In May, lawyer Shinyung Oh was let go from the San Francisco branch of the Paul Hastings law firm six days after losing a baby. "If this response seems particularly emotional," she wrote to the partners, "perhaps an associate 's emotional vulnerability after a recent miscarriage
So you're telling me the entire 43% of non-voting Americans do not support the war in Iraq? Really? Somehow, I doubt that.
No, that is not what I'm telling you. The source I quoted said around 40% were for it. That would require about a third of the remaining 43% to be for (27% + (43%/3) = 41%), and two thirds to be against, which isn't much different than the opinion poll shows which was 60/40.
The difference you described is key. When the war was initially announced, it was projected to cost significantly less than $100 billion. Even by winter of 2004 it had not crossed $200B. So a cost comparison prior to this year isn't really valid. Secondly, there is the issue of sunk costs. If $400B has already been spent, people are more likely to follow up with more. I suspect if in 2003 Bush had said it would cost a Trillion dollars a lot more people would have balked. I wouldn't be as opposed to this bill if it wasn't $800B all at once.
The two are simply not comparable when looking at people's perception of cost from the start.
The 2004 and 2008 elections, primarily. Or did you not notice 50+% of Americans voting for the guy who wanted to continue said war?
Only 57% of eligible Americans voted in the 2008 election. Of those 57%, 48% voted for McCain. So just over 27% supported continuing the war by that metric.
This is quite in line with the poll I posted. Do you have any other sources?
I mean, sure, there are many who think both ideas are bad. Bully for them, they're being consistent. But it doesn't appear that's true for a largish percentage of Americans (at minimum the conservative 50%).
Interesting. Where are you getting your data? This shows a large proportion think it was a mistake and oppose the war.
Not much more to say. Yes it was stupid to go into Iraq. It's also stupid to have the bailout. Your argument is essentially "why complain about one stupid move when this other stupid move was made six years ago?" My answer is essentially you can't use one stupid move to justify another. I've complained about the Iraq War spending elsewhere. This thread was about the bailout plan, which spends more in one fell swoop than we have in Iraq in six years.
Again, not trying to justify the Iraq War. I actually think it was dumber than this bailout. But that doesn't make the bailout anything but a massive arbitrary spending bill when we are already knee deep in debt.
Lots don't use card shufflers at all. Even the casinos that do use card shufflers have tables without them. The card shufflers are usually not more than 25% of the tables.
The federal reserve is not owned or controlled by the government, it is a private concern.
It is privately owned, but the head of the Fed is appointed by the President, and as is apparent in the current crisis, they try to approach policy jointly.
But yeah, the 6% per year paid by the government to them as a matter of law goes to private corporations. Cool, huh?
If we flash forward to the current economic situation it is pretty clear that the proximate cause was the relaxation of reserve requirements for investment banks by the SEC in 2004.
That was part of it. But what happened before was that the Fed held interest rates far too low for far too long attempting to prevent the slightest recession.
Excessive government control always seem to work well in the short term since it smooths things out. But in the end inefficiencies pile up and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation
would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other
similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation
would result in an increase in government debt.
Actually, spending ("throwing") money is stimulus when the economy has a demand shortage. If nobody is buying anything, then nobody will have a job. So the government steps up and buys stuff. It almost doesn't matter WHAT they spend it on, as long as it gets spent. It's impossible for spent money to not stimulate the economy, because the economy is the sum of spending.
True, but as Japan showed, paying people to make holes and then paying other people to fill them in does not create lasting results.
The problem is our economy was distorted by easy money (pushed by the Fed, gladly accept by greedy banks/borrowers). Now in order to have a functional economy we must re-adjust. We need fewer shopping malls, fast food joints, and LCD TV retailers. We need something else. I don't trust that the government (or anyone) knows what that something else is.
I do think just rushing to spend money for the sake of spending money isn't the answer. That's what got us here.
With the world's financial system in the brink of collapse from deregulation, isn't it about time to dump the bullshit right-wing ideology behind that deregulation ?
"the past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
...
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Not that I blame the right any less, but this whole idea that not regulating is a "right-wing" ideology is ridiculous. Both sides want to look the other way when they are getting their short-term gains. Both sides then want to blame the other when the shit hits the fan. I agree there was a regulation failure. I do not agree it was a right-wing ideology that caused it.
Slashdot Mirror
Try telling that to a woman who just lost a child.
I'm not arrogant enough to tell you what she would or wouldn't do.
In May, lawyer Shinyung Oh was let go from the San Francisco branch of the Paul Hastings law firm six days after losing a baby. "If this response seems particularly emotional," she wrote to the partners, "perhaps an associate 's emotional vulnerability after a recent miscarriage
It's a fetus, not a baby.
So you're telling me the entire 43% of non-voting Americans do not support the war in Iraq? Really? Somehow, I doubt that.
No, that is not what I'm telling you. The source I quoted said around 40% were for it. That would require about a third of the remaining 43% to be for (27% + (43%/3) = 41%), and two thirds to be against, which isn't much different than the opinion poll shows which was 60/40.
The difference you described is key. When the war was initially announced, it was projected to cost significantly less than $100 billion. Even by winter of 2004 it had not crossed $200B. So a cost comparison prior to this year isn't really valid. Secondly, there is the issue of sunk costs. If $400B has already been spent, people are more likely to follow up with more. I suspect if in 2003 Bush had said it would cost a Trillion dollars a lot more people would have balked. I wouldn't be as opposed to this bill if it wasn't $800B all at once.
The two are simply not comparable when looking at people's perception of cost from the start.
The 2004 and 2008 elections, primarily. Or did you not notice 50+% of Americans voting for the guy who wanted to continue said war?
Only 57% of eligible Americans voted in the 2008 election. Of those 57%, 48% voted for McCain. So just over 27% supported continuing the war by that metric.
This is quite in line with the poll I posted. Do you have any other sources?
I mean, sure, there are many who think both ideas are bad. Bully for them, they're being consistent. But it doesn't appear that's true for a largish percentage of Americans (at minimum the conservative 50%).
Interesting. Where are you getting your data? This shows a large proportion think it was a mistake and oppose the war.
Perhaps you are aware of a source I am not.
Not much more to say. Yes it was stupid to go into Iraq. It's also stupid to have the bailout. Your argument is essentially "why complain about one stupid move when this other stupid move was made six years ago?" My answer is essentially you can't use one stupid move to justify another. I've complained about the Iraq War spending elsewhere. This thread was about the bailout plan, which spends more in one fell swoop than we have in Iraq in six years.
Again, not trying to justify the Iraq War. I actually think it was dumber than this bailout. But that doesn't make the bailout anything but a massive arbitrary spending bill when we are already knee deep in debt.
Two stupids don't make a smart.
...causing starvation and riots in poorer countries that needed corn for food.
Lots don't use card shufflers at all. Even the casinos that do use card shufflers have tables without them. The card shufflers are usually not more than 25% of the tables.
Please avoid these as much as you would the most draconian DRM you can ever imagine.
Not only are they impossible to count (if designed properly) but they actually lower the odds for the player because of this.
If the screen is black you don't see the running count?
Counting the cards is easy enough without the phone and becomes second nature. I can't look at a table without getting a sum nowadays.
The hard part is memorizing all the tables, and the phone can't help with that.
The federal reserve is not owned or controlled by the government, it is a private concern.
It is privately owned, but the head of the Fed is appointed by the President, and as is apparent in the current crisis, they try to approach policy jointly.
But yeah, the 6% per year paid by the government to them as a matter of law goes to private corporations. Cool, huh?
If we flash forward to the current economic situation it is pretty clear that the proximate cause was the relaxation of reserve requirements for investment banks by the SEC in 2004.
That was part of it. But what happened before was that the Fed held interest rates far too low for far too long attempting to prevent the slightest recession.
Excessive government control always seem to work well in the short term since it smooths things out. But in the end inefficiencies pile up and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Capital letters go at the beginning of the sentence, not in groups in the middle.
...play a record instead?
My apologies, I should have been more clear. It should read "...that not regulating is solely a "right-wing" ideology..."
As I linked, the left-wing is also perfectly happy to avoid regulation when it suits their purposes.
I "cherry picked" that line because that was the line that he asked for.
In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt.
There is a big fucking difference in how democrats vs republicans spend. Huge, in fact.
But they both happily spend, while the debt and deficit continue to grow. They will continue to defend their programs regardless of results.
I don't see them as the same, I see them as two sides of the same coinn
Actually, spending ("throwing") money is stimulus when the economy has a demand shortage. If nobody is buying anything, then nobody will have a job. So the government steps up and buys stuff. It almost doesn't matter WHAT they spend it on, as long as it gets spent. It's impossible for spent money to not stimulate the economy, because the economy is the sum of spending.
True, but as Japan showed, paying people to make holes and then paying other people to fill them in does not create lasting results.
The problem is our economy was distorted by easy money (pushed by the Fed, gladly accept by greedy banks/borrowers). Now in order to have a functional economy we must re-adjust. We need fewer shopping malls, fast food joints, and LCD TV retailers. We need something else. I don't trust that the government (or anyone) knows what that something else is.
I do think just rushing to spend money for the sake of spending money isn't the answer. That's what got us here.
With the world's financial system in the brink of collapse from deregulation, isn't it about time to dump the bullshit right-wing ideology behind that deregulation ?
"the past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."
...
Sorry, it didn't quote work that way.
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Not that I blame the right any less, but this whole idea that not regulating is a "right-wing" ideology is ridiculous. Both sides want to look the other way when they are getting their short-term gains. Both sides then want to blame the other when the shit hits the fan. I agree there was a regulation failure. I do not agree it was a right-wing ideology that caused it.
Won't bring me chocolate milk!!!
432 enough for you?
No? Here's 100 or so more.
Enjoy.
Don't worry, your liver will simply run around the Scottish countryside lopping off other livers' heads.
Right on the money. ARMs were only a small portion of the market until very late in the game. FNM and FRM started the whole fiasco in the early 2000s.
Not that banks are innocent. They went willingly along with it.