Outstanding Article

[USFREEDOM911]

Why was there a Glass Steagall law in the first place? When Bush was informed things might be getting worse, things may fall apart, there is chance things will go to Hell didn't someone ring the Glass Steagall bell?

This was not something new or unexpected. It had happened before and there were laws in place preventing in from happening again. When it looked as if it might happen again it was time to push for another Glass Steagall type law.

The situation could have been a lot worse. It could have been like the depression. A President should have known that and if he did he should have warned the people, over and over, if necessary.

Look at all the urgent meetings he had with the banks and other companies and people in power when he knew something had to be done. Why didn't he have meetings before it got to that point? Why didn't he know there was a Glass Steagall law before and the reason for it?

Is that expecting too much from a leader?

So was that a yes or a no, on making mass predictions and then waiting to see which ones come to fruition??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I would suspect Obama has plenty on his plate now.

The first thing is the health care bill. Then the wars. Now the economy. He can't spread himself too thin.

Once the health care bill passes I"m sure he'll start reforming other things.

Congratulations, you've just cemented your position as an Obamapologist.

 

[Damocles]

Only a partisan could spend an entire thread ignoring the reality of checks and balances and arguing that the people with their actual hands on the purse strings aren't responsible because the branch of government with no power over those same strings didn't tell them how to pull them...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Does it not concern anyone that Obama is trying his best to go down the same road that got us in trouble (more than once) in the first place? Opening credit will only result in a repeat of the same damned problems that keep cropping up time after time after time. The federal government pushes credit on us like a fucking drug dealer. Get people buying things they cannot afford so the numbers get them elected again.

When the people end up paying $500 in principle plus interest for a $250 TV, it is not a good economy, no matter what the GNP numbers show. The fucking federal government has been pushing a credit economy on us since WWI. And we keep getting in deep trouble for it. Great depression, multiple recessions, the latest crisis that threatened another great depression (still does, we ain't out of the woods yet) and our illustrious leaders' answer is to set up the house of cards yet one more time, and cross their fingers a stray breeze waits at least 8 years to blow it down again.

And the people line up like fucking lemmings for their new plastic, because by God, we deserve to have all this stuff we cannot afford, and we deserve to have it now.

 

[cancel2 2022]

It not armchair QB'ing. The Glass-Steagall Act was put in place to avoid this very thing (financial crisis). When Bush saw things were going in the wrong direction that was the time to push for change.

There were people/advisers in position to know why there ever was a Glass-Steagall Act. It's not like this never happened before. Nothing is new.

Certain financial institutions were kept separate for reason.

There is a wise old saying that if you ignore the lessons of history then you are condemned to repeat them. I can't help thinking that much of this was caused by a combination of both arrogance and ignorance, much of which is demonstrated here on a daily basis.

 

[apple0154]

So was that a yes or a no, on making mass predictions and then waiting to see which ones come to fruition??

What mass predictions?

 

[apple0154]

Congratulations, you've just cemented your position as an Obamapologist.

If understanding Obama can not correct eight years of gross mismanagement within less than a year in office makes me an Obamapologist so be it.

 

[apple0154]

Only a partisan could spend an entire thread ignoring the reality of checks and balances and arguing that the people with their actual hands on the purse strings aren't responsible because the branch of government with no power over those same strings didn't tell them how to pull them...

Would you be saying the same thing if Congress didn't authorize military force if the President was certain the country would be attacked? Would you accept the President saying, "Oh well. I tried." and let the attack occur or would you expect him to do all he could to inform the people?

The worst part of it is if government had power over the people holding the purse strings this wouldn't have happened, yet, people fight tooth and nail when Obama tries to get government control of anything.

We see that with medical. It's going to become more difficult for people to get adequate medical coverage due to high unemployment and many having lost their homes and struggling financially. Increased medical coverage is not going to happen unless the government does step in but people fight against that.

I'm beginning to think it has less to do with objection to government control than it does to do with helping others. It's easy to get the impression some don't care.

"Let the poor scramble for medical insurance." "Let the companies go bankrupt."

