Obama is lying again!

[Dr Adequate]

Really? Guess where I got my definition? Dictionary.

This is not true. The definition you quoted from a dictionary was completely different from the definition you gave. It is to this bleedin' obvious fact that I have been trying to draw your attention.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I never suggested that investment, no matter what the amount, has no relationship to results. I can't keep you from reducing you arguments to strawmen, DA, but if that's what you want to do, so be it.

Obviously, up to some expenditure, spending does strongly affect results. But the data seems to indicate that above about $4000 (say) in spending per pupil per year, spending doesn't equate to much better results. Which is why Utah students can test far better than Washington DC students even though Utah schools spend a third as much as DC schools on each student.

Or perhaps even less than a third. Here's a recent report (in the liberal Washington Post, no less) that indicates Washington DC public schools are spending over $25,000 per student per year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html . That's even more than the average private school in DC spends! And what does the public school system in DC buy for that? Institutions that destroy dreams rather than build them.

TRY to be honest with yourself, just once DA. When Obama claims that lack of funding is the problem in schools, he's lying. He's just playing to the liberals who control and run the school system. The liberals who voted for him. The liberals who are working to make kill the ability of students to think critically and trying to make them more dependent on government ... and thus become good little democrat voters.

The truth (http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg2179.cfm ) is that spending on public education is at an all time high. For example, between 1984 and 2004, real expenditures per pupil increased by 49 percent in America. During which time democrat run school systems in city after city have fallen apart such that now half the students in some cities don't even graduate. While spending has more than doubled, reading scores have remained flat (http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/images/b2179_chart4.gif ).

Yet Obama and the democrats in congress seem to think the solution is more money. So the stimulus bill has upwards of a 75 billion dollars in new funding for schools around the country. Including more money for DC. Can you say ... Stuck On Stupid?

Makes you wonder why people pay so much for private education. Are they all "stuck on stupid"?

 

[Alt+F4]

Why is it that liberals call anything they can't actually challenge with facts propaganda?

So you see ... the Great Depression/Recession wasn't over even in 1939. But it was soon after. Now what happened in 1939? (Trick Question).

You're proving my point exactly. World War II started in 1939 and shortly afterwards the Great Depression was over. Billions were poured into the economy, which was almost entirely controled by the federal government. I know libertarians can't stand to hear this, but it worked.

And by the way, I'm no liberal.

 

[Smackety]

You're proving my point exactly. World War II started in 1939 and shortly afterwards the Great Depression was over. Billions were poured into the economy, which was almost entirely controled by the federal government. I know libertarians can't stand to hear this, but it worked.

And by the way, I'm no liberal.

Not only did it work, we almost had it paid off before we elected a couple shrubberies.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's not only the numbers, it's also the size. There have been so many mergers that I would not be surprised if the banks that fail this time around are significantly larger than those that failed in 1991.

This is a really huge part of the problem in and of itself. In general, most of our business sectors have become dominated by 2 or 3 huge corporations. Lots of people argue that we should let the "free market" work, but the free market can only exist when there is significant competition.

The problem faced in this crisis is that the companies in danger of collapse were so huge that they couldn't be replaced in a short period of time.

I'm not sure what to do about that, but it is a big problem. Furthermore, I don't think it is just a matter of economies of scale creating an advantage. I think certain aspects of our economic environment, especially our health care system, create artificial advantages that favor big business over small business, and thus tend to create the near monopolies we see today.

 

[gdnp]

I redid the sentences above to prove point. (in bold)
Point is this bill is a lie, nothing stimulus about any of it, if there is any, its like only under 10% of the bill. Basically the taxpayers are getting screwed out of their money for them and their childern in the future.

You continue to display a lack of understanding about the key elements of a Ponzi scheme.

In a Ponzi scheme, the first group of investors is paid a return based not on income generated from their investments but on new principal paid in by the second group of investors who are lured in by the apparent high returns of the first group. The second group of investors is paid off by the investments of the third, etc.

If this is a Ponzi scheme, who are the first group of investors? I guess it would have to be the taxpayers. Are they promised a return? Well, no, so that is the first fail. Is a second group of investors duped into joining the club by the bogus gains of the first group? No, since there never were any bogus promised gains, so once again the analogy fails.

Love or hate the bailout, it is no way a Ponzi scheme.

 

[gdnp]

This is a really huge part of the problem in and of itself. In general, most of our business sectors have become dominated by 2 or 3 huge corporations. Lots of people argue that we should let the "free market" work, but the free market can only exist when there is significant competition.

The problem faced in this crisis is that the companies in danger of collapse were so huge that they couldn't be replaced in a short period of time.

I'm not sure what to do about that, but it is a big problem. Furthermore, I don't think it is just a matter of economies of scale creating an advantage. I think certain aspects of our economic environment, especially our health care system, create artificial advantages that favor big business over small business, and thus tend to create the near monopolies we see today.

I think the problem is that in many industries there are really large economies of scale, which combined with the fact that monopolies and oligopolies can and do use their power to create excess profits leads to a marketplace that is far from competitive.

The government didn't force the banks to merge until we had these megabanks that were too big to fail: they did it on their own. The government should have therefore done one of two things: prevented the mergers and thus leave the banks small enough that no failure or cluster of failures would jeopardize the financial system, or regulate them to such an extent that they were forced to conform to business practices that were conservative enough that they could not fail. Reserve ratios were supposed to do this. Clearly, the regulators were not up to the task of evaluating the risk that CDOs and SIVs placed on the banking system.

 

[Molinaro]

This is not true. The definition you quoted from a dictionary was completely different from the definition you gave. It is to this bleedin' obvious fact that I have been trying to draw your attention.

I see no reason to jump into this discussion, because it's bleedin' obvious that Dragon-Master doesn't understand the difference between his quote, and their stated definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

2) They get a return from Set B (new Investors)--(this part is a lie. BUT if you really want to get to the nitty gritty....we sometimes get money back)

And that right there, where they call how a Ponzi scheme actualy works, a lie, excludes them from my list of people deserving of a rational discussion.

 

[Hindmost]

Not only did it work, we almost had it paid off before we elected a couple shrubberies.

And that is just so disturbing. I was reasonably optimistic at the turn of the millennium...not anymore.

I watched Pawn Hannity last week...hearing him complain about how the stimulus package is going to burden our children and grandchildren was just too much hypocrisy. Where was his ilk's fiscal responsibility for the last eight years.

glenn

 

[ZirconBlue]

Or google the phrase "zombie institutions".

I googled the phrase. I was very disappointed to see not one link to a mental institution overrun by the undead.

 

[BeAChooser]

I mean Chase, Citigroup, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Bank of America, Golman Sachs, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bear Sterns, Lehman brothers, AIG, and a bunch of additional banks, financial firms and insurance companies all going bankrupt simultaneously. With catastrophic results.

First of all, they wouldn't have all gone bankrupt simultaneously. For example, Bear Sterns' collapsed back in March of 2008. It wasn't till December 2008 that Goldman Sachs was talking about bankruptcy as an option. And let's look at Bear Sterns. It collapsed largely because people lost faith in it due to rumors (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/28/magazines/fortune/boyd_bear.fortune/ ). That source quotes a vice chairman of another major investment bank saying “I don’t know of any firm, no matter the capital, that could have withstood that kind of bombardment by the shorts. This was not about capital. It was about people losing confidence, spurred on by rumors fueled by people who had an interest in the fall of Bear Stearns." Much like those rumors you and Obama are now spreading about the recession and the consequence if the government doesn't throw a trillion or more at the economy and *hope* for the best. And you know who is identified in that article as some of the perpetrators of what that vice chairman termed a "crime" against Bear Sterns? Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley ... all firms that you named, plus the Obama loving mainstream media. Coincidence? I think not.

And second, bankruptcy would not have been such a bad thing. Again, let me point out that bankruptcy does not mean the firms would have ceased to exist. It doesn't mean their viable assets would have disappeared. It's just a tried and true means of wiping the slate of bad debt and bad management so that the good assets can be put back to work with better management. If the system had been allowed to work most of those firms would now be under new management and busy making loans. Instead of still being encumbered with bad debt and bad management.

Really? I recall reading just yesterday a post by Dr. A that showed that the recovery during the great depression coincided with Roosevelt's New Deal replacing Hoover's laisez-faire approach.

GARBAGE. As Larry Elder noted in a recent column, here's what Roosevelt's own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote about FDR's policies: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started .... and an enormous debt to boot!" Given that ... to claim that the New Deal worked is dishonest, in my opinion.

As I have posted repeatedly, you first claim that the crisis isn't so bad

FALSE. I've never said the situation isn't bad. What I have said is that the approach pushed by Obama and the democrats is based on lies. Like the one you just pushed above and the one I noted at the beginning of this thread. And I said the approach pushed by democrats and Obama will not work. It never has worked. You can't tax your way to prosperity and jobs. Government can't do a better job than the free market and it's systems of managing economies. It never has. I asked you to name a situation where the government has successfully managed an economy and you couldn't do it. You could only misrepresent the facts and claim FDR did.

and then claim that if it gets worse it's all because of government interference

History proves that things can get worse when governments try to manage economies. As they are now doing and have been doing for over a year in this crisis. You can't honestly believe that the crooks in Washington, using the approach we just witnessed with the stimulus bill, are going to make better and more timely decisions than those made by free market institutions and processes. If you do ... well that is where your ideology will fail you ... and fail miserably. Mark my words and just look back at history in country after country.

Answer this BAC: what outcome over the next two years would you accept as evidence that the stimulus program was a success?

Well if we'd done nothing and just let the market and it's institutions work, we'd probably already be coming out of the recession and two years from now the economy might be roaring. So how can we know that the Obama's approach worked now?

Now maybe ... just maybe ... even with the trillion dollars in added taxation, welfare and pork, the economy might be improved in two years from what it is now ... assuming the government doesn't continue to interfere when Obama's base complains things aren't getting better fast enough or that they aren't getting enough welfare. But how will we judge if it's doing better than if we'd left well enough alone? Too bad we can't divide the country in two and try both approaches so that even people like you would finally have to accept that government planning of economies does not work. And that government is not better at allocating resources than the individuals who actually created the wealth that government takes and spends.

 

[BeAChooser]

I have plenty of faith in the free market.

No you don't. Because your first impulse is to abandon it.

Unfortunately, someone wasn't minding the store, and a bunch of free marketeers ran up a housing bubble that has now collapsed, threatening to bring down the banks, insurance companies, auto companies, and a lot of other people.

Go back and you find that government interference is what set that ball rolling in the first place. Before ACORN, Obama, Clinton and the CRA interfered, the housing system was working just fine, with people who couldn't afford loans not getting them (which is really the solution to the current problem). And when things started to falter, note that Bush and the republicans wanted changes that many economists say would likely have prevented the failure of Freddie and Fannie, and thus this crisis. Changes which democrats like Barney Frank stymied (while lining their pockets with contributions from democrat executives at Freddie and Fannie). And note that even now, what's Obama and the democrats approach? To interfere. To spend *stimulus* money so that people who shouldn't have gotten loans in the first place get to keep their houses. MASSIVE WELFARE.

Unfortunately, the only people who have the money to recapitalize the banks are the chinese, the middle eastern sovereign wealth funds, and the federal government. Who else has the needed trillion dollars in capital, BAC?

GARBAGE. You act like the assets of these banks and financial institutions have disappeared. They haven't. Most of those assets are still there. The bad assets (bad loans) constitute a small fraction of the total. If the market were allowed to work, the problem institutions would declare bankruptcy and clear the books of the bad loans. The properties in question would go to people who could pay the mortgage. And the system would recover. The way it's being done now only prolongs the credit crunch. And keeps the bad debt around with people who shouldn't have gotten loans for properties still in those properties and not making payments. Your solution ... STEALING money from those who didn't make bad financial decisions and giving it to those who did ... is no solution. It will only do even more damage to the economic system and people's faith in government and the institutions you are trying to save.

 

[BeAChooser]

Two things make this one very different...housing prices have crashed...and car sales have dropped to levels not seen in a very long time.

Both housing and car sales took huge hits during the 1974 and 1981-82 recessions. Had the government not interfered in this one, perhaps things would already be looking up. And by the way, if you don't sell your house, a drop in housing prices doesn't really mean much to the owner. In fact, it might offer an opportunity to reduce one's property taxes.

 

[BeAChooser]

I used to work for General Motors. This list sounds very familiar.

Right. Which is why a bankruptcy and a reorganization might be a good idea for GM. To shorten that list. Clear out the deadwood. But instead, government is going to STEAL money from you and me to keep the bad decision makers in charge (with a cap of $500,000 a year on salary, which you know they'll find a way around). What do you want to bet those decision makers are big contributors to politicians and political parties.

