It also appears from the judges remarks that there is more than a little withholding of evidence. The fact that Holder moved so quickly to drop the case tells me that he is trying to protect the prosecutors from further scrutiny, and possibly even criminal indictments.
The level of immunity that prosecutors currently enjoy in our system is nothing short of a travesty. And it encourages them to actions that would land most people in jail. In this case it looks like they did something that would even expose a prosecutor to a criminal indictment - so it must be pretty bad.
It's obvious that Holder is trying to protect those guys, and would prefer that the matter be drop while it's still Stevens that looks like the bad(er) guy.
Stevens is way too wealthy and politically connected to be punished for any crime.
Believe it or not, I don't believe those played a factor in the DOJ dropping the case. Apparently, Holder felt it more important to punish the prosecution on this one than nail Senator Tubes. Some of the factors claimed to play into his decision were the facts that Stevens is 85 (unlikely to be able to serve much jail time), no longer a sitting Senator, and that any movement forward on this case would be tainted.
As for whether or not he's innocent or not is irrelevant at this point. He never got a fair trial. And without a fair trial, the justice system cannot prove something one way or another. He'll probably be remembered by the public as a guilty bastard, and never manage anything else for the remainder of his life. He's permanently retired now, which is the worst part that would have come from the conviction. Not the fine or the trip to Club Fed.
"Punish the prosecution" my ass. He's spinning it sound like he's doing Stevens a favor (and you bought his BS hook, line, and sinker, I see).
The fact of the matter is, this was a railroad job done by a bunch of criminal attorneys, and Holder is trying to protect them. Pursuing this case means putting more scrutiny on those prosecutors, which will likely end up in criminal charges against them.
Well he signed a order to create a plan to close it. Nobody was released, and no trials will happen until the plan is worked out. Maybe they'll get a better prison? How about Buffalo?
Stopped torture that was going on.
Actually, stopped "for now" any techniques not in the Army Field Manual. Another task force will "study" techniques and decide how much torturing they can do in the future.
Allowed government to support abortions.
So he's killing babies, now? I don't even know what this is about??
Explained that the US is not at war with Islam.
"He said" is not "He did". And I'm pretty sure this had been said before.
Brought closer ties to Europe and the globe merely by being closer to the global center (US left).
Pfft. Damn you made me squirt milk out of my nose.
Strict lobbyist rules were made. Well... comparatively strict. (doesn't allow you to make desicions about things you lobbied for in past, no gift-giving, no jumping from government into a bussiness thats lobbying you).
And those rules were immediately broken, ignored, and/or given "waivers". See, for example:
Mark Gitenstein
Ron Klain
John Podesta
Larry Summers
Patrick Gaspard
William Lynn
William Corr
So, nothing. This would have been great if he had really meant it.
Made an order for higher fuel efficiency standards in vehicles.
Nobody ever said anything about "better" - Just markedly different. Bush, for example, would never have said that he's striving toward a world without nuclear weapons. And, even though he and Obama are both for spending huge amounts of $$ that we're borrowing from the Chinese on credit, it never would have occurred to him to spend that money domestically.
He may be yet another sleazy politician, but at least as of today, he hasn't invaded another country based on lies, and gotten over 4200 American soldiers killed.
Well right now he's busy pulling soldiers out of the Iraqi frying pan and putting them into the Afghan fire.
Give him time. North Korea seems about ripe.
But maybe Obama will be a kinder, gentler warmonger.
I wish there was a term for fiscal/political conservatives who are socially liberal (liberal as-in-libre)... the closest I can think of is 'Goldwater conservative'. It would be even better if that was the standard definition of conservative, and the social authoritarians had a distinctive label.
The social authoritarians you describe and big-central-government members of the Republican supporters are cut from the same cloth. They're what we call "neo-cons".
If you have any desire to explain yourself, please do. I really want to know: What incentive do the decision makers at the Federal Reserve have to do what you claim they're doing (and... err... what exactly do you claim they're doing)?
Ummm... Let's see... total control of the global monetary system, natural resources and food production of most of the world (if not all). Yea, they're pretty ambitious. But they have managed, through actions of the world bank and the IMF, to gain control of a good portion of the resources of the 3rd world.
If you can be charitable and assume that an econ degree qualifies me to understand your deep and ground-breaking claims, I'd like to hear them...explicitly.
That depends. Are you of the flawed Keynesian school (and blindingly dedicated to it), or are you open to the theories of the Austrian school and its theories? Are you open to a mixture of ideas and take into account historical perspectives of global, value-based economies?
Frankly, you're not doing too well at the moment.
I know, but it's hard to awaken the sleeping masses. Especially the younger ones with no perspective, and that have been indoctrinated with a skewed view of history.
You've popped off a few claims that appear to be complete fabrications (Foreign stock holders making a profit? WTF?)
Those aren't my claims. The banking system is global, and is controlled by a small group of people that are loyal to no country, but only to themselves. This discussion started with the claim by "Touvan" that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. But from a global perspective, every citizen in America is part of the richest 1%, and needs to pay a great deal more before they are paying their fair share.
and you've given hints that your understanding of our banking system comes 100% from the illustrious Internet.
LoL. I've been in banking, you insensitive clod. And I'm well aware of the attitude and behavior of those at the top of those institutions. I'm also aware of what a "dollar" is (it's not what the Federal Reserve claims it is), and that the only thing propping up the value of what passes for a dollar today is the willingness of the American taxpayer to continue paying taxes.
I'm not confident that you can fully explain the
You don't seem confident of anything except your own opinion
structure of the Federal Reserve system and what it actually accomplishes,
Mostly, what I would say it accomplishes can be described as "pillage"
much less provide a meaningful explanation of where these supposed adverse incentives come from.
