Something we can agree on?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Phil Ayesho, Sep 30, 2008.

  1. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    886
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Here's an Idea that maybe we can all agree on...


    Let's shitcan Paulson and equally shitcan any Democratic appointee...


    Let's all write Congress and demand that the Bailout be overseen and administered by Warren Buffet.


    Of the men of wealth, he is certainly capable and competent, and he has demonstrated his own philanthropy and civic mindedness.

    He's a patriot and one of the few who understand the underlying causes of this whole mess.

    What say you all?
     
  2. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Mr. Buffet has, in fact, been actively advising throughout the current effort
     
  3. Skull Mason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dirty Jersey
    Disclosure it at hand THERE IS NO NEED TO WORRY
     
  4. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    886
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Thanks Skull-
    nothing is so reassuring as promises that the space alines will rescue us.

    Tell me, do I have to cut my nuts off when the comet comes? Or can I go as I am?
     
  5. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Dear Phil: As encumbered with long division as I am (how many zeros in a trillion?) Uncle Warren has my vote. But we need to add Suze Orman as his side kick just to glare admonishingly and threaten all financial evil-doers to mud fights. Edit: make that mud wrastles!
     
    #5 midlifebear, Sep 30, 2008
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2008
  6. pym

    pym New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a national problem, not a partison one Phil. My thought would be a consortium{Think-tank} of the best minds working together on this problem and it's best solution. This would include members of the respected Old gaurd as well as the best and brightest minds fresh out of The best Ivy league schools with there PHd's in Economics,Political Science, Statistics and such. Intelligence, and not foolish insistance on maintaining Political divisions is the only thing that stand's a chance of seeing mankind into a sucessfull future of any kind.
     
  7. Pitbull

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,753
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male

    Who are you and what did you do with Phil?

    I'd go for it because it is better than we will probably end up with.
    Just having Warren Buffet in charge would help the markets.
     
  8. Pitbull

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,753
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    You have to cut them off.
    Now!
     
  9. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    886
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    The problem with think tanks is that they seldom agree.

    Obviously, Warren Buffet would consult with all the experts he felt were needed.... but the whole reason we HAVE an executive branch is because, in a time limited crisis, you need ONE controlling mind to make decisions, often with imperfect information.

    Making a less than optimal decision, NOW is always better than kvetching till its too late.

    And of the people who have a handle on what is happening... I trust would Buffet's 'seat of the pants' judgement over any of the supposed 'experts' who never saw this coming.
     
  10. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    886
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    You must have a very skewed image of me in your mind... I have mentioned Buffet often.
    ( BTW- Buffet is opposed to "free market" theory )

    Perhaps I should explain myself so folks stop thinking I paint my face Blue...



    While socially liberal in certain regards....I have demonstrated that I am far more of a fiscal conservative than any conservative on this board.

    They would be more than willing to continue with an economic theory that has been Proven by events both recent and not, to be flawed and dangerous. That is not being conservative.

    They would be willing to hand power back to the party that has Proven that they do NOT make government smaller... but bigger and more intrusive. ...That the only part of government they make smaller is the part of government that polices finance. That is not being conservative.

    They would be willing to hand power back to the party that has Proven they are NOT fiscal conservatives, but LIBERAL borrowers and even MORE liberal spenders...

    ...Back to a party who has been SO fiscally irresponsible that they have CUT federal revenue while INCREASING federal spending.

    ... back to to party that has Proven to be corrupt... from Cheney's sweetheart deals with a corporation in which he owns millions in stock, ( who beat it out of town ) to 28 billion in cash disappearing on a government plane, to coke parties in the Dept. of the Interior, to refusing to investigate ENRON until AFTER the board memebers had stripped their employees bare and crashed the energy market.


    Anyone TRULY fiscally conservative would not adhere to a party who was NOT demonstrating conservative ACTION.

    I backed Republicans when I thought Democrats were going too far....
    I now back Democrats because Republicans have done far worse.

    PARTY identification is as stupid and unreasoning as identifying with a particular football team.
    You are Not ROOTING for your home team....

    You are SUPPOSED to be making choices based upon the needs of your NATION... Supposed to be intelligently assessing the actions of those who represent you and when they FAIL to represent you, you shit-can them.

    I don't CARE what they SAY- I look at how they PERFORM.

    Clinton will always be a hero because he CUT WELFARE- something every republican SAID, but never actually DID.
    ...always be a hero because he BALANCED the budget.... another thing every republican SAID, but never actually DID.

    FUCK the lables everyone assigns... on these critical measures...Clinton was the best 'conservative' president we have ever had.

    I don't WANT a "Liberal" president. I don't want a "conservative" president.

    I want someone who is intelligent enough to understand in what areas we ought to be liberal ( civil rights and freedoms, research and infrastructure ) and in what areas we ought to be conservative ( finance, defense and regulation ).


