Congressman Bob Inglis, a long-time conservative from South Carolina, recently got beat in his primary by a margin of 71-29. He had previously won six elections. Why did he get beat down in his primary?
at least partly because he refused to bow to the Tea Party. Apparently his 93 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union isn’t conservative enough.
Inglas gained notoriety for telling some crazy town hall people to turn off Glenn Beck. (I made this statement: But the fact remains that the fear-mongering might end up hurting politicians like Bob. How true that has been.) He also called for Joe Wilson to apologize for yelling “You lie” at a State of the Union Address. This clearly is not good enough for the Tea Party.
Bob also got grief for refusing to call Obama a socialist. Why wouldn’t he? Because he doesn’t want to lie. I recommend reading the whole article, but here are a few quotes:
His description of a meeting with a dozen Tea Party activists:
I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there’s a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life’s earnings, and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, “What the heck are you talking about?” I’m trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, “You don’t know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don’t know this?!” And I said, “Please forgive me. I’m just ignorant of these things.” And then of course, it turned into something about the Federal Reserve and the Bilderbergers and all that stuff. And now you have the feeling of anti-Semitism here coming in, mixing in. Wow.
Why not appease them by calling Obama a socialist?
I refused to use the word because I have this view that the Ninth Commandment must mean something. I remember one year Bill Clinton—the guy I was out to get [when serving on the House judiciary committee in the 1990s]—at the National Prayer Breakfast said something that was one of the most profound things I’ve ever heard from anybody at a gathering like that. He said, “The most violated commandment in Washington, DC”—everybody leaned in; do tell, Mr. President—”is, ‘Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’” I thought, “He’s right. That is the most violated commandment in Washington.” For me to go around saying that Barack Obama is a socialist is a violation of the Ninth Commandment. He is a liberal fellow. I’m conservative. We disagree…But I don’t need to call him a socialist, and I hurt the country by doing so. The country has to come together to find a solution to these challenges or else we go over the cliff.
On what the current trend in the Republican Party:
For Inglis, this is the crux of the dilemma: Republican members of Congress know “deep down” that they need to deliver conservative solutions like his tax swap. Yet, he adds, “We’re being driven as herd by these hot microphones—which are like flame throwers—that are causing people to run with fear and panic, and Republican members of Congress are afraid of being run over by that stampeding crowd.” Inglis says that it’s hard for Republicans in Congress to “summon the courage” to say no to Beck, Limbaugh, and the tea party wing. “When we start just delivering rhetoric and more misinformation…we’re failing the conservative movement,” he says. “We’re failing the country.” Yet, he notes, Boehner and House minority whip Eric Cantor have one primary strategic calculation: Play to the tea party crowd. “It’s a dangerous strategy,” he contends, “to build conservatism on information and policies that are not credible.”
On Palin:
Asked if there are any 2012 GOP contenders who can lead the party in a more credible direction, Inglis points to Rob Portman, a former House member who was President George W. Bush’s budget director. But Portman is now running for Senate in Ohio. He’s not 2012 material. What about Sarah Palin? Inglis pauses for a moment: “I think that there are people who seem to think that ignorance is strength.” And he says of her: “If I choose to remain ignorant and uninformed and encourage people to follow me while I celebrate my lack of information,” that’s not responsible.
On Republicans wooing the Tea Party?
With Boehner and others chasing after the tea party, he says, “that’s going to be the dog that catches the car.” He quickly adds: “And the Democrats, if they go into the minority, are going to have an enjoyable couple of years watching that dog deal with the car it’s caught.”
I would be worried about the Tea Party becoming too big a part of my party. Sure, it may get people excited in the short term, but what’s going to be the lasting effect?
Enjoy the article.
Adam Feser
83 Comments
login
Polls
Loading ...Recent Comments
- internal hemorrhoids treatments on Egypt Reactions
- like this on John Thune and Sotomayor
- jquery mobile tutorial on College Football/Nebraska-KSU Challenge
- discount learn css3 pdf on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now aka ACORN
- site link on Rep. Weiner on Justice Thomas and the Appearance of Bias
- rate us online on House Officially Disapproves of Wilson’s Outburst
- rate us on Will Rogers Said It Best
- t1 circuit info on Good God Glenn
- reality show casting on Teacher takes Student the wood shed…
- insurnace companies on Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage
Most Commented Posts
- Miss me yet (130)
- Arizona's Racist Law (119)
- Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty (83)
- Smoking Ban Thoughts and Poll (80)
- Tom Tancredo Wants Literacy Tests (76)
- The Apparent Trap/Hawaiian Health Care (62)
- Sarah Palin: Persecuted Jew? (57)
- Healthcare (53)
- Cash for Clunkers: What a joke! (50)
- Tom Coburn Has Pelosi's Back and a Point (49)
Blogroll
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
Your own article as well as the Mother Jones article contains more than enough evidence as to why Inglis is too liberal. That you are blind to that is evidence that YOU are too liberal.
If your last full paragraph indicates that you believe you are a member of the Republican Party, then you’re in the wrong party and don’t realize it. The Tea Party movement epitomizes core Republican values. Liberals belong in the Democrat Party. You might think about switching your voter registration card in the next couple of months…
What?
Inglis is far from a true conservative. Americans are waking up to these career politicians that no longer represent the people that voted them in. The price for this is just exactly what Inglis experienced. Hopefully, we will have a large dose of this coming in November.
The people of SC felt they could no longer count on this man to represent their interests. He had become part of the tax and spend crowd that thinks Washington DC gives them a license to steal. Inglis supported TARP and also was a supporter of the climate change bill that if passed would put this country at a competitive disadvantage.
Just because somebody has a R by their name does not make them a true conservative. People are beginning to realize that it is only true conservative values that will save this country.
“ignorance is strength” — perfectly appropriate invocation of Orwell in describing the true nature of the teabaggers. Keep at ‘em, Adam!
This just illustrates what has happened to this country. It used to be that the voice of reason that people listened to was somebody that had many years of experience in the real world. Somebody that actually had been successful in a private sector job and had helped create other jobs. That was the voice that knew how to guide others in helping to build this great country.
………….
Today, the voice of reason many think is some political science major that has no real world experience. They have gone to college for several years and been mentored by some of the most liberal people in the world. They then emerge thinking that they have all the answers and are qualified to be President of the United States. And look at the hole we are digging with that one.
……………….
And just what is political science anyway. Chemistry and biology are sciences. Just how do they re-brand politics as a science?
According to Google, this is the definition of teabagger. Cory, stick your own blog…
Teabaggers – Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth.
Man. . .I am with you Jammer. So Adam any job prospects yet?
Hmmm The crickets seem to be chirping. Used to get the same response from Adam when I would ask him who paid for his health insurance during the Obamacare debate. Life is good when you get to phone it in from the sidelines. “No job, no problem. . .I support Obama” Lameness upon lameness, Adam.
Sorry I was out of town for a few days. And yes, it’s lameness. Clearly only incredibly hip people use the word lameness. It’s also fun to belittle someone looking for work. You guys are so nice.
I am not a Republican if anyone couldn’t figure it out. The last paragraph is a hypothetical situation.
Dr, clearly Cory wrote teabagger to invoke that slang. Remember all the conversations we had about that when the movement first started? http://theamericannews.net/election/?p=650
Political science is called science because most political scientists adhere to positivism.
Also, I didn’t hear anyone defending the actual principles these people stood for or the theories they had concocted. I’m pretty surprised no conservatives feel bad that Inglis got the shaft. Honestly this only helps Democrats in the long run. See Sharron Angle.
Political Science majors learn how to expand all levels of government in order to keep themselves employed. This requires them to develop their skills in dreaming up new forms of taxation to have hard working Americans pay for all of the grand schemes they develop to justify their existence.
…………….
I dare anyone to name multiple Political Science graduates that have gone on to work in the private sector and actually create a significant number of private sector jobs. I believe that would be a very difficult assignment. On the other hand, nobody would have any difficulty in compiling a list of Political Science graduates that have contributed immensely to the demise of the world’s greatest economy.
No, they don’t. You’re just being ridiculous. Maybe you’re trying to make a statement about public administration. Political scientists study government, policy, theory, international relations, and such, but there isn’t a goal involved beyond understanding. If you mean to imply that political scientists aren’t hard-working Americans you are mistaken. You’re just saying things you think sound right without any justification.
The amazing private sector and a bunch of MBAs managed to ruin the economy. Not sure how a political scientist did that.
And many people (most I know) that major in political science go to law school and either create private firms or work for private firms. I’m no fan, but it’d be tough to argue Dick Cheney wasn’t a player in the private sector.
It just seems ridiculous to make broad statements about an entire group of people based on nothing. But I suppose you know everything about all political science majors so I will get a government job to rob you of your tax dollars because I’m a huge jerk.
Oh there have been a few in the private sector. Dick Cheney was only there very briefly. He has pretty much been a career politician. I thought you might come up with Steve Case. He is probably the most famous Poly Sci major to actually work in the private sector. They now use his AOL Time Warner merger as a case study in business schools as the worst business deal of all times.
..
I don’t think my statement is all that ridiculous. You can find all kinds of politicians that have contributed to many of our problems that started out with some type of a Political Science degree. Barney Frank was front and center of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disaster, which many people feel is what was the root cause of our latest financial disaster. But the real problem is the resources that they pull from the private sector to advance their personal agendas in the public sector. The vast majority of all political science majors think that big government is the answer to everything.
…
I don’t think that there is too much doubt that we would be better off without all the political science grads that come out of the very liberal poly sci departments. There are just many of them that go into growing the size of our government. And I really don’t think bringing lawyers into the equation helps your position. Frivolous lawsuits including the ridiculous class action suits that are introduced are a complete drag on our economy and lead to higher costs everywhere.
I notice how people who have never studied a topic or been employed in a certain field always feel that they are the best informed in that area. Political Science is a cross between the humanities and sciences. It is the study of behavior and is one of the social sciences as it uses methods and techniques relating to inquiry. And does everyone need to be employed in the private sector? Is that the only place where “real” jobs exist?
And does everyone need to be employed in the private sector? Is that the only place where “real” jobs exist?
——————————————————
YES !!!!!!!!!!! That is the only place where REAL jobs exist. That is the problem with liberals. They keep increasing public sector jobs that produce nothing except the need for more public sector jobs and a huge pension liability that will bankrupt this country and many of the states. If political science was really worth anything they would teach their graduates to severely cut the federal government and right size state governments and stop this nonsense.
So your beef with political science is that not everyone who studies or makes a career of it agrees with you personal beliefs? That makes so much sense. A field of study is only worth while if someone has the same ideas as Jammer. How does that not sound ridiculous?
Awesome debate. The trouble with political science is that some people become very good in the field and can manipulate elections. Karl Rove is a great example of this ability, and actually an example from the Republican party. Some political scientists can figure out how to spin things and get the reaction they want from the voters which is great if it goes the way you’re hoping it will, not so great if it spins things the other way. My point is that instead of black and white, issues based elections, we get cartoons filled with games and spins trying to sway voters. I’m not saying that the field is useless, but it can have negative effects not only in growing government, but also in swinging elections. I would imagine that there were political scientists behind the rumors that some states with open primaries actually saw Democrats encouraging their own voters to vote for McCain figuring that he’d never beat Obama.
Good points, Ray. But I think we’re overstating something. Practicing political scientists tend not to be actively working for politicians or groups. Most teach, do research, and try to get their findings published in peer-reviewed journals or books. It isn’t the goal to actually influence decisions as much as it is to understand them. Rove is a good example of someone who actually went to the field to influence elections. But I would contend that he didn’t learn dirty tricks like sending out fliers claiming McCain’s adopted daughter was actually a love child from an affair in his poli sci studies.
…………
Elections are a different breed of political science. There are some people that study campaigns and elections, but the a majority of political scientists don’t think campaigns even matter. In fact, one of my American Comprehensive Exam questions asked basically whether or not campaigns matter. Here is the actual question:
……….
Campaigns don’t matter; that is, at least in the broad (though certainly not universally accepted) view of the last four decades of research on elections using ANES data to compare campaign strategies with factors like the state of the economy, a district or state’s liberalism, incumbency, partisanship, and so forth. And yet, the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania has just completed its third foray into the quadrennial campaign survey, challenging the ANES’ supremacy by conducting a several months-long rolling cross sectional survey (complete with many panels around debates, conventions, and so forth) because the folks putting together the National Annenberg Election Survey believe that campaigns do matter. Is the Annenberg Foundation’s money being well spent trying to broaden our understanding of campaign dynamics? Why/Why not?
……….
I answered that they do matter, but you can see what I’m getting at. Actual political scientists simply study them, and most don’t even study elections. That’s not to say people like Rove and Mark Penn don’t enter into the scene and do the things you mentioned, but I think the tricks they use and much of what they know comes from actually participating in campaigns as opposed to studying them. At least that’s my opinion. If a person wanted to he could get a bachelor’s and master’s degree in political science and spend almost no time on elections.
…………
And I’ll reaffirm that a blanket slander of a group of people based on the subject they studied is silly. It’s especially silly when considering the factor that drives many people to choose political science is the same thing that drives people to comment on a political blog: an interest.
………..
But I must admit I like Jammer’s method of demarcating paragraphs with dots.
But I must admit I like Jammer’s method of demarcating paragraphs with dots.
I will maintain that common sense is not a part of the poly sci discipline.
——————————————————-
..
Please be advised that the patent has been applied for.
I would also like to point out that a political science major has been on here for a long time and never came up with it. I am not sure how that is explained away.
..
You also made a comment that my beef with political science majors was because not all of them shared my poltical beliefs. That was a totally unfair statement. Where did I say that? I think you need to do some back tracking on that statement. If that is how you learned to analyze situations in your political science classes, I think you deserve a refund of your tuition.
.
I have major beefs with people that don’t share my political beliefs and I will look forward to the chance to discuss those. However. by dislike for the political science programs goes beyond that. Yes, I have concerns about the unbalanced political spectrum of the faculty in poly sci departments, don’t you? Again, I think we can do without them. However, if they are going to exist, shouldn’t there be a requirement that the faculty be evenly split between the two ends of the political spectrum?
I guess according to Jammer, teaching isn’t a REAL job because it’s not in the private sector. There’s been many times that I’ve thought it would be great if I could charge students and perhaps teachers could then make a decent salary. But I stop and remember that all children are entitled to an education and I don’t think that would be possible in the “real” world! But Jammer will probably give this comment a Palinesque roll of the eyes.
Jammer, this sentence you wrote pretty much gets at my point: “If political science was really worth anything they would teach their graduates to severely cut the federal government and right size state governments and stop this nonsense.”
………………
That’s where you said it’s not worth a damn because not everyone in it shares your beliefs.
………………
And no there shouldn’t be an even split. Some departments are more conservative (SDSU, who actually had a professor go on to help Republicans) and some are liberal. But that doesn’t matter. I don’t think you’re understanding what political science is. It makes more sense to have a department filled with specialists from the main fields (American government, public policy, comparative politics, political theory, and international relations) than it does than it does to have the focus be on political ideology. This is because your ideology doesn’t (definitely shouldn’t) affect your research. For instance, if I’m studying the impact of negative advertising, what difference does it make whether or not I’m liberal? Most of my former classmates have been conducting experiments all summer that combine physiology with political science. It doesn’t matter what their ideology is. It’s more important to know whether an political scientists focused on IR is a realist, liberal (different than US liberal), or constructivist than it is to know their political ideology, just as the main debate in much of political science is positivism v. post-positivism. Are you quantitative or qualitative? These questions tell you more about a political scientist than conservative or liberal.
………………
And shouldn’t it tell you something if the majority (if what you say is true) of people that are experts in a subject are liberal?
Well Adam, my beliefs include that we have to live within our means and that has not been happening for many years. Some people would not even call this a political philosophy, they would just call it good old fashioned common sense.
..
And if you are trying to say there is a balance within political science departments, you are delusional. I will copy and paste information below about what the breakdown is. And your liberal professions on this blog go a long way in demonstrating that political science majors are not unbiased. They strongly profess their ideology. And my take on what it means when there are so many liberals in a selected profession is that we are in big trouble.
——————————————————
.
The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
———————————————————–
.
And then I will return to my premise that political science degrees hold little value. I have copied the following from the University of Nebraska website. Just look at what you own colleagues have recommended to political science undergraduates. WOW – get a second major so you can get a real job. And then look at the recommendations on the skills that you should focus on improving. Just what in the world is taught in political science programs if you have to be told to improve these skills? It looks like political science grads get their best education about what the REAL world is all about after they get out of the political science department.
