[mike777]

As noted in another thread the rants about Republicans being anti science abound.


Based on these debates, at this point, I would think the rants have a point.

As I pointed out when I went back to school at an advanced age...I would ask questions such as how long does it take the sun to revolve around planet Earth....most said about a year.....


The american civil war was against the British and I think last week a Brit tv show proved that Columbus was a Brit

I note I dont ask hard questions such as how many planets are there or can effect come before cause. Those are hard for me.

[blackshoe]

Depends on what you mean by "planet".

[helene_t]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-19, 07:32, said:

Depends on what you mean by "planet".

http://www.bridgebas...ry-from-europe/

[hrothgar]

After last night's Republican debate, Perry's chances at the nomination might be seriously diminished...

[cherdano]

 hrothgar, on 2011-September-23, 05:51, said:

After last night's Republican debate, Perry's chances at the nomination might be seriously diminished...

It was a bit unfortunate that the only time he was speaking coherently was in his defense of Texas' version of the DREAM act. I.e., he was defending good policy that is hated very much by the crowd he was talking to...

[jonottawa]

On Intrade Romney's almost a 2-1 favorite now vs Perry, 45%-23%.

Perry almost looked like someone with early dementia at times in the debate. Of course, Reagan is the Republican hero and he had Alzheimer's for his whole 2nd term so that's not exactly a disqualifier.

[luke warm]

 cherdano, on 2011-September-23, 08:33, said:

It was a bit unfortunate that the only time he was speaking coherently was in his defense of Texas' version of the DREAM act. I.e., he was defending good policy that is hated very much by the crowd he was talking to...

what makes it good policy?

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-September-25, 06:16, said:

what makes it good policy?

It fosters assimilation.

I think that much of Europe is genuinely bad at assimilating immigrants. In particular, there are lots of issues second and third generation immigrants who aren't able to integrate into society. I don't consider this an existential threat to Europe, but it does create problems like the riots in France a few years back. I think that treating the children of immigrants like any other person is a good way to avoid these types of problems. I also think that its valuable to motivate students to work while their in school.

(As an aside, I also oppose discriminating against people because of actions their parents took)

[Gerben42]

 hrothgar, on 2011-September-25, 08:07, said:

It fosters assimilation.

I think that much of Europe is genuinely bad at assimilating immigrants. In particular, there are lots of issues second and third generation immigrants who aren't able to integrate into society. I don't consider this an existential threat to Europe, but it does create problems like the riots in France a few years back. I think that treating the children of immigrants like any other person is a good way to avoid these types of problems. I also think that its valuable to motivate students to work while their in school.

(As an aside, I also oppose discriminating against people because of actions their parents took)

I think being bad at assimilation is not the key point, it's not trying very hard.

There are immigrants in many western European countries who have been there for 30+ years and still don't speak the language at a useful level. From my perspective it is not acceptable that the government has allows this. When you live somewhere, LEARN THE LANGUAGE. After the war, Europe had a huge male shortage. And so we welcomed many guest workers from Arab countries and former colonies, but didn't attach any strings. And that was a big mistake. The government didn't point out that it was expected for example to learn the local language. In the US, if you want to become a citizen, this is required. And even in this century, it is somehow considered foreigners-unfriendly to demand anything from immigrants.

You see what happens next is: Kids from families whose parents do not understand the official language of the country they are in cannot help with simple things like homework. They cannot cope with the bureaucracy involved with the kids, like asking for financial support or even things like getting the kids into a sports club, musical lessons, whatever. The smart kids will survive, but the average kid will lag behind. And then at age 16 they will realize that they have a huge disadvantage in getting a job, and next thing you know there will be cars burning.

[hrothgar]

 Gerben42, on 2011-September-25, 09:26, said:

There are immigrants in many western European countries who have been there for 30+ years and still don't speak the language at a useful level. From my perspective it is not acceptable that the government has allows this. When you live somewhere, LEARN THE LANGUAGE. After the war, Europe had a huge male shortage. And so we welcomed many guest workers from Arab countries and former colonies, but didn't attach any strings. And that was a big mistake. The government didn't point out that it was expected for example to learn the local language. In the US, if you want to become a citizen, this is required. And even in this century, it is somehow considered foreigners-unfriendly to demand anything from immigrants.

This suggests that there was actually a path to citizenship

I know that in the case of the gastarbeiter program in Germany citizenship/assimilation was never envisioned as a goal of the program.

[helene_t]

 hrothgar, on 2011-September-25, 09:40, said:

This suggests that there was actually a path to citizenship

I know that in the case of the gastarbeiter program in Germany citizenship/assimilation was never envisioned as a goal of the program.

Dunno about Germany, but I would expect the rules to be similar to the Dutch. After 5 years (or 3 if your partner is Dutch) you can become a citizen if you pass a test. You need to speak Dutch and to know a few things about Dutch society such as acceptance of homosexuality, christmas traditions and such.

[blackshoe]

Times change. There is a "law of unintended consequences" aspect, as well. It seems Germany never envisioned Turks as part of the gastarbeiter program, but were pressured by the US because the US wanted to "stabilize" Turkey. It seems not much thought or effort was given to assimilating the Turks, because the plan was that they would go home in a few years. However, when it came time to go home, there weren't enough jobs available in Turkey, so they not only stayed in Germany, but brought their families to stay with them. And here we are.

[Winstonm]

Too bad this guy isn't running for President as he would have my vote: Aristotle

Quote

Book VI, Democracies and their contruction:
“It is the duty of a genuine democrat to see to it that the masses are not excessively poor. Poverty is the cause of the defects of democracy. That is the reason why measures should be taken to ensure a permanent level of prosperity. This is in the interest of all classes, including the prosperous themselves; and therefore the proper policy is to accumulate any surplus revenue into a fund, and then to distribute this fund in block grants to the poor. The ideal method of distribution, if a sufficient fund can be accumulated, is to make such grants sufficient for the purchase of a plot of land. Failing that, they should be large enough to start men in commerce or agriculture.”

[Aberlour10]

"Obama criticizes the policy of the European crisis" ... I thought this headline is a joke, but it isn't. Obama calls on Europeans to act immediately...He called on Europeans to the determined fight, reducing the debts.. etc etc.

Did he forget which goverment supported the policy that led to the gigantic housing bubble? Which Treasury Secretary rejected to act in case Lehman Bros and helped so to drive Europe in the worst financial crisis since x decades? And not at least, who is actually "The Master of the Debt Mountain"? and where the politicans do everything except solving of the own budget problems?

[PassedOut]

 Aberlour10, on 2011-September-27, 03:02, said:

"Obama criticizes the policy of the European crisis" ... I thought this headline is a joke, but it isn't. Obama calls on Europeans to act immediately...He called on Europeans to the determined fight, reducing the debts.. etc etc.

Did he forget which goverment supported the policy that led to the gigantic housing bubble? Which Treasury Secretary rejected to act in case Lehman Bros and helped so to drive Europe in the worst financial crisis since x decades? And not at least, who is actually "The Master of the Debt Mountain"? and where the politicans do everything except solving of the own budget problems?

We in the US definitely need to get our economic house in order again and the politics are tough here on getting that done.

But I don't think it's quite fair to say that Bush's Treasury Secretary Paulson "rejected to act" to bail out Lehman Bros. He worked pretty hard to put together a private deal to salvage the company but no one would touch their "assets." And, at that time, he did not have the power to use government funds to buy them.

When the result of the collapse of Lehman Bros. became clear, all responsible people here saw that it was necessary (however distasteful) for the US government to bail out the large banks to avert financial disaster, and that was done. Today, you cannot find a responsible person who disagrees about the need for doing that.

However, the US nevertheless came in for criticism for bailing out the financial system, as you might remember from this 2009 headline: European Union President Criticizes Obama's Economic Policies

Quote

BERLIN, March 25 -- The president of the European Union on Wednesday ripped the Obama administration's economic policies, calling its deficit spending and bank bailouts "a road to hell."

But if more banks had been allowed to fail after Lehman Bros., we'd have gotten to hell already.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-September-27, 07:58, said:

Today, you cannot find a responsible person who disagrees about the need for doing that.

do you really believe that? it's hard to dismiss those who were against it as being irresponsible... is krugman (who most liberals seem to love) one of those?

Quote

But if more banks had been allowed to fail after Lehman Bros., we'd have gotten to hell already.

most depositors were already protected (not all, but most)... bank bailouts cost 10% - 15% of gnp, so had they not been bailed out i'm not sure the cost would have been that high... even volcker (obama's man) said, "The danger is the spread of moral hazard could make the next crisis much bigger."

there's a whole list of educated persons, from many different universities, found here who, while not necessarily opposed to it, wanted a far more measured process

[Winstonm]

Those who were (and still are) against the bank bailouts wanted instead a Swedish variation of handling the situation where the banks would have been nationalized, the management all fired, the stockholders wiped out, and the bondholders given a nice haircut, the pieces of the bank sold off and finally the integral bank recapitalized and eventually sold back to private enterprise.

Had this happened we well may have had a harsher stock crash, but by now we would also be full into a legitimate recovery instead of still having zombie TBTF banks and a system that is unchanged from the one that got us into the mess in the first place.

[PassedOut]

I should have been clearer. I meant that the banks themselves had to be bailed out -- not necessarily the managers nor the shareholders -- rather than let them all collapse like Lehman Bros. The mechanism used was constrained by US politics. There is no way a republican administration was going to nationalize the banking system.

The result was not ideal, particularly from the moral hazard standpoint, but far better than a collapse of the financial system.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-September-27, 16:31, said:

I should have been clearer. I meant that the banks themselves had to be bailed out -- not necessarily the managers nor the shareholders -- rather than let them all collapse like Lehman Bros. The mechanism used was constrained by US politics. There is no way a republican administration was going to nationalize the banking system.

The result was not ideal, particularly from the moral hazard standpoint, but far better than a collapse of the financial system.

The TBTF banks are now bigger than they were then and there is no real change in methodology. The backstop is still socialized loss prevention.

A good crises was wasted to preserve the status quo.

Edit: Interesting to note that the new book by Ron Suskind is in keeping with my own personal suspicions that a young and inexperienced President has been badly flummoxed and bamboozled by more experienced and crafty individuals within the Washington circle of elite.

Quote

By Associated Press,
NEW YORK — A new book offering an insider’s account of the White House’s response to the financial crisis says that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ignored an order from President Obama calling for reconstruction of major banks.

[luke warm]

i know this is a perry/obama thread, but does anyone have thoughts on herman cain? specifically his 9/9/9 plan