    I suppose I would consider myself a "scientifically REASONING constitutionalist".

    I am socially liberal because the Constitution is a LIBERAL document, And I agree with the INTENT of the Constitution- to create a government that is stable and can provide as Maximally Free a society as is compatible with a stable society.
    NOT anarchy- governance is NECESSARY- ergo government must be a solution.
    I don't want to hear that government is the problem... I want to SEE politicians MAKE government WORK.
    In fact, I Demand it.

    I am FOR programs that can help the poor achieve because poverty LIMITS the freedom of the poor.

    But all of my views are TEMPERED by the FACTS uncovered by science.

    I do not hold onto views that have solid evidence in refutation.

    Despite my social liberalism... I opposed welfare because I UNDERSTAND evolution... and that if you Create a niche in any environment where a living thing CAN survive, SOME living thing will move in and be perfectly happy to stay in that niche.

    Welfare created such a niche... and, although the INTENT of welfare was honorable enough... BECAUSE of the truth about human nature, its actual effect was the opposite of that intent.
    So I opposed it.

    In the same sense, I oppose 'free market' ideology because I UNDERSTAND evolution and human nature... Given the opportunity, some humans beings WILL cheat, will conspire, and will manipulate in what they think is their immediate self interest.
    And, in economic systems, the immediate self interest of the individual is diametrically opposed to the interests of the group.

    The individual is not capable of evaluating his interests in the greater scheme of a social construct... incapable of understanding how a short term profit... sought by ENOUGH individuals, could reverberate thru the grid and shatter the stability of an entire network of interconnected and dynamically balanced relations.


    Thus- saying the market should NOT be regulated is precisely like suggesting that a Power distribution grid does not need to be regulated; That the operation of an engine does not need to be regulated..

    Science tells us ALL dynamic systems are prone to instability. ITs why we put gyroscopes in spacecraft.

    In nature, there is always another creature willing to take advantage when instability threatens a species.
    But in human society... are we willing to risk OUR extinction so that some other culture can take advantage of OUR instability?

    Market regulation is the gyroscope on our dynamic financial systems.

    Free Market theory was formulated with good intent- but JUST LIKE WELFARE, in practice the result of free market reforms are the OPPOSITE of that intent.

    Are you intelligent and open minded enough to recognize when something you believe in is resulting in the opposite of what you expected?

    I am not saying Regulate business to death... I would do away with many local municipal obstacles to buisness-
    But the one area we must regulate effectively is the policing of corporate officers.

    Just as Semi Tractors must be constantly checked to ensure compliance- simply because an overloaded or unsafe Semi CAN do SO MUCH Damage...

    Corporations must be policed and controled because THEY can, obviously, do so much damage.


    As a people, we can not be Absolutely Free. We rely on each other and therefore your right to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.

    Rather- our Constitution strives to offer us, as a people, the maximun amount of personal freedom CONDUCIVE to a cooperative and stable community.
    Thus we have laws that limit our freedom in those respects that preserve order and cooperation.


    This is the SAME approach we must take to our economy.
    We must seek the system of regulation that offers us maximum amount of fiscal freedom that is still conducive to a stable and cooperative market.


    Not "Free Market" theory... But "free-ish" market theory.

    A bicycle stays upright because our vestibular system checks on the dynamic balance of the system- and because we consciously input tiny corrections and controls to maintain that balance.

    The idea that the market is not AT LEAST as complex as riding a bicycle is naive.


    I want the freest market that is responsibly stable.
     
    #10 Phil Ayesho, Sep 30, 2008
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2008
  11. stratedude

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,865
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    I'll take Warren Buffet any day of the week!
     
  12. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed, Buffet has my vote
     
  13. fallon2

    fallon2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In a House in Temperance
    Shitcan Palin?? Absolutely!

    Paulson? NO way.
     
  14. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    886
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Paulson never saw it coming.

    Buffet is not a politician nor political appointee... he has no axe to grind and no upcoming election to posture for.

    He can be relied upon to focus on the problem and has the expertise.


    And- years ago, Buffet warned that the "invisible hand" was much more like an "invisible foot" stumbling thru the dark.

    HE UNDERSTANDS HOW THIS HAPPENED.
     
  15. Skull Mason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dirty Jersey
    The Annunaki will cut them off for you.
     
  16. Pitbull

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,753
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Well you put that skewed image there.

    And there you go again - making sense.
    Jekyll & Hyde.
    And you can't see it.

    Your explanation was something I probably agree with 80-90%.

    We see the same thing but come to different conclusions.

    Clinton was somewhat of a fiscal conservative.
    I think part of that was he was held in check by a fiscally conservative congress - Republican much of his tenure.

    It is when one party - and here is where you and I differ - is in control - that is when the irresponsible spending starts and the treasury gets robbed.
    I think a lot of what has been going on the last 8 years is a lot of - You go into the safe and take whatever you want and I won't look and then I'll go in and take whatever I want and you don't look.
    Now all of a sudden it is apparent the safe has been robbed and their answer - democrat thief and republican thief - is American taxpayers please put more money in the safe.

    If Obama wins and has 55 senators and 230 representatives - hold on to your wallet!
    Don't expect any Clintonesque budget surpluses.

    I know your approach is if I throw the bums out I am punishing them. But they know the game. They come out ahead with 8 years in and 8 years out then 16 years in and behaving responsibly.
     
  17. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    886
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    My voting record shows that I tend to agree...

    If I seem to be rabid in my denouncement of the Republicans, its in response to their CAMPAIGN to shift blame and evade responsibility.

    I can only take so much lying and dissembling form people who OUGHT to be feeling pretty sheepish right now.

    Most of my life I have voted to try and maintain the very balance you mention.
    I believe government needs to represent all the people and that no one party should have too much power.

    I have watched over the past 20 years as the Democrats have been pulled toward center- especially fiscally, but I have not seen the same moderation in the republicans.
    Rather the republicans have been growing more and more extreme; their rhetoric more and more centered on fear and hatred.
    It is not enough to disagree with democrats, they invented a new style of Reviling them.
    -Of unrelenting character assassination.
    I have watched as they have adopted a double standard, castigating Liberals for the very things they excuse in themselves.

    I have watched as they have embraced religious extremism and invited it into government... and, this last 8 years, been shocked to watch them unravel the Constitution itself. Watched them evade the law and conspire in secret... give 20 billion to companies that gave them millions..
    and all in plain sight...
    And not ONE republican stood up and called foul for the nation's sake.

    With their propagandistic invention of "enemies" both external (Iraq ) and internal ( Liberals ) and their jingoistic ditto head mantras of free market belief they have turned very nearly into a fascist party... summoning the temerity to accuse fellow Americans of being "unpatriotic" -

    Republicans over the past 15 years have made an effort to destroy the American idea of the Loyal Opposition.

    And they have done nothing in total power but made the wealthy even wealthier- the poor even poorer- and brought the country, in staggering debt, to the brink of a precipice.

    All for the IDEA of "free markets" and magical invisible hands... an invisible hand that has slapped us down hard.
    They have done the OPPOSITE of what they promised, And yet they have spent vast sums to convince conservatives that their actions are conservative.

    For all of these reasons the republican party has become unrecognizable as an American institution.


    I don't believe they represent the interests of even conservatives any longer and I feel conservatives have been hopelessly confused by republican disinformation campaigns into supporting an ideology that has PROVEN itself to be morally and ethically bankrupt.
    Way far off the far right edge of conservative thinking.


    So- As I stated- I am a guy who seeks balance in government.

    Being out of power pushed Democrats toward the center.

    Being out of power will push Republicans toward the center.

    republican ideology ism at this point, SO extreme that it will require being TOTALLY out of power to get them to reflect and, maybe, accept the responsibility for their actions. Benching the republican party for an inning may be the ONLY way to SAVE true conservatism.

    You can see that it will take this extreme a result to get them to reflect by the elaborate skeins of rationalization even the conservatives on this board unravel to try and evade responsibility for a full decade of republican rule.


    So, yes- with the Choice of McCain who is flat out stating that he will do MORE of the same irresponsible military spending and tax cutting- hamstrung by a democratic congress...

    And Obama, who will have the full support of congress.. and is a candidate who will have tremendous pressure to perform- far more than elderly McCain who won't have to live down any failure for long...

    In the light of McCain's Irresponsible choice of Palin for a man in his 70s with a history of cancer...
    And the Republican recalcitrance over Free Market malarky...


    A Democratic government will, at least, be able to ACT swiftly when we need it most.
    We will HAVE to have national healthcare- because the current system is failing...republicans still want some suits to profit off of our infirmities.
    We will have to address global warming and the republicans don't even think its real.
    And we HAve to get off oil but the republicans just chant "drill".

    I have no choice.
    I have to vote in the best interests of my country and the People. ALL of them.
    Because the Republicans have lost their way and have proven they don't understand the situation.


    So- Sorry- though I believe in well balanced power- we have not HAD balanced power for a decade.

    THings have tipped way too far in one direction...
    it requires a significant counterbalance to right the ship of state.


    And besides, I want my Constitution back.
    ALL of it.


    It is my HOPE that Obama will be as wise as was Lincoln and surround himself in his cabinet with some representatives of the opposition.

    He will need to hear ALL sides- if he is to take effective action.










    For all of these reasons
     
  18. D_Davy_Downspout

    D_Davy_Downspout Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,144
    Likes Received:
    0
    You do realize he supports Obama and is his economic adviser, right?
     
  19. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Not exactly. He indicated that he thought Barry would bring ideas to the Presidency, but he also supported Hillary. Also, I've never seen where he supported Obama's idiot economic advisor.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted