PDA

View Full Version : Is it just me, or...



Al Coholic
03-12-2009, 12:20 AM
Do almost all Republican talking points sound stupid? I realize this is the era of punditry and it's not about being right or wrong, but arguing and advertising correctly. But is there anyone else out there that feels as though they haven't had anything at all to say in recent memory?

Let's go over a few:

1) The new labor bill will outlaw the secret ballot.
*Actually, as I understand it, it does not. It clearly gives that option if people so choose.

2)Earmarks/Pork
*Firstly, not all earmarks are pork and not all pork is earmarked. I'm actually cool with the government funding a lot of this stuff. A lot of it makes jobs, buys stuff, provides necessary services, and partly pays for itself by making things more efficient. If the free market isn't capable of doing it, makes sense that the government should. And don't you just get a little pissed off that we blew 1 trillion over this war, but a few billion in earmarks and these guys pretend to get pissed? Or how about how the 45% of Republican congressmen are responsible for 40% of these earmarks? Its the fucking buzzword to make you look like a fiscal conservative, and it's really hypocritical.

3)Obama and the "redistribution of wealth" aka the "socialism" argument.
*Actually, over the past five decades the taxes on the uppermost quintile has steadily declined by what, 20%? We're talking about letting tax cuts to the poor/middle and letting tax breaks on the wealthy expire, effectively upping them from 36 to 39%. If 39% is socialism, I guess we we're during the 90's? And furthermore, Eisenhower was the biggest socialist ever. Isn't basically every tax program a redistribution of wealth? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, Food Stamps, even national parks are paid for disproportionately by the wealthy. So what? Cutting these programs and hiking up the national debt is a CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH. Why the Dems don't spit all over the repubs as elitists for this really bothers me.

4)Letting the banks die
*Now perhaps you can make a semi-sound economic argument for this, but all I've heard are talking points. The current and past administration are both responsible for the Troubled Asset Recovery Program, in which we bough shit from bad banks to make them look better on paper, in the hopes that when they get better they'll pay us back. Which sounds horrible, but "let em die" seems even worse, and makes the 800 billion TARP look like a waste in many ways. Especially after we've already invested that money

5) Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.
*Now I don't know about you, but I've hung out with some odd characters in my short time. I'm sure many of them went on to be criminals and say/do horrible things. I never cared that a firebrand preacher said some inflamatory stuff. I thought that's what the definition of firebrand was, and the way I figure it, if you look at years of video clips of any preacher that's interesting to listen to, you're bound to find material that'll offend a lot of people. So what?

6) __________ is solved by lower taxes
*Now it sounds like you're a man of the people when you make this argument. But in reality they mean lower corporate, capital gains, and investor class taxes. And as explained earlier, they're usually offset with welfare cuts. Or they increase the deficit burden. Republicans will say that spending is out of control and we need to commit more to Iraq, and that the deficit is too high and we need to cut taxes. All in the same speech. Now I fully get that increased profit leads to increased revenue, but it doesn't ever seem to work out that way. At what point will they be satisfied with taxes? Not untill they're flat it would seem.

7) We need to cut spending
*Yes, but where? If not the Iraq war, then on what? Undercut the middle/lower class, knock out welfar? How bout we cut more of medicare/medicaide, and let the market determine who gets healthcare? Or perhaps we should cut on education. At some point people have to realize that you need to invest in your own people for the sake of your own prosperity. The day to day happenings of the DJIA aren't that important.

8) Labels.
Reformer. Compassionate Conservative. Maverick. Fiscal Conservative. Though dems shy away from the word liberal or its synonyms, I know they're all guilty of this. But jesus H Christ, I never thought a label was an answer. What do you plan to do about the lack of regulation in the economy? Well, I'm a maverick and a reformer, so I'll go in and reform the way a maverick would...

Now I know the other sides are just as guilty of talking points that don't make sense. As I said, the media's turned into this recycled monster of punchlines, labels, opinion, and sensationalism. And some of my stats may be off but they're close enough.

So is this the shortcomings of their party? Is it what their voters want to hear - mindless, proofless, patronizing banter? Or are the republicans seriously underestimating the US public. Your thoughts, or rants about other talking points are appreciated.

Your anal corrections of facts I fucked up at 2:30 AM aren't really, but its cool too.

