Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 145 146 [147] 148 149 ... 297

Author Topic: Occupying Wallstreet  (Read 294233 times)

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2190 on: December 07, 2011, 06:22:08 pm »

Mainiac, you seem to be focusing on the crazier conservatives. Being fairly idealistic, I believe both sides have some credit, though I'm definitely liberal. I'm sure the crazier liberals say ridiculous things, too.

But I don't know of any because I'm on the internet where everyone's liberal and no one complains about them.

Glowcat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2191 on: December 07, 2011, 06:25:02 pm »

People on the liberal side of the dualistic spectrum say lots of crazy things.

They're just ignored instead of given leadership positions.
Logged
Totally a weretrain. Very much trains!
I'm going to steamroll this house.

Dsarker

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ἱησους Χριστος Θεου Υἱος Σωτηρ
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2192 on: December 07, 2011, 06:27:37 pm »

I'm a conservative. I very rarely say utterly insane things.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 08:00:26 pm by Dsarker »
Logged
Quote from: NewsMuffin
Dsarker is the trolliest Catholic
Quote
[Dsarker is] a good for nothing troll.
You do not convince me. You rationalize your actions and because the result is favorable you become right.
"There are times, Sember, when I could believe your mother had a secret lover. Looking at you makes me wonder if it was one of my goats."

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2193 on: December 07, 2011, 06:34:27 pm »

There is some crazy on the "liberal" side, but I don't really consider them to be liberal. One of the requirements of a liberal viewpoint is that you be open to new positions. The crazy mostly comes from people sticking to their dogma in spite of evidence to the contrary. And that is very much anti-liberal.

Liberal crazy example: You should hear some of the crackpot stuff that comes out of the Green party. I voted for them once.  ::)
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

Descan

  • Bay Watcher
  • [HEADING INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2194 on: December 07, 2011, 06:49:38 pm »

My problem isn't with conservatives per se, though I don't tend to like them, especially libertarians. My main problem is how... mainstream the crazies have gotten lately. I mean come on, look at the republican candidates!
Logged
Quote from: SalmonGod
Your innocent viking escapades for canadian social justice and immortality make my flagellum wiggle, too.
Quote from: Myroc
Descan confirmed for antichrist.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIII
I wonder if any of us don't love Descan.

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2195 on: December 07, 2011, 06:49:43 pm »

I'll ignore all the ad-hominem and focus on the one point you actually made:
Quote
Honestly, even if we are making a judgement with zero knowledge, what are the odds of neither side being more prone to lies?  Pretty freaking slim.
Exactly the same? Roughly zero.


Let's go back to the issue that sparked this: The "7.7 trillion bailout." Until your post I had no reason to doubt that figure, so I didn't. After all, I've been fed it several times from several sources. So indeed, there's at least one example of liberals (as I've been getting it from liberal sources) jumping to conclusions and/or spreading lies.

I've no reason to believe that liberalism is less prone to jumping to conclusions on limited evidence than conservatism, just like what happened there. That's been my point from the beginning here about mentalities and methods. You can point out situations of conservatives doing this for personal gain all you want. The end, desired result is irrelevant; the method is the same. People WILL ignore contrary evidence, assume its falsified, etc until it's overwhelming (and sometimes past that), and they sure as hell will be reluctant to admit being wrong afterwords or apologize for it. All to avoid being seen as wrong. And if you DON'T do that in politics, your administration will be overly cautious, half hearted, and ineffectual. Jimmy Carter was a pretty honest dude, after all.



I suppose I will respond to one personal attack: I'm no moderate. I'm quite radical on quite a few things (talk to me in the progressive rage thread sometime). Remember that thing a while back about how you thought people being loyal to parties was stupid? I say the same for any group. I don't abstain from attacking one side and one side only as an attempt to be seen as neutral. I do so so I don't start following any particular group instead of what I, and only I, think. I still fail at that, truth be told, and often get caught up by what groups I tend to agree with say. Hence me buying into the 7.7 trillion dollar figure.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2196 on: December 07, 2011, 07:26:59 pm »

I don't think being loyal to parties is stupid.  Whenever did you get that impression?

And I think liberals are perfectly capable of jumping to conclusions.  I myself just bought the 7.7 trillion dollar number hook line and sinker.  But the liberal world view is not primarily defined by believing things that are insane.  How many of the republican presidential contenders will admit that global warming is happening?  John Huntsman and he polls horribly.  Every one of them has put forward a tax plan that calls for more tax cuts and they all denounce deficits.  They repeat at every debate that the US has more social mobility then other countries despite this being proven untrue by all the academic research.  How many of them will even come out and say they believe in evolution for Christ's sake?

There is no equivalence between the liberal and conservative world view.  Liberals aren't always right (everyone is human) but the mainstream liberal views are made to conform to reality.  Whereas the mainstream conservative reality is made to conform to republican views.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2197 on: December 07, 2011, 07:36:52 pm »

Republicans would argue that the Democrat positions on social welfare, government oversight and constitutional freedom don't truck with reality either. In some cases (social welfare) maybe they're right? On things like government oversight (and therefore the size of government) I think most would agree they're wrong. Constitutional freedom.....well...that's pretty much what every American makes of it themselves. Some people think it's freedom to see the 10 Commandments in front of your court house, some think it's freedom to not. Some people think it's freedom to have an AK-47 in their closet to shoot on weekends or in self-defense, others think its freedom to not have to worry about your neighbor being part of a radical militia or a pack of gun toting drunken idiots.

People are so deep into their own personal world views these days that it's hard to convince them what reality actually is. So I won't go claiming democrats automatically peg their politics to reality.

Especially now, with the Internet bill, the new NDAA, and all this other loathsome shit democrats seem to be lining up to support.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 07:49:28 pm by nenjin »
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

Eagle_eye

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2198 on: December 07, 2011, 11:21:10 pm »

There are very few politicians in the public eye that I would really consider liberal. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and that's about it. The majority of the Democrats seem to be either moderate or slightly conservative. Regardless of what they say, they're still mostly on the side of big business and the wealthy, just less so than the republicans.
Logged

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2199 on: December 08, 2011, 12:47:46 am »

So the Fed never lent 7.7 trillion to the banks.  The actual number was quite a bit smaller, and was paid back a while ago.  To get to 7.7 trillion dollars, you are including loan guarantees, which aren't the same thing as loans, let alone "bailouts".  And both the loans and loan guarantee's that did happen were fully disclosed, it's just the specifics of exactly which banks got how much money that is now coming to light.  The scope of these loans was publicly available information that was published (which in retrospect I should have checked before wading into an argument on this subject) as they were happening.

Bloomberg estimates a 13 billion dollar profit on the whole mess for the banks, which comes out to about 43 bucks per american.  I'd be very surprised if there is anyone in this conversation who hasn't been ripped off to the tune of more then 40 dollars in various bank fees and service charges over the past three years.  And unlike those fees and service charges, these loans didn't come out of our pockets and did prevent a global collapse that was pretty freakin' scary at the time if you recall.

IMHO Liberals, generally speaking, care about what they are saying is true or not.  It's why I consider myself a liberal.  This is why I get pissed when I see people railing at stuff like that 7.7 trillion dollar figure.  If liberals aren't better then this, who is left to be the voice of reason in our politics?  There is seriously bad stuff going on and the banks are to blame for a lot of it.  But we need our complaints to be grounded in reality.  If you attack indiscriminately, pretty soon you start attacking things that are good for the public.

1.) "The Fed would have given out $7.7 trillion to banks only in the unlikely scenario that the banks asked for the maximum possible loans and that every one of them subsequently defaulted."

Unlikely? Isn't this exactly what we were afraid of and why we gave them however much we did? Unlikely?
Loan: If someone doesn't pay you back, you're screwed if you can't collect.
Loan Guarantee: If someone doesn't pay you back, you're screwed if you can't collect.

2.) Go ahead and  really screw up banks, we'll loan you half the entire country's production if you do.... <---- Issue.

3.) We've all been ripped of by banks for at least $40.... This is a strong point?

4.) The story also explains that the largest sum total of actual loans made on a single day was $1.2 trillion in December 2008.

In a single day... 1.2 Trillion. Great....Is that all, well at least it "isn't 7.7 Trillion." We should be grateful for that.... ???

5.) I'm sorry, how much exactly did we loan them? The article still doesn't exactly say. If the point of the article was to clear up misconceptions, then they really could've linked to this report.
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Gregory Stroganov

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2200 on: December 08, 2011, 03:10:17 am »

Republicans would argue that the Democrat positions on social welfare, government oversight and constitutional freedom don't truck with reality either. In some cases (social welfare) maybe they're right? On things like government oversight (and therefore the size of government) I think most would agree they're wrong. Constitutional freedom.....well...that's pretty much what every American makes of it themselves. Some people think it's freedom to see the 10 Commandments in front of your court house, some think it's freedom to not. Some people think it's freedom to have an AK-47 in their closet to shoot on weekends or in self-defense, others think its freedom to not have to worry about your neighbor being part of a radical militia or a pack of gun toting drunken idiots.

People are so deep into their own personal world views these days that it's hard to convince them what reality actually is. So I won't go claiming democrats automatically peg their politics to reality.

Especially now, with the Internet bill, the new NDAA, and all this other loathsome shit democrats seem to be lining up to support.

Everyone's always been wrapped up in their own perspectives. The upper class has always wanted more wealth and power and prestige above all, the lower class has always wanted enough food to survive, and the "educated" middle class has always had some fanciful philosophy that was going to bring everyone together to live happily with one another.

They've always viewed the rich as the enemy and the poor as their allies, and they've always been wrong on both counts. The rich provide jobs and keep the peace. Anyone who's read enough history knows what happens in a time of "permanent revolution", like some Egyptians were calling for. And the poor don't care. They just want food and shelter, and as long as they have that they don't get caught up in any of these movements. They've got more important things to worry about. It's bored young middle class students who have time to make the world a better place.

The only thing the poor care about is God. And the poor who care about God, care about him a lot. The middle class doesn't care about God, they don't need him as much and they're more interested in movements that they think are the "next big thing". Of course, they think the movement is going to replace God in the hearts of the poor, whether it's Communism or socialism or Nazism. But the only thing that motivates the poor is hunger. Or God.

The Democrats want to build a better world using government as a tool. The Republicans want to revert to an idealized better world of the Industrial Revolution. Neither side is right. Neither side is rational or irrational. They both have agendas, they both have special interests, they both are driven by ideology, and there's nothing really wrong with any of that.

They each need to get the poor on their side. So the Democrats give bread, and the Republicans use God. The Democrats giving bread makes a lot of sense, the Republicans using God makes no sense at all, but everyone pretends it does because it gets their dude into office, and it can't be done it without the Evangelicals.

That's my theory, anyway. Please feel free to smash it all to smithereens. Obviously, it's a very simplistic model of a more complex world, but I think it works pretty well.

Enjoying this conversation, by the way. I actually lived in Zuccotti for a week and half, so I kind of got to see this at work- the middle class working hard to save the poor, the poor leaching off of them because they're hungry. I say it cynically, but it was actually very heartwarming to see how they took care of the homeless. I don't mean anything I said in a bad way, it's just an observation about human nature. Humans are still my favorite people ever.
Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2201 on: December 08, 2011, 03:19:50 am »

Truean, you are saying that two things that are veeeeeeeeeeeeery different are the same.  Please stop.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Duuvian

  • Bay Watcher
  • Internet ≠ Real Life
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2202 on: December 08, 2011, 05:28:51 am »

So, back to excess reserves. Is there any reason you can think of mainiac that we should not cut the interest rate on excess reserves back to 0%?

« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 05:31:44 am by Duuvian »
Logged
FINISHED original composition:
https://app.box.com/s/jq526ppvri67astrc23bwvgrkxaicedj

Sort of finished and awaiting remix due to loss of most recent song file before addition of drums:
https://www.box.com/s/s3oba05kh8mfi3sorjm0 <-zguit

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2203 on: December 08, 2011, 09:36:20 am »

Oh we should cut it below that and start charging a .25 rate on excess reserves.  But it's a fairly small fish compared to a host of more important things.  Payroll tax cut extension, unemployment benefits, bank transparency, helicopter drops, etc.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Occupying Wallstreet
« Reply #2204 on: December 08, 2011, 09:58:28 am »

Truean, you are saying that two things that are veeeeeeeeeeeeery different are the same.  Please stop.

It's fine if you don't get how they're the same: the result in default.
Ever co signed for someone who didn't pay? Same thing, you pay.
I'll say that to anyone, including a judge in a court of law.
You do understand I defend foreclosures all the time right?

If the RESULT is the same, then any differences don't matter. <---- entirely valid point.

Because you don't agree isn't a valid objection, same stuff with the medical consent a few pages back man.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 10:04:55 am by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.
Pages: 1 ... 145 146 [147] 148 149 ... 297