Much of the problem today can be traced back to the issue of accountability. The problem in the capital markets is NOT due to issues of "consumer confidence". It is due to problems of accountability.
The regulations of the late 80?s and 90?s have taken away the natural ?predators? that keep companies honest. Without these predators, the natural checks and balances that keep any ecosystem healthy are no longer there. The results are what they are. Unless this fundamental problem is addressed any ?recovery? will be superficial at best, if it occurs at all.
No one believes in the numbers (good or bad) companies are putting forth. The tech bubble of the 90?s and all the bankruptcies that followed are a direct result of this lack of accountability. Misguided Liberal type regulations have, and will, only make things worse.
<strong>By the way, lay off of the personal attacks on Fellowship
I respect him and his hackneyed ideas
I trust that he believes and that this is a form of honesty for him
He also makes a wad of cash and that explains why he hates poor people who want the rich to be responcible citizens</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey at least I can laugh at that!
I like all people. The reason I can't stand Democrats is because they are poverty pimps. They do NOT want people to get off their feet. They want an ever-present segment of people that need not a hand up but a hand-out. Hand-outs work election after election. If the poorer peoples got a hand up and the politicians actually cared for them the democrats would find themselves out of a job.
Many democrats don't respect poor people. They want them to be in their place as to be a good voter. I do respect people of all income. I do not respect poverty pimp politicians.
<strong>That is the most willfully blind bolderdash possible . . . you are a demagogue of ideaology!!!!!!!
If anything yor ideas can be shown absolutely and emphatically to be wrong . . .
rather than a result of "reglation" to be the result of Deregulation!!!!
The SEC was under attack non-stop since the 80s!!!
it was kept in check and NOT allowed to do what it is supposed to do, keep an eye on the 'predators', this was done by vast lobbying efforts by conglomerates and corporations . . . this is no secret . . . they had huge rallyes and press conferences . . . and they managed to not only hamstring teh SEC they managed to pass laws that allowed all sorts of absurd things . . .
things allowed specifically because of teh lack of regulation
and,
more importantly, things that lead DIRECTLY to the billion dollar fiascos, multiple fiascos, that have helped this economy tank (along with the whoe bubble thing) and which have taken millions of dollars out of the pockets of worker/investors and lined the pockets of your favorite people: the "predators"</strong><hr></blockquote>Just to repeat
zkillah, your ideas are a mishmash of Smith and sociobiology
there is truth to the notion of checks and balances but clearly what we had, in the form of constant deregulation, since the eighties, is a Lack Of Balance
and a willful one, steered by people who believe what you believe: namely that we are predators (as shown by the sociobioligistic idea of evolution) and that therefor let the lions eat and nature will steer things cleanly
. . . essentialist claptrap
perhaps the 'steering of nature' is to truly have a balance wherein regulation has its place . . . not the regulations that grow out of the teeth of the "predators" alone, but out of the interaction between them and a set of rules that can maximize their interactions while minimizing their negative impact on the whole system.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
Hey at least I can laugh at that!
I like all people. The reason I can't stand Democrats is because they are poverty pimps. They do NOT want people to get off their feet. They want an ever-present segment of people that need not a hand up but a hand-out. Hand-outs work election after election. If the poorer peoples got a hand up and the politicians actually cared for them the democrats would find themselves out of a job.
Many democrats don't respect poor people. They want them to be in their place as to be a good voter. I do respect people of all income. I do not respect poverty pimp politicians.
Fellowship
</strong><hr></blockquote>Where do you get such drivel?!?!?
I mean, do you honestly believe this utter idiocy?!?! . .
Is this the product of 'talk radio' in Texas?!?!
shheesh . . . people, recommence your personal attacks . . . I guess you were all right, this guy is operating on some truly stupid caricatures!!!!
Well, considering I only majored at Northwestern in finance for 2 years (after switching it from more general business, and I switch again after finance), I'm able to realize that I don't know enough to say what would or would not be good. Sure you can have your BS opinion about it, but anyone that has actually studied economics for any amount of time realizes why you should only really listen to people that have done extensive graduate work and lived long enough to see a couple cycles. I certainly haven't studied economics enough to comment. Considering most of your assets seem to come from an inheritance rather than actual work, coupled your obvious lack of intellectual development, I doubt you are in a adequate position either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting, you had a point and you lost it right at the end. Are you trying to say that since someone recieved an inheritance (in your mind, a sizable one) that they are unable to grasp economics?
In fact, does this go further that he fell backwards into money and is a lucky person, not a hard worker? Does this go for all people who receive inheritances? And on the backside, how about those who do start with zero and work hard and get in this position. They are now better and smarter than one who inherited some of it and still manages to make a good income being Self-Employed? Your answers would be most enlightening.
I mean, do you honestly believe this utter idiocy?!?! . .
Is this the product of 'talk radio' in Texas?!?!
shheesh . . . people, recommence your personal attacks . . . I guess you were all right, this guy is operating on some truly stupid caricatures!!!!
are these the ideas that your church spews?!?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
pfflam I know not all democrats play this dirty game but many do. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The Bull that you hear about how only the "rich" get the benefit of a tax cut from democrats. This is all rhetoric and it is for but one purpose. To divide. The Republican platform is much more universal and inclusive. The republican party does not try its hardest to divide people into groups as does the democratic party.
Now don't you fall to the low level of name calling pfflam. I know you are smarter than to have to resort to that.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
pfflam I know not all democrats play this dirty game but many do. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The Bull that you hear about how only the "rich" get the benefit of a tax cut from democrats. This is all rhetoric and it is for but one purpose. To divide. The Republican platform is much more universal and inclusive. The republican party does not try its hardest to divide people into groups as does the democratic party.
Now don't you fall to the low level of name calling pfflam. I know you are smarter than to have to resort to that.
You keep making the same fatal mistake by pretending as if there is a real difference between the Repulicrats and Demopublicans.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While they (the republican and democratic parties) can sometimes work together and while they both have their problems they are by no means the same BR. If you view them the same in what ways are they the same? I don't see it that way so I am asking why you do.
[quote] I like all people. The reason I can't stand Democrats is because they are poverty pimps. They do NOT want people to get off their feet. They want an ever-present segment of people that need not a hand up but a hand-out. Hand-outs work election after election. If the poorer peoples got a hand up and the politicians actually cared for them the democrats would find themselves out of a job.
Many democrats don't respect poor people. They want them to be in their place as to be a good voter. I do respect people of all income. I do not respect poverty pimp politicians.
<hr></blockquote>
oh my (or your) GOD....FSCiB, wow...that surprises me coming from you...
shall we at least throw out this part as an error of words : [quote] I like all people. The reason I can't stand Democrats <hr></blockquote>
i like all people...except fat people, dang i hate them...ha
as for the rest...come on.... [quote] The reason I can't stand Democrats is because they are poverty pimps. They do NOT want people to get off their feet <hr></blockquote>
i am a democrat and i work hard, make a good living, my wife works hard, i expect my kids to work hard...i expect all people to work and improve and strive and sometimes even struggle...and i have love, sympathy and even respect for those less able or less fortunate than myself...thank god for those democrats and their liberal policies that helped my mother when she was broke and divorced and raising three kids...it allowed her to go to school and better herself so she could spend the next twenty years giving back to the community by being a public school teacher (though you probably dislike those people too)...because of her hard work all three of us boys are hard working and add to the commiunity and pay taxes...thank god for food stamps and welfare and college aid and all those horrid liberal things...
[quote] Hand-outs work election after election <hr></blockquote>
if that is the case, and democrats are "poverty pimps" (whatever the funk that means), offering the "poor non-workers" a free ride for their votes, then, according to your logic, there wouldn't be a single republican in office...
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
While they (the republican and democratic parties) can sometimes work together and while they both have their problems they are by no means the same BR. If you view them the same in what ways are they the same? I don't see it that way so I am asking why you do.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both parties have one and only one goal: to remain in power. Screw the party platforms. Party platforms exist solely to pretend to differentiate one party from the other. In practice, however, those that are in power will make decisions that will keep them in power, regardless if the decision is contrary to the overall party platform. If the Senators and Representatives, who allegedly represent their constituents, really cared about policy over power, the USA Patriot act would have been soundly defeated. However, what was instead demonstrated was the inability to make a decision that will adversely affect reelection.