I think I already did that. You can dismiss it as a "crazy conspiracy theory" if you want, and I'm pretty sure that you will
You could prove me wrong, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Probably a good thing. Because if I could prove it, when even those in Congress are blocked even trying to get a modicum of information about the internal workings of the Fed (see, for instance, HR 1207), then they would have a hard time keeping people like you in the dark.
In other words:
"I don't understand how fiat money and central-bank controlled fractional reserve works, so I'm just going to dismiss all this as a conspiracy theory".
If you are so in favor of government control, why do you think it's okay for the Federal Reserve, the largest private bank in the world, to be in complete control of our monetary system? Isn't that a bad thing? The Constitution give that power to congress. Why would you be in favor of them relegating that authority to a private bank?
I'm not the grandparent, but I'm OK with it for two reasons:
1) Politicians would do a phenomenally bad job of deciding how big the monetary base should be. I'm much happier limiting them to nuclear weapons. Ben Bernanke is infinitely more qualified to do what he does than any group of congressmen.
2) As long as the Fed is a public / private partnership and not run for profit, the incentives for it to act in the national interest are stronger than the incentives for it to do evil things.
What makes you think they don't earn a profit? The shareholders do, through dividends paid by the Fed. Many of those shareholders are foreign investors. What makes you so sure they would act in the best interests of the US?
Congress and the US treasury did a fine job running the monetary system for 150 years. What happened in 1913 that suddenly made them too incompetent to do so? In fact, it only took the Fed 16 years to completely bankrupt the banking system and the US government. And they admit that because of the way the government is funded through the Fed they can never pay off the debt. What makes that a good thing?
Cause I don't like your attempt to put me in your box, mischaracterizing what I said, misinterpreting my position based on nothing that I said, etc.
What I want is for the federal government to take over these banks and insurance companies, clean their books, then break them up into dozens of smaller companies that don't create a systemic risk to the rest of us.
And that's why you're part of the problem. There's already a process for that, and it's called bankruptcy. Allowing the government to get further involved invites favoritism, nepotism, and corruption. The FDIC can deal with bank failures like they did in the '80s, and let the insurance companies fail. Bankruptcy court can sort them out. Why should the taxpayers be on the hook for them? That's what risk is all about. They leveraged their investments and it failed. Whatever's left will be picked up by the smaller firms and entrepreneurs. You want to shake up who controls the wealth - that will do it right there. Government involvement (and socializing the debt) is not needed.
Your preference for allowing private players to control the banks is suggested by your asserted preference to allow markets to work - is that an unreasonable conclusion? That if you want markets to do their thing, then the government should get out of the way? You'll always get the same result when you do that - one or very few players will control the market (thus defeating market forces).
Nope. You get that when the big players get Washington to put up barriers for their competition. Why do you think all those campaigns are funded by wall street firms and banks? Why do you think they spend so much money on lobbyists and perks for their favorite congressmen? It buys them favoritism which gives them a better position and keeps the competition out.
I don't have an answer to the health care issue. There are just too many problems with the current system. I can tell you though that the problem started with government intervention. After WWII, many of the price and wage controls that FDR put into place were still there. The wage for every job was set by law. As the economy boomed and unemployment dropped, companies had a hard time competing for good employees because the wage was set. So they offered benefits like health insurance to make their companies more attractive. So many did it that it eventually became the norm. And soon people stopped paying attention to how much it cost for doctors and medical procedures. And when the cost of a good doesn't matter, it's bound to rise...
I think I have correctly identified you as one of those people,
though I could be wrong. I doubt it though, after reading parts of your response which include weird phrases like, "Tyranny means you'll get your fucking health care after I beat a confession out of you."
Well you were trying to define tyranny as "you can only have something if you can afford it" - which is not tyranny, it's just the most efficient way of distributing goods and services.
... - Bush's bailout deal was for more than $700, and if you really don't know that, then I am forced to question your powers of perception.
... while demonstrating that you have none, and that you selectively filter everything you see to support your opinion. What I said was that $700 billion went to the banks. The bailout bill that passed in October was closer to $850 billion, but $150 billion of that was pork added by the senate. Only $700 billion of that was for TARP. There was other moneys, too, in the form of guarantees and so forth, but what I said was not inaccurate.
The Federal Reserve also printed a lot of money and issued a bunch more debt. But they did that unilaterally, because as a private bank they can do that, and pretty much anything else they want. If you are so in favor of
Perhaps I'll stop with my anti-Republicanism when they stop actively fighting my self interest.
If they want me to stop hating them perhaps they should stop fighting hate crimes legislation and preventing me from having all of my rights.
Meaning that your rights are better the somebody else's because you're in some "special" group. So if you get assaulted your assailant should be punished more than if you assault them. Yea, I get your issue with them, there.
Perhaps they should acknowledge that as a citizen, one that pays taxes no less, that I should have an equal amount of freedom.
That's funny, it sounded like you just said you wanted a greater amount of freedom than somebody else - my mistake, I guess. Wait - what's that "hate crimes" legislation that you want all about again?
But then again, we could just pretend like the party doesn't have some incredibly anti-American policies. Perhaps we could then force it into a dogma because clearly people's own self interest must be dogma.
Dogma? Self interests? You lost me. What is it the Republicrats - err, I mean the Republicans doing to you again?
I think it's vaguely ironic that you can't comprehend that people might hate the Republican party on it's merits without being strict partisans.
What's ironic is that you don't seem to be able to articulate anything specific that you think is bad about that party in particular.
I don't have much time, but it sounds like you like for the guys that won the last round of economic competition (and their children) to be charge of everything. You seem to like to let the very wealth few families that run the banks to be in charge of your money.
