You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:22:00 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: WTF I agree with Scalia again!  (Read 4667 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jude

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2009, 06:49:54 PM »
It's really no wonder people feel like they do when they look at the facts like you do Zakharra.  I don't know if you realize it, but there's a lot you're twisting.  Many of your statements are blatant falsehoods or exaggerations which're really close to the truth.  For example:

When the bailouts are handed out to entire industries wholesale such as the banking and auto
But uh, they didn't.  There were banks that didn't receive a bailout, and Ford was barely touched.  To my knowledge all they got was a line of secured credit, which is next to nothing.  When you consider there are 3 purely domestic car manufacturers, changing 66% into 100% is quite a falsehood.  Plus the Industry is composed of a great deal of cars manufacturers, we only meddled with the American borne ones, not necessary the ones that do a lot of business (and even manufacturing) in America.  And before you claim that none do, there's a lot of car companies that actually have plants here that aren't the big 3.  And banks are an even worse example of your "entire" vs. "actual" claim.

it has a negative impact on the public when billions of their tax dollars are tossed away like that. A lot of people think those businesses should have been allowed to fail and collapse.
Thinking they should of been allowed to collapse is fine, it's a legitimate philosophical belief.  But this notion that tossing away tax dollars to keep those companies alive had a negative impact is completely without data.  We don't know if it was a smart move or not yet.  We do know that a credit crunch hasn't arisen to the point of completely decimating local industry.  Things aren't wonderful, but you can't exactly claim that our bailouts did nothing.  Many economists agree they weren't bad decisions.  So your claim there is based on ideological grounds, likely without any current non-biased evidence.  That and "tossed away" is a blatant falsehood.  They're going to have to repay what they can, and very few industries we've loaned cash to have just downright failed and will be unable to repay the money (if any, I haven't heard of one).

Also when two of the three automakers file for bankrupcy anyways, with the government holding a majority of the shares, it leaves people asking why? The we hear that there are banks able to make payments back to the givernment, but that they are being not allowed to make those payments. Again it leaves people wondering why? Many people see it as an attempt of the government to take more control over US industries. How many people trust a bureaucracy? Not that many.
Again, that's a cynical point of view.  It's another example of you taking a situation and deciding you're going to choose one of the worst possibilities to believe.  There's not a shred of evidence that any of this is the government using the crisis for a power usurpation is actually what's going on.  There's been perfectly legitimate reasons for every bit of meddling that was done, along with the President personally assuring the country that he doesn't want to be doing this and that it's a short-term thing.  The majority of the country doesn't want this to become a permanent change (and I'm with them), until there's an actual reason to suspect foul play, simply assuming it off of some "power corrupts" or "government is evil" principle is paranoid and illogical.

The "why" you say people are asking in your post isn't hard to find.  It's just that people are fearful and there are a lot of talking heads putting stupid ideas in their mind instead of the truth.  There's always someone out there willing to tell you something crazy in hopes of endearing you to their cause, especially when you're in shaky waters already.  It's a lot harder to try and take people's hands in this troubled time and assure them when they're already leaning one direction.

As for the why, they didn't want the auto-industry to go into bankruptcy (which is why they attempted to fix things with earlier plans).  It happened because there was ultimately nothing they could do because they underestimated how big of a mess GM and Chrysler were in.  There were hard issues to be dealt with, the Union first and foremost, so finding a resolution to the problem was going to be hard.  It's not surprising that it failed, I don't see any evidence of anything sinister and don't understand how anyone can.  I do understand how people can feel shaky over this much government involvement.  But jumping from that shakiness to the conclusion that there's a grand conspiracy for control isn't logical.

As far as the conditions of repayment for the financial industry in relation to bailout money, I've heard so many conspiracy theories about this.  But it's just a simple matter of practicality.  Assume they'd let people pay back with no strings attached, then some of the banks which cannot afford to give the money back might be tempted to (in an attempt to get rid of the ugliness associated with the bailout) and then fail, completely wasting our efforts in the first place.  Making them wait to repay us until they can actually afford to do so without forgoing the original purpose of giving them the money (to make credit more fluid) is hardly unfair.  It's essentially forcing them to stick to the plan.

It's easy to sit back, twist facts in a very small way, use loaded language, and make cynical assumptions about our government.  It seems to be a popular trend in today's political climate.  But if anything these statements are born out of ignorance, paranoia, and a feeling of uncertainty.

It's possible that all of our efforts to fix the economy will go to waste, and that the Democratic reliance on Keynesian economics will prove ineffectual.  There's certainly an argument to be made for that in opposition of the majority party's actions at current.  What does the political discourse no good is to take the point of view that there's disingenuous actions going on.  It reminds me of the sort of things the liberals did during the Iraq war, when they wouldn't shut up about some supposed "blood for oil" motive behind the war despite the fact that there wasn't any evidence to support such claims.  If you're not willing to give those who oppose your idea the benefit of assuming they're genuine in lieu of any idea to think otherwise, I don't see why anyone should take you seriously as you cannot possibly add anything of value to a debate by assuming unprovable motives.

Offline consortium11

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2009, 07:06:35 PM »
Just a quick point about the banks which received bailout money and haven't been allowed to pay it back.

The money wasn't just to make sure banks didn't go under. It was also to allow them to keep lending to people and companies. Without banks lending and with equity finance being far harder to raise the entire commercial sector was paralysed. Bank balances were often so thinly stretched and they were so averse to risk that they wouldn't lend in deals that were not only run-of-the-mill but actually commercially safe. The reason the money was given was so they had the reserves to continue lending.

So, banks may have been in a position to pay back the money almost immediately... but then the problem remains that they wouldn't lend. By keeping the money they were in a position to start lending once more... and unfreeze the system.

It should also be noted that the 10 big banks that have repaid TARP money have done so giving the government a profit... which considering the short term nature of the lending is excellent business. Of course, these were the relatively stable banks and the same can't be expected of others, but it's still a small successs.

I'm no fan of this (or any) bailout in principle, but in practice it isn't always the evil some people sell it as. The Japanese government actually made money off their bailouts years ago and it's too soon to see exactly what happens with this one.

Offline Indigo

  • Sui Generis
  • Deverified
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: € Sui Generis €
  • Gender: Female
  • I am a law ønly for my kind, I am nø law før all.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2009, 07:17:43 PM »
That above gave me something to think about...

I am one of those against the massive 'bail out'...I've just felt it's like trying to shore up a foundation made of sand...you can pour much into it, but the tide is still going to sift it away.  Basically...'bad investment/accounting principal cannot be fixed by pouring money into a bucket with a hole at the bottom.

I also have felt...capitalism...say what you will about it...you get into the race, you get what's coming to you if you cheat/overextend/ignore problems.  Let them tumble and fall.  Of course, I've had people look at me in horror for even suggesting such a thing...but well...I had to speak what I initially felt.

As far as the 'bank bail out'...I know the idea was to get banks 'lending' again, yet it seems odd that some have not been doing so, instead still not working with those going into foreclosure, yet accepting the bail-out.  I find the practice distastful, but I don't have all the facts...

It just seems to me, that a company, a bank who stands out and asks for a government bailout in the million...billions of dollars and still has the nerve to foreclose on people who aren't just not paying their mortgage, their trying to work with them by offering what money they have, and still they refuse?  I cannot wrap my mind around it.

...yet profit hmmm?  If the government can make it, so do it? Well...capitalist at it's finest perhaps....I'll have to rethink it.

Offline consortium11

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2009, 07:42:04 PM »
I don't disagree with any of those points.

I'm against bailouts in principle for the exact reason you stated... let capitalism have its way. If companies go for risk over safety then they tried their hardest and they failed... and from knowledge of that the next set of companies to emerge will run a better more sustainable business and thus things improve without requiring direct government interference. In the long term I think that's the best way to do things. In short term though the sheer amount of suffering a mass collapse would cause makes a bailout a near political necessity; economic cycles don't correspond to electoral cycles.

I also agree that bailouts often help both the good and the bad; companies that are fundamentally sound but for whatever reason have found themselves without the resources to continue and those that will leak money nearly continuously. The Big 3 in Detroit is a good example of that; all of them were beset by a whole series of woes from huge Union costs to unpopular cars and a range of issues in-between. Bailout money was unlikely to save them all, however much was thrown in.

That said, there's a good argument that the point of the money wasn't to save the companies but to manage their collapse. Apparently 2 million workers depended on them directly for their employment and if one day any of the big 3 just disappeared it would have been a huge shock to the system. Car companies don't have the luxury of Ch.11 (I believe) bankruptcy that worked so well for air companies... if I get on a plane I don't really worry if there will be parts for any subsequent repairs... if I've bought a car I certainly do.

And I agree completely that banks with TARP money should be lending and trying to avoid foreclosing. The logic behind the mass foreclosures was generally that the banks themselves had debts they couldn't pay and now that they can't just unload the mortgages on the market and get a good price they were scrambling for any money they could get their hands on. 2/3 of the value now was worth a lot more to those banks then the entire amount in 10 years. Now they have these reserves though it seems strange they're continuing to do this; unless they want to simply purge their books of all bad debt and start clean... even at a relative loss.

Offline Jude

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2009, 07:53:13 PM »
The beginning of the TARP fund's disbursement was handled absolutely atrociously by Henry Paulson too.  The oversight doesn't even know exactly what happened in the early days, so it's not surprising there's such a negative view of it.  The only actual statistics compiled that I'm aware of are the "stress tests" done, which weren't particular persuasive.  Also just because I'm defending the genuineness of the interests of those involved doesn't mean I'm for bailouts either.

AIG especially should've gone down in flames.  Add the corporate bonus nonsense into thing and there's plenty of legitimate reason to feel like you're getting screwed.  It's not that I can't understand where people are coming from who are incredibly anti-bailout, etc., it's just that I can't appreciate a position that takes that nervousness, disgust, and lack of faith and molds it into something cynical which assumes as a matter of self-evident (but dubious) "fact" that our system is broken.

I do think we're currently paying for the mistakes we made in the 80s and 90s related to deregulation, and that our current politicians are attempting to correct the mistakes they've made.  It might not work, I might not agree with it, but it's not constructive (or healthy) to pretend there's something sinister going on when we those we elected are essentially doing what could've logically been expected of them to begin with.

Offline Indigo

  • Sui Generis
  • Deverified
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: € Sui Generis €
  • Gender: Female
  • I am a law ønly for my kind, I am nø law før all.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2009, 08:15:48 PM »
Yes indeed...paying for the sins of the past we are...the deregulation of many things is a hurtful wound now, that we have to deal with.

..I don't feel the system is 'broken', which is why I don't agree with 'bailout'.  What I do feel is that if government/buisness meet head to head in this regard, (which surely they are doing now) that the facts are clear, and buisness should never..no matter the job cost, have to be 'bailed out' again in such a massive wave of billions of dollars.

I am painfully aware of the job cost, but cannot fathom that as a reason...which is being used! by big companies to 'please bail us out because we forked up'.

I'm cynical sure...yet realistic and hopeful.  You cannot be just one and understand the entire folly when it comes, or how to avoid it, or how to deal with it...or how to even comprehend it.

*sighs*  I wish for the best, but feel there is, as someone commented somewhere else, still a massive 'clusterfuck' to deal with, which I being only a layman, can only begin to comprehend.

It's all a boggle that I think we're all trying to still comprehend, and still learning the complications of, every time we decide to perk up and listen.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2009, 08:57:11 PM »
I am painfully aware of the job cost, but cannot fathom that as a reason...which is being used! by big companies to 'please bail us out because we forked up'.

The way they are using it is saying 'If we aren't bailed up, we have to shut down, and then all-ll-ll-ll-ll these people will be out of work, and suffering, and won't that suck?'  And the thing that makes the US public so cynical about it is that one company (whose name I forget) that took the bailout, paid their upper echelon's massive bonuses with it, and still fired workers in droves because they couldn't make payroll.

Online HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2009, 03:28:08 AM »
Another part of the problem of big businesses failing is the knock on effect, especially if they're concentrated in particular areas. If factory X closes, lays off 2000 people, not only are those people out of work, but the businesses they supported locally are also going to be affected by having that revenue now no longer coming in.

Offline Zakharra

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2009, 10:36:46 AM »
It's really no wonder people feel like they do when they look at the facts like you do Zakharra.  I don't know if you realize it, but there's a lot you're twisting.  Many of your statements are blatant falsehoods or exaggerations which're really close to the truth.  For example:
But uh, they didn't.  There were banks that didn't receive a bailout, and Ford was barely touched.  To my knowledge all they got was a line of secured credit, which is next to nothing.  When you consider there are 3 purely domestic car manufacturers, changing 66% into 100% is quite a falsehood.  Plus the Industry is composed of a great deal of cars manufacturers, we only meddled with the American borne ones, not necessary the ones that do a lot of business (and even manufacturing) in America.  And before you claim that none do, there's a lot of car companies that actually have plants here that aren't the big 3.  And banks are an even worse example of your "entire" vs. "actual" claim.
Thinking they should of been allowed to collapse is fine, it's a legitimate philosophical belief.  But this notion that tossing away tax dollars to keep those companies alive had a negative impact is completely without data.  We don't know if it was a smart move or not yet.  We do know that a credit crunch hasn't arisen to the point of completely decimating local industry.  Things aren't wonderful, but you can't exactly claim that our bailouts did nothing.  Many economists agree they weren't bad decisions.  So your claim there is based on ideological grounds, likely without any current non-biased evidence.  That and "tossed away" is a blatant falsehood.  They're going to have to repay what they can, and very few industries we've loaned cash to have just downright failed and will be unable to repay the money (if any, I haven't heard of one).
Again, that's a cynical point of view.  It's another example of you taking a situation and deciding you're going to choose one of the worst possibilities to believe.  There's not a shred of evidence that any of this is the government using the crisis for a power usurpation is actually what's going on.  There's been perfectly legitimate reasons for every bit of meddling that was done, along with the President personally assuring the country that he doesn't want to be doing this and that it's a short-term thing.  The majority of the country doesn't want this to become a permanent change (and I'm with them), until there's an actual reason to suspect foul play, simply assuming it off of some "power corrupts" or "government is evil" principle is paranoid and illogical.

  Point out which ones are falsehoods? I'm seeing this from both sides of the aisle. Right and Left that don't trust this. 

 How much of GM and Chrystler is now owned by the federal Government? By the Unions? Not a lot of people are pleased by the government controlling these companies.
 http://www.gallup.com/poll/120842/disapprove-majority-government-ownership.aspx

  .. and to think Congress has a hand in this..

 http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49122

 Ford is financially stable enough to survive and is doing well enough. However when people see two automakers  get billions and still collapse into bankruptcy, it makes them wonder. Republican and Democrat. What sort of cars will the federal government now tell GM and  Chrystler to make? They essentually run the companies with a majority ownership stake now.  Will they build cars Americans want, or cars they think Americans will want?


 I know the Big Three are not the only automakers with plants in the US, but they are only US ones here. Toyota, Fiat, Nissan and the others are based in other nations and are doing well financially and aren't American companies. Therefore no bailout for them.


 
The "why" you say people are asking in your post isn't hard to find.  It's just that people are fearful and there are a lot of talking heads putting stupid ideas in their mind instead of the truth.  There's always someone out there willing to tell you something crazy in hopes of endearing you to their cause, especially when you're in shaky waters already.  It's a lot harder to try and take people's hands in this troubled time and assure them when they're already leaning one direction.

As for the why, they didn't want the auto-industry to go into bankruptcy (which is why they attempted to fix things with earlier plans).  It happened because there was ultimately nothing they could do because they underestimated how big of a mess GM and Chrysler were in.  There were hard issues to be dealt with, the Union first and foremost, so finding a resolution to the problem was going to be hard.  It's not surprising that it failed, I don't see any evidence of anything sinister and don't understand how anyone can.  I do understand how people can feel shaky over this much government involvement.  But jumping from that shakiness to the conclusion that there's a grand conspiracy for control isn't logical.

 When the government ends up in control of 2/3 of the US automakers and has or is trying to take a heavier hand in the banking industry, it makes people wonder and worry. The government does NOT have a good financial record. It's pretty abysmal in fact. How deep in debt are we? How much deeper is that projected? When was the last time a large government plan or bureaucracy plan came in under budget? If the government was a business, it would have had to declare bankruptcy long ago. The government has an ability that no company has now. It can either raise taxes or print money.

 
 
As far as the conditions of repayment for the financial industry in relation to bailout money, I've heard so many conspiracy theories about this.  But it's just a simple matter of practicality.  Assume they'd let people pay back with no strings attached, then some of the banks which cannot afford to give the money back might be tempted to (in an attempt to get rid of the ugliness associated with the bailout) and then fail, completely wasting our efforts in the first place.  Making them wait to repay us until they can actually afford to do so without forgoing the original purpose of giving them the money (to make credit more fluid) is hardly unfair.  It's essentially forcing them to stick to the plan.

It's easy to sit back, twist facts in a very small way, use loaded language, and make cynical assumptions about our government.  It seems to be a popular trend in today's political climate.  But if anything these statements are born out of ignorance, paranoia, and a feeling of uncertainty.

 What about those that can afford, financially pay it back? If they have the money and they think they are solid enough to do it, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? 

 I found this, http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/10/us-banks-ready-to-repay-bail-out-money-but-fears-of-further-credit-crunch     
 ..in a search (I'm new to searching, so I have a somewhat difficult time finding correct paramaters for searches). It's interesting that the banks have to be allowed, to ask, to give the money back.

 It's not twisting things, but a point of view. The fact you call it twisting of facts right away is worrisome. You automatically cast aside those views which you don't agree with as paranoia, ignorance, paranoia. That is not a good start for a discussion when you dismiss the other person. One could come to the conclusion that you assume your facts are 1, better, 2  your reasoning more sound, and 3  your opponents ignorant or stupid.

 
It's possible that all of our efforts to fix the economy will go to waste, and that the Democratic reliance on Keynesian economics will prove ineffectual.  There's certainly an argument to be made for that in opposition of the majority party's actions at current.  What does the political discourse no good is to take the point of view that there's disingenuous actions going on.  It reminds me of the sort of things the liberals did during the Iraq war, when they wouldn't shut up about some supposed "blood for oil" motive behind the war despite the fact that there wasn't any evidence to support such claims.  If you're not willing to give those who oppose your idea the benefit of assuming they're genuine in lieu of any idea to think otherwise, I don't see why anyone should take you seriously as you cannot possibly add anything of value to a debate by assuming unprovable motives.

 I never said and have never supported the view that those who disagree should be shut up. This is a free country and those views should be free to be spoken. The same thing goes when the party in power switches. It's a free and open discussion that helps make this country great.

Offline Jude

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2009, 02:20:29 PM »
I never think people should "shut up."  I do think people should be honest about what they're basing their beliefs on.  And there's no reason to feel as cynical about things as you do.  There's not a shred of evidence that anything sinister is going on.  The only thing you come back with time and time again is that there's reason to feel "worried" about what's going on on any large scale.  I agree with you.  But there's no reason to feel corruption is going on.  That's really my only point.  Worry all you want, but when you start claiming the things you do using only public opinion polls as evidence (which proves nothing but feelings of the public) then you don't HAVE evidence.

Offline Zakharra

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2009, 06:40:19 PM »
 No. YOU don't see any reason to be cynical. I do. You trust the government and the federal goverment and apparently don't see a lot wrong with what it's doing. Many others do. We don't have the trust you do in the federal goverment.

 The fact the government is in control of 2 of the 3 US automakers and is in effective control over much of the bankinh industry makes a lot of people suspicious. Especially since several politicians and the President were quoted as saying they did not want to take control of the automakers. Yet they have effective control over them.

 There's a reason the public has such a low approval rating of Congress. The public doesn't trust them to do more than spend (waste) their tax money.

 Public opinion is a powerful thing. Perception IS reality. Politics lives mainly off of what is percieved. Are the politicians 'Doing a Good Job?'. Are they 'Listening to the Voters?' If polls are not to be used, why do so amny politicians and both parties (especially the Democrrat) use them? Because they show what they want and can be geared(twisted) to shape public opinion. Which -does- have an affect. Thus, perception is reality in politics.

Offline Jude

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2009, 08:35:32 PM »
No. YOU don't see any reason to be cynical. I do. You trust the government and the federal goverment and apparently don't see a lot wrong with what it's doing. Many others do. We don't have the trust you do in the federal goverment.
I feel like you're glossing over what I'm saying and reading what you want out of it.  I do see wrong with some of their actions and I've said so, but there's a difference between disagreeing with what's going on and not trusting their sincerity.  You don't seem to trust their sincerity even though there's no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the explanations they've given.  Why think they're liars unless they've shown they are or could be?

The fact the government is in control of 2 of the 3 US automakers and is in effective control over much of the bankinh industry makes a lot of people suspicious. Especially since several politicians and the President were quoted as saying they did not want to take control of the automakers. Yet they have effective control over them.
I've given the reasons why they assisted the banking industry and the auto industry.  I've laid it all out in multiple posts the logic behind it.  Do I agree that this was the best course of action?  No.  But I see no reason to doubt the justification they've given as the truth.  You're looking for there to be more to the picture without any reason to.  There's absolutely no reason to think that the powers that be are doing something sinister outside of paranoia and fear of centralized authority which stems from an ideological basis.

If there is a reason, then lay it out.  Why should we not take Obama at his word?  Or anyone else for that matter?  You seem to think that the actions, which can be and have been explained, intrinsically justify concern.  You use words like "take over," which in the instance of the banking sector is completely false.  They don't have absolute control of the financial system which is also part of your criticism in their failure to prevent the AIG bonuses.  What is it?  What exactly is your point?

There's a reason the public has such a low approval rating of Congress. The public doesn't trust them to do more than spend (waste) their tax money.

 Public opinion is a powerful thing. Perception IS reality. Politics lives mainly off of what is percieved. Are the politicians 'Doing a Good Job?'. Are they 'Listening to the Voters?' If polls are not to be used, why do so amny politicians and both parties (especially the Democrrat) use them? Because they show what they want and can be geared(twisted) to shape public opinion. Which -does- have an affect. Thus, perception is reality in politics.
Perception is reality?  That's really not even remotely true.  It's incredible if you actually believe that.  That would essentially make you an existential relativist, in which case there's not really a point in debating anything.

Your beliefs seem to be based on absolutely nothing but an endless train of circular logic and philosophical paranoia.  It seems to me that you're cynical and refuse to give government the benefit of the doubt.  If your default position is to doubt the intentions or motives of any in office, then you're an ideological anarchist by definition.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 08:50:52 PM by RandomNumber »

Offline Zakharra

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2009, 02:10:03 AM »
I feel like you're glossing over what I'm saying and reading what you want out of it.  I do see wrong with some of their actions and I've said so, but there's a difference between disagreeing with what's going on and not trusting their sincerity.  You don't seem to trust their sincerity even though there's no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the explanations they've given.  Why think they're liars unless they've shown they are or could be?

 I've seen, heard and read on the scandals that they get involved in. Favors from lobbyists The fact that many people seem to change when they get into office. Once in the Congress, the plan becomes, 'How do I get reelected?"  I think of them as liars, because they have, time and again, proven themselves to be liers.


 
I've given the reasons why they assisted the banking industry and the auto industry.  I've laid it all out in multiple posts the logic behind it.  Do I agree that this was the best course of action?  No.  But I see no reason to doubt the justification they've given as the truth.  You're looking for there to be more to the picture without any reason to.  There's absolutely no reason to think that the powers that be are doing something sinister outside of paranoia and fear of centralized authority which stems from an ideological basis.

 That's how you see it. That's not how I see it. You seem to see no cause for alarm. I do. I do not trust the federal government because it is too big. It is a bureaucracy, which is notoriously inefficient and tries to put people into broad generalizations. By it's nature, a large bureaucracy cannot look or care for everyone. It's officials become more concerned with what they control and it's not responsible to the people.

If there is a reason, then lay it out.  Why should we not take Obama at his word?  Or anyone else for that matter?  You seem to think that the actions, which can be and have been explained, intrinsically justify concern.  You use words like "take over," which in the instance of the banking sector is completely false.  They don't have absolute control of the financial system which is also part of your criticism in their failure to prevent the AIG bonuses.  What is it?  What exactly is your point?

  I don't take Obama at his word. I did not vote for him. I do not like his policies. Why should I take him at his word? He's promising to enact things I do not agree with politically.  Policies that you seem to agree with.

 When they can dictate how the banks can return the money,when the banks -have- the money to return.. They have more control over the financial sector than before. And they do control 2 large US automakers. Which does make people nervous. That means they can dictate what cars those companies make. Rather than letting the market dictate what actually sells.
 
Perception is reality?  That's really not even remotely true.  It's incredible if you actually believe that.  That would essentially make you an existential relativist, in which case there's not really a point in debating anything.

Your beliefs seem to be based on absolutely nothing but an endless train of circular logic and philosophical paranoia.  It seems to me that you're cynical and refuse to give government the benefit of the doubt.  If your default position is to doubt the intentions or motives of any in office, then you're an ideological anarchist by definition.

  And there you go again dismissing my opinion because it's not thew same as yours.  Because I am not agreeing with you, you seem to automatically  label me as a That would essentially make you an existential relativist, in which case there's not really a point in debating anything.. Which neatly allows you to ignore and dismiss anyone's opinion you disagree with.

 You should note, I do -not- dismiss yours. I do -not- toss yours aside, but I do look at them and try and see where you are coming from. Part of the issue is this is a text forum. Thus a good deal of communication is lost when body language, voice tone and manner isn't used.

 I take what the elected officials say with a large grain of salt, then observe their actions. As a former President said, 'Trust, but verify', and given their past history, it has made me somewhat cynical on politicians. I judge them first and foremost on their words and actions, and am not surprised when they do tend to get caught red handed.

Offline Jude

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2009, 02:52:16 AM »
But the whole automatic doubt of politicians, even when there's no indication of guilt, is essentially the same as racism.  Judging a person based on what group they belong to in spite of their personal characteristics is unproductive and essentially takes you out of the realm of the debatable.

I did not vote for George Bush, but that doesn't mean I automatically assumed that his motives were disingenuous and that he was a liar.  You don't have to agree with someone's policies to take them at their word.  In fact, refusing to take someone at their word when you have no logical reason not to (association with a group isn't a reason unless the definition of that group necessitates the association) is really a violation of the fundamental principle that's the basis for our legal system:  innocent unless proven guilty.

You seem to use the "popularity" argument when it comes to take the public's opinion to justify your position, yet more than half of the country has confidence in Obama and you don't.  You seem to pick and choose when you want to apply the arguments you use, instead of applying them universally.

You're right though, you haven't discounted my points of view exactly, and I have made statements that indicate I don't respect yours.  The reason I don't, is because if we can't trust each other and have debate based on what people say, there's no point in debating at all.  If you're just going to assume by default that politicians aren't worthy of trust, it's game over.  What's the point in debating politics at all?

Why elect anyone, no matter who we pick they're going to abuse the power.  But lets extend that further, you can't trust corporations.  Can you even trust mayors?  What is there something special about power that it only becomes corrosive when it reaches a certain point?  I mean I've even seen heads of a family abuse the trust and power of the other members.  I guess we can't have associations with people at all.

While the above paragraph isn't meant to be taken literally (as there are a few logical errors more than likely that I won't bother to sort out) it's how cynicism works.  It rots the foundations of faith in people, which is probably why I'm so opposed to it.  What irritates me further is that the specific brand of cynicism I see applied to politics in the form of the conservative movement is applied selectively.

They claim to be afraid of government power... yet they're for a larger military, which is the true source of any government's power.  They fail to realize that companies are capable of tyranny in a pure capitalist society the same way a the government is.  Companies are also capable of being bureaucratic or inefficient as well all on their own.  Even if they're not being bureaucratic they can serve the purposes of the corporate executives in a very dangerous way (such as how the amount of money executives make now today is many more times the amount of money that executives used to make when compared to what the laborers under them do).

All arguments against government being able to succeed and against "large bureaucracy" are based on upon old data.  They are not logical, they're statistical.  And the statistics collected by history were collected in the social, economic, and technological climates the past.  They're not perfectly applicable to the future simply by the basis of isolation of variables; too much has changed.

Offline SakiaWarner

  • It takes just a breeze to cause a storm, just a breath to cause a scream.
  • Lady
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Buffalo, NY
  • Gender: Female
  • Kneel before me. I said, KNEEL!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2009, 09:25:15 AM »
I think we have all missed the point of the original post and the opinion of the Supreme Court.

This is a very unusual case in that BANKS are one of the few institutions the Federal Govt oversaw that states DIDNT have the right to meddle in.

And thats odd because almost ALL Federal Laws.. ie Fair Debt Collection, Equal Housing, Truth in Lending.. all allow that states can basically make tougher laws above and beyond what the Feds do.

California for instance has more protection for those in debt than say...Indiana. Kentucky has NO regulation of debt collectors over what the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act gives.
But when it came to Banks.. states werent allowed to investigate them.. or bring them into court to answer for wrongdoing, it had to be done through the FEDS and THAT was what NY was ticked about.

Why is it that the Feds got to control banks and they were the only ones to hold them responsible?

States set their own usury rates, they set their own Commerical Code that might differ from the Feds Universal Commercial Code but they weren't allowed to bring banks to task when the banks screwed up.

This is about giving the states the right to go after a bank when the bank screws up in THEIR STATE!!!

The whole debate got off the topic.. Banks were about the ONLY institution that states weren't allowed to touch  or investigate. Only the Feds could.

This decision now pretty much tells Banks... get your shit together because not only are you held to Federal standards... but the states can hold you accountable too.

I dont see the issue with that at all. Its a good thing... a very good thing to protect the little people out there.

Offline Phoenix

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2009, 01:22:09 PM »
The Federal Government's job was never to make laws about what the States do, it was only to keep the states operating in Constitutional Manner.

The ONLY jobs of the Fed according to the real laws of this country (not the Unconstitutional laws passed illegally) are to keep the States Constitutional, to represent the States in foreign affairs, and to mediate between the states in cases of things such as commerce.

It is NOT meant to be a lawmaking establishment, that was usurped. State laws, so long as they are Constitutional, are the highest law of any given state. The only higher law than that is the Constitution.

Because our ancestors have allowed (and even sometimes supported) greater and greater usurpation by the Fed does not mean that what they're doing is Constitutional, legal, or must be accepted henceforth.

The Fed should never have been meddling with banking laws to begin with. it's technically illegal for them to do so, except as it applies if States directly request mediation.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2009, 05:24:03 PM »
The Federal Government's job was never to make laws about what the States do, it was only to keep the states operating in Constitutional Manner.

The ONLY jobs of the Fed according to the real laws of this country (not the Unconstitutional laws passed illegally) are to keep the States Constitutional, to represent the States in foreign affairs, and to mediate between the states in cases of things such as commerce.

It is NOT meant to be a lawmaking establishment, that was usurped. State laws, so long as they are Constitutional, are the highest law of any given state. The only higher law than that is the Constitution.

Because our ancestors have allowed (and even sometimes supported) greater and greater usurpation by the Fed does not mean that what they're doing is Constitutional, legal, or must be accepted henceforth.

The Fed should never have been meddling with banking laws to begin with. it's technically illegal for them to do so, except as it applies if States directly request mediation.

It's slightly unrealistic to expect the states to turn around and say, "No thank you, Mister Obama, we don't need all that money you're giving us for those federally funded programs. No, we'll manage to balance our budgets while trying not to raise taxes and tuition in state schools on our own, thanks!"

Just sayin', is all. We can sue in federal courts left and right - but that costs money, and time (which is more money), and effort that the states will only put forth on things locally and vitally important.

Offline Phoenix

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2009, 05:50:12 PM »
Yes, and that's how they've managed to get so totally out of control.

What's the quote? "He who would sacrifice his liberty for security deserves neither"? Something like that.

He who would sacrifice his liberty for another road deserves neither.

When will we stand up for our freedom?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2009, 06:02:49 PM »
I believe the topic of the thread is about an instance wherein the states have stood up for their liberties, actually.

Offline Phoenix

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2009, 07:13:17 PM »
I believe the topic of the thread is about an instance wherein the states have stood up for their liberties, actually.

Yes, I was more lamenting my State's recent foolish killing of a resolution that would prevent Fed abuses on our soil. This despite overwhelming citizen support for it.

Sorry, carry on. :p

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #45 on: August 01, 2009, 09:41:26 AM »
Every single state in the union objected.

Every. Single. One.

It's not like there's any disunity here. This is a case of a federal deregulation being seen as disastrous by every last participant in these United States. You can make arguments for federal power, but when it goes against -everyone's- will, there is a problem.

Look at the focus of WHY. Predatory Loans.

The federal government is not doing enough to work it out. One of the main focal points of this particular issue is the existance of PREDATORY Loan companies. These are the guys to do the 'We'll cash your check an wait till payday to clear it' guys. They are the ones who help the 'Will finance E-1 and up car places' you see around military bases.

One of my old COs spoke about NINE times in front of congress about the practices that were scamming the service members I worked with and I heard him comment once that as long as they (the loaners) had lobbyists in DC that nothing tangible would change.

Some of the payday loan places pull interest rates that LOAN SHARKS would be proud of. Do you blame state regulators wanting to do something to the big companies who are nationally run?

Next time you see the commercial with Gary Coleman about the payday loan company he's fronting pay CLOSE attention to the percentages at the end of the commercial. (Yeah the ones that flash by for like 6/10ths of a second).


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2009, 10:02:29 AM »
Some of the payday loan places pull interest rates that LOAN SHARKS would be proud of. Do you blame state regulators wanting to do something to the big companies who are nationally run?

Next time you see the commercial with Gary Coleman about the payday loan company he's fronting pay CLOSE attention to the percentages at the end of the commercial. (Yeah the ones that flash by for like 6/10ths of a second).

Or simply do a couple seconds of research with Google.  (Especially since I haven't seen any commercials for these businesses for months.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payday_loan#Controversy_and_criticism

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #47 on: August 01, 2009, 11:15:34 AM »
Or simply do a couple seconds of research with Google.  (Especially since I haven't seen any commercials for these businesses for months.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payday_loan#Controversy_and_criticism

They tend to come in cycles I've noticed.. Blitz for a few months, lay low for a few more.. you see more between halloween and april 15th than the rest of the year it seems to me.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2009, 11:25:02 AM »
Some states have recently passed laws limiting them, as well.  Even without the horrendous interest rates, it's a vicious circle:  You take out a payday loan to get you to your next paycheck, and then your next paycheck is needed to pay off the payday loan so you have to take out another payday loan to cover you until your next paycheck.

Offline consortium11

Re: WTF I agree with Scalia again!
« Reply #49 on: August 01, 2009, 11:36:59 AM »
While I'm no fan of some of the practices of payday loan companies, they do fill a hole in the market.

Especially now, most "respectable" institutions won't offer loans to the majority of people who use these payday companies because there is far too high a risk of default. Unless someone wants to offer security for the loan (which I doubt anyone would), then the way the payday companies make up for that risk is by having a high interest rate... risk/reward and all that jazz.

With too much restriction on how these companies can operate; perhaps an unreasonably low interest rate cap then they'll start taking security... and no-one wants to lose a home/car/possessions over a loan for a few hundred pounds/dollars.

On a theoretical level I prefer the pawn-shop method to the payday loan (even though both run the risk of trapping people), but it still serves a necessary purpose. If someone does need money before the next payday, what should they do instead?