Obama Reportcard

[LTSmash]

To Kitdy:

YouTube - Waters: SocializeThe Oil Industry

YouTube - Barney Frank: Plenty of rich people that we can tax

YouTube - Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis.

YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Tell me that's not far left. That is what harms capitalism.

The definition I found of far left was - radical or extremely liberal.
I would say it is correct to imply that I’m on the free-market team. Those who oppose a free-market ideas does not make them “far left” (according to the definition I found), but what those reps and Senators said in the links would constitute for that. American fundamentals are not supposed to go towards nationalization or socialization, that’s not what this country is about. Just look how the DOW and S&P are reacting to the notions of nationalization by Obama; it’s not good for America. It may work for Euro nations but it just simply won’t take off here. Free-markets offer equal opportunity for failure and success. Big government doesn’t work, that’s why Japan’s economy has been in the dirt for the past decade or so.

Also, I don’t want to give the idea that I have a strong bias toward dems. Sure I can say Bush is “far right” on some things, but we’re not talking about Bush so there is no relevance to that just yet.

[Kitdy]

To Kidty:

YouTube - Waters: SocializeThe Oil Industry

YouTube - Barney Frank: Plenty of rich people that we can tax

YouTube - Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis.

YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Tell me that's not far left. That is what harms capitalism.

The definition I found of far left was - radical or extremely liberal.
I would say it is correct to imply that I’m on the free-market team. Those who oppose a free-market ideas does not make them “far left” (according to the definition I found), but what those reps and Senators said in the links would constitute for that. American fundamentals are not supposed to go towards nationalization or socialization, that’s not what this country is about. Just look how the DOW and S&P are reacting to the notions of nationalization by Obama; it’s not good for America. It may work for Euro nations but it just simply won’t take off here. Free-markets offer equal opportunity for failure and success. Big government doesn’t work, that’s why Japan’s economy has been in the dirt for the past decade or so.

Also, I don’t want to give the idea that I have a strong bias toward dems. Sure I can say Bush is “far right” on some things, but we’re not talking about Bush so there is no relevance to that just yet.

I'm trying to be as objective as possible here I'd like to first say. Waters saying she wants to nationalize the oil industry I'd say is an element of socialism at the least, communism at the most so I'd say this is potentially and element of her political philosophy of the far left. Still, this does not necessarily make her far left as this is only one element of her economic ideas, maybe she supports capitalism in other areas except for oil due to it's nature. As you say Bush has elements of far right in him, maybe she has elements of far left but is not far left. Of the three people you did mention, I must admit I did know the least about her however. Barney frank saying that the rich can be taxed more is extremely weak and I'm surprised you used that. In Canada, we have a centre-left party called the New Democrats that call for higher taxes all the time but this does not make them on the far left at all - they are centre-left. I need more evidence of Barney Frank saying say, I want to nationalize all natural resources, or abolish corporations and have the people directly control the economy- then you'd get me.

I am pretty disappointed in your reasoning that you bothered to use this Barney Frank video example at all - I'd have preferred you presented me with more than videos and more of their plans which I hope you do next as I enjoy learning about these people (it's OK, they make me nauseous like I assume they make you nauseous). The two last videos by their titles just seem to be anti-democrat rhetoric - it doesn't surprise me politicians don't know jack about what they are talking about to be honest - it applies to all parties. The Democrats covering up this Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scam I am sure is bad but pretty standard fare for politics. I wonder if this was the cause of the whole mess of things - I could really see it being the case.

Let me ask you one thing though - do you accept the possibility you are wrong about Frank, Waters, and Dodd being on the far left?

[f6fhellcat13]

The definition I found of far left was - radical or extremely liberal.
I would say it is correct to imply that I’m on the free-market team. Those who oppose a free-market ideas does not make them “far left” (according to the definition I found), but what those reps and Senators said in the links would constitute for that. American fundamentals are not supposed to go towards nationalization or socialization, that’s not what this country is about. Just look how the DOW and S&P are reacting to the notions of nationalization by Obama; it’s not good for America. It may work for Euro nations but it just simply won’t take off here. Free-markets offer equal opportunity for failure and success. Big government doesn’t work, that’s why Japan’s economy has been in the dirt for the past decade or so.

I disagree. Japan's economy has been struggling since the early '90s because their bubble economy burst in a rather spectacular manner. The bubble was caused by unhindered speculation, money that was spent but not had, and a government that was swept up in the thrill of it all. Their economy has been in the doldrums for the last few years, but had been slowly but steadily getting better. Japan's problem is compounded by the fact that they have a very very old population that needs caring for.

Small government doesn't work.
Yay anarchy.

EDIT: LTSmash, I hope you don't mind we're ganging up on you.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Tell me that's not far left. That is what harms capitalism.

don't want to be an ass, but, what's this problem with "harming capitalism"?
I don't think it has been awarded as the best solution of running a nations, or even to be objectively better than other ways.
you refer to it as if it was a person, or even a saint.
Like "exporting democracy". to my limited knowledge, it isn't demonstrated democracy it's the best for of government, still it's seems to be a priority of so many countries to establish it all over the world.

[LTSmash]

Barney frank saying that the rich can be taxed more is extremely weak and I'm surprised you used that. In Canada, we have a centre-left party called the New Democrats that call for higher taxes all the time but this does not make them on the far left at all - they are centre-left.

The Frank bit was more directed to a common disagreement on free-markets to show his opposition and not so much on being far-left.

The two last videos by their titles just seem to be anti-democrat rhetoric.

They were (they wouldn’t be if I made them) but it was illustrating a point on the Fannie-Freddie ordeal.

Let me ask you one thing though - do you accept the possibility you are wrong about Frank, Waters, and Dodd being on the far left?

When I refer to “far left,” I’m sticking with the dictionary definition of radical or extreme liberal. As far as communism is concerned, then no; I don’t feel that way at all.

I disagree. Japan's economy has been struggling since the early '90s because their bubble economy burst in a rather spectacular manner. The bubble was caused by unhindered speculation, money that was spent but not had, and a government that was swept up in the thrill of it all. Their economy has been in the doldrums for the last few years, but had been slowly but steadily getting better. Japan's problem is compounded by the fact that they have a very very old population that needs caring for.

Correct, have you read the hedge fund books too? Big government was referring to their position on the “Lost Decade.” Their government harbored it.

don't want to be an ass, but, what's this problem with "harming capitalism"?

Take American finance and economics courses and the answers will present themselves. If America’s system of free-markets collapsed, we’re all screwed to put it lightly. The I-banks and PE firms will have trouble raising capital to start up new businesses which in turn cause job loss. In fact the PE firms will have to make job cuts and company liquidations from government regulation because unions would just over-power them (this is the scenario with Chrysler and their owner Cerberus Capital); plus high taxation of the PE firms hurt every privately owned business, which creates massive layoffs. Let’s not forget that some of these private companies create job and products on a world wide scale, with massive job loss; this will have a world wide domino effect. Hedge funds would collapse under larger government because the competition and the private nature of their business would be eliminated. As much as hedge funds are criticized in the media, you can thank them for their massive amount of capital they inject into the world wide system of business. I’m starting to ramble now and I can go on and on. But I hope you get the idea that the US free-market is so important in the way the world markets operate. That’s why the US consistently has a stronger economy than most other nations. Harming US capitalism harms the world economy as you can see today.

EDIT: LTSmash, I hope you don't mind we're ganging up on you.

Quite alright, at least it's civil and polite.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Take American finance and economics courses and the answers will present themselves. If America’s system of free-markets collapsed, we’re all screwed to put it lightly. The I-banks and PE firms will have trouble raising capital to start up new businesses which in turn cause job loss. In fact the PE firms will have to make job cuts and company liquidations from government regulation because unions would just over-power them (this is the scenario with Chrysler and their owner Cerberus Capital); plus high taxation of the PE firms hurt every privately owned business, which creates massive layoffs. Let’s not forget that some of these private companies create job and products on a world wide scale, with massive job loss; this will have a world wide domino effect. Hedge funds would collapse under larger government because the competition and the private nature of their business would be eliminated. As much as hedge funds are criticized in the media, you can thank them for their massive amount of capital they inject into the world wide system of business. I’m starting to ramble now and I can go on and on. But I hope you get the idea that the US free-market is so important in the way the world markets operate. That’s why the US consistently has a stronger economy than most other nations. Harming US capitalism harms the world economy as you can see today.

first, the whole world isn't based on capitalism.
second about your technical language, I don't get much out of it

[LTSmash]

first, the whole world isn't based on capitalism.
second about your technical language, I don't get much out of it

I wasn't saying that. I'm saying that American capitalism is a key part of helping the world economy function.

Sorry about the finance jargon. I forget sometimes.

[teatako]

No my point was many revolutions are extremely bloody and you may well be better off with the general malaise that you have before. In Iran (my favourite example), the CIA assisted overthrowing of Mossadegh made things worse pretty clearly with the Shah, and overthrowing the Shah brought us Ayatollah Khomeini and the happy characters in control of Iran today.

Were the revolutions worth it? What about the French revolution? IT eventually brought good things but how many died and how much of that probably woulda occurred via evolution anyways?

not really a reply to your message, just random thoughts on blingbling´s posts and yours


the only reason radical Islamism exists is because that way you keep them distracted and away from progressive views, or God forbid, Communism.

You know, once upon a time, Capitalism itself was revolutionary. It actually liberated Europe from Feudalism.
Thing is it became secular and voracious

Back in the days, it was anti-Christian to lower your prices to get more sales than your neighbor, a fellow God-fearing man who therefore had the same right as you to make his living.

I agree revolutions get things going, of course. But the pendulum always swings both ways eventually. And every civilization gives birth to the seed of its own destruction.

[Kitdy]

When I refer to “far left,” I’m sticking with the dictionary definition of radical or extreme liberal. As far as communism is concerned, then no; I don’t feel that way at all.

So it comes to semantics, which is quite critical in this case.

I got the definition now off of dictionary.com for far left too: "adjective
radical or extremely liberal." Here's radical and the definition for liberal: "favorable (sic, no u = fail) to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs."

So by this dictionary's definition of far left (which is very unexhasutive) we are left with members of the far left (I didn't plan that pun) being people who are extremely favourable to progress or reform. What exactly this means entirely subject to debate as "extremely" is subjective.

I'd say political scientists would use the more precise definition similar to the Wikipeida one (Wiki does mention that some socialists are called members of the far-left, but I think this is a pejorative use like the one you're using) - basically those that are on the far left of the entire spectrum - in which case none of the aforementioned trio (barring maybe Waters but probably still doubtful). The definition you are using makes less sense to me really - if they are far left they should be near the edge of the spectrum, not in the middle of the left like a socialist, or centre-left/centre/centre-right (and for some, even mid-right) like what most Americans would call a liberal.

When I hear far left in a classroom, I think of revolutionaries, hardliner communists, those that want extreme control of the economy. When I hear far left in the context of American right-leaning news sources, I think of anybody from the centre-left to the far left. I mean I think it'd be inaccurate to call someone as right as Frank is left (probably your average Democrat) A member of the far right don't you think? If Frank is on the far left, then basically all Republicans are far right as well which is not really the working definition of far right either.

My problem with your use of the term is that it has been hijacked by your talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, and members of the Republican Party itself to be used pejoratively and to spin their enemies and offset the American people into believing it - now even you who seem very intelligent and educated about politics is using it and I would say that based on my limited education in political science it is an incorrect usage. I encourage you to use another term to talk about these people - even socialist which is lighter than far left is largely inaccurate for pretty much all if not all Democrats.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I wasn't saying that. I'm saying that American capitalism is a key part of helping the world economy function.

Sorry about the finance jargon. I forget sometimes.

it's fine about your "language"
I don't know about the world economy.
even if it's quite evident that the American situation affected and is still affecting even Italian economy, I don't see that close relationship, apart from stock markets.
What I mean in my limited economic world, considering the old way production-selling-earning line of making a business, i can't see that domino effect, and even when stock markets are all affected by what's going on somewhere else, it seems, to me, just a huge and expensive band wagon of pessimistic people (just because I don't see the same domino effect when things go well, not in the same ratio).
I'm sure there are some technical explanation behind it, still it seems just an underground maneuvering to move huge amount of money, change stuff has to be change and other things we, average people, can't understand in the end.
like, a company selling well, with standard level of costs of development and similar can be in a very bad economical situation, while other are making bazillions of money.
like until a year ago, GM was loosing millions, while Toyota was earning millions, still they were pretty much similar from the point of view of selling figures. it may appear a little too simple, but even without considering that, up to 2006 iirc, Toyota was estimated being worth about 194 billions $, with GM staring at 12, or 10, can't remember. point is, GM has been the best selling company since, well, ever, and still it's in this situation.
what I mean, in the end, is that something isn't working.
I'm not saying it's due to capitalism or else, just saying it should be so.
GM played just as an example, there are so many other available, it's just one we all know about, even if I know its situation is much more complicated.

[Kitdy]

And every civilization gives birth to the seed of its own destruction.

I really like that phrase, I'm adding it to my quote log.

I gotta give props to LTSmash for being the fiscally-right piñata and tolerating my liberal - or is it socialist - or is it far left??! bullshit. I am not sure where I stand exactly anymore these days - I see great benefits to both controlling the economy and letting it be free. Maybe I'm another idiot student of Gorbachev's mythical third way.

[LTSmash]

Kidty, your analysis is acceptable. I'll stand corrected (I'm actually sitting). Just remember that my intention was not to insinuate that our trio of dems were a bunch of commies.

[Kitdy]

Kidty, your analysis is acceptable. I'll stand corrected (I'm actually sitting). Just remember that my intention was not to insinuate that our trio of dems were a bunch of commies.

I was initially concerned about to be honest and thought it was strange coming from you.

I guess it's similar to the argument that henk and rj had about the term Nazi getting thrown around - I get pissed right off when I hear the far left call Republicans/Bush Nazis as well (I really do dislike the former president though) - these inaccurate pejorative terms are not helping to create a civil debate like the one we have here - they just divide and I think aid in hate.

All this debate and only I have given Obama a letter grade! And it was a freaking not even a real grade!

[Rockefella]

I've come to the realization that:

- If the economy collapses entirely it's Obama's fault.
- If the economy is saved and the world prospers greatly, it was due to Bush laying the groundwork.

mirite repubs?

[cmcpokey]

I've come to the realization that:

- If the economy collapses entirely it's Obama's fault.
- If the economy is saved and the world prospers greatly, it was due to Bush laying the groundwork.

mirite repubs?

thats why i dont participate much in these debates. it seems like its always the ones with the most sins that cast the most stones.