quote:SEC. 6104. DUTIES. (b) Specific Topics- In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics: (6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
quote:Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
When people were understandably upset at the idea of a school age draft (basically), they changed the website so that it now reads:
quote:Obama and Biden will call on citizens of all ages to serve. They'll set a goal that all middle school and high school students engage in 50 hours of community service a year, and develop a plan for all college students who engage in 100 hours of community service to receive a fully-refundable tax credit of $4,000 for their education.
Some would say that this is being responsible to public opinion. The fact is, as shown by the bill the House just passed, it was just a way of calming people down, but there was never any idea of going back on the plan.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yeah, this is one of Obama's ideas that I do not approve of. Requiring 100 hours of survice from college students is hugely unreasonable. As if we didn't have enough on our plates already.
Still he's only asking Congress to examine the idea and see if it's workable. He's not submitting a bill with a plan yet, he's asking them to think about it. And just because I disagree with his idea that we should have mandatory service doesn't make him scary. This is one of the few places where I do disagree with him.
Plus I can see where he's coming from. More community service would be good. We need to stop viewing it as a punishment for criminals, and something we should all attempt to do. I would just prefer it wasn't mandatory, but rather something highly encouraged -- with lots of opportunities for.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Lisa, your posting this on a Pro-ObamaMessiah infested web. Be prepared for the onslaught of aggression and name calling, although you are used to that I have seen.
Did you know, by the way, that he also appointed A Minister of Culture? in order to "connect 'culture' with 'mainstream administration policy," as if that was needed?
The man frightens me to no end. I really feel I have entered The Third Reich of Amerika.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I really feel I have entered The Third Reich of Amerika.
You Lose.
Wow. Godwin in 3 posts. A banner day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* This annoys me, too. So far, I haven't been thrilled by the administration's response to valid criticisms: backtrack, wait a bit, then resubmit the exact same proposal a little later, once the media's done talking about it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You've seen nothing yet. You should see the orders that we socialists have been sending him.
Mandatory service of your children to pay back your debts is just the start.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Doesn't Israel (for example) require all citizens to a few years of military service?
Compared to that, some hours of community service doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
I can't say I like this plan either.
Just a side thought loosely connected to pure volunteerism: My college was really big on service, but not officially. There was no requirement though they did encourage it in a fashion by holding an open house for organizations in the student union and hosting the area's Special Olympics every year (for starters). Even though the entire campus population did not participate in some service activity or organization, I would say at least two thirds did as a rough estimate. Professors and college administration were just as likely to be found volunteering. They led by example. It would not cancel out the effect of this service if it were suddenly mandatory, but I do have to wonder how it would change the way students viewed it, specifically students that would have volunteered to serve anyway.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Doesn't Israel (for example) require all citizens to a few years of military service?
Compared to that, some hours of community service doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
Germany does as well, the alternative to which is to go into some skilled training (the correct way to put that just isn't coming together).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
And I will do it again and again and again and again with this ObamaMessiah idiot. He is dangerous and I will not support him in any way and will do and say everything possible to bring him down and I am not alone.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Occasional, I honestly cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *nod* This annoys me, too. So far, I haven't been thrilled by the administration's response to valid criticisms: backtrack, wait a bit, then resubmit the exact same proposal a little later, once the media's done talking about it.
Agreed entirely.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Israel requires military service for obvious reasons. They are constantly under threat.
I sure hope we don't get there.
I think the high school thing is a great idea - It's part of mandatory education and will probably, if done right, serve a great educational purpose. But College? That's insane.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Let me be clear then: I am absolutely serious! Let me repeat myself so that you don't misunderstand me: I am deadly serious. Me and my wife are contemplating buying a gun. I never cared one way or another if I ever owned one before - even under Pres. Clinton who I didn't like very much.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Compared to that, some hours of community service doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
Except that this sort of thing should really be part of a much larger national discussion, not foisted onto people. And especially not after the original proposal was scuttled after people complained about it the first time around. I'm open to hearing Obama's case for mandatory public service; what I can't stand, though, is never getting to hear that case, and instead having to watch him try to achieve that goal in some ridiculously backhanded fashion.
It's the same thing that bugged me about our "War on Terror." If Bush had tried to sell me on the necessity of an open-ended war, I'd've been more receptive to it than to his real approach: sell a short, easy, focused war full of lies, and try to turn it into the open-ended war he thought we needed.
I'd like more credit from our chief executives.
-------
quote:He is dangerous and I will not support him in any way and will do and say everything possible to bring him down and I am not alone.
Wow. You've gone from being a raving loon to.... Oh, never mind. This is pretty much status quo for you. I forgot.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *nod* This annoys me, too. So far, I haven't been thrilled by the administration's response to valid criticisms: backtrack, wait a bit, then resubmit the exact same proposal a little later, once the media's done talking about it.
It's marginally preferable for me to the Bush strategy of never seeming to acknowledge the existence of valid criticism.
Still, I don't see this the way you do. This is not policy, and I think it's pretty likely it will never be policy, and even if it became policy, I find it pretty likely that it wouldn't stay policy for very long at all. On every level, the administration has to be aware of that probability, and they're just trying to push an idea to see how far it can go. You ask for mandatory service, and what you end up with is some hodge-podge of state requirements that are linked to funding or tuition rebates for students- but it he starts on that footing, I wonder how far he would get.
Then of course, another part of me says, "why not ask for the reasonable thing first? Do you really actually want mandatory service for nothing?" If he really does want that, then I am concerned about it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was under the impression that college students if they wish to obtain the $4000 tax credit can opt into the program. There is nothing mandatory about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:On every level, the administration has to be aware of that probability, and they're just trying to push an idea to see how far it can go.
Fine. Obama's got a whole new Change blog out there. Let him ask people how far they think he should take it. Once you start funding committees to investigate it, you're spending money you don't need to be spending to get a feel for the idea.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Israel requires military service for obvious reasons. They are constantly under threat.
I sure hope we don't get there.
I think the high school thing is a great idea - It's part of mandatory education and will probably, if done right, serve a great educational purpose. But College? That's insane.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Let me be clear then: I am absolutely serious! Let me repeat myself so that you don't misunderstand me: I am deadly serious. Me and my wife are contemplating buying a gun. I never cared one way or another if I ever owned one before - even under Pres. Clinton who I didn't like very much.
Better get that gun soon, with our planned gun control laws, you're becoming alone.
We've already nationalized the financial industry and are well on the way to nationalizing the auto industry, two pillars of American society. Whats left aside from the peasants in the countryside? To deal with them, you need a mass movement of youths to deal with the peasants in the red states, perhaps red guards could be a good name.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: And I will do it again and again and again and again with this ObamaMessiah idiot. He is dangerous and I will not support him in any way and will do and say everything possible to bring him down and I am not alone.
Psst....I'm pretty sure that you're supposed to cite Daniel when calling someone a messiah.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:And I will do it again and again and again and again with this ObamaMessiah idiot. He is dangerous and I will not support him in any way and will do and say everything possible to bring him down and I am not alone.
quote:Let me be clear then: I am absolutely serious! Let me repeat myself so that you don't misunderstand me: I am deadly serious. Me and my wife are contemplating buying a gun. I never cared one way or another if I ever owned one before - even under Pres. Clinton who I didn't like very much.
Okay, when I juxtapose those two it sounds like your contemplating attempting to assassinate him. I don't care how frustrated you are, how dangerous you think he is, or how much you don't like the direction he's taking the country.
I felt the same way about Bush, believe me exactly the same way. If Bush didn't turn America into the Third Reich, with all of his attacks on Civil Liberties then Obama definitely isn't going to. And if he screws up, we'll send him packing - if not in four years then in eight.
If you disagree with him, by all means say so. And explain why. We'll listen, and if you convince us we can convince our senators to get in his way. But your rhetoric isn't helping in that, it's just making me think you might be certifiable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. But he's calling Obama a false Messiah, so he needs to cite Revelations. Unless he's Jewish.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ah. But he's calling Obama a false Messiah, so he needs to cite Revelations. Unless he's Jewish.
Nix the 's' on the end.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I support mandatory volunteering for young people.
But like Tom, I don't like the backhanded way this is being handled.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, you are correct. I was mixing up my goofballs. Traceria, some people get extra.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Let me be clear then: I am absolutely serious! Let me repeat myself so that you don't misunderstand me: I am deadly serious. Me and my wife are contemplating buying a gun. I never cared one way or another if I ever owned one before - even under Pres. Clinton who I didn't like very much.
I actually broached the topic with my partner last week. I've never owned a firearm; not even in the 12 years I lived in Israel. But I'm starting to wonder whether it might be a good idea.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
I was assuming he was referring to the specific book of, which doesn't have it at the end. If that assumption was incorrect, my apologies.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
My high school (although it is private) already has a coummunity service requirement. I don't see why it is such a big deal. It was generally thought a good idea when Guiliani made people on welfare do community service.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: And I will do it again and again and again and again with this ObamaMessiah idiot. He is dangerous and I will not support him in any way and will do and say everything possible to bring him down and I am not alone.
Psst....I'm pretty sure that you're supposed to cite Daniel when calling someone a messiah.
Isaiah works just fine too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It was generally thought a good idea when Guiliani made people on welfare do community service.
Community service in exchange for voluntary benefits is something that's fine with me.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Let me be clear then: I am absolutely serious! Let me repeat myself so that you don't misunderstand me: I am deadly serious. Me and my wife are contemplating buying a gun. I never cared one way or another if I ever owned one before - even under Pres. Clinton who I didn't like very much.
I actually broached the topic with my partner last week. I've never owned a firearm; not even in the 12 years I lived in Israel. But I'm starting to wonder whether it might be a good idea.
Why? How will owning a gun make things better in this context?
Posted by 12000 (Member # 12000) on :
"manditory volunteering" Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Wow... Hatrackers be crazy these days.
*backs out of thread slowly*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Let me be clear then: I am absolutely serious! Let me repeat myself so that you don't misunderstand me: I am deadly serious. Me and my wife are contemplating buying a gun. I never cared one way or another if I ever owned one before - even under Pres. Clinton who I didn't like very much.
I actually broached the topic with my partner last week. I've never owned a firearm; not even in the 12 years I lived in Israel. But I'm starting to wonder whether it might be a good idea.
It's not a good idea for what you and Occasional are talking about. It's an symbolic gesture at most, IMO.
Thinking logically, the only way that armed resistance to the Man is going to be effective is if you can equip, organize, and train a large number of like minded folks in tactical defense and engagement. You need a command infrastructure, including communication equipment to coordinate.
None of that is provided in the purchase of a Glock.
Now, home or personal defense, that's arguable. But for national defense, your truest weapon is a loud voice and solid reasoning.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Because civility is quickly ending and freedom is soon to be history. Better to protect yourself against "The mob" than be left defenseless. Ever read "1984?" That is where we have arrived. My wife has already lost her small business from the laws that have just been created. Did you know that it is on the books illegal to have books in the library that are, ironically, older than 1984?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I support mandatory volunteering for young people.
But like Tom, I don't like the backhanded way this is being handled.
Agreed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Assuming this was handled in a forthright fashion, what objections do people have to making kids volunteer for (at most) two hours a week?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Stop trying to use logic to refute their gut felt feelings of doom and gloom. They might shoot you. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Scott R., because it sounds one step removed from the Hitler Youth (Godwin be damned). Who is going to enforce the volunteering and what is going to be acceptable volunteer work?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Assuming this was handled in a forthright fashion, what objections do people have to making kids volunteer for (at most) two hours a week?
It's the "making them" that's the problem. No government has the right to draft innocent people.
Posted by BackHand (Member # 11999) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I support mandatory volunteering for young people.
But like Tom, I don't like the backhanded way this is being handled.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Can folks PLEASE stop saying things like Obama is a fascist or like Hitler? It's really getting annoying and it's sort of an insult to people who actually LIVED through real hard core fascism. Which doesn't mean volunteering or some gun control but a real and true loss of actual freedom.
Occasional, haven't you heard of Americorps?
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Me and my wife are contemplating buying a gun.
It's never intellectually compelling to mention a spouse's support for a dubious idea.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Two hours is hardly enough to mold impressionable young minds
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It was generally thought a good idea when Guiliani made people on welfare do community service.
Community service in exchange for voluntary benefits is something that's fine with me.
People who don't like it do have other alternatives, like private schools or homeschooling.
Posted by BackHand (Member # 11999) on :
The problem with your argument is that you probably will also say, but no one should go to private schools or homeschooling. A lot of laws in states make following your idea very hard. In fact, some laws basically state that private and homeschooling should be JUST LIKE public schools if they want to exist.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Did you know that it is on the books illegal to have books in the library that are, ironically, older than 1984?
You didn't specifically say, but the bill in question was approved before Obama took office. Further, it's very likely that the libraries and other individuals are not going to comply with the law, so enforcement will be a joke.
The law was not made with libraries in mind; it was poorly written; and no one (as far as I can tell) is out throwing their pre-1985 books in the dumpster. They are doing precisely what I indicated above-- using their loud voices and their reason to make their point.
quote:Because civility is quickly ending and freedom is soon to be history. Better to protect yourself against "The mob" than be left defenseless. Ever read "1984?" That is where we have arrived.
Well, I don't see evidence of it. This looks a lot like 2009, to me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have major problems with mandatory volunteerism. Volunteering one's time because you genuinely want to help others or serve your community is laudable and I certainly DO try and encourage my children to find ways to do it. It isn't very hard, as I have one in cub scouts and one in girl scouts and one in Beta club...all of those organizations require service hours. But my kids choose to be part of these organizations...they choose to serve.
Forcing people to serve seems a way to make people resent the act of charitably giving of one's time, and I think it should be something you choose to do not something you are forced to do. But mainly I object to the idea of putting still more on the plates of our young people and forcing them to do more when many of them are already stretched very thin. I know high school students who work the maximum hours allowed by law because they are an integral part of the family's support system. I know high schoolers whose dad's have lost their jobs and the money that high school sophomore makes working at the local Subway is the difference between the family keeping their house or not.
As we are in a semi-rural area, I know high school students who work every afternoon on the family farm or ranch. These kids are already doing the best they can and as much as they can...adding extra work is likely to increase pressure on them to just drop out. Our high school dropout rate in this country is abysmal...and what are you going to do if kids don't meet the requirements? Not let them graduate? So a kid who is working as many hours a week as possible to help feed his family and knows he can't meet the mandatory volunteer hours gets told "Well, you can't graduate." What's he going to do?
Who is going to track the hours and what is going to be considered appropriate volunteer hours? If you have requirements for Beta club, can those hours count dually? How do you "prove" you've done the hours? Does the non-profit now have an extra paperwork burden on them filling out forms for reluctant, resentful teenage volunteers? If I were a nonprofit I'd be thinking...gee, thanks. I appreciate you sending me a group of kids who don't want to be here, have no real interest in really helping my cause, and you've given me more paperwork to do to boot.
Yes, if it works perfectly it could be a wonderful experience for the teen and for the community. But, I work with kids every day. I know that things are rarely, if ever, perfect both in the lives of the kids and in the world they're trying to live in. We probably have pictures in our heads of rich suburbanite kids who have nothing better to do and so having them volunteer sounds like a great idea. But...there are many kids in this country who aren't well off, don't have much free time, and struggle with pressures most of us don't even have to deal with. I don't want to add one more thing to them. I want to support them and encourage them and help them stay in school. Adding more burdens to them only makes it harder for them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Can folks PLEASE stop saying things like Obama is a fascist or like Hitler? It's really getting annoying and it's sort of an insult to people who actually LIVED through real hard core fascism.
To be fair, Syne, I can distinctly recall your comparing Bush to Hitler.
Of course, the problem isn't really that Bush or Obama are like Hitler; the problem is that the federal government has its fingers in so many pies that its merest twitch nowadays turns over someone's beloved apple-cart.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it sounds one step removed from the Hitler Youth (Godwin be damned). Who is going to enforce the volunteering and what is going to be acceptable volunteer work?
I don't know how it will be enforced, but "acceptable volunteer work" is covered in the text of the bill Lisa linked to.
From what I can tell, service with a non-profit (like a church) will work just fine.
quote:It's the "making them" that's the problem. No government has the right to draft innocent people.
I disagree. I mean, I see what you're getting at, and there's a certain attractiveness to your point of view. No one wants to be a shill to the Man.
But we are members of communities, and communities do have a claim (in my opinion) on individuals' wealth. Wealth being defined as resources. The community provides quite a bit of support to children-- public schooling, safety, etc; it's fair for the community to expect an investment from the child when the child has reached the appropriate age to participate.
So I don't have any problems with this at all, assuming that no discrimination is involved in choosing which organizations can take volunteers.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Can folks PLEASE stop saying things like Obama is a fascist or like Hitler? It's really getting annoying and it's sort of an insult to people who actually LIVED through real hard core fascism.
To be fair, Syne, I can distinctly recall your comparing Bush to Hitler.
Of course, the problem isn't really that Bush or Obama are like Hitler; the problem is that the federal government has its fingers in so many pies that its merest twitch nowadays turns over someone's beloved apple-cart.
I don't recall comparing Bush to Hitler...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Compared to that, some hours of community service doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
Except that this sort of thing should really be part of a much larger national discussion, not foisted onto people. And especially not after the original proposal was scuttled after people complained about it the first time around. I'm open to hearing Obama's case for mandatory public service; what I can't stand, though, is never getting to hear that case, and instead having to watch him try to achieve that goal in some ridiculously backhanded fashion.
It's the same thing that bugged me about our "War on Terror." If Bush had tried to sell me on the necessity of an open-ended war, I'd've been more receptive to it than to his real approach: sell a short, easy, focused war full of lies, and try to turn it into the open-ended war he thought we needed.
I'd like more credit from our chief executives.
Agreed on all counts.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Ditto.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't recall comparing Bush to Hitler...
As far as I can tell, you haven't.
However, you did compare the Boy Scouts to Hitler's Youth (because of their uniforms and outdoor activities).
Just for perspective...
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Wow, and here I thought this could be a reasonable conversation about the merits/drawbacks of federally-sponsored volunteer programs. Instead, I find a thread full of people who are so afraid that their pet political opinions are not currently popular that they would talk about taking up arms against their own government! Dislike Obama's policies all you want, but understand that when you throw around words like Messiah and Hitler, you only prove that you have no understanding of the current American political climate, the historical German political climate, nor what constitutes dangerous.
Let's get real here. Bush walked all over our civil liberties for 8 years and we survived. There were moments when I wondered if we were taking the first steps (the FIRST STEPS) towards a fascist dictatorship. I worried that people were willing to exchange too much of their own personal freedom for some temporary (and probably false) sense of security. I worried about the great gulf forming between Republicans leaders who had abandoned the financial principles of the party and the Republican party members, who still seemed to buy the party lies of fiscal responsibility and individual liberties.
To my great relief, I saw that the American people were not entirely stupid and that indeed, we can still oust incompetent and corrupt leaders.
Now, my only fear is that the Republican party won't get it's head out of it's *** and figure out that they have become a party of hypocrites and liars. Among the regular members of the party, there seem to be two separate bases: the moral conservatives who want to tell us all how to live and the fiscal conservatives who should give up and become Libertarians.
At the moment, the party is torn and broken which gives the Democrats too much power. The Democrats are not even a party with a strong platform. It's more a general non-Republican stance that bridges many levels of moderate to extreme positions.
When the Democrats piss us off badly enough, they'll go too. My biggest fear is that this will happen BEFORE the Republicans are ready to come back to power.
But what I do not fear is that our democracy is ready to fall apart. If it didn't happen under Bush, it sure as heck isn't going to happen over Obama, who is a reasonable man who yes, is putting forth some (uncomfortably) new ideas.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
OK. I totally looked up some of my past posts and I do not think I compared Bush to Hitler and at least half of the posts were about the Fog by Kate Bush which is one of the best songs ever.
Comparing him to Hitler is a bit harsh. I totally do not agree on the so-called war on terror but you've got to wonder if the guy meant well, but there's the best intentions and all.
I do not think volunteering is a bad thing and is quite the same as the Hitler youth group. 100 hours in college doesn't seem like much to me. More of my fellow college students spent about 500 times that partying and having a way better tolerance for booze than I ever could.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Instead, I find a thread full of people who are so afraid that their pet political opinions are not currently popular that they would talk about taking up arms against their own government!
Well...really only two people. At most. I'm not sure Lisa has said anything like that (but it could possibly be construed); and Occasional didn't explicitly say he'd "take up arms against the government."
He ranted against Obama, and then said he was thinking of buying a gun.
Let's try to stay sans-hyperbole.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I don't recall comparing Bush to Hitler...
As far as I can tell, you haven't.
However, you did compare the Boy Scouts to Hitler's Youth (because of their uniforms and outdoor activities).
Just for perspective...
hehehe she said ***
But they do sort of look Hitler Youthy. Maybe it's the shorts. However, boy scout manuals are super useful. Especially if civilization should collapse and you need to survive in the woods or figure out what to do about shock. But, community service could be very useful. Especially with people needing help in a bad economy. Perhaps not making it mandatory is a better idea, but I don't think it's like what that Jay Severin guy said, but that guy is such a @#$!%@#! You can't insult people you don't agree with and expect them to say, "I see the error of my ways and will join your side." No ways.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional, before you resort to armed rebellion, I suggest marches and sit-ins. I can lend you my, "What To Do When Your Government Is Being Run By Scary People" handbook. I don't expect to need it for the next few years.
ETA: Though I may need to stack up on some "America - Love It or Leave It" signs. Know where I can get any?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Isn't this the way the "Hitler Youth" began? Sounded idealistic to begin with.
I have compared Obama to Hitler, and I still believe the parallels I have drawn are valid. But the troubles and open racial warfare that I predict will not come so much from Obama as from his zealot, hardcore worshippers, who will become wildly enraged at anyone who criticizes their messianic hero--especially when so many things about his administration go frustratingly wrong, and they want to find a scapegoat.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
And for the record, I'm with Scott on the volunteer program. I think it's a wonderful idea and I do not think that 1 hour a week for junior high/high school students and 2 hours a week for college students is too much to ask. How to entice this service would be a good national discussion, but simply requiring it -- why not?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Occasional, before you resort to armed rebellion, I suggest marches and sit-ins. I can lend you my, "What To Do When Your Government Is Being Run By Scary People" handbook. I don't expect to need it for the next few years.
Keep it in hand. Entertain no delusions-- the Democrats, now that they have power, are as likely to abuse their power as the Republicans.
This backhanded attempt at legislating volunteerism is one example of that. The only solution is an informed and vocal public.
Constant vigilance! Make sure it's really Dumbledore.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I think there are reasonable arguments to be made about whether community service requirements for high school students should be implemented on a federal level, but complaining that community service requirements place an unreasonable burden on high school students without discussing the substantial portions of schools that have already implemented community service requirements at a local level seems a bit odd. The notion of required community service is far from new--and there's been plenty of research done into its prevalence and effects. This (requires subscription), this, and this (pdf) all look like interesting places to start.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Perhaps not making it mandatory is a better idea, but I don't think it's like what that Jay Severin guy said, but that guy is such a @#$!%@#! You can't insult people you don't agree with and expect them to say, "I see the error of my ways and will join your side." No ways.
