If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
^^elections are important. don't think that economists or scientists have the knowledge to run government. perhaps the better alternative would be to require that all elected federal representatives have a graduate degree?
and i'm always big on having a test for voting. if you can't pass...then there's no way you have a right to vote.
Education does not always equal intelligence , and you can definitely have intelligence without the education.
Originally posted by TheVrk
it IS incredible isn't it??
STILL pumpin out great set after great set...never cheesed out, never sold out, never lost his touch..
Simply does not get any better than Hernan
Education does not always equal intelligence , and you can definitely have intelligence without the education.
sure. educatio = educations. That's the point. but there are people who don't even know who the first president of this country was. (washington, btw). I'm talking about a minimal requirements test. We require illegal immigrants to take a test for very similar reasons, and I can't see why it would not be put to good use elsewhere.
a person voting who has not even a minimal understanding of the founding documents, should not be voting for president imho. it would be on par with having a deaf viewer of American Idol vote for who they thought was the best.
you could put an Emfire release on for 2 minutes and you would be a sleep before it finishes - Chunky
it's RA. they'd blow their load all over some stupid 20 minute loop of a snare if it had a quirky flange setting. - Tiddles
Re the test , I know what you mean but I feel really uncomfortable about talking away a persons right to vote. It would disenfranchise a lot more people. A lot of people may not want to take a test for a whole lot of reasons. And it doesn't matter if you don't know the first president as long as you know who you are voting for now.
Btw We have compulsory voting here.
Originally posted by TheVrk
it IS incredible isn't it??
STILL pumpin out great set after great set...never cheesed out, never sold out, never lost his touch..
Simply does not get any better than Hernan
Re the test , I know what you mean but I feel really uncomfortable about talking away a persons right to vote. It would disenfranchise a lot more people. A lot of people may not want to take a test for a whole lot of reasons. And it doesn't matter if you don't know the first president as long as you know who you are voting for now.
Btw We have compulsory voting here.
oh my bad. i misread. thus I must assert why a graduate degree is important for elected representatives to have to run for office. First, it demonstrates thier character and resolve to pursue a greater understanding of a particular topic. Second, those courses are not easy in the slightest and require dedication and diligence. Third, While I agree it is not determinative of intelligence, it is a strong factor indicating as such. It's not a cure-all, but it's certainly important in this respect. Fourth, as a corollary, it prevents others who have established nothing from running for office. While this hasn't been an issue lately, I can assume that the current trend will find us voting for those with bachelor's in underwater basket-weaving; the seriousness of the office requires a significant amount of competence, and I see a graduate degree as a litmus test. Nobody needs intelligence to get into college, but to do grad work requires a bit more intellectual agility. I think to desire the best of the who is willing compels me to make this strong argument.
I agree with what you say about the test an disenfranchising others, but if people seriously valued thier right to vote a mere test should not hinder them from expressing thier desires. I think a test is more important because of the very reason that people don't know who they are voting for. They know even less about who they are voting against. The solemnity of voting for a candidate is diluted by celebrity and identity politics. It isn't a fashionable trend that rears its head every few years, much to the chagrin of thousands of youngsters who think it's 'cool'; like owning a single share in a major corporation requires some amount of knowledge and competency for voting on certain subjects presented to the shareholders, it is desirable that those who do know something about the process, the candidates more than simply knowing one is black and one is a POW.
I would have at least one question to filter out voters this year; Is Barak Obama a Muslim? Anyone who answers yes would be removed from the room and tested for drugs. Except for k3n3, I think he honestly believes it. heh
But as I was saying, with rights comes great responsibility. The right to vote is certainly one right that needs to be tempered with basic knowledge of our country and of reality.
you could put an Emfire release on for 2 minutes and you would be a sleep before it finishes - Chunky
it's RA. they'd blow their load all over some stupid 20 minute loop of a snare if it had a quirky flange setting. - Tiddles
^^ I think you live in a better world than a lot of us.
I strongly disagree on the graduate degree. You are assuming that someone should want this. Perhaps they consider striving in other areas more important. I would prefer to see someone who has achieved in real life rather than academia .
And with your last sentence you would knock out 90%of people
Btw If we want a truly representative government we have to allow everyone to vote! I actually find the idea of "culling" a little distasteful
Originally posted by TheVrk
it IS incredible isn't it??
STILL pumpin out great set after great set...never cheesed out, never sold out, never lost his touch..
Simply does not get any better than Hernan
Guys, this is an unfortunate but necessary step. Trust me, no one wants to do this - Bush would probably rather spend $700b on his wars. Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions and we shouldn't be bailing people out for stupid decisions...but I really think we have to at this point. And the reason is simple: if we don't, then our financial system is in serious risk of simply collapsing - completely. And if we sit back and let that happen, it will have disasterous consequences for our economy. When it's a few isolated companies, you can let them fail. When it's gotten so bad that it's the entire system at risk, you just can't afford to sit by and do nothing.
Pick up a finance book and actually learn about the nature of financial institutions and how financial liquidity works, and you'll start to appreciate the extreme risks that financial and economic experts all over the world see in the current state of our financial system.
Guys, this is an unfortunate but necessary step. Trust me, no one wants to do this - Bush would probably rather spend $700b on his wars. Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions and we shouldn't be bailing people out for stupid decisions...but I really think we have to at this point. And the reason is simple: if we don't, then our financial system is in serious risk of simply collapsing - completely. And if we sit back and let that happen, it will have disasterous consequences for our economy. When it's a few isolated companies, you can let them fail. When it's gotten so bad that it's the entire system at risk, you just can't afford to sit by and do nothing.
Pick up a finance book and actually learn about the nature of financial institutions and how financial liquidity works, and you'll start to appreciate the extreme risks that financial and economic experts all over the world see in the current state of our financial system.
I agree that there's really no way around this, difficult to swallow as it may be. This is the worst kind of socialism, though, where taxpayers foot the bill when things go awry, but we don't share in the profits, which have already been allocated to a very few individuals prior to things going in the shitter. More on this later, gotta head to a funeral.
Well, my parents did something stupid and moved to hawaii, they are barely making by and can't sell the house in boston. why isn't the government helping them?
why won't the government pay off my student loans while they're giving out free money?
"If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution," Paulson said.
miroslav, bailing out won't do anything more than extort taxpayer moneys and prolong the inevitable. do you honestly think this bailout will resolve the cancer that subsists in the system? Nope!
I respect that you're studied in this area, but seriously, I have to disagree that this is going to help us more than a few weeks at best.
you could put an Emfire release on for 2 minutes and you would be a sleep before it finishes - Chunky
it's RA. they'd blow their load all over some stupid 20 minute loop of a snare if it had a quirky flange setting. - Tiddles
miroslav, bailing out won't do anything more than extort taxpayer moneys and prolong the inevitable. do you honestly think this bailout will resolve the cancer that subsists in the system? Nope!
I respect that you're studied in this area, but seriously, I have to disagree that this is going to help us more than a few weeks at best.
Well, I'm somewhat studied in the area, but I'm certainly no expert. Finance is anything but a black and white area of study, and there is a lot of room for interpretation. These are just my opinions, based on whatever I have observed and studied.
The bailout will not make the financial pain go away, and even with the bailout we will still probably be headed for at least a nasty recession. It is going to really suck for us no matter what. A loss is still a loss, and someone has to bear it. And yes, that "someone" is all of us now. However - and this is really the key - it can make a major difference as to who exactly bears that loss, and under what timing they bear it. It can make the difference between economic hardship and economic meltdown. And here's why I think that:
There is fairly well-developed research (theoretical and experience-based) in this area, particularly as it relates to liquidity of financial markets. Our economy fundamentally depends upon resources being liquid - i.e., being offered by lenders to borrowers for a reasonable market-driven rate of return. It is truly the lifeblood of our way of life. That liquidity is networked among many different world-wide players such as banks, S&Ls, brokerages, credit card companies, government institutions, corporations, consumers, etc. It's really a house of cards interlinked by the human pschology inherent in a market setting.
So basically, if you suffer a large and concentrated enough shock to a class of players in this system (i.e., banks/mortgages), then liquidity can dry up fast and reverberate throughout the entire system, ultimately bringing the whole house of cards down. And this is precisely what is happening right now. Bernanke and other bankers are probably shitting themselves right now looking at data that shows credit and lending drying up at an alarming rate. Commercial paper markets, which are key for much of corporate short-term financing, are simply freezing. That means that banks don't lend, businesses can't get financing, consumers can't get credit (even good ones). The next logical step after that is that businesses fail, unemployment jumps, consumers drastically cut spending, government tax revenue plummets, deflation takes hold - and reverberates pretty heavily throughout the world. And that's when this crisis changes from just headlines you read in the paper to a real disaster for you personally - your credit cards may be no good, your job may be gone, your public services may be gone. And it's a real pickle, because it's really hard to get consumers to spend and businesses to invest when no one has a job, banks are marginalized, and markets are not really functioning.
So what does a bailout do? As said before, it augments the loss-takers (to some extent) and the loss intensity/timing. Rather than having the Fannie Maes of the world collapse and set off a chain reaction that leads to pervasive bank failure, the losses are now primarily shifted to the player with the deepest pockets - the government (i.e., us). And we will realize the consequences of this loss over a period of time. But the liquidity system stays intact, and liquidity takes a survivable hit.
Make no mistake about it, there is a lot of risk in this bailout regardless. Balancing liquidity in this way is a notoriously tricky tightrope walk - too much and you may be looking at nasty inflation; too little and you may be looking at pernicious deflation. But it is still better than having the liquidity just completely crash and burn in the system. Sure, then you've taught the bad guys a lesson - but you've also taken out the good guys along with them, and we will all realize the loss anyways ...except that it will be even bigger and we will be realizing it in a period of a days rather than years.
So there you have it. It sucks and it's unfair, but unfortunately things appear so bleak that I'm afraid we don't have much of a choice. When the entire house is on fire, you have to react quickly and put that fire out before it spreads - and not just sit back and point fingers at the arsonists.
So basically if we live the way we are and the government bails out the TBTF Corps then something can be done. Once a company gets to big to fail it then must be divided up into smaller corporations. This would prevent this. Now we have the US acting like they are goint o bail out everybody. I can assure everyone that this crisis if far,far from over.
This was let to happen. Bush should go to jail. The CEO of Fanny and Freddie should go to jail Henry Paulson should go to jail and the list goes on and on. That would have been the proper message to send to Wallstreet not "oh you guys are pretty big and we can't let you fail so now we will bail you out." It is crystal clear that miroslav is a socialist at heart for agreeing with this bailout. And hey if you have to bail them out OK but those who let this happen should be in jail right now for treason for causing a systemic crisis.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
. I think a test is more important because of the very reason that people don't know who they are voting for. They know even less about who they are voting against. The solemnity of voting for a candidate is diluted by celebrity and identity politics. It isn't a fashionable trend that rears its head every few years, much to the chagrin of thousands of youngsters who think it's 'cool'; like owning a single share in a major corporation requires some amount of knowledge and competency for voting on certain subjects presented to the shareholders, it is desirable that those who do know something about the process, the candidates more than simply knowing one is black and one is a POW. 
Tweet
Comment