———————————————————-
.
University of Nebraska:
Recommendations From Former Political Science Graduates to Current Undergraduates:
Nearly all who participated in an internship recommended one. Others suggested a second major, preferably something to enhance one’s attractiveness on the job market. Many recommended courses providing analytical and research skills. Others suggested courses emphasizing writing skills. Some offered the need to develop critical and analytical thinking.
Well Skye134, that was an interesting “distraction” regarding teachers. I never even thought about them when I considered public sector jobs. So, for now I will say that my opinion was sans teachers when I referred to public sector jobs. There are certainly some others. However, my comment around “real” was to mean jobs that “really” drive our economy. That is the issue or problem. I was not referring to the individual merits or value of any profession.
..
My first thought when it comes to public sector jobs are all the politicians and the bureaucrats that go with government. I have not spent a lot of time considering this issue. It is not something that I deal with nor have a huge desire to deal with.
..
I think it would be fair to say there are needed public sector jobs, teachers, police, fire, air traffic controllers, etc. They are not only needed but beneficial to the public welfare. Then there are the large numbers of public sector jobs that provide little true value. Regardless of whatever category you put public sector jobs into, they require tax funding to pay for them. If you would use the analogy of a business, these jobs are “overhead”. A successful business always tries to minimize overhead costs. I think a country should do exactly the same thing if they want to be successful.
..
So, if you want to cloud the discussion and run some emotional issue regarding certain professions up the flag pole, please do so. That is the typical liberal argument to every problem. They do not want to deal with the real issue, they just want to create some emotional smoke screen to hide the true problem.
..
Perhaps you can explain how the system will work if we only have public sector jobs like you advocate. Unless you are successful in that, I will stick with my premise that the real jobs exist in the private sector. They are the ones that drive our economy and pay the bills. If you have enough of them, you can afford a modest number of public sector jobs to meet the needs of the public. If the public sector grows too large it endangers the entire country.
You still haven’t responded to what I am saying. You’re writing a lot without acknowledging my point.
…………
I’ll make it shorter. 1. You’re calling my and everyone else’s degree in political science worthless because some of us disagree with you politically.
2. The political ideology of faculty in political science is unrelated to the research done. Did you not see the whole thing where I got into labels that matter for political scientists?
…………..
And why are teachers, police, fire fighters, lifeguards, etc. a distraction and why do they cloud the discussion? You get to wrap a blanket around all public sector jobs and call them garbage and we can’t show how that’s definitely wrong? That’s a typical conservative move: ignore counter-arguments that are inconvenient or just call it a liberal trick.
…………..
Who here has ever advocated for only public sector jobs? You pulled that straw man out of nowhere. I’ll return the favor. Jammer, perhaps you can explain how the system will work if we only have haberdashery jobs? What will then happen to the economy?
…………….
I need to say say I would recommend a second major to everyone simply because expanding your areas of expertise is always a good thing and attractive to possible employers. I would argue that political science courses offer great help in research and analytical skills. If you go to any major they’re going to have recommendations that sound just like that. I took a dentistry course when I was a freshman and former graduates that lectured recommended taking loads of business classes. I’ve heard people from all ares say they should have taken more writing classes. To claim that’s evidence that political science is useless is either disingenuous or misguided.
……………….
I looked for what you found (no link?) but got bored so I just found some other stats about recent political science graduates from UNL. Here is the link: http://polisci.unl.edu/undergrad/undergrad_careers.aspx
…………….
Career Percentage
Practicing law 14%
Currently in law school 14%
Employed in business 26%
Employed in government 10%
In school other than law 12%
Self-employed 3%
Employed in non-profit sector 6%
Other 12%
……………
Over 2.5 times as many are employed in business as are the big scary government. I thought at least 99% would be employed in the field of expanding all levels of government in order to keep themselves employed. But I guess it’s just easier to assume whatever pre-conceived notions you have are true.
Can’t find it in me to read much of the above. Will offer the “lameness” label to most of it a second time acknowledging the threat of ridicule from Adam.
There are no degrees, not one, that has merit or virture in and of itself. Neither, does a particular degree lack merit or virture in and of itself. This has been a stupid discussion from the begining. If the individual chooses to pursue a course of study, fine. The responsibility of that person to employ themselves and care for themselves remains. It is no different for the college grad than it is for the owner of a GED.
My observation is that if you ONLY have a degree, you have little. What you need is life experience to fully appreciate the challenges that poor public policy place upon the average working citizen. Until you have worked for your living, paid your own rent or mortgage, your own health insurance, raised a child, you simply live in the realm of academic discussion. And.. . you are so charged, Adam.
My Adam, you are defensive aren’t you? Such a level of defensiveness is very telling. And Alice has you charged correctly. Your example of the haberdashery jobs is clear evidence of that.
..
As for the teacher, fireman thing, you are as bad as Skye. The entire issue was around the SECTOR the jobs were in and NOT any one single profession. As an EXAMPLE, accountants can be employed in either the public or private sector. That does not make accounts either good or bad.
..
The problem is that public sector jobs are ALL taxpayer funded positions and we cannot afford an unlimited number as you would seem to believe that we can.
My goodness, Alice, you made a lot of sense. But a degree isn’t little. The degree itself is experience and you gain experience from everyone around you. Sure, there is still a ways to go, but I wouldn’t say it’s nothing. Also I wouldn’t call something I didn’t read lame. Disregarding the lameness of calling something lame, you should at least read something before passing judgment.
……………
I’m just pointing out that you are making ridiculous claims with no evidence. Proving your statements wrong isn’t being defensive, it’s showing that your baseless claims are false.
……………
I know the debate was about the sector, but you called all of one sector bad without acknowledging the possibility that you were wrong. You did the same thing with an entire group of people seeking a certain degree. It’s this insistence on a strictly black and white world that is frustrating.
……………
Again you say I want an unlimited number of public sector jobs. Where did I say that? It’s not that I’m defensive, it’s just that you don’t seem very interested in hearing counter-arguments or responding to them.
Adam, did I hear you correctly? You are accusing me of not being interested in hearing counter arguments? I would suggest that you stand in front of a mirror when you make that statement.
..
Alice has nailed this dead on about this whole discussion getting off the real issues. She is 100% correct. I also understand that is exactly how liberals address issues when they have no real good answer. And I know that I am wrong to let you continue to drag me down this path. However, I am going to fall for the liberal tactic one more time.
..
I will give you JUST TWO names – Tom Daschle and Barack Obama. Can you name are true real life experiences that these gentlemen had between their political science degree and going into politics? Yes, I understand that Daschle had a short stint in the military. However, I am not really aware of any SIGNIFICANT real world experience they had in the private sector. Another question: how many private sector jobs did either one create before going into politics? If they have never created a private sector job, how can they know how to achieve it when they are in a position to implement domestic policies? I mention the political science degree because I don’t recall too many people with other types of degrees going straight into politics.
..
What we need are people with real world experience that are willing to devote a few years of their life to public service. And if you think you can translate getting a political science degree into experience, I think you are sadly mistaken.
I always read all counter arguments and respond to them. You don’t seem to be willing to do that. As far as liberals being at fault for this getting off topic, this is when it began:
“Today, the voice of reason many think is some political science major that has no real world experience. They have gone to college for several years and been mentored by some of the most liberal people in the world. They then emerge thinking that they have all the answers and are qualified to be President of the United States. And look at the hole we are digging with that one.
……………….
And just what is political science anyway. Chemistry and biology are sciences. Just how do they re-brand politics as a science?”
…………………….
Did you expect me not to respond to that?
……………………
You don’t have to work for a business to know how to create jobs and it isn’t the only experience that counts. Can I argue that lifetime rich businessmen are unqualified because they have no idea what it’s like to be unemployed or to work for the government or to help those in need? No because that’s a generalization and they don’t have to have that experience to have empathy or be able to legislate based on it.
…………………..
Sorry only your brand of experience means anything. I best not argue that there is more than one type of experience in the world.
OK then – please expound on what your experiences are that make you qualified to be the voice of reason on a political blog.
YES !!!!!!!!!!! That is the only place where REAL jobs exist
………………………………
This is what you stated, Jammer. And I’m not expected to respond to this? You stated the private sector is the only one where real jobs existed. Then you went on to state sans teachers and a few others. So which is it? All or some? I’m getting confused. Yes, they are taxpayer funded; you don’t feel you should pay for schools, roads, etc.? Would you rather that schools be run like a business? Would that be fair? And we can afford a whole lot more than you claim if much of the private sector would chip in and pay their fair amount of taxes like the rest of us. And note, I did not say all or everyone. And Jammer, I would like to know what experiences you have that make you better qualified than the rest of us on a political blog; your statement seems to imply that you’re better qualified than the rest of us.
Skye, you just sound like a bitter liberal with anger management issues. It is impossible to discuss issues with somebody like you. At least Adam is half way civilized. I am not going to respond to somebody with an attitude like yours.
Wow! you get to insult people on here and nobody can respond? That’s fair, I guess. I wasn’t the one using 10 exclamation points and ALL caps to hammer my point, but I’m the one with anger issues, I’m uncivilized? I guess only some people are entitled to exercise their 1st ammendment rights, the rest of us are supposed to keep silent.
An exclamation point is an insult? Hey, I essentially said that I probably didn’t communicate the issue clearly and I came back with what I thought was a pretty well thought out explanation of what I really meant. You kept on insisting that I was talking about PROFESSIONS and I said that I wasn’t. I was talking about public versus private sector jobs.
…
Hey, think about it – teachers can work in the public or the private sector. I tried to carefully explain what I meant and you went off on your tangent again. Well that is fine, go ahead. I just prefer not to get going in circles with somebody when they refuse to listen to the point being made. Please find somebody else to talk to.
Seriously Jammer? Skye isn’t as civilized as you? You called both of my degrees worthless, my mother’s job as an elementary school teacher worthless, and a whole lot of other people and jobs worthless, yet your more civilized?
………………..
And no, you didn’t clearly explain your position. You can’t say public sector jobs are worthless except the tens of thousands that aren’t. And you keep making up things and claiming I said them. And how many times above did you ignore points being made?
……………….
As far as qualifications for taking an interest in politics. I grew up on a farm, which is clearly salient to South Dakota, as is the fact that I’m from a small town. The farm wasn’t even run by the government, so I guess you could say it’s private. Another key factor to voicing political opinion is the ability to read and the desire to do so. I would like to think I do a sufficient job at turning various information I come across into opinions and then am able to convey those opinions in a readable, sometimes entertaining, fashion. I’ve taken a strong interest in politics since I was quite young, which led me to eventually take up political science as a major, with religious studies and history as my minors (3 credits from a major in religious studies). Then I went on to graduate school with political science as my major and journalism as my minor. I know you believe education is simply a liberal conspiracy, but I believe I learned a lot and grew a lot as a result. (Secret: I was even liberal before those evil academics got ahold of me.) Through my family I also have knowledge of the problems facing special needs children and the system designed to help them, parts of the health care system, troubles with newspapers, and so on. Through friends I know the trials of owning a small business, of trying to find work (I also know this, I suppose), of paying student loans, of going to law school, of bankruptcy, of trying to pay off loans on a teacher’s salary, of leaving a family for war, and so on. And there are myriad other places I could mention. And so on.
…………………
If you don’t think that’s enough to write a blog about whatever interests me so I can have a bunch of people bitch about the government and how Obama raised their taxes (which is false for 95% of Americans), I don’t care. In my book, the only qualifications required are the ability to read, the ability to research, and the ability to express yourself.
Well Adam, that wasn’t the best answer, but I guess it will have to do. I have another one for you. You said the following earlier: “You don’t have to work for a business to know how to create jobs and it isn’t the only experience that counts.”
..
So, can you tell us how to create a job and hopefully enough to get the country back to full employment. I am really interested in your answer on this.
..
And I will admit that I “trashed” the political science degree and that I said that the real jobs are the ones in the private sector. However, I then went on to clarify that what I meant to say was those are the self sustaining jobs that drive the economy. I said that public sector jobs are reliant upon TAX dollars and merely growing that sector is not the answer to getting our economy back on track. I never trashed any profession. You are making that up.
..
I await your answer on how to create jobs and I hope this comes from you political science training and not doing a bunch of Googling to come up with an answer.
Taking away incentives for companies to move jobs overseas. That includes eliminating tax breaks for companies that are American in name only. This also includes working for human rights levels in other countries. Eliminate sweat shops, for instance, and eliminate the benefits of moving jobs overseas.
……………
Tax breaks for small businesses that deserve it to encourage growth. Tax breaks for companies that keep jobs in America.
…………..
This did a pretty good job: http://theamericannews.net/election/?p=1654. I know I’ll lose you on this one, but it’s the truth.
…………..
These are just some ideas off the top of my head, and I don’t even have teams of advisors helping me. (And just to please you I didn’t google it.) And let’s not assume any tactic will get the country back to full employment, at least not quickly. Times are tough, and reforms are needed besides those directly related to jobs. For instance, we need financial reform with teeth to insure we don’t have a huge mess like this again.
………….
By claiming a profession isn’t real I assumed you were trashing it. You can see how someone would think that.
Adam, I am sorry to say that was just a terrible answer. That certainly is not the best you can do? You must have been in a hurry? Let’s break this into 2 parts. First, can you please explain just what all of these incentives are for moving jobs overseas?
..
Then let’s take a whole different angle on this. Instead of looking at it from the macro level, let’s drill down to how YOU would go about creating a job. Just what would you do as Adam next Monday to go out and create an actual job. Please feel free to use any of those thoughts you first posted, but do it at the GROUND level for YOU creating an actual job. I think this will be an interesting exercise.
..
And one more time, I never trashed any profession. Will you please quit saying that becasue it is simply not true. Oh yeah, one more thing. I think you are going to have a very difficult time convincing anyone that the stimulus actually resulted in any meaningful job creation.
The incentives for moving jobs overseas? Really? Dirt-cheap labor, little to no regulation, etc.
……………..
Start a business, perhaps. Maybe a restaurant. Or maybe I could win the lottery and hire an assistant. This exercise wasn’t all that interesting.
……………..
By claiming a profession isn’t real I assumed you were trashing it. You can see how someone would think that. Unless saying something isn’t real is meant as a compliment.
And did you read the article, clearly a lot of people are convinced. It doesn’t matter whether or not facts convince you, I can only report them.
Adam, your lack of experience is showing. The things you are suggesting regarding jobs moving overseas are not incentives. They are the facts of life in a global free market economy. I cannot believe that your are against the free market system are you? Perhaps you can explain that better. I do not think you answered it correctly and hope that you would give it one more try.
…
You still seem to be completely unaware of what it takes to create jobs. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt one more time and say that perhaps you are just not understanding the question. Please list the specific factors or steps it takes to create a job. You just can’t say to start a business. What are the steps that you need to successfully accomplish to start a business, make it viable and actually CREATE A JOB.
…..
And one more time, I never said that teaching jobs were not real. I said that jobs in the public sector were not real jobs. Then I admitted that my statement did not clearly convey what I meant to say. Teachers can work in either the private sector or the public sector. Public sector jobs are funded by TAXPAYER’s tax dollars. We need to create jobs in the real economy which is the private sector. You just cannot create jobs in the public sector and think everything is going to be OK. I NEVER said anything about ANY professions being real or not real. And it doesn’t do me any good to comment on the article if this is how you are going to treat anything that I say.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I was clear and have no idea what you’re trying to relate to experience.
………………
I’m bored with this. Regardless of what I say you’ll say some garbage about lack of experience blah blah blah. Do you really want me to list a bunch of stuff about zoning and permits and loans and all of that? I’m not sure why I’m still humoring you.
……………….
You just admitted you said public sector jobs aren’t real. That includes most teaching jobs. You clarified after you were called on it, but you said that.
Well Adam, It has become quite clear that you have absolutely no idea on what it takes to create jobs. So, let me give you a BRIEF overview.
..
First, if you want to start a business and create jobs you have to identify a customer need and fill it with your product or service. You need to then invest into research and development to make sure that your product or service is innovative and provides value to your customers. You then need to price your product or service in such a manner that it is competitive with the other offerings in the marketplace. Finally, you have to control your costs in order to make a PROFIT.
..
From that PROFIT you invest back into your company to grow your business. The more PROFIT you have, the more you can reinvest back into your company. This investment is in hiring sales people, office staff, production workers and other support personnel.
..
