And the winner of tonight's Republican debate...

tuna55 wrote:

ransom wrote: but reality bears out the stance that we do in fact need to have and enforce such regulations.

This is the part I would disagree with. Assuming you never did anything to give the banks subsidies or to "bail them out". A bank fails because it's lending policies were stupid, OK, it failed. Maybe the next guy that starts a bank will have learned something.

Fair enough. At least now we're down to a semi-philosophical difference and seem to be on the same page with respect to definitions.

Honestly, I don't know enough about what subsidies and so forth were involved in the run-up to have a very clear position. My impression, though, is that even without subsidies, the tendency is for these organizations to try to grow, and will as a part of this swallow each other up and reduce their count, resulting eventually in having too few, giant organizations which are "too big to fail".

Is anti-trust/anti-monopoly regulation acceptable in your view? How big is too big, or more in terms of the core definition of this type of regulation, how few institutions is too few, or how much of the market can one organization service before it is to monopoly-esque?

It seems to me that the small banks left to fail would be swallowed up by the larger ones. While trying to avoid excessive regulation and especially subsidy makes sense to me, I don't see how these would in and of themselves have prevented the behavior we saw.

I guess I just don't see un-bailed-out failures of other institutions as a big deterrent to the behavior, since the people responsible for the decisions are themselves not really adversely affected by their institution's failure. Perhaps for the local head of a local bank, it would be meaningful, since they have to live and work in the community they're operating in. But for the hired gun CEO of MegaBankCorp, millions in bonuses and a golden parachute make the downside negligible.

In any case, I see your point. I disagree, but I think I understand.

aircooled wrote:

tuna55 wrote: This is the part I would disagree with. Assuming you never did anything to give the banks subsidies or to "bail them out". A bank fails because it's lending policies were stupid, OK, it failed. Maybe the next guy that starts a bank will have learned something.

Well, maybe. Except in the situation we had, the banks (many of them) had tied and leveraged their bad assets with insurance (bad idea on top of bad idea), everything was essentially tied together. The failure of that "system" would have collapsed the global economy in a big way. A lot of the world is built and propped up on credit (look at the balance sheets of most countries) and the "belief" that the money is there (which it really isn't). It is hard to say what the exact result would have been (I am no expert) but I suspect it would have been BAD, as in REALLY BAD. So it's not just about A bank. Also, you mention the guys in the banks would have learned something... well one of those "somethings" would have been, "wow, I made a BUNCH of money!!" The guys that run the banks would probably be some of the least affected in that situation. Come on, you know how that stuff works, they would be right back on top probably making themselves richer and more powerful then before.

Under the current circumstances, I suspect you have a lot of truth there. I am saying that if what I am proposing was retroactively enforced from a few decades ago that the system would not have been built so hopelessly. I can't point to any data, though, obviously. I am saying that sans subsidies and sans bailouts and sans stupid regulations (notice not all) that the banks would be accountable and that the lending practices would make more sense than they do today.

ransom wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

ransom wrote: but reality bears out the stance that we do in fact need to have and enforce such regulations.

This is the part I would disagree with. Assuming you never did anything to give the banks subsidies or to "bail them out". A bank fails because it's lending policies were stupid, OK, it failed. Maybe the next guy that starts a bank will have learned something.

Is anti-trust/anti-monopoly regulation acceptable in your view? How big is too big, or more in terms of the core definition of this type of regulation, how few institutions is too few, or how much of the market can one organization service before it is to monopoly-esque?

Now this is getting productive!!!

In my opinion, the problem with monopolies is rarely the fact (notice I said fact) that it's easier for Microsoft to simply buy up a smaller company, or to offer a competitive product at a loss to edge other companies out, but rather the extremely high barriers to entry.

Let's suppose that all you had to do to start an oil company was to raise some capital and drill. (I am not saying this is totally possible at all) No forms, no lawyers, no lobbying, no sweet talking. You, tomorrow, come up with some innovative way to drill oil, patent it, bam, tomorrow Mobile and Exxon are falling apart unless they keep up. I suggest that rather than anti-trust legislation (that honestly hasn't worked much in MS's case) we need to think about how to allow more competitiveness within the free market. What ridiculously high hurdles are being placed on some industries just because they make sense for the uber big guys? We had a conversation a few days ago about this. Why does Lotus have to meet the same safety criteria as GM? Why does Noble have to sell their cars as parts in the US? These things are all barriers to entry. The same regulation and legislation intended to help us keeps big companies getting bigger.

