WombatControl: gilgigamesh: It's a nonsensical idea, and it always has been.

People who successfully accumulate massive wealth are greedy. I don't mean that as a pejorative, but to describe their motivation. They don't get where they are by being fair or generous. Corporations exist for one purpose: to generate profit for their owners.

So the theory that unfettering these entities from regulation will somehow lift all boats is preposterous. Unless you constrain them and force them to work within guidelines that take consideration of society at large, they will act in their natural capacity to make and horde as much wealth as possible regardless of the consequences to the rest of us.

First, let's get this out of the way. No one is talking about removing all regulations. Obama's comment was a pure straw man.

But let's get to the substance of your argument. Because it goes to the heart of why the policies of American "liberals"/progressives are wrong for this country.

Yes, the purpose of a business is to make money. That's their core mission, and there's a great deal of debate in corporate law and ethics circles about whether "corporate social resposibility" fits in with that idea. (For the record, I think it does to an extent. But that's a long and complicated debate.)

But that doesn't mean that corporations are evil or need to be "held in check" to "take consideration of society at large." For one, that statement doesn't mean anything - what specifically would you have the government do?

The larger problem with that statement is that government does not represent the interests of society at large. Government can never "create a level playing field." It can't arbitrate "fairness." It can't force "social justice" on business by regulatory fiat.

There's a fundamental reason why: governments are even more subject to corruption and self-interest than business. I realize that's a very difficult concept for a lot of people on the left, but it makes sense when you think about i ...

I feel bad for anyone that reads all of this

gilgigamesh: It's a nonsensical idea, and it always has been.

People who successfully accumulate massive wealth are greedy. I don't mean that as a pejorative, but to describe their motivation. They don't get where they are by being fair or generous. Corporations exist for one purpose: to generate profit for their owners.

So the theory that unfettering these entities from regulation will somehow lift all boats is preposterous. Unless you constrain them and force them to work within guidelines that take consideration of society at large, they will act in their natural capacity to make and horde as much wealth as possible regardless of the consequences to the rest of us.

Not to mention that businesses who actually do want to operate ethically often are glad to have sensible (notice I said sensible) standards to run within. This way, they don't go out of business because their competitor, who is utterly unethical, decides to undercut them by not paying employees fairly/lying to consumers/cutting corners on safety/polluting rather than disposing of waste properly/etc etc. If you don't have minimum standards, it is a race to the bottom every time, and the rest of the community suffers so a few at the top of a corporation can win big.

AverageAmericanGuy: So obviously the solution is to take all their money and everything is going to become better.

I believe you are really this stupid.

CPennypacker: I feel bad for anyone that reads all of this

It's like an Ayn Rand short story.

Catsaregreen: And that chart comparing pre- and post-1980 is totally worthless.

Would you call it an inconvenient truth?

Catsaregreen: Hate


You are a true dumbshiat.

Good article. Not a waste of bandwidth at all.

A good summary of Obama's accomplishments to date and his thoughts on the upcoming campaign.

I really enjoyed the fact that he didn't talk about Romney at all and just talked to Jann like an adult about what was going on in the country. The entire thing was actually kinda reassuring all in all despite the negatives he brought up. I agree with his assessment that the right have moved radically and in the wrong direction in the last 4 years and this election present a really stark contrast in terms of where the two parties want to take the country. I hope like he's right and that most Americans are decent minded fair individuals who will reject the double down on trickle down, hate on women, gays, minorities and non-Christians, 'increase the wealth gap through increased tax breaks for those who don't need them' derp the GOP are trying to sell them.

For some reason I really liked this bit from the beginning of that...

FTA: Clinton joked about the popularity of the fake Tumblr site Texts From Hillary Clinton, and Obama began to air-thumb an imaginary text. "See, I'm hip," he said with a laugh.

Made me smile.

As long as the guy is still enjoying the gig he will keep it.

As long as he is able to laugh in the face of the insanity of DC he will stay sane.

To be fair, deregulation in the general sense doesn't always hurt, what screwed us in the '80s was mostly deregulation of financial markets to allow and even encourage companies to put company resources into speculation and partial ownership outside the industry. Which obviously didn't turn out well when that turned out to have an ROI better than the original product of the company (the best example probably being Steel).

We could probably cut down the paperwork for individual businesses to make them more profitable and have a chance at the rising tide floating all boats, so long as we keep pushing to lock down the financial markets and especially speculation. I think raising the capital gains tax to less ridiculously low levels would be a good start at keeping things from getting too crazy.

Kibbler: AverageAmericanGuy: So obviously the solution is to take all their money and everything is going to become better.

