|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The composition of the DOW has changed. I'd explain why this matters but am tired of educating people about the economy. My final conclusion is that 99% of humanity isn't worthy of stating an opinion beyond ice cream flavour preference and that democracy needs to die.
| Quote: |
| What irresponsible monetary policy? |
Die Democracy Die. Sharing a political system with people like this is torture. One person one vote is insane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll provide the rest of akcrono's quotation.
| akcrono wrote: |
| I would hardly call Obama more corporatist than any other recent president. It's not like he actually has control over bank breakups or new regulation. Hell, Dodd-Frank is watered down and barely effective, and yet that's a struggle to keep on the books and implement. If anything, he less corporatist than Romney. |
Oh, no. That most certainly does *not* help his case.
You know a President has failed when even his supporters defend him in exclusively relativist language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I'll provide the rest of akcrono's quotation.
| akcrono wrote: |
| I would hardly call Obama more corporatist than any other recent president. It's not like he actually has control over bank breakups or new regulation. Hell, Dodd-Frank is watered down and barely effective, and yet that's a struggle to keep on the books and implement. If anything, he less corporatist than Romney. |
Oh, no. That most certainly does *not* help his case.
You know a President has failed when even his supporters defend him in exclusively relativist language. |
Cubs vs White Sox. That's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I'll provide the rest of akcrono's quotation.
| akcrono wrote: |
| I would hardly call Obama more corporatist than any other recent president. It's not like he actually has control over bank breakups or new regulation. Hell, Dodd-Frank is watered down and barely effective, and yet that's a struggle to keep on the books and implement. If anything, he less corporatist than Romney. |
Oh, no. That most certainly does *not* help his case.
You know a President has failed when even his supporters defend him in exclusively relativist language. |
Cubs vs White Sox. That's all. |
Both parties are almost the same, it was actually my point when I started the thread.
Last edited by No_hite_pls on Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:36 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| He's advocated for more regulation |
That's nice. Meanwhile, many of his economic advisors are/were people directly responsible for the financial deregulation - including the repeal of Glass-Steagall - that caused this mess in the first place. But to a true believer such as yourself, this is simple a story of Obama - who really wanted to reform the system - being opposed at every avenue by those evil Republicans. The fact is that it doesn't matter who has the presidency, or who controls Congress, both parties work in the interests of your corporate masters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| He's advocated for more regulation |
That's nice. Meanwhile, many of his economic advisors are/were people directly responsible for the financial deregulation - including the repeal of Glass-Steagall - that caused this mess in the first place. But to a true believer such as yourself, this is simple a story of Obama - who really wanted to reform the system - being opposed at every avenue by those evil Republicans. The fact is that it doesn't matter who has the presidency, or who controls Congress, both parties work in the interests of your corporate masters. |
http://goldseek.com/news/DailyReckoning/images/2-20dr.jpg
^ What they did to America was bad but what they did to Russia was many order of magnitude worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What irresponsible monetary policy? |
Die Democracy Die. Sharing a political system with people like this is torture. One person one vote is insane. |
People who can't form a solid argument? Yea, it's torture.
| Kuros wrote: |
I'll provide the rest of akcrono's quotation.
| akcrono wrote: |
| I would hardly call Obama more corporatist than any other recent president. It's not like he actually has control over bank breakups or new regulation. Hell, Dodd-Frank is watered down and barely effective, and yet that's a struggle to keep on the books and implement. If anything, he less corporatist than Romney. |
Oh, no. That most certainly does *not* help his case.
You know a President has failed when even his supporters defend him in exclusively relativist language. |
There's something wrong with a thought process when people blame a man for a problem with a system.
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| He's advocated for more regulation |
That's nice. Meanwhile, many of his economic advisors are/were people directly responsible for the financial deregulation - including the repeal of Glass-Steagall - that caused this mess in the first place. But to a true believer such as yourself, this is simple a story of Obama - who really wanted to reform the system - being opposed at every avenue by those evil Republicans. The fact is that it doesn't matter who has the presidency, or who controls Congress, both parties work in the interests of your corporate masters. |
Explain to me how that description is inaccurate. Wall St. HEAVILY backed Romney, as he was pushing to repeal what little regulation we had. Obama has been trying to put legislation into place that will prevent the recession from repeating itself and that will actually pass the house and senate. Explain how any of that is objectively wrong.
You look at his advisers (admittedly poor choices, but there could be valid reasons) and assume that both candidates are controlled by "corporate masters" (why they're mine and not yours as well is another thing I fail to understand) regardless of behavior. Despite regulation Obama has pushed, you still think he's controlled by invisible puppet masters. Sounds like conspiracy theorist paranoia to me.
Are both candidates influenced by campaign contributions? Absolutely. To say that both are completely controlled by corporations when one has been providing evidence to the contrary is absurd, unfounded, and just rhetoric with no substance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slothrop
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
edit
Last edited by slothrop on Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not doubting (and even admitted) that campaign contributions influence candidates. You're right, though; "look at what they've done". Obama has been influential in passing regulation to prevent the bank meltdown from happening, and had to fight tooth and nail to get there.
So yes, I agree that money is corrupting our system and that it's a major problem. But there's a difference between that and "both candidates are the same" or that we have "corporate masters". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slothrop
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
edit
Last edited by slothrop on Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:02 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| slothrop wrote: |
obama had to fight tooth and nail to get the too big to fail banks to get even too bigger to fail and accept endless cash infusions from the fed at historically low interest rates so as to keep them alfoat and hand out record bonuses to their executives when by all rights they should have been kicked to the curb and probably even prosecuted?LOL
that obama sure is tough on wall street banks. what more could mcain or romney have done? send whitehouse interns dressed as strippers to their south hampton beach mansions each weekend?LOL |
Obama is playing the hand he is dealt. He could not have passed a renewed Glass-Steagall, so the only other option to prevent another subprime crisis was require large banks to have more liquid assets to cover their investments.
Do you have a better solution that would actually pass the republican house and wouldn't be filibustered? What, exactly, should Obama have done instead that you'd be happy with? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slothrop
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
edit.
Last edited by slothrop on Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| slothrop wrote: |
obama had to fight tooth and nail to get the too big to fail banks to get even too bigger to fail and accept endless cash infusions from the fed at historically low interest rates so as to keep them alfoat and hand out record bonuses to their executives when by all rights they should have been kicked to the curb and probably even prosecuted?LOL
that obama sure is tough on wall street banks. what more could mcain or romney have done? send whitehouse interns dressed as strippers to their south hampton beach mansions each weekend?LOL |
Obama is playing the hand he is dealt. He could not have passed a renewed Glass-Steagall, so the only other option to prevent another subprime crisis was require large banks to have more liquid assets to cover their investments. |
Such a simplification of housing and banking policy. And not even persuasive on that one point. How do you know he could not have passed a renewed Glass-Steagall, if his Treasury department had not been dead set against it?
This is an administration that has not prosecuted a single bank. Holder came out recently and admitted that the banks were too big to jail.
| Simon Johnson wrote: |
Eric Holder, the attorney general, stated clearly to the Senate Judiciary Committee,
| Quote: |
| �I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,� |
According to Mr. Holder, speaking as the top enforcer of the country�s laws, �some of these institutions have become too large.� |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Obama can kill Americans with robots but can't find it in himself to deal with fraud. He's just limited in what he can do, you know. Let's be honest. Obama is the real victim here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Such a simplification of housing and banking policy. And not even persuasive on that one point. How do you know he could not have passed a renewed Glass-Steagall, if his Treasury department had not been dead set against it?
|
Have you seen the current republican party? They are dead set against regulation. Rand Paul has been on a book tour pushing this very idea. Romney ran on the platform of repealing Dodd-Frank with no alternative to take its place.
If you truly believe that it would be possible for Obama to reintroduce Glass-Steagall with the party that was responsible for its removal (and refusal to acknowledge the repeal as a major player in the recession), then no amount of evidence will ever convince you.
| Kuros wrote: |
| This is an administration that has not prosecuted a single bank. Holder came out recently and admitted that the banks were too big to jail. |
This is an excellent point. There was a planet money episode recently that covered it. There's merit to the idea that prosecuting banks isn't worth it (causes economic harm in a fragile economy), but I think there won't be deterrence without prosecution. Elizabeth Warren has been pretty good about this so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
