Or the classic black, Tri-X look?
John Camp
Well-known
Not really. Your definition is what some political scientists (is that an oxymoron, or what?) would call a "classical liberal." American "liberalism" has little to do with "classical liberalism," but is more derived from a kind of wimpy Marxism, as strained through the history of the Great Depression, featuring class struggle, grasping capitalists, plotting bankers, etc. One of the features of this line of politics is government control, and the more, the better...some of which you are seeing in the UK. In fact, I don't even know why there are photographers in the UK anymore, since everything is down on your street-watching cameras. Lots easier just to get access, and edit... [For the humor impaired, of which Roger is not one, this is said somewhat tongue-in-cheek.]
A few other comments:
The US auto industry is doing okay. It's just not in Detroit, and it's not Ford, GM and Chrysler. It's Japanese and European companies in the American South.
Most of the American liberal cures for these problems won't work. There isn't enough money. In regard to the house-passed health care bill alone, it's been widely reported that if the government took *all* the income away from people who made more than $500,000 in a year, it would not be enough to pay for it. That is, if they taxed the rich at a 100% rate, there wouldn't be enough.
The American right, on the other hand, has mostly babbled itself into irrelevance. I can't think of a single big issue on the right that "most" people really care about, except, possibly, taxes.
The attacks on the inheritance tax are mostly bull****. At the moment, they don't even kick in until $3.5 million. In my opinion, it should be more than that -- say, $15 or $20 million. But after that, it should be graduated, and very sharply, too. We don't need an inherited wealth-based aristocracy in the US.
As for whose fault the current mess is...
My feeling in all these matters boil down to a comment about bankers and the housing collapse that I didn't actually overhear, because I said it myself (blushing as he quotes himself) -- "The bankers may have done the gambling, but the government built the casino."
JC
muser53
MUSER53
A modest suggestion is for you all to untwist yer knickers and avoid any further agita! As HH likes to remind us Love & Light.
And Monkey Boy, ride on!
And Monkey Boy, ride on!
Monkey Boy, where are your spokes? Else it will all implode like capitalism. 
Finale:
The blame belongs to Warren Buffett, courtesy of the WSJ.
"perhaps the lesson here is that you never want to find yourself in position where a do-or-die business deal depends solely on a septogenarian’s ability to operate a cellphone."
http://bit.ly/cqzQ6
The blame belongs to Warren Buffett, courtesy of the WSJ.
"perhaps the lesson here is that you never want to find yourself in position where a do-or-die business deal depends solely on a septogenarian’s ability to operate a cellphone."
http://bit.ly/cqzQ6
Monkey Boy, where are your spokes? Else it will all implode like capitalism.
My holga lens does not have the resolving power to cature the spokes, or the chain. But the chain does not matter, I only use the bike to ride down the D-log curve.
wgerrard
Veteran
I did not blame "it all" on Bush. I blamed the recession on Bush and conservatives. I can add to the list, but it does fall short of "it all".
Why would I have mentioned Afghanistan? BTW, I do think we had a legitimate reason to be in Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq. That reason is to prop up a government that will not allow Afghanistan to be used as a base for terror against the U.S. It is not to democratize, Westernize, or educate Afghans. But, frankly, I give us little chance because Afghanistan has been essentially ungovernable for centuries and don't expect that to change. If our way of preventing terrorism is to change the way of life of every country in which terrorists reside, we are doomed.
Paul seems to me as much of a threat as any other wingnut. I'm obviously very partisan, and a lifelong Democrat. But, that's because they usually support the things I support, while conservatives usually oppose those things. In my "formative" years, conservatives were people who stood in school house doors and turned the cops and the dogs loose on kids. I think many of them have not changed that much.
I'm interested in results, not ideology. For example, I want every American to have access to the health care they need, regardless of income. I don't believe the market can provide that, since so much of the care that must be delivered cannot also deliver a profit. Beyond that, I don't care if we pay for it through taxes or from gifts from the wealthy. I just don't expect the latter to happen.
As for Obama, I want him to stop kissing ass and start kicking ass. The goal of every Democrat in the nation should be to eliminate the GOP as a viable national party. That party has no answers and assumes no responsibilities. (A look at a map showing which counties gave McCain a majority indicates that confining the GOP to regional status is not a pipedream.)
-doomed-
film is exciting
To summarize what I am reading here, the system is broken, there are no real answers from either party and were all essentially screwed. Further than that it would appear this thread about stock photos has gone pear shaped. At any rate I've been thoroughly entertained by the back and forth endless arguments contained within, there are problems from both ends of the political spectrum and all of this arguing has gotten us all nowhere. If the concerns are legitimate get off this damn forum and go be heard , make some noise and be heard. This forum noise is simply just that, forum noise. Granted, I do realize there are a few who actually are involved and I applaud that.
bmattock
Veteran
No, that's a utopian misconception. It's a zero-sum game.
If I am an employer and I pay my employees more than my competitors, then I must price my widgets higher than my competitors too, or go out of business. But if I price my widgets higher than my competitors, I'll go out of business anyway, because people will buy the cheaper widgets over mine. If the government forces all the widget-makers to pay more in wages, so that we all have to raise our prices, then people who buy our widgets will have to have raises in order to afford our wages, forcing the price of widgets yet higher.
Poverty is not a number, it is a condition. Paying more to the poor does not change poverty, it changes the line where poverty is drawn. You could pay everyone $1,000 an hour as the new minimum wage, but rent would go up a proportionate amount, as would food, gasoline, etc. End result - the poor stay right where they are.
There is no cure for poverty as a whole. A society can choose to address the worst aspects of poverty, such as crime, illness, and starvation. Beyond that, the poor remain poor. A number on a paycheck does not change that.
No, welfare is primarily for those who do not work, not those who work but don't make enough money. Raising wages will not affect welfare. In fact, it will most likely hurt welfare recipients, because if you raise the bar that constitutes what poverty is, and rents and food and etc rise with that, now those on welfare can afford even less; unless you give them more welfare too.
And there you go. Liberals scrounging around in my wallet for more money to give to people who will not work. Once upon a time, I could afford such largess. Now I cannot. Stay the hell out of my wallet. Spend your own damned money on the poor if you love them so much. Leave me out of it.
wgerrard
Veteran
I agree that poverty is relative and understand that so long as we have a market-based economy wage increases will be absorbed by price increases.
But, if poverty is relative, so too is the condition of being rich.
Meanwhile, it is false to accuse liberals of wanting to scrounge around in your wallet for money to give to people who will not work. I know no one who wants to do that, while I do know people who want to rejig the tax system to give more of my money to the unproductive rich.
What liberals want to do is protect people from the financial predations of powerful corporations and useless moneychangers who make their money in financial instruments, real estate, etc.
But, if poverty is relative, so too is the condition of being rich.
Meanwhile, it is false to accuse liberals of wanting to scrounge around in your wallet for money to give to people who will not work. I know no one who wants to do that, while I do know people who want to rejig the tax system to give more of my money to the unproductive rich.
What liberals want to do is protect people from the financial predations of powerful corporations and useless moneychangers who make their money in financial instruments, real estate, etc.
nonot
Well-known
I'm not a huge proponent of higher taxation in general, but the "me me me" -ness that runs through much of the right wing's arguments against taxation and "keeping what one's worked for" is a bit nauseating. It's Thanksgiving in America, a holiday that sums up much of the circumstance that has afforded wealthy people the luxury of lamenting taxes in the first place. If you're making the type of money where you are comparing what you are taxed to people making 100's of thousands of dollars, consider yourself lucky, some people in America make too little for them to be taxed without starving. If you don't think you have it okay, perhaps go live on the other side of the tracks for a bit.
And how this relates to microstock? Everyone wants things cheap until it has a direct effect on them. Consider it the next time you have the chance to buy locally.
And how this relates to microstock? Everyone wants things cheap until it has a direct effect on them. Consider it the next time you have the chance to buy locally.
gb hill
Veteran
The media duped you into believing that about Congressman Paul. As far as his knowlege of the Constitution the man is brilliant. As for bush I put a lot of blame on him myself but apparently you forget the majority in the Senate & House are Democrats. I too am interested in results, but how high must unemployment reach before the shift goes from Bush to Obama. BTW have you seen this clip from SNL? They got it right! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUE6rWpleBs
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I can't spend my money on the poor Bill, BECAUSE I AM ONE OF THEM. I love 'the poor' because they include my son. He deserves to live. I deserve to live. If that means taking 'your' pieces of paper the government says are 'money' then so be it.
Remember this: History has shown clearly that when you push the poor down too far, they kill you.
1789!
1917!
I know of no powerful corporations that can reach into my pocket like the government does. That's the real predator.
Individuals should be responsible for their own success or failure. If you are poor, do something about it yourself, please don't wait for a government Savior. That person is YOU.
Individuals should be responsible for their own success or failure. If you are poor, do something about it yourself, please don't wait for a government Savior. That person is YOU.
Last edited by a moderator:
wgerrard
Veteran
The media hasn't duped me into anything. I've listened to Paul. I don't agree with him.
It's a disingenuous to cite the current composition of Congress when assessing Bush. On Sept 10, 2001, Bush had earned a reputation as an ineffectual and essentially incompetent president. Then, he cynically leveraged the pain of 9/11 to stir up the unreasoning fear that would see him through two terms. Meanwhile, today, the Democrats lack the majority in the Senate needed to overwhelm the GOP's desire to thwart progress. This can be blamed on the Blue Dogs, people who ought to be expunged from the party.
Democrats lack the majority? Not hardly. They just lack the balls. They can pass anything they want. They just don't want, otherwise it would happen. The GOP has nothing to do with anything, they are irrelevant if the Democrats are united.
wgerrard
Veteran
My health insurance premium with Blue Cross -- an alleged nonprofit that pays it top execs tens of millions --increased by close to 20 percent. How is that not predatory? If they are so concerned about the welfare of their customers, why haven't they cut the salaries of their execs and stopped paying and rewarding bureaucrats to tell doctors they can't provide the treatments they know their patients need?
People like you who are brainwashed and suckered by the rich keep telling us that they don't want government bureaucrats interfering with their health care. Yet, private insurance companies and HBO's routinely make those decisions every day. My seriously ill mother was discharged from hospital against the expressed orders of her doctors, who pleaded her case with the insurance bureaucrats. They refused to pay and my mother was discharged. They probably got bonuses. My mother died. So, think about how much sympathy I have for your position.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
Another untruth.
The GOP will filibuster any useful bill that comes to the Senate. The Dems only have 60 votes to stop the filibuster if every quisling Blue Dog votes with the party and if the traitor Leiberman does, as well. Take away Leiberman and the foul people who are Democrats in name only and the party lacks a majority.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
LOL!!
Don't worry they will be in due time, Just like the bozos in New Jersey & Virginia
You need to worry about the crooks Pelosi & Reid. There the ones ruining your party. Why did they put it in the health care bill that it would be manditory for all to buy health insurance & those that don't will be fined & imprisoned? Why, did she do that?
gdi
Veteran
One man's facts become another's propaganda..
FreddieMac.com 03/2008:
OFHEO, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Announce Initiative to Increase Mortgage Market Liquidity
"OFHEO estimates that Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's existing capabilities, combined with this new initiative and the release of the portfolio caps announced in February, should allow the GSEs to purchase or guarantee about $2 trillion in mortgages this year. This capacity will permit them to do more in the jumbo temporary conforming market, subprime refinancing and loan modifications areas."
Washington Post - 06/2008:
How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
Regarding HUD - "The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html
Bloomberg 09/2008:
Fannie, Freddie Subprime Spree May Add to Bailout
"Fannie Mae of Washington and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac held $114 billion of subprime and $71 billion in Alt-A securities as of June 30, according to the companies. Subprime mortgages were given to people with poor credit scores. Alt-A loans, which rank between subprime and prime, were made to borrowers with better credit who provided no proof of income, bought property for investment or took out so-called option adjustable-rate mortgages."
wikipedia:
"In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[105] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[106] From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities."
While Fannie and Freddie were not the only cause of the crisis, they most certainly were involved in purchasing subprime loans and MBS - by design.