 

[BeAChooser]

Banks failing at a rate of 1 a week (and the rate expected to rise) sounds pretty dire to me.

I provided a link to statistics indicating banks were failing at the rate more than 1 a week (up to 3 or 4 a week) through much of the 1980s. Yet somehow we managed to recover from that without throwing a trillion dollars at the problem ... a trillion dollars STOLEN from someone else.

 

[Meadmaker]

Go back and you find that government interference is what set that ball rolling in the first place.

The thing about leadership is that if balls are rolling willy nilly, you look to the leaders to do something about them. I want the guy in charge to stand up and say, "We've got balls rolling out of control. It's time to put a stop to this!"

I didn't see that from President Bush. However, if you think he tried very, very hard to put a stop to all this nonsense, please do tell us what he did. Be sure to discuss "America's Home Ownership Challenge" in your response.

GARBAGE. You act like the assets of these banks and financial institutions have disappeared. They haven't.

I have bad news for you. They have. Really. Check the balance sheets. The assets are gone. Of course, one could argue whether or not they were ever truly there in the first place, but they used to appear on the balance sheet, and now they don't. Either they're gone, or somebody's lying.

 

[BeAChooser]

Makes you wonder why people pay so much for private education.

No mystery there. Public education has failed about half the children still in public education. And held back the education of many of the rest. The folks lucky enough to go private are doing so for their own kids sake. Top democrats (like Obama) who send their kids to private schools aren't foolish but they are totally hypocritical. They are against vouchers (which might make it possible for many more to send their kids to private school) yet send their own kids to those private schools to avoid the public system.

Are they all "stuck on stupid"?

Apparently, you are unaware that the average private education in the US is much less expensive than the average public one. Yet another example where government doesn't do things better. But without vouchers, sending kids to private school costs more than most people can afford because one still has to pay the taxes to fund the public system. Only the wealthy, like Obama, can do that.

 

[Alt+F4]

Public education has failed about half the children still in public education.

Evidence of this? The literacy rate in the United States is 99%.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No mystery there. Public education has failed about half the children still in public education. And held back the education of many of the rest. The folks lucky enough to go private are doing so for their own kids sake. Top democrats (like Obama) who send their kids to private schools aren't foolish but they are totally hypocritical. They are against vouchers (which might make it possible for many more to send their kids to private school) yet send their own kids to those private schools to avoid the public system.



Apparently, you are unaware that the average private education in the US is much less expensive than the average public one. Yet another example where government doesn't do things better. But without vouchers, sending kids to private school costs more than most people can afford because one still has to pay the taxes to fund the public system. Only the wealthy, like Obama, can do that.

You are getting your causation wrong. It isn't something magical about the private schools that makes them have better performance than public schools, it is the fact that parents have to be wealthy enough ("Lucky" as you would say) to send the kids there that makes them have better performance. Socioeconomic status is one of the greatest determinants of a child's performance, and once balanced for the socioeconomic status of the students in them, private and public schools are statistically the same in performance.

 

[gdnp]

GARBAGE. You act like the assets of these banks and financial institutions have disappeared. They haven't. Most of those assets are still there. The bad assets (bad loans) constitute a small fraction of the total. If the market were allowed to work, the problem institutions would declare bankruptcy and clear the books of the bad loans. The properties in question would go to people who could pay the mortgage. And the system would recover. The way it's being done now only prolongs the credit crunch. And keeps the bad debt around with people who shouldn't have gotten loans for properties still in those properties and not making payments. Your solution ... STEALING money from those who didn't make bad financial decisions and giving it to those who did ... is no solution. It will only do even more damage to the economic system and people's faith in government and the institutions you are trying to save.

LOL. You have no clue. Bankruptcy implies your debts are greater than your assets: that you are insolvent. When you declare bankruptcy you don't just wipe out your debts and keep your assets: your assets are liquidated and the proceeds used to pay off your creditors, usually at cents on the dollar. So a bankrupt bank has no remaining net assets.

The bad assets are a small proportion of the total? Do you recall that the banks are highly leveraged? If you borrow $25 for every $1 of capital, and 5% of your loans go bad, guess what? You are broke.

So try again, BAC. Who, other than the federal government, has the money right now to recapitalize the banks?