Yeah, it's getting to the point that the top 0.01% is taxed nearly to death, barely has a nickle left over. Meanwhile the lucky ducky unemployed are eating free rice and beans and swilling 40's (am I right?) and grinning from ear to ear. They never had it so good, not since 1865 anyway. Am I right?


And refrigerated 40s at that!!!

/!!!

I hope like he's right,,,

FTFM.

/Soz. Turned into a Valley girl there for a second.

Side note: This picture in the sidebar is driving me nuts.

Philip Francis Queeg: CPennypacker: I feel bad for anyone that reads all of this

It's like an Ayn Rand short story.

Just be honest and say "tl;dr" and be done with it.

Complex arguments don't fit in bumper-sticker sized bits. If you want to learn things, you have to be willing to read.

(Another reason why the Fark Liberal™ sobriquet fits - a "liberal" is supposed to be someone with an open mind and a willingness to learn new things. A Fark Liberal™ instinctively rejects anything that doesn't fit into the box of their narrow worldview...)

Q: What's your relationship with the GOP leadership at this point? A little frosty?

A: It's not frosty. This isn't personal. When John Boehner and I sit down, I enjoy a conversation with him. I don't think he's a bad person. I think he's patriotic. I think that the Republicans up on the Hill care about this country, but they have a very ideologically rigid view of how to move this country forward, and a lot of how they approach issues is defined by "Will this help us defeat the president?" as opposed to "Will this move the country forward?"

THIS.

Deliberately dragging their feet during America's recovery and hoping to blame the ill effects on the president is no way to go through a national campaign.

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: CPennypacker: I feel bad for anyone that reads all of this

It's like an Ayn Rand short story.

Just be honest and say "tl;dr" and be done with it.

Complex arguments don't fit in bumper-sticker sized bits. If you want to learn things, you have to be willing to read.

(Another reason why the Fark Liberal™ sobriquet fits - a "liberal" is supposed to be someone with an open mind and a willingness to learn new things. A Fark Liberal™ instinctively rejects anything that doesn't fit into the box of their narrow worldview...)

Your short posts are retarded. Why would anyone waste their time on one that's 50 pages long? To learn things, indeed.

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: CPennypacker: I feel bad for anyone that reads all of this

It's like an Ayn Rand short story.

Just be honest and say "tl;dr" and be done with it.

Complex arguments don't fit in bumper-sticker sized bits. If you want to learn things, you have to be willing to read.

(Another reason why the Fark Liberal™ sobriquet fits - a "liberal" is supposed to be someone with an open mind and a willingness to learn new things. A Fark Liberal™ instinctively rejects anything that doesn't fit into the box of their narrow worldview...)

Find anything on that $10,000 building permit for a single shower yet?

WombatControl: No one is talking about removing all regulations.

And yet every time removing regulations fails to make things better, or actually makes things worse (like how the repeal of Glass-Steagall led to the 2008 crash), it's inevitably because we didn't remove enough.

WombatControl: gilgigamesh: It's a nonsensical idea, and it always has been.

People who successfully accumulate massive wealth are greedy. I don't mean that as a pejorative, but to describe their motivation. They don't get where they are by being fair or generous. Corporations exist for one purpose: to generate profit for their owners.

So the theory that unfettering these entities from regulation will somehow lift all boats is preposterous. Unless you constrain them and force them to work within guidelines that take consideration of society at large, they will act in their natural capacity to make and horde as much wealth as possible regardless of the consequences to the rest of us.

First...

It's not "corporation" or "big business" we should fear. Corporations come and they go.


Did not read the manifesto. Did read this sentence.

So terribly, naively wrong. Governments come and go too, in case you weren't aware of something called "elections."

Large powerful interests are always to be feared, whether government, corporate, political or anything else. "Nobody forces you to buy a Big Mac" is both true and entirely beside the point.

The marked difference between how Obama treats and refers to Republicans compared to how he is treated and referred to by Republicans is just one of the many, many reasons I'll be voting for him again this year.

AverageAmericanGuy: So obviously the solution is to take all their money and everything is going to become better.

Do you actually have to work at being retarded? Or does it come naturally to you?

WombatControl: You can sue corporations. Good luck suing the government. In fact, you can't sue the government without its permission. And the courts have basically given administrative agencies free reign to do whatever the hell they want so long as it's even remotely based on Congressional intent. (Law nerds may note that this is Chevron deference.)

No. No, this is a wrongheaded, hyperbolic misreading of 1.) one's ability to sue the government and 2.) Chevron deference.

