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, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

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
Corporal 1st Class 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
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
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)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) 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
Corporal 1st Class 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
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
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)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) 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
Corporal 1st Class 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
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
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)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) 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?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 1726
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 86
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 (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (11) General Contribution (2)

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
Lieutenant Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8620
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 77
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 (2)
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 (10) 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
Corporal 1st Class 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: 4881
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)

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

Postby stahrgazer on Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:23 pm

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


Glad you thought so. If nothing else, it shows you, I do know how to look at all sides.

thegreekdog wrote:Second, your list above ignores a whole swath of other factors, focusing on the financial implications of bundled mortgages only.


That was not my focus at all. My focus was on lack of patriotic ethics killing our country.

thegreekdog wrote: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.


Warped viewpoint. Sorry, but it is. Incentivizing didn't cause the problem. What caused the problem was unethical lenders who encouraged people to take out bigger loans than they had originally planned to take out when the incentives would help them buy a home - because they made more money on bigger loans.

I didn't fall prey to it, but they sure as heck tried to get me into a home that was 6x a larger mortgage than the shack I settled on. If it hadn't been for the incentives, I wouldn't have been able to get the home I have. If I'd fallen for the unethical strong-arming "Look look you can qualify for a mansion and your payment will only be $25 more for years, and before that rate goes up, you can refinance or sell the place for profit! Don't miss out!" I would've lost this home when I lost my job... which I lost because too many production/manufacturing jobs were being shipped overseas.

And jobs were being shipped overseas because business leaders made more money if they screwed Americans in favor of Mexico (then screwed Mexicans in favor of Pakistan and India, now planning to screw Pakistanis in favor of Vietnam).

And when jobs were shipped overseas, people couldn't afford the gigantic mortgages for as long as those unethical lenders had convinced them they could.

These bad things that occurred, occurred because many businessmen do not practice Patriotic ethics, but instead, only the ethics of, "more money in my pocket, please."

thegreekdog wrote: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.


On the contrary, I'm not grasping onto any rhetoric. Nor do I support Dodd-Frank, I said it's a knee-jerk reaction that won't fix the real problem. I don't care for Barney Frank or most of his ideas.

I do agree that our financial institutions shouldn't fail, but, "Socialist" as this may appear, I do believe bailouts should come with strings attached like happened with the GM bailout. I may not like all the particular strings that came with the GM bailout, but at least the people who are putting up the bailout money in GM's case are "technically" represented (by the government) and "technically" have a sayso. The banking bailouts that occurred didn't come with the power-strings attached which just throws more money at those who've already shown they won't handle money issues with Patriotic responsibility. Their ONLY concerns are with their own and stockholders' pockets. And that's just not good for our country.

thegreekdog wrote: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.


Romney doesn't want to regulate the financial industry, doesn't want to regulate industry generally, and I've already explained that that means we trust folks who do NOT have our nation's best interest, or the general people's best interest, at heart; and that's my problem with neo-Republican plans. Unlike Reagan's plans, which DID have our nations' best interests at heart, the neo-Republican plans twist what Reagan intended, to the detriment of our nation.

thegreekdog wrote: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.


Newsflash: GE got big because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized its early industry.
Pratt got big because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized its early industry.
Colt and other firearms makers got big because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized its early industry.
Tang, Spam, and other food products got big because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized their early industry.
Velcro got invented because someone on "one side" of the government subsidized..

Getting the point? It's always happened. What's changed is that some businesses have gotten big and powerful enough to no longer need the government subsidies, and have moved their allegiance from their country to their stockholders.

thegreekdog wrote: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.


I never subscribe to "rhetoric," thank you very much. Critical thinking about the history of the United States may make certain ideas that are spouted be more palatable to me than other ideas, but I don't share the ideas just because some neo group or other shouts louder.

thegreekdog wrote: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.


Oh, not really true - YOU are buying into rhetoric.

Repayment of school loans, educational expense, is a tax deduction. Small business owners reinvest most of their money back into the business, which means they're putting their profit into deductible expenses. They can also form different types of corporations to separate their home and personal food money from their business revenue to lessen the burden further.Obama's plans do not intend to kill any of that. Finally, their expenses for hiring folks such as payroll expenses are not part of their profits, and Obama's plan was to give them a higher deduction for hiring folks (but that was killed by Republicans.)

