THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby Symmetry on Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:03 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:Obama's plan was to take us back to Reagan tax rates, which worked, rather than Bush tax rates, which led us into economic decline. And if you want to scream at that because it will cost "the rich" more money, take a better look at Romney's plans; he won't directly increase the tax rate, he'll just reduce or eliminate the deductions for your house, your medical care, your childcare expenses... all those things that help the little guy, including the small business owner, stay just a little above drowning.


For claiming to be a conservative, you sure do parrot liberalism most of the time. Reagan's tax rates worked because it wasn't the tax rate: it was the massive tax CUT that provided those rates. Raising the rates from today's rate to the 1980s rate won't do anything to spur economic growth. And the idea that we had economic decline after Bush's tax cuts is a complete falsehood that ignored everything that happened prior to the summer of 2008. We had over 4 years of low unemployment and continually-expanding revenues to the federal government after the two phases of tax cuts were passed. Furthermore, the collapse in 2008 had absolutely nothing to do with tax rates. It was a banking and housing bubble bursting open, neither of which were tied to tax rates. Obama's answer was to print tons of money to use as governmental stimulus, which has given us the past 3.5 years of economic stagflation.


Sources?


The tax rates for the Reagan years and the current tax rates are both matters of public record. The unemployment numbers and the governmental revenues during the Bush presidency are also public records. Go look them up.


Sweetie, post them if they're part of your point. I know your style is to come in and say something obnoxious without providing evidence, and then sod off, but this is getting silly.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:46 am

Night Strike wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:Obama's plan was to take us back to Reagan tax rates, which worked, rather than Bush tax rates, which led us into economic decline. And if you want to scream at that because it will cost "the rich" more money, take a better look at Romney's plans; he won't directly increase the tax rate, he'll just reduce or eliminate the deductions for your house, your medical care, your childcare expenses... all those things that help the little guy, including the small business owner, stay just a little above drowning.


For claiming to be a conservative, you sure do parrot liberalism most of the time. Reagan's tax rates worked because it wasn't the tax rate: it was the massive tax CUT that provided those rates. Raising the rates from today's rate to the 1980s rate won't do anything to spur economic growth. And the idea that we had economic decline after Bush's tax cuts is a complete falsehood that ignored everything that happened prior to the summer of 2008. We had over 4 years of low unemployment and continually-expanding revenues to the federal government after the two phases of tax cuts were passed. Furthermore, the collapse in 2008 had absolutely nothing to do with tax rates. It was a banking and housing bubble bursting open, neither of which were tied to tax rates. Obama's answer was to print tons of money to use as governmental stimulus, which has given us the past 3.5 years of economic stagflation.


So basically your stance is, no matter how low the taxes go on those who can afford it, the businesses won't hire Americans unless they get yet ANOTHER tax reduction.

My "conservatism" ends where logic begins, Night Strike. I won't play blind man's bluff like so many "Republicans" today do, just because I detest some liberal ideas; not when "my party" is being even more despicable than my worst liberal nightmares.

The banking bubble was allowed to burst because BUSH removed some regulations, and removed some oversight that forced appropriate ethics and legalities. The repackaging of debt obligations was legal, but someone was still supposed to hold back sufficient funds to back those obligations, and regulations and overseers had been assigned to ensure that occured. When BUSH removed those watchdogs, companies that were doing the repackaging and selling Collateralized Debt Obligations, started to conveniently forget to hold back funds to cover the debts. Furthermore, they increased the risks by packaging many less secure loans with a few more secure loans, and calling them the lesser risk rather than admitting these packages had more risk than they were admitting.

As you said to someone else, these facts are all out on the web, look them up.

Then, when folks who owed the monies lost their jobs under Bush because plants closed in America to "expand" to various overseas locations (which Bush did nothing about and in fact, even backed legislation that made those moves more profitable for those once-American companies) the shady stack of cards BUSH allowed to build, collapsed.

Additionally, printing a bunch of money and making a stimulus was Bush's idea, only where he put the money didn't stimulate at all. So, Obama gets blamed for printing a little more money for a second stimulus that worked a little but not quite enough - or not quite enough yet.

Again, facts, look them up, Night Strike, rather than parrot Rush Limbaugh's distortions of the truth.

Finally, check your economics. It takes time for a financial cause to achieve effect; there's years of lag - it used to be 8-10 years, although that's lessened a little. Basically, Bush's policies in 2004 and 2005 caused what occurred in 2008 and 2009, and what Obama did in 2008 are finally starting to achieve some results in 2012.

Obama kept us from being totally snowed under the avalanche Bush's policies caused; it's not his fault that time takes time, and reverting back to the very policies that caused the avalanche would finalize our country's economic ruin.

Also remember: when Reagan cut the tax rates, they were 70%. Then he realized he cut them too low for our nation's wellbeing, and had to adjust and raise them back up again.

Then Bush came along and cut them back down, despite Ronald had already realized, "too much cut is not a good thing for our nation after all."

So. Obama wanting to put the rates back to Reagan rates DOES make sense.

If your fingernails are too long, sure, you should trim them; but if you cut them to the quick, you risk infection and loss of your fingernail. Similarly, Bush cut the taxes too low and left them there, causing an infection and risking loss of our nation as a strong financial entity.

BigBallinStalin wrote:And what of the poorer people in foreign nations?


Appropriate EXPANSION is one thing. Moving American jobs overseas to turn around and sell the now-foreign products back in America at prices Americans could afford when Americans were making the products, is a problem.

And if you do some more of your homework, you'd find that damned few of those poorer people in foreign nations get elevated living standards because they're being paid extremely low wages, commensurate to or only very slightly above their typical living standards. That's what makes it so "profitable" for American companies to move, you see. They get the best of all worlds, pay peanuts to the laborers but still sell high over in the U.S. for the very few who can still afford their product.

And then what happened is, companies realized less people in America could afford their product, so they laid off more workers, causing even less people to be able to afford their product, causing more layoffs.

Obama has done well trying to stop the avalanche, with zero help from Congress who continue to take their vaca's, get their salaries, get their ultra premium healthcare and can still rely on tremendous pensions PLUS Social Security. And, of course, the Ryan/Romney Social Security and Medicare plans don't dare to touch most of the Congressmen and Senators who are primarily above the golden age of 55 they keep spouting - as are almost all the baby boomers who lived beyond the planned-for time which caused THAT little problem.

I wish. I really wish. That I could still espouse Republican ideas. But, as a rational and critical thinking person, I cannot. They, the Republicans, broke some things, and their idea to "fix" it is to repeat the exact same actions that broke the things in the first place, NONE of which will help poorer Americans get back to work.

We can all agree that there are "some" Americans who thrive on living off the system when they don't have to. It's fraud, and should be addressed appropriately. But lumping everyone who's now unemployed because of faulty Republican actions into that same category is wrong. Doing more of what really caused the problem, is wrong. Blaming Obama because his fix isn't working FAST enough, is wrong.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby notyou2 on Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:11 am

Well stated Stahr.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 3207
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now
Medals: 40
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (3)
General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (5) Training Achievement (1)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:20 am

stahrgazer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:And what of the poorer people in foreign nations?


Appropriate EXPANSION is one thing. Moving American jobs overseas to turn around and sell the now-foreign products back in America at prices Americans could afford when Americans were making the products, is a problem.


False. The prices are different, thus the gains of trade will differ. You shouldn't ignore that by saying "at prices Americans could afford."


stahrgazer wrote:And if you do some more of your homework, you'd find that damned few of those poorer people in foreign nations get elevated living standards because they're being paid extremely low wages, commensurate to or only very slightly above their typical living standards. That's what makes it so "profitable" for American companies to move, you see. They get the best of all worlds, pay peanuts to the laborers but still sell high over in the U.S. for the very few who can still afford their product.


Their wages in manufacturing are higher than subsistence agriculture--it doesn't make sense to call wage X "extremely low" without using a meaningful benchmark. The middle class of many developing countries is rising, and the poorest of the poor are becoming less and less over the decades. This is mainly due to international trade (and less restrictions trade), which is something you're obviously against.


stahrgazer wrote:And then what happened is, companies realized less people in America could afford their product, so they laid off more workers, causing even less people to be able to afford their product, causing more layoffs.


Is this your business cycle theory?


stahrgazer wrote:Obama has done well trying to stop the avalanche, with zero help from Congress who continue to take their vaca's, get their salaries, get their ultra premium healthcare and can still rely on tremendous pensions PLUS Social Security. And, of course, the Ryan/Romney Social Security and Medicare plans don't dare to touch most of the Congressmen and Senators who are primarily above the golden age of 55 they keep spouting - as are almost all the baby boomers who lived beyond the planned-for time which caused THAT little problem.

I wish. I really wish. That I could still espouse Republican ideas. But, as a rational and critical thinking person, I cannot. They, the Republicans, broke some things, and their idea to "fix" it is to repeat the exact same actions that broke the things in the first place, NONE of which will help poorer Americans get back to work.

We can all agree that there are "some" Americans who thrive on living off the system when they don't have to. It's fraud, and should be addressed appropriately. But lumping everyone who's now unemployed because of faulty Republican actions into that same category is wrong. Doing more of what really caused the problem, is wrong. Blaming Obama because his fix isn't working FAST enough, is wrong.


This is irrelevant.

We were discussing foreign labor and international trade; not "president X did A, B, and C, even though he's not really responsible for A, B, and C."
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby Night Strike on Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:04 pm

The government forced banks to write 1 sub-prime loan for every 9 good loans instead of what had previously been 1 sub-prime loan for every 99 good loans. Bush warned Congress in 2005 that Fannie Mae and other secondary loan markets had to be reformed to avoid a collapse, but Barney Frank and his cohorts refused to listen and ignored the problem. It has been government involvement in the system that caused all of this mess, not deregulation.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
 
Posts: 8646
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:14 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:And what of the poorer people in foreign nations?


Appropriate EXPANSION is one thing. Moving American jobs overseas to turn around and sell the now-foreign products back in America at prices Americans could afford when Americans were making the products, is a problem.


False. The prices are different, thus the gains of trade will differ. You shouldn't ignore that by saying "at prices Americans could afford."


Stalin, explain how Nike-made-overseas pricing being just about the same as made-in-American New Balance pricing, and tell me again the prices are different.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:22 pm

Night Strike wrote:The government forced banks to write 1 sub-prime loan for every 9 good loans instead of what had previously been 1 sub-prime loan for every 99 good loans. Bush warned Congress in 2005 that Fannie Mae and other secondary loan markets had to be reformed to avoid a collapse, but Barney Frank and his cohorts refused to listen and ignored the problem. It has been government involvement in the system that caused all of this mess, not deregulation.


No. Unethical business tactics that were allowed to flourish, is what caused this. The forced loans had still required that the banks and lenders keep back enough funds to cover any losses. Watchdogs (cats) were in place to ensure that happened.

Bush took away the watchdogs (cats). "When the cat's away the mice will play," works well here. Well, Bush took away the cats and the big-business wealthy mice did play.

and the neo-Republican answer to this is to open the gates wider to their play, let them hoard even more of their cheese to play with, and take away more of the watchcats.

