When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[Heysaboda]

How did Mittens serve his country?  Bicycling in France, the little ponce.

He's an amiable doofus, a well meaning bumbler and a useful idiot for the Koch Brothers.

[Jason]

You know...I don't think anyone has disagreed more with rockandroll's points than I have, yet I have not felt the need to personally attack him for his views like others have. I think there could be a bit more tact here.

[GreatUrduPoet]

How did Mittens serve his country?  Bicycling in France, the little ponce.

He's an amiable doofus, a well meaning bumbler and a useful idiot for the Koch Brothers.

How can you tell that you're arguing with a Leftist imbecile?
1) They open with the race card.
2) They follow with comparisons of their opponents to Hitler/Nazis.
3) The Koch Brothers are EVER MENTIONED in any context.

I'm not a big Romney fan myself, but I'm not a statist tool either.

[Jason]

I must admit that I love the fact that Democrats bitch about "greedy corporations" and "greedy banks" when Goldman Sachs is both Obama AND Romney's number one donor and the fact that BOTH parties have been in the hands of the corporations and the military industrial complex since the 1950s.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I must admit that I love the fact that Democrats bitch about "greedy corporations" and "greedy banks" when Goldman Sachs is both Obama AND Romney's number one donor and the fact that BOTH parties have been in the hands of the corporations and the military industrial complex since the 1950s.

That's true, but really, the population at large is meant to be kept away from the political world and for the most part supporters of either party do not know what policies they are voting for. In fact, a few years ago, a poll found that the majority of Republican voters thought that George Bush supported the Kyoto program because they themselves supported it. Ultimately, the public is not given the information they need to make informed decisions, and I think that's quite on purpose. Elections are personality contests not policy contests, or they are typically about trivial minor subjects (religion, scandal, etc.) and the mainstream media as a whole works to reinforce this notion.

[Jason]

As long as Americans have their bread and circus they'll be fine in their opinions. sh*t, most of them don't even know that their benevolent dictator, Dear Leader Obama, signed legislation that made the United States a battleground and allowed for assassination and indefinite detention without trial of American citizens. Oh, but he said he won't do it. He said we can trust him.

I am NOT a fan of Bush 2.0 at all, but if this happened under his regime, there would have been blood in the streets.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

As long as Americans have their bread and circus they'll be fine in their opinions. sh*t, most of them don't even know that their benevolent dictator, Dear Leader Obama, signed legislation that made the United States a battleground and allowed for assassination and indefinite detention without trial of American citizens. Oh, but he said he won't do it. He said we can trust him.

I am NOT a fan of Bush 2.0 at all, but if this happened under his regime, there would have been blood in the streets.

Apart from your use of the term "dictator", I agree with all of that wholeheartedly. Democrats get away with much worse because they are branded as being the progressive party. The American protests against the Iraq war were monumental and a great achievement but they could have been carried out a decade earlier when Clinton was pushing policies that led to more deaths in Iraq than anything Bush ever did, which was heinous enough. And more up to date, Obama has done little more but expand the war on the Middle East, and there has been much less direct dissident action under that. That being said, the Occupy Wall Street movement is pointed squarely at the policies carried out by both political parties.

[Jason]

I stand by my use of the term dictator, since the NDAA FY 2012 grants those powers to the President of the United States. Yes, they are dictatorial powers. Same as Executive Orders.

Occupy Wall Street should be coordinated between both Wall Street AND Washington, D.C. Remember, if it wasn't for Washington bailing out those companies, they wouldn't have been able to get away with what they did. Keep in mind, it was a legion of Democrats who voted to bail out Wall Street.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I stand by my use of the term dictator, since the NDAA FY 2012 grants those powers to the President of the United States. Yes, they are dictatorial powers. Same as Executive Orders.

There is no such thing as "dictatorial powers." A dicator has sole and absolute authority over every decision in the country - that is not the function of the President. Not only is that authority curbed structurally in the United States, but the President is now also beholden to the central ruling authority in the country, namely concentrated wealth and power and they have far more power than the President in the major decision-making process of the country. To call any President a dictator is to do a genuine disservice to people who have truly suffered under real dictatorship and it misses the point as to where power emanates from in the country.

Occupy Wall Street should be coordinated between both Wall Street AND Washington, D.C. Remember, if it wasn't for Washington bailing out those companies, they wouldn't have been able to get away with what they did. Keep in mind, it was a legion of Democrats who voted to bail out Wall Street.

Ultimately the bailouts were outrageous because the public had to once again provide the safety net for the ruling elite but, I believe, that they were necessary (though not in the way they were implemented) because there were real lives at stake. It's all well and good to say that we should just let these companies destroy themselves but the fact is that real ordinary working people would be affected by it on a mass scale, and they shouldn't be affected like that just because the system had become de-regulated, which was far outside of their control. The Occupy Wall Street movement places it focus where it matters  - the central power structure of our society, which does not emanate out of Washington. As you pointed out above (in your discussion regarding Goldman Sachs and their partial ownership of the government), the government has simply become representatives for the small class of powerful elites. The only people who can be elected are those who reflect the positions of the people who really own the country. It would be nothing short of a monumental waste of time to direct attention away from the real problem in order to focus simply on the people who carry out the policies for the central power sector of society.

[Jason]

You know what Iceland did to the entities that threatened the stability of their citizens and their economy? THEY SENT THEM TO JAIL. That is what should have been done with the banks in 2008. But nope. The Democrats wrote them a $700 billion check.

And the crash wasn't due to deregulation, it was due to overregulation. The housing bubble was created by the Clinton regime, because Bubba in all of his infinite wisdom decreed that everyone has a "right" to a house and FORCED banks under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to give out loans at 0% interest to the special interest groups of the day, those being blacks, Hispanics, and Asians or face criminal prosecution. Now, when you give out loans to people who have no means to pay them back, what happens? A bubble. The banks had to become flush with cash in order to hedge the huge losses and guess what? The bubble BURST. What happened next? The government, instead of admitting fault, gave those banks a $700 billion check to keep doing what they were doing.

Sorry, but big money and big government are hand in hand. If greedy banks and greedy corporations control the state, increasing the state will not off-balance the equation.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You know what Iceland did to the entities that threatened the stability of their citizens and their economy? THEY SENT THEM TO JAIL. That is what should have been done with the banks in 2008. But nope. The Democrats wrote them a $700 billion check.

I agree that the primary figures behind the crisis were criminals and should have been treated as such, no question. Nevertheless, there is no principle that compellingly suggests that people should face starvation and mass poverty because of the criminal activities of others.

And the crash wasn't due to deregulation, it was due to overregulation. The housing bubble was created by the Clinton regime, because Bubba in all of his infinite wisdom decreed that everyone has a "right" to a house and FORCED banks under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to give out loans at 0% interest to the special interest groups of the day, those being blacks, Hispanics, and Asians or face criminal prosecution. Now, when you give out loans to people who have no means to pay them back, what happens? A bubble. The banks had to become flush with cash in order to hedge the huge losses and guess what? The bubble BURST. What happened next? The government, instead of admitting fault, gave those banks a $700 billion check to keep doing what they were doing.

I don’t think that bears up to any serious investigation on the matter, to be honest and in fact flies in the face of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission which cited “Widespread failures in financial regulation” as a leading factor in the crisis. The housing bubble was already under way well before Clinton, as interest rates for everyone had been declining since the early 1980s. This is why no serious analysis of the crisis begins with Clinton. Moreover, the US government had been deregulating the financial institutions on a wide scale in the 1970s, including the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act which led directly to the Savings and Loan crisis in the late 80s. These regulations which separated commercial and investment banks and placed limitations on interest rates and loans by banks would have outright prevented financial institutions from using off-balance sheet securitization and derivatives and creating shadow banking systems to mask the excessive risks being taken with mortgage lending which is precisely what caused the crisis. These institutions were not forced to do this by Clinton - they were allowed to make these riskier loans precisely because of looser regulations that would have prevented them from occurring in the first place. It had nothing to do with Asians being unable to pay back loans – that’s a complete falsehood that is not backed up by any serious study.

Sorry, but big money and big government are hand in hand. If greedy banks and greedy corporations control the state, increasing the state will not off-balance the equation.

It certainly does off-balance the equation if “increasing the state” really just means decreasing the control of corporations.

[Jason]

You know what Iceland did to the entities that threatened the stability of their citizens and their economy? THEY SENT THEM TO JAIL. That is what should have been done with the banks in 2008. But nope. The Democrats wrote them a $700 billion check.

I agree that the primary figures behind the crisis were criminals and should have been treated as such, no question. Nevertheless, there is no principle that compellingly suggests that people should face starvation and mass poverty because of the criminal activities of others.

But the government just put that debt on the people, and therefore the recession became even worse. Sorry, but I would have let the banks and corporations go under. No bailouts. Better luck next time. Instead that debt was just dumped on the people. Ron Paul talked about this in 2009 and people thought he was nuts because at that time Dear Leader Obama was the guy who "saved American manufacturing". Americans are so stupid, they have no idea how much the government they love oh, so much has sold them down the river repeatedly.

And the crash wasn't due to deregulation, it was due to overregulation. The housing bubble was created by the Clinton regime, because Bubba in all of his infinite wisdom decreed that everyone has a "right" to a house and FORCED banks under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to give out loans at 0% interest to the special interest groups of the day, those being blacks, Hispanics, and Asians or face criminal prosecution. Now, when you give out loans to people who have no means to pay them back, what happens? A bubble. The banks had to become flush with cash in order to hedge the huge losses and guess what? The bubble BURST. What happened next? The government, instead of admitting fault, gave those banks a $700 billion check to keep doing what they were doing.

I don’t think that bears up to any serious investigation on the matter, to be honest and in fact flies in the face of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission which cited “Widespread failures in financial regulation” as a leading factor in the crisis. The housing bubble was already under way well before Clinton, as interest rates for everyone had been declining since the early 1980s. This is why no serious analysis of the crisis begins with Clinton. Moreover, the US government had been deregulating the financial institutions on a wide scale in the 1970s, including the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act which led directly to the Savings and Loan crisis in the late 80s. These regulations which separated commercial and investment banks and placed limitations on interest rates and loans by banks would have outright prevented financial institutions from using off-balance sheet securitization and derivatives and creating shadow banking systems to mask the excessive risks being taken with mortgage lending which is precisely what caused the crisis. These institutions were not forced to do this by Clinton - they were allowed to make these riskier loans precisely because of looser regulations that would have prevented them from occurring in the first place. It had nothing to do with Asians being unable to pay back loans – that’s a complete falsehood that is not backed up by any serious study.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2009/05/bill_clintons_classy_moment.html
https://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/recession-2008-clintons-contribution/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/democrats-caused-the-recession-and-republicans-tried-to-stop-it/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Alleged_relation_to_2008_financial_crisis

Those links explain it better than I.

Sorry, but big money and big government are hand in hand. If greedy banks and greedy corporations control the state, increasing the state will not off-balance the equation.

It certainly does off-balance the equation if “increasing the state” really just means decreasing the control of corporations.

Increasing the state merely increases the reach and control of corporations. Remove the state, the corporations have no leg to stand on.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But the government just put that debt on the people, and therefore the recession became even worse. Sorry, but I would have let the banks and corporations go under. No bailouts. Better luck next time. Instead that debt was just dumped on the people. Ron Paul talked about this in 2009 and people thought he was nuts because at that time Dear Leader Obama was the guy who "saved American manufacturing". Americans are so stupid, they have no idea how much the government they love oh, so much has sold them down the river repeatedly.

Again, I agree with that to a large degree – like I said, the people should not have been paying for the usual and predictable catastrophes of the de-regulated system. The bailouts should have been directed primarily towards working people and families facing foreclosure. That being said, it’s not simply “banks and corporations” going under, it’s also the many, many people employed there and you only exacerbate matters by refusing to provide them assistance. Ultimately I agree with you that you prosecute the people responsible for the crisis, but you don’t force regular working people who had nothing to do with it to deal with poverty and starvation on principle.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2009/05/bill_clintons_classy_moment.html

This article virtually says what I’ve said, reinforcing my point that “opposition to regulation of derivatives” was very much responsible for the crisis, along with other de-regulatory acts. It says precisely the opposite of what you have argued.

https://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/recession-2008-clintons-contribution/

This article likewise places the blame on deregulation – noting the “repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act” as a fundamental reason for the crisis and devotes the lion’s share of space to this reason, which is my exact argument on page 5 of this thread. Again, this is precisely the opposite of what you have argued.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/democrats-caused-the-recession-and-republicans-tried-to-stop-it/

This article blames the Democrats for causing the crisis because they “opposed” regulation unlike Bush who was “the first to recommend” regulation. The article again reinforces my point and opposes yours – it simply makes a more ardent case against the Democrats but it does so on the grounds that the Democrats opposed regulation and concludes that that is what caused the crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Alleged_relation_to_2008_financial_crisis

Well, you’ll notice that what that article does is explain how the Community Reinvestment Act was not responsible for the financial crisis, despite Ron Paul’s quotation which is then undermined by the voluminous evidence that is given in the following paragraph, which includes this relevant bit of information: institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight." Again, the article confirms that it is de-regulatory programs that led to the crisis.

I’m sorry but all of these articles oppose your position on this issue, as does just about any solid investigation on the matter.

Increasing the state merely increases the reach and control of corporations.

Again, not if increasing the state really means decreasing the power of corporations.

Remove the state, the corporations have no leg to stand on.

Quite the opposite: public power is one of the only things that can limit corporate power. If you really want to undermine corporate power, though, then you would actively support letting the people take over but that doesn't come so easily and is certainly more manageable in a society that doesn't allow for an overwhelming corporate tyranny.

[JanBerryFarm]

After reading all this (mostly) leftist counter-culture tripe, I wonder why any of you even love the Beach Boys.

Oh, that's right. You don't.

[Alex]

Okay, this is going to seem a bit vain but I am currently having a difficult time justifying to myself my participation in these political threads anymore. On a previous thread, I justified it this way:

"I respect people enough to believe that they can make up their own minds on these issues. However, I do believe that in order to make up one’s own mind it is important to look at a variety of perspectives and I am offering one. This is why I’ve urged others on this board to contribute here if they want to because the more voices there are the better. So all I’m doing is offering my perspective and if people want to come away reading this agreeing or disagreeing with that perspective, that’s perfectly fine. If they want to investigate the things that I’ve said for themselves and make up their own minds based on those investigations, even better. But my goal is certainly not to shape opinions."

Nevertheless, what I feel is that not many people (and I'm thinking about the ones who specifically read these threads) particularly care about my perspective at this point, which is perfectly fine. But if that's the case, it's just better for me not to contribute since I try to put some effort into these posts and try to present as compelling an argument as I possibly can. I'm just curious if there is anyone left who is still interested in these posts because I've collected some of the responses that I have received over the past year or so and it seems that I have taken a fair amount of personal attacks. Here is a sample of some of the responses to my posts and my views, including stuff from this thread:

Stop playing the victim

"Rock and Roll" 's posts illustrate exactly why political discourse is impossible in this country.

I really hope "Rock and Roll" that you don't truly believe that you represent the forces of sweetness and light

That's not politics or opinion -- it's fact. It's sad that someone needs to explain this -- which speaks volumes of just how much our education system has failed you

With all due respect, that's just crazy

Please, for the love of God, think about what you're saying.

This is not semantics. It's fundamental. Understanding this will help untwist your mind.

And you don't understand a thing I'm saying!!!! Hahaha!

Maybe you just need a job.

That's looney tunes. No one's going to take you seriously saying wild stuff like that. Common sense (installed in our proverbial motherboard at the factory) will cause people to quickly understand you're either dishonest or gravely misinformed.

I'll just savor this last quote as the glittering jewel of Looney Toon Leftism that it is.

You Flat Earth'ers are totally hilarious!!

How can you make a coherent argument when you throw out such gibberish terms?

Catch up, hoss...it's 2012 now.

I was right about you being in academia, right? Perhaps you need to start occupying 'reality street'.

You're preaching hokum

Whoever dressed you this morning put your right shoe on the left foot

A total nonsense statement unsupported by reality

What surprises me is to find such a choice specimen of V. Lenin's "useful idiot" brigade on a Beach Boys site

What kind of academic bubble do you exist in?

Have you held a responsible job in the non-academic (i.e: real) world? Lived away from your parents for longer than a semester at a time?

Either you have lived in a bubble, or have not spoken to or even have seen enough people

I'll have a two word response that begins with the letter "F" and ends with the word "you”

Then you have so disappeared up your own theological existence that you have lost contact with how life really is.

--

Now, guitarfool takes issue with my use of terms "groundless" and "absurd" but it seems to me that's fairly lightweight compared to some of the ongoing personal shots. Now, I'm thick skinned as well and don't particularly care about the personal shots. But I'm simply not willing to continue this if that's the only type of response that my posts generate. My secret hope is that there are others who may agree with some of the stuff I write but don't necessarily say anything. And, I should say that some of you (I'm thinking in particular of hypehat, rab, Smile Brian, Erik H and The Real Beach Boy) have been damn complimentary at times so there is that. But I have the sneaking feeling that there is simply no audience for these posts, which is perfectly fine. But I am just curious because I should probably spend less time doing this and more time in my "bubble" since I'll be teaching a course starting next week.

Rockandroll, I love your political posts here, and tend to mostly agree with you. I love reading the political threads...the only reason I don't contribute a lot is because my posts would most likely be nothing more than empty sloganeering which wouldn't really add much to the dialogue.

After reading all this (mostly) leftist counter-culture tripe, I wonder why any of you even love the Beach Boys.

Oh, that's right. You don't.

Umm...Smiley Smile through Holland?

[Moon Dawg]

How did Mittens serve his country?  Bicycling in France, the little ponce.

He's an amiable doofus, a well meaning bumbler and a useful idiot for the Koch Brothers.

 Romney may be many things, but "bumbler" probably isn't one of them. Few if any "amiably bumble" their way to a quarter of a billion $ fortune.

[hypehat]

After reading all this (mostly) leftist counter-culture tripe, I wonder why any of you even love the Beach Boys.

Oh, that's right. You don't.

Haven't you slithered under a rock and decomposed in your own filth yet?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Rockandroll, I love your political posts here, and tend to mostly agree with you. I love reading the political threads...the only reason I don't contribute a lot is because my posts would most likely be nothing more than empty sloganeering which wouldn't really add much to the dialogue.

Thanks for the kind words, Alex! I'm sure your comments would be valuable.

[GreatUrduPoet]

How did Mittens serve his country?  Bicycling in France, the little ponce.

He's an amiable doofus, a well meaning bumbler and a useful idiot for the Koch Brothers.

 Romney may be many things, but "bumbler" probably isn't one of them. Few if any "amiably bumble" their way to a quarter of a billion $ fortune.

True that. That's precisely why we need Mittens as POTUS to start running the Executive Branch like a business instead of an odd combination of union hall, law school faculty lounge and gay bath house.

[GreatUrduPoet]

How did Mittens serve his country?  Bicycling in France, the little ponce.

He's an amiable doofus, a well meaning bumbler and a useful idiot for the Koch Brothers.

[hypehat]

How did Mittens serve his country?  Bicycling in France, the little ponce.

He's an amiable doofus, a well meaning bumbler and a useful idiot for the Koch Brothers.

 Romney may be many things, but "bumbler" probably isn't one of them. Few if any "amiably bumble" their way to a quarter of a billion $ fortune.

True that. That's precisely why we need Mittens as POTUS to start running the Executive Branch like a business instead of an odd combination of union hall, law school faculty lounge and gay bath house.

Wow! How insightful! So, let's have a look.... what makes money for the government.... spend a lot on education, we can't  have any of that.... medicare? ooh, those people will die anyway. Cut that.... War? We spend how much on defence? Cut it back, that's so wasteful..... I guess we could toll everybody for roads... Oh! You know what makes money! We totally could get the Beach Boys to play the White House!

You can't run a government with any degree of humanity if you choose to be a 'business man' about it. Then again, I reckon that doesn't concern you right-wing intellectual types. So long as man is free (to starve...)

[GreatUrduPoet]

How did Mittens serve his country?  Bicycling in France, the little ponce.

He's an amiable doofus, a well meaning bumbler and a useful idiot for the Koch Brothers.

 Romney may be many things, but "bumbler" probably isn't one of them. Few if any "amiably bumble" their way to a quarter of a billion $ fortune.

True that. That's precisely why we need Mittens as POTUS to start running the Executive Branch like a business instead of an odd combination of union hall, law school faculty lounge and gay bath house.

Wow! How insightful! So, let's have a look.... what makes money for the government.... spend a lot on education, we can't  have any of that.... medicare? ooh, those people will die anyway. Cut that.... War? We spend how much on defence? Cut it back, that's so wasteful..... I guess we could toll everybody for roads... Oh! You know what makes money! We totally could get the Beach Boys to play the White House!

You can't run a government with any degree of humanity if you choose to be a 'business man' about it. Then again, I reckon that doesn't concern you right-wing intellectual types. So long as man is free (to starve...)

A free man will never starve in this Country. He'll still have his gun to hunt with.

[hypehat]

Guns cost money iirc.

Also, GOOD LUCK HUNTING FOR FOOD IN THE CITY WITH A LOADED WEAPON

[hypehat]

So what if you lost all yr money and yr home, would you be totally chill with strapping on yr bandanna and going Rambo through the streets of IDK Des Moines, Iowa or wherever the hell you live hunting down foxes because hey, at  least no goverrnment is holding you down (until a cop who doesn't understand your civil rights is literally holding you down for firing an automatic weapon in a suburban neighbourhood) and you and your family are free if so very cold #romney2012

[GreatUrduPoet]

So what if you lost all yr money and yr home, would you be totally chill with strapping on yr bandanna and going Rambo through the streets of IDK Des Moines, Iowa or wherever the hell you live hunting down foxes because hey, at  least no goverrnment is holding you down (until a cop who doesn't understand your civil rights is literally holding you down for firing an automatic weapon in a suburban neighbourhood) and you and your family are free if so very cold #romney2012

What's the weather like on your planet today?