  Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 7831 Registered: 10-2003 |
http://www.time.com/time/speci als/packages/0,28757,1877351,0 0.html This will take you a bit of time, but things aren't as simple as some believe. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8620 Registered: 02-2007 |
I admit it -- it is entirely, 100% MY fault. interesting, but trivial Madoff may be a bad guy, but he isn't to blame for this mess | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3392 Registered: 02-2007 |
What about the lobbyists that bribed our politicians? | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19195 Registered: 11-2006 |
Utter nonsense and propaganda to divert from the real villains. See the other thread on the subject and the links to hear the incriminating evidence IN THE WORD/VOICE/IMAGE OF THESE LIBERALS themselves. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 7836 Registered: 10-2003 |
Did you read it? | ||
Carolcb Member Username: Carolcb Post Number: 2255 Registered: 11-2006 |
I read it. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8623 Registered: 02-2007 |
" IN THE WORD/VOICE/IMAGE OF THESE LIBERALS themselves." oh, since you put that all in caps, i guess i have to admit that you are right oh, wait -- your BS Faux News thread? funny | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19210 Registered: 11-2006 |
You believe those speeches were CGI? Actors? A clever ruse? Animatronics? Claymation? | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 7843 Registered: 10-2003 |
Nope, did you read TIME's reasonings for their list? | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19215 Registered: 11-2006 |
Nope what? I read it, it is very myopic by design. Not getting to the root of the problem, so as not to implicate their liberal brethren. | ||
Brownfieldguy Member Username: Brownfieldguy Post Number: 64 Registered: 02-2009 |
I think that while I can't really apply names to who is a villan, etc., it does come down to some very clear factors (and not in any order of importance): 1. Banker and investor types who always want to push for the chance to maximize an angle and make more revenue. This of course sometimes means certain lines get crossed (or should be) for a short term gain. 2. A healthy and well funded lobby industry that is funded by the business types to weaken regulations. When this happens new and "innovative" products come to life. Over time some of these products are horrible in their impact. 3. Politicians who want to hold power and office and are influenced by the rich and influential. Also politicians who frankly aren't to smart and are influenced by others whose sole purpose is to make money for their clients. Finally, don't forget the corrupt politician out to make a short term gain. 4. Politicians and interest groups who think they are trying to do well for an interest group (like low income families, etc.) and amend rules and laws to make it easier for them to borrow money. The desire is to "help" them. 5. A citizen population desiring to continue to spend money well past the point of what is reasonable. 6. Public and private groups pushing the idea to the citizenry that more consumption is good. It helps the economy. 7. The truth that hell is paved with small steps, greed, dishonesty, and good intentions. Personally, I think structure is a good thing. Sometimes its ok to have the government say "no, can't do that for the good of the people." People will not police themselves when it comes to money and the power that comes with it. I think we as a society forgot many lessons learned during the Great Depression and other financial debacles. I think we are pushing the same damn rock up the same damn hill. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19704 Registered: 11-2006 |
Missed it completely Browfieldguy....start with collectivist socialist liberals and then unravel the minor players. | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1869 Registered: 01-2008 |
"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else." "But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. "You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club." "This country is finished." --George Carlin | ||
1kielsondrive Member Username: 1kielsondrive Post Number: 1151 Registered: 08-2008 |
Well, at least they got the first name right. Alongside Phil Gramm's name though, should be his wife Wendy's name. As far as I'm concerned, George Bush's name should be right there, because though he wasn't in office when the hijinks of the bill's passing took place, he presided over the most ignorant, hateful and criminal presidency in the history of our country. Bush only saw what he wanted to see. Yes, Chris Cox was up to his a*+ in it, as was Greenspan and others. It really boils down to this: your pit bulls got out of their cages, the garage and the yard. They ran around the neighborhood mauling everyone, leaving carnage in their wake. Let's see, who didn't lock the cages? The garage door? The gate to the yard? If this was a civil or criminal case (which I happen to believe it's criminal) who would be liable? | ||
Gibran Member Username: Gibran Post Number: 4640 Registered: 02-2007 |
Ayn Rand? | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1349 Registered: 08-2006 |
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion...when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing...when you see your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you...when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice...you may know that your society is doomed." -Ayn Rand Nah, Ayn Rand came to some of the same conclusions as George Carlin. (Good find Flanders.) If I wanted to assign blame, I would run through the roster of Bush and Obama appointees who previously worked for the Federal Reserve, Goldman-Sachs, Fannie and Freddie, and other bailed out entities. There has to be corruption up and down that list. Bush seems, so far, the President most responsible. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19725 Registered: 11-2006 |
Mostly on target Oladub..except for Bush. The most Bush could be blamed for is not outing Barney Frank/Dodd/Clinton for perpetuating the root of the bubble..Freddie and Fannie, before it was too late. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8777 Registered: 02-2007 |
actually, ola, she came to EXACTLY the opposite conclusion | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19768 Registered: 11-2006 |
That was the error I was pointing out in 19725 | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1351 Registered: 08-2006 |
Rb, I had this in my files re Ayn Rand and fascism. I doubt that Carlin is a Rand fan. In the above quotes, however, both discuss the intertwining of corporations and government. "Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government's interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be ``coordinated'' by some kind of central planning board. Government intervention in Italy was ``too diverse, varied, contrasting. There has been disorganic intervention, case by case, as the need arises,'' Mussolini complained in l935. Fascism would correct this by directing the economy toward ``certain fixed objectives'' and would ``introduce order in the economic field.'' A third defining characteristic of economic fascism is that private property and business ownership are permitted, but are in reality controlled by government through a business-government ``partnership.'' As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating ``partner.'" http://www.aapsonline.org/broc hures/fascism.htm Here, Ayn Rand is criticizing, say, Hitler for deciding government was responsible for overseeing the car industry when he hired Ferdinand Porsche to design the 'People's Car'. | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1876 Registered: 01-2008 |
"Just months before the start of last year's stock market collapse, the federal agency that insures the retirement funds of 44 million Americans departed from its conservative investment strategy and decided to put much of its $64 billion insurance fund into stocks." "Switching from a heavy reliance on bonds, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation decided to pour billions of dollars into speculative investments such as stocks in emerging foreign markets, real estate, and private equity funds." "Who was responsible for the switch? Meet Charles Millard, a former Lehman exec (great pedigree there) who ran the agency from 2007 until the end of the Bush administration. Millard told the Globe: "The new investment policy is not riskier than the old one," and added that a riskier strategy was justified to give the agency a chance to raise enough money to eliminate its deficit." "It appears to have had the opposite effect though. The agency's stock-related investments were down 23 percent since the end of last September. But as the Globe notes, that was before the major downturn in the market triggered by the financial crisis. So the losses now are probably considerably higher. "This could be huge," Zvi Bodie, a finance professor who in 2002 advised the agency to rely on bonds, told the Globe. "This has the potential to be another several hundred billion dollars." "And those losses, of course, are coming at the worst possible time -- when many private pension plans are themselves suffering losses, so the need for a robust and healthy PBGC is greatest. For instance, if the auto companies go bust, the responsibility for enormous pension plans would fall on the PBGC" Genius! Federal Pension Guarantor Switched From Bonds To Risky Stocks Last Year Concern increases as losses mount; Failing plans could overwhelm agency Holy shit... (Message edited by Flanders_field on March 31, 2009) | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8779 Registered: 02-2007 |
"As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating ``partner.'" In the US, it is business that is the dominating partner, but it is still economic fascism | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1354 Registered: 08-2006 |
Rb, Yes, the larger point is that it is corporatism but when the administration dumped Wagoner, the President clarified who was in charge. However, going up one notch, it seems that a cabal or oligarchy representing some really big (business) money have a lot to say in preselecting both parties' presidential candidates. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8784 Registered: 02-2007 |
yep. but Wagoner was an exception. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19787 Registered: 11-2006 |
Sigh...define fascism Rb...note that the core concept is that the State is the central entity whose interests are primary to the exclusion of everything else. Where does free enterprise and individual property ownership fit? | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8794 Registered: 02-2007 |
i have dozens of times, bats, using its architect's own words. you seem to define it however you want to fit your argument. it is, as defined by il Duce, corporatism |