That's my take on it, anyway, I'll respond to the rest when I think about it a bit more.

ransom wrote: But for the hired gun CEO of MegaBankCorp, millions in bonuses and a golden parachute make the downside negligible.

This is a very good point. I am not entirely sure how to counter it, either. I guess the best I can do is to say that if running a business had nothing to do with buddying up with politicians, lobbying, getting grants, getting tax breaks and securing interest free federal loans, perhaps the people that the CEO position would instead attract would be the people who know a lot about the business and would tend towards someone who actually deals with the long term health of the company?

I seriously have issues with this, because companies trade VPs and CEOs these days like some of us change brake pads. I don't know where the idea was planted that these guys have some magical "talent" that deserves these huge paychecks and whatnot. I fully support the right of any business to pay any employee whatever they want, but is definitely an indicator of something going wrong.

Not sure what to do about that... good point.

Salanis wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Nothing you've listed there defines socialism, but keep tryin'.............

oldsaw wrote: How about a simple link to a dictionary's definition? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

oldsaw wrote: I never said your list was excluded from the definition; the word encompasses far more.

Whatever, man. You clearly implied that I was wrong to say those things are socialist, and now you're backpedaling.

To take the flat fish out of the fryer, is it fair to say that JH is suggesting that there are socialist elements to our society and that Oldsaw is suggesting that a society doesn't become truly Socialist until a certain portion of production is socially controlled and that we're not at that point yet? Could we agree on that and drop the subject?

Salanis, you are far more in tune with my sentiments than Jeff. There are integral portions of our cultural fabric that can be defined as "socialist" in nature. Only an anarchist would argue eliminating those things and I haven't seen anyone taking that attitude.

tuna55 wrote: ... I suggest that rather than anti-trust legislation (that honestly hasn't worked much in MS's case) we need to think about how to allow more competitiveness within the free market....

This is an interesting sub-point within the "free market" argument. A truly or mostly free market, competitiveness is easily crushed by cubic money, eventually resulting in Mega corporations who's failures are much harder to endure.

I mean really, is there any other possible solution then some form of regulation? The sad fact of the mater is that people cannot generally be trusted to "do the right thing".

Xceler8x wrote: I could argue the Republicans are quite adept at expanding the gap between rich and poor. By cutting social programs designed to help poor folks move up in society they limit the ability for the poor to become middle class and the middle class to grow.

While I agree with the rest of this post, I'd be inclined to disagree with this part. Poor folks don't need social programs that are given to them with no strings, they need the OPPORTUNITY to better themselves. That doesn't mean giving them money so they can buy food, that means giving them (for instance) free education. It also doesn't mean giving drug addicts money to buy more drugs, or places for them to do said drugs, it means giving drug addicts an environment where they can't do drugs and are not pressured to do so.

What it comes down to is that some people will always be failures, and they should not be allowed to drag everyone else down (which is what socialism at its extremes does, see lots of Europe as an example).

oldsaw wrote: Only an anarchist would argue eliminating those things and I haven't seen anyone taking that attitude.

I'll get close. I wouldn't mind some privatized roads. I would very much support all roads to be covered by local government costs (other than interstates). I could see firefighting/ambulance/police being local only funded as well.

tuna55 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Only an anarchist would argue eliminating those things and I haven't seen anyone taking that attitude.

I'll get close. I wouldn't mind some privatized roads. I would very much support all roads to be covered by local government costs (other than interstates). I could see firefighting/ambulance/police being local only funded as well.

That would work ONLY if there was a drop in federal taxes equal to or greater than the resulting local increases.

oldsaw wrote: Salanis, you are far more in tune with my sentiments than Jeff. There are integral portions of our cultural fabric that can be defined as "socialist" in nature. Only an anarchist would argue eliminating those things and I haven't seen anyone taking that attitude.

I suspect I'm also more in tune with Jeff than you are.

My issue, and I suspect Jeff's as well, is that "socialism" and "socialist" have kind of become dirty words. Government run services like military, roads, police, schoools, etc. are socialist (small 's'). Pretty much everyone would agree that we need some amount of government that provides some amount of social services, and is therefore socialist to a certain degree. The debate should not be whether or not we "should be socialist", but rather what amount of socialism is appropriate for our society.

The problem is, people who believe our society should provide more services get demonized by labeling them "Socialist". That would be about akin to labeling someone who thinks we should make government smaller an "Anarchist".

tuna55 wrote: I'll get close. I wouldn't mind some privatized roads. I would very much support all roads to be covered by local government costs (other than interstates). I could see firefighting/ambulance/police being local only funded as well.

