Yeah, they keep saying that but every Republican President in my lifetime has done the opposite.Mr. Perfect wrote:I will let you argue about that with Democrats themselves, anyone of them will tell you the GOP is drooling for the opportunity to cut and gut government. It is in all the tracts, every election. I will let them educate you and save me the effort.
Failing is not the same as not trying. But in Bush's case I'll admit, he wasn't actually a Conservative.Mr. Perfect wrote:You've been brainwashed. Maybe you can explain all the programs conservatives have implemented that are in your bedroom in that last 30 years of our dominance, and the explosion of internet pornography under the administration of supposedly an Evangelical puppet President (Bush).
Not in mine or your lifetimes.Most of our wars are fought by Democrats historically.
The proof is in the pudding.If you pour enough acid on a Republican you will certainly find one or two things but it ain't that.
Yes, drawings seems to be what you have.Back to the drawing board.
Because it's actually true and a matter of public record?Mr. Perfect wrote:Well the Democrats will certainly keep saying it. Probably for a reason.
Maybe you just have had too many bad governments, no matter how Rep or Dem. Well you guys voted for them. Be angry at your fellow Americans.Mr. Perfect wrote:Whatever you want to call it, I don't really care, I don't want any of it. Down with the New Deal, Great Society, Public Schooling, Federal Reserve, at least half of the federal agencies and and and. I want to end all of it. I will let you name it, it doesn't matter to me.Parodite wrote:Mr. P. Your clearly don't understand "socialism". You confuse it with social capitalism. Socialism is practically extinct because it didn't work. Social capitalism is what most people in the West support. It does not equal big government, on the contrary. It equals free market, small government and smart government with a responsibility and part to play in a moral-social society. I think you are toying words just for fun.
Holland, Germany, Sweden and Norway are the succes stories of this social capitalism. If you want examples of socialism and its failures, look at the former USSR or even better, of former Eastern Germany.
I am.Parodite wrote: Maybe you just have had too many bad governments, no matter how Rep or Dem. Well you guys voted for them. Be angry at your fellow Americans.
The Democrats caused the financial crisis, one in particular if we get rid of them we're off to a good start.But I'd vote Ron Paul with you. Somebody who seems really serious about trimming down government and expenses. And I like his foreign policy philosophy. He could ruin it all again of course if he in fact doesn't understand what caused this world wide financial crisis and hence doesn't take the right measures to reform the financial industry to modern standards.
It is true and a matter of public record that Democrats have maintained for nearly 80 years that Republicans stand at the ready to gut the government. I'm glad we agree on that.Enki wrote:Because it's actually true and a matter of public record?Mr. Perfect wrote:Well the Democrats will certainly keep saying it. Probably for a reason.
What makes you think it is in the power of a single President to do?Please demonstrate for me what Republican President elected since Jimmy Carter has left the government smaller than he found it?
We've all gotten used to laying everything at the current President's feet. This will continue if a Republican President takes the White House in 2012. I hope you're prepared.Mr. Perfect wrote: What makes you think it is in the power of a single President to do?
What did the Republican era Republicans try to do to get into your bedroom?Enki wrote:Failing is not the same as not trying. But in Bush's case I'll admit, he wasn't actually a Conservative.Mr. Perfect wrote:You've been brainwashed. Maybe you can explain all the programs conservatives have implemented that are in your bedroom in that last 30 years of our dominance, and the explosion of internet pornography under the administration of supposedly an Evangelical puppet President (Bush).
Not a representative sample.Not in mine or your lifetimes.
You certainly haven't provided anything to support your claim. Just Democrat talking points.The proof is in the pudding.
What I have is a movement that is slowly and steadily teabagging your movement. We crushed Obamunism 1.0, and in response your guy is rolling out Bush 2.0, and you guys all swallow it down without complaint. So your movement is dead. I'll take that.Yes, drawings seems to be what you have.
I think you are a really young person. No offense.Zack Morris wrote:We've all gotten used to laying everything at the current President's feet. This will continue if a Republican President takes the White House in 2012. I hope you're prepared.Mr. Perfect wrote: What makes you think it is in the power of a single President to do?
The incidents leading up to Lawrence v. Texas certainly would not have led one to believe that the Republicans were just kidding when they said things like 'the right to privacy doesn't exist'. Nor did the constant ragging on gays and public morality.Mr. Perfect wrote: What did the Republican era Republicans try to do to get into your bedroom?