Based on what? WTF did I say that gives you that impression? The Fed and the rest of the private banks have control of our money and they are quickly merging with the federal government. Is that what you want? How the hell do you subscribe that opinion to me? Sounds like you've got your head up your ass and want to blame the smell of shit on someone else.
And you seem to enjoy the fact that in America, the richest country on Earth, you can only have healthcare if you can afford it. Is that not a form of tyranny?
No, it's not a form of tyranny. It may not be very compassionate, but it's not tyranny. Tyranny means you'll get your fucking health care after I beat a confession out of you. I never said that I thought the current system was good or didn't need changing, just the opposite. Take your blinders off and read what I wrote. I'm not responsible for what you hear.
I just don't get guys like you.
That's because you want to take everybody and put them in a box. I won't fit in your fucking box. And I won't fit in any of the boxes you think the government should be creating for everybody. What are you going to do with all of us guys that won't fit into your boxes? I guess we'll be rounded up and sent to concentration camps and reeducation centers.
You are so concerned with the rich guys' money and their wealth that you can't even see how they take advantage of every benefit of society, while avoiding all responsibility to actually pay for it - shoving their burden to pay down on the rest of us, and then turn around and deny those benefits to those that need it most.
Gee, I'm sorry your mother didn't love you enough, and that you've been raised with that sense of entitlement. It's not my fault, though, and I won't be held responsible for it.
Your class warfare won't work, either. While you're busy railing about the top 1% of our society not paying enough, the top 0.00005% are laughing with glee about all the money and control you will allow them to have as they build their global banking system. They don't care about you - they are using you to demonize a large group of people that currently have too much influence. And by and large, they are generous and compassionate people. That 0.00005% that you are being distracted from watching don't care about you, and they will throw you away once they are done using you to overthrow individual liberty.
Please help me understand why you want to help those guys, by giving them every advantage - and this isn't disputed, in a market based system, the guy who starts with the most has the most advantage. The game is so unbalanced now, that they do have almost unimpeachable advantage.
Maybe you can't see the suffering going on in this country? Do you live in a nice neighborhood? Are you one of those rich guys, that have rigged the system, and taken all the wealth for themselves?
As a matter of fact, I have a small 2 bedroom house, 2 cars both over 5 years old (and bought used), and 3 kids to raise. I work a full time job and part-time on the side to make ends meet, and I pay taxes.
I also give generously to a few organizations, including the Red Cross and the Rex Foundation, in addition to helping out when I hear of someone needing help. Most Americans are very generous when given half a chance, but the move now is to try to tax more of that charitable giving, thus reducing it.
I hope you're not looking to the federal government to help, because they are the least efficient at
Ah, Hamilton. Well, Hamilton was a Nationalist and felt that the central government should be very strong, with the states and the people subordinate, quite in contrast to Jefferson and most of the other founding fathers. Note that his idea of a "central bank" meant that the federal government would control it, not some conglomerate of private banks like exists now in the Federal Reserve.
Frankly, I simply feel that it's the wrong philosophy, because of the danger of a tyrannical leadership taking over.
Your idea of what "progressive" is seems to be fear based,
No. It's based on policies I see advocated by self-proclaimed "progressives".
and is largely incorrect. The idea of community property is not a new one, and does not belong solely to the communist ideal (in their ideal - everything - is community property, no one in the United States suggests going that way).
As far as I can tell, progressive is another word for use the best system for the case that comes up. In healthcare, some kind of baseline publicly funded system is the only one that makes sense. We currently pay the most per capita for healthcare out of every nation, and we rank 38th in terms of quality of care. There is no way to defend that.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. The US rank 38th in overall "health", based on factors like infant mortality and life expectancy. That's different than "health care". In the US you can obtain the best health care that money can buy (well, yea). The per capita costs for health care is because of the regulations in place which discourage people for shopping health care based on price. Some might shop health insurance by price, but pretty much no one in the US shops health care by price, because of the crappy system. It doesn't need to be socialized to fix that.
For a reasoned report on spending and health care comparisons to other countries, here is a pretty unbiased view of the issues.
On the internet, I see very little that needs to be regulated - of those things that do need it, they tend to be related to the infrastructure, and those old media companies that run that infrastructure - regulation of the highways, not what you drive on them. Real highways have more regulation than that, and I think that's fine - the net doesn't (yet) need very much government intervention. There's nothing even vaguely communist about that.
Agreed.
BTW, you may also be interested in the US Constitution - so few actually read that marvelous document (it's an easy, short read).
I'm quite familiar with that - in fact I keep a copy in my pocket, just for reference. Unfortunately, it's stunning all the unconstitutional acts that the Federal government gets away with these days. I thought Obama would reverse course on that in at least some areas, but he seems to be more of a puppet that's intent on shredding the Constitution even more than it has been in the last 8 years.
Lets spend 10 trillion dollars (Bush's taxcut) and see what we have to show for it? not much.
That's NOT "spending". It can only be called spending if the government gave the money away. (hint: the government only takes money - it doesn't create anything on its own).
Um, saying the tax cut isn't *spending* is like saying buying stuff on a credit card isn't actually spending either. Whether the gov't wrote a check or simply collected less its still money we don't have and we still owe (a lot of) money. If by choosing to not pay down your debt you reduce your income, yes you've 'spent' that money, as in you don't have it anymore. And we would have had it if the tax cuts hadn't been enacted.
No, a tax cut is not like using a credit card. It's like saying I am spending money because I didn't go into my neighbor's house and take all the money he had hidden in his cookie jar.
Try this: If it's all "your" money that you are "allowing" people to keep by "spending" it, then why not start by assuming a 100% tax rate. That's your (asinine) premise: that it all belongs to the Federal government unless they decide we can keep some.
Guess what happens then? Nobody works because they don't get anything out of it, so why work? Out of some sense of duty?
If you understood anything about economics, you would know that tax cuts often increase revenue, by encouraging people to put their money to work (and earn more) rather than trying to shelter it. Biden even admits that raising capital gains will most likely reduce federal revenues. But, he says "it's about fairness".
Check out this chart and see how revenues go up after the Reagan tax cuts. That's where the "Clinton surplus" came from (actually it was only a surplus if you don't count the SS IOUs). It was a revenue increase caused by tax cuts.
I already gave you a hint, and it went completely over your head, so I'll have to spell it out for you. The government creates nothing of value - it only spends other people's money. The government does NOT create JOBs. According to the Obama administration, their "stimulus" plan is supposed to "create or save" 3.5 million jobs. That's about $220,000 per job!! And they'll get that money by taking it out of the economy (actually, they'll borrow it from China, if they will lend it to us, or from our kids).
Libertarian: 'be free and left to their own'
Doesn't work so well when your neighbor wants to be left alone working on his 'home grown' nuclear reactor.
Yea, because that's been such a huge problem. The government wouldn't be nearly as intrusive if it weren't for all those idiots building nuclear reactors in their basements.
Lets spend 10 trillion dollars (Bush's taxcut) and see what we have to show for it? not much.
That's NOT "spending". It can only be called spending if the government gave the money away. (hint: the government only takes money - it doesn't create anything on its own).
Lets spend 10 trillion improving infrastructure and healthcare. I'll bet we have more to show for it...and we end up MAKING money in the process.
And that will be actual spending. Do you know where that money is coming from? The money that you and your children MAKE. Except the government will then take it to pay back the Fed and the Chinese that loaned out the money.
I'm sure many right wing type people will dismiss your remark out of hand without considering it for a moment, but consider:
1) Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.
Really? "many deregulations"? Can you please tell me what they are? because I keep hearing that claim, but the only one that I know of was the repeal of Graham-Rudman under Clinton. So what were the "many deregulations" that caused the crisis? And while you're explaining it, please explain how the CRA did not contribute.
Is it left-biased, or reality biased? It seems a lot of people that smear the current American left, have been living in the right wing bubble for the last few decades, and can't fess up to the reality bias that reality has.
Only in American can I consider myself, a centrist progressive. The state of politics here is severely depressing, so anything that pulls us out of the childish, conservative, backward looking rut we've been in, is a plus in my book.
Considering that "progressive" is pretty much synonymous with "communist", I guess it is "only in America" that a claim to be a "centrist progressive" is possible, since everywhere else communism is pretty much considered to the far left of the spectrum.
Or maybe I'm confused by the whole "progressive" idea. If progressives don't stand for communal property, equal outcomes for all levels of ability, and complete nanny state government with planning every aspect of your life from cradle to grave, then what is it about? And how is that different from total control by a centralized government with no constraints on its power (i.e., communism)?
Sorry, but those are the breaks. Unless, as you say, you're going to DRM everything, you're not going to be able to control copies of anything published
This is nonsense. Publishers have control, it's called copyright.
If the viewer didn't go to the effort to ensure they made a copy, revokation of the permission should make it impossible for them to get a new copy of the old text.
Is this meant to be a troll? copyright has nothing to do with permission to access. If you give someone a copy of something, copyright means they are not allowed to copy it, not that you can take away their copy at a later time.
Until such time as the western governments stop being evil all the time, I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Yup evil things, like public education (even if it sucks, it's better then nothing), social security to help our elderly, roads so we can drive our cars, the Internet....all evil things.
Yep.
public education = Indoctrination centers for your children that the government owns. Don't send them to their indoctrination and go to jail.
social security = ponzi scheme designed to provide the government more money, enslave the population, encourage the beneficiaries to vote for more benefits, and which will inevitably bankrupt the entire system as more people go on the entitlement list and fewer are paying into the ponzi scheme pot. Maybe they'll just send old people those IOUs that the treasury has filled the SS "trust fund" with.
Roads so we can drive cars, and spend money on gas to get to our isolated homes where no stores or businesses are within walking distance, and enrich the global oil conglomerates and the tyrannical dictators that control the oil supplies.
The Internet, mostly built with private funds and the vast majority of which is privately owned, but which governments are quickly trying to get under control so they can censor the dissenting voices.
Do you have a list of positions that you have good reason to believe are not approved by Congress? That's the assumption that I am talking about.
Seems I posted the wrong link. It should have been this one.
It talks about, among others:
DeParle as healthcare policy coordinator
Carol Browner as energy czar
Adolfo Carrion Jr. as urban affairs czar
Paul A. Volcker as economic czar
None of these people, as far as I can tell, have any authorization from Congress to do anything or even be part of the administration. Yet they act as "consuls" and report directly to the President.
Nice that you ragged on Clinton (that link doesn't demonstrate that every person working for the president is doing so with congressional approval, it just demonstrates that you are making an awful lot of assumptions...).
Should have known it was Ronald "Just Say No" Reagan that appointed a drug czar, but at least he got congress to approve it. I think I made it obvious that I didn't really know when these non-congress-approved positions started, only that it's illegal and should stop. It looks like it was Nixon that started it.
Slashdot Mirror
It also appears from the judges remarks that there is more than a little withholding of evidence. The fact that Holder moved so quickly to drop the case tells me that he is trying to protect the prosecutors from further scrutiny, and possibly even criminal indictments.
The level of immunity that prosecutors currently enjoy in our system is nothing short of a travesty. And it encourages them to actions that would land most people in jail. In this case it looks like they did something that would even expose a prosecutor to a criminal indictment - so it must be pretty bad.