I'm pretty sure that's actually how most of it works. That's what your sales and property taxes pay for. Yes, local governments get a certain amount of state and federal money, but things like roads, schools, police, and fire departments are primarily funded locally.

Looking at just police, that's the difference between the City Police department (city funded/controlled), Sheriff's (county), Highway Patrol/State Trooper (state), and Military (national).

This is a major problem in CA, since there is a cap on property tax, which means local agencies collect fewer funds and have to beg more money from the state to fund services.

oldsaw wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Only an anarchist would argue eliminating those things and I haven't seen anyone taking that attitude.

I'll get close. I wouldn't mind some privatized roads. I would very much support all roads to be covered by local government costs (other than interstates). I could see firefighting/ambulance/police being local only funded as well.

That would work ONLY if there was a drop in federal taxes equal to or greater than the resulting local increases.

Of course. Probably even more because of the federal bureaucracy no longer needed to support it.

HiTempguy wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: I could argue the Republicans are quite adept at expanding the gap between rich and poor. By cutting social programs designed to help poor folks move up in society they limit the ability for the poor to become middle class and the middle class to grow.

While I agree with the rest of this post, I'd be inclined to disagree with this part. Poor folks don't need social programs that are given to them with no strings, they need the OPPORTUNITY to better themselves. That doesn't mean giving them money so they can buy food, that means giving them (for instance) free education. It also doesn't mean giving drug addicts money to buy more drugs, or places for them to do said drugs, it means giving drug addicts an environment where they can't do drugs and are not pressured to do so. What it comes down to is that some people will always be failures, and they should not be allowed to drag everyone else down (which is what socialism at its extremes does, see lots of Europe as an example).

What I don't understand is the difference in idealsim that people don't see the dead-end many liberal institutions represent. Yet they still claim to hold all the cards when it comes to idealism.

So Social Security is a nice thing, its purpose is to help the disabled still function in society, and to cover the living expenses of the aged after their years of labor, where otherwise such things wouldn't exist.

However, in both cases, the level of service provided is ultimately comparatively abysmal.

However, the Liberal ideology is not one of self-determination in this case. Instead of asking the question "How can we make it so fewer people need these services?" they rather strive to increase the level of service and therefore by default its appeal as a primary function.

So the liberal ideology in this case is that you SHOULD be using social security as a primary function.

huwah?

But if you know the political goals of liberalism, its not a surprise at all. Reliance on 'the state' for services is one of them, and refining and increasing the scope of those services is a cornerstone of thier ideology and efforts.

If you don't need/use these services, then you are an anomoly to these people. I challenge Xcel the idea that these social programs' inception is to help poor folk move up. It is most definitely not viewed, acted upon, legislated by, or trumpeted by a very large class of politicians in such a fashion. :/

I'm not disputing that such things if the held true you your view could be beneficial, but rather the reality is not represented by these remarks...

In reply to madmallard:

Here is the answer. Liberals believe in (insert your choice: poor,challenged,disadvantaged) people. I don't believe that Joe Blow is inherently poor and needs to be helped, a statist does. I believe that Joe may need some help getting back on his feet after a rough tumble from a rotten situation. Joe's situation should be fairly rare. A statist sees this as a failure of some mythical motherly state and seeks to eliminate the possibility that Joe could ever see a set of circumstances which would put him there. My version of unemployment lasts for a few weeks and costs enough to feed a family and maybe some creative agreements with his lenders to hang on until those few weeks elapse. A statists version lasts as long as it takes and pays him as much as the state can afford.

In reply to madmallard:

I am a liberal, or at least pretty far left-leaning.

I know for a fact that my goals have nothing to do with fostering reliance on the state.

Logically, it follows that your global representation of the goals of liberalism are incorrect. And I'm pretty sure I'm not a one-person exception.

I feel strongly that when people have broken bones, you put them in a cast. When they are hungry, you give them food. When they would otherwise die of exposure, you provide them with a roof. I recognize that these are not universally held beliefs, but these are some of the core motivations for my leftward lean, and it has Berkeley-all to do with a desire to foster dependence on the state.

You may or may not be correct about the particulars of the implementation of social services, but I believe you're out of line in claiming to know the motivations of everybody on the other side of the issue.

Then, we must correctly categorise the people who are mis-identifying themselves as liberals, and instead call them socialist statists.

Many people are trying to do that, and are soundly demagogued.

But the actions of self identified liberal politicians reflect more often as socialist statists.

and to Ransom: my commentary is using commonly understood definitions of political ideology to make generalisations for the discussion. I'm not calling into question anyone's personal morality.

tuna55 wrote: Providing subsidies for banks and new homeowners and completely socializing the two biggest lenders in the county is not what I would call "deregulation".

I completely agree. You are correct. That is not deregulation. Lowering and abolishing investing rules is, imo, deregulation. Encouraging loans to people who can't afford them, whether by gov't owned bank or privately owned, is not deregulation.

We're in the same city. We're just talking about different neighborhoods I think.

z31maniac wrote: Oppressive taxation removes your freedom to do things you want by restricting your ability to aquire the necessary resources. That's how I see them as intertwined, but like you said, that is just my opinion.

Cool man. I see your point of view here.

mad_machine wrote: heh.. find me am industry that we deregulated that didn't collapse under it's own weight soon afterwards

Airline industry? Although they aren't doing that well currently. Deregulation did lower ticket prices when initially implemented. Deregulation did away with price controls on airline tickets if I remember correctly.

HiTempguy wrote: While I agree with the rest of this post, I'd be inclined to disagree with this part. Poor folks don't need social programs that are given to them with no strings, they need the OPPORTUNITY to better themselves. That doesn't mean giving them money so they can buy food, that means giving them (for instance) free education. It also doesn't mean giving drug addicts money to buy more drugs, or places for them to do said drugs, it means giving drug addicts an environment where they can't do drugs and are not pressured to do so. What it comes down to is that some people will always be failures, and they should not be allowed to drag everyone else down (which is what socialism at its extremes does, see lots of Europe as an example).

We agree on this! I think opportunity is the answer as well. I'm not all for blank checks to people who will never benefit or take advantage of this chance. I am for, using your example, great education for all so they can use that step to better themselves and subsequently our great nation. I love your drug example as well. Opportunity to live a life without drugs via help from your fellow citizens.

This thread is getting far too nice and understanding of other people's opinions and differences.

In reply to madmallard:

Fair enough.

Perhaps the best solution is to discuss the issues rather than attempting to work with labels at all, since they seem to constantly shift, and most have become a bad word to somebody or other.

Says the guy who just identified himself as a "liberal"... facepalm...

did anyone actually watch the debate?

ransom wrote: Says the guy who just identified himself as a "liberal"... facepalm...

You know, that's an excellent point. What's even more weird is that time and geography changes those definitions. In this country 200 years ago, I would be the "liberal".

I think once we move beyond those terms and start discussing actual ideas (rather than the merits of individual politicians) we find a ton of common ground. Holy crap, we should be congress... Imagine that:

"House resolution that "miata" should be the defacto answer to any and all questions regarding automotive transport. All in favor? All against? The "aye's" have it".

Joe Gearin wrote: did anyone actually watch the debate?

Yes.

madmallard wrote: and to Ransom: my commentary is using commonly understood definitions of political ideology to make generalisations for the discussion. I'm not calling into question anyone's personal morality.

No offense take here at your remarks. At first I was reading them and felt that I was misrepresented. I now see that you were using understood political position labels to help clarify your position on social programs and the idea of their use and usefulness.

I think we can also fairly say that not all of us fit into the neat organization of social labels. While I'm socialist leaning I also value libertarian viewpoints and am more conservative on issues such as college education and it's application. By conservative I mean more traditional as in before everyone should go to school for four years to come out in debt and over-educated.

In response to your points.

I do not like the idea of people being perpetually dependent on the state. It's bad for citizens in various ways we don't have to detail here.

What I do like to see is help being given, temporarily, to people who need it without prejudice or judgement. This help should move them more toward being self-sufficient individuals instead of permanent state wards. Some people will sadly never get past the ward part of that agreement. Others are never able to due to reasons beyond their control or social forces such as working 40+ hours a week for a salary that is insufficient to live on. Without social assistance in the form of education or X they will be unable to rise above their current circumstance.

I think when some people read that they decide that a perpetual machine of social cash is what I'm advocating. It is not. There will be some waste, as there always is, but that should not stop us from helping our fellow man who will use the resources appropriately.

I know some folks will disagree. A disagreement does mean that either of us has a moral failing or is less intelligent. Just stating my view point.

CHECK OUT THIS LOVE FEST UP IN HERE!

Joe Gearin wrote: did anyone actually watch the debate?

I watched the one in South Carolina that a bunch of losers skipped.

ransom wrote: Says the guy who just identified himself as a "liberal"... facepalm...

;p

on topic-

I think alot of noise is overlooking the teaparty factor, and only 3 people in that debate have any teaparty cred:

Cain (did lots of touring with the organisers, pounding the pavemet), Bachman, and Paul (both effective online activists).