"The government can't be trusted." "The government will mess things up." Nothing but a smoke screen to hide the real reason and the reason is some people don't want the government to help others. It's nothing but greed and selfishness raising it's head.

 

[cawacko]

If understanding Obama can not correct eight years of gross mismanagement within less than a year in office makes me an Obamapologist so be it.

I'm a partisan so I'm not attempting to come off holier than thou here but I guess I hadn't seen you be this nakedly partisan before so that was what was surprising to me.

 

[cawacko]

Would you be saying the same thing if Congress didn't authorize military force if the President was certain the country would be attacked? Would you accept the President saying, "Oh well. I tried." and let the attack occur or would you expect him to do all he could to inform the people?

The worst part of it is if government had power over the people holding the purse strings this wouldn't have happened, yet, people fight tooth and nail when Obama tries to get government control of anything.

We see that with medical. It's going to become more difficult for people to get adequate medical coverage due to high unemployment and many having lost their homes and struggling financially. Increased medical coverage is not going to happen unless the government does step in but people fight against that.

I'm beginning to think it has less to do with objection to government control than it does to do with helping others. It's easy to get the impression some don't care.
"Let the poor scramble for medical insurance." "Let the companies go bankrupt."

"The government can't be trusted." "The government will mess things up." Nothing but a smoke screen to hide the real reason and the reason is some people don't want the government to help others. It's nothing but greed and selfishness raising it's head.

Just my opinion but your commet there shows a lack of understanding of the arguments going on. The debate going on is about the optimal or best possible way to deliver the services most needed to the people. Government has a role it's just a matter of what role should it play and how large should that role be.

To argue government's role should be reduced has nothing to do with not caring. That's a b.s. arguement in my opinion.

 

[Cypress]

I'm beginning to think it has less to do with objection to government control than it does to do with helping others. It's easy to get the impression some don't care.

"Let the poor scramble for medical insurance." "Let the companies go bankrupt."

"The government can't be trusted." "The government will mess things up." Nothing but a smoke screen to hide the real reason and the reason is some people don't want the government to help others. It's nothing but greed and selfishness raising it's head.

Now you’re catching on. Check out my sig for more wingnuttiness. They’re all over the map in the alleged “reasons” to be against public health insurance. There’s little rhyme or reason to it: they’ve pretty much given up trying to claim that single payer public healthcare isn’t cheaper/more cost effective than private insurance monopolies. They’re reduced to yelling that’s it’s “too hard!”, it’s “too much socialism!”, illegal immigrants will cheat us, it’s a handout to lazy people, or that death panels and waiting lists will be the downfall of the republic. Occasionally one of them (like Dixie) will read something about the economics of health care on the CATO website, and try to claim that public health insurance is impossible in this country because we are “too big” compared to Germany or Sweden.

Obviously, this is a tacit admission on their part that, yes, single payer public healthcare is more cost effective, equitable, and broadly delivers very good results, supposedly only at the scale of size of a European nation. The thing that doesn’t make an ounce of sense about this, is that if liberal politicians in their state legislated public single payer healthcare only within their state, you know every single conservative would fight tooth and nail against it. No freaking way would any con be a proud proponent of single payer in their state, even if their state is of the “right size”- the size of a European nation - for single payer healthcare to work efficiently. It makes zero sense to make a tacit admission that single payer works great for an entity the size of ten million people, but then to fight tooth and nail against it if it were ever proposed at the state scale. Unless, there are actually other, less fact-based reasons they are against single payer.

When someone’s “reasons” are all over the map, when their reasons are devoid of any consistency or principle, I think your insight is dead on. There’s another reason(s) they are against it. And I don't mean this applies to every single con, but I mean it as a broad indictment of movement conservatism generally. It would be worthy of a full-blown academic study, but I agree that it boils down to a few fundamental issues that are firmly embedded in the con consciousness. 1) An emotional reaction to anything that seems “socialist”. They’re still fighting the cold war, the word “socialism”, has been so caricatured for 80 years and stripped of all it’s original meaning, to the point that a Dittohead has been trained to have a visceral, primitive, and emotional reaction to it. 2) a fear that undeserving people (illegal immigrants, brown people, poor whites) will be given handouts; 3) basically just a selfish attitude about life: pull yourself up by your bootstraps, I got mine you get yours; 4) the standard RonTard obsession with taxes and property rights. It simply doesn’t matter what is cost-effective, what is egalitarian, and what actually works in the real world. They feel like they have a right to live in a prosperous, developed, democratic country, without being obligated by any social contract to contribute to the public commons.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What mass predictions?