Job creation comes from the PROFIT a company reinvests to grow. Perhaps you now understand whey we have no job growth. Progressive liberals like you and Obama think PROFIT is a nasty word and you do everything in your power to limit the PROFIT a company can make. That is why all progressives need to be voted out of office in November. The threat of new taxes, increased healthcare costs, more regualtions and just the general uncertainity that the current administration has put over our country has made almost every company afraid to invest for future growth.
..
It is so very obvious that you were totally clueless on what it takes to create jobs. This is why it is important that we have EXPERIENCED people serving in our government. People with no experience and a political science degree is just not going to get it done. You and Obama are proving it each and every day.
Seriously, you don’t think I could have come up with that amazing list you just compiled? You need a product or service people want? Get out! If you sell shoes you compete with other shoe stores? No way! I thought you wanted something more technical, not obvious.
…………….
You can’t just make stuff up and pretend it’s true. When did I say profit is bad? When did Obama? Dirty profit at the expense of people’s lives is bad, but legally-gotten profit is of course awesome. You’re just assigning traits to progressives because they sound bad. It’s not an argument when you provide no facts, it’s just howling at the moon.
……………..
How is it so very obvious I don’t know? Because out of the tons of things it takes to create a business (which I’m sure you skipped for the sake of being brief), I listed a few you weren’t thinking of?
……………..
How many businesses did Bush run into the ground before he did the same with our country? What graduate degree did he get? How about you quit blaming a degree and look at a person’s actions?
………………
And how does what you’re saying relate to policy? At least my original answer about incentives was national policy that would affect actions, and I just threw it out there off the top of my head. I’m not sure how your little ditty addressed what you were trying to say about job creation from a political level. But seriously, you honestly believe I couldn’t figure out that businesses must turn a profit? You must just be saying these things to be funny.
Adam, your answer was beyond lame. It clearly shows that you did not have a clue on what it takes to create jobs. I gave you multiple chances to get it correct. I was polite and even tried to lead you into the answer. However, when somebody is clueless, there just isn’t much you can do.
..
This just shows how a person with no experience is not knowledgeable in the some of the most basic yet critical aspects of life. I think it also gives us a pretty good clue on what you don’t learn when getting a political science degree. And the big thing is just how ill prepared a progressives is to actually govern.
..
It should not be a surprise to anyone why we have high unemployment. Obama has a political science degree with virtually no experience either. Progressives are anti-business and believe that companies are the enemy. Their policies are all about political paybacks and favors. So, until we can make some major changes by voting the progressives out of power, we will continue to have a weak economy and high unemployment.
Yes, you’re right. I never could of guessed you had to give goods or a service if you wanted to create a business. You nailed me. This shows that everything you think is right and is the only way. You’re clearly wise beyond anyone else. We are all anti-business. It’s not like I want my friends that own businesses to succeed. Screw them. Screw political scientists. They’re all assholes who want the government to rob you blind. You nailed it.
LOL…careful, Adam, or you’ll be accused of being uncivilized like me. Remember, only the righteous Right get to call people names on here. At least you don’t have a bad attitude!
Well Adam, once again you show that I am right. Even when I give you the answer, you just can’t seem to get it. The products and services thing is only part of the story that LEADS to the answer. PROFIT is the answer. When a company makes a profit and puts part of that PROFIT back into the business to grow, that is when private sector jobs are created. Progressives hate that word so much, they can barely stand to use it.
..
You only have to listen to the far left liberals to understand that they are ANTI-business. They are always bad mouthing companies for making too much profit or some other grievance that they have towards capitalism and businesses. And when you are anti-business, you are anti-job creation.
..
Take a look at Obama’s policies so far. They are NOT pro-business. They are all about paying back political favors to unions and creating or saving PUBLIC sector jobs. He has really done very little for American businesses.
..
Just go back and read your first response to the question. It was a terribly lame attempt to come up with something and it was totally off base. You had things like eliminating tax breaks, eliminating sweat shops and WORKING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES. All anybody has to do is read that and clearly see that you don’t understand how all of this works.
..
Now don’t do your typical liberal thing and come back saying that I am for sweat shops and against human rights in an attempt to “cover your trail”. While those may be noble causes, if that is how you think we will create jobs in the United States you are sadly mistaken. And if that is what your great Obama is going to do, we will have high unemployment for years.
..
I can only hope you look at this from a rational point of view and use it as a learning experience. I sincerely hope that you will come to realize that only conservative principles will get us out of this economic mess. I would welcome your conversion to conservatism.
You’re so right. I could never figure out that profit (which apparently should be in all caps, as you’ve written it a million times, because you have to make sure people no how serious you are) is important. My poor little socialist brain could never figure out that a business needs to make a profit. I always assumed the family farm, my friends businesses, and every other business in the country ran on lollipops and dreams. I hate the word so much I wonder how I even know what it means. You know so much about the people you assume are evil. You have me nailed down. I just hate when people succeed. Can’t stand it. I’m such an evil devil. I hate business and jobs. If only I could have realized how to use all caps to emphasize random words so I could really drive home points I made up to describe an entire group of people. Let me try. Like maybe I could say some people have a SIMPLE take on things that are actually NUANCED because millions of people don’t all feel the EXACT same way about every issue. Perhaps most people feel a lot of different ways about a lot of different issues because there are MORE than two ways to think. Like when you ask someone how to make jobs on a political blog, they may think of it from a policy standpoint and ignore the obvious fact that starting a business means you have to provide a product or service. That may seam too OBVIOUS for discussion to some people. And some people may not think WORKING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN OTHER COUNTIRES is such a bad deal. Last I checked, we are all humans, and supporting human rights for humans seems like a humane thing to do. But I guess The Bible is just for America. But I don’t understand the world, because I couldn’t figure out a business provides a product or a service. It’s not like America has lost jobs due to the ability to exploit horrible conditions in less fortunate parts of the world. That makes no sense. Policies that address that issue mean nothing. We just need to remind everyone to provide a product or a service. Got it. I may be trying to “cover my trail,” though I don’t know why I or anyone would have to put that in quotation marks. We couldn’t possibly help America by eliminating gains in PROFIT margins by eliminating sweat shops, could we? I know it seems like giving corporations the right to pay nothing for days of labor in other countries gives them an incentive to move jobs there, but that’s just a LIBERAL trick. It actually has nothing to do with that. They move jobs there for the fun of it. And trying to change that fact is going to make our unemployment so much worse, because, well, why not? But I need to be more rational. I need to learn more about how some guy that wants to start a business needs to provide a product or service. That is definitely how we’ll fix this problem. I need to embrace conservative principles, let assholes on Wall Street continue to destroy the country because we can’t regulate them, continue to give the richest people the most tax breaks, and just sit back and watch the gap between rich and poor grow so we can become a third-world country, because I need to recognize the brilliance of your conservative principles. It feels great to be a conservative.
Adam, that was simply one of the most incoherent juvenile rants that I have ever heard. Get a grip on things man, you are losing it.
..
I certainly understand your despair. I know that when you saw the news this morning, it was very disheartening for you. Unemployment claims jumping up to 500,000 when almost everyone expected them to go down, had to be a terrible pain for you to endure. And then if you went onto the CNBC website you saw the headline: “Jobs outlook isn’t just bad, it might be getting worse“. Those just had to be terrible words for a progressive to hear.
..
Progressives have all these utopian ideals on how things should work. They know that the progressive principle of taking from the rich and giving to the poor will make everybody happy. Then you get your guy Obama in office to implement all those wonderful utopian progressive principles to redistribute the wealth from the nation’s producers to the nation’s deadbeats. However, instead of the socialistic dream of everybody being equally wealthy, you end up with “trickle up poverty”. Then you begin to realize that liberal progressive values and principles just simply don’t work.
..
I know that you are disappointed, but please don’t take it out on me. I have been trying to warn you for the last several days.
..
And you need to understand that it is not people on Wall Street that are destroying this country. It is the liberal progressive politicians that will not stop spending that are going to destroy this country. I think you need to thank Chris Dodd and Barney Frank for their lax control over the Government Sponsored Enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the financial collapse. You can thank the liberal progressives that voted for an $850 billion stimulus bill that has not created any significant job growth but has instead placed a huge financial debt on our children and grandchildren.
..
It is not too late to start talking to your friends about voting for conservative candidates in November. That is the only hope this country has. Otherwise, the progressives will lead us into a depression that will make the 1930’s look like a picnic.