How is talking about morals the same as getting the government into your bedroom?Zack Morris wrote:The incidents leading up to Lawrence v. Texas certainly would not have led one to believe that the Republicans were just kidding when they said things like 'the right to privacy doesn't exist'. Nor did the constant ragging on gays and public morality.Mr. Perfect wrote: What did the Republican era Republicans try to do to get into your bedroom?
When legislators talk about which sexual behaviors are acceptable and which are not, I assume it means they want to build support for laws regulating such things. Lawrence v. Texas showed that the government has until very recently been willing to step into the bedroom. Near your neck of the woods, Montana, the state Republican Party platform speaks of making homosexual acts illegal.Mr. Perfect wrote:How is talking about morals the same as getting the government into your bedroom?Zack Morris wrote:The incidents leading up to Lawrence v. Texas certainly would not have led one to believe that the Republicans were just kidding when they said things like 'the right to privacy doesn't exist'. Nor did the constant ragging on gays and public morality.Mr. Perfect wrote: What did the Republican era Republicans try to do to get into your bedroom?
Zack Morris wrote: When legislators talk about which sexual behaviors are acceptable and which are not, I assume it means they want to build support for laws regulating such things.
So nothing serious?Lawrence v. Texas showed that the government has until very recently been willing to step into the bedroom. Near your neck of the woods, Montana, the state Republican Party platform speaks of making homosexual acts illegal.
If he says people should not expect to have a right to buy or sell alcohol, I would suspect that, yes.Mr. Perfect wrote:Zack Morris wrote: When legislators talk about which sexual behaviors are acceptable and which are not, I assume it means they want to build support for laws regulating such things.
So you assume say a legislator speaking out about alcoholism means they want to return to abolition?
They have.If the GOP is so intent on being the sex police, in your mind why have they done essentially nothing to follow through on that in the last say 30 years?
So nothing serious?[/quote]Lawrence v. Texas showed that the government has until very recently been willing to step into the bedroom. Near your neck of the woods, Montana, the state Republican Party platform speaks of making homosexual acts illegal.
Who is saying, in say the form of real legislation, anywhere, that the government should be in you bedroom?Zack Morris wrote:If he says people should not expect to have a right to buy or sell alcohol, I would suspect that, yes.
How is this the government getting into your bedroom, or anybody's bedroom?
So what, it's called free speech. Are you suggesting we should limit someone's free speech? How is this the government getting into your bedroom?What we've established here is that one party is likely to talk a lot about homosexual acts, contraceptive pills, emergency contraception, abortion, and what have you, and the other is much less likely.
Why don't they? They certainly have the power. But they don't. Why is that do you think?I think it's quite fair to say that given the amount of attention the conservative wing of the Republican party pays to sex, they 'want to get inside your bedroom'.
I don't agree. A number of them, and many others, many many others included millions of ordinary citizens were given the opportunity and seduced to do very stupid and detrimental things once the financial market was deregulated and going out of control. It just is a matter of logistics. Only fool will deregulate traffic believing that it will improve the transport of people and goods in an effective and safe manner. Or replace the seperate electricity circuits in a house making it one system with only one fuse. You diffuse risk by creating subcircuits, which allows for smaller bubbles to explode without jeopardising the whole system. The three separated circuits in the past were commercial (low risk) banking, (higher risk) investment banking and insurance more fenced off from each other.Mr. Perfect wrote:The Democrats caused the financial crisis,
Mr. Perfect wrote:I'm sorry P, you simply don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
The regulators approved and encouraged everything that happened, therefore deregulation has less than nothing to do with it. Had there been more regulators, or more powerful regulators the problem would have been worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
Yo are funny. You just repeat what I said: those responsible for the regulations, ie the regulators decided to "deregulate". Indeed they approved. They created this mess. Both sides of the political aisle and, more importantly, the private banks and lenders who, you know, actually made the loans, purchased and repackaged the loans, and marketed them to unqualified borrowers, can take the blame for this one. But to lay this at the feet of the mortgage crisis is disingenuous. A crisis of this magnitude was far longer in the making that just the 90's and early 2000's. The crisis has brought to the forefront a number of issues that have been dismissed for decades: stagnating wages, growing income inequality, and the diminishing competitiveness of the American labor force in a world of unrestricted global wage arbitrage.Mr. Perfect wrote:They didn't decide to deregulate. They decided to build the subprime mortgage market. That is not deregulation. That is activist regulation. If a regulator does it, it is regulation.
