This is kind of MPSIMS-y because it’s just some observations that make me feel all yummy inside. Eventually I’ll get around to asking for some rational, critical explanations/opinions so it could go in GD or GQ. But at the end of the day, it’s really a political premise so it’s bound to wind up here anyway.
Couple things in the news recently:
(Paraphrased from CNN) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky:A proposed financial regulations reform bill passed by Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee would institutionalize federal bailouts of big banks
**President Obama: ** “Just the other day the leader of the Senate Republicans(McConnell) and the chair of the Republican Senate campaign committee met with two dozen top Wall Street executives to talk about how to block progress on this issue. Lo and behold, when he returned to Washington, the Senate Republican leader came out against the common-sense reforms we’ve proposed. In doing so, he made the cynical and deceptive assertion that reform would somehow enable future bailouts when he knows that it would do just the opposite.”
Nothing better than public humiliation for liars. It’d be nice if he can maintain this tone for the rest of his presidency when he’s confronted with disinformants. Would probably have helped with the healthcare reform thingy. But then again, without the precedent of hysterical, malinformed opposition he would have been labeled as “defensive” if he’d gotten serious with calling BS earlier on.
And I notice the treasury is reporting a net profit from the 2009 bank “bailout.”
And I notice GM has paid back its bail out as well.
And that Chrysler is profitable.
Of course, there’s still the secret government death panels, imminent prohibition of Christianity and the formation of the Obama Youth Corps….
Am I reading too much into the bailout paybacks? There’s always the possibility I have no clue what I’m going on about–does this mean that at least the majority of the bailout money given to the US Auto & banking industries has been repaid?
I saw a video the other day of some Tea Baggers, and one of them said (perfectly seriously) that Obama was going to ban… fishing. “Can you imagine that” she said, “he’s actually going to ban fishing.” Then she stood there with a smug look on her face.
Why are they being so cryptic? Are those “mortgage-backed securities” the garbage the banks were holding that was dragging them down? Has the US taxpayer been put on the hook for over $60 billion in bad mortgage CDO investments?
Anyway, Obama is being a little disingenuous himself. He claims any reform wouldn’t enable a future bailout, but everyone knows that isn’t true. If push comes to shove (again), the banks are going to get bailed out. The consequences are too dire if they’re not. The key is regulating away their worst abuses and creating a mechanism by which the government can take them over in an orderly fashion if they screw up again.
Why hasn’t anyone developed a ‘Political Truth’ site, on the web, along the lines of Snopes, only for politics.
Someone with no horse in the race, no allegiance to either side. Just the facts, ma’am.
I recognize that things are rarely black and white. So tell me where they got that number and why it’s of questionable veracity. Tell me when they wander out to the ragged fringes of the truth. Tell me when either side is misrepresenting something and how. Spell it out for us.
I think it would get a lot of traffic. Of course there’d be no profit in it, but if things were presented without bias, in a straight forward manner, clear, concise and accessible, you’d definitely be doing a public service.
Who knows? Perhaps it would begin the process of reversing the polarization that has driven every issue to a 49/51 divide.
Nobody cares. Most people choose a political party with the same consideration they give to a football team, and follow it with similarly unquestioning fervor.
And an example of a Politifact page:the facts on fishing. I am shocked – SHOCKED – to learn that Rush Limbaugh has been repeating misinformation on his radio program. He’s normally so accurate and balanced in his outlook.
