Tea Party Misogynist Limbaugh Demands Free Government Porn

[Night Strike]

So the only solution is to cry and beg to the federal government to pass new laws and regulations?

This site has rules for both the game and forum to promote fair play and civil interaction among players. There is a reason these guidelines/regulations exist here. The financial industry is no different and for obvious reasons it can't be left to regulate itself. Imagine Bernie Madoff exploiting a "free market" and that his educated clientele should have known the profit margins realized through lean times were just too damn good to be legit. Well, there's always free cheese in a mouse trap. The Feds overseeing the market are so understaffed (and underfunded) that they never would have discovered his ponzi scheme at all without economic experts tipping them off, and it still took years for them to catch on.

This site is a private business and can set whatever rules it wants.

You're equating harmful actions of stealing people's money with actions that are simply confusing. It is not the government's job to pass new regulations simply because something is confusing or difficult. And trying to use a ponzi scheme as the basis for your financial argument for why the government needs to be more involved is pretty weak considering the government already runs the largest ponzi scheme in US history.

Some (including me) would argue that the reason the mortgage documents are hundreds of pages long is because of government interference ("Oh, you have to have something here regarding inspections" or "Oh, you have to have something here regarding home owners' insurance.")

My lease for my first apartment, for example, was 25 pages long and included specific references to Pennsylvania law as to the reason why those provisisions were included in the lease.

Very good point that I hadn't thought of.

[Juan_Bottom]

Basic human nature doesn't agree with you either. Back in the day, these things were around 10 pages long and written in simple language. I'd guess that a combination of clever corporate lawyers and brain doctors came up with this system that we have today to take advantage of people. In all the loans that I've ever processed, and there have been thousands, nobody ever refused to sign because of the language on any page. In fact, I've called off more signings for shady practice than borrowers have.

So the only solution is to cry and beg to the federal government to pass new laws and regulations? In the free market, if people didn't understand a legal document that they felt was very important, they just wouldn't sign it. They'd either demand that the provider improve the language or find someone else who would. Let's try some free market solutions instead of more government regulations.

99999 out of 100000 people didn't understand their mortgage and still signed it. I'm just talking about the reality of the way people respond, not the way things are now.

Some (including me) would argue that the reason the mortgage documents are hundreds of pages long is because of government interference ("Oh, you have to have something here regarding inspections" or "Oh, you have to have something here regarding home owners' insurance.")

My lease for my first apartment, for example, was 25 pages long and included specific references to Pennsylvania law as to the reason why those provisisions were included in the lease.

Yeah, that sounds legit too. In most states the mortgages all looked identical though.

[Night Strike]

Basic human nature doesn't agree with you either. Back in the day, these things were around 10 pages long and written in simple language. I'd guess that a combination of clever corporate lawyers and brain doctors came up with this system that we have today to take advantage of people. In all the loans that I've ever processed, and there have been thousands, nobody ever refused to sign because of the language on any page. In fact, I've called off more signings for shady practice than borrowers have.

So the only solution is to cry and beg to the federal government to pass new laws and regulations? In the free market, if people didn't understand a legal document that they felt was very important, they just wouldn't sign it. They'd either demand that the provider improve the language or find someone else who would. Let's try some free market solutions instead of more government regulations.

99999 out of 100000 people didn't understand their mortgage and still signed it. I'm just talking about the reality of the way people respond, not the way things are now.

So because people didn't read it, you now want the federal government to come in and break the contracts that two parties mutually agreed to? The federal government is supposed to use the court system to enforce the contracts that are in place (prosecute/punish those who violate the terms), not break them up simply because it's politically favorable.

[Lootifer]

Basic human nature doesn't agree with you either. Back in the day, these things were around 10 pages long and written in simple language. I'd guess that a combination of clever corporate lawyers and brain doctors came up with this system that we have today to take advantage of people. In all the loans that I've ever processed, and there have been thousands, nobody ever refused to sign because of the language on any page. In fact, I've called off more signings for shady practice than borrowers have.

So the only solution is to cry and beg to the federal government to pass new laws and regulations? In the free market, if people didn't understand a legal document that they felt was very important, they just wouldn't sign it. They'd either demand that the provider improve the language or find someone else who would. Let's try some free market solutions instead of more government regulations.

99999 out of 100000 people didn't understand their mortgage and still signed it. I'm just talking about the reality of the way people respond, not the way things are now.

So because people didn't read it, you now want the federal government to come in and break the contracts that two parties mutually agreed to? The federal government is supposed to use the court system to enforce the contracts that are in place (prosecute/punish those who violate the terms), not break them up simply because it's politically favorable.

With democratic freedom, you inherit the opinion of the collective. Dont get angry when the collective disagrees with you.

[BigBallinStalin]

further to the point tgd made earlier, why on earth is prostitution still illegal ?

Because certain people feel strongly that the state should involuntarily force others to behave in accord with a certain moral code?

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding mortgages on homes:

why were they granted to people with a higher than normal risk of defaulting?

[Night Strike]

Basic human nature doesn't agree with you either. Back in the day, these things were around 10 pages long and written in simple language. I'd guess that a combination of clever corporate lawyers and brain doctors came up with this system that we have today to take advantage of people. In all the loans that I've ever processed, and there have been thousands, nobody ever refused to sign because of the language on any page. In fact, I've called off more signings for shady practice than borrowers have.

So the only solution is to cry and beg to the federal government to pass new laws and regulations? In the free market, if people didn't understand a legal document that they felt was very important, they just wouldn't sign it. They'd either demand that the provider improve the language or find someone else who would. Let's try some free market solutions instead of more government regulations.

99999 out of 100000 people didn't understand their mortgage and still signed it. I'm just talking about the reality of the way people respond, not the way things are now.

So because people didn't read it, you now want the federal government to come in and break the contracts that two parties mutually agreed to? The federal government is supposed to use the court system to enforce the contracts that are in place (prosecute/punish those who violate the terms), not break them up simply because it's politically favorable.

With democratic freedom, you inherit the opinion of the collective. Dont get angry when the collective disagrees with you.

That is precisely why we have a republic and the rule of law instead of a democracy. That's also why it's incredibly dangerous for our society when more than half the country doesn't pay income taxes and will vote in corrupted politicians who will continue to use the power of the government to vote for more handouts and taxing of those who make more than them.

[oVo]

Regarding mortgages on homes:

why were they granted to people with a higher than normal risk of defaulting?

Because every mortgage paid a commission
and a whole lot of money was made.

Then all those risky mortgages were bundled together and sold,
except there was a deception in how this was accomplished by
disguising the fact these were not A rated loans.

[thegreekdog]

Regarding mortgages on homes:

why were they granted to people with a higher than normal risk of defaulting?

Follow up question - Why is it easy for students to get student loans?

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding mortgages on homes:

why were they granted to people with a higher than normal risk of defaulting?

Follow up question - Why is it easy for students to get student loans?

For private loans, the interest rate is about double than the federally subsidized loans. Is that easy? I'm not so sure...

(OOPS!, I partially gave away the answer to my question!)

[thegreekdog]

Regarding mortgages on homes:

why were they granted to people with a higher than normal risk of defaulting?

Follow up question - Why is it easy for students to get student loans?

For private loans, the interest rate is about double than the federally subsidized loans. Is that easy? I'm not so sure...

(OOPS!, I partially gave away the answer to my question!)

I wasn't talking about student loans.

Oops! I partially gave away the answer to my question too! BLAST!

[Neoteny]

Has anyone in this thread questioned the concept of "government porn?" That seems like a distinctly liberal fetish, and one to which we should expect Limbaugh be opposed.

[pimpdave]

Regarding mortgages on homes:

why were they granted to people with a higher than normal risk of defaulting?

The people issuing them weren't gambling with the house money. OPM, as it's often called.

This was made possible by a combination of things, all begun by the Bush administration deregulating Wall Street.

[pimpdave]

Has anyone in this thread questioned the concept of "government porn?" That seems like a distinctly liberal fetish, and one to which we should expect Limbaugh be opposed.

A huge irony, right?

Limbaugh demands women be given as much contraception as they want (which he seems to think is like Viagra, in that you take it before sex all the time) but that they video tape it and the government broadcasts it on YouTube.

[Neoteny]

Has anyone in this thread questioned the concept of "government porn?" That seems like a distinctly liberal fetish, and one to which we should expect Limbaugh be opposed.

A huge irony, right?

Limbaugh demands women be given as much contraception as they want (which he seems to think is like Viagra, in that you take it before sex all the time) but that they video tape it and the government broadcasts it on YouTube.

I feel like liberals and conservatives can unite to say "No! We are distinctly uninterested in seeing Lewinsky fellate Clinton!"

Imagery: The Supreme Courtship

[pimpdave]

[Neoteny]

The President's Cabinet

For King and Cuntry 5: The Royal Family Gone Wild!

Cult of Personality: Ron Paul Exposed!

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding mortgages on homes:

why were they granted to people with a higher than normal risk of defaulting?

The people issuing them weren't gambling with the house money. OPM, as it's often called.

This was made possible by a combination of things, all begun by the Bush administration deregulating Wall Street.

Why does it start during Bush's administration? Nothing before was related to this incident?

[pimpdave]

The sub prime market was explored in the 90s, under Clinton, but found to be unsustainable. It wasn't until Bush came in that the market took off, because the risk was now allowed to be pawned off by the issuers.

But you're dodging the real issue, of course, because that would threaten your constant premise that an unregulated free market is a perfect system with no flaws whatsoever and would result in utopia and unlimited wealth for every single citizen.

[BigBallinStalin]

The sub prime market was explored in the 90s, under Clinton, but found to be unsustainable. It wasn't until Bush came in that the market took off, because the risk was now allowed to be pawned off by the issuers.

But you're dodging the real issue, of course, because that would threaten your constant premise that an unregulated free market is a perfect system with no flaws whatsoever and would result in utopia and unlimited wealth for every single citizen.

If you're going to misconstrue my position, then I really don't care about debating anything serious with you.

[oVo]

Referring back to the original subject...
Damn You Rush Limbaugh!

[Juan_Bottom]

The sub prime market was explored in the 90s, under Clinton, but found to be unsustainable. It wasn't until Bush came in that the market took off, because the risk was now allowed to be pawned off by the issuers.

But you're dodging the real issue, of course, because that would threaten your constant premise that an unregulated free market is a perfect system with no flaws whatsoever and would result in utopia and unlimited wealth for every single citizen.

If you're going to misconstrue my position, then I really don't care about debating anything serious with you.

Economists (real ones) are basically just like the religious. Nobody understands them, and even they only agree on one thing. And that is that whatever it is that they're actually doing is a real thing. You can't listen to these people, because A always disagrees with B or they both speak in such generalities that they become like economy tarot readers. There are scientists economists but let's not blend the issues here. And that is that nobody is listening to you anyway.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's much about economics which I don't find appealing and which is incorrect. Many economists treat economic science as a physical science which is problematic because the formal method, i.e. mathematical, doesn't accurately portray reality--especially their equilibrium models. Economics is a social science. The subject matter is human beings. Homo sapiens aren't equivalent to homo economicus (incoming joke detected). To paraphrase Mises: there are no constant relations in economics.

F. A. Hayek has a great article on this! (see Chapter 3: The Facts of the Social Sciences)

[Phatscotty]

The sub prime market was explored in the 90s, under Clinton, but found to be unsustainable. It wasn't until Bush came in that the market took off, because the risk was now allowed to be pawned off by the issuers.

But you're dodging the real issue, of course, because that would threaten your constant premise that an unregulated free market is a perfect system with no flaws whatsoever and would result in utopia and unlimited wealth for every single citizen.

If you're going to misconstrue my position, then I really don't care about debating anything serious with you.

anyways, Bill Clinton is the one who signed the bill that made this all possible, and he did it as a lame duck.

[Haggis_McMutton]

There's much about economics which I don't find appealing and which is incorrect. Many economists treat economic science as a physical science which is problematic because the formal method, i.e. mathematical, doesn't accurately portray reality--especially their equilibrium models. Economics is a social science. The subject matter is human beings. Homo sapiens aren't equivalent to homo economicus (incoming joke detected). To paraphrase Mises: there are no constant relations in economics.

F. A. Hayek has a great article on this! (see Chapter 3: The Facts of the Social Sciences)

I'm curious, have you read anything by or do you have an opinion of Nassim Taleb ?