It's obvious that Holder is trying to protect those guys, and would prefer that the matter be drop while it's still Stevens that looks like the bad(er) guy.
Believe it or not, I don't believe those played a factor in the DOJ dropping the case. Apparently, Holder felt it more important to punish the prosecution on this one than nail Senator Tubes. Some of the factors claimed to play into his decision were the facts that Stevens is 85 (unlikely to be able to serve much jail time), no longer a sitting Senator, and that any movement forward on this case would be tainted.
As for whether or not he's innocent or not is irrelevant at this point. He never got a fair trial. And without a fair trial, the justice system cannot prove something one way or another. He'll probably be remembered by the public as a guilty bastard, and never manage anything else for the remainder of his life. He's permanently retired now, which is the worst part that would have come from the conviction. Not the fine or the trip to Club Fed.
"Punish the prosecution" my ass. He's spinning it sound like he's doing Stevens a favor (and you bought his BS hook, line, and sinker, I see).
The fact of the matter is, this was a railroad job done by a bunch of criminal attorneys, and Holder is trying to protect them. Pursuing this case means putting more scrutiny on those prosecutors, which will likely end up in criminal charges against them.
Yea, all the "We want to represent the little people" party names have all been bastardized. Part of the doublespeak of modern politics, I suppose.
Hey, I know - we'll just go along with the "opposite naming" strategy that Washington likes so much, and call it the "Dictatorial" party.
He set a timeline to shutdown gitmo in 1 year.
Well he signed a order to create a plan to close it. Nobody was released, and no trials will happen until the plan is worked out. Maybe they'll get a better prison? How about Buffalo?
Stopped torture that was going on.
Actually, stopped "for now" any techniques not in the Army Field Manual. Another task force will "study" techniques and decide how much torturing they can do in the future.
Allowed government to support abortions.
So he's killing babies, now? I don't even know what this is about??
Explained that the US is not at war with Islam.
"He said" is not "He did". And I'm pretty sure this had been said before.
Brought closer ties to Europe and the globe merely by being closer to the global center (US left).
Pfft. Damn you made me squirt milk out of my nose.
Strict lobbyist rules were made. Well... comparatively strict. (doesn't allow you to make desicions about things you lobbied for in past, no gift-giving, no jumping from government into a bussiness thats lobbying you).
And those rules were immediately broken, ignored, and/or given "waivers". See, for example:
So, nothing. This would have been great if he had really meant it.
Made an order for higher fuel efficiency standards in vehicles.
You mean the one Bush proposed? That will help.
Opened up whitehouse.gov to have a more open converstation between the government and its people.
He has a website? That's good governance, putting up a website? I can't find anyplace I can join the "converstation" there, anyway.
Or barring that a very clear layout on plans, ideas and keeping the public informed.
Having a marketing plan is not "keeping the public informed". Try finding out what's going on with ACTA.
There was also some thing about whitehouse transperency .. saving letters or somesuch.
Ummm... you mean the law that's been in place since the 1970's that says all whitehouse correspondence must be made public record?
Oh and that was week 1. He's not perfect but dear god think if it was McCain. Oh and he spoke to leaders on both sides of the good/evil barrier.
There's a good/evil barrier in D.C.? I thought it surrounded the whole city.
The people, on a democracy, don't get the government they want. They get the government they deserve.
This must not be a democracy, then, because there's no way I've done anything bad enough to deserve this shit.
Nobody ever said anything about "better" - Just markedly different. Bush, for example, would never have said that he's striving toward a world without nuclear weapons. And, even though he and Obama are both for spending huge amounts of $$ that we're borrowing from the Chinese on credit, it never would have occurred to him to spend that money domestically.
I hate to defend Bush on anything (and I would consider this more of an indictment, anyway), but you can't really say his spending didn't include domestic spending. In fact the spending on the Iraq war was dwarfed by domestic spending, not including the massive expansion of Medicare, the largest since its inception.
He may be yet another sleazy politician, but at least as of today, he hasn't invaded another country based on lies, and gotten over 4200 American soldiers killed.
Well right now he's busy pulling soldiers out of the Iraqi frying pan and putting them into the Afghan fire.
Give him time. North Korea seems about ripe.
But maybe Obama will be a kinder, gentler warmonger.
I wish there was a term for fiscal/political conservatives who are socially liberal (liberal as-in-libre)... the closest I can think of is 'Goldwater conservative'. It would be even better if that was the standard definition of conservative, and the social authoritarians had a distinctive label.
The social authoritarians you describe and big-central-government members of the Republican supporters are cut from the same cloth. They're what we call "neo-cons".
If you have any desire to explain yourself, please do. I really want to know: What incentive do the decision makers at the Federal Reserve have to do what you claim they're doing (and... err... what exactly do you claim they're doing)?
Ummm... Let's see... total control of the global monetary system, natural resources and food production of most of the world (if not all). Yea, they're pretty ambitious. But they have managed, through actions of the world bank and the IMF, to gain control of a good portion of the resources of the 3rd world.
If you can be charitable and assume that an econ degree qualifies me to understand your deep and ground-breaking claims, I'd like to hear them...explicitly.
That depends. Are you of the flawed Keynesian school (and blindingly dedicated to it), or are you open to the theories of the Austrian school and its theories? Are you open to a mixture of ideas and take into account historical perspectives of global, value-based economies?
Frankly, you're not doing too well at the moment.
I know, but it's hard to awaken the sleeping masses. Especially the younger ones with no perspective, and that have been indoctrinated with a skewed view of history.
You've popped off a few claims that appear to be complete fabrications (Foreign stock holders making a profit? WTF?)
