Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Then how do you explain the 'birthers', the crazy notions about gun toting in public, the idea that Obama is a radical socialist, that Obama bailed out the banks, that the government has taken over the auto industry, the insurance companies and the financial sector, death panels, FEMA internment camps, and is apologizing across the middle east?" Oh, they are a part of it too. Note that 20% have a high school education or less, but the uneducated are not the majority. These people are on the fringe, and predictably draw the most media attention. Overall, though, I would say that the motivating force behind all of this is that these people are all Republicans who are anti-Obama. From the article: >>They are overwhelmingly Republicans or disaffected Republicans: "For all their differences, these activists share much. They’ve traditionally supported Republicans: 70 percent backed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008; just 12 percent voted for Obama."<<
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Which, if you ask me, is pretty much where Obama has been on every issue he's been involved with since taking office. I keep hearing all these people screaming about him being too liberal, yadda, yadda yadda - and yet, he seems to have compromised with both sides on all issues and landed squarely in the center.<< Which is what I find so creepy about the state of politics in our country right now. People are so unthinking about this stuff, they just assume that Democrat=Left and Republican=Right. In reality, right now Republican=Far Right, and Democrat=Moderate. So reasonable legislation proposed by Democrats is decried as "Socialism," and extreme. If only - we could use a little extremism in our approach to healthcare and financial reform.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<If only - we could use a little extremism in our approach to healthcare and financial reform.>> Exactly. And that's how I feel about climate change regulations too. I feel like Obama has been too willing to compromise with the Republicans, and I would like to see him be more extreme about stopping global warming, and working to get us off our addiction to oil. Instead, he's opening up more areas for drilling - which is not going to help this country in the long run. But, you would think that would make the conservatives happy with all their shouts of "drill baby, drill" - but instead, I just hear more complaining. I don't think anything would make them happy, so I don't know why he bothers...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It just seems to be his natural impulse. We'll see how many times he gets his extended hand slapped away before he stops bothering to extend it.
Originally Posted By DAR I've asked it before and I'll ask it again. How much regulation is too much? And who regulates the regulators?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<How much regulation is too much? And who regulates the regulators?>> What's the big fear here? That the regulators are going to be corrupt and what exactly? Over-regulate? How is setting up regulators to watch Wall Street any different than the dozens of other government regulators out there? Are you as concerned about the FDA? Or the EPA? We obviously need those organizations, right? It's been proven time and time again that companies don't always do the right thing - and the banks and large financial firms proved this once again last year during the Financial Crisis - hence the need for more government oversight.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's been proven time and time again that companies don't always do the right thing - and the banks and large financial firms proved this once again last year during the Financial Crisis - hence the need for more government oversight.<< Exactly. Left largely to their own devices, look what happened. I almost wish, sometimes, that there were a way to try out the regulation-free world many conservatives seem to pine for. I think it would turn into a very grim Dickens novel very quickly.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>It's been proven time and time again that companies don't always do the right thing<< Look at the automakers. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to implement safety and fuel efficiency features we take for granted. Some say the market would have handled that, but the truth is that Joe 6 Pack wasn't interested in airbags or crash tests. He just wanted a cool car that required a minimum of maintenance.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The automakers didn't even want to install seat belts originally. DAR, we had some sensible regulations that were put in place after the stock market crash and which served us well FOR 70 YEARS. Wall Street still made scads of money, was not "over"-regulated, and the rules did what they were designed to do: prevent another Great Depression. Foolishly, those rules were done away with more recently. And look what happened: nearly another depression, which was only staved off by massive bailouts and stimulus. (And read up on the Great Depression if you think it would have been no big deal to go through another). AFAIK, no one's talking about doing anything but restoring some (not even all!) of the regulations we had for 70 years, under which Wall Street did just fine. How can that possibly be "too much?"
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<no one's talking about doing anything but restoring some (not even all!) of the regulations we had for 70 years>> You would think that the Democrats would be shouting this as much as possible on national television. And yet, just like when they were trying to get health care passed and didn't focus enough attention on all the people that were hurting under the current system, they're doing a terrible job of selling this legislation. This should be a slam dunk for them - people everywhere are fed up with Wall Street, and yet, once again, they are struggling to get anything passed. Are they really that bad at creating propaganda? The Republicans and the Tea Baggers seem to have this skill down - and I think the Dems should take a lesson from them. But, unlike their foes, they need to focus on the TRUTH - which, at times, can be a very powerful message!
Originally Posted By ecdc DAR's approach is a common one. People will pay lip service to the enormous problems we face (if they address it at all) but then spend most of their focus on peripheral issues that we've either had no problem with in the past (such as Wall Street regulation) or raise legitimate, but ultimately much more minor concerns, and then act as if they concern is equal to the enormity of the problem we're facing. It's this very odd set of misplaced priorities, as if attacking government and everything they do should always be our first priority. "Yeah, those Goldman Sachs guys driving us to the brink of collapse and ruining millions of lives and committing fraud was a real shame and all that, BUT government! Oh government! One time I had to wait in line at the DMV for three hours! And don't even get me started on the post office!" To put it another way, it's a bit like getting your arm cut off, then spending all of your time worrying that the tourniquet isn't clean enough.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"Yeah, those Goldman Sachs guys driving us to the brink of collapse and ruining millions of lives and committing fraud was a real shame and all that, BUT government! Oh government! One time I had to wait in line at the DMV for three hours! And don't even get me started on the post office!"<< LOL! I heard a term I liked yesterday: Junk food politics. It describes a lot of the current "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore" outrage lacking substance.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Last night the pundits were saying that the republicans are going to back down from their unsupportable position of blocking financial reform. There argument in a nutshell was going to be that the house bill PROTECTED wall street from oversight and would open the door for future taxpayer bailouts. They were also planning on advocating for letting financial companies collapse. The problem was that what they were alleging about the house bill was compeletely and demonstrably untrue, and that allowing our economy to collapse as a result of GOP policies would be disastrous FOR THEM politically, and they couldn't stand in front of cameras and microphones and defend their own position - it was a loser all the way around. So they're in the process of reversing themselves, and the GOP senators might even vote en masse in support of the bill to avoid any political blowback from the whopping lies they've already said. While this is a refreshing change - if true - it still comes from political strategy of what's best for the GOP and not out of concern for the well being of the nation and/or good governance. So it seems that they can be dragged over to a sensible position but only because it serves their own selfish interests.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 My guess is that they'll vote for it (at least a lot of them) and a). say it's not really an Obama/Democratic accomplishment, since "everybody" wanted financial reform all along, and b). it's only a good bill because they made "changes" to it so the GOP really ought to get the credit. Of course, neither thing will be true, but I can picture Mitch McConnell saying it clear as day.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You know how to tell if something's true? Listen to Mitch McConnell's version of any event and think the opposite.
Originally Posted By DAR <<It's been proven time and time again that companies don't always do the right thing - and the banks and large financial firms proved this once again last year during the Financial Crisis - hence the need for more government oversight>> Well if the SEC actually did its job the first time around there would be no need for this.
Originally Posted By DAR <<BUT government! Oh government! One time I had to wait in line at the DMV for three hours! And don't even get me started on the post office!">> Sorry if I expect good customer service from private or government industries. You can be a real prick sometimes.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Sorry if I expect good customer service from private or government industries.<< No one said not to. But you use bad customer service or the realities of bureaucracy to assail just about everything government does, while ignoring or downplaying the god awful practices of private industry that leads to foreclosure, bankruptcy, or even death (in the case of health insurance) for your fellow citizens. You're focusing on the wrong things. Calling me names doesn't really change that.
