In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 29 2013 13:10 oneofthem wrote: that's a distorting way of putting things. securing people's deposits and maintaining credit flow are regular functions of the banking system. bailing out bad risk takers in the speculative and abusive side is quite different.
No, I'm not distorting. You can't look at only the bits of the system that you want to look at. That's distorting.
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote: IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.
Nothing has changed. The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed. Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession. The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011. Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump. The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out. Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000. In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period. The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else. The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market. America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country. The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs. The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich? The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy). So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)
This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.
Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).
Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.
Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.
And what about the millions of jobless 20 somethings with millions of dollars of debt that can't be bankrupted out of?
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote: IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.
Nothing has changed. The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed. Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession. The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011. Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump. The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out. Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000. In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period. The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else. The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market. America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country. The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs. The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich? The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy). So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)
This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.
Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).
Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.
Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.
And what about the millions of jobless 20 somethings with millions of dollars of debt that can't be bankrupted out of?
Just sayin.
Oh, didn't you know?
No one benefits or profits when people default on their student loans... Federal bankruptcy laws are there to protect you.
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote: IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.
Nothing has changed. The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed. Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession. The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011. Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump. The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out. Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000. In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period. The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else. The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market. America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country. The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs. The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich? The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy). So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)
This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.
Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).
Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.
Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.
And what about the millions of jobless 20 somethings with millions of dollars of debt that can't be bankrupted out of?
Move along concerned citizen. There is no train wreck incoming. Move along...
(I hope you get the sarcasm!)
lol, not sure how a government website that directly says that, unless extreme extenuation is shown, student loan discharge under bankruptcy is impossible says anything to your point, but ok. I'm sure the millions of jobless college grads will rest easy knowing that Sallie Mae is here for them with a website! Oh, and lets ignore the fact that state budget cuts are nudging state school tuition costs higher and higher, forcing more and more students to take out private loans to make up the difference that pops up once your school tells you, "You are now a sophomore! Here is your reduced funding package. Enjoy!"
Edit: lol Jonny, took me a night of sleep to realize what your were saying lol.
On April 29 2013 13:10 oneofthem wrote: that's a distorting way of putting things. securing people's deposits and maintaining credit flow are regular functions of the banking system. bailing out bad risk takers in the speculative and abusive side is quite different.
No, I'm not distorting. You can't look at only the bits of the system that you want to look at. That's distorting.
ordinary savers and other collateral damage are not responsible for the system getting fucked over. that much should be clear.
you are equating 'gains' from banking etc by people for whom banking is useful with profit extracted by abusive methods that caused the system to go down as well as increased risk for innocents.
On April 29 2013 13:10 oneofthem wrote: that's a distorting way of putting things. securing people's deposits and maintaining credit flow are regular functions of the banking system. bailing out bad risk takers in the speculative and abusive side is quite different.
No, I'm not distorting. You can't look at only the bits of the system that you want to look at. That's distorting.
ordinary savers and other collateral damage are not responsible for the system getting fucked over. that much should be clear.
you are equating 'gains' from banking etc by people for whom banking is useful with profit extracted by abusive methods that caused the system to go down as well as increased risk for innocents.
The way I see it is that special protections have the impact of making the system (particularly the banks) more fragile. Malfeasance certainly played a role, but issues with the system did too.
The first political-science survey of Tea Party activists
The survey asked FreedomWorks activists if they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “When we feel strongly about political issues, we should not be willing to compromise with our political opponents.” Altogether, more than 80 percent agreed to some extent. Thirty-two percent of respondents “agree strongly” with the statement. Meanwhile, less than 10 percent disagreed even “slightly.” In another series of questions sent out to FreedomWorks activists, the survey asked whether they would prefer a candidate with whom they agree on most important issues but who polls far behind the probable Democratic nominee or a candidate with whom they agree “on some of the most important issues” but who’s likely to win. More than three-fourths of respondents preferred the candidate who was more likely to lose but shared their positions.
In other words, the Tea Party cares more about what nominees believe than whether they can win—and compromising on politics means compromising on principle.
The findings help explain what’s happened in so many GOP primary races. Both nationally and at the state level, moderate GOP officeholders found themselves with primary challengers. The Tea Party has helped propel several upstart candidacies, like Christine O’Donnell’s infamous effort to win Delaware’s Senate seat or more recently, Richard Mourdock’s successful challenge to sitting Senator Dick Lugar. In both of those cases, and several others, the Tea Party candidate has proved too extreme for the general election and lost. But despite the losses, the push toward conservative purity continues. A recent New York Times story showed that even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, seen as the leader with the most clout in the Tea Party movement, has been unable to move the faction's members in his party into more moderate terrain. In light of these survey results, that makes sense—Tea Party elected officials are simply reflecting their supporters. Meanwhile, those left in the establishment fear the party’s new direction.
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote: IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.
Nothing has changed. The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed. Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession. The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011. Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump. The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out. Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000. In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period. The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else. The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market. America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country. The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs. The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich? The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy). So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)
This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.
Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).
Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.
Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.
Have any depositors actually been bailed out though? I know the FDIC has taken over banks, but to my knowledge there haven't been any that have actually been liquidated with the government paying the depositors. Instead, the government has been bailing out the banks (or forcing their sale to a larger solvent bank) in lieu of actually unwinding anything. It promotes stability better but it probably is literally more expensive than just letting banks fail and bailing out the depositors, whose insured (and even uninsured) assets are a lot less than the bank's notional balance sheets.
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote: IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.
Nothing has changed. The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed. Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession. The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011. Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump. The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out. Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000. In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period. The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else. The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market. America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country. The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs. The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich? The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy). So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)
This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.
Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).
Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.
Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.
Have any depositors actually been bailed out though? I know the FDIC has taken over banks, but to my knowledge there haven't been any that have actually been liquidated with the government paying the depositors. Instead, the government has been bailing out the banks (or forcing their sale to a larger solvent bank) in lieu of actually unwinding anything. It promotes stability better but it probably is literally more expensive than just letting banks fail and bailing out the depositors, whose insured (and even uninsured) assets are a lot less than the bank's notional balance sheets.
Well a few hundred banks have been allowed to fail and go through the FDIC resolution process.
I can't find a nice graph of what that means in dollar terms to depositors. The best I could find was this:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. fund guaranteeing customer deposits in U.S. banks is rebuilding at a faster pace as bank failures slow from their 2010 peak, the agency said in a report today.
The federal backstop, funded by assessments on banks, was at $11.8 billion at the end of 2011, up from a deficit of $20.9 billion at the end of 2009 as the credit crisis caused banks to fail. The FDIC predicted it will spend $12 billion to cover bank shutdowns through 2016, according to a report updating the fund’s health. That five-year cost is $7 billion less than the FDIC’s last five-year projection in October.
Link And to be clear I'm not disagreeing with you that some people got hosed and some got golden gifts. I'm just trying pointing out that society's protections and punishments are complex and they've hit and helped people and banks in a variety of ways.
On April 29 2013 03:19 Rassy wrote: IT'S OFFICIAL: The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed In case you were hoping that America's three-decade-long trend toward extreme wealth inequality was starting to reverse itself, Pew has some bad news for you.
Nothing has changed. The rich are still getting richer... and everyone else is still getting hosed. Pew's latest data looked at how American households have fared since the depths of the recession. The richest 7% of American households--8 million with more than $836,000 in net worth--did quite well from 2009 to 2011. Their average net worth rose from $2.5 million to $3.2 million, a 28% jump. The other 93% of American households, meanwhile, lost out. Their average net worth dropped from a measly $140,000 to $134,000. In case that's not depressing enough for you, take a look at what happened to the relative wealth shares of these two groups of households over the 2009-2011 period. The richest 7% of American households went from owning 56% of the country's net worth to owning 63% of it. That left only 37% of the country's net worth to everyone else. The source of this relative wealth bonanza for the richest households, not surprisingly, is the stock market. America's richest households own most of the stocks in this country. The stock market has more than doubled since the 2009 lows and is hitting new highs. The value of houses, meanwhile--the most valuable asset for almost "everyone else"--has risen only slightly. And house prices are still well below their pre-recession bubble peaks Now, if you're in the 7% of households that are getting richer, you might think this trend is perfectly fine. After all, who minds getting rich? The problem, unfortunately, is that America's growing wealth inequality is hurting the purchasing power of mainstream American consumers. And these consumers provide the spending that drives most of the economy. (Rich folks actually don't spend that much as a percentage of the economy). So with "everyone else" getting hosed, the health of the overall economy is deteriorating. That's hurting the ability of companies owned by the richest households to grow. And their lack of growth will eventually be reflected in the value of the stocks owned by the richest households. (Eek!)
This is not realy a suprise tbh as the rich are rich for a reason,they make more monney so inequity should naturally rise.
Have to disagree there. The fall in house values was overall a good thing. Prices had gotten too high for people to afford and lead to a supply glut that ultimately caused the recession and the sluggish recovery. The only people who lost purchasing power are those who wanted to use their home equity to finance current consumption (generally a bad idea).
Propping people's living standards up is obviously a bad thing as opposed to lifting them up, but taking away the prop and letting people fall still hurts. And it's especially invidious since the banks have been bailed out and absolved of all sin, and the human beings who lost money (whether they were greedy, or ignorant, or mislead, or criminally defrauded) get squat (or maybe a one-time payment of a few hundred or thousand dollars for having lost tens of thousands of dollars). Easy credit and reliance on mortgages equity as an ATM are significant factors that were used to mask growing inequality and stagnant wages for decades, and while the new normal might just be an adjustment to the way things were "supposed" to be, that reality is one that sucks.
Sure, but there's more to it than that as well. Depositors have been routinely bailed out and borrowers have had their sins absolved through bankruptcy. It's not quite so clear cut as X wins / Y loses.
Have any depositors actually been bailed out though? I know the FDIC has taken over banks, but to my knowledge there haven't been any that have actually been liquidated with the government paying the depositors. Instead, the government has been bailing out the banks (or forcing their sale to a larger solvent bank) in lieu of actually unwinding anything. It promotes stability better but it probably is literally more expensive than just letting banks fail and bailing out the depositors, whose insured (and even uninsured) assets are a lot less than the bank's notional balance sheets.
Well a few hundred banks have been allowed to fail and go through the FDIC resolution process.
I can't find a nice graph of what that means in dollar terms to depositors. The best I could find was this:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. fund guaranteeing customer deposits in U.S. banks is rebuilding at a faster pace as bank failures slow from their 2010 peak, the agency said in a report today.
The federal backstop, funded by assessments on banks, was at $11.8 billion at the end of 2011, up from a deficit of $20.9 billion at the end of 2009 as the credit crisis caused banks to fail. The FDIC predicted it will spend $12 billion to cover bank shutdowns through 2016, according to a report updating the fund’s health. That five-year cost is $7 billion less than the FDIC’s last five-year projection in October.
Link And to be clear I'm not disagreeing with you that some people got hosed and some got golden gifts. I'm just trying pointing out that society's protections and punishments are complex and they've hit and helped people and banks in a variety of ways.
Oh wow, I stand corrected.
Still, my issue is that the complexity in the past of say, deliberating over whether or not to save S&L, has been eliminated completely with a kneejerk response that some entities are Too Big To Fail and therefore cannot be allowed to face either market consequences or criminal penalties lest their failure have negative effects. Which isn't necessarily insane, but it only makes sense if coupled with a policy of pre-emptively breaking up TBTF entities regardless of any wrongdoing, which is not happening and may well never happen.
NBA veteran centre Jason Collins has become the first active player in any US major professional sports leagues to reveal that he is gay, doing so to Sports Illustrated in a major cover story released on Monday.
Collins, who is now a free agent, has played in the NBA for 12 seasons with six teams, spending this past campaign with the Boston Celtics and Washington Wizards. He helped the New Jersey Nets reach the 2002 and 2003 NBA Finals.
"I'm a 34-year-old NBA centre. I'm black and I'm gay," began the story that Collins penned for the magazine with writer Franz Lidz.
"I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I'm happy to start the conversation.
"I wish I wasn't the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, 'I'm different.' If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I'm raising my hand."
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.
Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.
According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."
The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.
The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress
Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.
In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."
Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.
"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."
The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.
For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
I doubt hes that serious about it. Rabble rousing about wasteful research dollars to create an issue he can win with in the election. Cherry picking "regulation and accounting transparency in china dairy industry" and "comparative network analysis: mapping global social interactions" as symbols of "government waste".
I'm sure worse things have been brought up in congress. An exemption to congress having to follow obamacare being one of them.
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.
Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.
According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."
The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.
The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress
Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.
In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."
Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.
"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."
The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.
For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.
Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.
According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."
The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.
The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress
Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.
In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."
Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.
"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."
The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.
For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.
Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.
According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."
The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.
The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress
Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.
In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."
Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.
"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."
The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.
For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
Fuck this guy. This affects me directly, as I have a project that is currently receiving NSF funding. Seriously, this guy is a goddamn moron and I hope anybody that votes for him has a shitty life filled with disease and a lack of technology.
The chairman of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-TX), is planning new legislation that would limit the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the biggest research-funding organization in the US, and bring funding decisions under political oversight.
Smith, who you might remember from such failed legislation as SOPA, is touting the High Quality Research Act as a way to avoid unnecessary duplication in the field of science funding and as a way of allowing members of Congress to have an input into funding decisions.
According to a copy of the legislation leaked to the Huffington Post, the legislation would require each piece of funding to be signed off as unique, with no overlap with another study, and must only be "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense."
The scientific community has also expressed strong reservations about another of Smith's proposed changes: that future funding should only be awarded if it is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies," since this shows a basic misunderstanding of how scientific experimentation works.
The NSF would be required to draw up a framework over the next year or instituting the same rules on other areas of science funding funded by the federal government, and report back regularly to the Committee on progress
Smith also told Dr. Cora Marrett, acting head of the NSF, that members of the Committee should have full access to the scientific briefs that are used to decide funding, which at the moment is conducted under anonymous peer review to measure a proposal's scientific credentials and usefulness.
In addition, Smith asked for details of five specific grants that were awarded last year, including a $435,000 study on "Comparative network analysis: Mapping global social interactions", $260,001's worth of analysis into "The International Criminal Court and pursuit of justice," and $152,464 for an examination of "Regulation and accounting transparency in China's dairy industry."
Smith's letter drew an pithy response from the ranking opposition member of the Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). She pointed out that no chairman had ever sought to influence funding decisions and to do so is the very antithesis of the peer-review systems that the NSF uses, which is considered a "gold standard" for other funding systems.
"By making this request," Johnson wrote, "you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the frank and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further compromise the integrity of the merit review process."
The thought of some of the less-scientifically aware politicians on the Committee making judgments on scientific funding is worrying indeed, considering their record.
For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) is currently on the Committee, a man who described evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell." Former Committee member Todd Akin (R-MO) also seemed under the impression that women could not get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
Fuck this guy. This affects me directly, as I have a project that is currently receiving NSF funding. Seriously, this guy is a goddamn moron and I hope anybody that votes for him has a shitty life filled with disease and a lack of technology.
EPT
Just sayin. 
