Thread: Don't pull no punches, tell me what you really think.

[QUOTE=gugi;809649
For example the responsible thing was to bail out the banks, but then the responsible thing was to enact more comprehensive regulation that would prevent them from engaging in the same type of risky business (and they'll likely find a different way to do it). Instead what we saw was big outrage over the bailout, but when it came to regulations and prosecuting the crimes nobody seemed to care. I watched some of the congressional hearings and it was an embarrassment to watch senators accuse bankers of stuff that the government did, instead of the stuff the bankers did. To me they didn't look tough, just stupid and most certainly incompetent.[/QUOTE]

Regulations are the problem not the solution... Off the top of my head I can only think of two things that require regulation, worker rights and environmental reponsibility. And even these could be controlled by the market although I don't believe consumers care enough to make that work. Who could they charge with crimes? There was no crime being committed. Were the lending practices morally wrong? absolutely! But the lending institutions are not a charity despite the government trying to force them to behave as such. Anyhow if I could pick anyone Chris Christie (new jersey governor) would be my number 1 I feel it's okay to name him as he's not running but boy do I wish he was. A breath of fresh air a man that does what he said he would and tries to balance a budget like your mother or father balanced a checkbook every month.

Originally Posted by gugi

It makes a bit of a difference who is the president, but not all that much, as the government system in place is pretty robust and there are two other branches with a lot of power on their own.

For example making money equivalent to free speech and allowing unlimited amounts of them to buy politicians seems like something that will ensure very specific economic policy, irrespective of who are the politicians who end up making the decisions.

And as we know the recession ended long time ago, it's just that a lot of americans are very uncompetitive, so the free market is sorting out everybody's socioeconomic status according to their competitiveness compared to others across the world. Direct result of the globalization, which I consider inevitable, so you just have to take the good with the bad.
Of course everybody who doesn't like it is free to switch to self-sufficiency with the corresponding standard of living.

So, as long as they seem reasonably smart and intelligent (beyond political savvy) I think it doesn't make that much of a difference.

Yes, it makes a difference.

The president comes into office and directs all the agencies how they will operate. They decide how to interpret and enforce the laws and how the agencies are run. if they wish to ignore some laws and enforce others that's up to them and reflected by the political realities of the president's political affiliations.

So, for example if he wants the FDA to get cozy with drug makers and allow drugs to come to market with little over-site and some drug is produced in Uruguay under substandard conditions and you take it and you either die or are permanently disabled well, I guess that's important to you and others who meet the same fate.

That can be replicated throughout the Govt.

Yes, it's true to some extent, but the budget comes from congress, and interpretation of laws can be challenged in the courts. So if the majority in congress wants to hurt the enforcement of certain laws say regulation of drugs, environmental protection, finance industry, finance industry, etc., they can simply underfund them. Or stall the appointments of the agency executives.

But the most important part is that the politics in this country seem more and more dependent on huge amounts of money, so the policies are determined by the highest bidder.
I mean the current ultra-leftist anti-business socialist president was all for opening new regions in the Atlantic Ocean to offshore drilling, just before the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. How many people went in jail after the big scandal at MMS? How many from the finance industry?

Yes, there can be differences but those seem more pronounced in areas where there is less of the big money.

Was the adage 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer' ever more true. In the last 40 to 50 years the middle class is being decimated. Young people today don't remember when there was a manufacturing based society with a high standard of living. How can a 'consumer based economy' survive without well paying jobs ? At least when LBJ was president and I was in my late teens there was opportunity for a grammar school dropout to get a job and make a decent living. The entrepreneurs killed the goose that laid the golden egg. The American blue collar worker. Between illegals ..... A.K.A. "undocumented workers" ..... and offshoring both blue and white collar jobs the youth of today can look forward to flipping burgers or working at big box stores. The pols of both parties are equally responsible for this. When most of the reps are millionaires who are their constituents if not their peers ? What could they possibly know about struggling to pay mortgage, insurances, health care and taxes ? Since the celebrated Reagan the robber barons have been given carte blanch. Pleasant dreams.

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes, it's true to some extent, but the budget comes from congress, and interpretation of laws can be challenged in the courts. So if the majority in congress wants to hurt the enforcement of certain laws say regulation of drugs, environmental protection, finance industry, finance industry, etc., they can simply underfund them. Or stall the appointments of the agency executives.

