3 ms·
The government has a history of taking advantage of panic and fear to pass egregious legislation. Another famous example is the Patriot act, passed during the h
by brenden2 7y ago
The government has a history of taking advantage of panic and fear to pass egregious legislation. Another famous example is the Patriot act, passed during the height of "terrorism" hysteria.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- throwaway_Bees 7y agoDon't forget about the corporate welfare. 2008 resulting in 2 bailouts totaling nearly $2T for the banks. At a time when American's are staying home and not being paid, Trump is continuing to focus on the stock market. He will soon pass a nearly $1T bailout for businesses...American workers will be lucky to see a single check in the next 2-4 weeks.
- ilikehurdles 7y agoIt will be tough times for workers and their Social Security funds, and bailouts for the employers who used their last round of giveaway money on stock buybacks.
- ta1234567890 7y agoAnd that is only for big businesses that are listed in the stock exchanges. All other businesses are left to struggle on their own. Thousands of small businesses are going to have to shut down for good.
- throwaway_Bees 7y agoBillions will be poured into the SBA, so they can claim billions went to small businesses, but that money will all be given to businesses with political connections. And they will never mention those thousands of small businesses you reference that will go under, just like politicians never once spoke of American's who lost their homes and became homeless, instead mentioning only the banks problems.
- artificial 7y agoI'm not a fan of the banks, they were encouraged to loan to risky borrowers, people who bought as much as they could with little more than a pulse. This behavior began under Clinton. This was during the era of easy credit where college kids could get massive credit lines. Source: I was one of these kids and I also worked for a Real Estate Web host during the boom and bust.
- throwaway_Bees 7y ago>I'm not a fan of the banks, they were encouraged to loan to risky borrowers, people who bought as much as they could with little more than a pulse. There is so much to unpack in this sentence, this alone could be a book about the financial/housing collapse. Yes, in Clinton's years the banks lobbied and successfully had regulations rolled back so they could underwrite loans on stated income from broker applications. For purposes of culpability/intent, look no further than these lobbying efforts (I am skipping the other deregulations they successfully lobbied for: 103% financing/nothing down/adjustable rate mortgages). With these new rules its fair to say banks encouraged brokers to in turn encourage borrowers to make up numbers because now they would not be verified. When it all blew up, the banks blamed the borrowers for lying on mortgage applications, making themselves out to be the victims.
- kortilla 7y agoBanks only got loans in the crisis, not free money. Let me see if I understand the thought process by this propaganda. Extra loans for unemployed people isn’t really palatable so we use the word “bailout” to make it sound like free money so we can advocate for handouts. Is that right?
- miked85 7y agoWhy do you put "terrorism" in quotes? It was/is most definitely a real thing.
- izzydata 7y agoPossibly suggesting that countering terrorism was not the real goal.
- FDSGSG 7y agoIt's never terrorism when the US government murders civilians. Clearly murdering civilians is simply an accepted practice at this point, and not "terrorism".
- ruskimir 7y agoПриветствую, товарищ.
- kortilla 7y agoIn your world does intent matter?
- FDSGSG 7y agoDoes intent matter when the US government actively resists investigations into war crimes perpetrated its fighters? Does intent matter when the US leadership pardons convicted war criminals?
- chance_state 7y agoWhy dodge the question?
- FDSGSG 7y agoWhether or not intent matters in my world is utterly irrelevant, clearly intent doesn't matter when it comes to the US govt.
- leftyted 7y agoThere's another side to this story. Americans demand this kind of action during emergencies. The widely accepted idea that the government is capable of protecting us from events like this is tacit acknowledgement of the government's right to closely monitor society. To put it another way: as soon as you start blaming the government for a terrorist attack (or something), you are rather close to condoning government surveillance of the citizenry (or whatever extreme measure).
- pdelbarba 7y agoSure, however this case in particular is a bit of a counter point because covid-19 isn't causing anyone to become a child predator, nor has there otherwise been a recent tidal wave of child predators that appeared out of thin air. Seems they pushed the bill off for a bit but this whole thing was introduced at an odd time.
- keiferski 7y agoI would say that the people demand action of some kind, not necessarily action that violates civil rights. A wise leader would know how to satisfy the populace without sacrificing liberty in the process.
- clairity 7y agoyes to action, not surveillance. but i remember the patriot act having lots of popular support (but not from me). it still makes me mad thinking about it. police powers (internally delegated coercive power) are largely the domain of states and localities, not the federal government (who's responsible for externally targeted force), along with an FBI that's limited to federal concerns, like interstate commerce and crimes against the federal government. citizens need to be ever vigilant about maintaining those distinctions.
- rdiddly 7y agoI feel obliged to mention that this assumes a correlation between surveillance and protection.
- aquabeagle 7y agoWhich was largely written by Joe Biden in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveillance-joe https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveil...