Obama's plan for a government circle-stimulation

[Deacon]

No, that's not it. I dislike it more out of a belief that as long as people are mostly the way they are, "equality under the law" and "equality of initial opportunity of pursuit of what those rights are supposed to ensure (but don't on their own necessarily do even near a complete job of)" are not mutually exclusive, but definitely get in the way of each other...

You have the most amazing way of using an entire paragraph to make absolutely zero sense.

As to the rest of it, you're arguing against including any philosophy in any of these major documents, only the dry rules inspired by the philosophy. That is something you can and should get over fairly easily. It doesn't hurt for those who write these documents to include some boiled-down essence of the philosophy that's inspired them to create the document.

[Deacon]

By the way, on the subject of the AIG bailouts and the politically correct outrage regarding companies actually fulfilling their legally binding contracts with their employees, the xkcd before last is interesting:

[Mav]

I could do a lot in thirty seconds with your daughter, sir.

Sorry, first thought that came to mind. I'll get back to the point that had come up before the CS22/Fuggle detour:

Jerm, and, well, everyone else: Look, yes, I know, we all feel really cool when we say things like how the government is there to only prevent other people from infringing on our rights. It's all empowering. No one is responsible for my success but me! Of course we want to take all the credit. Human nature. But it's not realistic.

A self-aware entity (or collective), free of mental defects, once created, will make its best efforts to ensure its own survival. I don't believe that anyone here could successfully argue that the government is not a self-aware entity/collective at this point in time. If we, the people, the government's life blood, prove to be inept, the government will make its best efforts to make us competent once more, for the sake of its own survival if nothing else. Likewise, if you, as an individual, perform a task that I rely on, but become inept at your task, I will shove you out of the way to perform the task myself, to ensure my own survival. I would be much happier if I didn't have to do your work, but if I rely on it, then I rely on it. And as such, the government relies on us, and ultimately, may have to consider similar actions to ensure the survival of our economy. Hence why some of this crap is happening (because, yes, some of us did get fucking stupid for a while, what with the way we were buying and selling homes and trading stocks).

Stomping the feet in the ground and claiming this isn't the government's responsibility is naive. This is not to say we have to be happy about it. We can adjust its actions through the will of the people, democratic changes, and revolt, if necessary. But favoring idealism over reality when entering into discussion is in no way at all going to help us develop a solution.

[ampersand]

And tonight, the ranting on the news is about the giggling President Obama did about half-way through the interview he had with 60 Minute's Steve Kroft. (As an aside, why is Obama treating all of this like it's the start of his 2012 Presidential Campaign? I'm expecting him to be on the Daily Show next.) He's acting like he's some sort of Constitutional Monarch while Pelosi, et. al. run the government.

I'm not saying he not being a leader or doing some of the responsibilities of being the President. I am saying though, I'd like to see him take control of his own party instead of his own party controlling him.

[collegestudent22]

As an aside, why is Obama treating all of this like it's the start of his 2012 Presidential Campaign? I'm expecting him to be on the Daily Show next.

Maybe because all he really knows how to do is run a campaign.... It seems like he isn't even making the decisions. It's like SecTreas comes in and says "We need to do X to solve the problems in the economy." and Obama replies, "Go ahead then." without actually determining the costs and benefits and other issues that may arise.

[Mav]

More evidence of business/politics as usual: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20395

Not to say what he's doing is a bad idea, regarding politics and agendas and what not, but it certainly shifts his image from the man who was going to change the system, to possibly just the man who is going to use the system harder than anyone else. Which may still do some good, but you're switching from idealism to the ends justify the means.

[Deacon]

All this will do is help reveal who in the journalism industry today has any integrity, as apparently Obama himself is finally figuring "fuck it" and not even bothering with pretense anymore. Of course, when he's stooping as low as pandering to looney-left bloggers, then I think even the question of integrity doesn't really get any considertion. To call Ariana Huffington's rag "liberal-leaning" though is a little like calling Rush Limbaugh "conservative-leaning"...

In the end, it won't matter. Obama's a smart guy, even if he's using his intelligence only to further his own means. He knows that most people aren't smart. Most people are stupid fat fucking sheep, and as long as he keeps playing footsy with the media under the table and giving them seductive winks and soft smiles, they'll keep parroting whatever he wants them to say to further their common agenda.

[JermCool]

In Soviet America, Car drives you.

So we have the President forcing CEOs to resign and telling companies they have to broker deals. Aren't you glad you took that government money now? By the way, I fucking called it.

On top of that, they're threatening to force these companies into bankruptcy if they can't develop a viable business model that fits Washington's expectations...AFTER they put billions of our dollars on the hook.

[StruckingFuggle]

So we have the President forcing CEOs to resign and telling companies they have to broker deals. Aren't you glad you took that government money now? By the way, I fucking called it.

As long as it's only happening to companies that are taking bailout money, I really don't see the issue. No one's requiring a worker to take an offered contract, even if they really need the job, and no one's forcing a company that couldn't manage its own affairs to take a bailout, even if the alternative is bankruptcy. I mean, maybe there is a moral issue there, but think about the broader underlying principles for a moment and if you really want to go there.


...hm. Perhaps in not finding an issue with it in principle, I am holding a double standard, too. *considers*

[Deacon]

When you can't satisfy your craving for power through legislation, do it through the coin purse through a single source. Ridiculous CAFE laws have to make it through a proper legislative body. But when you hand Obama a scepter and appoint him the anointed king of the world, then you don't have to worry about democracy and due process. And somehow this doesn't bother most people.

[StruckingFuggle]

Can you reverse the koolaid filter on that and make it into something resembling intelligible?

[JermCool]

The fact the government is telling businesses how to conduct business IS the issue. This is supposed to be a capitalist society (whether or not you like it).

I'm sure those companies who came to Washington, hat in hand, never thought for an instant that the government would intervene to this extent as to remove the head of a company. That's not how we run things in a free market. Businesses are supposed to conduct their own affairs.

Looks like we should be calling it the free market now.

[Deacon]

The problem is dangling a carrot in front of them. They push unions and CAFE laws and whatever else, and then when they're drowning, they offer them a life preserver, but only if they submit to Obama's will. This isn't new or unique to Obama, he's just the one currently wielding this power. I'm not sure really what's unclear or "kool-aid" about it.

[JermCool]

It's a far, FAR cry from offering subsidies and incentives to outright managing.

Nice try.

[StruckingFuggle]

.... but they're not forcing it on anyone, it's a part of the agreement re: getting bailout money. Since using a superior position to negotiate a favorable outcome in an exchange, even where one part is in dire straits (in this case, the poorly managed wastrels), and even more dire straits if they don't get the aid of the superiorly positioned party (in this case, the federal government) is supposed to be neither coercion nor force, they're not forcing anyone, or even telling anyone "THIS IS HOW YOU MUST RUN YOUR BUSINESSES BECAUSE WE SAY SO" - it's part of an agreement, "if you do these things, you'll get this money; and conversely, you're perfectly free to not do things this way, but we're also under no obligation to give you this money, and we won't." They're setting the terms, that the companies are free to agree with or not, under which they will be bailed out ... or not.


... Sigh. This is one of those things where it's somehow perfectly fine for a private interest to do it, where that's a fucking sacrosanct right and howdare someone suggest it's wrong, but when the government turns around and does the same thing ("yes, I'll give you money, but only if you agree to my terms for it and do what I want you to do to earn it") it's the goddamn crime of the century, isn't it?


Also, it's kinda amusing and hypocritical for companies to bleat the tenants of capitalism against these deals while asking for taxpayer-funded bailouts. Personally, I'd make their spokesfolk own up in public to this before giving them bailout money, too, but I'm just petty like that. ^__^