Only missionary is allowed. And don't dare enjoy it.

But really, all these sodomy law guys should get the Kochs out of their asses and examine their lives.

What if they're trying for a bishop Al?

Give the guy a break -- he created thirteen new jobs. And fought the Angry Bird menace.

Hm, the way I read your linked article, the 13 new jobs are mainly on the board of the new agency, and one of the board of directors is he himself? In which case, these are 12 new jobs, at the best. Or does the function at the board of directors for Walker is an additional paid job for him, too?

The board consists of 13 members -- the governor, six Walker appointees and six chosen by the state Assembly and the Senate leaderships. Some Walker appointees donated to to his campaign. Walker sees the agency as part of his plan to create 250,000 new jobs in the state.

Also, according to this article, the new agency does not really offers new jobs for additional employees, but replace old ones - and at the same time, there is more deregulation:

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Walker_will_eliminate_the_Department_of_Commerce_112570284.html

I think what you have there is another massive example of looting the state. O_O

I cannot imagine what good it is supposed to do to privatize a state department that is supposed to control commerce. Except if you wish to make sure there is no effective public control of what they do anymore, of course.

I cannot imagine what good it is supposed to do to privatize a state department that is supposed to control commerce. Except if you wish to make sure there is no effective public control of what they do anymore, of course.

Ya think? :P

I really hope we can get this guy out of office before Mr. Koch's coal train done hauled the entire state away.

And the big corps'll just manipulate the regulations 'til they find the loopholes, while the small businesses'll get hammered into the ground with it.

Problem is, no one seems to make the connection: If you want the government to stop regulating your business, don't come crying to it when you mess up. It should be noted that it wasn't just government deregulation that brought this on--the attempts to boost the economy using the housing industry and low interest, inflationary policy didn't help this either.

Also, if the corporations are so "EEEEEEEVILLLL" and bent on destruction and short-term profit, won't they then raise prices to deal with increased costs, or as an excuse to do so? Also, won't they also see even more of an interest in suborning regulators?

And as to Occupy Wall Street, well, paid for the US federal government, now that the unions are coming into it. Also, I don't have a problem with people being upset at Wall Street. However, I think they're going about it the wrong way. More government regulation will simply result in more crony capitalism, which is arguably what got us into this mess.

Hm, the way I read your linked article, the 13 new jobs are mainly on the board of the new agency, and one of the board of directors is he himself? In which case, these are 12 new jobs, at the best. Or does the function at the board of directors for Walker is an additional paid job for him, too?

I think that was sarcasm. Out now, back later.

And as to Occupy Wall Street, well, paid for the US federal government, now that the unions are coming into it. Also, I don't have a problem with people being upset at Wall Street. However, I think they're going about it the wrong way. More government regulation will simply result in more crony capitalism, which is arguably what got us into this mess.

Milhist, there were some regulations put into place after the 1929 crash that kept us out of serious trouble for quite a few years. We could do with some common sense here, because the mortgage crisis would not have been anywhere near as bad without the bundling and selling of mortgages as investment opportunities. I'm of the belief that certain folks knowingly gave out bad mortgages because the profit was still significant even in the event of a default. It's a great way of screwing over naive people. So are rent to owns and payday loans and that sort of thing.

Maybe. That, and I think the bankers remembered what had gone down those days in 1929. Also, it's not like everything can be attributed to Reagan-era deregulation--stagflation, anyone?

It's a great way of screwing over naive people. So are rent to owns and payday loans and that sort of thing.

Or desperate people.

As to bad mortgages--wouldn't surprise me overmuch. However, had it not been for Fannie and Freddie, the less sociopathic types might've been more cautious about matters.

I think harsh regulation is the best way to go, at least for now.

However, had it not been for Fannie and Freddie, the less sociopathic types might've been more cautious about matters.

Or for Goldman Sachs and their betting against the same default-prone mortgages they were first buying from those sociopathic or not-so-sociopathic types who gave those mortgages out to people who were unlikely to ever pay them. Golmann-Sachs bought those junk-mortgages, transformed these same junk-rated mortgages into AAA rated CDO's with the help of Moody's and sold those mortgages in bundles as AAA rated investments to unsuspecting buyers.

And at the same time they were betting on the default of these mortgages - at the very same time they were selling them.They practically furthered part of the default of the market, too.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405?page=4

Matt Taibbi tells the story in the linked article; there is also an US-congress investigation of the whole thing somewhere on the web, but at the moment I am unable to find it again.

Oh, okay, laptops. Sorry, forgot about it. But maybe they still need iPads?

Also, if they spend money, they help economy, which also benefits poor people.

Were you born with a hanger in your ear?

I'm not sure if he's just thick and uninformed or a troll.

This says it all: http://www.thereformedbroker.com/

And the big corps'll just manipulate the regulations 'til they find the loopholes, while the small businesses'll get hammered into the ground with it.

Problem is, no one seems to make the connection: If you want the government to stop regulating your business, don't come crying to it when you mess up. It should be noted that it wasn't just government deregulation that brought this on--the attempts to boost the economy using the housing industry and low interest, inflationary policy didn't help this either.

Also, if the corporations are so "EEEEEEEVILLLL" and bent on destruction and short-term profit, won't they then raise prices to deal with increased costs, or as an excuse to do so? Also, won't they also see even more of an interest in suborning regulators?

And as to Occupy Wall Street, well, paid for the US federal government, now that the unions are coming into it. Also, I don't have a problem with people being upset at Wall Street. However, I think they're going about it the wrong way. More government regulation will simply result in more crony capitalism, which is arguably what got us into this mess.

I don't think more government regulation means more crony capitalism. The problem is what sort of regulations are implemented. So far, all the regulations have favored corporations, not workers or consumers.

Also, prices have incremented over the last thirty years, but wages have not. Not at the same rate that prices. Instead, financiers made lending easier. It is the only way to satisfy the American investor who wants fast, big return on investments in the short term.

Also, prices have incremented over the last thirty years, but wages have not. Not at the same rate that prices. Instead, financiers made lending easier. It is the only way to satisfy the American investor who wants fast, big return on investments in the short term.

You lost me there. How does making lending easier -- lower interest rates -- create greater returns? My money is in the stock market only because the interest rates on savings accounts don't even keep pace with inflation these days.

See, wages have to go up in order to consumption to go up, but if the wages are no sufficient, you have money lending which is not always at a lower rate (interest rates on credit cards, anyone? 21% or above?). I said they made lending money easier (no collateral debt), not cheaper.

There has been no time in history where the American population had the level of debt it has now.

There has been no time in history where the American population had the level of debt it has now.

There was a time (back in the late 1970s when inflation was horrific) that buying on credit was a smart strategy -- buy at today's price and pay off with tomorrow's dollars. I'm really glad I never fell for it.

I don't think more government regulation means more crony capitalism. The problem is what sort of regulations are implemented. So far, all the regulations have favored corporations, not workers or consumers.

And you think this state of affairs will change...why?

And you think this state of affairs will change...why?

Well, I am waiting for people to wake up and stop allowing corporations to contribute to political campaigns and lobbying in congress.

If we try to stop them, they'll just do it more quietly, e.g. donating straight to the candidates bank accounts. At least we know who's doing it this way. The lobbying thing I agree about.

Well, I am waiting for people to wake up and stop allowing corporations to contribute to political campaigns and lobbying in congress.

Too late for that, now that Clarence Thomas has really earned his pay. We've been trying to 'reform' campaign financing for a long time, with no results and some unintended consequences.

I'm going to propose something entirely radical -- why should it cost so damn much to run for any political office when you can learn all you need to know from a well thought out position paper on a website? Certainly, you can learn more than an expensive TV slot with *insert name of candidate* standing in a cornfield, with an American flag superimposed, his/her hair blowing all aesthetically and blathering on about 'making America great again'.

And you think this state of affairs will change...why?

It probably won't change, Milhist, as long as you can fool people into thinking they have a shot at joining the ranks of the 'haves'. Right now, we have the Golden Rule -- those with the gold rule us. It's only going to get worse. Those who aren't hurting too badly yet, will tolerate it. Others, like me, have skewed left.

It probably won't change, Milhist, as long as you can fool people into thinking they have a shot at joining the ranks of the 'haves'. Right now, we have the Golden Rule -- those with the gold rule us.

It won't change period.

Here's how it's going to run, most like. The Democrats, being supported by unions and lawyers, will set up pro-union legislation and lawyer-friendly legislation--that is, legislation so impenetrable that you need to hire a lawyer to figure your obligations under it. The Republicans, being largely bankrolled by large corporations, will not change this, because they have the margin to afford those lawyers.

Can I ask you something, Milhist? Why do you think it is that a country like Mexico, that pretty much has the same climate as our American Southwest, plus they have oil, has some of its citizens crossing burning deserts illegally just to get here?

Well, if you go to battle already defeated there is no point on fighting at all. Sheesh, if everyone thought like you guys think then slavery would still be legal, women would not have the right to vote and it would still be acceptable to exterminate Native Americans.

Fighting against the establishment is hard, but not impossible.

I've spent my entire life fighting, Viv, in my own way, only to wake up recently to find my entire generation being vilified as the cause of what's wrong with American life today. It turns out we're the Worst Generation: http://www.esquire.com/features/worst-generation-0400

Seems the younger folks have taken it as gospel and are complaining about having to support us 'locusts' with their tax dollars in our old age. Never mind that we supported our parents and grandparents -- the Greatest Generation they so admire. (See the article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-steinhorn/baby-boomers-recession_b_998326.html most notably the comments.)

There's no way that one can argue the Boomers are more selfish than my generation. No way in hell.

I'd say it's pretty sad that George Carlin got the situation so right. And to think that Canadians are being convinced that we want to be the way America is.

Carlin said so many pithy things (in addition to the Seven Words) that I might have missed it. What did he say?

(I also just left a rather bitter comment over at HuffPo.)

I left you a link in there, so you can enjoy it yourself.

• Forums are not to be used to post stories.
• All forum posts must be suitable for teens.
• The owner and moderators of this forum are solely responsible for the content posted within this area.
• All forum abuse must be reported to the moderators.