FARK.com: (6903511) A perfect illustration of the circular logic that took place on Tuesday......Thoughts On The SOTU from Clark Judge

(Some Guy)		A perfect illustration of the circular logic that took place on Tuesday......Thoughts On The SOTU from Clark Judge (hughhewitt.com)		54
		More: Interesting, begs the question, Economic sector

• • •

2062 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jan 2012 at 9:19 AM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6903511

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

54 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

abb3w

2012-01-26 09:04:23 AM

For sufficiently Republican values of "thoughts"....

make me some tea

2012-01-26 09:11:33 AM

Couldn't he at least hit Enter after each point? My eyes are hurting.

PirateKing

2012-01-26 09:24:59 AM

Let the paragraph into your heart, Clark. Or bullets. Let bullets into your heart.

/Bullet points! I mean Bullet Points!

randomjsa

2012-01-26 09:25:19 AM

make me some tea: Couldn't he at least hit Enter after each point? My eyes are hurting.

This.

REO-Weedwagon

2012-01-26 09:26:01 AM

I love how at his website you can "Join the Hughniverse".
texasgopvote.com

Lou Brown

2012-01-26 09:26:04 AM

I made it to about the second line before giving up.

symbols.cachefly.net

Kaeishiwaza

2012-01-26 09:26:09 AM

It took him 22 points to make a circle in the logic? Or is he just trying to cause eye strain with a wall of text?

Hack Patooey

2012-01-26 09:26:47 AM

I got to about point 4, my eyes started hurting, and I quit reading. I'm sure he thinks the writing style is awesome, but its impossible to read.

sprawl15

2012-01-26 09:27:45 AM

I think that this 1) article seems to have been 2) simply copypasta'd off a blog that III) sucks. The 4) writer seems to love E) himself talking, because 6) there's no other valid excuse 7) beyond brain damage for asking 8) so many rhetorical questions of 10) a leading nature.

PanicMan

2012-01-26 09:28:06 AM

Your blog sucks. Seriously.

Lost Thought 00

2012-01-26 09:29:22 AM

To be circular, you must, at a minimum, start and end at the same point

Point 1: banks will be punished if their lending is too risky
Point 21: and make [state and local municipalities] adopt his policies for running their schools

I don't get it

CravenMorehead

2012-01-26 09:29:42 AM

Someone actually read that wall of text? Not worth the time or effort.

Sock Ruh Tease

2012-01-26 09:29:55 AM

Clark Judge

Who?

King Something

2012-01-26 09:29:55 AM

F*****g paragraph breaks, how do they work?

sprawl15

2012-01-26 09:31:50 AM

Kaeishiwaza: It took him 22 points to make a circle in the logic? Or is he just trying to cause eye strain with a wall of text?

The stupid thing is that he could have just ended after point 2, and gone into more detail.

1) Banks are being punished for making risky loans
2) The same agency punishing them will make them give out more loans, presumably to those who wouldn't receive them normally due to their high risk

I mean, it would have still been a talking point completely ignorant of the state of the loan problems the nation is facing, but it wouldn't need a surgeon general's warning label to advise pregnant women to not read his shiatty blog.

LockeOak

2012-01-26 09:33:00 AM

I immediately saw an ad for a "gold buying kit" and took my leave.

imontheinternet

2012-01-26 09:35:17 AM

Paid for by the Committee for Giant Walls of Text Against Obama.

wmoonfox

2012-01-26 09:41:25 AM

That any "managing director" of so many professional-sounding organizations would cobble together such an unreadable mess of words and numbers and classify it as anything resembling serious criticism says much about said professional-sounding organizations -- and none of it good.

Ninepoundhammer

2012-01-26 09:43:12 AM

remember when fark was links to articles from news outlets with funny headlines?

s2s2s2

2012-01-26 09:44:19 AM

PirateKing: /Bullet points! I mean Bullet Points!

You mean surveyor's points, right?

Craptastic

2012-01-26 09:44:47 AM

So I hover over the link, see Hugh Hewitt, realized it's going to be stupid, and say "Nope."

Cndn Bacon

2012-01-26 09:47:59 AM

This should make it a little easier to read (yes there are actually two #11's):

But let me get this straight:

1) banks will be punished (do I understand this right, by a committee headed by Eric Holder?) if their lending is too risky,

2) and they will be required (by the same committee) to give more home loans (meaning, it must be, to people who would otherwise not qualify for the loans, or else the government would not have to be involved) at lower rates (which means rates that do not compensate them as much as the market says they need to be compensated for the risks they are taking, all of which sounds like a new edition of the policies that brought on the financial collapse),

3) which must mean that they will have to pull back on risky lending someplace other than homes,

4) the only place that most banks would be able to pull back on riskier customers would be loans to small and new businesses,

5) but these are the businesses that have created just about all the jobs over the last 20 years and he said early in the speech he wants to encourage them,

6) so maybe their growth capital will come from selling stock to the kinds of people who invest in new and small businesses,

7) but through the Buffet Rule he's going to double the tax rate on investment income for those people, meaning that, like the banks, they can't be fully compensated for the risk of backing small and new businesses,

8) so they will not invest more in small and new companies but in big established firms,

9) so more of those small and new firms will have to turn to the government for capital,

10) which luckily he said would up its investing in early stage businesses with "the best" ideas,

11) "the best" ideas meaning, I guess, as with Solyndra, ideas that advance his agenda through companies whose owners support his candidacy),

11) or maybe it would be companies that agree to invite unionization (since the unions have failed to organize the new and dynamic sectors of the economy, which is why they have been shrinking),

12) but then with the big businesses, he wants to punish American companies if they invest overseas,

13) and he wants to increase exports,

14) but being competitive in the global markets often means having part of your production near your markets, which is why many companies have opened production facilities abroad and many foreign companies (BMW and Honda, for example) have opened their facilities here,

15) so he'll make these companies less competitive, meaning less able to export anything that might be paired with some other product the company makes abroad in order to attract buyers,

16) and it also means he'll have the U.S. ignoring many of the international trading rules of which we have been the principal sponsor since the end of WWII, rules that have led to an incredible growth in widely shared wealth all over the planet,

17) which means that, if he follows through, he'll blow up the post-WWII global economic system,

18) which in the very short run may help the uncompetitive American labor unions but in the not-so-long run would devastate every economy on earth,

19) but it would also mean he would be in a position to decide where big companies could invest, and when, just as he'll be in control of all new and small businesses, too,

20) meanwhile he is going to tell states and localities what their budget priorities should be,

21) and make them adopt his policies for running their schools, leaving me to wonder, when he's through, what won't he control?

I believe that's what I heard the president advocate last night. But one term I didn't hear, maybe I missed it: "The Constitution." Then again, wasn't he suggesting that, in brave times like these, we need to put aside those old rules. Do I have this straight?

SpectroBoy

2012-01-26 09:48:08 AM

abb3w: For sufficiently Republican values of "thoughts"....

Winner!

starsrift

2012-01-26 09:49:09 AM

For those biatching about the format:

1) banks will be punished (do I understand this right, by a committee headed by Eric Holder?) if their lending is too risky,
2) and they will be required (by the same committee) to give more home loans (meaning, it must be, to people who would otherwise not qualify for the loans, or else the government would not have to be involved) at lower rates (which means rates that do not compensate them as much as the market says they need to be compensated for the risks they are taking, all of which sounds like a new edition of the policies that brought on the financial collapse),
3) which must mean that they will have to pull back on risky lending someplace other than homes,
4) the only place that most banks would be able to pull back on riskier customers would be loans to small and new businesses,
5) but these are the businesses that have created just about all the jobs over the last 20 years and he said early in the speech he wants to encourage them,
6) so maybe their growth capital will come from selling stock to the kinds of people who invest in new and small businesses,
7) but through the Buffet Rule he's going to double the tax rate on investment income for those people, meaning that, like the banks, they can't be fully compensated for the risk of backing small and new businesses,
8) so they will not invest more in small and new companies but in big established firms,
9) so more of those small and new firms will have to turn to the government for capital,
10) which luckily he said would up its investing in early stage businesses with "the best" ideas,
11) "the best" ideas meaning, I guess, as with Solyndra, ideas that advance his agenda through companies whose owners support his candidacy),
11) or maybe it would be companies that agree to invite unionization (since the unions have failed to organize the new and dynamic sectors of the economy, which is why they have been shrinking),
12) but then with the big businesses, he wants to punish American companies if they invest overseas,
13) and he wants to increase exports,
14) but being competitive in the global markets often means having part of your production near your markets, which is why many companies have opened production facilities abroad and many foreign companies (BMW and Honda, for example) have opened their facilities here,
15) so he'll make these companies less competitive, meaning less able to export anything that might be paired with some other product the company makes abroad in order to attract buyers,
16) and it also means he'll have the U.S. ignoring many of the international trading rules of which we have been the principal sponsor since the end of WWII, rules that have led to an incredible growth in widely shared wealth all over the planet,
17) which means that, if he follows through, he'll blow up the post-WWII global economic system,
18) which in the very short run may help the uncompetitive American labor unions but in the not-so-long run would devastate every economy on earth,
19) but it would also mean he would be in a position to decide where big companies could invest, and when, just as he'll be in control of all new and small businesses, too,
20) meanwhile he is going to tell states and localities what their budget priorities should be,
21) and make them adopt his policies for running their schools, leaving me to wonder, when he's through, what won't he control?

Yes, 11 comes twice. Even he can't read what the hell he wrote.
I thought points 1 to 5 were kind of an interesting take - can they be disproved?

oryx

2012-01-26 09:49:22 AM

Bullet points are a completely alien concept to Clark Judge. I tip my hat to anybody who was actually to read that mess. I couldn't.

starsrift

2012-01-26 09:50:06 AM

Cndn Bacon *shakes tiny fist*

MisterLoki

2012-01-26 09:50:14 AM

Does anyone know how I can receive a gold investors kit?

BMulligan

2012-01-26 09:52:06 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: Clark Judge

Who?

Came here to say this.

LasersHurt

2012-01-26 09:52:48 AM

So it's a bunch of non-sequitur, got it.

"Well they'll have to cut back on investment, and clearly the only place to do that is in small businesses, yup."

RussianPooper

2012-01-26 09:55:45 AM

If you're going to expect the federal government to back up your investors in the event you can't manage risk effectively, you should expect the federal government might want to have a say in how you run your business.

Lost Thought 00

2012-01-26 09:56:21 AM

starsrift: I thought points 1 to 5 were kind of an interesting take - can they be disproved?

It's tough to disprove a prophecy of the future, but a few of his assumptions are off. Specifically

the only place that most banks would be able to pull back on riskier customers would be loans to small and new businesses

is demonstrably incorrect, as most banks could also tone down the risk they take on their own investments in stocks, bonds, and derivatives. Though no one can predict exactly how any individual bank would choose to adjust their risk portfolio. The idea that all modern banks do is take in savings and lend it back out is laughably naive. Income from lending is only a minor part of the business for most banks.

sprawl15

2012-01-26 09:57:01 AM

starsrift: I thought points 1 to 5 were kind of an interesting take - can they be disproved?

They're based on farking retarded assumptions.

It assumes that banks simply cannot afford to provide the loans being requested/required by the government. Considering how much liquid capital everyone in the farking world is sitting on right now, this is an idiotic assumption. It also assumes the only two kinds of risky loans in the entire world are loans to poor people and loans to small businesses.

The funniest part? Obama did not say what this moron thinks he did:

And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system's core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.

So if you're a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers' deposits. You're required to write out a "living will" that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail - because the rest of us aren't bailing you out ever again. And if you're a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can't afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.

So his stupid assumptions are hyperbolic nonsense to address a strawman.

Geotpf

2012-01-26 10:00:36 AM

The thing about home loans is a good point. You can either give out more loans, or not give out loans to people who are poor credit risks. You can't do both at the same time.

sprawl15

2012-01-26 10:03:30 AM

Geotpf: The thing about home loans is a good point. You can either give out more loans, or not give out loans to people who are poor credit risks. You can't do both at the same time.

Sure you can.

PanicMan

2012-01-26 10:03:47 AM

starsrift: I thought points 1 to 5 were kind of an interesting take - can they be disproved?

Point 1 is flawed:

1) banks will be punished if their lending is too risky

From the SOTU:

So if you're a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers' deposits. You're required to write out a "living will" that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail -- because the rest of us aren't bailing you out ever again. And if you're a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can't afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.

PanicMan

2012-01-26 10:06:23 AM

**shakes fist at sprawl15**

Dr Dreidel

2012-01-26 10:07:20 AM

Thanks for making the format readable. I suppose I could have done the same thing with Notepad, but I am lazy.

Anyway, the doubled 11 seems to be more of a "11a and 11b" than a "HA! I forgot how to count." Here's how it should(?) look:

"11) "the best" ideas meaning, I guess, a) as with Solyndra, ideas that advance his agenda through companies whose owners support his candidacy), or b) maybe it would be companies that agree to invite unionization (since the unions have failed to organize the new and dynamic sectors of the economy, which is why they have been shrinking),"

His point is still dumb, and if any pair of editorial eyes saw and approved that before posting it publicly, they should be set upon by packs of rabid ferrets with hip dysplasia.

RussianPooper

2012-01-26 10:09:12 AM

TFerWannaBe

2012-01-26 10:21:54 AM

sprawl15

2012-01-26 10:25:43 AM

RussianPooper: Geotpf: The thing about home loans is a good point. You can either give out more loans, or not give out loans to people who are poor credit risks. You can't do both at the same time.

What about people who aren't poor credit risks who can't get loans?

Well, if you look at Obama's SOTU speech, he says that he is going to give every poor person a cell phone and a copy of Karl Marx's works. He's going to pay for this by taking all the guns and smelting them down to build statues of himself, which will be mandatory for schools, banks, courthouses, and other public buildings to display. While our metal industry is recovering, the vast differences in gun metals makes these statues a risky proposition, and banks will shy away from loaning. It really shows Obama's inexperience in metallurgy.

Leader O'Cola

2012-01-26 10:27:20 AM

BMulligan: Sock Ruh Tease: Clark Judge

Who?

Came here to say this.

To be fair, he does outpace Pete Crisco on CBS NFL experts picks. He still would finish about 8th in my 12 person league though.

Chameleon

2012-01-26 10:32:35 AM

Cndn Bacon: This should make it a little easier to read (yes there are actually two #11's):
Thanks for this, though it's still the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen. Learn to use punctuation, dude. (Not you, Bacon.)

Anyway, my favorites:
7) but through the Buffet Rule he's going to double the tax rate on investment income for those people, meaning that, like the banks, they can't be fully compensated for the risk of backing small and new businesses

You mean they'll absolutely be fully compensated but they'll have to actually pay taxes on that income in the same amount that us working plebes have to pay?

8) so they will not invest more in small and new companies but in big established firms,

Which makes no sense since those investments will also be taxed at the same rate, which they already are so why would this change any reasonable investor's portfolio?

11(#1) "the best" ideas meaning, I guess, as with Solyndra, ideas that advance his agenda through companies whose owners support his candidacy),

And which was chosen to receive the loans by the Bush administration before Obama even became president.

12) but then with the big businesses, he wants to punish American companies if they ~~invest~~ rely on near-slave labor and no environmental oversight overseas,

Fixed that for you, dude.

17) which means that, if he follows through, he'll blow up the post-WWII global economic system,

Hyperbole much? "Also, he is going to punch out every puppy. Then, he'll blow up the ocean!!"

20) meanwhile he is going to tell states and localities what their budget priorities should be,

Or, like every president ever he's going to suggest sweeping policies and work to have local governments adopt them?

21) and make them adopt his policies for running their schools,

Like NCLB? My god, what unprecedented evil these Democrats have wroth!

leaving me to wonder, when he's through, what won't he control?

Nothing. He will have everything in his murky grasp. He will send mind rays into your dreams. He will give your wife mental images of himself naked. He will control the horizontal and the vertical.

leaving me to wonder, when he's through, what won't he control?

masercot

2012-01-26 10:33:26 AM

Let's see...Obama was saying, "Don't sit on the big pile of money we loaned you at no interest; and, don't just distribute it to your friends as bad loans"

I don't see a conflict here...

Krieghund

2012-01-26 10:56:24 AM

Geotpf

2012-01-26 11:09:53 AM

Dr Dreidel

2012-01-26 11:25:09 AM

Geotpf: RussianPooper: Geotpf: The thing about home loans is a good point. You can either give out more loans, or not give out loans to people who are poor credit risks. You can't do both at the same time.

What about people who aren't poor credit risks who can't get loans?

If you aren't a poor credit risk, you can get a loan.

Let's ask the Farkers reading this: Does anybody here with a high FICO score have difficultly in getting a personal loan (for a car or house, etc.)? I doubt it.

My roommate did. He bought the house we (and his wife) now live in; closed the sale May 2009 (at the height of this mess).

High FICO score, as he'd never been late on his CC payments and such before, yet it took 4 banks and a world of hurt to get a loan for a <$250k house. Yes, he was a single guy on ~$50k yearly income, but made a decent down payment and had two long-term tenants to split the rent (I don't know how much of that he told them, though).

From our point of view, it seemed a bit silly that the bank would rather have a vacant property than sell as a first house to a guy about to get married (they did so last Memorial Day) - and with a third support for the mortgage - and collect a mortgage for 30 years.

// bonus: the small amount of work he's done on the house so far, combined with the recovering market, has raised its value by about $15-20k
// and it's got far more curb appeal than it used to

starsrift

2012-01-26 12:12:20 PM

Lost Thought 00:
sprawl15:

Hmmm, I suppose those points seem interesting because they are reasonably logical, even if evidently based on false data. I guess the crux of the matter is, if the banks are reduced to primarily lending in order to make money, then they're going to have to farking lend, and they're not gonna turn away small businesses with reasonable expectations of returns.

BojanglesPaladin

2012-01-26 12:19:17 PM

starsrift: I thought points 1 to 5 were kind of an interesting take - can they be disproved?

No one is interested in disproving anything. It is sufficient to yell "Repuybs is teh stoopid!" and infer that any criticism of Obama is evidence of irrational bigotry or blind party allegience..

One does not defend Obama by disproving the criticism. One attacks the critic for being critical.

BojanglesPaladin

2012-01-26 12:26:57 PM

Geotpf: Let's ask the Farkers reading this: Does anybody here with a high FICO score have difficultly in getting a personal loan (for a car or house, etc.)? I doubt it.

We did. (And we are again).

Despite two salaries well above the median and only one modest car note, and mid 700 scores, it took us 6 months and 3 banks to re-finance 2 years ago. When we bought the house 5 yrears ago, it took us 10 days and the first bank.

Now despite having a FULL 20% downpayment, Higher scores than the first time, a perfect payment record and even higher salaries, we are now at almost a month without even a pre-approval for a LESS expensive house.

And let's not even get started on bussiness loand and lines of credit.

Anyone who argues that credit hasn't dried up is simply uninformed.

BuckTurgidson

2012-01-26 12:42:43 PM

Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.