Meanwhile, Romney's latest idea is to not increase taxes on the wealthy, but instead, to minimize or eliminate these sorts of deductions for all - which potentially has a worse impact on the 100-hour-week lawyer and on mom and pop trying to make a success of a small business.

thegreekdog wrote: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.


True. But look at why, rather than assuming I'm looking at rhetoric.

1) One of the most notorious "favoritisms" is the Democratic plan to hurt the petroleum industry. We are too dependent on foreign oil because we are overall too dependent on oil; our nation has realized it for years, and the oil we could produce within or just off our own shores will not last forever, Estimates differ, some say a decade, some say longer, but the point is, it's not inexhaustible. But changing to something else isn't going to happen without incentive. It would be nice if the change could be painless, but it isn't now, and will never be painless UNLESS we have something else just as lucrative to replace it. Hence, Obama's favoring "green energy" sources, in hopes we make another brilliant technical breakthrough not unlike the one that brought us the efficient petroleum combustion engines we are so comfortable with now (but have been around for only about one century).

2) Another "favoritism" hurts the coal industry. Both plans are schemes to address two ongoing American problems.
We signed treaties to reduce pollutions of various types, but have reneged on those treaties because it's too hard and too costly to put in the "scrubbers" needed to enable us to burn coal more cleanly. We should either officially "unsign" those treaties or bite the bullet to try to adhere to the treaties. Un-signing the treaties might collapse our standing i the world, and cause the entire world to renege on their sides of treaties with us. Further, emphasizing "clean" and "green" could help spur tangential technological breakthroughs that could help us with the first issue I mentioned here.

These treaties, and that we are far too reliant on petroleum, aren't rhetoric, they're facts. Obama just had balls enough to try to do SOMETHING rather than ignore the problems.

And not one Republican has offered a better idea. Drilling out our oil (the only thing Republicans propose) helps us in the short run, but then when our supplies are exhausted and we'd never taken steps to investigate new forms, then what? Our government SHOULD be looking to our nation's future, and SHOULD take action on the treaties we've signed, one way or another - not just ignore that they exist.

Ultimately, greekdog, I'm extremely conservative, and I don't buy into rhetoric.

It's just that, emotions aside, Republicans want to repeat old mistakes rather than try new things that might make our country stronger in the long run while (some) Democrats are trying to spur changes that, if they work, would put us back on top.
Image
User avatar
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
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)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (7)

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

Postby Night Strike on Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:49 pm

Stahr, how do you claim to be conservative on economic issues when every position you post is liberal?

And why is it the government's job to spend our money hoping some "green" technology will work? Was it the government that made coal and oil work? Or was it the free market system that developed those technologies? And we don't need the government to sign treaties or force us into using cleaner technologies: the private sector has already dropped power plant emissions to its lowest levels since 1992 through the use of shale oil and natural gas.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8620
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 77
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 (2)
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 (10) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

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

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:51 pm

:-^ :-^
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 1726
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Medals: 86
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 (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10) Training Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (11) General Contribution (2)

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

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:17 am

Suppose someone offers you $10 billion to shoot someone--not kill him, just shoot him a little. You know, to teach him a lesson. They'll take care of all your concerns, so the operation will go smoothly, and your chances of going to jail are extremely low.

Now, does this offer change your incentives? Would it somehow affect your decision-making?


Stahrgazer would argue that it does not at all cause you to change your behavior.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179207&view=unread#p3920068

"Incentivizing didn't cause the problem..." ethics did.'


Most people are good enough, until they're brought into scenarios which offer different incentives and rules of the game. Ethics is not a fundamental cause here.
(See: Stanford prison experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
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 Nobunaga on Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:33 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:Suppose someone offers you $10 billion to shoot someone--not kill him, just shoot him a little. You know, to teach him a lesson. They'll take care of all your concerns, so the operation will go smoothly, and your chances of going to jail are extremely low.

Now, does this offer change your incentives? Would it somehow affect your decision-making?


Stahrgazer would argue that it does not at all cause you to change your behavior.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179207&view=unread#p3920068

"Incentivizing didn't cause the problem..." ethics did.'


Most people are good enough, until they're brought into scenarios which offer different incentives and rules of the game. Ethics is not a fundamental cause here.
(See: Stanford prison experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)


... For $10 Billion, I'd happily shoot someone... and his dog, too.

...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka
Medals: 6
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
Map Contribution (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Whose Forum is It Anyway?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JBlombier, Metsfanmax and 3 guests

Login