Modern Money Matters

[vovat]

Following up on what I said yesterday about accountability, a few things come to mind. One is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that forbade corporations to audit themselves. Also, I spent some time this year doing temp work at a mortgage company, and while I was there, a law went into effect that the lenders couldn't communicate with the appraisers until the appraisals were finished. To me, these things just sound obvious, but I've actually known people to complain about both. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney claimed that Sarbanes-Oxley was too restrictive. Did he also ask if he could grade his own exams when he was a student?

On another topic, I'm sure you've heard about the people going to town hall meetings regarding health care and screaming that they want their country back. Back from what? Well, from the black guy, I would imagine, but I've heard people try to claim otherwise. Apparently the idea that some rowdy Southern rednecks might be racist is too difficult for them to accept. :P One of the Congressmen on the most recent Real Time with Bill Maher episode tried to insist that these people were opposed to deficit spending. Come on, does anyone who isn't directly affected by the national debt actually care about it? By now, I think Americans are used to things operating the same way regardless of what's going on with government funds. I'm not saying that none of these people are CONVINCED that the budget is their main concern, but I tend to doubt it really IS.

Comments

[brostron.livejournal.com]

Well, if it's deficit spending that these people truly object to, then why do they venerate Ronald Reagan and demonize Bill Clinton?

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Because Reagan was in the movies! Duh!

[(Anonymous)]

Sarbanes-Oxley doesn't forbid companies to audit themselves. Companies can and do audit themselves. ?

Check your local news, Nate. Good ole Swing State PA was quite cross with Spector. You're speaking out of your ass when it comes to the Georgia situation over the weekend. The majority of the press I read completely and utterly misinformed the public on what happened - claiming that a doctor questionned the Democratic Senator on healthcare on a road construction meeting: FALSE. The meeting WAS about that and then the Senator opened the floor up to ANY topic, and the Doctor who posed the question was LAST in line - NOBODY else questioned healthcare and neither the Doctor nor the Senator got anywhere near as-irate as the left and right winged medias portrayed.

You're also talking about an administration that is moving hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars around - well, they claim they have, nobody's seen a penny of it hardly percentage wise - that's a far cry from former politicians' wrongdoings.

If Reagan didn't screw up the deficit Bush Sr. wouldn't have had to raise new taxes and Bill Clinton MIGHT not have ever been president in 92. Bush got what the party reaped - don't pretend as if the american public wasn't irked by the ramifications of the deficit.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Sarbanes-Oxley doesn't forbid companies to audit themselves. Companies can and do audit themselves.

Okay, I was a little off on that one. It says that you can't audit a company if you have a stake in its finances. My basic point still stands, though.

You're speaking out of your ass when it comes to the Georgia situation over the weekend.

Not having been trained by Jim Carrey, I'm not actually capable of such a feat, but are you denying that somebody yelled that they want their country back? (Whether this was in Georgia or elsewhere, I'm not sure.)

[(Anonymous)]

Ha. Nice.
Oh I don't doubt it. And I don't condone spray-painting swastikas on congressmen's doors either. But there's no need to perpetuate stereotypes from your side of the Mason-Dixon either. ;-)

I think the greater issue going on is multi-faceted here. On one hand we're witnessing a President in mild retreat on his irrational timeline for resolution to healthcare reform. Consequently the legislative branch is running around like chickens with their heads cut off which creates separate and allegedly VERY difficult bills in draft in both sides. Ironically the Senate has no official draft and yet they're tasked with holding these town hall meetings to spread the good word. What good word? They literally have nothing to promote.

On the citizen side of things you have two vocal camps - one who will sit idle and presume their messiah has the midas touch and the other presumes Obama is a Chicago Mobster who is hellbent on educating Americans on what true liberalism is.

Both sides are acting quite foolish. The biggest problem IMO is that we are fighting each other as citizens instead of focusing on HOW the government as a whole is doing a very poor job of their task at hand.

The Dems are coking themselves up to get SOMETHING passed ASAP while sending mixed signals on the future of private insurance, on who gets taxed for what and for how much. Thus providing ample fodder to the Republicans to become irate. I am conservative but I don't dismiss what some irate people have to say. Not so much for the content of their beef but there are some general broad questions and future implications that we're getting partial answers to. And the answers are more from the perspective of what the liberals think the conservatives are getting at, but from the conservatives view it comes across as satisfying their own constituents gripes.

Do I doubt someone say "Take Back America"? Absolutely not.
Do I doubt that some people dislike a black Prez? Not at all - but again, do the research on hate groups in PA and Ohio and it's not very impressive.
Do I doubt that some conservatives are TRYING to be disruptive? Years of PETA and Greenpeace has taught them well, haven't they?


But should we blindly-dismiss each other's grievances because of the knuckleheads out there? THAT scares me more than healthcare reform or the lack thereof because We The People is a powerful thing and a House Divided would ruin this country faster than any president ever could.

One way or another a LOT of people have reason to be scared right now and that's not just politically speaking.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

But there's no need to perpetuate stereotypes from your side of the Mason-Dixon either.

True, but I'm not saying that ALL Southerners are racists (or that all racists are Southerners, for that matter).

I think that, while much of what I've heard about Obama's plan is a clear improvement over what we have now (i.e., the insurance companies control everything), there are parts of it I don't like. If the single-payer plans are going to cost people money, then I don't think they should be forced to purchase them.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

Um ... actually, it kind of came off sounding like you were saying everyone who opposed Obama was a racist. Sorry about that, I should know better than to think you'd believe such a thing.

By the way, though I agree with most of what our friend was trying to say, I don't think it's right to post anonymously on someone else's journal. It's not like you're going to show up at my house and throw rocks through my window.

You're not, are you?

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Um ... actually, it kind of came off sounding like you were saying everyone who opposed Obama was a racist.

Such was not my intention, and I DID simply refer to the people yelling they wanted their country back (and, in fairness, that might have only been one person), not to everyone who opposed Obama or his plans.

By the way, though I agree with most of what our friend was trying to say, I don't think it's right to post anonymously on someone else's journal.

It's often the only option available for people who don't have LiveJournals themselves, though, and I don't want my journal to have a policy where only other LJers can comment.

It's not like you're going to show up at my house and throw rocks through my window.

You're not, are you?

Of course not. Not only is that the last act of someone who knows they're wrong, but I'm lousy at throwing things. {g}

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

By the way, I'm just as upset at anyone at the people who are trying to shout down everyone else in the town hall meetings. Debate and discussion is good for this country; trying to shut down the voice of opposition is bad.

I never thought about non-LJ'ers posting, good point. My journal is set to allow anonymous posting, too.

Oh, good -- half my windows are already cracked, anyway. Do you suppose someone's sending me a message? :-)

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's your girlfriend, trying to get your attention so you'll let her in?

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

Her throwing arm isn't that strong!

[vovat.livejournal.com]

That YOU know of, anyway. {g}

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

Well, if she can heave a rock 500 miles, I'm getting her a tryout with the Cubs!

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

That's nonesense. I'm so tired of people screaming that everyone who opposes the present administration's policies must be racist. Don't paint me with the same brush as some moron wearing a white hood on a Saturday night -- deficit spending, which by the way is more the fault of the House of Representatives than the President, may yet be the one fault of government that will end up sinking us all. The President's race is no danger to the future of our nation, and it's high time we stopped obsessing about it.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I'm so tired of people screaming that everyone who opposes the present administration's policies must be racist.

That's obviously ridiculous, since most of the people who oppose Obama did the same for Clinton, and he was white. But I do have my suspicions that people saying they want their country back might lean in that direction. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for them to be talking about the deficit, since that's pretty much the norm for this country. But there's always the possibility that it's the Commie Boogieman, not the Black Boogieman, that they fear. And while that doesn't involve the same sort of prejudice, I do think people trying to paint Obama as a socialist often don't quite know what socialism actually IS.

As for people not caring about deficit spending, I'll admit this was just a musing on my part, not something I thought was absolutely true. I will say that I'M not all that concerned about the deficit, because I think a lot of that is just Fun with Numbers. When we supposedly had a budget surplus, we still owed a bunch of money, right? While I don't pretend to understand macroeconomics, that seems a little like if I stopped paying my credit card bills, and then said, "Hey, I have a lot more money now!" I AM, however, worried about the impact financial policies can have on individual people.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

In all fairness, more than one person has suggested that Bill Clinton was our first black President. :-)

I certainly agree that some people who say that are racist; but not most of them. Generally they mean they want to take their country back from liberal policies and ideas, just as liberals would say the same if a conservative was President. Keep in mind that many conservatives, even if they supported Bush in other areas, were horrified by the spending that went on during *his* administration, let alone Obama's.

The deficite is the single most dangerous financial policy facing this nation. Just as a rising tide floats all boats, the federal deficite is the whirlpool that threatens to draw all of us down.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, whatever else Bush might have been, he certainly wasn't a fiscal conservative.

Generally they mean they want to take their country back from liberal policies and ideas, just as liberals would say the same if a conservative was President.

Did liberals actually use that expression during previous conservative administrations, though? (I'm not doubting that they did, but I don't know of any actual examples.)

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

They did, although I don't believe as often as conservatives have. Mostly they were more into the personal insults, the kind of stuff Michael Savage says from his end of the spectrum. My surprise about liberals is how nasty they can be with the name calling, nastiness, and downright hatred of the opposition. I didn't realize it until it was pointed out to me, but Bush and most of his people just didn't say horrible personal things about those working against them, while some top dogs in the Obama administration and congress have been resorting to name calling and actual threats. "Nazi's", "brown shirts", "crazies", coming from official spokespeople and the occasional congressman.

You'd expect that from the talk show hosts and the small number of true nutcases on both sides, but how are we ever to reach compromises and work together if we're busy insulting and slandering each other? There are a few Democrats in Congress who I truly do believe are morons (and one Vice-President), but the rest are reasonably intelligent people who I just disagree with.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I guess my feelings about personal insults are kind of mixed. I don't think they should be off-limits, but there are some people (Ann Coulter, for instance) who are just totally childish about it. I have to suspect that the media don't give attention to people like Coulter and Savage because they care about their opinions so much as to see what those wackjobs will say next. Sort of like Simon Cowell, I guess. {g} And I do think the Nazi comparisons are just absurd, and usually give a good impression that no one should bother listening to the people making them.

As for Bush and personal insults, what about the time he made fun of the retarded woman he was having executed?

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

I'm not familiar with Bush making fun of a retarded woman he was having executed; do you happen to have a link to the story? It sure sounds worse than Obama making a joke about the Special Olympics. However, my point had to do with higher ups in the government mud-slinging at their critics rather than "jokes" of poor taste, which is yet another legitimate subject. I've been doing some research, and discovered Bush was remarkably gentlemanly toward those in politics and Amercans in general who criticized him, generally saying nothing more than that they have the right to their opinions. (Although I do recall the "they're for us or against us" line, that was directed at governments of other countries rather than at Americans.)

In recent days we've been treated to the left calling their critics Nazi's, crazies, wingnuts, and thugs, and comparing them to the Klu Klux Klan, which like him or hate him just isn't the kind of thing Bush would do. Both conservatives and moderates in America are feeling more and more strongly that they're being ignored and shut out; that's where the anger is coming from. We can sit here all day and give the names of fringe pundits on both sides who would love to throw their opposites into concentrate camps, but do we really want to drive normal people right into the arms of those morons?

(When I say we I'm not talking about you and me, you understand; I suspect the only people listening to small fry like us are those who are already in agreement with our views.)

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I'm not familiar with Bush making fun of a retarded woman he was having executed; do you happen to have a link to the story?

Something of the sort is mentioned here (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670), although I'm not sure the woman in question was mentally retarded; I might have been mixing up different situations. Of course, actions speak louder than words, and whether or not Bush was polite, did he ever institute any policies that DIDN'T blatantly favor the already advantaged?

As for Obama's Special Olympics comment, it might have been ill-advised, but I think of it as more of a joke on himself than on the Special Olympics themselves.

Although I do recall the "they're for us or against us" line, that was directed at governments of other countries rather than at Americans.

Pretty narrow-minded either way, though. Then again, Jesus is recorded as having said much the same thing.

Both conservatives and moderates in America are feeling more and more strongly that they're being ignored and shut out; that's where the anger is coming from.

I'm not entirely sure how, in a country where the political party considered the LIBERAL one is largely in bed with corporate interests, opposed to gay marriage, seeing "liberal" as a bad word, and wearing those tacky flag pins, conservatives can consider themselves marginalized. But I suppose everyone does to a degree, and if you're talking about conservatives in the traditional sense of favoring things staying basically the same, it's true that things rarely do. I have to suspect, for instance, that despite both Republicans AND Democrats in positions of power oppose gay marriage, it's likely that it will eventually become legal and normal.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

I'm familiar with that particular case, and no, she was not retarded hereself. Actions do speak louder than words, and what I'm getting out of that article is that Bush was anti-crime and pro death penalty, which I am too; in the case of the retarded man I would have stopped the execution, but the the case of that woman, who clearly committed the crime for which she was sentanced, I would not have. She made choices; she could have chosen not to do any of those things, but she didn't. Two people died horribly, and their families suffered horribly, and the only problem I have with the death penalty is that carrying it out drags on too long.

(I'd add that appeals and judicial review are still important -- if the convicted wants them -- and that I'd tend to delay or deny the death penalty if the evidence wasn't very clear. Too many times innocence has been established by later technology, so if I was governor I'd look at the actual evidence very carefully. Bush's major mistake was trusting someone else to do the review for him.)

In context, I don't think "for us or against us" is narrow minded at all. We're in a war against a group of people who are dedicated to completely destroying democracy and replacing it with an ultra-conservative Muslim dictatorship. They want to kill, literally, EVERYONE who doesn't become an extremist Muslim like them. In the end, if they manage to take down their main targets, they'll then turn to every other nation on Earth, so Bush's attempt was to make people understand that anyone who isn't helping the cause is ultimately hurting it. Bush's problem, oddly, is that he was a horrible politician; he did and said what he thought was right, and didn't worry much about how it looked to anyone else. Obviously, that's a problem to people who didn't think he *was* right.

I don't think most Democrats are opposed to gay marriage. The thing is that only about 20% of the people in America identify themselves as liberal, with a slightly larger number calling themselves conservative, while most claim to be moderates. The Democratic candidates generally feel they can't win the election without the moderate vote, so they back away from the hot button issues no matter how they really feel about them. Obama says he's against gay marriage, but I doubt he really is. (Unless the conspiracy theorists are right that he's a Muslim -- and I don't believe that!)

As for the flag pins, I respect and honor what our flag symbolizes, and have a pin myself; I don't think they're tacky at all, unless they're on the lapel of a hypocrite who isn't really looking after the best interests of Americans as a whole. Which, um, would be almost all of them. :-(

[vovat.livejournal.com]

In context, I don't think "for us or against us" is narrow minded at all.

But I don't know that it's TRUE. Couldn't someone easily be against both? Or if they just like violence, maybe they're FOR both.

We're in a war against a group of people who are dedicated to completely destroying democracy and replacing it with an ultra-conservative Muslim dictatorship.

Is there any evidence for this? Most of what I've heard suggests that they mostly just want the United States to stop interfering in the Middle East. Of course, they could be lying (I wouldn't put that past terrorists), but to say they want to take over the world strikes me as Saturday morning cartoon thinking. Al Qaeda isn't exactly the same as Cobra or the Decepticons. {g}

Bush's problem, oddly, is that he was a horrible politician; he did and said what he thought was right, and didn't worry much about how it looked to anyone else. Obviously, that's a problem to people who didn't think he *was* right.

Unless you thought he was impeding the democratic process by not listening to the people who elected him (well, the second time, anyway, since the people DIDN'T elect him the first time). But our country is actually a republic, not a democracy anyway.

I don't think most Democrats are opposed to gay marriage.

Fair point, but I don't see how a country in which liberals have to pretend they're NOT liberal is one in which conservatives feel marginalized. And I don't see how homophobia could be considered moderate under any circumstances.

As for the flag pins, I just don't like them. Maybe I have too many bad associations with the American flag, and it's not like it's a particularly attractive flag anyway. (I guess that would be one advantage if the Muslims DID take over the United States; the crescent moon is both more visually appealing and easier to draw than the stars and stripes. {g})

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

That's the point I was trying to make -- I think it IS true. Hitler, for instance, wanted to dominate the world, but he wasn't so unrealistic to think he could physically invade and conquer every nation on the globe. The Muslim extremists actually do plan to overthrow every non-extremist government on Earth. They've said it themselves -- the evidence is their words. You can't be for both democracy and extremist dictatorships. Certainly there are clueless people who both hate America and don't want to be fundamentalist Muslims, but sooner or later (unless the extrmists are defeated) they'll have to make a choice.

I still don't understand why people don't get this. It's extremist doctrine, always has been, just as the communist doctrine was that sooner or later capitalism would be defeated and communism would rule the world. the difference is that communists didn't believe they'd go to heaven if they died while fighting the infidels. Here are some quotes: http://www.usvetdsp.com/osam_qts.htm
However, that's just what bin Laden has to say; you could check around and find similar thoughts from others, such as here:
http://www.skepticism.info/quotes/archives/islamic_extremism_index.shtml

I have yet to see concrete evidence that Bush wasn't elected the first time; there was plenty of shenanigans going on from both sides of the aisle, and frankly I think it's time we got over it and let it go. Considering some of the crap ACORN and similar groups were pulling in 2008, I'd say there are a lot of pots and kettles calling each other black. Besides, it's looking more and more like Obama isn't listening to the people who elected him, or at least that's how a lot of his more left wing supporters feel; most Presidents learn quickly they have to move toward the center and compromise, if they're to get anything done at all.

Conservatives feel marganalized now simply because Democrats hold the Presidence and both houses of Congress, and they feel -- rightly, I believe -- that no one in Washington thinks they have to listen or deal with conservatives in any way. Obama might be moving a bit toward the center, but he sure as heck isn't moving anywhere toward the right! I would add, however, that the average American is getting sick of both parties, in the belief that the parties have been hijacked by their respective extreme wings.

Bad associations with the American flag? You're more than welcome to move to Mynamar or Iran if you like their flags better, and see if you prefer their overall national history to ours. The American flag is the greatest thing I can imagine seeing fly outside; it means you and I can argue this out without either one of us ending up in a reeducation camp. Our flag is just a symbol, but it's a symbol of something that, despite our stumbles here and there, is still great.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

You can't be for both democracy and extremist dictatorships.

Why not? Haven't both co-existed for centuries? Not that I'M in favor of both, just that I don't really see any contradiction there.

Here are some quotes: http://www.usvetdsp.com/osam_qts.htm
However, that's just what bin Laden has to say; you could check around and find similar thoughts from others, such as here:
http://www.skepticism.info/quotes/archives/islamic_extremism_index.shtml

While some of those quotes refer to intended conquest of Israel and the fall of the United States as a superpower, only the one from Ruhollah Khomeini mentions world conquest, as far as I can tell.

Conservatives feel marganalized now simply because Democrats hold the Presidence and both houses of Congress, and they feel -- rightly, I believe -- that no one in Washington thinks they have to listen or deal with conservatives in any way. Obama might be moving a bit toward the center, but he sure as heck isn't moving anywhere toward the right!

No, he's not moving to the right himself, but he seems to be quite eager to listen to the Republicans and involve them in his plans, which means that the idea that he isn't listening to conservatives isn't true. That's not to say he's listening to EVERY conservative, any more than he's listening to every liberal, but that's well night impossible anyway. I think it's an unfortunate truth that any say the average person can have in government in pretty much any country is very minor.

Bad associations with the American flag?

I tend to associate it with jingoism, and the fact that some people treat it as a sacred object is rather absurd. The United States is certainly far from the only nation where this is the case, however.

You're more than welcome to move to Mynamar or Iran if you like their flags better, and see if you prefer their overall national history to ours.

Hey, if the Persians hadn't allowed the Jews to return to Judea and rebuild the temple, I'm sure later history would have been quite different. But I obviously have no desire to move to Iran, even if I had the resources to do so. There's a lot I like about the United States, and while there are other countries where many of the same positive points exist, I don't plan on leaving the land where I was born. I think the United States is pretty cool, but I don't see the need to go around announcing that.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

Yes, both have existed for centuries, but most dictators are pretty much satisfied with controlling their own nations, or at most the ones in their immediate region. This particular group has no desire to maintain that status quo -- their long term goal is to come after each of us, as nations and individuals, in term. Sounds crazy and fanatical? Well, that's what they are. Both leaders and supporters have said some version of "Today the Great Satan, tomorrow the rest of them!" I'm paraphrasing, of course. They take certain parts of their religious beliefs quite seriously, and those parts tell them to convert or kill *everyone*. They've made terrorist attacks in dozens of countries, and made it quite clear that no one is safe.

The only hope the average person in America has politically is to do exactly what the Constitution always meant us to do: Use the power of our votes to throw the bums out. Despite the interference of the long outdated electoral college, we get power as individuals by getting involved. There's a million dollar frakking water tower hanging in this town because of me; a minor example, I'll grant you, but we each have value, and a bunch of individual efforts can lead to massive changes. That's the way our government's *supposed* to work, but we surrendered it as a people by giving up our power to get involved.

I associate our flag with freedom, liberty, personal rights, and all that other good crap that we wouldn't have without what the flag symbolizes. For every example of a bad thing America has done, I can give you a hundred good things, or ways in which we're still today better than most other countries in the world. The flag isn't sacred; what it stands for is.

The Jews always seemed to get pretty lucky when it came to getting back to their homeland, didn't they? :-)

*whew* Okay, I'm exhausted; if it's okay with you, I'm going to call this a "we're never going to totally agree so let's call it a day". When I'm sick like this I tend to get sarcastic and nasty, and then I feel guilty for letting loose on people -- not so very guilty with some people, but I don't like to start kerfluffle with friends like you. I'm off to take some little pink pill that will make me sleep a long, long time ....

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Just because some angry conservatives have idiotic reasons for being so, doesn't mean they ALL are thinking that way. Some people really do care about deficit spending, etc, and they're not idiots either.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I was pretty much just referring to the people screaming nonsense at town hall meetings, not to everyone who might be angry and conservative.