Republican Brown wins Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Yes, I think that sounds like a right interpretation. I also think it's one main reason that they're losing control.

Keep in mind, I think most far right wing Republicans have the same problem, and the Republicans better take notice if and when they regain power. The far left and far right both want control, they just want control over different aspects onf our society, and through he society, the individual.

I think thats why people are rejecting social conservatoves as well as leftist democrats, and independents are growing faster than they have in history.

Then I agree, political leaders on both sides aren't embracing the open-ideal or at least understanding its power over society right now and trying to implement some of it. I hope they do because I see the power everyday of the new socialism. I know the Obama administration at least made some feigns at opening up the government, though I'm guessing he hasn't succeeded much at that. But I digress.

However, I do not think the era of "evil and greedy corporations and special interests who seek to grind them down and suck them dry" being able to impose their influence over the masses is over or will be for a long time. Even educated people can not possibly be educated about everything, which means they can be swayed by misinformation just as much as the uneducated masses. See the vaccines cause autism "debate" for a perfect example of what misinformation can do. So in turn I don't think the era of needing leaders to shepherd us through those boogeymen is over either.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

So in turn I don't think the era of needing leaders to shepherd us through those boogeymen is over either.

But does leadership necessitate control? When we attack corporations/banks (even when they do exactly what we ask of them) and regulate/tax/operate them, power is not being destroyed, simply moved and centralized. Once this centralization is complete, the abuse begins and principles go out the window.

We can see this now in the recent union deal exempting them from taxes levied on "cadillac" healthcare plans in the Senate bill, and also on the recent taxes proposed for banks, many of which already paid back their TARP funds, with interest, while failing TARP/bailout companies link Chrysler, GM, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from their own mistakes, with little no TARP paid back. Afterall, how can you tax yourself since the government basically owns these pseudo-private companies? This is why government cannot compete with private industry, because government sets the rules by which their competition must abide.

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

Are monopolies the only place where a line should be drawn?

If a company/bank/etc grows to the point where they can destroy the country's economy if they fail.. then they need to be regulated a lot stronger imo. "Too big to fail" shouldn't exist, since it's a threat to our way of life and national security. If a company starts crossing that line, I feel that it's the government's job to protect the masses from them.

Much like a monopoly.

Though it's a very complicated situation.. The best thing to do imo is to prevent things like this from happening, because once they get too big.. it's a situation of being damned if you do something, and damned if you don't. You act on them when they're too big, and it may inspire them to take more risks knowing the government will just save them anyway.. you don't act and there's a financial meltdown. So really the only thing you can do is take steps to prevent AIGs from happening.

As for the whole politic's opinion in that article that was posted, both sides are guilty of that. This is why the Republicans lost power, and why the democrats seem to be losing it now. It's a new era.

[Professor S]

Speaking of populist attacks on business and their consequences...

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks sank, extending the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s biggest three-day tumble since March, as financial shares slumped on President Barack Obama’s plan to rein in banks and results at Google Inc. disappointed investors.

Bank of America Corp. led the S&P 500 Financials Index to a 3.3 percent drop as uncertainty over Ben S. Bernanke’s confirmation for another term as head of the Federal Reserve also weighed on lenders. Google sank 4.3 percent after fourth- quarter sales growth missed the most optimistic of analysts’ estimates. U.S. Steel Corp. fell as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said China’s move to slow its economy will hurt metal producers.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index lost 1.8 percent to 1,096.8 at 3:31 p.m. in New York, erasing its gain for 2010. The gauge has slid 4.7 percent over the past three days as China moved to slow lending and Obama made his proposal. The Dow sank 170.65 points, or 1.6 percent, to 10,219.23 and is down 4.7 percent over the past three days. The VIX, a measure of volatility, jumped 24 percent to 27.67, the highest since November.

“Bernanke is viewed by markets around the world as a positive for the U.S. economy and the uncertainty about his reconfirmation is accelerating today’s sell-off,” said Michael Holland, who oversees more than $4 billion as chairman of Holland & Co. in New York. “Tag that onto the concerns over China’s economy and Washington’s offensive against the banks.”

The S&P 500 is down 4.5 percent since Alcoa Inc. started the fourth-quarter earnings season on Jan. 11 with lower-than- estimated profit. Analyst forecast earnings grew 73 percent in the October-December period following a record nine quarter slump.

Banks Slump

Morgan Stanley lost 4.5 percent to $28.2, Bank of America fell 2.7 percent to $15.06 and Goldman Sachs declined 3.2 percent to $155.69. The S&P 500 Financials Index has slipped 6 percent over the past two days, its biggest decline since September.

Obama yesterday called for limiting the size and trading activities of financial institutions as a way to reduce risk- taking and prevent another financial crisis. The proposals, to be added to an overhaul of regulations being considered by Congress, would prohibit banks from running proprietary trading operations solely for their own profit and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds.

Meredith Whitney, the banking analyst who forecast Citigroup Inc.’s dividend cut in 2008, said Obama’s plan will probably be approved and may “dramatically” reduce trading profits.

Is this how he planned to address the economy after the Mass. Senate upset? By attacking financial institutions in a recession? Is this going to create jobs? Is this going to spur lending and investment?

I simply disagree with Pres. Obama... My 401K plan has hired a hitman.

[Acebot44]

Originally Posted by manasecret

However, I do not think the era of "evil and greedy corporations and special interests who seek to grind them down and suck them dry" being able to impose their influence over the masses is over or will be for a long time.

Good hunch.

Check this shit out.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Acebot44

Good hunch.

Check this shit out.

I couldn't believe the Supreme Court did this. This is the most disturbing news out of politics I've experienced in a while. It just doesn't seem right.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

I couldn't believe the Supreme Court did this. This is the most disturbing news out of politics I've experienced in a while. It just doesn't seem right.

Honestly, corporate entities and other special interest groups regardless of political alignment never stopped financing campaigns. The McCain/Feingold legislation only required that they set up subsidiary organizations to then funnel funds to candidates and "non-affiliated" ad campaigns. George Soros has been doing this for years.

All this ruling does is put it out in the open so you know whose money is going where, instead of the money coming from "Concerned Citizens for _________."

EDIT: Here is little more of the court's ruling, without Huffington's decidedly biased quoting:

“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

So in the end, corporations/unions/organizations and other special interests may be required to add disclosure to their speech regarding campaign finance, but it is unconstitutional to prohibit that speech (1st Amendment). If you actually believe in the Constitution (Justice Steven's never really has), there isn't any basis to keep large orgs from financing and campaigning for candidates.

[TheGame]

I guess the bright side to this, is that the democrats have grown a backbone now. They've been coming out a lot stronger now.. But we'll see.

[Jason1]

I heard this guy used to be a nude model.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

I heard this guy used to be a nude model.

LOL! Did you hear that from Olberman, or when Jon Stewart mocked Olberman?

And here is the proof:



And his hot daughter...

[The Germanator]

And you can see his future wife give a bottle of suntan lotion a hand job in this video.



Yee-ha.

[Professor S]

I love how some leftists in the media are feigning "outrage" at stuff like this, while they all love Pres. Clinton who got blown in the oval office. You can cut the agenda-driven politics, self-righteousness and hypocrisy with a knife.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I love how some leftists in the media are feigning "outrage" at stuff like this, while they all love Pres. Clinton who got blown in the oval office. You can cut the agenda-driven politics, self-righteousness and hypocrisy with a knife.

I completely I agree. I mean, I find this stuff funny, but nothing about it says that Mr. Brown shouldn't be a senator. Much the same as it didn't reflect on the political skills of President Clinton.

Some friends and I were talking about this in the bar a few weeks ago. For anyone born in this day and age, is there anyone without something slightly embarrassing about them on the internet? I mean, how soon is it that we'll have a sex tape President and it won't really matter? I could see it happening in my lifetime. I mean, to an extent I don't care, but I still think John Edwards is a douchebag for what he did even though that doesn't necessarily relate directly to politics.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

I completely I agree. I mean, I find this stuff funny, but nothing about it says that Mr. Brown shouldn't be a senator. Much the same as it didn't reflect on the political skills of President Clinton.

Some friends and I were talking about this in the bar a few weeks ago. For anyone born in this day and age, is there anyone without something slightly embarrassing about them on the internet? I mean, how soon is it that we'll have a sex tape President and it won't really matter? I could see it happening in my lifetime. I mean, to an extent I don't care, but I still think John Edwards is a douchebag for what he did even though that doesn't necessarily relate directly to politics.

Good point about the age of the internet and politics. All skeletons will be public knowledge eventually. I smoked pot in college. If I wanted to run for office one day, I'd hate for that to be the reason I lost an election, but then again Pres. Obama already broke that glass ceiling by admitting he even did cocaine.

We are quickly becoming a very permissive society, for good and ill.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

But does leadership necessitate control? When we attack corporations/banks (even when they do exactly what we ask of them) and regulate/tax/operate them, power is not being destroyed, simply moved and centralized. Once this centralization is complete, the abuse begins and principles go out the window.

We can see this now in the recent union deal exempting them from taxes levied on "cadillac" healthcare plans in the Senate bill, and also on the recent taxes proposed for banks, many of which already paid back their TARP funds, with interest, while failing TARP/bailout companies link Chrysler, GM, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from their own mistakes, with little no TARP paid back. Afterall, how can you tax yourself since the government basically owns these pseudo-private companies? This is why government cannot compete with private industry, because government sets the rules by which their competition must abide.

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

I feel like you're going on tangents here, which is fine, but I'm a little slow and I'm not following your main point that followed mine, which I think has something to do with the "shepherding leaders" taking too much control/power. Care to elaborate?

As for the banks, do you not think the banks that were too big to fail should be regulated so that they're not too big to fail, and regulated so that they can't take enormous risky investments that cause the whole economy to implode because of it? It seems like the overall message to the huge banks from the recession and the bailouts is that it's okay for them to make very risky investments, because the government will back them up in the end. It seems to me that message needs to change.