Neo-Republicans need to learn what Reagan already knew and what Obama knows: Capitalism is good, but only when the companies they're protecting keep up a good sense of patriotic and moral ethics, rather than worship only the dollar signs. But when business leaders stop worrying about patriotism, it's time for a country to fight back a little bit.

Seriously, nightstrike, do your research. Unethical repackaging/selling of higher risk loans into a lower-risk category because the cats weren't watching anymore, resulted in illegal failure to back those loans with sufficient capital "just in case" someone lost his/her job and couldn't afford to repay the loans. If Bush had kept the watchcats in place, the watchcats could've ensured that those unethical practices didn't result in the illegal failure to back high-risk loans with enough money.

And the house of cards that lacks of patriotism, ethics, and watchcats, collapsed and pretty much demolished this country and parts of the world.

So the answer is NOT to trust the same unpatriotic, unethical, and illegal businessleaders. The wealthy are above the floodwaters enough to survive Romney's push to let similar happen again; most of the populations are not.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:43 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:And what of the poorer people in foreign nations?


Appropriate EXPANSION is one thing. Moving American jobs overseas to turn around and sell the now-foreign products back in America at prices Americans could afford when Americans were making the products, is a problem.


False. The prices are different, thus the gains of trade will differ. You shouldn't ignore that by saying "at prices Americans could afford."


Stalin, explain how Nike-made-overseas pricing being just about the same as made-in-American New Balance pricing, and tell me again the prices are different.


There may be exceptions, but for the most part, goods produced in foreign countries with cheap labor (among other factors) usually can sell such goods at lower prices.

If you buy knockoff Nikes from the very same Chinese factory that makes the real Nikes, then you'd realize that lower price. So, in this particular case, the blame falls on the patent/copyright/trademark system for keeping prices high.

Also, there's many issues involving antitrust laws and WTO nonsense. For example, if Nike outsources much of its production process, and then sells Nikes for cheap in US markets, it may be hit with price dumping. If this factors into their decision-making, then US antitrust law is to blame for keeping the prices higher than they would be.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:44 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
Night Strike wrote:The government forced banks to write 1 sub-prime loan for every 9 good loans instead of what had previously been 1 sub-prime loan for every 99 good loans. Bush warned Congress in 2005 that Fannie Mae and other secondary loan markets had to be reformed to avoid a collapse, but Barney Frank and his cohorts refused to listen and ignored the problem. It has been government involvement in the system that caused all of this mess, not deregulation.


No. Unethical business tactics that were allowed to flourish, is what caused this. The forced loans had still required that the banks and lenders keep back enough funds to cover any losses. Watchdogs (cats) were in place to ensure that happened.

Bush took away the watchdogs (cats). "When the cat's away the mice will play," works well here. Well, Bush took away the cats and the big-business wealthy mice did play.

and the neo-Republican answer to this is to open the gates wider to their play, let them hoard even more of their cheese to play with, and take away more of the watchcats.

Neo-Republicans need to learn what Reagan already knew and what Obama knows: Capitalism is good, but only when the companies they're protecting keep up a good sense of patriotic and moral ethics, rather than worship only the dollar signs. But when business leaders stop worrying about patriotism, it's time for a country to fight back a little bit.

Seriously, nightstrike, do your research. Unethical repackaging/selling of higher risk loans into a lower-risk category because the cats weren't watching anymore, resulted in illegal failure to back those loans with sufficient capital "just in case" someone lost his/her job and couldn't afford to repay the loans. If Bush had kept the watchcats in place, the watchcats could've ensured that those unethical practices didn't result in the illegal failure to back high-risk loans with enough money.

And the house of cards that lacks of patriotism, ethics, and watchcats, collapsed and pretty much demolished this country and parts of the world.

So the answer is NOT to trust the same unpatriotic, unethical, and illegal businessleaders. The wealthy are above the floodwaters enough to survive Romney's push to let similar happen again; most of the populations are not.



Why did banks suddenly grant mortgages to so many riskier borrowers?
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:45 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:And what of the poorer people in foreign nations?


Appropriate EXPANSION is one thing. Moving American jobs overseas to turn around and sell the now-foreign products back in America at prices Americans could afford when Americans were making the products, is a problem.


False. The prices are different, thus the gains of trade will differ. You shouldn't ignore that by saying "at prices Americans could afford."


Stalin, explain how Nike-made-overseas pricing being just about the same as made-in-American New Balance pricing, and tell me again the prices are different.


Nike makes more money.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:04 pm

stahrgazer wrote:The banking bubble was allowed to burst because BUSH removed some regulations, and removed some oversight that forced appropriate ethics and legalities. The repackaging of debt obligations was legal, but someone was still supposed to hold back sufficient funds to back those obligations, and regulations and overseers had been assigned to ensure that occured. When BUSH removed those watchdogs, companies that were doing the repackaging and selling Collateralized Debt Obligations, started to conveniently forget to hold back funds to cover the debts. Furthermore, they increased the risks by packaging many less secure loans with a few more secure loans, and calling them the lesser risk rather than admitting these packages had more risk than they were admitting.

As you said to someone else, these facts are all out on the web, look them up.

Then, when folks who owed the monies lost their jobs under Bush because plants closed in America to "expand" to various overseas locations (which Bush did nothing about and in fact, even backed legislation that made those moves more profitable for those once-American companies) the shady stack of cards BUSH allowed to build, collapsed.

Additionally, printing a bunch of money and making a stimulus was Bush's idea, only where he put the money didn't stimulate at all. So, Obama gets blamed for printing a little more money for a second stimulus that worked a little but not quite enough - or not quite enough yet.

Again, facts, look them up, Night Strike, rather than parrot Rush Limbaugh's distortions of the truth.

Finally, check your economics. It takes time for a financial cause to achieve effect; there's years of lag - it used to be 8-10 years, although that's lessened a little. Basically, Bush's policies in 2004 and 2005 caused what occurred in 2008 and 2009, and what Obama did in 2008 are finally starting to achieve some results in 2012.

Obama kept us from being totally snowed under the avalanche Bush's policies caused; it's not his fault that time takes time, and reverting back to the very policies that caused the avalanche would finalize our country's economic ruin.


I did some fact checking here, following stahr's advice to look things up.

There are approximately 140 financial institutions that failed in 2008/2009. The causes were attributed mainly to the poor economic climate and all bank failures involved a fall in capital which caused the banks to be unable to meet their financial obligations. So what caused the financial crisis? First was the collapse of the real estate market. When people defaulted on mortgage loans, banks begin to experience capital flow problems. As mortgage-backed securities fail, the economy goes down.

But let's look at the idea of bank deregulation and whether Bush is the only one at fault (Stahrgazer's opinion). Let's see who is to blame (all of this information is easily accessible on the internet):

(1) The Federal Reserve slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, which made credit cheap.
(2) Home buyers took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
(3) Congress supported a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive homes.
(4) Real estate agents earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
(5) The Clinton administration pushed for less stringent credit and down payment requirements for working and middle-class families.
(6) Mortgage brokers offered less-credit-worth buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments.
(7) Alan Greenspan near the peak of the housing bubble in 2004 encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
(8) Wall Street firms paid little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into mortgage backed securities and isused those securities as collateral.
(9) The Bush administration failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market (This is stahrgazer's only reason for the financial collapse).
(10) An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market.
(11) Collective delusion that home prices would keep rising forever.

Let's talk about Bush's actions specifically since stahrgazer brought it up:

The deregulation law in question was sponsored by one Senator Phil Gramm. The law is called the Gramm-Leach-Blilely Act which was passed in 1999 and repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act (from the Depression which imposed a number of regulations on financial institutions). The bill passed the 362-57 with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill 90-8, including a vote from Joe Biden (the current vice president serving under President Obama). The bill was signed into law by George Bush. Oh wait, no it wasn't. It was signed into law by President William Jeferson Clinton, a Democrat. Furthermore, economists on both sides of the spectrum indicated that the law probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been. For example, Robert Kuttner, a liberal economist, wrote that he blamed the financial deregulation of the 1970s and blamed the policies of the federal reserve under Alan Greenspan. For example, former Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley as having softened the crisis. And finally, for example, Bill Clinton who signed the law said that he has no regrets about signing it, going so far as to say "But I can't blame the Republicans."
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby Symmetry on Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:35 pm

Well, I'm just glad we can all agree that the global financial crisis is America's fault.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Symmetry
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby stahrgazer on Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:42 pm

thegreekdog wrote:(9) The Bush administration failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market (This is stahrgazer's only reason for the financial collapse).


ABSOLUTELY NOT!

What I DID say is, the reason for the collapse was UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICES that violated Federal requirements, and Bush took away the watchdogs that were supposed to watch.

The deregulation quote you're talking about isn't the area I spoke of.

Even with all the easy loans, the financial institutions were supposed to hold back sufficient capital to prevent the collapse of the system if someone failed to repay the loan. Watchdogs were in place post-Clinton, and Bush's administration decided to remove those watchdogs, relying on businessmen to do things right anyway.

A) Businessmen decided that "right" was whatever unethical practices resulted in their near-term profits. Unethical and against-still-existing-regulation practices such as repackaging those high-risk loans along with a couple lower-risk loans and calling the entire package low-risk, and conveniently forgetting to hold back sufficient capital in case someone failed to repay their loans. And this spread from lender to lender to lender, each buying up high risk loans, repackaging them and calling them lower risk than the most risky loans within the packages, and FAILED TO BACK THOSE OBLIGATIONS WITH SUFFICIENT CAPITAL.

B) Meanwhile, OTHER businessmen decided that "right" was whatever unpatriotic practices resulted in their near-term profits. Unpatriotic practices such as closing or reducing plants in the United States and opening them overseas where people work for peanuts and don't know diddly about healthcare and retirement benefits.

The results of B) is that people who got laid off could not afford to repay their loans. The results of the against-still-existing regulations that were no longer being watched to ensure they were upheld, is that the system kind of collapsed, bringing down some of the largest banks or investment firms, and nearly bringing down a lot more, all over the world. (Because A) spread from lender to lender to lender, so very few didn't grab a piece of that UNETHICAL gravy train of selling CDO packages calling them lower risk than the most risky loans within them, while practicing the still-against-federal-regulations failure to withhold sufficient capital "just in case.")

I didn't blame Bush for deregulating, I blamed Bush for removing the watchdogs; for trusting businessmen to do the right thing without being watched.

Businesses are NOT Patriots. Trusting businesses and business leaders to do the right thing without sufficient watchdogs and regulations in place has proved disastrously wrong. Romney's plan/Republicans' wish to release even more regulatory floodgates will continue to be wrong for our nation while unethical and unpatriotic businessmen are at the helms.

Meanwhile, we're left with the aftermath of the floods, and the only ones who have enough cash to see us through are "the rich," so yeah, I do believe they should pay a little more for a while.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:00 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(9) The Bush administration failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market (This is stahrgazer's only reason for the financial collapse).


ABSOLUTELY NOT!

What I DID say is, the reason for the collapse was UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICES that violated Federal requirements, and Bush took away the watchdogs that were supposed to watch.

The deregulation quote you're talking about isn't the area I spoke of.

Even with all the easy loans, the financial institutions were supposed to hold back sufficient capital to prevent the collapse of the system if someone failed to repay the loan. Watchdogs were in place post-Clinton, and Bush's administration decided to remove those watchdogs, relying on businessmen to do things right anyway.

A) Businessmen decided that "right" was whatever unethical practices resulted in their near-term profits. Unethical and against-still-existing-regulation practices such as repackaging those high-risk loans along with a couple lower-risk loans and calling the entire package low-risk, and conveniently forgetting to hold back sufficient capital in case someone failed to repay their loans. And this spread from lender to lender to lender, each buying up high risk loans, repackaging them and calling them lower risk than the most risky loans within the packages, and FAILED TO BACK THOSE OBLIGATIONS WITH SUFFICIENT CAPITAL.

B) Meanwhile, OTHER businessmen decided that "right" was whatever unpatriotic practices resulted in their near-term profits. Unpatriotic practices such as closing or reducing plants in the United States and opening them overseas where people work for peanuts and don't know diddly about healthcare and retirement benefits.

The results of B) is that people who got laid off could not afford to repay their loans. The results of the against-still-existing regulations that were no longer being watched to ensure they were upheld, is that the system kind of collapsed, bringing down some of the largest banks or investment firms, and nearly bringing down a lot more, all over the world. (Because A) spread from lender to lender to lender, so very few didn't grab a piece of that UNETHICAL gravy train of selling CDO packages calling them lower risk than the most risky loans within them, while practicing the still-against-federal-regulations failure to withhold sufficient capital "just in case.")

I didn't blame Bush for deregulating, I blamed Bush for removing the watchdogs; for trusting businessmen to do the right thing without being watched.

Businesses are NOT Patriots. Trusting businesses and business leaders to do the right thing without sufficient watchdogs and regulations in place has proved disastrously wrong. Romney's plan/Republicans' wish to release even more regulatory floodgates will continue to be wrong for our nation while unethical and unpatriotic businessmen are at the helms.

Meanwhile, we're left with the aftermath of the floods, and the only ones who have enough cash to see us through are "the rich," so yeah, I do believe they should pay a little more for a while.


I feel like you didn't read my post. The ability to package of high risk loans together was not a result of anything that President Bush did. The things the Wall Street firms did would not have been illegal if there were two million regulators. I'm not defending Bush, since he didn't make it better and helped get through the first bailout and supported the remaining bailouts, I'm simply questioning your insistence that President Bush is to blame (and the "unethical" Wall Streeters) to the point where you've made a number of vehement arguments in this thread.

I have some follow up questions:

- Do you give any regard to the other 10 reasons for the financial collapse? If so, why are you not more vehement about the politicians noted in those other reasons?
- How do you think the rich should pay more for a while? Should we raise tax rates? If so, which rates (individual, ordinary income, capital gain income, corporate)? Should we get rid of exemptions, deductions, or credits? If so, which? What plans proposed by Democrats, including President Obama, are most in line with your views?
- What new laws did the president sign that leads you to believe that he and Congress have solved any of the financial industry's problems?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby stahrgazer on Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:04 pm

Repackaging the loans was UNETHICAL.

Doing it without backing them was ILLEGAL.

BUSH removed the watchdogs that were there to ensure the lenders did not do anything ILLEGAL while they were doing their UNETHICAL practices.

I believe that those who have the money to afford it, should pay a higher rate.

I agree with Obama's proposal that Republicans shot down a few years back, to increase the rate but then give business a tax break for every new job they created.

I do believe that capital gains tax rates should be increased. I realize they were lowered so they'd let the money trickle down by hiring, but they haven't BEEN hiring, so raise it back up - giving the break for those who are creating jobs. I also realize one argument is that the money used to make the money was already taxed. But if that's a valid argument, then I should not pay local, sales, or any other tax with my income because my income was already taxed.

Execs of a company used to make about 10x what the lowest employee made. Now they make 1000x what their lowest employee makes, and they do it in the name of "business" and "capitalism." Legal, sure. Ethical? Fair? Maybe not. The "1%" thing isn't exact, meaning, it's not necessarily a top 1% vs. a bottom 99% like the Occupy Wall Street movement says, but it's a trendy saying that has some merit.

Our nation wasn't founded on capitalism like some like to spout. Our nation was founded on the idea that a minority shouldn't control everything. We've gone a little too far in making Capitalism our God so that we're becoming just what our founding fathers fought against. Capitalism in its extreme begins to look Fascist, and I'll take Socialism over Fascism any day of the week, including Election Day, which is why I'm still leaning Obama over Romney.
Last edited by stahrgazer on Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:08 pm

stahrgazer wrote:Repackaging the loans was UNETHICAL.

Doing it without backing them was ILLEGAL.

BUSH removed the watchdogs that were there to ensure the lenders did not do anything ILLEGAL while they were doing their UNETHICAL practices.


So you didn't read my post. It wasn't illegal.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby stahrgazer on Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:15 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:Repackaging the loans was UNETHICAL.

Doing it without backing them was ILLEGAL.

BUSH removed the watchdogs that were there to ensure the lenders did not do anything ILLEGAL while they were doing their UNETHICAL practices.


So you didn't read my post. It wasn't illegal.


Yes, I read, and you're wrong, it was illegal to do it without backing them without holding back enough capital "just in case." That regulation existed and still exists. Bush "trusted" them to do what was legal and removed the watchdogs, but what they did was illegal.

Not the packaging and selling; doing that and calling them lower risk than their least part was unethical. Doing that and not holding back enough capital, just in case, is what was illegal and Bush made sure was no longer being watched.

I failed to answer one of your followup questions: Which law did the President sign.... he proposed some, primarily the up the rate then lower it for those businesses who hire, to stimulate the economy, I agree with. But REPUBLICANS nay-said it.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:24 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:Repackaging the loans was UNETHICAL.

Doing it without backing them was ILLEGAL.

BUSH removed the watchdogs that were there to ensure the lenders did not do anything ILLEGAL while they were doing their UNETHICAL practices.


So you didn't read my post. It wasn't illegal.


Yes, I read, and you're wrong, it was illegal to do it without backing them without holding back enough capital "just in case." That regulation existed and still exists. Bush "trusted" them to do what was legal and removed the watchdogs, but what they did was illegal.

Not the packaging and selling; doing that and calling them lower risk than their least part was unethical. Doing that and not holding back enough capital, just in case, is what was illegal and Bush made sure was no longer being watched.

I failed to answer one of your followup questions: Which law did the President sign.... he proposed some, primarily the up the rate then lower it for those businesses who hire, to stimulate the economy, I agree with. But REPUBLICANS nay-said it.


I need more specifics on your proposed illegality. My research indicates it was not illegal. It's from factcheck.

I also need more specifics on the president's plan that you support.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby stahrgazer on Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:34 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I need more specifics on your proposed illegality. My research indicates it was not illegal. It's from factcheck.

I also need more specifics on the president's plan that you support.


Sorry, I don't still have my sources. It's research I did for a university professor when I was writing one of his lectures in Management courses for Ethics and Critical Thinking when the economic **it hit the fan. At the time, Rush Limbaugh and Tom Sullivan were pondering why no one at the tops of those lending companies was being held accountable (arrested) but then Obama got elected and they went on to more divisive topics :)

The myriad reports I weeded through probably still exist on the internet. I can only tell you, I was not using any second-hand sources, only first-hand reports. No quotes of quotes of quotes without digging up the original documents being quoted. No "fact check website" and NO WIKI!!!! Except as an aid to find some first-hand sources.

So, the reports you need to find are originals dating between 2006, 2007, 2008 that discussed what happened regarding the Collateralized Debt Obligations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the resultant (Bush) Bailout. (Bush because this research was pre-Obama because what happened was pre-Obama and because we were pursuing the lecture topic pre-Obama.)

There were about 20 different sources I used but three in particular were helpful, detailed, thorough, statements of facts that explained what happened with very little opinionated bias. Wish I still had the original sources for you. One of them was a Wall Street Journal, but I don't recall which issue.
Last edited by stahrgazer on Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:43 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I need more specifics on your proposed illegality. My research indicates it was not illegal. It's from factcheck.

I also need more specifics on the president's plan that you support.


Sorry, I don't still have my sources. It's research I did for a university professor when I was writing one of his lectures in Management courses for Ethics and Critical Thinking when the economic **it hit the fan. At the time, Rush Limbaugh and Tom Sullivan were pondering why no one at the tops of those lending companies was being held accountable (arrested) but then Obama got elected and they went on to more divisive topics :)

The myriad reports I weeded through probably still exist on the internet. I can only tell you, I was not using any second-hand sources, only first-hand reports. No quotes of quotes of quotes without digging up the original documents being quoted. No "fact check website" and NO WIKI!!!! Except as an aid to find some first-hand sources.

So, the reports you need to find are originals dating between 2006, 2007, 2008.


That's more involved research than I've done, most assuredly. Frankly, there are too many variables at work that have an effect on the economy to have someone point to President Bush and deregulation as the only or even the major reason for the financial crisis, which is why I responded to your post in the first place. I didn't like a lot of things that President Bush did, from his handling of the economic crisis to his foreign affairs views, but to put so much emphasis on him is ridiculous in my opinion, when every article, paper, and editorial I've read, from all political spectrums, indicate it was an amalgamation of factors. You can literally do what I did and google this stuff and find a lot of information, none of which blames President Bush.

As for the rest, I've put a lot of "pen to paper" on the tax system in the United States. President Obama's tax plans won't put much of a dent in the deficit and the burden will not fall on the "rich people" you seem to want to pay more. There is no plan that I've seen that raises capital gains rates that has been proposed by either major party, and that is the tax that would burden rich people the most. If we turn to the corporate tax system, the president presented many different plans and signed many bills into law that gave preferential tax benefits to certain companies at the expense of others. Two examples: 100% bonus depreciation deduction and "green energy" grants and credits. There are a number of other examples, but I don't want to bore you with tax jargon. Suffice it to say, the president, for all his rhetoric, is not interested in simplifying the tax code or removing preferential treatment for the rich and corporations; he's just signing laws that give preferential treatment to different companies and rich people than George Bush.

And you should read some analysis of the Dodd-Frank Act and its regulatory bodies. It's a fascinating look into crony capitalism and we will remember this supposedly tough law when we have our next financial crisis.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby stahrgazer on Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:12 pm

greekdog, I work at a bank ;)

I realize fully that Dodd-Frank was a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't fix things.

I agree with you that Obama's plans won't fix the deficit, without some ultra-extreme taxation which I believe would occur all the way down the line if enough of us were working to pay the taxes.

I agree with you that Obama favors "green energy" - he always said he would, as a way to help the US a) become energy independent and b) gain a little better favor in the eyes of the world who see us as selfish industrial polluters.

It was an amalgamation of factors, but the reports I read ultimately did break down the factors. Simplified:
1) beginning with the deregulation that used to separate FDIC institutions from investment banking (removal of Stegall regulations);
2) pressure to make housing more available to lower economic classes which also stimulated a building boom economy
3) Unethical lenders who failed to emphasize what a "balloon mortage" meant to eager first-home-buyers;
4) Unethical repackaging and reselling of the riskier loans;
These were called Collateralized Debt Obligations. The practice took a bunch of high risk loans and bundled them up with very few wonderfully low-risk loans. No problem there.
The problem became that, the new packages was sold as a low risk package.
5) Bush remove of Federal overseers;
6) Illegal (as in, against the still-existing regulations) failure of most of those lending and reselling institutions, to hold back enough capital like they were supposed to do, just in case loans turned into bad debts.
7) Mass movement of American jobs to foreign nations, resulting in risky loans turning into bad debts.

