68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 07:04 pm
@Joe Nation,
It probably did make some returns, but the major task to help homeowners failed according to this NYT article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30barofsky.html

Part of the article:
Quote:
Though there is no question that the country benefited by avoiding a meltdown of the financial system, this cannot be the only yardstick by which TARP’s legacy is measured. The legislation that created TARP, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, had far broader goals, including protecting home values and preserving homeownership.

These Main Street-oriented goals were not, as the Treasury Department is now suggesting, mere window dressing that needed only to be taken “into account.” Rather, they were a central part of the compromise with reluctant members of Congress to cast a vote that in many cases proved to be political suicide.

The act’s emphasis on preserving homeownership was particularly vital to passage. Congress was told that TARP would be used to purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, and, to obtain the necessary votes, Treasury promised that it would modify those mortgages to assist struggling homeowners. Indeed, the act expressly directs the department to do just that.

But it has done little to abide by this legislative bargain. Almost immediately, as permitted by the broad language of the act, Treasury’s plan for TARP shifted from the purchase of mortgages to the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation’s largest financial institutions, a shift that came with the express promise that it would restore lending.

Treasury, however, provided the money to banks with no effective policy or effort to compel the extension of credit. There were no strings attached: no requirement or even incentive to increase lending to home buyers, and against our strong recommendation, not even a request that banks report how they used TARP funds.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 07:38 pm
@snood,
No, but then they didn't camp out in city parks for weeks, defecating on cop cars and urinating in the streets. Also none of their rallies lasted for more than a day and they never disrupted the normal comings and goings around them. When they left, they cleaned up.

The rallies aren't what made them a major force in the Republian party and these OWS parades and street theater isn't going to make them a major political force either.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 09:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

No, but then they didn't camp out in city parks for weeks, defecating on cop cars and urinating in the streets. Also none of their rallies lasted for more than a day and they never disrupted the normal comings and goings around them. When they left, they cleaned up.

The rallies aren't what made them a major force in the Republian party and these OWS parades and street theater isn't going to make them a major political force either.


Sorry, but one would only believe that the way you characterized the average OWS site is the norm if he got all his information from Fox news.

From what I hear, most of the gatherings are peaceful, with a lot of effort to cooperate with local authorities. the violence looks to me to be created by cops with poor guidance and little discipline.

The impetus of the TeaParty was dissatisfaction with the status quo. The impetus of the OWS movement is also dissatisfaction with the status quo. What made the tea Party a poitical force is that they got some politicians to espouse their views. The OWS movement might do the same, although I think that the real power in their movement is their nonconforming to the conventions that say the only way to get things changed is with lobbyists.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 10:03 pm
@snood,
We'll see if they get anything changed, but I wouldn't hold my breath
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 10:32 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I wouldn't hold my breath, but hope them the best in making "some" progress.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 11:35 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

We'll see if they get anything changed, but I wouldn't hold my breath


I think they already have changed something. Now the whole country is focused on the fact that 1% of the country has had a 300% increase in wealth, while the other 99% has been stagnant. They have changed the national conversation and I don't think what's been exposed will be easy to sweep back under a rug.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 11:40 pm
@snood,
What national conversation?

I don't know about the rest of the country, but they and rich people are not the topic of very many conversations around here.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2011 11:57 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You don't think more people know about income disparity in this country now than before OWS?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 01:07 am
@snood,
Not significantly, but let's say a lot more people are aware of income disparity.

I suppose that's an achievment in the sense that educating the public about anything is an achievement, but it didn't take 40 days or living in parks and marching in the streets, and they're not going to reach a whole lot more Americans by camping and marching for another 40 days.

You and others can be either impressed or content with the outcome thus far from OWS, but I think its meager, and it certainly won't be worth the violence that will, I feel certain, arise if they continue in the current manner of the movement.

Whether the violence stems from poorly trained or simply vicious police or from protesters who are bored or want to generate Youtube videos, it is predictable, and therefore can be avoided.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 07:24 am
I mentioned the other day the difficulties under which the rich are burdened and to show that I'm not alone in commiserating with their plight here is a bit from The Rape of Lucrece-

Quote:
So that in venturing ill we leave to be
The things we are for that which we expect;
And this ambitious foul infirmity,
In having much, torments us with defect
Of that we have: so then we do neglect
The thing we have; and, all for want of wit,
Make something nothing by augmenting it.


Media, our most implacable enemy, has no time for that sort of shite. It's mission is to torment us with the defects of what we have.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 07:28 am
I heard a joke yesterday that Cain doesn't seem to be running for president. He just seems to be having a great time.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 07:56 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn said:

Quote:
Not significantly, but let's say a lot more people are aware of income disparity.


Funny how you so casually concede the point and simultaneously dismiss it.

Quote:
I suppose that's an achievment in the sense that educating the public about anything is an achievement, but it didn't take 40 days or living in parks and marching in the streets, and they're not going to reach a whole lot more Americans by camping and marching for another 40 days.


You say it “didn’t take” what they’ve done, but you cannot know that. From what I’ve seen, the American public is extremely hard to educate en masse about anything especially in this age when misinformation looks as legitimate as truth. They have a clear history of not getting the message without something drastic happening.

Quote:
You and others can be either impressed or content with the outcome thus far from OWS, but I think its meager, and it certainly won't be worth the violence that will, I feel certain, arise if they continue in the current manner of the movement.

Whether the violence stems from poorly trained or simply vicious police or from protesters who are bored or want to generate Youtube videos, it is predictable, and therefore can be avoided.


Would you have told the protesters that were being attacked by police dogs and sprayed with fire hoses to “just go home” to avoid what became very predictable bouts of physical conflict, during the civil rights marches of the 60’s? Why or why not? The American public didn’t get the message about racial disparities until they started noticing how large groups of people who were simply gathering and walking non-violently were being met with sometimes lethal force.

You and others may see and expect (I pray you don’t hope for) only bad outcomes from these demonstrations. I see them as a long needed sign of life from the majority of people suffering economic injustice.

JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 08:17 am
@wandeljw,
Actually, I think he started out on a book tour, got swept up into the "Not Romney" craze and will quickly get back to selling books once the primaries start.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 08:44 am
Quote:
Phoenix police chief: Occupy Phoenix demonstrations cost city over $200,000
Councilman Sal DiCiccio to suggest charging protesters

Oct. 30, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

The localized version of the anti-Wall Street protest, Occupy Phoenix, has cost Phoenix $204,162 since protesters began their demonstrations on Oct. 14, city officials said.

...
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 09:15 am
@Ticomaya,
Why has it cost that much?

Oh.. that's right. Not because of the protesters but because of an unreasonable fear of the protesters.

I wonder why the Councilman didn't suggest taxing the rich to pay for policing the protesters?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 09:22 am
@Ticomaya,
Well Tico--that isn't strictly true. City officials have chosen to react to the demonstrations in a manner which has cost the $204,162 and the police overtime is no doubt a welcome relief to them and their families.

Is the figure more or less than that I have heard that Mr DiCiccio stands to gain from the proposed freeway through Ahwatukee?

I'm not sure that a Moscow city official would suggest what Sal is suggesting.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 09:28 am
@Ticomaya,
Do you know Tico how the figure of $204,162 has been computed?
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 09:37 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Why has it cost that much?

Oh.. that's right. Not because of the protesters but because of an unreasonable fear of the protesters.

No ... BECAUSE of the protesters. Nice to have the benefit of hindsight to gauge the reasonableness of the expenditures, isn't it?

The taxpayers of Phoenix are not pleased.

Quote:
I wonder why the Councilman didn't suggest taxing the rich to pay for policing the protesters?

Perhaps he's not a Communist.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 09:42 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Well Tico--that isn't strictly true. City officials have chosen to react to the demonstrations in a manner which has cost the $204,162 and the police overtime is no doubt a welcome relief to them and their families.

Well, with that sort of thinking, we should continue our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the combat pay is a welcome relief to the soldiers and their families.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2011 09:43 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Do you know Tico how the figure of $204,162 has been computed?

No, I've not seen the memo.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.31 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 08:43:10