike? So all these tea-partiers have better understanding of fiscal issues than we do. Do they also have better understanding of these issues than the editors of the most prestigious financial magazine in the world?

Here is what The Economist thinks should have happened (similar to what I have been saying, and others here): "keep up spending in the short term, with a stress on much-needed infrastructure investment, as well as extending the temporary tax-cuts, in exchange for a big medium-term reduction in the deficit, centred on entitlements and tax reform."

By the way, The Economist does say that the Treasury would have found a way to pay interest on the debt, but they insist that we'd have to default on many other obligations and the catastrophe would have been enormous, huge, calamitous, and with long-lasting consequences.

Anyway, regardless of our disagreements, would you please moderate the tone and delete the personal attacks?


----------



## Guest

@Alma -
I'll stand by my statements and take the consequences. I acknowledge that they were personal attacks. But I stand by them - if someone will brazenly call people like me treasonous - no, he didn't mention me specifically, but I count myself in that group that he described - then I will speak my mind. I know it is not appropriate to this forum, and I won't complain about any actions that you feel are merited. Like 'Ol Blue Eyes - "To say the things he truly feels, and not the words of one who kneels. The record shows I took the blows and did it my way."

I think many reckless things have been said about the Tea Party - racist, ignorant, treasonous, wanting to run the country off the cliff. If the Economist feels the way it does, I have as little esteem for them as for the statements made here by individuals regarding the Tea Party. That The Economist finds the greater threat to us is people screaming for fiscal discipline I think is very telling. Tell me - where was the Economist when so many European countries were running themselves into the ground, needing bailouts? I take my economic cues from Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, not the writers of The Economist.

Treat me like you would anybody else that made statements similar to mine, because I stand behind them.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> @Alma -
> I'll stand by my statements and take the consequences. I acknowledge that they were personal attacks. But I stand by them - if someone will brazenly call people like me treasonous - no, he didn't mention me specifically, but I count myself in that group that he described - then I will speak my mind. I know it is not appropriate to this forum, and I won't complain about any actions that you feel are merited. Like 'Ol Blue Eyes - "To say the things he truly feels, and not the words of one who kneels. The record shows I took the blows and did it my way."
> 
> I think many reckless things have been said about the Tea Party - racist, ignorant, treasonous, wanting to run the country off the cliff. If the Economist feels the way it does, I have as little esteem for them as for the statements made here by individuals regarding the Tea Party. That The Economist finds the greater threat to us is people screaming for fiscal discipline I think is very telling. Tell me - where was the Economist when so many European countries were running themselves into the ground, needing bailouts? I take my economic cues from Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, not the writers of The Economist.
> 
> Treat me like you would anybody else that made statements similar to mine, because I stand behind them.


I'll sadly take some action then, but as you'll see when you get the notice, I think I found an intermediate way to deal with this.

By the way, The Economist bashes the European countries as well, and is *extremely* critical of Obama. 
But I do think that the Tea Party played with fire and has already caused some damage (part of the rating downgrade is said to have resulted from uncertainty about the politicians' ability to compromise and find future bi-partisan solutions).


----------



## Jupiter

Cup of tea, anyone?


----------



## Guest

Jupiter said:


> Cup of tea, anyone?


If that is meant to be yet another rip on the Tea Party, then this is exactly why I stand by everything I have said.

If I have misinterpreted your post, then never mind.


----------



## Jupiter

No rip. After reading some angry posts I was simply asking if we can all sit down and have a civilised cup of tea. 

I'm British. That's what we do.


----------



## Guest

Jupiter said:


> No rip. After reading some angry posts I was simply asking if we can all sit down and have a civilised cup of tea.
> 
> I'm British. That's what we do.


Good enough - my apologies.


----------



## Kopachris

I could go for some Earl Grey.


----------



## Almaviva

They say chamomile is soothing and calming. I think this thread needs some chamomile tea.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> They say chamomile is soothing and calming. I think this thread needs some chamomile tea.


I could never abide chamomile alone - as a blend with another tea, like peppermint, it is fine, but I just don't like the taste of chamomile alone - same with rose hips.

Best relaxing tea I ever had was a Ricola Gute Nacht tea.


----------



## science

I wonder - what do people hope to accomplish in an online debate? 

Consider this: it's not against Dr. Mike or me personally, but there is no condition in which someone of Dr. Mike's beliefs will ever take seriously a criticism I (or anyone like me) make of their worldview, and there is no condition in which I (or anyone like me) will take seriously their criticism of mine. 

I know we all have stories of how we changed our mind here and there on some point or other, but in general there are two ways this works. The main way we change our mind is when we disagree with someone who agrees with us on most points. With a largely shared worldview and largely shared values, we are sometimes able to shift each other's thoughts. 

The second way is when someone who largely disagrees with us makes a good point - and in this situation we usually do not change our mind significantly, but we will change the way we state our beliefs in order to avoid allowing that point to be made in the future. This is not really a change of mind, it is more a change of rhetoric, but it is the main way that these debates actually change us. 

Other than that, the only way that a big worldview change comes about is when someone loses a set of friends and gets a new set, and has to adjust all their worldviews to match the new group. This is how religious conversions, for instance, happen. Political conversions happen in similar circumstances. 

The point is, unless I'm really wrong about this, on an internet forum you really should calculate your posts to influence people who almost agree with you anyway. Across a large ideological divide there is no chance of changing the mind of anyone with strong feelings.


----------



## TxllxT

Everything is relative. This morning I read a background article in a Dutch newspaper, where is pointed at the different policy of the ECB (European Central Bank), where printing of money is looked at with a conservative attitude, opposed to the American FED and Bank of England who are printing millions&millions of extra money and willing to take a gamble with the present very low level of inflation suddenly bursting into GREAT INFLATION.... Everything is relative. The author of the article reaches the summary, that whatever happens, Europe will come out of such a world crisis (we still don't have enough of them, do we?) better than the US and Britain....


----------



## Guest

Here is a quote from Jonah Goldberg of National Review regarding the Tea Party - the best description I have seen thus far of them. Bear in mind that National Review is William F. Buckley's magazine, so it is definitely conservative - but many of the editors there were not in agreement with the Tea Party over how to handle the debt ceiling hike.


> But the usual Beltway scorecard is inadequate. First of all, we all deserve blame. This is a national foul-up of historic proportions, and no party or constituency can completely avoid culpability.
> 
> And that definitely includes the Tea Party. A lot of people talk as if the tea partiers came out of the ground, like fully grown Orcs, shortly after Obama was elected, ready to inflict "terror" and "take hostages" (to use the preferred lingo of the supposed lovers of civility).
> 
> This ignores the prehistory of the tea partiers. They're largely core conservative voters who held their noses while spending ramped up for a decade under George W. Bush. Many rationalized their support for Bush against the backdrop of the War on Terror or their fondness for the man generally. But when Obama removed what little conservatism there was in Bush's "compassionate conservatism," massively hiking spending even more, they rebelled. Enough was enough.
> 
> Liberals see it as hypocrisy. Tea partiers see it as finally getting serious, which is why they keep threatening to "primary" any Republican who wavers from the new sobriety.
> 
> If you've ever known anyone with a serious addiction, the easiest thing for friends and family to do is pretend it's not a big deal. Who wants to have a confrontation? Far easier to let things slide and have a good time. "Let's have a nice Thanksgiving without any arguments, okay?"
> 
> The Tea Party is like the cousin who has been through AA and refuses to pretend any more. As a result, he spoils everyone's good time. For the enablers - and others in denial - he's the guy ruining everything, not the drunk.
> 
> Uncle Sam is the drunk, and the tea partiers are the annoyingly sober - and a bit self-righteous - cousin. Measured by spending and adjusted for inflation, the federal government has increased by more than 50 percent in ten years. Some have enabled the drunken spending; others continue to deny it's even a problem.
> 
> The Tea Party is sounding the wake-up call. If America didn't have a problem, then there really would be good cause to be furious with the forces of sobriety. Nobody likes a party pooper, especially the people hooked on partying.


----------



## Guest

Regarding Science's earlier comment - that the Tea Party wasn't opposed to Obama's policies, but to Obama personally - I would suggest the facts don't support this notion.

If the Tea Party was solely interested in opposing Obama, regardless of the policy, then how do you explain the fact that so many Republicans have now seen their careers brought to an end - not by losing to Democrats in general elections, but by losing to Tea Party candidates in primaries? That doesn't sound like a group that is solely, blindly opposing Obama. They don't like anybody that is for uncontrolled government spending and thinks the solution is merely to raise more taxes. Whether that is Obama in the White House, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, or Bob Bennett in Utah. Obama is a Democrat. Specter was a DINO/RINO (Democrat/Republican In Name Only). Bennett was an unmistakable Republican. All have experienced the wrath of the Tea Party. They even threatened Congressman Allen West - to many Democrats, the poster boy for the Tea Party - with a primary challenge for his support of Boehner's debt ceiling compromise. Clearly these are not individuals solely bent on opposing Obama for non-political reasons. I know you, and many others, think that the primary motivation for the Tea Party is racism. But the facts just don't add up. True, they weren't speaking out against most of Bush's out of control spending (they did start to wake up, though, with TARP), but that was because for a while they felt they should be like everybody else involved in politics - blindly loyal to your own party to at least keep the other party out of power. But they have gotten over that, and the even more reckless spending under Obama has convinced them that they need to act, and oppose anybody who enables this kind of political behavior - be they Democrat or Republican.


----------



## Guest

TxllxT said:


> Everything is relative. This morning I read a background article in a Dutch newspaper, where is pointed at the different policy of the ECB (European Central Bank), where printing of money is looked at with a conservative attitude, opposed to the American FED and Bank of England who are printing millions&millions of extra money and willing to take a gamble with the present very low level of inflation suddenly bursting into GREAT INFLATION.... Everything is relative. The author of the article reaches the summary, that whatever happens, Europe will come out of such a world crisis (we still don't have enough of them, do we?) better than the US and Britain....


I don't know if I fully agree with the final conclusions of that article, that Europe will come out better than the US and Britain - we'll have to see what true austerity measures come out and what ultimately becomes of so many failing EU countries.

But I can't help but feel they are spot on regarding the huge risk involved with reckless printing of new currency to solve financial problems. I'm worried about the threat of inflation.


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> @DrMike, There you go again, not addressing the main point of my post; I guess that's your selective response process again, huh? {Not answering certain issues that are raised, as you made clear from our last "discussion"}. SO again, are you denying that the TEa Party did not engage in this treasonous behavior? And again, getting back to the original discussion {aside from waste and fraud} what exactly do you propose cutting in the entitlement programs and whom? Btw , if you choose not to answer, I'd completely understand; I almost decided to exercise your method of not responding to things {or people} I don't wish to debate. And by the way, the government is not an individual household, and can't be run as such, and never has been. p.s. Hope my "tone" was more to your liking this go around.


So, Samurai, I believe I answered your questions, despite the fact that I had so many different questions and comments addressed to me. So do you mind telling me your grand plan for putting the country back on financial track? Oh, and if it involved tax increases, or cutting loopholes, please tell us where you will raise them, by how much, and what amount of revenues you expect to take in as a result. After all, what good is a "revenue increase" if it doesn't get us the levels of revenues we need. For example, all of the money we would recover by cutting the private jet loophole (enacted by the 2009 stimulus bill passed by Democrats in the House and the Senate, and signed into law by Obama) wouldn't even cover 1 week's worth of spending.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Regarding Science's earlier comment - that the Tea Party wasn't opposed to Obama's policies, but to Obama personally - I would suggest the facts don't support this notion.
> 
> If the Tea Party was solely interested in opposing Obama, regardless of the policy, then how do you explain the fact that so many Republicans have now seen their careers brought to an end - not by losing to Democrats in general elections, but by losing to Tea Party candidates in primaries? That doesn't sound like a group that is solely, blindly opposing Obama. They don't like anybody that is for uncontrolled government spending and thinks the solution is merely to raise more taxes. Whether that is Obama in the White House, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, or Bob Bennett in Utah. Obama is a Democrat. Specter was a DINO/RINO (Democrat/Republican In Name Only). Bennett was an unmistakable Republican. All have experienced the wrath of the Tea Party. They even threatened Congressman Allen West - to many Democrats, the poster boy for the Tea Party - with a primary challenge for his support of Boehner's debt ceiling compromise. Clearly these are not individuals solely bent on opposing Obama for non-political reasons. I know you, and many others, think that the primary motivation for the Tea Party is racism. But the facts just don't add up. True, they weren't speaking out against most of Bush's out of control spending (they did start to wake up, though, with TARP), but that was because for a while they felt they should be like everybody else involved in politics - blindly loyal to your own party to at least keep the other party out of power. But they have gotten over that, and the even more reckless spending under Obama has convinced them that they need to act, and oppose anybody who enables this kind of political behavior - be they Democrat or Republican.


How touching. They sound like angels, these tea-partiers.
Meanwhile Bachmann, their beloved candidate, is campaigning with lies and misinformation, saying that we gave Obama a blank check of 2.1 trillion, conveniently forgetting that raising the debt ceiling is no blank check (there is no spending on new programs or entitlements but rather provisions to pay for expenses that have ALREADY been made *and* have been previously approved by Congress). So in Michelle's convenient world paying one's obligations is akin to a blank check. Great. Innocent angels, these tea-partiers. I'd love to listen to these sober party-poopers if only they started telling the truth for a change!


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> How touching. They sound like angels, these tea-partiers.
> Meanwhile Bachmann, their beloved candidate, is campaigning with lies and misinformation, saying that we gave Obama a blank check of 2.1 trillion, conveniently forgetting that raising the debt ceiling is no blank check (there is no spending on new programs or entitlements but rather provisions to pay for expenses that have ALREADY been made *and* have been previously approved by Congress). So in Michelle's convenient world paying one's obligations is akin to a blank check. Great. Innocent angels, these tea-partiers. I'd love to listen to these sober party-poopers if only they started telling the truth for a change!


Alma - you are right, but only in the strictest sense of the term. Yes, the amount that we have raised the debt ceiling by has already been spoken for. This raise will only get us, at best, through just past the 2012 elections. But consider why this money is already spoken for: by the Obama administration's own numbers, the last budget that Democrats passed would result in $9 trillion in deficits over 10 years. That works out to an average of $900 billion in deficits per year for 10 years. So by Obama's budget, the $2.1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling will be spend within 2.3 years. So yes, you are correct - this was no blank check. Obama had already spent this money over 2 years ago when he passed the last budget.

Still, I don't think that the blame for that can be tossed to the Tea Party or Michelle Bachmann. It was the Democrats in Congress (back when they controlled both the House and the Senate) that gave Obama this blank check over 2 years ago.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Alma - you are right, but only in the strictest sense of the term. Yes, the amount that we have raised the debt ceiling by has already been spoken for. This raise will only get us, at best, through just past the 2012 elections. But consider why this money is already spoken for: by the Obama administration's own numbers, the last budget that Democrats passed would result in $9 trillion in deficits over 10 years. That works out to an average of $900 billion in deficits per year for 10 years. So by Obama's budget, the $2.1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling will be spend within 2.3 years. So yes, you are correct - this was no blank check. Obama had already spent this money over 2 years ago when he passed the last budget.
> 
> Still, I don't think that the blame for that can be tossed to the Tea Party or Michelle Bachmann. It was the Democrats in Congress (back when they controlled both the House and the Senate) that gave Obama this blank check over 2 years ago.


My problem is with the way these people twist reality to serve their brainwashing talking points.
And if this is money accounted for, stemming from Obama's spending, so were all previous debt ceiling increases done by countless Republican presidents and senators/representatives. So now that an election is approaching this all becomes "a blank check" in Ms. Bachmann's lying talking points. It reminds me of the "death panels."



> Alma - you are right


Yay, these are rare words coming from your mouth.:lol:


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> I wonder - what do people hope to accomplish in an online debate?
> 
> Consider this: it's not against Dr. Mike or me personally, but there is no condition in which someone of Dr. Mike's beliefs will ever take seriously a criticism I (or anyone like me) make of their worldview, and there is no condition in which I (or anyone like me) will take seriously their criticism of mine.
> 
> I know we all have stories of how we changed our mind here and there on some point or other, but in general there are two ways this works. The main way we change our mind is when we disagree with someone who agrees with us on most points. With a largely shared worldview and largely shared values, we are sometimes able to shift each other's thoughts.
> 
> The second way is when someone who largely disagrees with us makes a good point - and in this situation we usually do not change our mind significantly, but we will change the way we state our beliefs in order to avoid allowing that point to be made in the future. This is not really a change of mind, it is more a change of rhetoric, but it is the main way that these debates actually change us.
> 
> Other than that, the only way that a big worldview change comes about is when someone loses a set of friends and gets a new set, and has to adjust all their worldviews to match the new group. This is how religious conversions, for instance, happen. Political conversions happen in similar circumstances.
> 
> The point is, unless I'm really wrong about this, on an internet forum you really should calculate your posts to influence people who almost agree with you anyway. Across a large ideological divide there is no chance of changing the mind of anyone with strong feelings.


I only want to accomplish a bit of fun. This is a hobby for me. I wish we could have fun while being civil to each other as well. I see you guys as my pen-pals, and I usually don't call my friends names, so I hope you guys will do the same to each other. As for changing my world views, hardly, but sometimes intelligent argumentation does give me some insight into some close-to-valid points the other side makes. It enhances my understanding. And like I said, it's lots of fun (when you guys are not giving me headaches by misbehaving).


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> My problem is with the way these people twist reality to serve their brainwashing talking points.
> And if this is money accounted for, stemming from Obama's spending, so were all previous debt ceiling increases done by countless Republican presidents and senators/representatives. So now that an election is approaching this all becomes "a blank check" in Ms. Bachmann's lying talking points. It reminds me of the "death panels."
> 
> Yay, these are rare words coming from your mouth.:lol:


Now Alma - calling any Republican/Tea Party member a liar is so blatantly an issue of the pot calling the kettle black. Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

The Stimulus Bill was full of shovel-ready jobs? Discredited by Obama himself.

The car companies have paid back all their government loans? Wrong - the Obama administration only counted the money in the second round of bailouts. They ignored what had already been given by Bush - so the country actually lost money on these bailouts.

You want to talk about "death panels?" What about the recent ads by Democrats that showed a fictitional Republican eerily similar in appearance to Paul Ryan shoving an elderly person off of a cliff?

What about closing Gitmo?

What about being out of Iraq?

What about last year's summer of recovery?

What about the stimulus bill holding unemployment to no higher than 8%?

What about Obama pledging to do away with the Bush tax cuts?

What about no new taxes for anybody making under $250,000/year?

What about, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski?"

Or what about this quote from Senator Obama in 2006:


> The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.


So, did raising the debt ceiling mean the Obama administration can't pay its own bills? Is it a sign that Obama is relying on financial assistance from foreign countries to finance his administration's reckless fiscal policies? By insisting on raising the debt ceiling, has Obama weakened us domestically and internationally? Has Obama shifted the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren? Does America now have a debt problem and a failure of leadership? Does America deserve better? Damn - reading this, not knowing who said it, you could almost say it sounds like the "treasonous" rantings of one of those deranged Tea Partiers! Why, back in 2006, Obama voted exactly the way the Tea Party would have. So Samurai - was Obama being treasonous in 2006? Wow, you Democrats elected a man that had engaged in treasonous activities! He was willing to drive the country into financial ruin! Oh yeah - but now he knows better, and has said he was wrong. That is what you continue to say, isn't it Alma? Of course, that forgives all where Obama was concerned. Hey Science - by espousing Tea Party ideals before there even was a Tea Party, does that mean Obama was being racist against . . . himself?

Hmmm - Obama, the original Tea Party member? Oh yeah, it didn't count, because he already knew the ceiling would be increased, so his opposition was innocent enough, isn't that what you say, Alma? Well, that is convenient - you excuse the reckless actions of Democrats so long as they can't actually do any harm? Do you believe that, in 2006, were there to be enough votes, say 50 votes, for not extending the debt ceiling, and Obama represented the 51st vote, he would not have voted as he did, for the good of the country? Am I to assume that Obama, then, is merely a political opportunist? In which case, what differentiates him from Michelle Bachmann, saying the things she believes necessary to secure her nomination and election to the presidency?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I wonder - what do people hope to accomplish in an online debate?
> 
> Consider this: it's not against Dr. Mike or me personally, but there is no condition in which someone of Dr. Mike's beliefs will ever take seriously a criticism I (or anyone like me) make of their worldview, and there is no condition in which I (or anyone like me) will take seriously their criticism of mine.
> 
> I know we all have stories of how we changed our mind here and there on some point or other, but in general there are two ways this works. The main way we change our mind is when we disagree with someone who agrees with us on most points. With a largely shared worldview and largely shared values, we are sometimes able to shift each other's thoughts.
> 
> The second way is when someone who largely disagrees with us makes a good point - and in this situation we usually do not change our mind significantly, but we will change the way we state our beliefs in order to avoid allowing that point to be made in the future. This is not really a change of mind, it is more a change of rhetoric, but it is the main way that these debates actually change us.
> 
> Other than that, the only way that a big worldview change comes about is when someone loses a set of friends and gets a new set, and has to adjust all their worldviews to match the new group. This is how religious conversions, for instance, happen. Political conversions happen in similar circumstances.
> 
> The point is, unless I'm really wrong about this, on an internet forum you really should calculate your posts to influence people who almost agree with you anyway. Across a large ideological divide there is no chance of changing the mind of anyone with strong feelings.


Because, regardless of the outcomes of these debates - even when they go out of control - it is a refreshing reminder of how good it is to live in a society that actually allows you to speak your mind without fear that someone will come and gun you down or throw you into prison for who knows how long. Because people disagree. There is no ideal society of homogeneous thought. Governments are formed to manage the relationships of people wanting to associate with one another. It is understood that they will disagree, that is why you have to form governments - to manage those disagreements to where you can still live peacefully with one another. The other alternative is for everyone to live in complete isolation.

Because you don't sharpen your intellect and your knowledge by surrounding yourself with nothing but like-minded individuals. "The tree that never had to fight for sun and sky and air and light, but stood out on the open plain, and always got its share of rain, never became a forest king, but lives and dies a scrawny thing." Douglas Mallock


----------



## Guest

Continuing this consideration of the logic behind these debates - I don't know about the rest of you, but my knowledge increases from them. Sometimes because of the people I debate, more often in spite of them. Someone will make a statement, or ask a question, and I don't know enough about it, so I go read up on it. Not just from one source. I'll go to wikipedia first - not because it is perfect, but because it is a ready source of basic information that can fill me in at least on the general facts. Then I go to other sources - from both sides. Believe it or not, I probably watch MSNBC more than I do FoxNews. I listen to what Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell say, because once I know the basics of a topic, I make my own mind up about it and form my own conservative opinions. I gain nothing new from Hannity or O'Reilly. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. But I listen to the opposition, because it helps solidify my views. 

In the end, I know more than I did going into a debate - I know what I think about a topic, and I know what the other side is saying. Sometimes my ideas mesh with Hannity, or Limbaugh, or Mark Levin, or Ann Coulter; sometimes they don't. I rarely watch any of them - I'm too busy watching Pawn Stars, Deadliest Catch, Storage Wars, and Hell's Kitchen. Limbaugh is on when I am at work, so I rarely, if ever, listen to him. I have to form my opinions all on my own. I read National Review. I read Hayek. I read William F. Buckley and Thomas Sowell. I read John Locke. And I am a ravenous reader of history.

Debate forces you to learn - or at least it should. You don't want to be stuck without an answer to what the other guy is saying. It isn't about winning and losing. Nobody wins or loses in debates - that mentality is for the news media who has to say there is a winner and a loser to make them seem more exciting than they really are, when, really, they aren't. Debates used to be about sharpening your knowledge and rhetorical skills - not some game of winners and losers. You try to back your opponent into a corner - not until they confess the error of their ways, but until they finally have no rebuttal to your statement. That, if anything, is winning a debate - not some fairy tale notion of converting your opponent.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Yay, these are rare words coming from your mouth.:lol:


Alma, you say all kinds of things that are right - my only issue is with the things you get wrong! 
For instance, in your last post, there were statements that I fully agree with:
"So now that an election is approaching . . . " Yes, an election is approaching. You are right.

Or in the one before, there were the following:
"Meanwhile Bachmann, their beloved candidate . . ." Yes, I would agree that Bachmann is the current favorite of the Tea Party. No arguments there.
"I'd love to listen to these sober party-poopers . . ." Me too! Perhaps you and I could attend a Tea Party rally together? If we have to go on a roadtrip together, though, I get to choose the music - none of your boring operas and prattling on about how much of a goddess Anna Netrebko is!


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Alma, you say all kinds of things that are right - my only issue is with the things you get wrong!
> For instance, in your last post, there were statements that I fully agree with:
> "So now that an election is approaching . . . " Yes, an election is approaching. You are right.
> 
> Or in the one before, there were the following:
> "Meanwhile Bachmann, their beloved candidate . . ." Yes, I would agree that Bachmann is the current favorite of the Tea Party. No arguments there.
> "I'd love to listen to these sober party-poopers . . ." Me too! Perhaps you and I could attend a Tea Party rally together? If we have to go on a roadtrip together, though, I get to choose the music - none of your boring operas and prattling on about how much of a goddess Anna Netrebko is!


Hey, I endorse all of the above but don't mess with Anna Netrebko!
If we're ever to become real friends in real life, you *will* have to endure Anna Netrebko!!!

:lol:


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Or in the one before, there were the following:
> "Meanwhile Bachmann, their beloved candidate . . ." Yes, I would agree that Bachmann is the current favorite of the Tea Party. No arguments there.


Is Bachmann more favored than Perry? I think Perry's ratings are higher, but I'm not sure that is due to people aligned with the Tea Party.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Because you don't sharpen your intellect and your knowledge by surrounding yourself with nothing but like-minded individuals. "The tree that never had to fight for sun and sky and air and light, but stood out on the open plain, and always got its share of rain, never became a forest king, but lives and dies a scrawny thing." Douglas Mallock


Precisely. And before anybody says that I'm showing moderation bias and giving you a pass (well, not entirely, like I said there was some action today which the other members didn't see) while other members who step over the boundaries sometimes get more harshly treated, it is exactly for this reason.

I mean, in my undertanding moderation actions should preserve the good functioning of the forum not only by ensuring compliance with the terms of service, but also ensuring some livelihood and some good ongoing discussions to maintain members' interest and foot traffic. It is done for the greater good of the membership corps.

I don't think anybody here would want Dr. Mike to be banned. If this was to happen, to whom would we be talking in these debates? We'd be preaching to the choir. there wouldn't *be* any debate.

And while these threads often get out of control and our good Dr. Mike sometimes gets to be a bit hot-headed, I assume that if many members here (and this include me - and also science, samurai, mmsbls, etc) participate so often in these threads it must be because these members enjoy these discussions at least to a certain degree and believe them to be a valid use of their time.

I certainly see Dr. Mike as an important asset for these threads - almost a condition _sine qua non_ - therefore I think it is in our collective interest to give him a bit of a pass when he gets really angry at us. We may want to just shrug it off and say, "oh well, it's how our good old Dr. Mike is, we'll just put up with him; he means well."

I mean, as long as he doesn't force my hand so much that I *have* to take action like earlier on. I hope that these instances will remain rare so that things can be smoothly managed.

Clarification: I'm not being condescending, dismissive, ironic, sarcastic, etc. (It's good to clarify given the absence of body language and tone of voice in Internet communications). I mean what I've just said above, and I've stated it plainly, no hidden agenda. I think it is nice and instructive to have an articulate and intelligent conservative member to be here debating these issues with us, and I intend to do my best to keep this member on board.

If we had a thread with 10 conservative members (and I were one of them - fat chance, I know, but hypothetically) and - for example, science held the position of sole liberal there - and science were being attacked from all fronts, I'd kind of side with him as well to keep the discussions going.

This said, if things get too outrageous, like I said, I may be forced into action.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> This said, if things get too outrageous, like I said, I may be forced into action.


Like, say, if I were to insult Anna's honor?

Honestly, Alma - you are creeping me out a little! I think if Anna were a member on this board, you would be giving her all kinds of free passes, so it is a little bit freaky to be on that same pedestal! 

And out of curiosity, would a personal attack on Anna be more acceptable than, say, a personal attack on Science or Samurai? :devil:


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Hey, I endorse all of the above but don't mess with Anna Netrebko!
> If we're ever to become real friends in real life, you *will* have to endure Anna Netrebko!!!
> 
> :lol:


Oh well, I guess it just wasn't meant to be.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Like, say, if I were to insult Anna's honor?
> 
> Honestly, Alma - you are creeping me out a little! I think if Anna were a member on this board, you would be giving her all kinds of free passes, so it is a little bit freaky to be on that same pedestal!
> 
> And out of curiosity, would a personal attack on Anna be more acceptable than, say, a personal attack on Science or Samurai? :devil:


Well, let's put it this way. Personal attacks on Science or Samurai may get someone a few penalty points and eventually a temporary ban. Personal attacks on Anna Netrebko, on the other hand, will get the person murdered. I'll send my hitmen to chop off the persons' head and cremate the corpse. My shelves are full of ashes of Anna's former detractors.:devil:


----------



## TxllxT

Perhaps Anna & Mrs. Bachman could sing together a nice duet ? Something flowery from Lakmé perhaps :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Well, let's put it this way. Personal attacks on Science or Samurai may get someone a few penalty points and eventually a temporary ban. Personal attacks on Anna Netrebko, on the other hand, will get the person murdered. I'll send my hitmen to chop off the persons' head and cremate the corpse. My shelves are full of ashes of Anna's former detractors.:devil:


Watch out, though. I live in a conservative Southern state that still has the death penalty. I don't think your infatuation in a largish Russian "aw-pee-rah" singer will garner you much sympathy around here. Now, fealty to Trace Adkins or Bear Bryant might win you points.


----------



## ozradio

Almaviva said:


> Fellow Americans, how do you all feel being 11% poorer, given the Dow's drops last week and this week (more of the same tomorrow, I suppose)?


Excited for the long term. I admit to getting gleeful when the market tanks (as in 2008) because I know as I make my monthly investment deposits they're buying a lot more shares at these cheap prices than at the formerly higher prices. Of course, I have 25 years until I seriously look at retirement so days like today and Monday are just little ripples in a lifetime of investing. Even after the last two weeks my portfolio is up 20% over its pre-2008 high.

So a better question is: Why do we need the companies that make up the stock market? As an investor I'll answer: because I like having my hand in the profit columns of all these businesses that make up that market and getting my small slice of the profits.


----------



## science

I think the comments on my "what's the point" post have conceded the point. "Sharpening the intellect" and so on are just positive spins on refining rhetoric.

Anyway, today's news is that the markets are still not even a little worried that the US won't or can't pay its debt:



> Treasury prices rose Wednesday, pushing yields back toward record lows, as investors sought the relative safety of U.S. debt...
> 
> The yield [on 10-year notes] briefly dropped under 2.04% on Tuesday, matching the record low touched in December 2008...
> 
> Thirty-year bond yields declined 8 basis points to 3.54%.


So what is it? Do the markets or the politicians know best?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tr...rally-push-new-lows-2011-08-10?dist=afterbell


----------



## Almaviva

TxllxT said:


> Perhaps Anna & Mrs. Bachman could sing together a nice duet ? Something flowery from Lakmé perhaps :tiphat:


 No, Ms. Bachmann is better suited for some sort of evil aria like the Queen of the Night.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Watch out, though. I live in a conservative Southern state that still has the death penalty. I don't think your infatuation in a largish Russian "aw-pee-rah" singer will garner you much sympathy around here. Now, fealty to Trace Adkins or Bear Bryant might win you points.


 You don't think I'd be naive enough to go there personally, do you? I said I'll *send* my hit men. They are very skilled and will kill undetected. I mean if they can't get you at least they'll get your goldfish. We used to do horse heads but it's too expensive. Placing the head of your goldfish on your pillow might teach you enough of a lesson.

Whaaaat? Largish? OK, that's it. You're doomed. Or at least, your goldfish are.


----------



## Guest

I'm enjoying the silence over my contention that Obama was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. That his statements about raising the debt ceiling in 2006 could have been transposed onto some "treasonous" Tea Partier today. Should we call Obama the original "Tea Bagger?"


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> No, Ms. Bachmann is better suited for some sort of evil aria like the Queen of the Night.


If she could sing them as well as, say, Lucia Popp, she'd get my vote for president.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I'm enjoying the silence over my contention that Obama was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. That his statements about raising the debt ceiling in 2006 could have been transposed onto some "treasonous" Tea Partier today. Should we call Obama the original "Tea Bagger?"


 It's similar to the silence after I told you that when the markets rallied, you should have praised Obama.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> If she could sing them as well as, say, Lucia Popp, she'd get my vote for president.


Indeed. This image looks very frightening. I'd be really frightened of a President Bachmann. Please, no fundamentalists! They tend to mix religion and state, and it never ends well.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> You don't think I'd be naive enough to go there personally, do you? I said I'll *send* my hit men. They are very skilled and will kill undetected. I mean if they can't get you at least they'll get your goldfish. We used to do horse heads but it's too expensive. Placing the head of your goldfish on your pillow might teach you enough of a lesson.
> 
> Whaaaat? Largish? OK, that's it. You're doomed. Or at least, your goldfish are.


Let's face it - rather than going the direction of Patricia Petibon, she has gone the other way. Not that I begrudge her some weight gain - I'm a fine one to talk. But Alma, you are already in denial about Obama - you need to at least acknowledge the obvious of your singing Russian babushka.:devil:

Oh, and we evil conservatives don't go for wimpy pets like goldfish. Those pets are for you wimpy liberals.:tiphat: (Note: tongue planted firmly in cheek there, lest you are worried I am attacking you.)


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> It's similar to the silence after I told you that when the markets rallied, you should have praised Obama.


See, the thing is, I was going to, but then I got sidetracked with attacking people in this thread. Then I was going to comment on it today, but then all the gains yesterday when the market rallied were wiped out today when it dropped another 500 points. So I figured, what was the point? It was a short-lived rally - kind of like the short-lived jump in approval ratings Obama got when bin Laden was killed. I credit him for that, but his other shortcomings seem to dwarf that one shining moment.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Let's face it - rather than going the direction of Patricia Petibon, she has gone the other way. Not that I begrudge her some weight gain - I'm a fine one to talk. But Alma, you are already in denial about Obama - you need to at least acknowledge the obvious of your singing Russian babushka.:devil:
> 
> Oh, and we evil conservatives don't go for wimpy pets like goldfish. Those pets are for you wimpy liberals.:tiphat: (Note: tongue planted firmly in cheek there, lest you are worried I am attacking you.)


Oh no, no, no. I know from reputable sources that you Southern Conservatives all have goldfish. You're ashamed of them and you keep them in the backroom, but you do have them, don't deny it!

As for Anna, she is getting a tiny little itty bitty chubby, it is true. But women need curves! I'm willing to forgive her for the added pounds, and to attribute them to her husband who is certainly keeping her frustrated so that she overeats. As soon as she dumps him and marries me (I hope by then Congress will have approved polygamy in this kind of special circumstance - what married man, even deeply in love with his wife, wouldn't want to also marry Anna Netrebko?), I'll start her on a diet, and she'll be fine!


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Indeed. This image looks very frightening. I'd be really frightened of a President Bachmann. Please, no fundamentalists! They tend to mix religion and state, and it never ends well.


Yeah, heaven forbid - why, with Bachmann as president, we might see our economy floundering, unemployment above 9%, economic growth of less than 2% . . . oh, wait, no, sorry, I was reading Obama's record.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> See, the thing is, I was going to, but then I got sidetracked with attacking people in this thread. Then I was going to comment on it today, but then all the gains yesterday when the market rallied were wiped out today when it dropped another 500 points. So I figured, what was the point? It was a short-lived rally - kind of like the short-lived jump in approval ratings Obama got when bin Laden was killed. I credit him for that, but his other shortcomings seem to dwarf that one shining moment.


Oh well hopefully the markets will go up again. Today was because of Société Générale, nothing to do with our esteemed president.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Yeah, heaven forbid - why, with Bachmann as president, we might see our economy floundering, unemployment above 9%, economic growth of less than 2% . . . oh, wait, no, sorry, I was reading Obama's record.


 Now seriously, do you really think that if the Republicans capture the White House in 2012 (like I know believe they will - their strategy *has* worked, the economy will tank more and the people will, as usual, attribute it to the incumbent president), they will be able to fix the economy in four years? It will only get worse, and four years later Bachmann or whoever is there will be kicked out thanks to the same effect.

I'm serious, I don't see any way out for our economy. It just won't happen. There will be no recovery this time. We're headed to steady decline. And until the time when our people will finally understand that over-blaming the president for the ailments is as silly as over-praising him for the successes, we'll be alternating parties in power.


----------



## science

Alma, I think we have several ways out. All of them are politically hard or impossible, but allowing a lot more immigration could help, a new stimulus would help, cutting defense would help, allowing Medicare to haggle for better prices would help. 

Essentially, defense is going to fall a lot. Right now progressives are upset by the deal because we know that entitlements are going to take a hit when the committee fails. OK. Let that happen. There will be an electoral upheaval akin to a revolution, and in the aftermath I guarantee we'll see new tax brackets created at the upper end with higher numbers and fewer loopholes, and we'll see cuts in defense.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Alma, I think we have several ways out. All of them are politically hard or impossible, but allowing a lot more immigration could help, a new stimulus would help, cutting defense would help, allowing Medicare to haggle for better prices would help.
> 
> Essentially, defense is going to fall a lot. Right now progressives are upset by the deal because we know that entitlements are going to take a hit when the committee fails. OK. Let that happen. There will be an electoral upheaval akin to a revolution, and in the aftermath I guarantee we'll see new tax brackets created at the upper end with higher numbers and fewer loopholes, and we'll see cuts in defense.


Science, your prediction is the best case scenario. Whether this will materialize or not, remains to be seen, given our polarized politics. But then, even if it does, other external factors will be putting more and more pressure on our economy.

They range from Europe's deteriorating situation to resources crunch to the emerging markets attaining in 5 years (The Economist's prediction) more than half of the world's combined GNP and means of production in absolute numbers (they already have more than 50% in PPP), resulting in shift of power and the end of the dollar as the reserve currency. This, not to talk of the loss of leadership in scientific innovation.

Our time to rule the world is at its end, and our economy will reflect our weakening power and influence. Once we're not artificially boosted by non-economic factors (e.g. Saudi Arabia's defense interests, OPEC trading in dollar thanks to their dependence on our commitments in the region) any longer, countries will start dumping dollars on the market.

Steep currency devaluation and stagflation will ensue. Meanwhile we'll be practicing 'quantitative easing' (that is, printing money) until nobody will want our money any longer. Currency devaluation might help our exports, but we've been losing means of production, so, what exports?

I don't see ANY way out for the American economy. It will be a down-spiral of one crash after the other, one crisis after the other, one bankruptcy after the other.

What got us out of previous recessions was consumer spending. This is not supposed to happen any longer, because of depressed employment and growing uncertainty.

I mean, where exactly are we going to get new jobs from??? New jobs will be in China and India.

It's over, Science. The last one to leave should turn off the lights.


----------



## Guest

A quote from Drew Westen in the New York Times, professor of psychology at Emory University (Atlanta, GA) and a specialist in political messaging, summarizing the feelings of many liberals regarding Obama:


> Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Indeed. This image looks very frightening. I'd be really frightened of a President Bachmann. Please, no fundamentalists! They tend to mix religion and state, and it never ends well.


By the way, Alma, don't worry. I don't support Bachmann. Not because I don't like here positions - I just naturally have an aversion to electing Congressmen or Senators to the presidency. They get to focus on particular issues and not have to branch out as much, so many of them tend to be identified for singular issues; e.g. John McCain is known for military issues, Chris Dodd for financial issues, Paul Ryan for budgetary issues, Orrin Hatch for judiciary issues, Obama for . . . for . . . well, you get the picture (sorry, couldn't help but throw in that little jab about how little our current president had accomplished prior to his election).

I prefer governors and former governors. They have executive experience. They have to address multiple issues. They actually have to run something.

That being said, if Bachmann had the pipes Lucia Popp had, who cares what she looks like. And honestly, a scary Queen of the Night would probably strike more fear in the hearts of our enemies than our current president. How much do our enemies fear us? Well, OPEC has just elected as their president an Iranian who has been involved in the Revolutionary Guard, an organization that has promoted terrorist operations, including supporting Hezbollah. In fact, this individual has been sanctioned by the U.S. and the EU. That is how much our enemies fear us. I'll take the Queen of the Night any day.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Obama for . . . for . . . well, you get the picture (sorry, couldn't help but throw in that little jab about how little our current president had accomplished prior to his election).
> 
> I prefer governors *and former governors*. They have executive experience. They have to address multiple issues. They actually have to run something.


Sure, like that woman from Alaska, what's her name? You know, the dumb one?


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Sure, like that woman from Alaska, what's her name? You know, the dumb one?


Sorry, the dumb one? From the guy who voted for Joe Biden?

Palin wasn't running for president, or did I miss something? But seriously - Biden's career is one gaffe after another. He had to drop out of a presidential election in the past when it came out that he had a penchant for lying and plagiarizing.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Sorry, the dumb one? From the guy who voted for Joe Biden?
> 
> Palin wasn't running for president, or did I miss something? But seriously - Biden's career is one gaffe after another. He had to drop out of a presidential election in the past when it came out that he had a penchant for lying and plagiarizing.


 How can you be sure that I voted for Joe Biden?:devil:
OK, OK, I did vote for Joe Biden.
But Obama is young and healthy while McCain is old and sick so a vote for the McCain-Palin ticket was a lot more likely to get a dumb person to the Oval Office.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> How can you be sure that I voted for Joe Biden?:devil:
> OK, OK, I did vote for Joe Biden.
> But Obama is young and healthy while McCain is old and sick so a vote for the McCain-Palin ticket was a lot more likely to get a dumb person to the Oval Office.


So you opted for the young, inexperienced guy who got your heart fluttering over his lofty speeches, and whose first major decision was to pick Walter Mitty for his running mate?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> So you opted for the young, inexperienced guy who got your heart fluttering over his lofty speeches, and whose first major decision was to pick Walter Mitty for his running mate?


 As compared to the guy who said the fundamentals of our economy were sound and whose first major decision was to pick the genius who sees Russia from her window for his running mate?


----------



## Ralfy

The presence of stock markets, together with other types of financial instruments that are part of over $1 quadrillion in unregulated derivatives, is inevitable given the need to earn through financial speculation.

Put simply, we start with economies that manufacture, then outsource as income levels go up, then move to finance industries to earn, then speculate to profit even more. The result is one credit crunch after another, which is what we're currently experiencing, together with increasing financial volatility.

With that other problems will be coupled, especially a resource crunch, which no amount of credit creation will solve.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> As compared to the guy who said the fundamentals of our economy were sound and whose first major decision was to pick the genius who sees Russia from her window for his running mate?


A joke by Palin that the media took seriously. Tell me, in how many states did Obama eventually campaign?


> . . . it is wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty . . . seven states? In think one left to go. One left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not justify it.


So let's see, he already had visited 57, and still had one to go. And that doesn't count Alaska and Hawaii, which his staff wouldn't let him visit. By my count, that puts the total state count at 60. Even if you were to mistakenly count Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam as states, that still only puts you at 53. Wow, this guy must be dumb as a stick. So you voted for the guy who couldn't pass a simple U.S. geography test and his running mate, the president of the hair club for men.

I'm not saying McCain/Palin would have been stellar. But so far, you have only managed to tell me why you didn't vote for McCain. Not why you did vote for Obama.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> A joke by Palin that the media took seriously. Tell me, in how many states did Obama eventually campaign?
> 
> So let's see, he already had visited 57, and still had one to go. And that doesn't count Alaska and Hawaii, which his staff wouldn't let him visit. By my count, that puts the total state count at 60. Even if you were to mistakenly count Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam as states, that still only puts you at 53. Wow, this guy must be dumb as a stick. So you voted for the guy who couldn't pass a simple U.S. geography test and his running mate, the president of the hair club for men.
> 
> I'm not saying McCain/Palin would have been stellar. But so far, you have only managed to tell me why you didn't vote for McCain. Not why you did vote for Obama.