I thought the rant made perfect sense. If you need me to explain any piece of it, feel free to inquire.
…………..
You seem to really take joy in how bad so many people have it.
……………
So how do you describe the Clinton years?
…………..
Also, check this out: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213. Those scary progressive just aren’t as scary as you think. It’s hard to call it trickle-up poverty when the rich have been getting richer. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
…………..
Mae and Mac was a very small part of the problem. Massive deregulation made for irresponsible behavior, largely in the form of derivatives. Here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/198197-why-derivatives-caused-financial-crisis.
………….
Here: http://theamericannews.net/election/?p=1654
…………
Again, you’ve nailed it – progressives want to destroy the country and have never done anything worth doing. I hate success and profit so much.
Adam, it is good to see that you have gotten your blood pressure down a little bit. While I believe there are several portions of your incoherent rant that needs some clarification, I want to address your Google effort on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I am glad that you were able to find something that tends to somewhat support your position. However, you need to be aware that for every one of those that you can find, there are several dozen that say just the opposite. I will paste just two of these rebuttals for you to review. I will also paste just a small excerpt from a couple of them.
..
And no, I do not enjoy seeing people having bad times. That is why I am so adamant that we need to adopt policies that give these people a hand UP out of poverty, not a hand OUT like Obama wants to give them that will make them a little bit more comfortable in poverty, but keep them there forever.
..
The following are TWO articles on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
..
…
….
Fannie, Freddie Were at Center of Financial Crisis But Are Not Included in Obama’s New Financial Regulations
.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49791
………Excerpt from the article…………
In analyzing the mortgage crisis, economist Walter E. Williams has written: “Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses.
“The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a prescription for disaster but there was a congressional chorus of denial,” he added.
“The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a failure of the free market because lending institutions in a free market would not have taken on the high-risk loans,” said Williams. “They were forced to by the heavy hand of government.”
…
——————————————-
…
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008
..
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-credit-crisis.asp#12823043240842&close
………Excerpt from the article………….
Conclusion: The U.S. Congress is Largely to Blame
Members of the U.S. Congress were strong supporters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Despite warnings and red flags raised by some, they continued to allow the companies to increase in size and risk, and encouraged them to purchase an increasing number of lower credit quality loans. While it is probable that Wall Street would have introduced innovative mortgage products even in the absence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it might be concluded that Wall Street’s expansion into “exotic” mortgages took place in part in order to compete and take market share from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In other words, Wall Street was looking for a way to compete with the implicit guarantee given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the U.S. Congress.
Meanwhile, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s debt and credit guarantees grew so large that Congress should have recognized the systematic risks to the global financial system these firms posed, and the risks to U.S. taxpayers, who would eventually foot the bill for a government bailout.
..
——————–
.. And finally an article on what people think about our government’s policies today….
…
People Have ‘Huge Disbelief’ in Government: CIO
..
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38783418
Alright Adam, what’s the deal? Why have you blocked my last post? Will you please post the comments or tell me what was wrong with them?
I didn’t block a post. If a link isn’t perfect it is automatically blocked. I will look into it right now.
Just okayed your comment. Now to read it. I’m sure it will be even handed.
If you actually believe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are responsible for the meltdown, you’re willingly ignorant.
……………..
So denying benefits for those that were dicked over is a HAND OUT, and Obama is screwing them over. Whereas you would give them nothing and they’d be better for it? I don’t get what you’re driving at there.
……………..
I agree that Fannie and Freddie should have more regulation and oversight. What about those that actually caused the collapse that I posted about? You can’t just put it all on a couple groups that were a part of it without recognizing everyone else, can you? I have no problem recognizing your links (though they mostly ignore the major reasons for the collapse), yet you seem fine just ignoring everything else because they don’t fit your predetermined beliefs. If you think Frannie and Freddie are the main culprits, you’re intentionally ignore a lot of material.
……………..
If you need clarification on my incoherent rant, just ask. I’ll be more than happy to clarify and reiterate.
Well Adam, your crowd is shrinking. Now it appears that even Barney Frank is willing to admit to the problems that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused. Below is a link to a CNBC article yesterday that states even Barney is beginning to “fess up” after the nightmare that he and his GSE’s caused.
..
You are totally delusional if you do not realize that Fannie and Freddie were at the heart of the financial collapse. If everyone could have afforded the house they were in and were able to pay their mortgages, the financial meltdown would not have occurred as it did.
..
I am not defending the complex financial arrangements that were used to package the mortgages or the derivatives that accelerated the meltdown. But the bottom line is; if everybody could have made the payments that they had committed to, the financial meltdown that we witnessed would not have occurred as it did.
..
For you to continually deny that, just shows that you value protecting your political party and their beliefs beyond anything else. That type of political fanaticism is a big part of why politics have gotten so ugly in this country and is destroying it from within. Is that what they taught you to do in your political science classes?
..
.
In Praise (!) of Barney Frank
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38791383
This is pointless. I’m not defending Mae and Mac, I’m saying they aren’t the main cause of the meltdown. I don’t give a shit about defending Democrats unless I believe they are right or that someone else is wrong. I have no problem calling them weak, as they have been since they’ve had numbers. And could you get over the poli sci thing, you obviously didn’t understand a word I said about it, so just move on. I’ll also agree that Frank deserves praise for doing what he thinks is right. That’s why he’s also worked so hard for financial reform. I just wish it had more teeth.
Well since you are so convinced that you understand what started the financial meltdown, why don’t you give us a detailed description on just exactly how this happened? And don’t just try to describe what collapsed, tell us what actually started the whole series of events. If this is anything like your worthless attempt to tell us how to create jobs, we should all get a laugh out of it.
..
I can just see you scrambling now to Google every article that you can find on the subject. Just remember, the more you have to use Google, the less you really know about the subject that you have been trying to convince everyone that you are an expert on.
It’s very simple what caused the meltdown; everyone saw it coming. It could have been prevented but it wasn’t because most politicians are beholden to the big corporations. Goldman Sachs and others profited big time from the collapse and ran to the government for bailouts. The rich have rewritten all the rules to make themselves all the more rich and powerful. We could get out of the mess but that would mean the rich would lose money and they don’t want that to happen. They are the ones that put our workers in competition with low-paid workers from China, etc., driving wages here down. Top executives and CEO’s pilfer from their own shareholders and workers. They will try to cut out the middle class through lower wages, cutting Social Security benefits, etc.
To get out of this mess we must lower the income of the rich, get rid of Bush tax cuts, rewriting the rules to lower their pay. In short, use the same tactics the rich have used against us. That, along with another stimulus or lowering the dollar to increase exports will get things going again. It can be done. I don’t understand why in the U.S. 1% of the population gets to own all the wealth. The disparity is much less in Europe and Japan and other industrialized nations. The United States has the highest inequality and poverty in the OECD after Mexico and Turkey, and the gap has increased rapidly since 2000. It is also much harder to move up the ladder socially in the U.S. than in most other industrialized countries.
Yes, everyone will get a big laugh, like the time I spoke about public policy because that tends to be the concern of the blog whereas you wanted me to recognize that businesses often provide a product or service. That was hilarious. How could I ever go toe-to-toe with such a mad genius as yourself?
…………….
You may be new here, so I’ll forgive you not knowing everything I’ve written. Here’s one post on the subject: http://theamericannews.net/election/?p=185. If you’re actually interested, read it all instead of picking out one part that making some horrible joke about it and pretending that sums up my entire opinion.
……………..
I’m interested, where do you get your information? Instead of searching for information, do you just go straight to The National Review? Do you just pull numbers from your ass? Can I search for an article I remember reading but don’t remember where, or is that against your rules? Hey, guess what – I googled for an article I remember that defended Fannie and Freddie, and I found it. Now you may choose to ignore it because I had to look for it (I just can’t memorize everything I read these days), or you could read it and give it a fair shake. http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html. God, I may even post another: http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr318.html. Another question – was it wrong of me to search this blog for the things I had written before? If so, you may also have to ignore that post.
……………
And good points, Skye.
…………….
I should say that anyone that thinks they completely understand the meltdown is probably lying, but looking at a wide variety of sources can only help.
Well Adam, I take that as you really don’t understand this issue even though you made a bold general statement. As a result, you do not want to go out on a limb and look bad like you did when you tried to explain how to create a job.
..
That is OK. It is understandable. There is no substitute for real life experiences and the knowledge that comes from them. I don’t fault you for that. However, I still do have a problem with you trying to influence people when you really only have an ideological belief that you are trying to push. That is really not a very sincere or honest approach.
..
I will try to put something together on how I feel that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial collapse. Barring too many interruptions, I should have this posted in about an hour I would expect.
..
I really do not anticipate you buying into any of it based upon your decidedly partisan political beliefs. However, you calling me ignorant one more time will be worth my effort. I know how the far left operates.
Alright Adam, since you can’t seem to get it once again I have put together something on the subject. I want to start with my disclaimer that I am merely focusing on the bad parts of Fannie and Freddie. While there were some good aspects of these GSE’s, I am merely dealing with their bad components that led to and caused the financial collapse of 2008. Let there be no mistake that these two entities were at the heart of this financial disaster. Repeated attempts by progressives like you to point the finger elsewhere is nothing short of an attempt to advance your personal political ideology.
..
First I want to point out the huge political implications of both Fannie and Freddie. Before their collapse they were among the nation’s largest political contributors. While they contributed to both sides of the aisle, they heavily favored the democrats. These political contributions served to protect the GSE’s from repeated attempts to rein in their activities and put controls on them.
..
Adam, you often mention the need for extensive regulations on businesses. Well, here were two Government Sponsored Enterprises that were largely controlled by the US Congress. How do YOU explain their woefully insufficient capital standards? This could have easily been controlled by congress, yet Fannie and Freddie’s capital standards were well below what was needed to protect them from a collapse in the housing market. That is going to be a difficult one for you to defend based upon what happened to these two GSE’s.
..
Before the creation of these GSE’s, mortgage business was done the old fashioned way. The lending institutions originating the loans almost always held onto their mortgages. Therefore, they had a vested interest in only making loans that had a good likelihood of being repaid. This all changed with the creation of the GSE’s known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
..
Fannie and Freddie were created with two basic lines of business activities. The first area of activity was what could be called their resale business. This part of the business involves the securitization of mortgages and was potentially the root cause of the financial collapse. Mortgage securitization is the purchasing of loans from the original lenders, bundling these loans into mortgage backed securities and then selling these bundles through Wall Street firms. This was the creation of the secondary market for mortgages. If you remember the sub-prime lending machine called Countrywide Financial, they were the single largest supplier of loans to the GSE’s in the period preceding the financial collapse. This was the same Countrywide that gave the sweetheart loan to Chris Dodd.
..
Their second area of business was their mortgage investment business. This involved their “retained” mortgages that they held in their own investment portfolio. When the GSE’s began to borrow more and more money (leverage) to increase their own portfolio of sub-prime and Alt-A mortgages they put themselves at huge risk to any downturn in the housing market. Not only was this part of their business overlooked by the congressional oversight committees in charge of regulating these entities, you had democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd actually pushing them to make more questionable loans.
..
So, just why would the democrats have been pushing for the GSE’s to make more questionable loans to homeowners? Well the democrats have a long history of trying to have the government interfere in the free market system and provide handouts in an attempt to influence voters. This effort began with the Community Reinvestment Act enacted in 1977 under President Carter and later strengthened by President Clinton. When you couple that with the moral role the democrats imposed upon the GSE’s to increase access to affordable housing, you have a formula for disaster.
..
Think about it. The GSE’s were given politically based goals to channel their loans to “under served borrowers and neighborhoods” and these goals essentially doubled over the years. These goals were the “cattle prodding” that pushed the financial system to its collapse in 2008. In 2006 when the democrats gained control of congress, the GSE’s combined market share stood at 37.4%. However in 2008, after only two years of Democratic congressional control by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, their market share rose to an incredible 72.6%.
..
So how did the GSE’s go about increasing access to affordable housing for people that perhaps really could not afford it? They did it by lowering mortgage rates, reducing down payment requirements and not requiring documentation on a borrower’s ability to repay the loan. I think you would be hard pressed to find many people that would say these were good things.
..
I know you and your progressive friends would like to solely blame Wall Street for the financial collapse. Oh there is no question that they were in on the party. They tried to compete with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac using leverage and derivatives. There were the insurance companies that created credit default swaps to insure the mortgage backed security bundles that were being sold. Part of the problem there also goes to the implicit guarantee that all too many people bought into when it came to anything involving Government Sponsored Enterprises. These things all helped to make the problem more complex by enlarging the supply of mortgages as well as putting them into bundles that could be sold internationally.
..
But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Government Sponsored Enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the heart of our financial crisis. Capitalism is somewhat analogous to the manufacture of computer chips. Computer chip manufacturers rely on “clean rooms” when they manufacture their product as any spec of dust can ruin the final product. Well capitalism suffers some of the same problems when do-gooder government types get involved in the free market system. They can ruin the final product just like the specs of dust that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac injected into the system.
..
And the final point to remember is that if everyone that took out a home loan could have actually afforded it and made the payments, we would not have had the collapse. It was only when mortgage defaults actually started occurring and the housing market collapsed did the problem occur. Therefore, I maintain that both Fannie and Freddie were at the heart of the financial collapse.
As you may have noticed, I had already written on the topic so I just directed you to it.
………..
And you’re so right. If you hadn’t stumbled along and dropped the nugget of wisdom that businesses offer products and services, no one here would have known. And knowing that really shed light on what policies will help the current situation.
……….
I’m not sure why what I write isn’t honest or sincere. If that’s what you have to tell yourself, perhaps you should go somewhere else. If the only experience you require for discussion of issues is a job, I know a lot of people who have had one for several years who have no interest or concern for the issues we discuss. It’s insincere to say only old people can have informed opinions on whatever it is that we talk about. You know that’s not true.
……….
For the most partisan person to grace this blog, you certainly like to make the claim about others.
………
You say there’s a lot of blame to go around, yet you seem to be trying to late it all at the feet of Fannie and Freddie.
………
You laid out a lot of problems and I agree that there should have been more oversight of these bodies. But to say they caused the collapse doesn’t make sense because they weren’t behind the wave of high-risk lending. That was included in the article above and here’s another source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
Adam, several things are so very obvious. You do not personally have the experience or background to accurately comment on many of these issues. You merely throw out a bunch of links and some incoherent comments in the hope of fooling people.
.
Also, it is painfully obvious that you have no interest in a serious dialog which I have tried to open. You merely have an ideological point of view that you want to use this blog to advance. I guess it should be no big surprise to me why there are so few people commenting on here. That is the way you like it.
You worked for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? No? Then how can you comment on them? How can someone who wasn’t in WWII comment on it? I’m not trying to fool anyone. If you disagree, that’s fine, but quit making it about things it isn’t. If I’m 50 and make the same comments, are they worth more? If my mother, aunt, uncle, etc. does the same, are they more relevant? You’re not even responding to arguments, just attacking me. I’ve responded to your arguments and admitted the validity of some parts. Claiming I’m only advancing an ideological point of view is hypocritical, because that’s exactly what you’ve been doing. You’re simply ignoring whatever evidence I present then saying it’s because of a lack of experience. You’re not the first person to use that as an argument, and you won’t be the last, but if you’re experience makes you superior, demonstrate it with your arguments and evidence. I love a lot of comments. We’ve gone through periods where there have been a lot of diverse people, but more often we have a few that dominate. These conversations tend to start somewhere like this post (Tea Part Casualty) and go through places like insulting me and tons of my friends for our degrees or types of work and continue to things like Fannie and Freddie, with every opinion of yours being clearly right because of some unsaid experience. Our numbers continue to be steady, but not everyone jumps to chime in. I’ve been honest about who I am from the beginning, and most people are okay with judging arguments on the basis of their content and evidence. If an argument can only be made on the basis of experience, we’re going to be very limited in the scope of what we can discuss. I haven’t been tortured, and not many people have. I’m not homeless. I haven’t been on food stamps. I haven’t been on the board of a big corporation. I haven’t ran for political office. I haven’t been a drug dealer. I haven’t participated or been a victim of a genocide. Etc. etc.
………….
If you ever need clarification on a comment, just let me know. As you may have realized, I always respond to comments, no matter how from left field or insulting or condescending they are.
Well Adam, you have not provided an adult reply to any of my comments, so why do you think I would bother to ask you for any clarification? You can try to dodge the issue of real world experience, but there is no substitute for it. You make the ridiculous comparison of not having been tortured, so then nobody should be able to comment on the subject. That ridiculous statement just goes to show what a lack of experience will cause young inexperienced people to say.
..
There is no need for one of your insincere replies to this comment as I have wasted enough time trying to communicate with you. The only good thing is that any open minded people willing to look at the details will have been able to clearly see the shallowness of your comments.
What a puerile response. Are you for real? Or do you do this just to see if you can get a rise out of people? It is almost comical. The majority of students I see have a much higher level of maturity than I have seen displayed by you. It seems to me, that maturity and wisdom have little to do with age.
I would like for you to define your terms. What constitutes an adult response? What constitutes experience? What experience do you have that makes you an expert on torture, for instance?
…..
As far as the depth of an argument goes, simply blaming everything on the government without evidence may be as shallow as it gets. Also, completely dismissing any other comment other than to belittle it doesn’t make your own comments more convincing. It makes it seem like you attack the person because you don’t want to deal with the comment.
Adam, I am not going to spend a lot of time addressing your question simply because you merely ignore whatever I say. You have a far left progressive agenda that supersedes everything in your life.
..
I will post just one single example. I wrote a very well thought out reply on how I felt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the center of the financial crisis and actually were contributing factors. You just dismissed everything that I wrote and did one of your typical copy and paste routines. For some reason you think if you throw some links out there that have anything at all to do with the issue, your position is vindicated. However, in most cases you are not smart enough to thoroughly read the articles or check the dates they were written.
..
Well just to show you how juvenile your effort was, why don’t you go back and look at the last link you put up regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The article was from July 14, 2008. Yes get this, it was from JULY 14, 2008. That was BEFORE the financial crisis culminated later in the fall. I repeat, the article was BEFORE the crisis hit the proverbial fan.
..
And so what about the article? Well it is by a well known far left liberal “hit man” that many people believe is very politically biased. On top of that, you probably did not know that he actually served as an advisor to the Enron executives before Enron’s collapse due to malfeasance by those same executives?
..
But what about the article? Well if anybody read the article, the author was saying that at the time there was growing worries over the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Your wonderful article stated that these concerns were overblown. GET IT!!!! Just months before Fannie and Freddie went under, this political hack is writing an article to defend them and say that these fears were greatly overblown. And if that wasn’t enough, the author makes the absurd statement that Fannie and Freddie weren’t dealing in sub-prime mortgages. WOW, they were buying sub-prime mortgages from Countrywide as fast as Mozilo could send them over.!!!!
..
DO YOU GET IT??? This was in July 2008, just months before Fannie and Freddie blew up. I looked it up and Fannie’s stock price was $9.73 on 7-14-2008 and dropping like a rock. A year earlier it was selling for close to $70.00 per share and today it is worth something like a measly 30 CENTS per share.
..
Then YOU have the nerve to post THAT LINK as a proof statement on how Fannie and Freddie were not to blame for the financial collapse. That just illustrates the lack of understanding you have on these issues. I have to believe that anybody with an ounce of common sense and paying attention to the details of what you write have totally written you off as a serious person.
..
Oh, there will be people like Skye that think you are a genius because you espouse the same far left ideological beliefs that he does. These people probably consider you their hero. However, pardon me, but I have been paying attention to the details of what you write and I know differently,
..
Here is the link that I am talking about. Go and take a look for yourself (note the date on it: 7-14-2010) and then I am sure there will be some more “Adam style spin” from you to explain the problem away. Well I for one, am really not interested in anymore of that type of communication.
..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
..
And here is a link that will take you to an article that disputes the crazy comment in YOUR article that said Fannie and Freddie were not involved in sub-prime mortgages.
..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html
Adam, there is another one of my posts hung up. Could you please release it?
I don’t ignore what you say, I actually read and respond. I think you know that, otherwise you wouldn’t keep at it. Could it be that there are no obvious definitions for the terms you throw around? I don’t have some great far left agenda that supersedes [sic] what I do. This is a blog for the Aberdeen American News, and that’s not exactly the place I would start some great liberal conspiracy.
….
I read your post and even acknowledged that Fannie and Freddie had problems and should have had more oversight, but I used links to show the evidence wasn’t on your side. They weren’t behind most of the risky loans that caused the bubble. And saying I’m not smart enough to understand them just seems petty.
….
The argument you were making is that the actions of Fannie and Freddie for years in the run up to the collapse (that had assuredly began well before the article) were what caused it. That article addressed that argument.
….
Again, I recognize that Fannie and Freddie had problems, but I disagree with you that they were the main cause of the collapse. The more I read and research (which I don’t care what you say, that’s how I learn), the more I see that Fannie and Freddie had problems. But their main problems were the result of following the market to seek larger profits. Barry Ritholtz puts it thusly:
-The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non bank lenders not covered by the CRA;
-The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders
-When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw.
-Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street — NOT Fannie & Freddie
-In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages.
-After 2005, Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.
-The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05/rewriting-the-causes-of-the-credit-crisis/ (Written in 2010)
…..
If you think you can prove that Frannie and Freddie are to blame, you should prove it to him. He even offered $100,000 to anyone that can prove it to him.
…..
You’re saying the fact that Frannie and Freddie failed is evidence that they were to blame, but it’s just evidence that the market crashed, which we all know. If failing is proof of blame, you also have to blame all the other banks etc. that failed.
…..
No one considers me a hero, they just write what they think and sometimes it lines up with what I think. This isn’t some epic battle between left and right like you want to think.
……
Thanks for claiming I have my own style of spin. That’s sort of the nicest thing you’ve said about me. As far as that spin goes, you’re right about Krugman’s article. He should have clarified that prior to 2005 they weren’t pursuing sub-prime mortgages.
Adam these are your words from above: “you’re right about Krugman’s article. He should have clarified that prior to 2005 they weren’t pursuing sub-prime mortgages.”
..
He should have clarified????? He had it totally wrong and based a lot of his opinion on that issue. You far left liberal progressives just make it up as you go, don’t you? That is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you.
..
And what is it with the (sic), did I spell something wrong or have a grammar mistake? If I was to correct your writing, I would be on my second red pen by now.
Go ahead and correct my writing. I appreciate editing. But is that all you have to say about the comment?
Adam, your comments are like so many of the progressive bloggers today, you merely go on the internet and Google until you find something that has a lot of words that might support your position and then you throw it against the wall. Like all of these far left people, you think if you find one article posted on the internet that supports or MAYBE supports your position, you have proof of something.
..
In your world, common sense and fundamental analysis have been replaced by Google and finding something posted on Al Gore’s beloved internet. Because we all know if Al Gore let it get posted on the internet, it must be FACT.
..
I will say it one more time. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. The reasons for that are too numerous to mention, but I will list just a few of my favorites. First, you have no real world experience yourself and really do not understand anything in detail. You merely have emotion that you rely on. You also have severe far left leaning progressive ideological beliefs that you push at the expense of everything else. I think you should put a bracketed word at the end of everything that you write and that word is (sick).
Where do you read your information? Would it be better if I had newspapers dated back that far? I research and look at analysis to try and understand a subject. I’m not sure what you’re doing that’s so much better. And is the Al Gore thing supposed to be a clever joke or something? I’d like you to define experience and tell me what makes yours so much more applicable to discussions on here. I’d like you to think about your ideological beliefs and how they affect what you write. I actually read and react to what you write, whereas you simply ignore what I write and pretend it’s because I’m liberal (or something). Do you see the irony in claiming you can’t have a rational discussion with me while in doing so you’re actually the one refusing to have a rational discussion?
(sick)
Yep, you’re right. He’s got nothing.
i love to do both online shopping and online window shopping for goods and other stuffs*
I’ve read your blog for quite some time now. . I wanted to let you know tried to get on your blog yesterday but your site was down
Have you viewed these types of efficient ways to find free leads?
I’ve found your car field overall for being a hard spot to earn their living. The market has become reprimanded every single day by way of the people jogging regarding the legislature really should allow us.
Advantages of an On-line Enterprise Administration Diploma On the internet
it appears like your blog ate my initial remark (it was super long) so I suppose I’ll just sum it up what I uploaded and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your website. I too am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still brand-new to the whole thing. Do you have any handy hints for inexperienced blog creators? I’d certainly appreciate it.I heard somebody talking about this on the radio yesterday, but I can’t remember what station it was.