Those aren't my claims. The banking system is global, and is controlled by a small group of people that are loyal to no country, but only to themselves. This discussion started with the claim by "Touvan" that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. But from a global perspective, every citizen in America is part of the richest 1%, and needs to pay a great deal more before they are paying their fair share.
and you've given hints that your understanding of our banking system comes 100% from the illustrious Internet.
LoL. I've been in banking, you insensitive clod. And I'm well aware of the attitude and behavior of those at the top of those institutions. I'm also aware of what a "dollar" is (it's not what the Federal Reserve claims it is), and that the only thing propping up the value of what passes for a dollar today is the willingness of the American taxpayer to continue paying taxes.
I'm not confident that you can fully explain the
You don't seem confident of anything except your own opinion
structure of the Federal Reserve system and what it actually accomplishes,
Mostly, what I would say it accomplishes can be described as "pillage"
much less provide a meaningful explanation of where these supposed adverse incentives come from.
I think I already did that. You can dismiss it as a "crazy conspiracy theory" if you want, and I'm pretty sure that you will
You could prove me wrong, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Probably a good thing. Because if I could prove it, when even those in Congress are blocked even trying to get a modicum of information about the internal workings of the Fed (see, for instance, HR 1207), then they would have a hard time keeping people like you in the dark.
In other words: "I don't understand how fiat money and central-bank controlled fractional reserve works, so I'm just going to dismiss all this as a conspiracy theory".
Nice.
I have no idea what this refers to, but I strongly suspect that the source is nonsense.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2991.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north532.html
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=14757
If you are so in favor of government control, why do you think it's okay for the Federal Reserve, the largest private bank in the world, to be in complete control of our monetary system? Isn't that a bad thing? The Constitution give that power to congress. Why would you be in favor of them relegating that authority to a private bank?
I'm not the grandparent, but I'm OK with it for two reasons: 1) Politicians would do a phenomenally bad job of deciding how big the monetary base should be. I'm much happier limiting them to nuclear weapons. Ben Bernanke is infinitely more qualified to do what he does than any group of congressmen. 2) As long as the Fed is a public / private partnership and not run for profit, the incentives for it to act in the national interest are stronger than the incentives for it to do evil things.
What makes you think they don't earn a profit? The shareholders do, through dividends paid by the Fed. Many of those shareholders are foreign investors. What makes you so sure they would act in the best interests of the US?
Congress and the US treasury did a fine job running the monetary system for 150 years. What happened in 1913 that suddenly made them too incompetent to do so? In fact, it only took the Fed 16 years to completely bankrupt the banking system and the US government. And they admit that because of the way the government is funded through the Fed they can never pay off the debt. What makes that a good thing?
Wow, so angry.
Cause I don't like your attempt to put me in your box, mischaracterizing what I said, misinterpreting my position based on nothing that I said, etc.
What I want is for the federal government to take over these banks and insurance companies, clean their books, then break them up into dozens of smaller companies that don't create a systemic risk to the rest of us.
And that's why you're part of the problem. There's already a process for that, and it's called bankruptcy. Allowing the government to get further involved invites favoritism, nepotism, and corruption. The FDIC can deal with bank failures like they did in the '80s, and let the insurance companies fail. Bankruptcy court can sort them out. Why should the taxpayers be on the hook for them? That's what risk is all about. They leveraged their investments and it failed. Whatever's left will be picked up by the smaller firms and entrepreneurs. You want to shake up who controls the wealth - that will do it right there. Government involvement (and socializing the debt) is not needed.
Your preference for allowing private players to control the banks is suggested by your asserted preference to allow markets to work - is that an unreasonable conclusion? That if you want markets to do their thing, then the government should get out of the way? You'll always get the same result when you do that - one or very few players will control the market (thus defeating market forces).
Nope. You get that when the big players get Washington to put up barriers for their competition. Why do you think all those campaigns are funded by wall street firms and banks? Why do you think they spend so much money on lobbyists and perks for their favorite congressmen? It buys them favoritism which gives them a better position and keeps the competition out.
I don't have an answer to the health care issue. There are just too many problems with the current system. I can tell you though that the problem started with government intervention. After WWII, many of the price and wage controls that FDR put into place were still there. The wage for every job was set by law. As the economy boomed and unemployment dropped, companies had a hard time competing for good employees because the wage was set. So they offered benefits like health insurance to make their companies more attractive. So many did it that it eventually became the norm. And soon people stopped paying attention to how much it cost for doctors and medical procedures. And when the cost of a good doesn't matter, it's bound to rise...
I think I have correctly identified you as one of those people, though I could be wrong. I doubt it though, after reading parts of your response which include weird phrases like, "Tyranny means you'll get your fucking health care after I beat a confession out of you."
Well you were trying to define tyranny as "you can only have something if you can afford it" - which is not tyranny, it's just the most efficient way of distributing goods and services.
... - Bush's bailout deal was for more than $700, and if you really don't know that, then I am forced to question your powers of perception.
... while demonstrating that you have none, and that you selectively filter everything you see to support your opinion. What I said was that $700 billion went to the banks. The bailout bill that passed in October was closer to $850 billion, but $150 billion of that was pork added by the senate. Only $700 billion of that was for TARP. There was other moneys, too, in the form of guarantees and so forth, but what I said was not inaccurate.
The Federal Reserve also printed a lot of money and issued a bunch more debt. But they did that unilaterally, because as a private bank they can do that, and pretty much anything else they want. If you are so in favor of
Perhaps I'll stop with my anti-Republicanism when they stop actively fighting my self interest.
If they want me to stop hating them perhaps they should stop fighting hate crimes legislation and preventing me from having all of my rights.
Meaning that your rights are better the somebody else's because you're in some "special" group. So if you get assaulted your assailant should be punished more than if you assault them. Yea, I get your issue with them, there.