Sure, some individual elected representatives will vote for policy over power. However, those individuals can't possibly stick around long enough to really make a difference. The entire system is faulty.
I'll give you one thing...at least the Republicans used to be up front about how they care more for the rich and powerful than the common man. The Democrats have always tried to obfuscate that they, too, only care about those that can get them reelected. There you go, Fellowship. There's a difference. You got me. The parties are so f**king different.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
pfflam I know not all democrats play this dirty game but many do. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The Bull that you hear about how only the "rich" get the benefit of a tax cut from democrats. This is all rhetoric and it is for but one purpose. To divide. The Republican platform is much more universal and inclusive. The republican party does not try its hardest to divide people into groups as does the democratic party.
Now don't you fall to the low level of name calling pfflam. I know you are smarter than to have to resort to that.
I sure wish I could live in a fantasy world where black is white ( while counting my money ). Of course I have that nasty sense of right and wrong that gets me every time.
[quote] Both parties have one and only one goal: to remain in power. <hr></blockquote>
now this is a TRUE statement...this is why the presidency should be one 6 year term...no thinking of next term, no running around trying to get votes for the next election...just a focus on the presidency...
[quote] The Republican platform is much more universal and inclusive. <hr></blockquote>
as long as you are against choice, as long, hell, basically as long as you agree with your republican leaders...(i always thought the leaders should agree with the people, but not so)...of course this works for both parties...i'm not sure how the republicans are more universal and inclusive...perhaps you can give me examples...
i think the democrates love you if you think like them
i think the republicans love you if you think like them
if a was a gay, pro choice, anti-war person (hey, two out of three ain't bad), do you think i would have much voice and love and inclusiveness in the republican party??
<strong>That is the most willfully blind bolderdash possible . . . you are a demagogue of ideaology!!!!!!!
If anything yor ideas can be shown absolutely and emphatically to be wrong . . .
rather than a result of "reglation" to be the result of Deregulation!!!!
The SEC was under attack non-stop since the 80s!!!
it was kept in check and NOT allowed to do what it is supposed to do, keep an eye on the 'predators', this was done by vast lobbying efforts by conglomerates and corporations . . . this is no secret . . . they had huge rallyes and press conferences . . . and they managed to not only hamstring teh SEC they managed to pass laws that allowed all sorts of absurd things . . .
things allowed specifically because of teh lack of regulation
and,
more importantly, things that lead DIRECTLY to the billion dollar fiascos, multiple fiascos, that have helped this economy tank (along with the whoe bubble thing) and which have taken millions of dollars out of the pockets of worker/investors and lined the pockets of your favorite people: the "predators" </strong><hr></blockquote>
pfflam,
I was hoping to catch your attention. But I can see that loading my post with word ?Liberal? has backfired and put you too much on the defensive. An unintended consequence. Let me try again.
As my first post indicated both Democrats AND Republicans share the blame here. The efficiency of SEC speaks for itself. What you need is an efficient market constituency whose real interest and profit comes from catching these companies that are sick and cook the books to hide it. The regulations of the 80?s and 90?s has eliminated this valuable constituency ? the corporate raiders. Forget about the SEC. It will never catch anyone in the act, only when it?s too late, and the shareholders have been taken to the cleaners. Now, I know the Republicans are not Commies. Democrats I?m less certain of. But what is proposed today is really the Communist solution to this problem.
Now that I got you a bit less defensive, by calling you all Commies instead of just pinko Liberals, please have a read the book I referred to earlier. And although pfflam, you have a disturbing habit of recycling Commie rhetoric, I will attribute that to the possible cause of you reading so much of their drivel. Anyway, do you have enough of an open mind to read that book? When you do, if you still have issue with what?s said, I?ll at least know you are somewhat aware of other alternatives, other than the Commie alternatives you innately gravitate to.
I was hoping to catch your attention. But I can see that loading my post with word ?Liberal? has backfired and put you too much on the defensive. An unintended consequence. Let me try again.
As my first post indicated both Democrats AND Republicans share the blame here. The efficiency of SEC speaks for itself. What you need is an efficient market constituency whose real interest and profit comes from catching these companies that are sick and cook the books to hide it. The regulations of the 80?s and 90?s has eliminated this valuable constituency ? the corporate raiders. Forget about the SEC. It will never catch anyone in the act, only when it?s too late, and the shareholders have been taken to the cleaners. Now, I know the Republicans are not Commies. Democrats I?m less certain of. But what is proposed today is really the Communist solution to this problem.
Now that I got you a bit less defensive, by calling you all Commies instead of just pinko Liberals, please have a read the book I referred to earlier. And although pfflam, you have a disturbing habit of recycling Commie rhetoric, I will attribute that to the possible cause of you reading so much of their drivel. Anyway, do you have enough of an open mind to read that book? When you do, if you still have issue with what?s said, I?ll at least know you are somewhat aware of other alternatives, other than the Commie alternatives you innately gravitate to.
...this is why the presidency should be one 6 year term...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is good thinking but doesn't go far enough as the president is little more than a figurehead. It is the institutions, networks and practices (formal and informal) that persist.
Electoral reform etc. is widely researched yet the politicians
who saw the benefit of breaking up the baby bells and understand the arguments for checks and balances enshrined in the constitution see no need to limit their own power or that of the corporations that call the tune for them.
This is why people who get moralistic about non-voters bug me. It is generally understood that your vote is meaningless, nothing is ever done to correct this yet apparently the right to complain is reserved for those who play along with the charade and thereby justify its very existence.
I keep up with economic data. I knew the numbers would be out today. I do find it telling how the media reports the numbers. The media must give added leverage or a fear factor if you will to the data. I mean come on look how it was reported for example in your link:
[quote]<strong>"the number of Americans with jobs tumbled dramatically in February"<hr></blockquote></strong>
tumbled dramatically? Gee.... Thank goodness for our media to give us the dramatic wording. This is what is sickening about the media. I don't care if the economy was getting better or worse this type of reporting is over the top.
That kind of lanugage used to describe a change of 1/10 of one percent change. Let me add something to my original idea behind my original opening post of this thread.
How dramatic would it be if the numbers rose to German levels? How would the media report that?
Food for thought.
I like to think for myself. You can not live by the media alone.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>[/qb]
tumbled dramatically? Gee.... Thank goodness for our media to give us the dramatic wording. This is what is sickening about the media. I don't care if the economy was getting better or worse this type of reporting is over the top.
That kind of lanugage used to describe a change of 1/10 of one percent change. Let me add something to my original idea behind my original opening post of this thread.
How dramatic would it be if the numbers rose to German levels? How would the media report that?
Food for thought.
I like to think for myself. You can not live by the media alone.
Fellows </strong><hr></blockquote>
Food for thought. Uncover your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.
<strong>Now that I got you a bit less defensive, by calling you all Commies instead of just pinko Liberals, please have a read the book I referred to earlier. And although pfflam, you have a disturbing habit of recycling Commie rhetoric, I will attribute that to the possible cause of you reading so much of their drivel. Anyway, do you have enough of an open mind to read that book? When you do, if you still have issue with what?s said, I?ll at least know you are somewhat aware of other alternatives, other than the Commie alternatives you innately gravitate to.</strong><hr></blockquote>It might surprise you that I am profoundly anti-communist, and that I am against communism for probably many of the same reasons that you are . . . namely because of the benefits of competition and the free expression of human energies not being hemmed into a preformed mold . . . which, in extreme ideological cases, leads to tyrany.
The problem is is that the deregulation stance is just such an extreme
total lack of rules and codes of honor upheld by a nuetral body (well . . . as neutral as possible) creates a n environment that stifles through inbalance, where balance allows for more freedom than an environment where the ultra-powerful have free reign to, guess what, become more powerful and to do so through whatever means possible . . .
If the SEC was allowed to do its job . . . well what that job should have been, and if we cared about blatant conflicts of interest in the supposed responcible parties we would be in far better shape than we are now.
Balance means that neither extreme of tyrany takes place
Comments
<strong>
Much of the problem today can be traced back to the issue of accountability. The problem in the capital markets is NOT due to issues of "consumer confidence". It is due to problems of accountability.
The regulations of the late 80?s and 90?s have taken away the natural ?predators? that keep companies honest. Without these predators, the natural checks and balances that keep any ecosystem healthy are no longer there. The results are what they are. Unless this fundamental problem is addressed any ?recovery? will be superficial at best, if it occurs at all.
No one believes in the numbers (good or bad) companies are putting forth. The tech bubble of the 90?s and all the bankruptcies that followed are a direct result of this lack of accountability. Misguided Liberal type regulations have, and will, only make things worse.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a lot to be realized from the truth in this post. zKillah you are right on with your points.
Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
I respect him and his hackneyed ideas
I trust that he believes and that this is a form of honesty for him
He also makes a wad of cash and that explains why he hates poor people who want the rich to be responcible citizens
<strong>By the way, lay off of the personal attacks on Fellowship
I respect him and his hackneyed ideas
I trust that he believes and that this is a form of honesty for him
He also makes a wad of cash and that explains why he hates poor people who want the rich to be responcible citizens</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey at least I can laugh at that!
I like all people. The reason I can't stand Democrats is because they are poverty pimps. They do NOT want people to get off their feet. They want an ever-present segment of people that need not a hand up but a hand-out. Hand-outs work election after election. If the poorer peoples got a hand up and the politicians actually cared for them the democrats would find themselves out of a job.
Many democrats don't respect poor people. They want them to be in their place as to be a good voter. I do respect people of all income. I do not respect poverty pimp politicians.
Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>That is the most willfully blind bolderdash possible . . . you are a demagogue of ideaology!!!!!!!
If anything yor ideas can be shown absolutely and emphatically to be wrong . . .
rather than a result of "reglation" to be the result of Deregulation!!!!
The SEC was under attack non-stop since the 80s!!!
it was kept in check and NOT allowed to do what it is supposed to do, keep an eye on the 'predators', this was done by vast lobbying efforts by conglomerates and corporations . . . this is no secret . . . they had huge rallyes and press conferences . . . and they managed to not only hamstring teh SEC they managed to pass laws that allowed all sorts of absurd things . . .
things allowed specifically because of teh lack of regulation
and,
more importantly, things that lead DIRECTLY to the billion dollar fiascos, multiple fiascos, that have helped this economy tank (along with the whoe bubble thing) and which have taken millions of dollars out of the pockets of worker/investors and lined the pockets of your favorite people: the "predators"</strong><hr></blockquote>Just to repeat
zkillah, your ideas are a mishmash of Smith and sociobiology
there is truth to the notion of checks and balances but clearly what we had, in the form of constant deregulation, since the eighties, is a Lack Of Balance
and a willful one, steered by people who believe what you believe: namely that we are predators (as shown by the sociobioligistic idea of evolution) and that therefor let the lions eat and nature will steer things cleanly
. . . essentialist claptrap
perhaps the 'steering of nature' is to truly have a balance wherein regulation has its place . . . not the regulations that grow out of the teeth of the "predators" alone, but out of the interaction between them and a set of rules that can maximize their interactions while minimizing their negative impact on the whole system.
<strong>
Hey at least I can laugh at that!
I like all people. The reason I can't stand Democrats is because they are poverty pimps. They do NOT want people to get off their feet. They want an ever-present segment of people that need not a hand up but a hand-out. Hand-outs work election after election. If the poorer peoples got a hand up and the politicians actually cared for them the democrats would find themselves out of a job.
Many democrats don't respect poor people. They want them to be in their place as to be a good voter. I do respect people of all income. I do not respect poverty pimp politicians.
Fellowship
</strong><hr></blockquote>Where do you get such drivel?!?!?
I mean, do you honestly believe this utter idiocy?!?! . .
Is this the product of 'talk radio' in Texas?!?!
shheesh . . . people, recommence your personal attacks . . . I guess you were all right, this guy is operating on some truly stupid caricatures!!!!
are these the ideas that your church spews?!?!?!
<strong>
Well, considering I only majored at Northwestern in finance for 2 years (after switching it from more general business, and I switch again after finance), I'm able to realize that I don't know enough to say what would or would not be good. Sure you can have your BS opinion about it, but anyone that has actually studied economics for any amount of time realizes why you should only really listen to people that have done extensive graduate work and lived long enough to see a couple cycles. I certainly haven't studied economics enough to comment. Considering most of your assets seem to come from an inheritance rather than actual work, coupled your obvious lack of intellectual development, I doubt you are in a adequate position either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting, you had a point and you lost it right at the end. Are you trying to say that since someone recieved an inheritance (in your mind, a sizable one) that they are unable to grasp economics?
In fact, does this go further that he fell backwards into money and is a lucky person, not a hard worker? Does this go for all people who receive inheritances? And on the backside, how about those who do start with zero and work hard and get in this position. They are now better and smarter than one who inherited some of it and still manages to make a good income being Self-Employed? Your answers would be most enlightening.
<strong>Where do you get such drivel?!?!?
I mean, do you honestly believe this utter idiocy?!?! . .
Is this the product of 'talk radio' in Texas?!?!
shheesh . . . people, recommence your personal attacks . . . I guess you were all right, this guy is operating on some truly stupid caricatures!!!!
are these the ideas that your church spews?!?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
pfflam I know not all democrats play this dirty game but many do. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The Bull that you hear about how only the "rich" get the benefit of a tax cut from democrats. This is all rhetoric and it is for but one purpose. To divide. The Republican platform is much more universal and inclusive. The republican party does not try its hardest to divide people into groups as does the democratic party.
Now don't you fall to the low level of name calling pfflam. I know you are smarter than to have to resort to that.
Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>
pfflam I know not all democrats play this dirty game but many do. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The Bull that you hear about how only the "rich" get the benefit of a tax cut from democrats. This is all rhetoric and it is for but one purpose. To divide. The Republican platform is much more universal and inclusive. The republican party does not try its hardest to divide people into groups as does the democratic party.
Now don't you fall to the low level of name calling pfflam. I know you are smarter than to have to resort to that.
Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep making the same fatal mistake by pretending as if there is a real difference between the Repulicrats and Demopublicans.
<strong>
You keep making the same fatal mistake by pretending as if there is a real difference between the Repulicrats and Demopublicans.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While they (the republican and democratic parties) can sometimes work together and while they both have their problems they are by no means the same BR. If you view them the same in what ways are they the same? I don't see it that way so I am asking why you do.
Fellowship
Many democrats don't respect poor people. They want them to be in their place as to be a good voter. I do respect people of all income. I do not respect poverty pimp politicians.
<hr></blockquote>
oh my (or your) GOD....FSCiB, wow...that surprises me coming from you...
shall we at least throw out this part as an error of words : [quote] I like all people. The reason I can't stand Democrats <hr></blockquote>
i like all people...except fat people, dang i hate them...ha
as for the rest...come on.... [quote] The reason I can't stand Democrats is because they are poverty pimps. They do NOT want people to get off their feet <hr></blockquote>
i am a democrat and i work hard, make a good living, my wife works hard, i expect my kids to work hard...i expect all people to work and improve and strive and sometimes even struggle...and i have love, sympathy and even respect for those less able or less fortunate than myself...thank god for those democrats and their liberal policies that helped my mother when she was broke and divorced and raising three kids...it allowed her to go to school and better herself so she could spend the next twenty years giving back to the community by being a public school teacher (though you probably dislike those people too)...because of her hard work all three of us boys are hard working and add to the commiunity and pay taxes...thank god for food stamps and welfare and college aid and all those horrid liberal things...
[quote] Hand-outs work election after election <hr></blockquote>
if that is the case, and democrats are "poverty pimps" (whatever the funk that means), offering the "poor non-workers" a free ride for their votes, then, according to your logic, there wouldn't be a single republican in office...
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>
While they (the republican and democratic parties) can sometimes work together and while they both have their problems they are by no means the same BR. If you view them the same in what ways are they the same? I don't see it that way so I am asking why you do.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both parties have one and only one goal: to remain in power. Screw the party platforms. Party platforms exist solely to pretend to differentiate one party from the other. In practice, however, those that are in power will make decisions that will keep them in power, regardless if the decision is contrary to the overall party platform. If the Senators and Representatives, who allegedly represent their constituents, really cared about policy over power, the USA Patriot act would have been soundly defeated. However, what was instead demonstrated was the inability to make a decision that will adversely affect reelection.