Um...what?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Fog by Kate Bush which is one of the best songs ever.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But they do sort of look Hitler Youthy. Maybe it's the shorts.
More accurately the Hitler Youth looked scouty. The boy scouts predated the Nazis. Not to mention the Nazis banned scouting everywhere they went and in at least one country former scouts were active participants in the resistance fighting the Germans.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Perhaps not making it mandatory is a better idea, but I don't think it's like what that Jay Severin guy said, but that guy is such a @#$!%@#! You can't insult people you don't agree with and expect them to say, "I see the error of my ways and will join your side." No ways.
Um...what?
Jay Severin is some dood on the radio who says things like "These people are fat, stupid and lazy" or he compares Obama's volunteer stuff to some sort of citizen's army or something. It is not nice of me to call him a #@$@%@#% But he's really irritating and rude. It's kind of ironic, but at least I'm not doing that on the radio and grawlixes are funny.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But they do sort of look Hitler Youthy. Maybe it's the shorts.
More accurately the Hitler Youth looked scouty. The boy scouts predated the Nazis. Not to mention the Nazis banned scouting everywhere they went and in at least one country former scouts were active participants in the resistance fighting the Germans.
I did not know this...
quote:Originally posted by orlox:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Fog by Kate Bush which is one of the best songs ever.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: I support mandatory volunteering for young people.
Actually... yeah.. Let's do the mandatory volunteer work!
But only at government approved locations. Due to separation of church and state, all the time you give to your church doesn't count.
But I'm sure the ACLU and Planned Parenthood could use some unpaid children to help with their mission. And heck! Someone's gotta help make all the floats for gay pride parades.
Be very wary when you give power to the government. Even when they do something you like, they'll do it in a stupid way.
"Mandatory Volunteer?" Jeezus Zombie Kraist.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Oh, on the gun thing...
My hubby and I have been talking about it too... (He balked when I told him he'd have to go to gun training before I'd let him buy one. I was raised by rednecks so I know how to handle a gun...)
We're not interested in it for armed rebellion... We want a gun to defend our stash of canned food.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote: I support mandatory volunteering for young people.
Actually... yeah.. Let's do the mandatory volunteer work!
But only at government approved locations. Due to separation of church and state, all the time you give to your church doesn't count.
But I'm sure the ACLU and Planned Parenthood could use some unpaid children to help with their mission. And heck! Someone's gotta help make all the floats for gay pride parades.
Be very wary when you give power to the government. Even when they do something you like, they'll do it in a stupid way.
"Mandatory Volunteer?" Jeezus Zombie Kraist.
I disagree that this is giving power to the government. I think this is a way to reclaim power for ourselves. We've gotten lazy, expecting the government to do everything for us. When we think of charities, we think only of giving them money, not of giving them our time and attention.
When we get actively involved in community programs we associate with people. This gives us an opportunity to talk to other human beings about what is going on in both local and national politics and to share information and support on what our communities need. This gives us the opportunity to see firsthand what is going on rather than watching it on the news and hearing a single person's slanted view of what is going on.
Getting actively involved in our community gives us the opportunity to learn what our community actually needs and to become a force for change.
Volunteering negates some of the need for tax dollars to be spent on certain projects.
And there is absolutely no reason in the world to suspect that anyone would disallow church volunteerism. That would be insane on a lot of levels, including popularity, and Obama's web site change does indicate that he wants people to be ok with this idea.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Oh, on the gun thing...
My hubby and I have been talking about it too... (He balked when I told him he'd have to go to gun training before I'd let him buy one. I was raised by rednecks so I know how to handle a gun...)
We're not interested in it for armed rebellion... We want a gun to defend our stash of canned food.
I know of someone in Florida that would get along famously with you! (said without a bit of sarcasm or mocking or anything negative like that)
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Don't local gov'ts already keep lists of approved volunteer organizations that are used for probation community service? I don't understand the complaints about the possible inappropriate places volunteers might have to work/not be able to work. Are the currently used organizations so bad?
edited for clarity
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: I support mandatory volunteering for young people.
Actually... yeah.. Let's do the mandatory volunteer work!
But only at government approved locations. Due to separation of church and state, all the time you give to your church doesn't count.
IIRC when I was doing volunteer work in preparation for graduating high school, I began to describe to the counselor something I had done for my church. She put up a hand and conspiratorially said "I don't want to hear the words church, Dad, Mom, or Grandpa in your description. Keep it to the community center, some guy, some lady and the elderly. Your 17, no one's expecting you to be descriptive."
Good times.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by orlox:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Fog by Kate Bush which is one of the best songs ever.
I'm not sure if I've ever heard Fog, but I simply adore her songs Wuthering Heights and How to be Invisible.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by orlox:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Fog by Kate Bush which is one of the best songs ever.
I'm not sure if I've ever heard Fog, but I simply adore her songs Wuthering Heights and How to be Invisible.
You must HEAR the Fog, it's fantastic. It has THIS VIOLIN PART THAT IS BEAUTIFUL! The ARRANGEMENT OF IT!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the troubles and open racial warfare that I predict will not come so much from Obama as from his zealot, hardcore worshippers, who will become wildly enraged at anyone who criticizes their messianic hero...
What's weird about this is that most of the hardcore Obama fans I know are along the lines of Kate Boots. The idea of them becoming wildly enraged by criticism -- to the point of violence -- is something I have trouble envisioning. I mean, if you got Kate angry, she might knit you something with a curse word in it. And then apologize.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Under Ice Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Something with a curse word on it!!!!!!!
I don't even want a race war. That's a stupid idea. We out to chill out and listen to music instead.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote: When we think of charities, we think only of giving them money, not of giving them our time and attention.
Speak for yourself. My wife and I would prefer to spend our money on ourselves or our relatives and spend our time on others.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Psst...don't tell anyone (for fear of retaliation by the cabal) but we don't all agree with everything President Obama does.
Not agreeing with everything the President does is a huge, enormous, exhilarating improvement. I, personally, like the whole not invading other countries (and killing lots of people) for no reason thing. I am not crazy about mandatory volunteering, but it is a lovely change from locking people up without trials and torturing them.
(Tom, you forgot about my nibbling sarcasm and inability to conceal the fact that I think something is stupid.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Not agreeing with everything the President does is a huge, enormous, exhilarating improvement. I, personally, like the whole not invading other countries (and killing lots of people) for no reason thing. I am not crazy about mandatory volunteering, but it is a lovely change from locking people up without trials and torturing them.
Hmm.
How do you feel about a president and a Congress who may be making decidedly unconstitutional laws in order to appease a constituency crying out for JUSTICE, JUSTICE, JUSTICE!
'Cause that's what's happening with the laws taxing AIG's bonuses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm discomfited by the AIG thing for a variety of reasons, but I don't think the laws they've proposed are necessarily unconstitutional. They're powerfully wrong-headed, though, and an example of the most aimless sort of pandering.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not too fussed about the AIG bonus thing either way. I can see both sides. And that is Congress rather than the President, yes?
And if it is unconstitutional, the people impacted can sue, yes? There is an avenue for redress.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Christine: When I went to give away my old car I started vetting charities to see, not which ones of them deserved it, but who wouldn't use my money in a way that was morally repugnant to me.
Eventually, I gave up and just gave it to the Salivation Army (who are also morally compromised.)
Seems most charities have hidden agendas and/or political wings I don't want to support. So why force people to support them?
I thought you claimed to be a libertarian?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Because civility is quickly ending and freedom is soon to be history. Better to protect yourself against "The mob" than be left defenseless. Ever read "1984?" That is where we have arrived.
.. I read the fantastical way in which you thought America would very seriously break up. I'm very glad that Obama gives you a focal point towards which to focus your in-general being terrified of the illusions of modern society.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Yes. I've read Nineteen Eighty-Four.
We are not even close to Oceania.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Seriously though occasional you are the near-parody of a person who wants desperately to sit on a cloistered commune for the rest of their life and be constantly terrified with how the rest of the nation and/or world is going to hell.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: adenam,
The problem with your argument is that you probably will also say, but no one should go to private schools or homeschooling. A lot of laws in states make following your idea very hard. In fact, some laws basically state that private and homeschooling should be JUST LIKE public schools if they want to exist.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by orlox:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Fog by Kate Bush which is one of the best songs ever.
I'm not sure if I've ever heard Fog, but I simply adore her songs Wuthering Heights and How to be Invisible.
OOOOOOO OOOO Get it! It's such a great song. VIOLINS!!!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Two hours is hardly enough to mold impressionable young minds
UR doin it rong
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I have everything she ever did, just not on the playlist.
#58 Heads We're Dancing is about Hitler BTW. Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles:
Under Ice
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Actually now that I think about it some more:
The Song of Solomon Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: I have everything she ever did, just not on the playlist.
#58 Heads We're Dancing is about Hitler BTW.
*knows* You've got to listen to the fog this second! I am listening to your playlist because I do not have all of these songs back on my HD since I reformatted. Most of them are on discs.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Christine: When I went to give away my old car I started vetting charities to see, not which ones of them deserved it, but who wouldn't use my money in a way that was morally repugnant to me.
Eventually, I gave up and just gave it to the Salivation Army (who are also morally compromised.)
Seems most charities have hidden agendas and/or political wings I don't want to support. So why force people to support them?
I thought you claimed to be a libertarian?
I tried to be libertarian a few years ago but it didn't sit well with me. At first I thought it sounded nice in principal but would never work in the real world, and then I decided it didn't even sound nice in principal.
I remain open minded, though.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How do you feel about a president and a Congress who may be making decidedly unconstitutional laws in order to appease a constituency crying out for JUSTICE, JUSTICE, JUSTICE!
'Cause that's what's happening with the laws taxing AIG's bonuses.
What do you think is unconstitutional about that law?
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Seriously though occasional you are the near-parody of a person who wants desperately to sit on a cloistered commune for the rest of their life and be constantly terrified with how the rest of the nation and/or world is going to hell.
No, leftists have communes; rightists with guns have compounds.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My feelings on required community service are pretty simple. I'm okay with it so long as it is tied to an optional tax credit like Obama touted during his campaign. Back then it was $4,000 as a one time payment (more or less) for 100 hours a year of service, which equates to a $10 an hour job assuming you graduate in four years. That's fine with me.
Making it mandatory, especially with no tax incentive is ridiculous. More I think than being somehow illegal, it's a punishment to the educated. Kids who struggle and make it to college have to do more as a result than the kids who didn't? How much sense does that make? I'd almost understand it more if it was a requirement for all of the youth of the country rather than just the college educated. I'd also call it generational warfare that the youth of the country have to do it but no one else does. If the young people of the country were organized like the elderly are, they wouldn't get the shaft nearly as much as they do.
Assuming this is in fact optional in return for a fully refundable tax credit, I have concerns on who is in control of the service system. If it is run from Washington, I'm against it. I'm probably even against it if it's run at the state level. My feelings on how such a system should be run can be summed up on a cross-post from the last thread we had about this (about this exact same subject actually):
quote:I think the easiest way to organize the student population would be to have them register to volunteer just like they do for classes. That way there is a searchable database for students looking for something that suits them best, and that way there is a manageable number for the organizations to work with so they aren't flooded with a thousand students one day. Organizations can put in requests to the school, or even through a student run group (the students running the group could get volunteer credit hours of their own) that sets up the website, takes requests from organizations, posts links to their websites and puts down the allotment of slots desired. It'd be just like signing up for classes, only students would run that aspect of it instead of the registrar's office. I imagine the school would need to screen the organizations to see which ones are qualified, but once they are pre-approved, they might as well use tech-savvy and well organized student populations to do the rest rather than waste money on administrators.
In that sense, the only thing schools would need to do is check to make sure an organization is legit (which they'd only need to do once, and then maybe recertify every couple years), and work out some sort of validation program for the hours. It would be up to local businesses, community organizers and non-profit groups to ask the school for a certain number of students, and then up to the students themselves to take that information and organize it. I think that's a great three way burden sharing arrangement.
Having the organization be more or less student run but with some sort of collegiate oversight (paid for by the program and thus by the government) is the best way to do it in my eyes. It gets the students more actively involved in the community. Furthermore, I think it would allow them to choose volunteering options that are more conducive to their major, so maybe accounting majors will sign up to help senior citizens and the poor do their taxes, and history majors will sign up at local schools to help tutor kids after school, which also gives them exposure to the idea of teaching, and we could certainly use more and better teachers. Maybe nursing students could help at a Red Cross blood drive or help give out flu shots. This way they can gain practical experience and even network for themselves in the community.
A system like that is the only thing I could really see myself supporting, as I think most anything else would be too burdensome on the school, too ineffective in practice, or too expensive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not too fussed about the AIG bonus thing either way. I can see both sides.
Here's my problem: AIG contracted with some of its employees back when it started restructuring to accept hefty bonuses in lieu of simply leaving the company for greener pastures; they felt this gesture was necessary in order to retain enough staff to transition the company. At the time, they mentioned this to the government agencies working with them. Only when those bonuses became public knowledge in the media did members of the government go "Oh, noes! We cannot be rewarding these bad actors with our tax money!" and start pretending to be powerfully outraged.
As far as I can tell, it's legal for the government to tax something it doesn't like. But I think pretending that AIG was being inappropriately profligate here -- despite the fact that the alternative, i.e. completely replacing their staff with new hires, would probably have been even more detrimental to what remained to the company's assets -- is populist pandering of the worst sort.
I want to see the actual bad guys hung out to dry, too. But freaking out over retention bonuses isn't a good use of limited government resources right now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that completely replacing their staff was the only alternative. Jobs are not so thick on the ground these days. Would you quit if your company was saved from tanking only by a government bailout and decided it couldn't give bonuses. Would you as an employer hire someone who did?
But I could be wrong and the world of finance might do just that. That could be a big part of what is wrong with the world of finance.
But honestly? Worst case with this is that some already wealthy people may have to go to court to get wealthier. They aren't dying or being imprisoned without trial or tortured. I have spent a lot of energy on outrage against the government in the past several years, and some of that has paid off. This week, though, if we are not starting a shock and awe campaign against a country that didn't attack us, I am not hitting the streets.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would you quit if your company was saved from tanking only by a government bailout and decided it couldn't give bonuses.
I wouldn't. But (as you note) I don't think people with my personality or attitude towards money work in the financial sector; if they did, they certainly wouldn't be very good at it. Bear in mind, too, that these people weren't going to quit because their company couldn't give bonuses; they were going to quit because their company was tanking and they could presumably get jobs somewhere that wasn't falling apart. These specific bonuses were only paid to keep them in their positions.
quote:Worst case with this is that some already wealthy people may have to go to court to get wealthier.
Worst-case scenario is that we create a precedent of using taxation to prevent individuals or companies from satisfying any contractual agreements that congresspeople believe are sufficiently unpopular with the public.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Would you quit if your company was saved from tanking only by a government bailout and decided it couldn't give bonuses.
I wouldn't. But (as you note) I don't think people with my personality or attitude towards money work in the financial sector; if they did, they certainly wouldn't be very good at it.
quote:Worst case with this is that some already wealthy people may have to go to court to get wealthier.
Worst-case scenario is that we create a precedent of using taxation to prevent individuals or companies from satisfying any contractual agreements that congresspeople believe are sufficiently unpopular with the public.
Yeah, I don't know if greed is necessary to be good at the finance sector.
I see the downside of such a precedent. I do. On the other hand, some of these contractual agreements are pretty outrageous. Maybe bringing them out in the open and exposing them to public scrutiny will have a moderating effect. Maybe people will have to do a good job to make a whole lot of money instead of beiing contractually entitled to an obscene amount of money whether they do a good job or not. And if Congress gets carried away, we can vote them out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And if Congress gets carried away, we can vote them out.
On this, I think we disagree. The mechanisms of government support and perpetuate themselves; they will continue grinding unless someone reaches out to stop them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh, I have recently renewed faith in our ability to vote people out. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bush wasn't up for re-election, sadly. We voted no one out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would say that she's referring to Congressional elections, in which there really was a relatively large turnover in both houses by recent historical standards, but the party flip happened two years ago, and we don't have much to show for it since.
You could also maybe argue that in voting in a Democrat and not renewing the GOP lease on the White House, a party, if not a man, was voted out of office, but I think there was a stark enough contrast between McCain and Bush to argue against this as well.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I know this is a page late, but I did want to address this:
quote:
quote: When we think of charities, we think only of giving them money, not of giving them our time and attention.
Speak for yourself. My wife and I would prefer to spend our money on ourselves or our relatives and spend our time on others.
From what I unerstand, this largely correlates to age. Young people have a lot of time and energy but not a lot of money so service makes sense. Then they get a little older, have a kid or two, and work a lot of hours chasing that next promotion. My husband is working anywhere from 60 to 80 hours trying to transition from middle to upper management. We've got money but not a lot of time.
When we hit middle age we'll have after school activities and college funds to save for and we probably won't have time or money. Then when the kids are grown, we'll have both.
I wouldn't want every group to have to contribute the way that makes sense for someone else. Let's just say "Hooray, service!" and leave it there. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How do you feel about a president and a Congress who may be making decidedly unconstitutional laws in order to appease a constituency crying out for JUSTICE, JUSTICE, JUSTICE!
'Cause that's what's happening with the laws taxing AIG's bonuses.
What do you think is unconstitutional about that law?
It's punishment without trial.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How do you feel about a president and a Congress who may be making decidedly unconstitutional laws in order to appease a constituency crying out for JUSTICE, JUSTICE, JUSTICE!
'Cause that's what's happening with the laws taxing AIG's bonuses.
What do you think is unconstitutional about that law?
It's punishment without trial.
That seems like a bit of a stretch. No one is claiming that AIG committed any criminal act. And income taxes are constitutional, even specialized ones that target a few people or reward a few people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That seems like a bit of a stretch. No one is claiming that AIG committed any criminal act. And income taxes are constitutional, even specialized ones that target a few people or reward a few people.
This is a law to tax income that has already been paid, Christine.
Here's the section of the Constitution that may pertain:
quote:Article 1 Section 9: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
It's the "ex post facto Law" that (I think) applies.
People are not claiming AIG committed any criminal act, and yet we're punishing them ANYWAY? That's precisely what this law is-- retribution for perceived slights against the American public.
Come on. You've got to see the irony here. Does it tickle, even a little bit?
Here some commentary from the WSJ, which doesn't necessarily support what I've written:
Just the fact that there are bonuses causes me to wonder: How many cents or fractions of a cent out of a doller actually goes to health care?
If we give to a charity and find out that only 2 cents out of a dollar goes to the intended cause we say the charity is a rip-off.(non profit)
If the insurance industry is built tier upon tier of bureaucracy for profit then perhaps the actual cost of health care isn't all that much since quite a bit of what doctors charge goes to insurance companies for malpractice insurance.
That is quite the business to be in plus get a bonus.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How do you feel about a president and a Congress who may be making decidedly unconstitutional laws in order to appease a constituency crying out for JUSTICE, JUSTICE, JUSTICE!
'Cause that's what's happening with the laws taxing AIG's bonuses.
What do you think is unconstitutional about that law?
It's punishment without trial.
It's revenge. Hell, Obama said so himself last night on Leno. Leno asked him whether he didn't see a problem with targeting individuals like that, and while Obama mostly dodged the question, he did say that it was "getting back at them".
They aren't raising taxes on people based on some sort of criterion. They're targeting specific individuals. It's creepy, and it's damned dangerous.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think AIG's health care insurance business is fairly small, they mostly specialize in other things.
And malpractice insurance would only be a small part of that. While it is easy to attack malpractice insurance, if you accept that someone should pay when there is medical malpractice, it becomes a question of who. Right now, it is the doctors, based upon risk models of malpractice likelihood, who choose to spread risk among themselves (though they of course pass some of that cost on). Eliminating malpractice insurance would not make the need to pay victims go away; either victims must get the money from elsewhere, or victims don't get money. There's certainly some bureaucracy in that, but I'm not aware of any particular inefficiency over, say, car insurance or life insurance, both of which seem to work fairly well.
Our health insurance system, however, is incredibly messed up. This isn't caused by some evil corporate scheme, though, but a screwed up set of incentives that mean health care insurers have little incentive to maximize health (unlike other insurance fields -- car insurance companies have good incentives to minimize car accidents, for instance), and health care providers have disturbingly little incentive to maximize health either. (All subject to the constraints of how much society is willing to pay for health, of course).
I don't think there's much point about commenting on the bonus program directly, but a lot of the problem is almost certainly from AIG's long-term-nationalization. Suddenly every aspect of running the AIG business has become a policy question, and it shouldn't be. The gov't should move AIG into receivership, split off the profitable traditional insurance arm and sell that, spin off any other bits that aren't sucking money, then give partial payments to counterparties in all remaining contracts and close down the other businesses.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:That seems like a bit of a stretch. No one is claiming that AIG committed any criminal act. And income taxes are constitutional, even specialized ones that target a few people or reward a few people.
This is a law to tax income that has already been paid, Christine.
Here's the section of the Constitution that may pertain:
quote:Article 1 Section 9: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
It's the "ex post facto Law" that (I think) applies.
People are not claiming AIG committed any criminal act, and yet we're punishing them ANYWAY? That's precisely what this law is-- retribution for perceived slights against the American public.
Come on. You've got to see the irony here. Does it tickle, even a little bit?
Here some commentary from the WSJ, which doesn't necessarily support what I've written:
The ex post facto clause makes more sense and I'll have to give that some thought. Offhand, I would say that the law itself might not be unconstitutional but applying it to 2008/2009 taxes may be. And the question I would have to ask with taxes is what is retroactive? We are currently in 2009 and (I think) these bonuses came this year so is that retroactive? Applying it to 2008 taxes would, IMO, clearly be wrong but I did not think that's what they were doing. I was always under the impression that they could make changes in the current tax year for the current tax year.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As a note of clarification, doesn't the law apply to a whole bunch of companies?
quote: To aid those efforts, the House, the lower of the US Congress’ two chambers, voted 328-93 in favour of legislation that will tax 90pc of employee earnings above $250,000 at companies which have received more than $5bn in government bail-out funding.
Off-hand, that should cover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cross-referencing TARP that would give Citigroup, BAC, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, GM, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, PNC, and US Bancorp.
This seems to be a lot bigger and better than just employees at AIG unless the articles are leaving out some restriction on the law.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I get the feeling that this latest development simply comes on the tail end of a stream of abuses. Banks getting bailout money and sitting on it, Merryl Lynch and the expensive office remodel, the big 3 riding corporate jets, Meryl Lynch paying out huge bonuses just prior to the Bank of America take over, AIG and the expensive corporate retreat. People all over are losing their jobs and there was nothing they could do about it, these guys argue that without bonuses of up to $6 million they won't stick around to clean up the mess as if their annual salaries are not enough to get them through the year.
To me it's sort of akin to being the door guard and after 10 or so people getting out through various forms of trickery and having been chastised because of it, you stop somebody acting suspicious and they yell at you because this time all their documentation seems to be in order.
The government has utterly failed to stop a long succession of events, they seem to have messed up again, I think the attitude is now, "we've got to stop SOMEBODY!"
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I get the feeling that this latest development simply comes on the tail end of a stream of abuses. Banks getting bailout money and sitting on it, Merryl Lynch and the expensive office remodel, the big 3 riding corporate jets, Meryl Lynch paying out huge bonuses just prior to the Bank of America take over, AIG and the expensive corporate retreat. People all over are losing their jobs and there was nothing they could do about it, these guys argue that without bonuses of up to $6 million they won't stick around to clean up the mess as if their annual salaries are not enough to get them through the year.
To me it's sort of akin to being the door guard and after 10 or so people getting out through various forms of trickery and having been chastised because of it, you stop somebody acting suspicious and they yell at you because this time all their documentation seems to be in order.
The government has utterly failed to stop a long succession of events, they seem to have messed up again, I think the attitude is now, "we've got to stop SOMEBODY!"
What gets me is that people actually seem surprised that we gave money with no strings attached and businesses are using it in ways that we don't think are appropriate. Hello? We GAVE it to them. Did we honestly think that enlightened self interest would cause companies to work for the good of the American people?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sometimes you have to kill a chicken to scare the monkeys
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Sometimes you have to kill a chicken to scare the monkeys
Or giving money to bankers for the purpose of the public good is like pa shu qiu yu "climbing a tree in search of fish."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: As a note of clarification, doesn't the law apply to a whole bunch of companies?
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com (and a linked NYT article) support that; 12 other companies that received bailout funds will be similarly affected. Here's Silver arguing why the proposed bill makes bad economic sense.
Personally, I like Eliot Spitzer's analysis over at Slate, that while the bonuses are a travesty, they are a much smaller issue than the fact that half of the $180 billion AIG has received has been paid out to the same companies that have been receiving their own bailouts. So Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, et al get all their insurance against the market downturn (via the AIG laundering of government funds) in addition to the billions in direct government aid. That, in Spitzer's words, is "the real disgrace."
As a side note: I think there's strong evidence that the populist furor over the bonuses is very much of the administration's making. Geithner evidently found out about the bonuses a week ago Tuesday, and by Friday there were pieces in the Washington Post and the New York Times. Lots of people have questioned why the sudden fury, when these bonuses have been guaranteed since last December. The best answer seems to me that in the craziness of transition, no one bothered to mention the bonuses to the new Treasury Secretary, and when he found out he (or his boss) was either 1) angry enough to do something about it or 2) saw it as a way to achieve some desired goal (like providing cover to push through other policy while everyone's distracted by the bonuses, changing an unfavorable news cycle that was focusing on waning support for Obama's budget and agenda, inuring the public to the idea of large marginal income taxes on those making more than $250,000). So they fed the story to some influential media outlets, stoked it with public comments of condemnation, and then watched the story enflame public outrage.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
So will this be an, "Oops, I might have screwed up,better luck next time" moment for President Obama, or will he just not get any blame at all for the bonuses issue?
All that money given by the government to try and fix the issues, but because there weren't specific instructions accompanying the money, the corporate heads, who are looking out for numero uno, did exactly what they thought was in their best interests- to give themselves as much of the money as they thought possible, then high tail it outta there. Granted, this is purely speculation.
I'm not a fan of spelling every detail out when it comes to instruction or contracts, but when it comes to government and corporate execs, I don't think I would trust any to be completely honest. Trust, once lost is hard to get back. I've worked for the government for years and years, and they have lost my trust when it comes to money and envolvement. Corporate execs, certainly in this situation, are probably seeing this as their final opportunity to contribute to their retirements.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Personally, I like Eliot Spitzer's analysis over at Slate, that while the bonuses are a travesty, they are a much smaller issue than the fact that half of the $180 billion AIG has received has been paid out to the same companies that have been receiving their own bailouts. So Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, et al get all their insurance against the market downturn (via the AIG laundering of government funds) in addition to the billions in direct government aid. That, in Spitzer's words, is "the real disgrace."
Thus, Spitzer's article is kind of misleading. The US government further propping up previously bailed out US firms responsible for this mess *would* be a real disgrace. But the US government taking responsibility for the debts of a state-owned enterprise such as AIG to blameless foreign firms, thats highly admirable.
quote: ... inuring the public to the idea of large marginal income taxes on those making more than $250,000).
If thats really true, that would be awesome.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: So will this be an, "Oops, I might have screwed up,better luck next time" moment for President Obama, or will he just not get any blame at all for the bonuses issue?
The original stimulus package was signed into law by Bush. His part in it was as part of congress which did a decidedly bad job in forming that law. I very much hope the more recent (and bigger) stimulus package has been formed better.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But the US government taking responsibility for the debts of a state-owned enterprise such as AIG to blameless foreign firms, thats highly admirable.
Of course, it wasn't a state-owned firm before the bailout. I would say the foreign firms should have chosen their insurance provider with greater care. From a pragmatic perspective, though, I'm glad we're wealthy enough (or expect our children to be) to bribe other countries into confidence in American financial institutions.
quote:
quote: ... inuring the public to the idea of large marginal income taxes on those making more than $250,000).
If thats really true, that would be awesome.
I think it would be pretty hua (to use my new Chinese word of the day). I don't think that's a good thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've worked for the government for years and years, and they have lost my trust when it comes to money and envolvement.
Are you saying you aren't trustworthy?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
fugu13
I agree, and AIG IS in the process of down sizing. There was a time when insurance was inexpensive and a larger number of busnesses could cover their employees. There are alot of factors other then simple greed or the size of bureaucracy like the illegal aliens that drive without car insurance and use emergancy rooms for treatment. Maybe it took the bonus problem to wake us up to what is happening in all sorts of different areas? The Government is angry because they say they are looking out for taxpayer money but how much less would we have to pay for a deductable if they didn't give out bonuses at all?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: [QUOTE]hua (to use my new Chinese word of the day). I don't think that's a good thing.
This says more about me than it does you but what hua are you using. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:how much less would we have to pay for a deductable if they didn't give out bonuses at all?
I suppose it depends on the quality of employee they'd be able to retain if they didn't give out bonuses.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: fugu13
I agree, and AIG IS in the process of down sizing. There was a time when insurance was inexpensive and a larger number of busnesses could cover their employees. There are alot of factors other then simple greed or the size of bureaucracy like the illegal aliens that drive without car insurance and use emergancy rooms for treatment. Maybe it took the bonus problem to wake us up to what is happening in all sorts of different areas? The Government is angry because they say they are looking out for taxpayer money but how much less would we have to pay for a deductable if they didn't give out bonuses at all?
Insurance is a business. The owners and employees are in it for the money. If what you're looking for is a system in which profits are minimized or eliminated, and we simply pay into a pool that pays back out when we need it, then that's when the government needs to run the insurance.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
This year? Perhaps $5 per insured person. The size of the bonuses is dwarfed by the size of AIG's insurance revenue. And that's assuming that not giving bonuses results in no lower performance incurring additional costs.
Bonuses like this just aren't a very big factor in that sort of thing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Of course, it wasn't a state-owned firm before the bailout.
But the fact that it *was* a bailout and a nationalization makes their debts the responsibility of the government. Let a company go into bankruptcy, then the creditors fight for whats left of the companies assets. But *buy* a company, and you're now responsible for what it owes.
quote:I think it would be pretty hua (to use my new Chinese word of the day). I don't think that's a good thing.
I do. It cleanly solves the criticism that the administration is unfairly targeting certain individuals at companies that are bailed out.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, nationalization is a process that typically involves negotiating down debt levels. Bankruptcy of large companies is essentially a form of nationalization, and the form I would have advocated for AIG (and still do). In a bankruptcy, creditors are given what cash and profitable parts of the company exist, until there is nothing left, and that would be quite quickly with AIG.
AIG did not become part of the federal gov't. Its debts are still shielded within AIG. Once AIG's assets are exhausted, the gov't has no further obligation to sustain the debts. For political reasons I support partial payment, but this idea of sustaining in full when, had normal business taken its course, the people who had mistakenly become involved would have nothing, is not right. It is a transfer from people who had not made horrible financial mistakes to those who did, virtually guaranteeing continued financial mistakes (especially in the near-term) on the assumption they'll just get more money.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thats what I said though, the US government *didn't* let AIG go bankrupt normally.
It bailed out and nationalized AIG with the intent of stopping a chain reaction that would occur if AIG fell. And yes, as in your example, I'm fully aware that Americans could probably have found some weaselly legalistic way of not paying AIG's debts (or not paying them in full), but you didn't. You took responsibility for them and thats why I don't only find the US governments actions on this issue satisfactory but as I said before, admirable.
And in this time with US reputation in the gutter, especially in finance, doing right by the world is a good thing and should be applauded.
(However, as long as AIG is owned by the federal government it *is* effectively part of the federal government and all decisions it makes will ultimately be politicized. Thats why the US media quite rightly portrays Chinese SOEs as part of the Chinese government and I expect no less when it comes to American SOEs)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I voted for you guys instituting Shock Therapy for the economy, it worked for Russia didn't it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There isn't a need for a weaselly legalistic way. The straightforward legalistic way works just fine, and is how it works pretty much the world over.
The US government actions on this issue were stupid and counterproductive. They have sustained harmful situations in the US and international economies.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Would you quit if your company was saved from tanking only by a government bailout and decided it couldn't give bonuses.
I wouldn't. But (as you note) I don't think people with my personality or attitude towards money work in the financial sector; if they did, they certainly wouldn't be very good at it.
I'm not seeing that the people who have the jobs now were very good at them either. Sure they made money for themselves personally, but their companies are toast.
quote:Bear in mind, too, that these people weren't going to quit because their company couldn't give bonuses; they were going to quit because their company was tanking and they could presumably get jobs somewhere that wasn't falling apart.
This only makes sense if we aren't talking about the people who made the company fall apart. And I'm not at all sure that's the case.
quote:These specific bonuses were only paid to keep them in their positions.
I don't see how you can know that. I think it's just as explicable as a "we take care of our own, we're all entitled to big money". And it's not like the guys giving the bonues were taking them out of their own pocket.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
fugu13: I disagree.
And I think the US government finally made a right call for once and I'm glad it took the high road.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
quote: Christine Member Member # 8594
posted March 20, 2009 12:15 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Oshki: fugu13
I agree, and AIG IS in the process of down sizing. There was a time when insurance was inexpensive and a larger number of busnesses could cover their employees. There are alot of factors other then simple greed or the size of bureaucracy like the illegal aliens that drive without car insurance and use emergancy rooms for treatment. Maybe it took the bonus problem to wake us up to what is happening in all sorts of different areas? The Government is angry because they say they are looking out for taxpayer money but how much less would we have to pay for a deductable if they didn't give out bonuses at all? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: Insurance is a business. The owners and employees are in it for the money. If what you're looking for is a system in which profits are minimized or eliminated, and we simply pay into a pool that pays back out when we need it, then that's when the government needs to run the insurance.
Christine, I think what we need is more competition. I seem to be hearing on the news that AIG is too big to be allowed to fail. Does that mean that the world has most of their insurance nest eggs in one basket? Does AIG have a competitor?
As for government run insurance, I have never heard anyone describe government as efficient. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it hard to fire a government worker even if they just do the minimum as long as they show up for work? Or is that a misconseption or myth?
I have been following the arguments of fugu13 and agree. AIG should have been allowed to fail. Out of the rubble perhaps competitors might form. Competition makes busness more efficient doesn't it, as well as keep down prices? I think that the government could help the insurance industry by addressing the illegal immigration problem.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: Christine, I think what we need is more competition. I seem to be hearing on the news that AIG is too big to be allowed to fail. Does that mean that the world has most of their insurance nest eggs in one basket? Does AIG have a competitor?
As for government run insurance, I have never heard anyone describe government as efficient. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it hard to fire a government worker even if they just do the minimum as long as they show up for work? Or is that a misconseption or myth?
I have been following the arguments of fugu13 and agree. AIG should have been allowed to fail. Out of the rubble perhaps competitors might form. Competition makes busness more efficient doesn't it, as well as keep down prices? I think that the government could help the insurance industry by addressing the illegal immigration problem.
I didn't mean to imply that we should use government run insurance, only that if you want to lower your insurance rates by removing bonuses (which are pure profit motive), then you don't want a private company running insurance.
As it happens, I think the whole "too big to fail" thing is dangerous thinking. As a matter of fact, I think that the thing this country needs more than anything else is to LET some of these big businesses fail. Small businesses breed competition and competition is what makes capitalism work. So basically, I agree with you. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I didn't mean to imply that we should use government run insurance, only that if you want to lower your insurance rates by removing bonuses (which are pure profit motive), then you don't want a private company running insurance.
It's possible to have a tightly regulated private marketplace for commodity goods where profits are developed by developing efficiency and building good relationships with customers to increase marketshare rather high margins. Title companies operate this way. Essentially they are agents of the state, but as private businesses they have a profit motive that drives performance-based improvements in their processes rather than higher margins to increase revenue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: Christine, I think what we need is more competition. I seem to be hearing on the news that AIG is too big to be allowed to fail. Does that mean that the world has most of their insurance nest eggs in one basket? Does AIG have a competitor?
As for government run insurance, I have never heard anyone describe government as efficient. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it hard to fire a government worker even if they just do the minimum as long as they show up for work? Or is that a misconseption or myth?
I have been following the arguments of fugu13 and agree. AIG should have been allowed to fail. Out of the rubble perhaps competitors might form. Competition makes busness more efficient doesn't it, as well as keep down prices? I think that the government could help the insurance industry by addressing the illegal immigration problem.
I didn't mean to imply that we should use government run insurance, only that if you want to lower your insurance rates by removing bonuses (which are pure profit motive), then you don't want a private company running insurance.
As it happens, I think the whole "too big to fail" thing is dangerous thinking. As a matter of fact, I think that the thing this country needs more than anything else is to LET some of these big businesses fail. Small businesses breed competition and competition is what makes capitalism work. So basically, I agree with you.
It probably is better for the system to let businesses fail. The problem is the people and businesses they will take down with them. Forest fires are actually good for forests in the long run, but they suck for the individual trees. In this case, the "trees" are human beings.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The way to handle that is to protect individuals as feasible, at a reasonable level, not to continue stopping the forest fires. Because if you do that, eventually the whole forest is destroyed by the fire you can't stop.
edit: and, just to beat the analogy with a stick, frequent natural forest fires kill very few trees. Instead, they destroy the brush that has grown up around them, but rarely burn long and hot enough to light an adult tree on fire.
edit again: and very much keep in mind that when economists talk about the 'system', they mean the aggregate level of satisfaction of individuals. If the system in that sense is worse off in the long run, the individuals are on the whole worse off.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The way to handle that is to protect individuals as feasible, at a reasonable level, not to continue stopping the forest fires. Because if you do that, eventually the whole forest is destroyed by the fire you can't stop.
edit: and, just to beat the analogy with a stick, frequent natural forest fires kill very few trees. Instead, they destroy the brush that has grown up around them, but rarely burn long and hot enough to light an adult tree on fire.
edit again: and very much keep in mind that when economists talk about the 'system', they mean the aggregate level of satisfaction of individuals. If the system in that sense is worse off in the long run, the individuals are on the whole worse off.
I'd say you've beaten that analogy into a pulp. Now it can serve no purpose but kindling.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I know this is a page late, but I did want to address this:
quote:
quote: When we think of charities, we think only of giving them money, not of giving them our time and attention.
Speak for yourself. My wife and I would prefer to spend our money on ourselves or our relatives and spend our time on others.
From what I unerstand, this largely correlates to age. Young people have a lot of time and energy but not a lot of money so service makes sense. Then they get a little older, have a kid or two, and work a lot of hours chasing that next promotion. My husband is working anywhere from 60 to 80 hours trying to transition from middle to upper management. We've got money but not a lot of time.
When we hit middle age we'll have after school activities and college funds to save for and we probably won't have time or money. Then when the kids are grown, we'll have both.
I wouldn't want every group to have to contribute the way that makes sense for someone else. Let's just say "Hooray, service!" and leave it there.
You've made a valid point. I generally fit the description of young person with no money, and perhaps I fit the description of having extra time and energy.
I would estimate that I spend about 50-60 hours a week working in my job. Actually for the last month or so, I've had work on Saturdays, too, making my total more like 60-70. Since I'm salaried, I'm compensated for 40 of those, according to my contract (but let's not get into a debate about teacher pay & benefits here). I might consider some of my extra hours on behalf of my students to be a form of community service.
But even so, hours remain on the weekend, and my wife and I are happy to volunteer our time at a local cat shelter, at least for an hour or two.
Now, if we had more money, I can see how it would be possible that we would simply write a check, but I couldn't be sure. Someone want to give me money so that I can find out? Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Because if you do that, eventually the whole forest is destroyed by the fire you can't stop.
Viva la revolution
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was concerned about this. For a short while, anyway, until I realized whose money they were taxing back into the system.
AIG got the taxpayer monies through a badly drafted bailout plan, and through this it has been reconstituted for other, more appropriate uses, because AIG was baldly wasting our little contribution on bonuses.
quote:As it happens, I think the whole "too big to fail" thing is dangerous thinking.
Myself, I believe that it is not dangerous thinking, but rather is a sensible and logical approach to a circumstance that is dangerous. It makes sense for a group to analyze the situation and say "The way we structured our markets left us with a number of organizations that became so largely structured into our financial health that we have little option but to save them if we want to save ourselves."
As long as it comes with the caveat "We should never have structured our markets in a way which created this dilemma in the first place"
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Has anyone actually done the math to realize that the $145 million in bonuses, when considered against the $30 billion in the most recent stage bailout is only about... half a percentage point? Considering that the government has already given AIG something like 60 to 70 billion dollars already in the recent phase of bailouts (correct me if I'm wrong...but it's really not the point), the percentage is even smaller.
If AIG is supposed to be paying back the bailout money, plus a good percentage interest (I think that's suppoed to be how it's being handled), this 1/2% matters even less.
Not that I like either aspect very much...but let's put things in persepctive.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Boothby: exactly. The bonuses are a rounding error in the amounts that have been funneled into AIG. Here's the most recent xkcd, which comments on the misrepresentations being made in the news that make it sound like the bonuses somehow are what makes it so AIG doesn't have enough to pay creditors: http://xkcd.com/558/ Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Because if you do that, eventually the whole forest is destroyed by the fire you can't stop.
Viva la revolution
"la revolution" means millions upon millions of deaths. I'll take some businesses collapsing due to bad decision making instead of being propped up by taking money from future generations, personally.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, yes, that is the metaphor.
Having businesses collapsing would be the small forest fires. However, it seems that your government is intent on going the other way which will eventually lead to the big forest fire, a revolution.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
They create problems so they can swoop in and save the day with government takeovers, "never let a good crisis go to waste" Fannie and Freddie, govt created. AIG, Obama admin had Dodd amend bailout to include bonus. Fake outrage, and pass a crazy tax bill that will end up applying to anyone who received bailout money and makes over 250k. The bailout money will spread throughout the system and if you got some and you get a bonus you'll pay 90% to uncle sam. It's a law that will have tentacles beyond AIG but the people are outraged and short sighted.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mucus: the strong lesson of, for instance, the Japanese financial crisis was that propping up banks by protecting them entirely from counterparty risks only created zombie banks. I'm even okay with partial payments to AIG's creditors for political reasons, but if those banks don't take substantial haircuts, they will have no reason to actually make good decisions. In fact, they will have been given quite a bit of reason to make bad decisions. This has played out time and time again in financial crises, including the great depression and the S&L crisis. Successful recovery meant letting companies that couldn't sustain themselves fail, helping only those companies that really did just need some cash, directly (instead of, say, blanket protection for AIG's counterparties), and providing social protections to the individuals affected.
President Obama when referring to the pork in the stimulus package dismissed it as old business. But the AIG retention bonus contracts were old business also. Isn’t it all pork? I guess government pork was ok but business pork is wrong? In this case both came out of taxpayer pockets. What was the stimulus pork total again?
The executives could spend that bonus money and stimulate the economy. I suppose pig stench research will stimulate something. Sounds to me like Connecticut will loose out on bonus money that might be spent there. Heck, it is still getting money out into the economy.
I don't think that pumping Chinese money into the system is a good idea. But at least the powers that be should treat all expenditures of taxpayer money with the same care. Just change the term Pork to Bonuses.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
fugu13: Sure, the US government definitely has the moral authority to govern what kind of banking system it wants inside its own borders. It can make whatever decisions it wants to regarding which companies to prop up (or not) and which individuals to provide social protection. The tricky bit is when it attempts to make decisions on behalf of other countries.
In this case AIG's counter parties included many foreign banks that would find it greatly unfair that the US government was on one hand propping up domestic banks while potentially shutting out their claims. For example, Canadian banks have already made quite a bit of media noise about being extremely wary about some of these US banks that were given money at below market interest rates by the government.
I suspect that this was one aspect of the political reasons to preserve the payments, to avoid exacerbating the problem by creating a situation where the US would be seen as protecting AIG's domestic counterparties but leaving AIG's foreign counterparties out to dry.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The US gov't is also getting no say in how Canadian banks are run, unlike the US banks it is intervening with (and less say than I feel it should, there). It is just handing money to the foreign banks that they would never have had in the normal course of business, with no strings attached, and that is a very bad incentive to keep making stupid deals with large US financial firms.
Especially as most of those banks apparently have credit default swaps in place against AIG, ensuring they don't even lose much money on the swaps they have with AIG if it goes under!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm pretty cool with all of that except I don't think the incentive issue is all that much of a problem. I don't think its nearly enough money to really change behaviour all that much when compared to the money that the foreign banks have lost courtesy of those large US financial firms.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
I don't see what the problem with the volunteering is, right now every high school in my state has volunteering as a requirement to graduate, And the incentive of 4000$ for 100 hours of community service is good enough for me to want this to become a reality.
Although I am going to buy myself a gun, helping out others would be such a radical change for America that comething bad has to happen. Like zombies.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hurm. Guns. Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Not to compare Obama to Hitler, just the current tone in our society.
Swap "Jew" with "rich" and our administration sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.
Swap "Communist" with "executive" and our congress sounds a lot like 1950's McCarthy Hearings.
Funny we have swung in 50 years from demonizing the Communists to demonizing the Capitalist...just an observation.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
Indeed.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
I must have some.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Not to compare Obama to Hitler, just the current tone in our society.
Swap "Jew" with "rich" and our administration sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.
Swap "Communist" with "executive" and our congress sounds a lot like 1950's McCarthy Hearings.
Funny we have swung in 50 years from demonizing the Communists to demonizing the Capitalist...just an observation.
Yeah, I know that I outed my neighbors last week for being executives. They were acting funny is all, but I knew it.........
They sound nothing alike.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
I wouldn't necessarily say that the gun lost the fight. Bullets are often engineered specifically to split apart on contact with a target. It seems like both weapons did what they were supposed to in that demonstration.
Still, a well-made Samurai sword is a mighty thing.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Not to compare Obama to Hitler, just the current tone in our society.
Swap "Jew" with "rich" and our administration sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.
Swap "Communist" with "executive" and our congress sounds a lot like 1950's McCarthy Hearings.
Funny we have swung in 50 years from demonizing the Communists to demonizing the Capitalist...just an observation.
Wait...did I miss something? When did we start sending rich people to die in concentration camps or blacklisting executives?
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: Samurai swords are way cooler than guns. Handmade by actual Japanese people (or a Brazilian dood adopted by a long line of Japanese sword makers) in the traditional way. IT PWNS GUNZ DOOD! PWNZ!
I wouldn't necessarily say that the gun lost the fight. Bullets are often engineered specifically to split apart on contact with a target. It seems like both weapons did what they were supposed to in that demonstration.
Still, a well-made Samurai sword is a mighty thing.
I think were missing the point, we need to be worried about zombies with guns, OR with swords and if I ever see a zombie with a gunblade, were done.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Not to compare Obama to Hitler, just the current tone in our society.
Swap "Jew" with "rich" and our administration sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.
Swap "Communist" with "executive" and our congress sounds a lot like 1950's McCarthy Hearings.
Funny we have swung in 50 years from demonizing the Communists to demonizing the Capitalist...just an observation.
Wait...did I miss something? When did we start sending rich people to die in concentration camps or blacklisting executives?
Germany in the 1930's--there weren't what we think of as concentration camps yet. But it's true, rich people are still citizens.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote:That gun - didn't have a shot! hehe
Genius.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Sorry Germans, I should've used the other axis power as an example:
Grassley (R-Iowa) said: “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.”
No, this isn't blacklisting yet, just a senator talking to the American people.
How about this peaceful protest: He explained that there had been death threats, and read an example: “All the executives and their families should be executed with piano wire around their necks,” it said. “That is our only hope
[ March 23, 2009, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Not to compare Obama to Hitler, just the current tone in our society.
Swap "Jew" with "rich" and our administration sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.
Swap "Communist" with "executive" and our congress sounds a lot like 1950's McCarthy Hearings.
Funny we have swung in 50 years from demonizing the Communists to demonizing the Capitalist...just an observation.
Damn, you're on to Obama's plan to send rich people to gas chambers.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The Jews were demonized for many years before it came to that. Jews were the scapegoat, now the wealthy are the scapegoat. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain, the govt created the banking crisis and now blames the banks. Refuse to allow oil drilling or the creation of a single refinery in 30 years, blame the oil companies for high prices. Ammend the bailout so AIG gets bonus money then play dumb and trump up political anger for increased taxes. When the masses are mad enough at the "rich" they will tolerate higher taxes for the greedy elite. If we enter a true depression like 1930's Germany, we need a scapegoat that isn't the government.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've lost what you're going on about, unless your purpose was to throw more hyperbole on the pile.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Jews were the scapegoat, now the wealthy are the scapegoat.
Yeah, I'm terrified that the people with all the money and power are suddenly going to be rounded up and killed. Because having all the money and power is fun, but certainly isn't useful in that sort of situation.
quote:When the masses are mad enough at the "rich" they will tolerate higher taxes for the greedy elite.
Dude, are you seriously going to suggest that increasing the top marginal tax rate by a couple percentage points is even remotely equivalent to, say, shipping people to gas chambers in cattle cars?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I fail to see where I suggested such a thing. You did. Societal scapegoats, a means of stirring up support for increased taxation. I'm certainly not wealthy but I understand increasing taxes results in layoffs and higher prices for the little guy. The poor pay in the end. They'll get you mad at the oil companies and charge them "windfall profits tax" and the liberals cheer....gas prices go up. Sheep.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Swap "Jew" with "rich" and our administration sounds a lot like 1930's Germany.
THIS IS WHERE YOU SUGGESTED IT!
You might have missed that with all that hyperbole blocking you from the real world.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, for...'the gov't created the banking crisis'. Oh, really?
The government is culpable in the banking crisis to be sure, but they're not the only parties. It's not as though The Wealthy were out doing chores in front of their house, shoveling snow out of the walkway, when The Government (complete in leather jacket, smoking a cigarette) sidled up and said, "Pst, hey kid! C'mere," and then hoodwinked the responsible but naive Wealthy into doing something wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm certainly not wealthy but I understand increasing taxes results in layoffs and higher prices for the little guy.
Not necessarily. There's an issue of marginal utility that's quite relevant, especially when money is tight. In a nutshell, a dollar has much lower marginal utility to the rich than to the poor. More importantly, a dollar in the hands of the rich has lower utility to the economy than a dollar in the hands of the poor. When the economy is bad and you want to stimulate spending, giving money to the rich is the wrong way to do it; it is far more efficient to take money away from the rich and give it to the poor, who are far more likely to spend it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
See, that's the argument I never understand. What's wrong with the rich guy saving the money? He's got it invested somewhere and that bank or insurance company or brokerage is going to loan the money out. It doesn't disappear from the economy because the rich guy saves it.
I'm not convinced that there's a class of people who are more deserving than others. Everyone seems just as entitled to whatever thay can legaly earn to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. You still think of money as being something people "deserve," as if it were a measure of worth. This is a very bad way to think about economics, IMO.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm interested in keeping money in the hands of the people who make it, generally, because that's what usually makes the most people the most well off.
There are a number of people on the low end not handled by the system, though, so I'm perfectly fine with taxing the wealthy (edit: and to varying extents other people, as appropriate) to remedy those iniquities. (Just as I'm fine with establishing a strong system of property rights in the first place to remedy other iniquities).
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I don't think Tom is talking about whether people deserve money, but where it is most useful. As I understand it (and I'd say my grasp is tenuous as best), one of the problems with our economy right now is the banks have no idea how much liability they have, and so they don't really want to make loans to businesses. So if someone gets money and gives it to the bank, and if the bank then sits on it, very little has been done to stimulate the economy. Contrast that with a person who is barely making ends meet. They're unlikely to put it in the bank instead of spending it on, say, medical care they've been putting off because they couldn't afford it. Even if the clinic then turns around and just saves the money, at least it's done a little more for the economy than if it had immediately been saved.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:inequities
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yeah, well, there's plenty of iniquity that needs to be remedied, too.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: You still think of money as being something people "deserve," as if it were a measure of worth.
When you talk about giving to a group or taking away from a group, I do think we should ask if someone deserves it. Mostly because I agree with this:
quote: I'm interested in keeping money in the hands of the people who make it, generally, because that's what usually makes the most people the most well off.
If you earned it or someone left it to you, it's yours. You should get to keep as much of it as you can or spend as much as you want to. But I also think you should live with those consequences. If you spend it all, the rich guy shouldn't have to give you part of his money to make up for your bad decisions.
I'm cool with social safety nets. Unemployment is a wonderful thing. Temporary welfare I have no problems with. I'd actually like to see more education available for people on what they can get help with from the billions of groups across the country. I just don't like it when help crosses the line to a way of life, and I see that as a potential consequence of treating the rich like the poor man's ATM.
quote: So if someone gets money and gives it to the bank, and if the bank then sits on it, very little has been done to stimulate the economy.
I agree with this, as well. I just don't see where taking from the rich and giving to the poor would fix that. Right problem, wrong solution, in my opinion.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
AvidReader.
I should take a lesson from your eloquence. I'm the local right wing racist nut job.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack started by govt, regulated by government to back "toxic loans" and holding 40% of the American Mortgages went first. Bush admin warned Barnie Frank in 2003 but he was too busy being the #1 recipient of their campaign contributions. (If you ignore the California bank that had a run on it after a Democratic sentator from a different state said it was going to fail) Have we forgotten about the impending economic collapse of other governemt creations,,social security, medcaire/medicaid. Rather than address existing problems, blame AIG. AIG insured these loans, the packaging and repackaging was a Fannie Freddie thing, a govt thing to encourage banks to lend to people who couldn't otherwise afford it. Come to find out, they really couldn't.
[ March 23, 2009, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. It's like you're building a straw man out of other straw men.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Scott: no, I meant iniquities. I am generally not interested in remedying economic inequities. I think many of them are structurally necessary to ensuring things like enough food for everyone. I am, however, very interested in remedying economic iniquities, such as starvation, lack of housing, that sort of thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wow. It's like you're building a straw man out of other straw men.
Recycling is always a good idea.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Precisely, house of cards. Where was the foundation?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wow. It's like you're building a straw man out of other straw men.
It's a strawmen cheerleader pyramid. A wickerman!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wow. It's like you're building a straw man out of other straw men.
A straw golem
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's not what a golem is. Golems are made of inanimate matter, like clay, then animated.
Not scavenged bits of other simulacra.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wow. It's like you're building a straw man out of other straw men.
I think I saw that in an anime once.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wow. It's like you're building a straw man out of other straw men.
Now, if I only had a brain made out of other brains.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Mad cow!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wow. It's like you're building a straw man out of other straw men.
Now, if I only had a brain made out of other brains.
You could be a zombie Lincoln.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Here you go, a needle in the haystack and tells everything I mentioned. The change you wanted from the home town of Obama. The ultra-right Chicago tribune. Fannie and Freddie, long time Dem piggy bank and the Pres's right hand man....Change we can believe in.
Spoiler alert....If you want to maintain your illusions, do not read the entire article.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Here you go, a needle in the haystack and tells everything I mentioned. The change you wanted from the home town of Obama. The ultra-right Chicago tribune. Fannie and Freddie, long time Dem piggy bank and the Pres's right hand man....Change we can believe in.
Spoiler alert....If you want to maintain your illusions, do not read the entire article.
What, no comment, iteresting...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I can't remember -- are you supposed to be idiot-Locke or idiot-Demosthenes?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Achievement Unlocked: New Titular Attack Strategy
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm a little confused, mal: what is that article supposed to prove, from your POV? I'm looking for an intersection between it and any of the other arguments you've been making, and I can't find any.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I want to know what you think it's proving as well.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Did you read it.
Fannie/Freddi govt created. Pushed by govt to give crappy loans >40% of all American home loans First to collapse causing this whole mess Did you see the Millions in fines for them cooking their books under Emanuel's watch? Fined for political funding for Emanuel and other D's. Full of corrupt Democrats Obama's Right hand man, must be nice to get an appointment to do nothing and make $320,000 as a political payoff.
The gov't caused our economic problem. They lowered lending standards. Forced Fannie/Freddie to package up these "toxic loans". Government concern and intervention in the home mortgage market caused the economic collapse. Zero down, etc, etc. Fannie and Freddie are long time Democrat political payoff places. Bleading heart policies lead to this problem and now the same idiots who caused it want you to blame "the banks". It was "their bank" the keystone for the whole economic collapse. AIG insured other companies from loss but the loss wasn't their fault.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mal, where are you drawing those conclusions from the article? Take 'em one at a time if you have to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Count me in on the people who want to know where what you're saying (what I can translate of it, anyway) follows from what you're presenting.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
One of the resources I found incredibly helpful in understanding what caused the financial crisis is a This American Life episode called "The Giant Pool of Money." I highly recommend it. "Another Scary Show About the Economy" is also great. It explains the freezing of the credit market and why government intervention was necessary.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: The gov't caused our economic problem.
I think I'm more comfortable saying uneven regulation combined with greed and a get rich quick mentality caused our current mess.
The government is by no means blameless, but I'm not sure you can really point your finger at them and say they're the guys who done it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Ever lowing interest rates drove the housing bubble. The economy was flourishing under a bubble being fed by the Fed lowing interest rates to record lows.
Record home sales and the govt intervened. Remember Red Lining? Lower lending standards pressed on banks, especially Fannie/Freddie which baught up the zero down high risk loans and eventually held 40% of the countries mortgages.
Fannie/Freddie, govt created banks, dual regulated by govt and civilians, Emanuel one of them, collapsed. The intent of the loans was good. Get poor people into houses, etc but when a bank collapses that holds 40% of American mortgages, there are serious reprocusions. Fannie and Freddie had been repeatedly fined for cooking books and the boards were chaired by polital appointees.
Barny Frank was warned by Bush administration in 2003. He denied there were problems and insisted that more stringent regulations would only decrease the homepurchasing ability of poor people.
They collapse causing chain reaction of collapses.
Bubble, govt created. Bank, govt created. Deregulated lending standards, best intentions but no private bank would give those loans until Fan/Fred were directed to bundle them up.
Greed at all levels, govt and private but govt interference in private sector lending practices and pushing the prime rate down caused it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Malanthrop, you said: "The economy was flourishing under a bubble being fed by the Fed lowing interest rates to record lows." You mean to say you are blaming Alan Greenspan?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama's Right hand man, must be nice to get an appointment to do nothing and make $320,000 as a political payoff.
Chief of Staff's Office is to the left of the oval.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Yes. Republicans were definitely complicit. We need more conservatives. Lower interest rates alone didn't cause the problem. Deregulation of lending standards by the government along with the low interest rates caused it. Without the zero down loans pushed by gov, lowered interest rates alone would've only meant even better deals for the rich. Republicans, Dems, Banks all complicit. I look at it like the fire triangle, Heat, Air, Fuel. Take away one and the fire stops. The govt isn't alone in blame but I hold them more responsible. They created the environment. Maybe the greatest example of govt good intentions gone bad. Keep lowing rates to stimulate the economy. Lower lending standards (income, savings, down payment) so the poor can get into a house. You can't deny the house buying craze this created. The flippers took advantage of this as well. Home ownership is not a right for everyone regardless of income. Sorry to say, some people should be renters.
[ March 27, 2009, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama's Right hand man, must be nice to get an appointment to do nothing and make $320,000 as a political payoff.
Chief of Staff's Office is to the left of the oval.
Actually I thought I saw a layout of the Oval that had Rahm's office down the hall from Obama rather than attached to it like in The West Wing.
I'm just barely curious enough to check up on that and get back to you.
By the way, scroll down the page about halfway for a much younger picture of former Chiefs of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (didn't know that about either of them). Cheney by the way looks just as creepy in his younger form as he does today.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
In the Bush white house, when leaving the oval office, the chief of staff's office was to your left. (Number 13)
I use that point of reference because it would stand to reason that the President faces the door in the Oval Office, so by that orientation it would still be to the left.
(You're right that it's not like the West Wing where they have the offices connected, but I was still referring to the real white house where going to your right would lead to the cabinet room. )
ETA: I am quite well acquainted with how Dick Cheney looked when he was younger. I have a friend who insists that I look a lot like him. Because of this, I took it on myself to find enough discrepancies between how I look and how Cheney does/did. In wasn't fun mapping out Cheney's face, I can assure you. (If you're curious, the photo we used in our argument was this one.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Apologies on the attempted correction. I made an assumption about your statement and ran with the ball.
You should get the 80's glasses and go as Rummy for Halloween. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Maybe the phrase "Right hand man" is offensive to left handed people.
What if it's a female and you're lefthanded? It would only be appropriate to refer to her as you "left hand woman"
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I wonder if sitting at the right hand really has anything to do with right handedness or if it's just a fluke?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Of course, being left-handed is sinister. Says so in the dictionary. Our current president is sinister.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If it's in the dictionary...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Also, I believe the French word for left-handed is gauche. Too bad that in English the word means clumsy or crude or tactless.
And the favorite comeback of lefties is to note that because the human brain is cross-wired, so the right part of the brain controls the left side of the body, and vise versa, lefties are always in their right minds. (So they say.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Sorry, I thought you were joking. Are you seriously putting forth as a legitimate political argument the superstitions surrounding the left-handed?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Of course not, Teshi! Didn't you note my smilie above?
I'm just surprised that so few people have commented thus far on the fact that Pres. Obama is left-handed. It is somewhat unusual, since only about 1/10 of the population is leftie.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
We've actually had a lot of lefty presidents. Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagen, Truman, Ford and others were lefties as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: Six out of eight members of my family are lefty, I'm pretty certain that left or right handedness has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with environment. I think many children arbitrarily pick a hand or copy what they see their parents/teachers do during the crucial time where learning to write takes place.
Were we to place a stigma on right handedness and encourage lefties I am fairly certain we could see 90% left handedness and 10% right handedness.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There is a lot of evidence that left-handedness is due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors, and neither one alone.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There is a lot of evidence that left-handedness is due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors, and neither one alone.
*fires up the google machine*
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
What about LRRTM1? Left handed people tend to have one variation of that gene at a higher percentage then right handed people.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
One hypothesis I've heard that there is a dominant gene for right-handedness and a recessive one for ambidexterity. If roughly half the ambidextrous population "chooses" left-handedness, this yields a rough estimate of 12.5% of the population, which is close to the actual figure.
YMMV.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm still reading, but it seems that writing may not be a good indicator for "left" or "right" handedness. Quite a few people write with one hand while doing virtually everything else with the other. I'm one of these people as a matter of coincidence.
I would still like to see if any experiments have been done where they attempted to influence a group of children into doing things left handed. I think that if there was a concerted effort that we could heavily influence a persons preference.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I know of a couple of people whose parents forced them to be right-handed, but none the other way around.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I know parents who have joked about forcing the kids to be left handed, based on some research that left handed folks are richer and smarter. They never actually did it, but lots of jokes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It was not uncommon in the 50s and 60s for parents (and others) to strongly encourage (i.e., force) lefties to become righties. IIRC, the frequent side effects were bed-wetting and other signs of psychological trauma -- even when it worked.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
My friend from elementary school was rather sternly forced to write with his right hand. He always, always struggled with it. He's kinda dyslexic now and has never mastered proficiency of reading and writing. He can read, slowly. He can 'write,' but can't spell worth a damn.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
That evokes the old question of nature vs. nurture. Most counsellors today recommend letting the kids determine their own handedness, without any pressure at all.
My father was unquestionably left-handed. He played on the Army All-Star baseball team as a left-handed catcher. My brothers and I always were amused and a little perplexed by his left-handed catcher's mit. I and my three brothers and my sister are all right-handed. My mother said they never applied any pressure on us to choose one hand over the other. They said for a while they thought I might be left-handed, because I used my left hand for so many things, like opening doors. But I turned out to be right-handed when it came to writing and throwing. I did try to teach myself to throw a baseball left-handed, thinking I might be ambidextrous. I could do so fairly accurately, but I was never as good that way as I was right-handed. Of course, since I was in the habit of using my right arm most of the time, my right arm was stronger.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
One of my parents is a lefty. I always forget which one. Two (I think) of my four sibs are lefties (I'm a righty). My ex is a lefty, and one of my three kids is a lefty.
All of which would be consistent with left-handedness being a recessive gene (and me a carrier, just like whichever of my parents is a righty). However, there are righties with two lefty parents . . .
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I was sent to a Catholic school in grade 2 where I sat next to a lefty. The nuns strictly enforced a right hand only policy. If they caught him using his left hand for anything he got a ruler across the knuckles. They would walk up behind him quietly if he started using his left hand and bring the ruler down without mercy. I would desperately want to warn him but kept silent out of fear. The poor kid was too afraid of the nuns to even ask if he could go to the bathroom so he often lost control and peed himself. He would sit there quietly crying until the nuns noticed the mess he made. His punishment, of course, was another vicious ruler.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
My daughter is a lefty. Her younger brother tried to be one but it didn't work out. He really wanted to be like his sister. In his case, it wasn't an option really.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
My daughter is left handed. Her little brother tried desperately for a time to be just like her. Didn't work out. In his case, being right handed wasn't really an option.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm still reading, but it seems that writing may not be a good indicator for "left" or "right" handedness. Quite a few people write with one hand while doing virtually everything else with the other. I'm one of these people as a matter of coincidence.
I would still like to see if any experiments have been done where they attempted to influence a group of children into doing things left handed. I think that if there was a concerted effort that we could heavily influence a persons preference.
I am right eye dominate, and I use to shoot a bow left handed, well enough to win competitions when I was a kid. I also still shoot pool left handed, and I use to bowl left handed.
I write right handed, and I now shoot a bow and bowl right handed (when I try to do either).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kwea, you sound like you may actually be ambidextrous. You could have chosen, or been encouraged, to choose left- or right-handedness, and it probably would not have had a seriously harmful effect on you, either way.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: I was sent to a Catholic school in grade 2 where I sat next to a lefty. The nuns strictly enforced a right hand only policy. If they caught him using his left hand for anything he got a ruler across the knuckles. They would walk up behind him quietly if he started using his left hand and bring the ruler down without mercy. I would desperately want to warn him but kept silent out of fear. The poor kid was too afraid of the nuns to even ask if he could go to the bathroom so he often lost control and peed himself. He would sit there quietly crying until the nuns noticed the mess he made. His punishment, of course, was another vicious ruler.
And this is why catholic schools are evil.
I'm also left handed.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
It's fun to try and write your name with your non-dominant hand. It makes me feel like I'm in kindergarten again.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I can write with both of my hands, so no kindergarten escape for me :/
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kwea, you sound like you may actually be ambidextrous. You could have chosen, or been encouraged, to choose left- or right-handedness, and it probably would not have had a seriously harmful effect on you, either way.
My understanding, although it may be flawed, is that people who are actually ambidextrous can do things equally as well with both hands. I can't, even with things that I haven't trained myself on yet. I have thought of that....and I think I would have chosen being right handed eventually. However, my handwriting is horrible at least in part because I took so long to decide as a child. Initially my teachers tried to let me decide, but after a year or two with no noticeable improvement with either hand, they made me right handed.
I think over all I am better right handed at most things, but I suspect that like a lot of people there is a sliding scale with these types of things. I know that I haven't spend half as much time learning to shoot a bow with my right hand, but I am almost as good as I was as a child. I think my potential to do things is higher right handed, but in some things my comfort level is better left handed.
I use to shoot pool really well.....I gave lessons and everything.....and while I CAN shoot a little right handed, I am far better left handed. While the eye dominance is a factor, it simply would take me too long to retrain myself, and there is no guarantee I'd ever regain the skill I already have left handed.
And I tried shooting a rifle left handed, and it was horrible. My right eye dominance was really evident, and I couldn't hit a thing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm fairly similar Kwea. I write left handed, but I throw balls right handed. I used to be able to bat either way, which was fantastic when playing in little league (I prefer right handed now). I can still use scissors in either hand but I slightly favor the right. My right hand is more dexterous than my left when I play piano, I also shoot right handed.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Shooting a rifle requires spatial perception, and if I remember right, that function is centered in the left hemisphere of the brain, which because of cross-wiring, controls the right side of the body. Though I am not sure if that includes the right eye, which you aim with (sighting down the rifle barrel), when shooting right-handed. Or maybe I've got that wrong, the right hemisphere controls the right eye, and the spacial perception function is centered in the right hemisphere.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)