I'll start with Chevron deference, which is the principle that if a law or regulation is ambiguous to begin with, courts shall give deference to the government's interpretation as long as it's a reasonable interpretation. So firstly, the court must determine that the regulation in question is in fact ambiguous before Chevron kicks in; that's the threshold. And there exists plenty of jurisprudence to guide courts as to whether a law or reg is in fact ambiguous (not to be confused with vague). Then, only a reasonable government reading, based on facts and standard principles of statutory construction, may be accepted by the courts.

Second, with respect to suing the government generally, of course you can. While there exists 11th amendment immunity (and certain other types), this can be circumvented by suing a government official in his or her official capacity (there are other means, but for the purpose of brevity...). Hell, I don't even work for the Florida government any more, but I still have inmates suing me in my individual capacity regarding administrative regulations that I promulgated.

So if you're trying to say, "I can't sue the government for enacting policies that were duly and constitutionally passed because they have an economic impact on my business!" well yeah, duh. That's how government works; duly passed laws may affect you, and you can't sue to have them repealed, or sue for economic damages, simply because they affect you.

WombatControl:
First, let's get this out of the way. No one is talking about removing all regulations.


I'm sorry, I haven't heard one Republican presidential candidate mention even one regulation they think should be left in place or strengthened. I've only heard them voice regulations as a pure negative and something to get rid of, such as abolishing the FDA and/or EPA. For crying out loud, the Republicans didn't want to re-regulate the financial industry in any way even after this last crash!!!

blackminded: Side note: This picture in the sidebar is driving me nuts.

[fark.upi.com image 301x301]

Agreed. The ads here are always annoying, but that blowhard picture is off the scale.

lennavan: "Their vision is that if there's a sliver of folks doing well at the top who are unencumbered by any regulatory restraints, that prosperity will trickle down. The challenge that they're going to have is: We tried it"

Uh, you're kidding yourself if you think that is going to be a challenge.

We didn't really try it - it was not long enough until the socialist usurper was elected.
We didn't really try it - there were and are still some regulations.
We didn't really try it - there were Democrats in Congress stopping what we really wanted to do.
We didn't really try it - the size of government was restricting us.
We tried it - and it worked great but also the recession hit so you didn't notice how great it was working.
We tried it - it began before Clinton and look, during the Clinton years it worked awesomely but 8 years of him are what led us to the recession under Bush.

You could have just said:

We just didn't fark that chicken hard enough or long enough.

That's pretty much what it all boils down to anyway.

Wombatty:The larger problem with that statement is that government does not represent the interests of society at large. Government can never "create a level playing field." It can't arbitrate "fairness." It can't force "social justice" on business by regulatory fiat.

That has to be one of the dumbest thing I've read all day.

/And I've been reading Youtube comments. Imagine!

Government must find a balance between the long term needs of the populace and the interests of big business. I think you'd be hard pressed to assert these days that the corporate world and the investment class do not wield undue influence over government. We are now to the point where lobbyists are literally writing their own legislation and then getting government officials to pass it as if were their work. Legislation written specifically to fatten their bottom line in some way. Over time the corrosive effect of rich people buying politicians to pass laws that make them even richer at everyone else's expense have led to a decimation of the middle class and an unhealthy wealth gap that if not addressed is sure to lead to massive civil unrest.

The Democrats political rhetoric and policies recognize that reality.

The Republicans and their apologists in various media do not.

It's that simple.

That was an interesting, erudite, and enlightening article. In the spirit of modern American politics I'm going to eat it, sh*t it out all over the place, eat the sh*t, sh*t that sh*t, and then smear it all over the place here as my opinion on the subject.

AverageAmericanGuy: So obviously the solution is to take all their money and everything is going to become better.

Yes, every rich asshole should give all of their money, every single cent, to the poor. That's EXACTLY what those socialist, commie, marxist Democrats is arguing for.

HeartBurnKid: WombatControl: No one is talking about removing all regulations.

And yet every time removing regulations fails to make things better, or actually makes things worse (like how the repeal of Glass-Steagall led to the 2008 crash), it's inevitably because we didn't remove enough.

No, the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not have anything to do with the 2008 crash (note the source as well). If anything, it helped stop it by giving the banks a backstop to contain the spread of the collapse.

Kibbler: So terribly, naively wrong. Governments come and go too, in case you weren't aware of something called "elections."

Large powerful interests are always to be feared, whether government, corporate, political or anything else. "Nobody forces you to buy a Big Mac" is both true and entirely beside the point.

Oh really? So if Obama were to be defeated this fall, the entire government would change? Remember, most of the "law" that effects businesses isn't create by Congress. It's promulgated by administrative agencies that are run by unelected regulators and bureaucrats.

And I agree that large, powerful interests should be monitored closely, if not feared. But when it comes to abuses of power, the biggest and most powerful interest is the federal government. Without manipulating the levers of government to their advantage, corporations have very little real power other than what the market grants them.

Salt Lick Steady:

Yes, I was trying to simplify things. My post was long enough without a digression into administrative law. But the general rule is that administrative agencies have incredibly wide latitude in rule-making. It's actually quite rare that Congress specifically directs an agency to do something - rather Congress defers to the agencies to craft their own rules. And so long as Congress gives them some "intelligible principle" to work from, that's legal under Supreme Court precedent.

And that is my point - if an administrative agency passes a rule that harms your business, you have very little recourse. Which is why we should be very concerned about all the rules that are being promulgated from the administrative state. Because even if they're bad rules that cost tons of money and provide little to no benefit, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to repeal them. And there's very little opportunity for private recourse - yes, you can sue the government under the Administrative Procedure Act, but that's damn hard to do and extremely expensive.

Florida laws may be different - I have no idea, but suing the federal government is extremely difficult due to the very deferential standard of review given to agency actions.

WombatControl: yes, you can sue the government under the Administrative Procedure Act, but that's damn hard to do and extremely expensive.

I know, it's so much easier and cheaper to sue a major corporation!

Dr Dreidel: Jster422: Now, like I said - in a rational world that guy who is clearly winning would take a look at the system that enabled him to come out on top and say 'Nice - I'm pretty goddamned happy with how this is working out. I'm richer than God and if things keep heading this way, well, I'm just going to keep getting richer'.

But that isn't what he says. He says 'shiat, look at how much MORE I could have if I got these regulations eliminated, or this corporate tax rate reduced. He looks at a game that he has inarguably won, and complains that the rules are still somehow stacked against him.

The lack of self-awareness is really the galling thing. Sometimes, I want to get these people into a lucid, politics-free discussion just to get them to agree that they are - their philosophy is - exceptionally greedy, craven, money-grubbing, sociopathic* Mammon-worship.

Of course, I'd also expect them to view this as a positive part of their philosophy.

* in that they don't care a fart in a windstorm for you unless you can beef up their bottom line

It really isn't the sociopathy that bothers me - I mean, at least that is something I can understand.

No, for me it is the apparant blindness to the concept of diminishing returns, as well as what I find to be a distressing lack of foresight regarding the long term effects of things like income disparity.

Why threaten the current status quo, when the current status quo is so very, very good? Isn't any risk that the system would become unstable (lack of regulation causing unforeseen economic collapse, or disenfranchisement of a sufficient percentage of the populace leading to social upheaval, whatever theoretical outcome you like) a risk that shouldn't be taken?

If you have an income in the millions, I've always felt that it was just good fiscal sense to kick in a percentage to keep the rabble from dying in droves on your carefully landscaped lawn.

Poor people can't hang onto money. Give the money to them, and the rich will have it all within a year anyway, and it will have benefited the economy as it travels up the food chain.

The rich can wait a year.

Dusk-You-n-Me: This is the guy who repeatedly touts the unemployment rate and GDP numbers of the GWB administration. When reminded of the fact that that period was the worst GDP and job growth of any administration since Eisenhower his response is "well if you don't count the recession". Oh, well gee golly. Let's just pretend that didn't happen. Problem solved

Come on, I could totally be an NFL quarterback if you'd just take 10 of the 11 defensive players off the field.

The Obama strategy of blaming all our economic problems on Bush the rich is getting tiring.

You are the master at saying what doesn't work. Now show me what does work. And don't tell me more money from the rich is the answer. We both know that won't really fix anything and that's just your political bloviance. Oh, you want another four years for that magical solution to appear?

Let me think about that.

Cletus C.: The Obama strategy of blaming all our economic problems on Bush the rich is getting tiring.

You are the master at saying what doesn't work. Now show me what does work. And don't tell me more money from the rich is the answer. We both know that won't really fix anything and that's just your political bloviance. Oh, you want another four years for that magical solution to appear?

Let me think about that.

Didn't read the interview, eh?

WombatControl: No, the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not have anything to do with the 2008 crash

Bullcrap.

LasersHurt: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: The Obama strategy of blaming all our economic problems on Bush the rich is getting tiring.

You are the master at saying what doesn't work. Now show me what does work. And don't tell me more money from the rich is the answer. We both know that won't really fix anything and that's just your political bloviance. Oh, you want another four years for that magical solution to appear?

Let me think about that.

Didn't read the interview, eh?

Why would he do a thing like "be informed"?

It's better for his brain if he's "infromed," that way he doesn't have to critically think about anything.