Printable View
JaneV2.0
War in Iraq? No Problem.
Afghanistan? Where do we sign?
Bail Out Wallstreet? You fill in the amount.
Auto Industry? We'll western union it.
Extend Unemployment? WHAT! We need a funding source in the form of cuts before we'll pass that!
Heatlhcare? Wait wait wait, HOLD UP! Healthcare? HEX NO, we are not made of money!
And that, heydude, is the situation in a nutshell. We are a very diverse country and can't agree on what's critical and what's not. I don't even think it's possible. Like the bailouts -- there are those among us who think that if those hadn't occurred, there would be a staggering amount of suffering all around us right now from which we may never recover. There are others who think there wouldn't be anything of the sort. And others still who don't care about suffering as long as they have their own safety net. We have all three of those groups amply represented here in our own little SLN microcosm :)
My husband has a way of shrugging and saying simply, "Democracy. Can't live with it, wouldn't want to live without it." I wish I could be so calm about it all.
I have to say I think the auto industry loans were a huge success. Detroit can't keep up with demand. On the other hand, the banks seem to be doing everything they can not to keep their end of the bargain.
Heydude,Quote:
Originally Posted by heydude
Wonderfully succinct and right on! Seems we have a government here "of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation."
Sad, isn't it?
But they - and I believe almost all other bailout receipients - have paid back that money with interest. I'm in the camp that says it was a good thing to bailout the companies as I believe the economic fallout would have been MUCH worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
As for social issues - well those things are just as important as financial/economic/military issues IMHO. Making public policy, upholding (or not) constitutional rights, etc... are the very fabric of a free democracy and should be factored in when deciding who to vote for.
No. Only TARP, not if you look at the full extent of what went on. The extent of bailouts done by the federal reserve exceed TARP by levels of magnitude. We are talking billions (TARP) versus trillions (federal reserve back door bailouts). Consider that things like this were going on, banks were borrowing from the fed at low interst rates and taking that money and investing it in treasuries at high interest rates:Quote:
But they - and I believe almost all other bailout receipients - have paid back that money with interest. I'm in the camp that says it was a good thing to bailout the companies as I believe the economic fallout would have been MUCH worse
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsro...9-eb4aef4bdf92
A bank engaging in a little of that and they've more than paid off TARP! But the government and the taxpayers are ultimately footing the cost.
The new bank settlement may actually be a bank bailout:
"Under the terms of the 50-state mortgage foreclosure settlement, US taxpayers could end up paying billions in penalties that were supposed to be paid by the banks. That’s the gist of a front-page story which appeared in the Financial Times on Thursday, February 17. The widely-cited article by Shahien Nasiripour notes that the 5 banks that will be effected by the settlement — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial – will be able to use Obama’s mortgage modification program (HAMP) to reduce loan balances and “receive cash payments of up to 63 cents on the dollar for every dollar of loan principal forgiven.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/...-gone-to-jail/
...and the government is us. 'We' and 'us' being the operative words.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Yeah. We don't live in a monarchy.
I’ll take an honest king over this kind of piffle inviting me to identify with the State anytime. I don’t always agree with Murray Rothbard, but we are in accord on this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
“With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred.”
...I’ll take an honest king over this kind of piffle inviting me to identify with the State anytime. I don’t always agree with Murray Rothbard, but we are in accord on this topic.... ...(LDAHL)
That brings up a good point. There' a cohort of people who really want an authoritarian father figure in their lives--you see it in monarchies, dictatorships, cults, traditional patriarchal families, and mainstream religions. Our Founding Fathers weren't that sort. Most of them were skeptical of mainstream religion, all rejected the monarchy, and of course they were famous for enshrining "We the People" in the Preamble to the Constitution.