Sure, some individual elected representatives will vote for policy over power. However, those individuals can't possibly stick around long enough to really make a difference. The entire system is faulty.
I'll give you one thing...at least the Republicans used to be up front about how they care more for the rich and powerful than the common man. The Democrats have always tried to obfuscate that they, too, only care about those that can get them reelected. There you go, Fellowship. There's a difference. You got me. The parties are so f**king different.
<strong>
pfflam I know not all democrats play this dirty game but many do. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, The Bull that you hear about how only the "rich" get the benefit of a tax cut from democrats. This is all rhetoric and it is for but one purpose. To divide. The Republican platform is much more universal and inclusive. The republican party does not try its hardest to divide people into groups as does the democratic party.
Now don't you fall to the low level of name calling pfflam. I know you are smarter than to have to resort to that.
Fellowship
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I sure wish I could live in a fantasy world where black is white ( while counting my money ). Of course I have that nasty sense of right and wrong that gets me every time.
now this is a TRUE statement...this is why the presidency should be one 6 year term...no thinking of next term, no running around trying to get votes for the next election...just a focus on the presidency...
[quote] The Republican platform is much more universal and inclusive. <hr></blockquote>
as long as you are against choice, as long, hell, basically as long as you agree with your republican leaders...(i always thought the leaders should agree with the people, but not so)...of course this works for both parties...i'm not sure how the republicans are more universal and inclusive...perhaps you can give me examples...
i think the democrates love you if you think like them
i think the republicans love you if you think like them
if a was a gay, pro choice, anti-war person (hey, two out of three ain't bad), do you think i would have much voice and love and inclusiveness in the republican party??
g
<strong>That is the most willfully blind bolderdash possible . . . you are a demagogue of ideaology!!!!!!!
If anything yor ideas can be shown absolutely and emphatically to be wrong . . .
rather than a result of "reglation" to be the result of Deregulation!!!!
The SEC was under attack non-stop since the 80s!!!
it was kept in check and NOT allowed to do what it is supposed to do, keep an eye on the 'predators', this was done by vast lobbying efforts by conglomerates and corporations . . . this is no secret . . . they had huge rallyes and press conferences . . . and they managed to not only hamstring teh SEC they managed to pass laws that allowed all sorts of absurd things . . .
things allowed specifically because of teh lack of regulation
and,
more importantly, things that lead DIRECTLY to the billion dollar fiascos, multiple fiascos, that have helped this economy tank (along with the whoe bubble thing) and which have taken millions of dollars out of the pockets of worker/investors and lined the pockets of your favorite people: the "predators" </strong><hr></blockquote>
pfflam,
I was hoping to catch your attention. But I can see that loading my post with word ?Liberal? has backfired and put you too much on the defensive. An unintended consequence. Let me try again.
As my first post indicated both Democrats AND Republicans share the blame here. The efficiency of SEC speaks for itself. What you need is an efficient market constituency whose real interest and profit comes from catching these companies that are sick and cook the books to hide it. The regulations of the 80?s and 90?s has eliminated this valuable constituency ? the corporate raiders. Forget about the SEC. It will never catch anyone in the act, only when it?s too late, and the shareholders have been taken to the cleaners. Now, I know the Republicans are not Commies. Democrats I?m less certain of.
Now that I got you a bit less defensive, by calling you all Commies instead of just pinko Liberals, please have a read the book I referred to earlier. And although pfflam, you have a disturbing habit of recycling Commie rhetoric, I will attribute that to the possible cause of you reading so much of their drivel. Anyway, do you have enough of an open mind to read that book? When you do, if you still have issue with what?s said, I?ll at least know you are somewhat aware of other alternatives, other than the Commie alternatives you innately gravitate to.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
pfflam,
I was hoping to catch your attention. But I can see that loading my post with word ?Liberal? has backfired and put you too much on the defensive. An unintended consequence. Let me try again.