OH-LIke someone predicting that:
Obama isn't doing enough to help the housing market.
Obama isn't doing enough to create jobs.
Obama isn't doing enough to stop jobs from going overseas.
etc
etc
etc.

Then we can just sit back and wait and when anyone of them occurs, someone can say: See I told you and here's what he SHOULD have done.

Wouldn't that be fun??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If understanding Obama can not correct eight years of gross mismanagement within less than a year in office makes me an Obamapologist so be it.

There's no question about it, you are what you are; but it has nothing to do with what Obama is or isn't doing, it has everything to do with you hitching your wagon to his star and now you don't dare let go.

 

[apple0154]

I'm a partisan so I'm not attempting to come off holier than thou here but I guess I hadn't seen you be this nakedly partisan before so that was what was surprising to me.

After the Bush years the majority of people had enough regardless of why they supported the Repubs. I think people don't realize just how much Bush screwed things up. The repercussions of eight years of either weakening the government's ability to govern or simply looking the other way will take time to correct. The philosophy or mindset that has occurred has to be changed.

The more things come to light the actual situation we find ourselves in starts to sink in. An analogy would be driving a thousand miles in the wrong direction and then complaining why we're still west of where we started and not east. It takes time to get back to the "starting point".

For example, when people ask why the banking laws aren't simply changed back it's because the operating procedures that were followed during the years of repeal have to be dealt with. That's why Obama hired one of those guys from Wall Street. The repercussions and every day policies have to be examined.

Another analogy would be building a house and finding out when half finished the builders had the wrong plans. They can't just switch to the proper plans. They have to see how the new plans fit in with what has already been done.

The banks and insurance companies have an ongoing business modeled/operating under little regulation. How do we keep them operating while making changes? We can't just outlaw procedures that their business is currently operating on. The change has to be gradual or further collapse will occur.

It's not a point of being partisan. The criticism of Obama is illogical, from the financial fiasco to the wars. Things were set in motion. It's going to take time to redirect.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Now you’re catching on. Check out my sig for more wingnuttiness. They’re all over the map in the alleged “reasons” to be against public health insurance. There’s little rhyme or reason to it: they’ve pretty much given up trying to claim that single payer public healthcare isn’t cheaper/more cost effective than private insurance monopolies. They’re reduced to yelling that’s it’s “too hard!”, it’s “too much socialism!”, illegal immigrants will cheat us, it’s a handout to lazy people, or that death panels and waiting lists will be the downfall of the republic. Occasionally one of them (like Dixie) will read something about the economics of health care on the CATO website, and try to claim that public health insurance is impossible in this country because we are “too big” compared to Germany or Sweden.

Obviously, this is a tacit admission on their part that, yes, single payer public healthcare is more cost effective, equitable, and broadly delivers very good results, supposedly only at the scale of size of a European nation. The thing that doesn’t make an ounce of sense about this, is that if liberal politicians in their state legislated public single payer healthcare only within their state, you know every single conservative would fight tooth and nail against it. No freaking way would any con be a proud proponent of single payer in their state, even if their state is of the “right size”- the size of a European nation - for single payer healthcare to work efficiently. It makes zero sense to make a tacit admission that single payer works great for an entity the size of ten million people, but then to fight tooth and nail against it if it were ever proposed at the state scale. Unless, there are actually other, less fact-based reasons they are against single payer.

When someone’s “reasons” are all over the map, when their reasons are devoid of any consistency or principle, I think your insight is dead on. There’s another reason(s) they are against it. And I don't mean this applies to every single con, but I mean it as a broad indictment of movement conservatism generally. It would be worthy of a full-blown academic study, but I agree that it boils down to a few fundamental issues that are firmly embedded in the con consciousness. 1) An emotional reaction to anything that seems “socialist”. They’re still fighting the cold war, the word “socialism”, has been so caricatured for 80 years and stripped of all it’s original meaning, to the point that a Dittohead has been trained to have a visceral, primitive, and emotional reaction to it. 2) a fear that undeserving people (illegal immigrants, brown people, poor whites) will be given handouts; 3) basically just a selfish attitude about life: pull yourself up by your bootstraps, I got mine you get yours; 4) the standard RonTard obsession with taxes and property rights. It simply doesn’t matter what is cost-effective, what is egalitarian, and what actually works in the real world. They feel like they have a right to live in a prosperous, developed, democratic country, without being obligated by any social contract to contribute to the public commons.

If it's so great, then how come the members of the Congress and the Senate aren't going to replace their current system with it??

 

[evince]

great post , I wish I could rep you again Apple.

 

[apple0154]

Just my opinion but your commet there shows a lack of understanding of the arguments going on. The debate going on is about the optimal or best possible way to deliver the services most needed to the people. Government has a role it's just a matter of what role should it play and how large should that role be.

To argue government's role should be reduced has nothing to do with not caring. That's a b.s. arguement in my opinion.

We've seen the result of little government interference. That's all we've seen as far as ensuring everyone has medical coverage.

How many people who are currently eligible for Medicare want to revert to the old "pay or suffer" system?

How many countries with universal medical are contemplating switching back?

If the argument is about "the optimal or best possible way to deliver the services most needed to the people" we already know. Look at any country with a universal plan. Look at medicare.

What is there to discuss? This has been discussed and argued and analyzed by millions of people in dozens of countries. The end result is the same the world over. Governments are in charge of insuring everyone has access to medical care. That is the optimum arrangement.

There will always be adjustments and tweaks needed to any system. For some folks to suggest every detail be ironed out before the government takes over is ridiculous. It requires ongoing supervision and fine tuning. There is no perfect plan and nothing short of letting the government handle it has been shown to work anywhere in the world.

There is no argument. At least there isn't anything anywhere in the world to back up/support an opposing argument. Governments, any governments, be they capitalist or communist or socialist, are best equipped to insure everyone has access to medical services.

The US government would be the only exception in the world if it couldn't handle medical services. Talk about a long shot.

 

[Good Luck]

Would you be saying the same thing if Congress didn't authorize military force if the President was certain the country would be attacked? Would you accept the President saying, "Oh well. I tried." and let the attack occur or would you expect him to do all he could to inform the people?

Bad analogy because the President has the constitutional authority to deploy the military as necessary without the approval of congress. It takes congress to declare war, and the war powers act is used as a check against presidential authority. But when it comes to defending against an attack, the president's authority does not require congress.

Maybe you need to learn a bit more about how our government works before you spout off your criticisms.

The worst part of it is if government had power over the people holding the purse strings this wouldn't have happened, yet, people fight tooth and nail when Obama tries to get government control of anything.

A complete (deliberate) misunderstanding of the argument. CONGRESS has the sole power to make law. Glass-Steagall act was a law. Repeal of the Glass Steagall act is a law. Only congress can do that. The president has zero authority to tell congress what they should or should not pass. A president can make suggestions, but if congress ignores those suggestions there is nothing he can do about it. The president can shout it to the rooftops. If congress won't act, there is still nothing can be done. The president can take it to the people. When is the last time you actually believed congress gave a shit what the people think when they've made up their minds?

We see that with medical. It's going to become more difficult for people to get adequate medical coverage due to high unemployment and many having lost their homes and struggling financially. Increased medical coverage is not going to happen unless the government does step in but people fight against that.

Is it truly necessary, as you liberals claim, for government to take full control of the health care situation in order to provide health care to everyone? Or is there a better method available (on which you cannot see because you are blinded by your arrogance in assuming you have the only right answers) which can provide for those in need while leaving be the rest of the system - which works quite well for the larger majority of people? If out of control health care costs is the central problem (which it is) why are we not finding and addressing the factors which are driving health care costs at 10 times the inflation rate? But NO! Liberals cannot think for themselves. Give the problem to government. They are so GOOD at fixing things. I mean, look at the problem of poverty. Big liberal programs have been in action for 70 years, and poverty is higher than ever. Great fix you guys have. Let's do it to health care, too.

