US Elections 2010

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by bayoab

No, it affects a lot more than that because so many of the large banks are directly connected to the same security houses that caused the problem in the first place. Thanks to the zero interest fed rate, the same companies that needed TARP bailouts were able to do the following:
1. Get a heavily restricted high interest TARP bailout
2. Get a near 0% interest unrestricted loan for what they owed
3. Pay off the TARP bailout freeing them from any restrictions. (Bonuses for failing for all!)
And then the kicker to all this...
4. Borrow more money from the US gov at near 0%
5. Loan the same money back to the US gov at real interest rates via other monetary instruments (think treasury bonds).
6. Pay your way out of the 0% interest loan and profit at the same time at the expense of the US tax payer.

People who cause the problem roll in profits again while the rest of the world struggles.

What is more interesting, is that you can fool almost an entire nation into thinking this will help the economy while it is in fact less visibly devaluating the money which in turn makes the economy appear to grow (if you think those devaluation statistics are correct you need to take a look at how they are performed) - just by simply using one or two indirections in the process - snip it is too complicate to understand for most people and can be easily misused (which is just another way to effectively lowering wages - to become more competitive at the cost of the workforce - which in an unlucky coincidence are also the actual (major*) customer of the stuff that gets produced - of which they can buy more with the less money they get??? somewhere this equation is flawed... *(the richer you get, the more bad a consumer you become, since you spend percentage wise less and less of your wealth for consumer goods)).

The real problem is, that cost for workforce becomes less and less significant compared to the cost for resources (and waste). Which means you have to add a lot of value to the raw materials to maintain the current status quo (which is impossible to achieve for everyone in the world, hence in a globalized market things have to even out between rich countries and developing countries...). But there is an actual elite in that system that is not subject to this balancing process, that benefits regardless. Because in a sense they are the policy/rule makers in the system (a the top). These elites don't even have to fully understand their part in the system, they form sort of a swarm intelligence in their quest to maximize profits.

This itself is not bad, unless it is optimized in a way, that the systemic rules cause the system to erode its balance into chaos (where tiny influences can cause havoc).

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Hooves

Well, my family is thinking of moving sometime soon, they cannot keep dealing with the stress that all this constant bickering is putting on your average citizen. But if what you said is true about the U.S able to bring the global economy down with them... Well... Were all going to be in a real ditch soon enough.. But, moving now will atleast release some "stress" for now...

It's the fact that the US is able to drag the world down with it that it's not really safe even to stay in Europe. You'd be just a little bit safer in East Asia as a matter of fact because they have a lot more of their own businesses going on there. There are a lot more american companies and mutual trade with the US in the west such as Europe, Russia and even the Middle East (the Saudi Riyahl is pegged to the dollar at a fixed exchange rate for instance, so a monumental drop in the value of the dollar would have serious consequences on Saudi economy, possibly affecting OPEC and the oil market as a whole because of it). As far as I know, US globalization doesn't have as big an influence in Asian countries like it does in Europe, so when things come falling down, that's the best place to be D=

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Has your country lost its mind?

We've always been crazy. That's how we've progressed and how we'll keep progressing. Despite the fear mongering, the reality is that there's always been a fight for progress in the US. Look at nearly every radical social change in this country and it has always been filled with the best and worst of people. From the Revolution, to the Civil War, to workers rights, suffrage, Civil Rights...it hasn't been easy, and it never will be.

I don't enjoy being in the middle of one of those major changes but I believe the end result will be a country that comes out stronger and better because of it. What that result will ultimately look like....who knows. The next decade promises to be something pretty revolutionary though.

[MeoTwister5]

Except the problem seems to be, and probably was Mentar's point, is that the worst of people look to overwhelm the good of people this time around. Or maybe perhaps the ranks of the worsts have outgrown those of the good. Whatever the case may be, outside observers like me see that the odds this time around look to be very much different than the odds 200 years ago.

In a way, perhaps there's not enough idealists this time around, only people who have either become too dulled to even care or have decided to join the ranks of those causing problems in the first place. Idealism is fine and all, but it doesn't look like there's enough idealists working to make it a reality.

[Mentar]

My point was not to insult people, but to pose the question if having a "deadlocked congress" for a prolonged time is a thinkable option. Because obviously in the current difficulties, a paralyzed government is the last thing you need.

Comparing to Germany, which has the Bundestag (equivalent of the House) and the Bundesrat (resemblance to the Senate, but the votes for each state all vote identically): There are times when the ruling party has control of both, then they can shape all laws below constitution-amendment level (which require a 2/3rd majority in Bundestag and Bundesrat) directly by themselves. There is no silly blockade via filibuster possible, and if something of this kind was even tried, there would be a huge backlash against the obstructionists (like it should be).

When the opposition parties gain the majority in the Bundesrat, it doesn't mean the end of the world, but a so-called "Vermittlungsausschuss" (mediation committee) is installed, which will negotiate the laws in question until a compromise is found.

The thought that almost all laws could be blocked via filibuster threat was silly enough in the last years - but the thought that now, there doesn't seem to be any legislation possible (president's veto against house majority), makes me wonder how American politics are supposed to work if even the most basic forms of cooperation are made impossible.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Mentar

My point was not to insult people, but to pose the question if having a "deadlocked congress" for a prolonged time is a thinkable option. Because obviously in the current difficulties, a paralyzed government is the last thing you need.

Comparing to Germany, which has the Bundestag (equivalent of the House) and the Bundesrat (resemblance to the Senate, but each the votes for each state all vote identically): There are times when the ruling party has control of both, then they can shape all laws below constitution-amendment level (which require a 2/3rd majority in Bundestag and Bundesrat) directly by themselves. There is no silly blockade via filibuster possible, and if something of this kind was even tried, there would be a huge backlash against the obstructionists (like it should be).

When the opposition parties gain the majority in the Bundesrat, it doesn't mean the end of the world, but a so-called "Vermittlungsausschuss" (mediation committee) is installed, which will negotiate the laws in question until a compromise is found.

The thought that almost all laws could be blocked via filibuster threat was silly enough in the last years - but the thought that now, there doesn't seem to be any legislation possible (president's veto against house majority), makes me wonder how American politics are supposed to work if even the most basic forms of cooperation are made impossible.

Well to be fair, we all know that democracy was visualized under the idea that every person and/or their representatives should have the right to express and enact their ideas and goals under proper discourse, on the assumption that people do it for the good of everyone in general.

Of course now we know that political discourse in governance is has been relegated to a few promoting the ideals and desires of a few. Filibustering was a tool to block what was perceived as legislative threats to the nation, not for political gain and all that. Everything we see now is really just a perversion where good ideas go bad and abused.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Solace

We've always been crazy. That's how we've progressed and how we'll keep progressing. Despite the fear mongering, the reality is that there's always been a fight for progress in the US. Look at nearly every radical social change in this country and it has always been filled with the best and worst of people. From the Revolution, to the Civil War, to workers rights, suffrage, Civil Rights...it hasn't been easy, and it never will be.

I don't enjoy being in the middle of one of those major changes but I believe the end result will be a country that comes out stronger and better because of it. What that result will ultimately look like....who knows. The next decade promises to be something pretty revolutionary though.

You're looking at the wrong portion of history. The crisis America is facing right now is not like the social or military struggles of the past. If you want a historical equivalent, take a look at Rome towards the end of its existence. Militarily, Rome was spread far too thin, with an empire stretching from Europe deep into Asia. America currently has its military deployed in 150 countries. Economically, Rome became too dependent on easy imports of grain and other materials and became a debtor nation. Currently, the US is the greatest debtor nation in the history of mankind. In terms of currency, Rome began to devalue their coinage by using only a fraction of precious metals. Currently, the US does not back their currency with any precious metals, and our supply at Fort Knox has not been audited in more than 50 years.

Now I could bring up more parallels but they can only go so far. Of course there are also many differences, but the similarities are striking. The US may not altogether collapse like Rome, but there's no doubt the next 50-100 years will be extremely tumultuous for this country. Just because we've gotten through very different conflicts does not give one a free pass to idealism.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Solace

We've always been crazy. That's how we've progressed and how we'll keep progressing. Despite the fear mongering, the reality is that there's always been a fight for progress in the US. Look at nearly every radical social change in this country and it has always been filled with the best and worst of people. From the Revolution, to the Civil War, to workers rights, suffrage, Civil Rights...it hasn't been easy, and it never will be.

I don't enjoy being in the middle of one of those major changes but I believe the end result will be a country that comes out stronger and better because of it. What that result will ultimately look like....who knows. The next decade promises to be something pretty revolutionary though.

No we have never been this polarized ever, and polarized over absurd outlandish lies and slander, like all muslims are terrorists, and sharia law is coming to your local government next month. I mean really at least the southern backwards white folk had economic incentive to deny black people their rights, what economic or rational incentive is there to deny gays their rights and due process?

[bayoab]

Well, that didn't last long. Rand Paul has already switched to his dad's position on earmarks:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

[Sugetsu]

Wow Rachel Maddow just destroyed the GOP's fiscal conservative message tonight. Why can't the democrats communicate their message as clearly as she does???

[GundamFan0083]

Sugetsu all this proves to me at least is that George Carlin was right:

[bayoab]

Here's the chart that I've been looking for which expands it more to just presidents:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._deficits.html

And a related farkline:
GOP will support extending jobless benefits if all Bush tax cuts are extended. For those keeping score, that's decreasing revenue while increasing spending. Deficit? What deficit?

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Sugetsu all this proves to me at least is that George Carlin was right:

I have been saying pretty much the same thing throughout this thread. What is really troubling is that the system doesn't want you to think critically.

[synaesthetic]

I kinda like Rachel Maddow because she's an awesome bitch, but she's really reaching in that video.

Lots of doublespeak and obfuscation going on there. Tax cuts only add to the debt if spending remains the same.

Taking away income only relatively raises spending percentages, and only if spending does not decrease as a result.

I do agree that the GOP wants to spend money on stupid things, however, the Dems don't want to spend it any smarter. As Vexx and I have both pointed out on many occasions, the two parties in America are no longer the Democrats vs. the Republicans, but the Corporatist Robber Barons vs. Everyone Else.

The sooner we realize that and ignore arbitrary distinctions like who's an ass and who's an elephant, the sooner we can recover from this nightmare.

[ChainLegacy]

Or the corporatists versus no one at all, since the majority of the populace haven't woken up to their game yet. Which really doesn't bode well because it's pretty damn obvious at this point.