Very simply, Bush's premise: if the businessmen had been ethical and legal, the overseers weren't needed, cut the budget by removing those folks whose job was to check out all the loan wheeling and dealing and make sure banks and lenders were holding back enough capital.

So the primary cause was lack of appropriate (patriotic) business ethics. The businesses' ethics were all around doing what padded their stockholders' profit regardless the risk and regardless the legalities. Since they weren't being watched, they weren't gonna get caught.

My problem with neo-Republican philosophies is that they are favoring big business getting more powers with less regulations and less oversight, and that's what CAUSED our problem - but only because you cannot trust those who are answerable to stockholders, to be patriotic and ethical because they've proven again and again they'll put the $$$ before values. They do it because, "It's Capitalism, man." It is. But Capitalism without a good healthy dose of appropriate patriotic values is not healthy for our country.

And, Stalin? (who asked what about other countries earlier in the thread)... they don't just screw Americans, they screw each country they move into by moving right back out as soon as they see better $$$ signs elsewhere. That's why Nike is now moving to Vietnam, they work for half-peanuts instead of whole ones.

So. Romney's plan is to remove more regulations and more oversight and 'trust' the companies to do what's right.

Guys, these companies have had their tax breaks for years, and those tax breaks didn't stop them from moving jobs overseas or padding the CEO and Board of Director wallets with higher and higher salaries in comparison to their lowest worker.

Insanity is repeating things over again and expecting a different result.

Lowering taxes worked for Reagan because at the time we were doing pretty well and 70% tax - which is what the rich were paying then - was too much of a burden. So, Reagan lowered tax rates - but he also took away some business deductions when he lowered the rates - realized he'd made them TOO LOW, and raised them back up a couple notches.

Obama's plan to raise taxes back to Reagan rates because they can afford it is FAIR for the country. They had years of lower rates because everyone else was able to take up the slack. Everyone else is not currently able to take up the slack.

Do we want no road repairs? Do we want no schools? Frankly, I'd love it if I didn't have to pay for someone else's kid to go to school. I could also probably be fine with dirt roads, as long as business's trucks didn't come tear up the dirt. This sort of infrastructure that EVERYONE paid for, is what Obama meant that no businessman did it by himself.

But without jobs, lower economic class Americans just cannot take up the slack and if we want our nation to be strong, someone has to.

And we need to keep some regs and watchdogs in place, because we really have already seen what businesses will do for the love of the dollar, when the regs weaken and the watchdogs are kenneled.

So, unfortunately, right now, I'm against the Republicans, my own party, because their answer is to do more of what caused our problems in the first place. You can't fix a crack in a pvc pipe by banging on it with a sledgehammer, you'll just break it more.

~p.s. greekdog, I found the lecture, it doesn't include all my resources but includes a few. see pm~
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:51 am

stahrgazer wrote:Repackaging the loans was UNETHICAL.

Doing it without backing them was ILLEGAL.


Does the same go for national debt and current government overspending in the name of future generations?

stahrgazer wrote:BUSH removed the watchdogs that were there to ensure the lenders did not do anything ILLEGAL while they were doing their UNETHICAL practices.


When was this? I thought that happened in 1999, Clinton lame duck presidency, with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and a couple others as Congressional authors?
"I want you to remember that, to remind you to stay out of my way. In all the years to come, in all your most private moments, I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you."
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 94
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (9) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (13)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby Night Strike on Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:59 am

stahrgazer wrote:Lowering taxes worked for Reagan because at the time we were doing pretty well and 70% tax - which is what the rich were paying then - was too much of a burden. So, Reagan lowered tax rates - but he also took away some business deductions when he lowered the rates - realized he'd made them TOO LOW, and raised them back up a couple notches.

Obama's plan to raise taxes back to Reagan rates because they can afford it is FAIR for the country. They had years of lower rates because everyone else was able to take up the slack. Everyone else is not currently able to take up the slack.


"The rich" (to 10%) currently pay 45% of the tax burden in the United States? How is that fair? (Source)

The top tax rate at the end of Reagan's term was 28%. Today's top tax rate is 35% and already set to increase to 39.6% on January 1st. Sounds like we would all love it if we go back to the Reagan tax rates, but Obama refuses to allow it.
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
 
Posts: 8646
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:01 am

stahrgazer wrote:greekdog, I work at a bank ;)

I realize fully that Dodd-Frank was a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't fix things.

I agree with you that Obama's plans won't fix the deficit, without some ultra-extreme taxation which I believe would occur all the way down the line if enough of us were working to pay the taxes.

I agree with you that Obama favors "green energy" - he always said he would, as a way to help the US a) become energy independent and b) gain a little better favor in the eyes of the world who see us as selfish industrial polluters.

It was an amalgamation of factors, but the reports I read ultimately did break down the factors. Simplified:
1) beginning with the deregulation that used to separate FDIC institutions from investment banking (removal of Stegall regulations);
2) pressure to make housing more available to lower economic classes which also stimulated a building boom economy
3) Unethical lenders who failed to emphasize what a "balloon mortage" meant to eager first-home-buyers;
4) Unethical repackaging and reselling of the riskier loans;
These were called Collateralized Debt Obligations. The practice took a bunch of high risk loans and bundled them up with very few wonderfully low-risk loans. No problem there.
The problem became that, the new packages was sold as a low risk package.
5) Bush remove of Federal overseers;
6) Illegal (as in, against the still-existing regulations) failure of most of those lending and reselling institutions, to hold back enough capital like they were supposed to do, just in case loans turned into bad debts.
7) Mass movement of American jobs to foreign nations, resulting in risky loans turning into bad debts.

Very simply, Bush's premise: if the businessmen had been ethical and legal, the overseers weren't needed, cut the budget by removing those folks whose job was to check out all the loan wheeling and dealing and make sure banks and lenders were holding back enough capital.

So the primary cause was lack of appropriate (patriotic) business ethics. The businesses' ethics were all around doing what padded their stockholders' profit regardless the risk and regardless the legalities. Since they weren't being watched, they weren't gonna get caught.

My problem with neo-Republican philosophies is that they are favoring big business getting more powers with less regulations and less oversight, and that's what CAUSED our problem - but only because you cannot trust those who are answerable to stockholders, to be patriotic and ethical because they've proven again and again they'll put the $$$ before values. They do it because, "It's Capitalism, man." It is. But Capitalism without a good healthy dose of appropriate patriotic values is not healthy for our country.

And, Stalin? (who asked what about other countries earlier in the thread)... they don't just screw Americans, they screw each country they move into by moving right back out as soon as they see better $$$ signs elsewhere. That's why Nike is now moving to Vietnam, they work for half-peanuts instead of whole ones.

So. Romney's plan is to remove more regulations and more oversight and 'trust' the companies to do what's right.

Guys, these companies have had their tax breaks for years, and those tax breaks didn't stop them from moving jobs overseas or padding the CEO and Board of Director wallets with higher and higher salaries in comparison to their lowest worker.

Insanity is repeating things over again and expecting a different result.

Lowering taxes worked for Reagan because at the time we were doing pretty well and 70% tax - which is what the rich were paying then - was too much of a burden. So, Reagan lowered tax rates - but he also took away some business deductions when he lowered the rates - realized he'd made them TOO LOW, and raised them back up a couple notches.

Obama's plan to raise taxes back to Reagan rates because they can afford it is FAIR for the country. They had years of lower rates because everyone else was able to take up the slack. Everyone else is not currently able to take up the slack.

Do we want no road repairs? Do we want no schools? Frankly, I'd love it if I didn't have to pay for someone else's kid to go to school. I could also probably be fine with dirt roads, as long as business's trucks didn't come tear up the dirt. This sort of infrastructure that EVERYONE paid for, is what Obama meant that no businessman did it by himself.

But without jobs, lower economic class Americans just cannot take up the slack and if we want our nation to be strong, someone has to.

And we need to keep some regs and watchdogs in place, because we really have already seen what businesses will do for the love of the dollar, when the regs weaken and the watchdogs are kenneled.

So, unfortunately, right now, I'm against the Republicans, my own party, because their answer is to do more of what caused our problems in the first place. You can't fix a crack in a pvc pipe by banging on it with a sledgehammer, you'll just break it more.

~p.s. greekdog, I found the lecture, it doesn't include all my resources but includes a few. see pm~


First, thanks for sending me that lecture question. It was interesting.

Second, your list above ignores a whole swath of other factors, focusing on the financial implications of bundled mortgages only. I've typed it three different times, but there were many other contributing factors. While you point to one (the impropriety of the financial institutions), I could point to another - the impropriety of the government incentivizing banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them. If the government had not incentivized this sort of bad business loan system, there would have been no toxic assets in the first place. So perhaps that was the biggest contributing factor. But I didn't want to type that because I don't agree with you that this is a partisan issue. The president and other Democrats can throw out their rhetoric, which you seem to be grasping on to, that the Republicans will strip away all the great regulations the Democrats created in Dodd-Frank, but if you go back and read the analysis of Dodd-Frank, the law basically codifies that the government will (WILL) be bailing out financial institutions in the future for similar reasons as the initial bailouts.

Third, my ultimate point here is not to assign blame to one particular party or another. My ultimate point is to try to persuade you and everyone else that electing President Obama (or a Democrat) is largely no different than electing Mitt Romney (or a Republican) in terms of a few things, including regulation of the financial industry, regulation of industry generally, taxation, and spending. Almost all national politicians are beholden to groups of companies and rich people given the way our political system works. The bailouts, the Dodd-Frank Act, and money for "green energy" are great examples of how the Democrats are just as beholden to companies and the rich as the Republicans are. I've written these things in multiple other threads over the past few years and I'm not going to type them all out again here. I'm also not going to say you should or should not vote for President Obama, but you should at least be looking past rhetoric and looking to actions.

Fourth, there is no Democratic plan which would raise taxes on the rich or on big companies. There are Democratic plans which would raise taxes on the "working rich" (i.e. rich people who earn ordinary incomes), which include people who work at law firms for 80 to 100 hours a week after going through 7 years of post-high school education and people who own their own small business. There are Democratic plans that take away some credits and deductions that favor certain businesses or industries over others, but there are no Democratic plans that take away all credits and all deductions such that one business or industry is not favored over other businesses or industries. In that way, the Democratic plans are no different than the Republican plans. So again, I urge you to look at the plans, not at the rhetoric behind them.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: THE GREAT DEBATE! WHY IT ONLY MATTERS TO REPUBLICANS!

Postby Woodruff on Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:25 am

stahrgazer wrote:Capitalism in its extreme begins to look Fascist, and I'll take Socialism over Fascism any day of the week, including Election Day, which is why I'm still leaning Obama over Romney.


You misspelled "Jill Stein". Hope that helps.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Contribution (4)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login