But liberals simply claim (quite falsely) that the system is "broken" because it does not operate in the manner they believe it should (beliefs derived from hallucinogenic induced dreams of utopia.) If so, maybe these self same liberals should try to actually determine WHY the system is "broken". (ie: vast and often conflicting government regulations on everything health care, from drugs to scalpels to how we dispose of used needles.) But being "broken" (due to government) the answer is to hand it all to government.

I'm beginning to think it has less to do with objection to government control than it does to do with helping others. It's easy to get the impression some don't care.

The number one lie of the left. If you don't want government to control things, you don't care about the poor. "Conservatives are selfish." Why? Because we do not agree with liberal solutions which invariably grant more and more power of the government over our every day lives?

Tell us, since conservatives do not care, but liberals do, why is it conservatives are, on average, significantly more generous to charities than liberals are?

"Let the poor scramble for medical insurance." "Let the companies go bankrupt."

Yea, there are a few out there. Shall we discuss some of the more extreme statements coming from the left? How about if we start using some of Watermark's one liners to portray the "average" liberal?

Though the two quotes are about entirely different circumstances, and therefore do not belong together, except in the mind of a liberal drone who cannot understand the difference. Letting people in need scramble on their own is a far cry from letting a large corporation go bankrupt. Especially when in tha vasst majority of cases when a major corporation goes through bankruptcy, the result is a stronger, better organized corporation which is good for the economy, and good for the corporation's employees. We pumped how many billions into GM? And yet, what was it that finally allowed GM to get back on their feet? They went through the bankruptcy that we spent billions trying to stave off.

Again, try learning something about how things work before heaping mindless liberal dronebot criticisms on them.

"The government can't be trusted." "The government will mess things up." Nothing but a smoke screen to hide the real reason and the reason is some people don't want the government to help others. It's nothing but greed and selfishness raising it's head.

Yea, whatever lets you sleep at night in you moral-superiority delusions of grandeur.

It has become readily apparent to anyone that you are completely head-up-the-donkey's-ass partisan. "OH! OH! Democrat GOOD! Republican BAD!. Please, mommy government, won't you tuck me in tonight?"

 

[USFREEDOM911]

We've seen the result of little government interference. That's all we've seen as far as ensuring everyone has medical coverage.

How many people who are currently eligible for Medicare want to revert to the old "pay or suffer" system?

How many countries with universal medical are contemplating switching back?

If the argument is about "the optimal or best possible way to deliver the services most needed to the people" we already know. Look at any country with a universal plan. Look at medicare.

What is there to discuss? This has been discussed and argued and analyzed by millions of people in dozens of countries. The end result is the same the world over. Governments are in charge of insuring everyone has access to medical care. That is the optimum arrangement.

There will always be adjustments and tweaks needed to any system. For some folks to suggest every detail be ironed out before the government takes over is ridiculous. It requires ongoing supervision and fine tuning. There is no perfect plan and nothing short of letting the government handle it has been shown to work anywhere in the world.

There is no argument. At least there isn't anything anywhere in the world to back up/support an opposing argument. Governments, any governments, be they capitalist or communist or socialist, are best equipped to insure everyone has access to medical services.

The US government would be the only exception in the world if it couldn't handle medical services. Talk about a long shot.

If it's so great, then how come those in the Congress and Senate don't surrender their current coverage and sign on to what they're promoting to the people??

 

[apple0154]

OH-LIke someone predicting that:
Obama isn't doing enough to help the housing market.
Obama isn't doing enough to create jobs.
Obama isn't doing enough to stop jobs from going overseas.
etc
etc
etc.

Then we can just sit back and wait and when anyone of them occurs, someone can say: See I told you and here's what he SHOULD have done.

Wouldn't that be fun??

It's called priorities unless you feel the financial crisis didn't deserve to be considered a priority.