But the most important part is that the politics in this country seem more and more dependent on huge amounts of money, so the policies are determined by the highest bidder.
I mean the current ultra-leftist anti-business socialist president was all for opening new regions in the Atlantic Ocean to offshore drilling, just before the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. How many people went in jail after the big scandal at MMS? How many from the finance industry?

Yes, there can be differences but those seem more pronounced in areas where there is less of the big money.

No matter who the titular agency head is the agency gets it's marching orders from Washington and there is always someone in charge be it permanent or a temp guy. If an agency is told to concentrate more on one aspect of their part of the federal regulations and ignore another that's not something that can be challenged in court. You only get into trouble for doing too much not too little.

yes your right about this anti-business president. Those corporations are really licking their wounds caused by the pres aren't they. Why the other day at the airport I saw all these corporate jets up for sale cause they couldn't afford them anymore. What about those unemployed CEO's and corporate execs selling apples on the street? Poor guys.

What you didn't get one yet? I picked up my second one a coupla weeks ago. The dude said he had a bit of a liquidity problem and urgently needed cash to buy apples to sell on the farmer's market. Said the fuel had gotten too expensive to fly the jet and he could sell it for me at a great deal because that'll cut his maintenance costs too. Plus he said with all the write offs back when he bought it he already made money just buying.

It's a nice jet, still new and shiny and the on-board fridge was fully stocked with Krug, though since he hadn't flown it in a while I had to get my caviar as it's only good for a few days. That's also how I know Iran's nice and safe - they've cornered all the good sturgeon, so nobody wants to make them angry. The ruskis won't share any of theirs, since nowadays they've got too many presidents and oligarchs all partying on the oil/gas/gold/diamonds/nukes/etc. money.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I don't disagree with you wanting a morally upstanding president, but between the founding of the US and now, there are a couple hundred years in which some things changed dramatically for the better, and which almost certainly would not appeal to the founders.
If the founders had been against slavery or believed in equal rights for women, they would have mentioned something about it in the constitution I think.

Actually, this was mentioned in the Constitution. The "Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves" was enacted in 1807 as a follow-up to a clearly-stated phrase in the Constitution that the Slave Trade were to end in America by the year 1808. From then on, we could not buy slaves. The only ones who could legally own slaves were those who already owned them before 1808. Their kids and grandkids and so on would become slaves. That is why we still had slaves in the 1860s during the Civil War. Abolitionists were pleased with this Act and the South hated it. However, any scholar, liberal or conservative, or any history book will tell you that the Civil War was inevitable, and would have happened even if slavery was already abolished. The North and South were too conflicted and too different. Yes, slavery was a main concern, but so were tariffs, and agriculture, and the economy. The South was too slow to catch up. There is no possible way that slavery would have entered the 1900s. The Civil War was bound to happen, and even if there was a chance it didn't, legislature would have passed to officially end slavery altogether.

I think the most important to me would be someone who isn't a product of past politics. Someone who is an MBA or finance guy (or girl) instead of a lawyer or career politician.

Also, it would help to get away from the normal two parties... there will ALWAYS be bias in our government. I think Mr. Lincoln said it best, "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the

wealthy out of prosperity.



2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work

for without receiving.



3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government

does not first take from somebody else first



4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.



5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work

because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the

other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody

else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end

of any nation.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the

wealthy out of prosperity.



2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work

for without receiving.



3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government

does not first take from somebody else first



4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.



5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work

because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the

other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody

else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end

of any nation.

I agree with this completely but I have a minor interjection.

I absolutely think the government should pretty much not be involved in ANYTHING. If the government interferes with nearly anything in your private life, it's too big. That being said... that's obviously not the way it is and it will probably never be like that again, sadly.

Someone recently told me that 93% of people who complain genuinely think there is something wrong or there truly is/was something wrong. The other 7% are the ones who are out to get something for nothing or are just spiteful people who will never be happy. This was told to me in regards to hotel guests... but applying it to welfare and other government programs, I think it might have some merit. There are absolutely many many many people abusing the system but there are some who actually need it.

Whether or not I even agree with with the existence of government programs like this is another story but it seems like it could be a case of lesser % of the group ruining it for the rest. Who knows for sure... the government surely doesn't care.