As my first post indicated both Democrats AND Republicans share the blame here. The efficiency of SEC speaks for itself. What you need is an efficient market constituency whose real interest and profit comes from catching these companies that are sick and cook the books to hide it. The regulations of the 80?s and 90?s has eliminated this valuable constituency ? the corporate raiders. Forget about the SEC. It will never catch anyone in the act, only when it?s too late, and the shareholders have been taken to the cleaners. Now, I know the Republicans are not Commies. Democrats I?m less certain of.
Now that I got you a bit less defensive, by calling you all Commies instead of just pinko Liberals, please have a read the book I referred to earlier. And although pfflam, you have a disturbing habit of recycling Commie rhetoric, I will attribute that to the possible cause of you reading so much of their drivel. Anyway, do you have enough of an open mind to read that book? When you do, if you still have issue with what?s said, I?ll at least know you are somewhat aware of other alternatives, other than the Commie alternatives you innately gravitate to.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... ................. yawn! Did I feel a draft of hot air?
<strong>
...this is why the presidency should be one 6 year term...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is good thinking but doesn't go far enough as the president is little more than a figurehead. It is the institutions, networks and practices (formal and informal) that persist.
Electoral reform etc. is widely researched yet the politicians
who saw the benefit of breaking up the baby bells and understand the arguments for checks and balances enshrined in the constitution see no need to limit their own power or that of the corporations that call the tune for them.
This is why people who get moralistic about non-voters bug me. It is generally understood that your vote is meaningless, nothing is ever done to correct this yet apparently the right to complain is reserved for those who play along with the charade and thereby justify its very existence.
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/07/USunemployment_030307"; target="_blank"> U.S. unemployment rate rises; payrolls plunge </a>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Fellowship, why not check out today's news:
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/07/USunemployment_030307"; target="_blank"> U.S. unemployment rate rises; payrolls plunge </a>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I keep up with economic data. I knew the numbers would be out today. I do find it telling how the media reports the numbers. The media must give added leverage or a fear factor if you will to the data. I mean come on look how it was reported for example in your link:
[quote]<strong>"the number of Americans with jobs tumbled dramatically in February"<hr></blockquote></strong>
tumbled dramatically? Gee.... Thank goodness for our media to give us the dramatic wording. This is what is sickening about the media. I don't care if the economy was getting better or worse this type of reporting is over the top.
That kind of lanugage used to describe a change of 1/10 of one percent change. Let me add something to my original idea behind my original opening post of this thread.
How dramatic would it be if the numbers rose to German levels? How would the media report that?
Food for thought.
I like to think for myself. You can not live by the media alone.
Fellows
<strong>[/qb]
tumbled dramatically? Gee.... Thank goodness for our media to give us the dramatic wording. This is what is sickening about the media. I don't care if the economy was getting better or worse this type of reporting is over the top.
That kind of lanugage used to describe a change of 1/10 of one percent change. Let me add something to my original idea behind my original opening post of this thread.
How dramatic would it be if the numbers rose to German levels? How would the media report that?
Food for thought.
I like to think for myself. You can not live by the media alone.
Fellows
Food for thought. Uncover your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.
<strong>Now that I got you a bit less defensive, by calling you all Commies instead of just pinko Liberals, please have a read the book I referred to earlier. And although pfflam, you have a disturbing habit of recycling Commie rhetoric, I will attribute that to the possible cause of you reading so much of their drivel. Anyway, do you have enough of an open mind to read that book? When you do, if you still have issue with what?s said, I?ll at least know you are somewhat aware of other alternatives, other than the Commie alternatives you innately gravitate to.</strong><hr></blockquote>It might surprise you that I am profoundly anti-communist, and that I am against communism for probably many of the same reasons that you are . . . namely because of the benefits of competition and the free expression of human energies not being hemmed into a preformed mold . . . which, in extreme ideological cases, leads to tyrany.
The problem is is that the deregulation stance is just such an extreme
total lack of rules and codes of honor upheld by a nuetral body (well . . . as neutral as possible) creates a n environment that stifles through inbalance, where balance allows for more freedom than an environment where the ultra-powerful have free reign to, guess what, become more powerful and to do so through whatever means possible . . .
If the SEC was allowed to do its job . . . well what that job should have been, and if we cared about blatant conflicts of interest in the supposed responcible parties we would be in far better shape than we are now.
Balance means that neither extreme of tyrany takes place
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>