The discussion revolves around the analysis and summary of President Obama's inaugural address, focusing on its themes, rhetoric, and implications for the nation. Participants explore the historical context, the challenges presented in the speech, and the vision for America's future as articulated by the President.
Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the interpretation of the speech's themes and the practicality of its proposals. While there is some consensus on the importance of hope and unity, differing views emerge on the feasibility of the proposed actions and the implications for both domestic and foreign policy.
Some participants note that the discussion may be limited by differing interpretations of the speech's rhetoric and the historical context in which it was delivered. Additionally, there are unresolved questions about the specific measures that would be necessary to achieve the goals outlined in the address.
This discussion may be of interest to those studying political rhetoric, contemporary American history, or the dynamics of presidential communication and its impact on public policy.
No I don't see. Apparently neither does the current President. Does that make him a collaborator?LowlyPion said:Certainly that wouldn't solve the problems you list, but surely you see that there would be some comfort in knowing that the sanctimonious hypocrites that misled the country and the world through deceit and unregulated self interest would have gotten on Earth a foretaste of their deserved eternal fates.
No. Unless you mean Madoff, who'll be thrown under the jail for specific crimes, no, I reject the notion that government should some inflict some vague criminal penalties based on another vague notion that Wall St. did ... something. Specifics?mgb_phys said:You don't think teaching Wall St that running a $Bn scam should carry at least the same penalty as stealing cable, won't improve the economy?
It will hopefully persuade savers and investors that putting their money into American companies is slightly safer than giving to Nigerian scammers.
Yes, and people do go to jail for that. Where are people getting a pass at the moment on such behavior?mgb_phys said:I think if you are an accountancy firm who signs off on fraudulent accounts in return for a commision on a M+A.
Let me point out that these NRSRO firms (Moodies,etc) are essentially ivory tower creations of government law and regulations. If someone floats a bond, for it to be bought and sold one must by law go to one of these government named agencies for a stamp.Or if you are rating agency and you give a AAA to firms owned by the customer that pays you the most.
Part of the problem was people were mistaken in the risk assessed with that kind of debt, mortgage backed securities, an instrument invented by? Fannie & Freddie. Plenty of people have been charged by the SEC for making fraudulent statements about their books. Do you know of someone specifically getting a pass? If so, sure, indict them.Or if you are an investment bank that lies about the amount of debt exposure it has so that the share price rises and people invest their pensions with you.
That's a different subject - regulation. Yes we need regulation. Some regulation. I do not believe that regulation confers faith on its face....Why do we prosecute drunken drivers that didn't crash, why have health inspectors in restaurants, why don't we let power stations run their own safety audits?
Because we need people to have faith in the system.