paul ryan vs. david brooks

[wiegie]

I can't because I'm wrong. My initial understanding of this was the collateral calls were derived from a regulatory process but they technically aren't (and, truth be told, AIG was screwed anyway for three of four other reasons so it's not really the best example in the first place). My bad.

 

 

 

Nothing in my more than a decade of posting on these boards has give me any idea how to respond to a post like this

 

 

 

 

 

I actually wasn't 100% certain about regulations not playing a role, so I double-checked before I made my post and I think what I wrote is right. (What I found (that Goldman Sachs voluntary made the collateral calls even when they had to have known it could/would cause a financial meltdown) made me even more disgusted with them than I already was--especially given that due to the bailout, they lost nothing on their deals with AIG.)

[Ursa Majoris]

What I found (that Goldman Sachs voluntary made the collateral calls even when they had to have known it could/would cause a financial meltdown) made me even more disgusted with them than I already was--especially given that due to the bailout, they lost nothing on their deals with AIG.

If ever a company should be liquidated and it's leaders publicly hanged, it's Goldman Sachs.

[Jimmy Neutron]

If ever a company should be liquidated and it's leaders publicly hanged, it's Goldman Sachs.

 

As long as their enablers @ the Fed and in government swing too, I'm good with that.

[Azazello1313]

paul ryan vs david brooks, the debate

 

I like this synopsis pretty well:

 

The conservative wants the government to be conservative, with little concern about its size. The libertarian wants the government to be small, with little concern about whether it is conservative.

 

I heard Brooks arguing the conservative viewpoint. He wants a government that "builds character," regardless of its size. He worries that without government help, the underclass will stay unmarried, uneducated, and dependent.

 

I heard Ryan argue that the most urgent issue is the unsustainable path of government spending. He worries that without action soon, we will head toward a debt crisis of the sort pending in Europe.

 

At a tactical level, I heard Brooks arguing for political compromise. He feared that Republicans would reject useful compromises and end up with nothing. To me, this make some sense. The Republicans hold one part of one branch of government. The balance of power does not suggest that they can dictate the terms of current policy.

 

Ryan took a stronger line. However, he touted the Ryan-Rivlin plan for health care, which I assume required some compromise in thinking.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

In other words, Brooks is a pragmatist (something he once used to admire about Obama) and Ryan is just another partisan hack. Sounds about right to me...

[Perchoutofwater]

In other words, Brooks is a pragmatist (something he once used to admire about Obama) and Ryan is just another partisan hack. Sounds about right to me...

 

Seriously? You are calling Ryan a partisan hack? That would be like me calling Bayh a partisan hack. Ryan is one of the most respected Republicans on the Hill.

[Azazello1313]

In other words, Brooks is a pragmatist (something he once used to admire about Obama) and Ryan is just another partisan hack. Sounds about right to me...

 

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Pragmatists compromise. Partisans do not. Sounds about right to me.

[billay]

The political waters are so muddied right now, and imo, the powers that be intend it, and cause it to be that way. I reject the notion that the only way out of this ordeal is to choose between one unobtainable ideal and another. As with most things in life, the answer lies somewhere in between, and due to the present political climate, the positions between the extremes have been completely obscured.

 

I think the main thing the American electorate is upset about at the moment is the disconnect between what our leaders say and what they do. Both sides are guilty. How Congress can debate not extending unemployment benefits due to concerns about fiscal responsibility, and in the next breath argue for tax breaks for every single american is absurd. The House of Representatives publicly censures a member, but applauds him at the conclusion. Politics is driving every decision, and as a result most decisions are disingenuous and contradictory and have nothing to do with solving problems.

 

The Tea Party gets is, and is most open about it, but they themselves are somewhat guilty of clouding the issues. But "throwing the rascals out" is at best a beginning, and at worst fodder for the politically ambitious. The 2010 election was not about the republicans, and the 2008 election was not about the democrats. They were about the people rejecting the status quo. Unfortunately, as the people get angrier, we are more susceptible to people who say what we want to hear, and so far, the result has been that we've gotten more of what we intended to reject.

[Jimmy Neutron]

The political waters are so muddied right now, and imo, the powers that be intend it, and cause it to be that way. I reject the notion that the only way out of this ordeal is to choose between one unobtainable ideal and another. As with most things in life, the answer lies somewhere in between, and due to the present political climate, the positions between the extremes have been completely obscured.

 

I think the main thing the American electorate is upset about at the moment is the disconnect between what our leaders say and what they do. Both sides are guilty. How Congress can debate not extending unemployment benefits due to concerns about fiscal responsibility, and in the next breath argue for tax breaks for every single american is absurd. The House of Representatives publicly censures a member, but applauds him at the conclusion. Politics is driving every decision, and as a result most decisions are disingenuous and contradictory and have nothing to do with solving problems.

 

The Tea Party gets is, and is most open about it, but they themselves are somewhat guilty of clouding the issues. But "throwing the rascals out" is at best a beginning, and at worst fodder for the politically ambitious. The 2010 election was not about the republicans, and the 2008 election was not about the democrats. They were about the people rejecting the status quo. Unfortunately, as the people get angrier, we are more susceptible to people who say what we want to hear, and so far, the result has been that we've gotten more of what we intended to reject.

 

Spot on.

[billay]

Preventing Hoarding and Spreading the Wealth are not the same thing.

[Clubfoothead]

I just finished reading Zen and the Art of Dildo Maintenance by Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell with forward by Lindsey Graham. Interesting read.

[tosberg34]

I just finished reading Zen and the Art of Dildo Maintenance by Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell with forward by Lindsey Graham. Interesting read.

 

You had me at Palin and Bachmann but ruined my fantasy at O'Donnell. Thanks a lot.