| Author | Message | ||
     M2me |
I meant that ..stonewalled by Congress... specific to the housing crisis, the massive theft of taxpayer money at Fannie Mae by criminals who were protected by their buddies in Congress. Fannie Mae did not cause the crisis. Fannie Mae was a symptom of the crisis. Now, the wiki slow blog is NOT a reliable source, but... this says that although the evil Republicans were the driving force behind the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act it happened with bi-partisan support under Clinton. Not Regan. I know that. The GLB act was signed into law in 1999 by Clinton. But it was the culmination of Reagan's ideas, that the road to prosperity was deregulation. Getting government off "our backs". The GLB act got government off the backs of the financial industry and a few folks made billions of dollars. Then our economy was brought to the brink of disaster. This outcome was as inevitable as Dorothy clicking her heels together three times and getting back to Kansas. A small group of people made billions, hundreds of billions of dollars. But what about the other 99% of Americans losing their jobs, their homes, etc.? Reaganomics said prosperity would trickle down to those people. But that's not what happened. That was never going to happen. | ||
| Rocketsprink |
M2. Well said. Easy to understand. Apparently hard for some to accept. People regulating themselves was one of the stupidest ideas ever. Sorry, but if someone can make money by screwing others over......99% of the people, including us here, would do it. I believe the deregulators got it all wrong. People have to work at being honest. Being a crook, for most, is easy. | ||
| Chellem |
Sorry, but if someone can make money by screwing others over......99% of the people, including us here, would do it. I believe the deregulators got it all wrong. People have to work at being honest. Being a crook, for most, is easy. I mean, I guess. Also, as long as we're making sweeping generalizations, 99% of people wouldn't work unless they had to. So that must be why socialism doesn't work. Could it be that just providing free food, free housing, free cell phones, free childcare, and now, maybe even free health care might inspire people to think, why bother working? I got what I need, I'll just catch Jerry Springer today, and maybe look for a job tomorrow. Or I guess, probably it'd be easier to steal stuff than work for it too. BEFORE EVERYONE GETS ALL OFFENDED I don't really feel that way. I mean, I do believe that it applies to some people, just like what Rocket said applies to some people. But if it really applied to 99% of the people? I think the world would be MUCH worse. Because there are a few people who are rich who enjoy screwing people, the entire system is flawed. OK. Because there are some people in power who enjoy screwing people, we should probably just shoot them all and get a nice dictator. Because some people on welfare cheat the system, let's just do away with it. One bad apple, ya know? OR EVEN BETTER let's let the bad apples in power be in CHARGE of REGULATING the bad apples who are trying to screw people. Oh yes. Let's put the uber-honest Government officials in charge of keeping private industry "honest". That'll probably work. | ||
| Aesquire |
Easy on the sarcasm!  Fannie & Freddie symptoms? Definitely a part of the problem, and I'll agree the bad guys, in the take the money & run dept. are both on wall street & Capitol hill. I even understand your point on regulation being needed, but when did anything deregulate? On capital hill they take laws, for good or ill, and overwrite them with pages & pages of more micro management. So...no rules bad, old rules probably good, new rules probably bad. Do I have that right? I agree with M2me, here, except in some cause & effect details, I think. Reganomics? Not sure about that. I know the opposite, luxury taxes on the rich, look at the American yacht builders after Clinton era ( I think ) "soak the rich" tax. So, tariffs, bad, ( usually ) but screw the greedy guys who use cheap Chinese labor to make inferior products? Good with that. | ||
| Crackhead |
why work when you can ride?   | ||
| Reepicheep |
Barney Frank is a liar. He isn't the whole problem, but he was a key part of it. His pompous tirade chewing out the auditor that was trying to tell congress that Fannie Mae (or Freddie Mac, I forget which) was being grossly mismanaged, is just as full of crap as his latest story to the cops that were arresting his romantic partner that Barney "didn't know there were pot plants in the house". While he was sitting on the porch. If he wants to smoke pot, his business. But the moment he lies to me as a citizen about it, it becomes mine. Liars lie, and people that put their own self interest before right and wrong and the good of the people, well, always will. I have no use for them. | ||
| Jimidan |
Jimidan... no need for insulting us calling us "flat earthers"." If the shoe fits, wear it. These beliefs about global warming are very similar to the arguments made by the FES. According to Wikapedia: "The belief that the Earth was flat was almost universal until about the 4th century BC, when the Ancient Greek scientists and philosophers proposed the idea that the Earth was a sphere, or at least rounded in shape. Aristotle was one of the first thinkers to provide evidence of a spherical Earth in 330 BC.[3] By the early Middle Ages, it was widespread knowledge throughout Europe that the Earth was a sphere. However, throughout history, many continued to support the notion of a flat Earth. Modern hypotheses supporting a flat Earth originated with English inventor Samuel Rowbotham (1816-1884). Based on his interpretation of certain biblical passages, Rowbotham published a 16-page pamphlet, which he later expanded into a 430-page book, Earth Not a Globe, expounding his views. According to Rowbotham's system, which he called "Zetetic Astronomy", the earth is a flat disc centered at the North Pole and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice (Antarctica), with the sun and moon 3000 miles (4800 km) and the "cosmos" 3100 miles (5000 km) above earth. Rowbotham and his followers gained attention by engaging in public debates with leading scientists of the day. One such debate, involving the prominent naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, concerned the Bedford Level experiment (and later led to several lawsuits for fraud and libel). The organization took a hit when satellite images taken from outer space showed the Earth as a sphere rather than flat, but they were not fazed. Shenton remarked: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye." The society also took the position that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, staged by Hollywood and based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke, a position also held by others not connected to the Flat Earth Society. Some actual headlines from Flat Earth News during the '70s and early '80s: * "Sun Is a Light 32 Miles Across" * "Galileo Was a Liar" * "Nikita Krushchev Father of NASA" (misspelling in the original) * "The Earth Is Not a Ball; Gravity Does Not Exist" * "The Earth Has No Motion" * "Science Insults Your Intelligence" * "World IS Flat, and That's That" * "Australia Not Down Under" * "Whole World Deceived Except the Very Elect" United Nations flag The most recent world model propagated by the Flat Earth Society holds that humans live on a disc, with the North Pole at its center and a 150-foot (45 m) high wall of ice at the outer edge. The resulting map resembles the symbol of the United Nations, which Johnson used as evidence for his position. In this model, the sun and moon are each a mere 32 miles (52 km) in diameter. A newsletter from the society gives some insight into Johnson's thinking: Aim: To carefully observe, think freely, rediscover forgotten fact and oppose theoretical dogmatic assumptions." Sound a lot like some of the stuff we are reading on here. The complete or partial denial of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence certainly mimics what the FES conducted. The fact that the Bush Administration suppressed and censored global-warming research does not change the 2007 findings of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established in 1988 by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization. BTW, I am aware that the term "teabagger" has as one of its connotations a sexual meaning, however, I certainly was not using that in my original reference. I was referring to the loose-knit group that protests United States government tax and spending policies, and insulting references to President Obama, and anything Democratic. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
BTW, I am aware that the term "teabagger" has as one of its connotations a sexual meaning, however, I certainly was not using that in my original reference. I was referring to the loose-knit group that protests United States government tax and spending policies, and insulting references to President Obama, and anything Democratic. What is wrong with insulting Obama? i didn't like George W Bush, and I remember 8 years of some really insulting comments from those that lean to the left and are of the Democratic party persuasion, so what is wrong with returning the favor? I remember it with Bill Clinton and George H W Bush and Ronald Reagan, a bit too young to remember how much Carter was insulted but I am sure it happened. One man's insult is another man's free speech, he hasn't appointed a Czar to curb that yet has he??? or has he...hmmmm..... | ||
| Swordsman |
This is way off topic, but not entirely, and honestly doesn't warrant its own thread, so here goes. The economy went all to hell when the interest rates started climbing, and people could no longer make their adjustable rate payments. After the shit well and truly hit the fan, the Fed lowered the interest rates. Why didn't they do that in the beginning, when they saw the chain reaction beginning? They were the ones raising it in the first place, no? If this info is correct (not for certain about it), could it be that they just needed a good excuse to dip a little deeper into our pockets for some "bailout" that is now all but unaccounted for? I'm not usually into conspiracy theories, but this one intrigues me. ~SM | ||
| Alchemy |
You can lower the rate to Zero but if there is no money available it does not matter. Even today the Fed rate is historically low but credit is not easy to get. Better but not easy. When the inflated housing market came back to earth, owners were underwater and could not qualify for any loan.... in theory. I suspect there were several ways this crisis could have been handled but all of them would likely involved big Gov't spending. Frontline on PBS did a smoking documentary on the people (and some banks) involved in the meltdown about 2-3 weeks ago. It was stunning and hardly any of the news channels picked it up. There was a very determined (really heroic) Gov't regulator trying to regulate the shady credit default swap and derivative markets and she was ganged up upon - called before congress etc and eventually the agency was restructured to remove their power to regulate. Shortly thereafter the events she had been warning about came to pass. ONE single gov't bureaucrat almost prevented this mess by doing her job. Just my 2 cents. I am not a finance wizard, YMMV etc... | ||
| Blake |
"If the shoe fits, wear it. These beliefs about global warming are very similar to the arguments made by the FES." Really? What "beliefs about global warming" would those be? Please do tell. Are you claiming that any opposition to the notion that man is causing climate change--we cannot say "global warming" with any credibility anymore since for the past decade, the planet's climate has actually been cooling--is just foolish nonsense akin to saying that the Earth is a flat disk? Is that what you are claiming? | ||
| Blake |
"Reaganomics said prosperity would trickle down to those people. But that's not what happened. That was never going to happen." I can personally refute that. Bill Gates refutes that. Any business owner who is able to pay less taxes and thus hire more and better employees refutes that. If your business goes under, you don't provide a job for anyone. Tax cuts are proven economic stimulators. Taking money from productive folks and redistributing it to unproductive people is an economic depressor. If you want to kill an economy, kill the incentive to be productive. You can do this two ways, one is to take away the reward for productivity, the other is to make it very easy to be unproductive. Currently about half of working Americans pay ZERO federal income tax. Now we are talking about taking money from "the rich" to give poor folks health insurance. That makes it very easy to be unproductive and stay "poor". | ||
| Jimidan |
Are you claiming that any opposition to the notion that man is causing climate change--we cannot say "global warming" with any credibility anymore since for the past decade, the planet's climate has actually been cooling--is just foolish nonsense akin to saying that the Earth is a flat disc? Nooooo, not really! But it shows that you are thinking. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change welcomes reviews of its published studies...scientific skepticism is healthy. In fact, scientific skepticism is ESSENTIAL to the peer-reviewed system. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what is happening with the global warming skepticism, as it is much more like the FES's tactics of "science insults your intelligence"...which is why I properly equate them to the flat-earthers. These pseudo-scientist skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming (the inconvenient truth, shall we say) and yet readily grasp at any argument, opinion, blog or study that refutes global warming. This position is readily perpetuated by the energy industry for obvious reasons. The media exacerbates this farce by printing nearly everything that challenges the science, maybe in an effort to appear fair and balanced, or maybe with nefarious intent (as on Faux News). However, the peer-reviewed scientific journals are not interested in public perceptions of what is "balanced". Thus, there has not been a single peer-reviewed study that refutes human caused global warming. Why? Because there are NONE. All "evidence" is not weighted equally, as peer-reviewed science has much more credibility...and as an engineer, you should KNOW that. The complete or partial denial of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence certainly mimics what the FES conducted, especially since there is no peer-reviewed science to the contrary. The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. To deny that is to deny all science and the scientific method itself. Why should one get to cherry pick just the science that supports their own perspective? Sure they can do it, but it is not credible. Yet that is exactly what the Bush Administration did over and over during the dark ages of the last 8 years. As far as the Earth's climate actually "cooling" over the last decade, empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still occuring. That is because surface temperatures can indicate short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the ocean and the atmosphere, since water has a much greater heat carrying capacity than the air. To say we're currently experiencing global cooling based just on air temps is overly simplistic. That deduction overlooks the elementary physical reality that the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth's climate, even though we over emphasize it since it is the part that we inhabit. Think of it this way, since global warming is by definition global, we must observe that the entire planet is storing the sun's heat due to energy imbalances. The atmosphere is warming short term while the oceans are accumulating energy. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content. It is the same principle that I used when designing my solar home. Without thermal mass to store the energy, a home's interior air will overheat and require venting, which defeats the whole purpose. By carefully calculating the mass that will store and release the heat over time, comfort and economy can be achieved. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105 .shtml The Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued well beyond 1998, the hottest year of record. The heat capacity of the land and atmosphere are small compared to the ocean, therefore, relatively small exchanges of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere can cause significant changes in surface temperature. The abnormally strong El Nino in 1998 caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere, thus accounting for the above average surface temperatures in the US. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. It doesn't mean that the heat is not there, just that it is not in the air. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This internal variation occurs when heat is shuffled around our planet, and should not be confused with global cooling or warming. Think the combined temps of the land, water, air and ice to get an accurate picture. So, how much global warming has the planet been experiencing? Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been increasing at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year...say what? An analogy is helpful to bring that into proper perspective, as it is kinda hard to get one's head around that number. The Earth has been storing solar energy at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts. Considering that a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/ab s/nature07080.html | ||
| Liquorwhere |
The Earth has been storing solar energy at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts I think that is enough power to get my DeLorean back to 1955, then I won't have to worry about climate change for another 43 years, at which time I can just dust off the DeLorean and start again...sweet! | ||
| Jimidan |
Oh yes. Let's put the uber-honest Government officials in charge of keeping private industry "honest". That'll probably work. Except that the industry (read: money) controls everything. What do they call it when the industry controls everything? Fascism. That will probably work. | ||
| Jimidan |
M2. Well said. Easy to understand. Apparently hard for some to accept. It is hard to accept because it shatters the Reagan myth...and that just ain't cool, brother. | ||
| Chellem |
Except that the industry (read: money) controls everything. What do they call it when the industry controls everything? Fascism. That will probably work. So, let's review. Industry (read: money) cannot be trusted, because greed is too great of a temptation. Government can't really be trusted, because power corrupts. The market can't be trusted because - I'm not sure why exactly, but we've never really trusted the market unregulated. Consumers can't really be trusted, because, for the most part, they'll just buy whatever is cheapest. To whom, then, do you suggest we bless with the honor of keeping the rest of us honest? | ||
| Liquorwhere |
I know that. The GLB act was signed into law in 1999 by Clinton. But it was the culmination of Reagan's ideas, that the road to prosperity was deregulation. Getting government off "our backs". So....Reagan caused Clinton to sign into law the GLB act and THAT caused the problem, not Barney Frank and his crew at all right? Not Clinton? Not anyone else? Just Reaganomics right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature =related Of course O'Reilly can be a douche...but was he wrong in what he said?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ Keeping in touch with the family.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature =related But don't believe your lying eyes or ears...it was all Reagan...no worries. | ||
| Sifo |
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change welcomes reviews of its published studies...    I'm afraid to read the rest of your post!  | ||
| Sifo |
Earth's heat content has been increasing at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year Where did this come from? I can't find it in either link that you provided. It isn't even close to anything that I can find. All of that aside, that fact that the OHC is rising does nothing to prove AGW. It has been on the rise since the end of the last ice age. It will continue to rise until the start of the next ice age. As for the IPCC, just a few points to start with. It doesn't have "published studies". They don't welcome reviews. They are a political NOT scientific organization. The projections in every on of their reports has been greatly exaggerated as time has passed and actual data collected. I could nit pick your post, but honestly I feel that your major point are so off base that there is just no point in discussing the details. | ||
| Aesquire |
Global warming as presented is a con. It took a decade for someone to come up with a b.s. excuse how with the Earth cooling, because of solar variability, ( the same reason it warms ) it's actually heating. You're telling me the temperature measurements ( which show a .6 degree rise from 1900-1998 and a .5 degree fall from 1998 to 2009 ) used BY the IPCC to induce panic & run the con are meaningless and I need a new set of measurements? Because the old ones show you lie? Bull. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature =related The IPCC lies through their teeth. It's all about power & money. I'm not a denier. I'm a skeptic. They are the ones who declare that those who disagree are evil. That tells me they are in fact not honest men. Not mistaken. Deliberately lying. Bad & over regulation, not de-regulation, causes the economic problems. No regulation is, I agree silly, but they never simply deregulate, they always re-regulate and twist mediocre laws into truly bad ones, and always rules that favor the guys who bribed the the most. I may be a bit cynical. | ||
| Sifo |
Rather than continue to hijack this thread which has very valid content I've responded to Jimidan over on backfire. Jimidan I hope you will respond. | ||
| Jimidan |
As for the IPCC, just a few points to start with. It doesn't have "published studies". They don't welcome reviews. They are a political NOT scientific organization. Are you peeing on a tree or what. You have no idea what you are talking about. http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm Global warming as presented is a con. How do YOU know...did someone die and make you an expert? There are bodies of experts out there, like the IPCC, The Union of Concerned Scientists, etc., from all over the world. I'd say you are a denier and a skeptic, except you don't know enough to be a skeptic, and for that matter, nobody on here does. I worked in KYEPA for 30 years and I don't know enough either, as these scientists who are skeptics are doing the actual research. You are merely parroting the industries' propaganda... Why do right wingers have such a tough time believing credible scientists, whom they have to invent convoluted and implausible scenarios to try and discredit them (yeah, yeah, they are all in it for the power and money!) and then swallow hook line and sinker the industries' (and its political whores') propaganda. Do you guys just like fascism that much? You guys enjoy your next FES meeting and remember, science insults your intelligence. No really, it does. Just ask Chevron...oh snap, Chevron cites the IPCC on their official site. "Climate Change and Chevron's Response The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states in its Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to manmade GHGs. Chevron is working to be part of the solution to the energy and climate challenge facing the world. Near-term mitigation actions, development of advanced energy technologies for the long term, and adaptation to the potential impacts of climate change are needed to meet the challenge." Just a bunch of bull. | ||
| Aesquire |
Actually took meteorology, was a glider pilot, dabble in history, climate change & technology & its affects on civilization. Many scientists denied that tiny animals you can't see could make you sick. Many scientists knew rocks falling from the sky were fantasy. Science is never settled, it only gets better at describing the universe. When the science is not the issue and it's name calling as the tactic to shut down those who question or disagree, it's not science. It's politics, con games, religion. Your faith in science is not misplaced, your faith in con men is. Sorry you are so foolish. Economics is a really fuzzy "science" IMHO. I don't think that this tire tax is a good idea. I doubt it will do as expected. I could be wrong. Has isolationism ever worked? | ||
| Sifo |
Hey Jimidan, let's have a real discussion over here. You can drop the personal insults and strut you knowledge. | ||
| Sifo |
Actually I'm afraid that having lost on the original topic, he has changed subjects where he has lost again, and is now left with nothing but insults. I've had this discussion with many "progressives". http://www.badweatherbikers.com/cgibin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/272911/339558.html&lm=1257982743 (Message edited by SIFO on November 11, 2009) | ||
| Blake |
Jimi no can access backfire. | ||
| Aesquire |
Oh. Thank you. This tariff does offer an opportunity. We look to see what effect it has on U.S. "tire related" jobs, and then have a better idea if it is a good or bad idea. That will unfortunately require 3 things. The patience to actually check back on the subject. A willingness to observe with out agenda. The honesty to admit when something does or does not work. Sorta unusual these days. (Message edited by aesquire on November 12, 2009) | ||
| Jimidan |
Hey Jimidan, let's have a real discussion over here. You can drop the personal insults and strut you knowledge. Sorry Sifo, but like I said before, there really is nothing to debate anymore on whether the Earth is flat or human caused global warming. Now, we can talk about it and I can cite the overwhelming peer-reviewed science and you can say you don't believe it and try to discredit the international scientists whose studies are the basis for the IPCC or the Union of Concerned Scientist's positions...but what does that accomplish. The science is IN on this one. If we are going to debate something, let's pick something that is STILL unsettled. That is where the fun comes in. How about "Why people breed"?} | ||
| Sifo |
Time to not feed the troll. |