For all I know, he committed a Freudian slip and meant 47 when he said 57. I mean, the guy went to Columbia and Harvard with degrees in political sciences and law; do you seriously think he doesn't know the number of states in the US? Sarah Palin on the other hand had a soft major and still had to change colleges five times to finally graduate from some minor party school, so chances are that she *did* mean that Russia was visible from Alaska.

Why did I vote for Obama? Change we can believe in! Hope! LOL. No, kidding. Believe it or not, I did consider voting for McCain but he managed to rapidly lose me especially when he picked the dumb woman for running mate. While I was a bit concerned about Obama's thin administrative experience, I was sick and tired of 8 years of disastrous Republican rule and they then provided no viable alternative (I might have considered Romney if he had won the primaries although I can't say I like his flip-flopping ways).

That election was a no-brainer. Eight years of completely misguided and failed domestic and foreign policies, with an aging half-demented out-of-touch guy with four bouts with cancer backed by a completely clueless running mate with an IQ of about 70, versus a smart, young, healthy, energetic guy with little experience. Not much choice there.

I confess that my choice hasn't paid off much but I firmly believe that the alternative would have been worse. I often vote with a pragmatic view of the lesser evil.

For this year, again, believe it or not, I will seriously consider the Republican candidate if he/she is not a fundamentalist Christian with nutsy ideas about how to run the country.

As a matter of fact what I would prefer is another Democrat launching a challenge to the incumbent president in the primaries. Nader thinks it will happen (he put the odds at 100% - but I don't take him very seriously, I doubt it). But I confess that Obama has done little to deserve a second term. But again, I may be against the wall if it's another election with slim pickings, and if it's Obama vs. Bachmann, there's no doubt I'll vote for Obama again.

The other point is the checks and balances. If the Republicans get the majority in the Senate and keep their House majority (both outcomes are probably likely), we need a president from the other side with veto power. These tea-partiers can do lots of damage if left unchecked. This is definitely not a good time to give the possibility of free rein to a party that has been hijacked by extremists. The way Congress has played with fire recently is very concerning. If people are willing to ruin the country to score political points, I don't want them in full control. This alone may be a reason for me to vote Democrat for president, no matter what. I think I'd seriously consider a good solid Republican candidate (as long as he/she is not out to impose his religious views on others) with a good grasp of the economy as long as at least the Democrats keep the Senate. If not, then regardless of what goes on during the campaign I'll definitely vote for the Democrat.


----------



## Kopachris

I'm confused as to why you keep bringing up the "you can see Russia from Alaska" thing. You _can_ see Russia from Alaska. From a couple of the islands in the Bering Strait, anyway.


----------



## Almaviva

Kopachris said:


> I'm confused as to why you keep bringing up the "you can see Russia from Alaska" thing. You _can_ see Russia from Alaska. From a couple of the islands in the Bering Strait, anyway.


Not from her window.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Not from her window.


Regardless of her education, she lived in Wasilla, and clearly couldn't see Russia from there (It's just north of Anchorage). I love how Democrats took this tongue-in-cheek statement as some sign of stupidity. It is kind of like saying the British live just across the pond. Taken literally, it is a dumb statement - the Atlantic is clearly not a pond. And yet, we all know that it is not meant literally. But I'm sure it is probably a fairly common joke in Alaska for everybody to say you can see Russia out the window.

I will grant you that Obama is a well-educated man - but I will contest this notion that he is some kind of genius. His performance doesn't bare that out. We elected a man president who had one of the slimmest resumes in history. From community organizer to state politician, to a short stint in the US Senate, to President. And what major legislation or accomplishments can anybody point to during his political career prior to winning the presidency? That speech at the 2004 convention?

I'll concede McCain wasn't my ideal choice. I didn't like him before, and I didn't like him running for president. I was agnostic about Palin. Say what you will, but until she was picked as McCain's running mate, she actually was spoken of in fairly glowing terms. Not until the negative campaign against her - and be honest, it was a full-court press to really fling mud at her from all sources - did she start to look bad. Democrats were absolutely nasty towards her - attacking anything from legitimate issues on her record, to her family, including her son with Down's Syndrome, and her religious beliefs. If there were so many credible points about her that could be attacked, why stoop to such low levels? Making up fake stories of racism at her rallies, criticizing the circumstances of giving birth to Trig, to even spreading rumors that Trig was Bristol's child?

I don't know who the GOP nominee will be - Romney, or maybe Perry, if he really is getting in. Bachmann has support in Iowa, but I don't know whether she'll have staying power. Like I said, I like her as a congresswoman, but she seems to be too one-issue-oriented, and I am leery of people with only legislative experience. Romney is a tough one - there is that whole Massachusetts health care plan of his, and his flip-flopping on abortion. But I think he will be solid now, in spite of his past.

You make too much of religious fervor. As I recall, Jimmy Carter wore his religion on his sleeve - Southern Baptist, no less. Not exactly one of those mild-mannered denominations. The constitution - if you liberals would show a little more fidelity to original intent - has sufficient safeguards to protect the citizenry from the religious motives of politicians. Too many people have forgotten that the executive branch is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government. It is a problem that extends beyond the current president. For some reason, there is this notion that the president should trump all others. That isn't true. His main functions are to be commander-in-chief, and to execute the laws enacted by Congress. He doesn't get to set his own laws.


----------



## Kopachris

Almaviva said:


> Not from her window.


IIRC, she never said she could see Russia from her house.

Of course, that's not to say she hasn't said anything dumb during the campaign. We all have. Bush did. McCain did. Al Gore says dumb things all the time. Clinton said some dumb things during trial. Obama has said markedly fewer dumb things than most, partly because he's an excellent public speaker.


----------



## starthrower

Sarah Palin isn't stupid, she's ignorant. Just like Michelle Bachmann, although Bachmann is much scarier because she actually believes her own BS. I'm not trying to single them out either. There are thousands of unqualified people making important decisions. That's politics! Do you know how many people on the ground in Haiti are pulling their hair out because Bill Clinton appointed clueless people to make decisions?


The infotainment media has turned American politics into a circus. The candidate with the best PR firm wins. I can't in good conscience vote for anybody anymore. Why should I vote to perpetuate window dressing democracy? It just encourages them, and gives legitimacy to a corrupt system.


----------



## Ravellian

Thank you all for the debate - this has been a very entertaining read (apart from samurai's continuing ********* assaults on conservative members of these threads). 

I am leaning towards the opinion that our economy needs only the smallest amounts of regulation - namely, when things go too far. Clearly, the situation with the banks and rating agencies during the economic crisis was ridiculous - the people who continued to allow junk mortgages to be issued for their own personal gain should be locked up for life, in my opinion...


----------



## Guest

Kopachris said:


> IIRC, she never said she could see Russia from her house.
> 
> Of course, that's not to say she hasn't said anything dumb during the campaign. We all have. Bush did. McCain did. Al Gore says dumb things all the time. Clinton said some dumb things during trial. Obama has said markedly fewer dumb things than most, partly because he's an excellent public speaker.


Good catch - yes, the actual "I can see Russia from my house" quote was from Tina Fey parodying Palin on SNL. So one of those cases where Democrats took a falsehood about Palin and ran with it.

I think, starthrower, that to call Palin ignorant is claiming more information about the woman than you know. I think she was caught off guard with McCain asking her to be his running mate. I don't think she had any such aspirations at the time, and so hadn't really been boning up on her international politics. After all, if you were to go pick some random governor today - say from some state nobody is focusing on, like South Dakota, and asked them questions regarding our political relationship with Russia, how informed do you think they would be? Maybe she should have declined the request to be McCain's running mate. But to call her ignorant is quite unfair.


----------



## Almaviva

A fair point, I see now that I was wrong about Palin's quote regarding Russia and Alaska, it was Tina Fey; huh, LOL, funny how these thinks catch on, it is a useful lesson. 

On the other hand, it is kind of precious that you guys point to lies about Republican politicians and lowly attacks on Palin after the extensive fiasco of Obama's birth certificate. Is there anybody who's been more falsely accused than this guy? A Muslim born in Kenya???

I make too much of religious fervor? I do, these fundamentalists scare me to death. I've often remembered that quote, "God, please, protect me from your followers."

Dr. Mike, I never said that Obama is a genius. I just said smart, and also highlighted the high quality of his education. But it is true that when compared to Sarah Palin he looks like an intellectual giant.


----------



## Almaviva

Kopachris said:


> IIRC, she never said she could see Russia from her house.
> 
> Of course, that's not to say she hasn't said anything dumb during the campaign. *We all have.* Bush did. McCain did. Al Gore says dumb things all the time. Clinton said some dumb things during trial. Obama has said markedly fewer dumb things than most, partly because he's an excellent public speaker.


We? Are you a politician?


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> We? Are you a politician?


Ahhh! We have been infiltrated.


----------



## Kopachris

Almaviva said:


> We? Are you a politician?


Yes!  Oh, wait... no.  But I'm sure we have all said or done something dumb during the campaign, like thinking that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house or saying that Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya. I initially said that (were I 18) I'd vote for Obama simply because he's black and a lot of people are racist. Then I started criticizing others for saying _they_ would vote for Obama simply because he's black.


----------



## Aramis

Almaviva said:


> We? Are you a politician?


Hey now baby, get into my big black car. I want to just show you what my politics are. I'm a political man and I practice what I preach. So don't deny me baby, not while you're in my reach. I support the left, though I'm leaning, leaning to the right. But I'm just not there when it's coming to a fight.


----------



## TxllxT

This stock market thread smells like......a fish market. By the way, the part of Russia close to Alaska is one with an unsurpassed economic boom in a capitalist spirit, that makes the US look red. So snearing against this Russia is shooting into your own foot.


----------



## Guest

TxllxT said:


> This stock market thread smells like......a fish market. By the way, the part of Russia close to Alaska is one with an unsurpassed economic boom in a capitalist spirit, that makes the US look red. So snearing against this Russia is shooting into your own foot.


Has there been snearing against Russia in this thread? Did I miss it? I didn't know that Siberia was experiencing an economic boom . . . but then I haven't been paying that much attention to the Russian economy. I know that, in Siberia, they are sitting on a huge amount of fossil fuels, so if they can exploit them, it should be quite the boon to their economic standing, if managed correctly.


----------



## TxllxT

DrMike said:


> Has there been snearing against Russia in this thread? Did I miss it? I didn't know that Siberia was experiencing an economic boom . . . but then I haven't been paying that much attention to the Russian economy. I know that, in Siberia, they are sitting on a huge amount of fossil fuels, so if they can exploit them, it should be quite the boon to their economic standing, if managed correctly.


Well, the Mrs Palin Russia window is supposed to spread cosy cold war shivers, isn't it? But on the world economic scene the US is at present being beaten in its own game, being the most capitalist country in the world.


----------



## Kopachris

TxllxT said:


> This stock market thread smells like......a fish market. By the way, the part of Russia close to Alaska is one with an unsurpassed economic boom in a capitalist spirit, that makes the US look red. So snearing against this Russia is shooting into your own foot.


Actually, the parts of Russia close to Alaska (that is, visible to the naked eye from Alaska) is uninhabited.


----------



## Guest

Kopachris said:


> Actually, the part of Russia close to Alaska (that is, visible to the naked eye from Alaska) is uninhabited.


There are actually two different places - one is a small island only a few miles away from an island in the American Aleutians. The other one, though, (and I'm not sure the exact location) is within sight of Siberia under the right conditions.


----------



## Guest

TxllxT said:


> Well, the Mrs Palin Russia window is supposed to spread cosy cold war shivers, isn't it? But on the world economic scene the US is at present being beaten in its own game, being the most capitalist country in the world.


No, it wasn't - and we already established that she never said she could see it from her window. But the context of what she did say - that in certain places in Alaska you actually could see Russia - was that, at the time, there was the issue of Russian intervention in Georgia, and she was being asked what her knowledge of Russia was. She was not making any cold war-related statements, or snearing at Russia.


----------



## Kopachris

DrMike said:


> There are actually two different places - one is a small island only a few miles away from an island in the American Aleutians. The other one, though, (and I'm not sure the exact location) is within sight of Siberia under the right conditions.


What I meant was that no human presence is visible from either location. Just nitpicking.


----------



## TxllxT

OK. The point I want to make is that Germany is much more aware of Russia as a country of vast sustainable economic opportunities than the US. So for pure capitalist self-interested reasons mrs. Merkel is hugging mr. Medvedev & mr. Putin. China is doing the same. But the US? Why is there no American submarine looking for precious metals on the bottom of the oceans?


----------



## Guest

TxllxT said:


> OK. The point I want to make is that Germany is much more aware of Russia as a country of vast sustainable economic opportunities than the US. So for pure capitalist self-interested reasons mrs. Merkel is hugging mr. Medvedev & mr. Putin. China is doing the same. But the US? Why is there no American submarine looking for precious metals on the bottom of the oceans?


And that makes absolute sense - they are much closer to Russia, and it is a bigger influence for them. Not as much for the US. We do a lot of business with Canada and Mexico. I think there are still a lot of problematic issues with Russia that do not yet make it as stable a business partner for the US as we would like. As for looking for precious metals on the ocean floor . . . you got me. I have no answer to that. I don't know that there isn't. I guess it has to do with what precious metals we need, what sources we currently have, whether it is more cost-effective to continue procuring them from our current sources vs. exploring for new sources. Was your point that the US should be hugging Medvedev and Putin, along with Germany and China? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to convey.


----------



## samurai

How do you/we know there isn't?


----------



## Guest

Kopachris said:


> What I meant was that no human presence is visible from either location. Just nitpicking.


I wasn't nitpicking - just adding to what you had said.


----------



## TxllxT

DrMike said:


> And that makes absolute sense - they are much closer to Russia, and it is a bigger influence for them. Not as much for the US. We do a lot of business with Canada and Mexico. I think there are still a lot of problematic issues with Russia that do not yet make it as stable a business partner for the US as we would like. As for looking for precious metals on the ocean floor . . . you got me. I have no answer to that. I don't know that there isn't. I guess it has to do with what precious metals we need, what sources we currently have, whether it is more cost-effective to continue procuring them from our current sources vs. exploring for new sources. Was your point that the US should be hugging Medvedev and Putin, along with Germany and China? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to convey.


I just try to think for a moment in a pure capitalist manner, just to see where it leads to. (and in American politics the Republicans are in favor of pure capitalism, aren't they?) Well, there is a world market competition going on with China on the offensive side and the US being on the less offensive side. China wants to be the strongest economic power and they build up a stock market of their own. Is the US still able to get back an offensive edge to face China in this capitalist competition?


----------