First off: if the subprime credit market were the only sick baby, what is the rest of the world so worried about now?Mr. Perfect wrote:They didn't decide to deregulate. They decided to build the subprime mortgage market. That is not deregulation. That is activist regulation. If a regulator does it, it is regulation.
The UK can do whatever they want I don't particularly care.
P, you will note the only credit market to fail was the subprime market. No other credit market failed. Do you know why that is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_macZack Morris wrote: Both sides of the political aisle and, more importantly, the private banks and lenders who, you know, actually made the loans, purchased and repackaged the loans, and marketed them to unqualified borrowers, can take the blame for this one.
What universe do you hail from? Those issues have been discussed obsessively since Adam, and Eve (outside the American bit. That has been discussed obsessively since America was founded).But to lay this at the feet of the mortgage crisis is disingenuous. A crisis of this magnitude was far longer in the making that just the 90's and early 2000's. The crisis has brought to the forefront a number of issues that have been dismissed for decades: stagnating wages, growing income inequality, and the diminishing competitiveness of the American labor force in a world of unrestricted global wage arbitrage.
I wonder what this means, in your mind.America is flush with money but not very much of it seems to be in the hands of typical Americans who made up for it by investing in real estate.
Ask them, it is not my problem.Parodite wrote: First off: if the subprime credit market were the only sick baby, what is the rest of the world so worried about now?
Right. So the root cause is the crap debt, ie subprime mortgages, born and bred by Democrats. Root cause bingo. Unpackaged debt is no less dangerous than packaged debt.As I understand it, the non-regulations allowed banks to mix-up whatever value and trash scraped from around the world into subprime port-folios creating a real estate asset bubble of money that had nowhere else to go but to naive consumers told they'll be OK buying those mortgages that were way above their heads.. but hey... real estate grows...grows...grows!! Until etc. You know the story.
You can only regulate what you are aware of.Now you explain how this could happen with the banks knowing it was happening, a typical asset bubble that with healthy restrictions and monitoring could have been defused much earlier.
Because they would eventually lose money.But then of course.. why would banks change anything as long as they make money on that growing bubble.
Regulators work for politicians, you cannot separate regulators from politics, that is the fatal error in your logic. We would have been way better off with more deregulation.Bankers could have acted morally and go sit together... and promote normal smart regulation instead of stupid politics-induced disturbances.
That's the thing, they are not making that money anymore.But you will understand I'm sure that as long the financial cowboys make their lovely millions by shoving around money and hot air, cash in their bonuses.. little action can be expected from them.
Depends on how you define natural. This bubble was government created. If you define government as natural then it was natural.Aside: bubbles are a natural phenomena, aren't they?
The fancy products you are so superstitiously afraid of operated without fail in every other debt market.You can't entirely prevent them but you can have an architecture and regulation that prevents "too big to fail" situations to arise by separating the three financial circuits, don't allow for any and all weird new fancy product that nobody understands, ie keep it more simple, allowing for easier oversight, transparency etc. Like in any healthy industry in the world.
Do you even bother to read the links you post?Mr. Perfect wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_macZack Morris wrote: Both sides of the political aisle and, more importantly, the private banks and lenders who, you know, actually made the loans, purchased and repackaged the loans, and marketed them to unqualified borrowers, can take the blame for this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae
Securitization by private banks makes it easier to distribute risk and incentivized lax lending standards. Private banks were perfectly willing to underwrite and deal in such securities. Nobody forced them to do this. A larger and far more involved intervention than the $200B bailout of Fannie and Freddie has been necessary for the banks, and that's before we even begin to assess the damage beyond US borders. It's absolutely ridiculous to lay this at the feet of one (or two) companies, let alone a single party. I don't think right wing revisionism is going to settle anything here. Nor are ridiculously over-simplified models of the financial system devised for the express purpose of implicating a single political party and absolving all private actors of any blame. You'd be hard pressed to find many bankers who engaged in the mortgage-backed security free-for-all, let alone economists, who agree with your narrow assessment.I don't mean to offend you but you appear to be a very young person who relies on left wing media product for information, as such you don't know a lot about what you're talking about. I will do the best I can with you though.
