Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 18, 2009 13:50:03 GMT -4
Oh, but it was okay when the previous administration was using the same tactics to sell the AIG bailout, etc.? Yeah, okay. No, it wasn't. The AIG bailout was a bad idea too.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 18, 2009 16:00:01 GMT -4
Oh, but it was okay when the previous administration was using the same tactics to sell the AIG bailout, etc.? Yeah, okay. If the government hadn't come to the aid of AIG, it is likely several large bank holding companies would have become instantly insolvent. AIG was one of the largest writers of credit insurance derivatives that have been a backbone of the financial system. A failure would have caused all of their derivatives to instantly become worthless. Not just ones that currently require payouts but derivatives that are not yet paying. The ripples of this default could have been catastrophic. It is yet another symptom of over leverage in the banking system. Whether it should have been bailed out is a judgment call with no absolute answer. A failure of AIG, in my judgment, would have simply required a wider bailout of the financial system within short order. I think Henry Paulson called the financial crisis of the fourth quarter as he saw it and acted in accordance with what he was saying. Geitner did not. It may just be a rookie mistake .
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 18, 2009 18:55:28 GMT -4
I'll also note that Fox News has declared that it wasn't deficit spending that brought us out of the Depression, it was World War II. Which, of course, involved quite a lot of deficit spending.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 18, 2009 18:59:21 GMT -4
I'll also note that Fox News has declared that it wasn't deficit spending that brought us out of the Depression, it was World War II. Which, of course, involved quite a lot of deficit spending. Perhaps their point is that what pulled us out of the Depression wasn't just deficit spending.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 18, 2009 21:00:11 GMT -4
Some economists have been pointing out that WW2 didn't get us out of the depression either. The large number of men (and a few women) involved in fighting the war were still not engaged in productive activities and were living near poverty anyway. The turn around in the economy didn't take place until after the war was over. I haven't looked into this very far but the end of the depression does not have one particular cause or one set time.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Mar 19, 2009 0:28:29 GMT -4
With all the rationing going on here during World War II, it is hard to consider that a time of being out of the Depression. You are not really wealthy if there is little available for purchase.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 4, 2009 4:02:33 GMT -4
I am, sadly, unable to Google an actual copy of this study, though there are quite a few blogs--mostly sneering ones, I note--which refer to it. I read about it in a book called The Big Con: The Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, by Jonathan Chait. Note that this was an actual study, not "OMG do you believe what the NYT said about Bush!"
In 2003, Michael Tomasky analyzed the editorial pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times. It's true that he found that the New York Times and the Washington Post were more likely to criticize Bush than Clinton. Big surprise. Equally surprising was that the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal were more likely to criticize Clinton than Bush. Shocking, I'm sure.
On the other hand, that first figure was 89% criticism of Bush to 67% criticism of Clinton, and the second was 77% criticism of Clinton to 36% criticism of Bush. On issues of process--how the system is actually run--the New York Times did run fewer articles against Hillary Clinton and secret meetings she held in '93, it's true. On the other hand, when Cheney held similarly secret meetings, the New York Times and the Washington Post still criticized it, but the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times actually posted a couple of positive articles on the subject, albeit also one negative and one neutral. So that's actual analyzed bias. The anecdotes are cute, but when the studies are done, they only seem to lean one way.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 29, 2009 16:51:20 GMT -4
Here's a big one, from the New York Times: So the NYTs argues that since the law benefited both minorities and whites that it's not having a "dramatic effect"? Is the New York Times really trying to argue that the law should have helped only minority children, or are they just engaging in mindless Bush Bashing?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 1, 2009 11:23:24 GMT -4
They may be right about the No Child law and engaged in Bush bashing at the same time. I see little reason to believe that any law will close the education performance gap among poor blacks and the general white population. This outcome of the rising tide lifting all boats seems a far more likely outcome of any education program that is not racially and behaviorally focused. If you want to address the education gap you need to focus on changing the cultural differences in the way people raise kids to include more reading and family values that favor education.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 1, 2009 11:54:44 GMT -4
They may be right about the No Child law and engaged in Bush bashing at the same time. I see little reason to believe that any law will close the education performance gap among poor blacks and the general white population. This outcome of the rising tide lifting all boats seems a far more likely outcome of any education program that is not racially and behaviorally focused. If you want to address the education gap you need to focus on changing the cultural differences in the way people raise kids to include more reading and family values that favor education. But how can you work to change "cultural differences" and still respect diversity, the holy word of liberalism?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 1, 2009 13:18:29 GMT -4
That's the rub. A why governments have failed to substantially change the education performance gap despite all the regulations and funding poured into the system. Diversity is important, because the opposite is forcing other to conform.
However there are child rearing practices that are significantly more likely to bring about better outcomes as far as school performance, income potential and choices in life. They revolve mostly around the encouragement of verbal skills and reading to your kids from the earliest age. Schools simply cannot overcome the deficit of the lack of pre-school development of language skills. IMO. Other measures are required. And this is not a "black" cultural problem, it is just more apparent there. It is more a symptom of a culture of poverty and dependence.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 1, 2009 13:57:05 GMT -4
The fun thing about the travesty that is No Child Left Behind (which had funding cuts almost since the beginning) is that there aren't really allowances made for children whose performances cannot improve--because of severe mental handicap. A school, from what I understand (by way of a person who's guidance counselor for the special needs kids at his school system), is permitted a certain number of kids who won't perform up to standards before the school gets penalized. However, it is more sensible to put all the severely retarded kids in the same program in the same place--both for the system and for the kids. I'm sure you can see the problem here.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 1, 2009 15:44:58 GMT -4
The biggest travesty, IMO is putting the Federal government in charge of the public schools. We would be better off breaking up the government monopoly on education and allowing people more choices.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 1, 2009 15:50:19 GMT -4
It is pretty hard to argue that the Federal Department of Education has improved much of anything during its existence.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on May 3, 2009 0:25:39 GMT -4
An obvious way to narrow that pesky achievement gap in education is to ban white kids from school until they are academically equal to poor blacks. The equality should make the New York Times happy.
More seriously, black students should aim higher than the level of white students. Isn't it the Asian students who you want to be equal to in terms of academic achievement?
|
|