Political Discussion

[OhioFiler]

But just who is part of the "elite" OF? I got my job through contacts, but I am very qualified for the job, in fact, I am overqualified for the job. Was I "given" my job by your definition?

You keep referring to this omnipresent "elite" OF. According to you they fill both coasts, and come out at night during full moons in the midwest to prey on innocent conservatives.

Just who do you mean when you refer to the "elite"? I am curious....

There are the political and media elite and the social elites. The elites in politics rule and give out jobs as favors or for fund raising efforts.

The media elite try to set policy for the unwashed.

The social elites are your ex-friends on the coast who look down at the ignorant masses in the heart of the country. You know who they are.

I believe you were hired based on your talents. I also believe you are the rule but the exceptions are many.

I do not fear any east coast elite or politician. I laugh at social elites and work to end the careers of the political ones. The media elites are falling on their own, sadly too slowly.

[OhioFiler]

What's wrong with being a socialist? The citizens of Sweden lead very productive happy lives.

Government intervention in banking is also socialism. It was Bush's "socialism" that bailed out all of the banks and AIG. Is it still "socialism" when it is the banks that get the government assistance? Just curious.....

I agree that the bail outs are socialism and I deplore them.

Good for the Swedes. What is that country like the size of Rhode Island? I'm sure their utopia is perfect for them.

[backtoschool]

There are the political and media elite and the social elites. The elites in politics rule and give out jobs as favors or for fund raising efforts.

The media elite try to set policy for the unwashed.

The social elites are your ex-friends on the coast who look down at the ignorant masses in the heart of the country. You know who they are.

I believe you were hired based on your talents. I also believe you are the rule but the exceptions are many.

I do not fear any east coast elite or politician. I laugh at social elites and work to end the careers of the political ones. The media elites are falling on their own, sadly too slowly.

Wow, that's quite a conspiracy theory you have going OF.

The "elites" are everywhere apparently. Better lock our doors and polish our guns.

It sounds to me like "elites" are anyone who is educated, has some money or an interesting job, and lives either on one of the coasts or in a big city, or works for a big media company. (Chicago is not on a coast, yet you repeatedly call the Obama's "elites" so I am assuming elites hide out in big cities according to your theory)

So who are the "non-elites"? Farmers? Convicts? Migrant grape pickers? How much education turns someone into an "elite"? Just curious....

[OhioFiler]

Wow, that's quite a conspiracy theory you have going OF.

The "elites" are everywhere apparently. Better lock our doors and polish our guns.

It sounds to me like "elites" are anyone who is educated, has some money or an interesting job, and lives either on one of the coasts or in a big city, or works for a big media company. (Chicago is not on a coast, yet you repeatedly call the Obama's "elites" so I am assuming elites hide out in big cities according to your theory)

So who are the "non-elites"? Farmers? Convicts? Migrant farm workers? How much education turns someone into an "elite"? Just curious....

Chicago politics is filled with elites. Chicago is the midwest version of LA or NY.

Your "sounds like" statement is an example of an elitist attitude.

Elitism isn't about having anything or living in a certain location. It's about thinking you're better than others, thinking your smarter and know better what is right for everyone else. It's looking at the rest of the country and feeling sorry for them because they haven't achieved what the elitist has achieved. Most of these folks migrate to the power centers such as NYC but they remain a minority even there.

I know you left NY partially because of the elitist attitudes so prevalent there. Unfortunately, you relocated to a university environment so you exchanged one group of elitists for another (the academic elite!)

Non-elites are all the people who don't think they're better than the rest.

[Logan]

I agree that the bail outs are socialism and I deplore them.

Good for the Swedes. What is that country like the size of Rhode Island? I'm sure their utopia is perfect for them.

So now size matters. OK--Then how big is Alaska--should a governor from a state of about 600,000 people be qualified to run a country of 300 million. I'm sure utopia is perfect for the people in Alaska.

[backtoschool]

Chicago politics is filled with elites. Chicago is the midwest version of LA or NY.

Your "sounds like" statement is an example of an elitist attitude.

Elitism isn't about having anything or living in a certain location. It's about thinking you're better than others, thinking your smarter and know better what is right for everyone else. It's looking at the rest of the country and feeling sorry for them because they haven't achieved what the elitist has achieved. Most of these folks migrate to the power centers such as NYC but they remain a minority even there.

I know you left NY partially because of the elitist attitudes so prevalent there. Unfortunately, you relocated to a university environment so you exchanged one group of elitists for another (the academic elite!)

Non-elites are all the people who don't think they're better than the rest.

I am confused, OF. Conservatives are constantly preaching to others and telling people what is "best" for them. Can a conservative be an "elite"? George Will has a graduate degree from Princeton and is on an ABC talk show on Sundays. Is he an elite? Rush Limbaugh is constantly telling people what is best for them and has a syndicated radio show and a website. Is he an "elite"?

LA is not a power center unless you consider Hollywood a power center. But San Francisco has many of the people you described above. Are all university towns filled with "academic elite"? Would the University of Northern Oklahoma be an "academic elite" center for instance? Just curious...

And you seem to think that you are better than many people, OF. Are you an "elite"? I am trying to understand the term still....

[justbroke]

You talking to me jb?

Maybe you could, next time, just post a couple of them, and then the link to follow. It just makes the reading difficult. I really couldn't tell who was answering the Limbaugh quotes... you or someone else... until I got to the end to see it was a cut-paste job from another site. Besides, I don't think anyone sat there and read all that.

[justbroke]

Government intervention in banking is also socialism. It was Bush's "socialism" that bailed out all of the banks and AIG. Is it still "socialism" when it is the banks that get the government assistance? Just curious.....

I don't think I ever disagreed with you, but here I do. The bail out was not "intrusion" into banking, which is what socialized or a "national bank" system is. The only thing that the former Administration did was authorize the Federal Reserve to print money and loan it to banks, with the intent to have it paid back. TARP wasn't even used the way it was "sold" to us as anyhow, so it's hard to call it an "intrusion" or socialized banking. That's my opinion of course.

Just imagine... the Bank of the United States being the name on all banks. Then you'd actually have socialized banking. The bailout of AIG was a totally different animal, and I don't equate it to traditional retail banking.

That's much different than a National Bank that takes over all the smaller banks. However, I will say that the current Administration is delving into areas that are more "controlling" the banks than lending to them. I call that intrusion where you tell a Bank that it can't make money by investing it's own money into areas that it wants to.

[backtoschool]

I don't think I ever disagreed with you, but here I do. The bail out was not "intrusion" into banking, which is what socialized or a "national bank" system is. The only thing that the former Administration did was authorize the Federal Reserve to print money and loan it to banks, with the intent to have it paid back. TARP wasn't even used the way it was "sold" to us as anyhow, so it's hard to call it an "intrusion" or socialized banking. That's my opinion of course.

Just imagine... the Bank of the United States being the name on all banks. Then you'd actually have socialized banking. The bailout of AIG was a totally different animal, and I don't equate it to traditional retail banking.

That's much different than a National Bank that takes over all the smaller banks. However, I will say that the current Administration is delving into areas that are more "controlling" the banks than lending to them. I call that intrusion where you tell a Bank that it can't make money by investing it's own money into areas that it wants to.

I totally see your point justbroke, but it is a matter of degrees. Citibank is partially owned by the government, so I think we would both agree that Citibank is a socialized bank. What really went down with TARP and what was communicated to the public by Paulson are two very different things. In reality, the government has been buying back mortgage securities at inflated, non-market prices, and allowing banks to keep artificial asset prices for their mortgage assets on their books. This may not be socialist banking per se, but it is not free-market banking either in my opinion.

Do I think that the banks all should have been allowed to fail in fall 2008, including Goldman Sachs?(who was bailed out by the government because the government bailed out AIG and AIG bailed out Goldman)? No. We would have had a financial crisis much much worse than the Great Depression in my opinion, and many people would have suffered. I think that we have a semi-socialized banking system right now, but I also think that that is a necessary evil right now.

[justbroke]

AIG bailout was a must... mostly because AIG held many insurance policies, retirement accounts, and even equipment leases for municipalities across the country. I remember an interview (plea) from several big city mayors pleading that the Federal Government help AIG because all their transportation systems are owned by AIG on a leaseback. Would have wreaked havoc. I also concur that some sort of loan guarantees (which much of the bailout money is) or actual cash infusion was necessary to prop up the system. Letting it collapse would have indeed created a National Bank.

As for Goldman... well... they all now work at the White House, so don't cry for Goldman.

[backtoschool]

AIG bailout was a must... mostly because AIG held many insurance policies, retirement accounts, and even equipment leases for municipalities across the country. I remember an interview (plea) from several big city mayors pleading that the Federal Government help AIG because all their transportation systems are owned by AIG on a leaseback. Would have wreaked havoc. I also concur that some sort of loan guarantees (which much of the bailout money is) or actual cash infusion was necessary to prop up the system. Letting it collapse would have indeed created a National Bank.

As for Goldman... well... they all now work at the White House, so don't cry for Goldman.

I don't think anyone should cry for Goldman.

And of course I agree with you justbroke that if the banks had all collapsed then we would have had one very large ,very confused National Bank.

[justbroke]

And of course I agree with you justbroke that if the banks had all collapsed then we would have had one very large ,very confused National Bank.

And who do you suppose the Government would have run the newly created Bank of the United States?

(I'll give you one hint... their initials are G.S. LOL Because only people of that caliber could ruin a financial system. Misspell intended.)

[momisery]

I would say, look to the great depression if you are wondering what would have happened with no bail out, and no social programs. Only look at a much larger scale. During the great depression people did stay closer to family and moved in with family easier, instead of someone returning from Nevada to Illinois to move in with Mom and Dad, first who will pay the truck rental fees? Also, families had farms and grew their own foods and many canned and sewed. They only had a 25% unemployment rate then, now it is 17% if you count the real numbers per the government. And the people today are at food pantry's since there are no gardens. Keep in mind too that times were different, Dad pulled the car under shade tree and fixed the engine, today you HAVE to use a garage with all the complicated do hickeys under the hood.. lol.. We now have AC, back then we used fans and we were used to it, and AZ and NV were not so settled. People have much higher bills today... tv was free, phones were cheap, lots of things have changed. Without some sort of help, or to allow a total collapse would mean those banks, like BOA would lay off all their employees as they closed their doors, the numbers in the streets would grow. Believe me, if it gets that bad people will steal from you to feed their families because there is little to hunt today or fish for free. No one should wish the great depression on a society again. Now, was it handled correctly, well of course not it turned into a hand out for those with huge incomes and bonuses.

[momisery]

I worked in that great PRIVATE system and have two sisters that are nurses. IF you want FRAUD look there.

[momisery]

My point is, given a chance people will fraud, business or govenment. This past year the most problem we have had has been business fraud and some are in prision. There will always be those who have no morales and no concern for society, all we can do is catch them if we can and charge them. Without government, there would be no "we the people" controling the direction our country is going, which is exactly the problem today, we have not had a say those elected are a bunch of crooks with their hands out. Government works for the people if we put the right people in. If your looking for the perfect system without fraud you will not find it in business or government because people are involved and they are not perfect.