Perhaps they should acknowledge that as a citizen, one that pays taxes no less, that I should have an equal amount of freedom.
That's funny, it sounded like you just said you wanted a greater amount of freedom than somebody else - my mistake, I guess. Wait - what's that "hate crimes" legislation that you want all about again?
But then again, we could just pretend like the party doesn't have some incredibly anti-American policies. Perhaps we could then force it into a dogma because clearly people's own self interest must be dogma.
Dogma? Self interests? You lost me. What is it the Republicrats - err, I mean the Republicans doing to you again?
I think it's vaguely ironic that you can't comprehend that people might hate the Republican party on it's merits without being strict partisans.
What's ironic is that you don't seem to be able to articulate anything specific that you think is bad about that party in particular.
Slashdot mods: part of the conspiracy to bury the truth (and mod it into offtopicness).
Go ahead, mod me down, too. My karma can take it.
It is fear based.
Says you. Which counts for bumpkiss.
I don't have much time, but it sounds like you like for the guys that won the last round of economic competition (and their children) to be charge of everything. You seem to like to let the very wealth few families that run the banks to be in charge of your money.
Based on what? WTF did I say that gives you that impression? The Fed and the rest of the private banks have control of our money and they are quickly merging with the federal government. Is that what you want? How the hell do you subscribe that opinion to me? Sounds like you've got your head up your ass and want to blame the smell of shit on someone else.
And you seem to enjoy the fact that in America, the richest country on Earth, you can only have healthcare if you can afford it. Is that not a form of tyranny?
No, it's not a form of tyranny. It may not be very compassionate, but it's not tyranny. Tyranny means you'll get your fucking health care after I beat a confession out of you. I never said that I thought the current system was good or didn't need changing, just the opposite. Take your blinders off and read what I wrote. I'm not responsible for what you hear.
I just don't get guys like you.
That's because you want to take everybody and put them in a box. I won't fit in your fucking box. And I won't fit in any of the boxes you think the government should be creating for everybody. What are you going to do with all of us guys that won't fit into your boxes? I guess we'll be rounded up and sent to concentration camps and reeducation centers.
You are so concerned with the rich guys' money and their wealth that you can't even see how they take advantage of every benefit of society, while avoiding all responsibility to actually pay for it - shoving their burden to pay down on the rest of us, and then turn around and deny those benefits to those that need it most.
Gee, I'm sorry your mother didn't love you enough, and that you've been raised with that sense of entitlement. It's not my fault, though, and I won't be held responsible for it.
Your class warfare won't work, either. While you're busy railing about the top 1% of our society not paying enough, the top 0.00005% are laughing with glee about all the money and control you will allow them to have as they build their global banking system. They don't care about you - they are using you to demonize a large group of people that currently have too much influence. And by and large, they are generous and compassionate people. That 0.00005% that you are being distracted from watching don't care about you, and they will throw you away once they are done using you to overthrow individual liberty.
Please help me understand why you want to help those guys, by giving them every advantage - and this isn't disputed, in a market based system, the guy who starts with the most has the most advantage. The game is so unbalanced now, that they do have almost unimpeachable advantage.
Maybe you can't see the suffering going on in this country? Do you live in a nice neighborhood? Are you one of those rich guys, that have rigged the system, and taken all the wealth for themselves?
As a matter of fact, I have a small 2 bedroom house, 2 cars both over 5 years old (and bought used), and 3 kids to raise. I work a full time job and part-time on the side to make ends meet, and I pay taxes.
I also give generously to a few organizations, including the Red Cross and the Rex Foundation, in addition to helping out when I hear of someone needing help. Most Americans are very generous when given half a chance, but the move now is to try to tax more of that charitable giving, thus reducing it.
I hope you're not looking to the federal government to help, because they are the least efficient at
Read up on the American school of economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)
Ah, Hamilton. Well, Hamilton was a Nationalist and felt that the central government should be very strong, with the states and the people subordinate, quite in contrast to Jefferson and most of the other founding fathers. Note that his idea of a "central bank" meant that the federal government would control it, not some conglomerate of private banks like exists now in the Federal Reserve.
Frankly, I simply feel that it's the wrong philosophy, because of the danger of a tyrannical leadership taking over.
Your idea of what "progressive" is seems to be fear based,
No. It's based on policies I see advocated by self-proclaimed "progressives".
and is largely incorrect. The idea of community property is not a new one, and does not belong solely to the communist ideal (in their ideal - everything - is community property, no one in the United States suggests going that way).
As far as I can tell, progressive is another word for use the best system for the case that comes up. In healthcare, some kind of baseline publicly funded system is the only one that makes sense. We currently pay the most per capita for healthcare out of every nation, and we rank 38th in terms of quality of care. There is no way to defend that.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. The US rank 38th in overall "health", based on factors like infant mortality and life expectancy. That's different than "health care". In the US you can obtain the best health care that money can buy (well, yea). The per capita costs for health care is because of the regulations in place which discourage people for shopping health care based on price. Some might shop health insurance by price, but pretty much no one in the US shops health care by price, because of the crappy system. It doesn't need to be socialized to fix that.
For a reasoned report on spending and health care comparisons to other countries, here is a pretty unbiased view of the issues.
On the internet, I see very little that needs to be regulated - of those things that do need it, they tend to be related to the infrastructure, and those old media companies that run that infrastructure - regulation of the highways, not what you drive on them. Real highways have more regulation than that, and I think that's fine - the net doesn't (yet) need very much government intervention. There's nothing even vaguely communist about that.
Agreed.
BTW, you may also be interested in the US Constitution - so few actually read that marvelous document (it's an easy, short read).
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I'm quite familiar with that - in fact I keep a copy in my pocket, just for reference. Unfortunately, it's stunning all the unconstitutional acts that the Federal government gets away with these days. I thought Obama would reverse course on that in at least some areas, but he seems to be more of a puppet that's intent on shredding the Constitution even more than it has been in the last 8 years.
Lets spend 10 trillion dollars (Bush's taxcut) and see what we have to show for it? not much.
That's NOT "spending". It can only be called spending if the government gave the money away. (hint: the government only takes money - it doesn't create anything on its own).
Um, saying the tax cut isn't *spending* is like saying buying stuff on a credit card isn't actually spending either. Whether the gov't wrote a check or simply collected less its still money we don't have and we still owe (a lot of) money. If by choosing to not pay down your debt you reduce your income, yes you've 'spent' that money, as in you don't have it anymore. And we would have had it if the tax cuts hadn't been enacted.
No, a tax cut is not like using a credit card. It's like saying I am spending money because I didn't go into my neighbor's house and take all the money he had hidden in his cookie jar.
Try this: If it's all "your" money that you are "allowing" people to keep by "spending" it, then why not start by assuming a 100% tax rate. That's your (asinine) premise: that it all belongs to the Federal government unless they decide we can keep some.
Guess what happens then? Nobody works because they don't get anything out of it, so why work? Out of some sense of duty?
If you understood anything about economics, you would know that tax cuts often increase revenue, by encouraging people to put their money to work (and earn more) rather than trying to shelter it. Biden even admits that raising capital gains will most likely reduce federal revenues. But, he says "it's about fairness".
Check out this chart and see how revenues go up after the Reagan tax cuts. That's where the "Clinton surplus" came from (actually it was only a surplus if you don't count the SS IOUs). It was a revenue increase caused by tax cuts.
I already gave you a hint, and it went completely over your head, so I'll have to spell it out for you. The government creates nothing of value - it only spends other people's money. The government does NOT create JOBs. According to the Obama administration, their "stimulus" plan is supposed to "create or save" 3.5 million jobs. That's about $220,000 per job!! And they'll get that money by taking it out of the economy (actually, they'll borrow it from China, if they will lend it to us, or from our kids).
Come back when you have a clue about economics.
Libertarian: 'be free and left to their own' Doesn't work so well when your neighbor wants to be left alone working on his 'home grown' nuclear reactor.
Yea, because that's been such a huge problem. The government wouldn't be nearly as intrusive if it weren't for all those idiots building nuclear reactors in their basements.
Lets spend 10 trillion dollars (Bush's taxcut) and see what we have to show for it? not much.
That's NOT "spending". It can only be called spending if the government gave the money away. (hint: the government only takes money - it doesn't create anything on its own).
Lets spend 10 trillion improving infrastructure and healthcare. I'll bet we have more to show for it...and we end up MAKING money in the process.
And that will be actual spending. Do you know where that money is coming from? The money that you and your children MAKE. Except the government will then take it to pay back the Fed and the Chinese that loaned out the money.
I'm sure many right wing type people will dismiss your remark out of hand without considering it for a moment, but consider:
1) Which nation did this huge economic disaster start? America, a country that had been under complete Republican rule for 6 of the last 8 years and had undergone many deregulations over the past three decades which directly contributed to this crisis.
Really? "many deregulations"? Can you please tell me what they are? because I keep hearing that claim, but the only one that I know of was the repeal of Graham-Rudman under Clinton. So what were the "many deregulations" that caused the crisis? And while you're explaining it, please explain how the CRA did not contribute.
thanks.
Is it left-biased, or reality biased? It seems a lot of people that smear the current American left, have been living in the right wing bubble for the last few decades, and can't fess up to the reality bias that reality has.
Only in American can I consider myself, a centrist progressive. The state of politics here is severely depressing, so anything that pulls us out of the childish, conservative, backward looking rut we've been in, is a plus in my book.
Considering that "progressive" is pretty much synonymous with "communist", I guess it is "only in America" that a claim to be a "centrist progressive" is possible, since everywhere else communism is pretty much considered to the far left of the spectrum.
Or maybe I'm confused by the whole "progressive" idea. If progressives don't stand for communal property, equal outcomes for all levels of ability, and complete nanny state government with planning every aspect of your life from cradle to grave, then what is it about? And how is that different from total control by a centralized government with no constraints on its power (i.e., communism)?
Sorry, but those are the breaks. Unless, as you say, you're going to DRM everything, you're not going to be able to control copies of anything published
This is nonsense. Publishers have control, it's called copyright.
If the viewer didn't go to the effort to ensure they made a copy, revokation of the permission should make it impossible for them to get a new copy of the old text.
Is this meant to be a troll? copyright has nothing to do with permission to access. If you give someone a copy of something, copyright means they are not allowed to copy it, not that you can take away their copy at a later time.
I mean, what are you trying to say?
Until such time as the western governments stop being evil all the time, I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Yup evil things, like public education (even if it sucks, it's better then nothing), social security to help our elderly, roads so we can drive our cars, the Internet....all evil things.
Yep.
Yep, all those evil things.
Do you have a list of positions that you have good reason to believe are not approved by Congress? That's the assumption that I am talking about.
Seems I posted the wrong link. It should have been this one.
It talks about, among others:
None of these people, as far as I can tell, have any authorization from Congress to do anything or even be part of the administration. Yet they act as "consuls" and report directly to the President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Czar
Nice that you ragged on Clinton (that link doesn't demonstrate that every person working for the president is doing so with congressional approval, it just demonstrates that you are making an awful lot of assumptions...).
Should have known it was Ronald "Just Say No" Reagan that appointed a drug czar, but at least he got congress to approve it. I think I made it obvious that I didn't really know when these non-congress-approved positions started, only that it's illegal and should stop. It looks like it was Nixon that started it.