Jesus
03-12-2009, 03:03 AM
4)Letting the banks die
... Which sounds horrible, but "let em die" seems even worse, and makes the 800 billion TARP look like a waste in many ways. Especially after we've already invested that money

No not really, that's a common fallacy among people. But past sunk costs shouldn't have any impact on decisions. Think of you planning on building a house. You buy the land first, lets say for 100k (an for the sake of argument lets assume once it's been bought you can't sell it on). And then you go to an architect to make drawings of the house etc. Total construction costs would be 400k if you go ahead with the construction (thus 500k in total). But all of a sudden you see the same identical house, top quality, for sale on a piece of land of the same size in an equally awesome location, and boom it's for sale for 350k. Then it doesn't make sense to go ahead with your own construction even though you have already invested 100k. Sunk costs shouldn't have any impact.

This said letting the banks die is indeed stupid, the biggest ones should be nationalized.

Little_Miss_1565
03-12-2009, 07:41 AM
This said letting the banks die is indeed stupid, the biggest ones should be nationalized.

If they do that, please give me enough advance warning to transfer all my money overseas. I'd rather not live in Argentina during its collapse, kthx. (Though I would like to go there now...I hear you can get INSAAAANELY cheap yarn.)

Al Coholic
03-12-2009, 09:28 AM
.....Yarn is pretty cheap as is...

Jesus: Part of why I'm speaking in such broad, lamens terms is because this is more of a rant/discussion than a well thought out critical essay, but largely it's because my studies in economics and general understanding of it are limited. I get the pitfalls of chasing an already bad investment, but it all seems a bit too recent. If the idea was to let them fail then it seems odd to vote to bail them out and cut them several checks within the last few months. It all strikes me as a talking point more than a real idea. The opposition that won't spend your taxes on those big evil bankers and their money grubbing stupid heads. When in reality I doubt had the GOP been in charge they'd do much different, but it's easy to oppose in theory and in name already passed legislation. Makes you look like you beleive in something, and given the American public's lack of understanding and desire for action, that might be all they need.

PS I'm considering buying about 30-40 shares of BOA next time it dips a little. Good idea in the long run?

Outerspaceman21
03-12-2009, 11:30 AM
7) We need to cut spending
*Yes, but where? If not the Iraq war, then on what? Undercut the middle/lower class, knock out welfar? How bout we cut more of medicare/medicaide, and let the market determine who gets healthcare? Or perhaps we should cut on education. At some point people have to realize that you need to invest in your own people for the sake of your own prosperity. The day to day happenings of the DJIA aren't that important.


I swear to god, if that happens, I will be so pissed. My sister needs Medicaide to pay for her meds. She can't work and she needs those pills.

Jesus
03-13-2009, 05:37 AM
PS I'm considering buying about 30-40 shares of BOA next time it dips a little. Good idea in the long run?

Well BOA (just like citi), are basically broke. BOA will lose a couple of hundred billion in the next years. The only reason these institutions still exist is because the government keeps injecting capital in them (or throwing money at them) and the market therefore believes that the government will just keep on doing this so BOA can meet it's obligations (BOA can't get the money privately cause they are broke). In a way you have more or less already a moronic kind of nationalization in the US, one where the banks are already national banks because the only reason they still exist is because of the government. But it's "nationalization" with only downsides, cause it just costs the taxpayers a shitload of money, it doesn't lead to much of an improvement in the market and there are basically no upsides for the taxpayer.

Therefore a full nationalisation is necessary so these institutions can be cleaned up and then broken up in smaller entitities and then privatized again. This way the taxpayers also get gains. Then can't be cleaned up privately because they just would get sued by the debthodlers

So is it wise to buy shares of BOA? If the US still wants to be a relevant and serious country it will end up nationalizing them (like the rest of the world basically does or goes to do). Then it depends on how much the current shareholders will get, and I wouldn't take any risk in buying shares. The reason these shares basically still have any value is because of the expected bail out or nationalization in which preffered shares normally get a bit of money. However if it keeps on treating it as an ideological issue instead of a technical one (in the US both parties have the same ideological position on this, private is better than public), thus the current situation, you can make some money in the short run by the fluctuations in the market. But you'll probably lose in the long run.


If they do that, please give me enough advance warning to transfer all my money overseas. I'd rather not live in Argentina during its collapse, kthx. (Though I would like to go there now...I hear you can get INSAAAANELY cheap yarn.)

The Argentina crisis had nothing to do with nationalization (did they actually nationalize any banks then?). And seeing how slow the US is on this there is probably a chance that you won't get your money to a country without a nationalized bank. Since from Britain to Sri Lanka and The Netherlands banks have already been nationalized. Let alone if it would be worthwhile.

chicapowerpunk
03-28-2009, 04:32 PM
Damn
You want to nationalize the banks, that's fine, but what about insurance agents, eh?.................:confused: