quote:

Originally posted by Justin Anderson:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron:


...Fast forward 230ish years, and you have the Ultra right wing conservatives stirring the pot, claiming some connection to taxation without representation. Taxation is not the issue here. They care about nothing but Laissez-faire capitalism. Completely unchecked, unregulated, and uncontrolled growth of the big corporations at the expense of the middle class. Alex, you nailed it.......

Was this one of those FACTS you so proudly set forth??

Since when has there been a laissez faire capitalistic system EVER in this country???

What gives you the idea the laissez faire capitalism would be a bad thing for the "middle class"

I for one would love to see a completely free market system in the country, an actual separation of economics and state.

Your basing your "facts" off of a prejudice that you have for individual freedom, and thats what it comes down to. Its not a fact, its an opinion.

Ok, I always hated when people say they are done, but then keep coming back. Since I know you will never stop, I will give you one more response, then I am truly done. And no Justin, it is not because you whipped me.

I realize that for the last 8 years you have been more concerned with popping zits and jacking off before the homecoming dance, but those of us adults who worked for a living during Bush II's terms know what Laissez Faire capitalism is all about. We are suffering the after effects of it today. You don't know it, but you lived through it. Ask your daddy what it was all about, maybe he can explain it. (surely after living with you for as long as he could handle, he figured out how to deal with your argumentative nature enough to talk SOME sense into you.)

As far as my position on most of which we debate on, you are right it is my opinion. Some of it is fact based, some is stated in jest, and some is just to get Ted (and now you) riled up.

With that being said, I am now done Justin. I will leave you and Alex to your contest. I will undoubtedly enjoy his witty (and sometimes edgy) posts. I will also enjoy your retorts, similarly to how I would enjoy an MMA fighter who could only strike with his head.

Keep up the good entertainment.

Aaron.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron:

quote:

Originally posted by Justin Anderson:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron:


...Fast forward 230ish years, and you have the Ultra right wing conservatives stirring the pot, claiming some connection to taxation without representation. Taxation is not the issue here. They care about nothing but Laissez-faire capitalism. Completely unchecked, unregulated, and uncontrolled growth of the big corporations at the expense of the middle class. Alex, you nailed it.......

Was this one of those FACTS you so proudly set forth??

Since when has there been a laissez faire capitalistic system EVER in this country???

What gives you the idea the laissez faire capitalism would be a bad thing for the "middle class"

I for one would love to see a completely free market system in the country, an actual separation of economics and state.

Your basing your "facts" off of a prejudice that you have for individual freedom, and thats what it comes down to. Its not a fact, its an opinion.

Ok, I always hated when people say they are done, but then keep coming back. Since I know you will never stop, I will give you one more response, then I am truly done. And no Justin, it is not because you whipped me.

I realize that for the last 8 years you have been more concerned with popping zits and jacking off before the homecoming dance, but those of us adults who worked for a living during Bush II's terms know what Laissez Faire capitalism is all about. We are suffering the after effects of it today. You don't know it, but you lived through it. Ask your daddy what it was all about, maybe he can explain it. (surely after living with you for as long as he could handle, he figured out how to deal with your argumentative nature enough to talk SOME sense into you.)

As far as my position on most of which we debate on, you are right it is my opinion. Some of it is fact based, some is stated in jest, and some is just to get Ted (and now you) riled up.

With that being said, I am now done Justin. I will leave you and Alex to your contest. I will undoubtedly enjoy his witty (and sometimes edgy) posts. I will also enjoy your retorts, similarly to how I would enjoy an MMA fighter who could only strike with his head.

Keep up the good entertainment.

Aaron.

Cmon Dude drop the BS and debate like a real man, or you can play your little game and talk down to me like a little bitch, whatever. I dont have a personal problem with you, why do you have one with me? None of this shit means a damn thing anyway, if you cant take a few jabs, get out of the ring.

Believe it or not, I have worked the last 8 years under bush, and again my situtaion has done nothing but get better. I find it hilairious that you think anything under Bush was an example of laissez faire capitalism, Our system has done nothing but get bloated with regulation since the turn of the century, and continues to. When you regulate the hell out of an economy, its only big business that can weather the climate, and individuals lose out, in many more ways than one. When you open up the markets from regulation, creativity is stimulated, individuals that can and do, make their own way, Those who cant will fail, and find something they can do. Every time even a small dose of freedom is introduced into the economy, people create, and the economy grows, The opposite, however, has never worked anywhere its tried.

Hey Justin,just curious as to where you got your Economics Degree at? Kinder care?

I am actually quite disappointed in the "left"... I thought for sure that I would hear some good rebuttals to Justin comments. I have no idea how old or who the 'hawk' (all irrelevant) is but he has brought up some good points, harsh maybe but valid none the less. If there was a true counter. I believe we would have heard one. "anyone... anyone"?

Our current debacle can not be blamed on one party or even an individual (Bush, like the Left wants too)... it took years in the making and even the almighty Clinton had a part in it. Mr. Alan Greenspan, Fed Chair from '87-'06, all but took one on the chin, admitting Huge errors in his economic philosophy that helped get us here...big problem. Over the last 8yrs Bush and cro (i.e. crony's) made a few huge errors in judgment but the fact is that our economy boomed for his first 6 yrs in office (good) and it also happened to fail (NOT good) but this failure has roots planted long before W's time... and it's 'our' fault (elected officials) to let this happen. The warning signs were there but when things are good it's hard to stop... it's like a drug dealer making easy money, bound to get caught.

Simply put ITS NOT ONE ADMINs fault, and its not ONE party that will get us out of this. We need to get back to basics and let the people do there thing. that is our ONE true asset as Americans. The answer is not bigger larger government and Justin is right in asking when has that ever really worked?

Guess I'll let the insults continue unless I have prompted (here fishy fish) a response from the left... anyone... anyone?.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex:
Hey Justin,just curious as to where you got your Economics Degree at? Kinder care?

Another clever one from you.... bet it made you feel real good, didnt it.....

Once again youve showed your uselessness, and lack of ability to respond to what I said.

This stupid mud throwing is getting old, and that goes for me as well, Id like to get back to the debate and stop the childish crap, ok with you??

quote:

Originally posted by MX516:
I am actually quite disappointed in the "left"... I thought for sure that I would hear some good rebuttals to Justin comments. I have no idea how old or who the 'hawk' (all irrelevant) is but he has brought up some good points, harsh maybe but valid none the less. If there was a true counter. I believe we would have heard one. "anyone... anyone"?

Our current debacle can not be blamed on one party or even an individual (Bush, like the Left wants too)... it took years in the making and even the almighty Clinton had a part in it. Mr. Alan Greenspan, Fed Chair from '87-'06, all but took one on the chin, admitting Huge errors in his economic philosophy that helped get us here...big problem. Over the last 8yrs Bush and cro (i.e. crony's) made a few huge errors in judgment but the fact is that our economy boomed for his first 6 yrs in office (good) and it also happened to fail (NOT good) but this failure has roots planted long before W's time... and it's 'our' fault (elected officials) to let this happen. The warning signs were there but when things are good it's hard to stop... it's like a drug dealer making easy money, bound to get caught.

Simply put ITS NOT ONE ADMINs fault, and its not ONE party that will get us out of this. We need to get back to basics and let the people do there thing. that is our ONE true asset as Americans. The answer is not bigger larger government and Justin is right in asking when has that ever really worked?

Guess I'll let the insults continue unless I have prompted (here fishy fish) a response from the left... anyone... anyone?.

Though I agree that you really cant blame a party per se, you can blame a way of thought. That way of thought happens to consume nearly all of one party and a portion of the other. It was regulation in the first place that put us into this mess. The government got involved in providing housing for people that shouldnt have been qualified in the first place, and then later down the road, made it possible for those same banks to buy up bad debt that private bank were burdened with. When private banks realized they had almost no risk, as these quasi-government corporations would buy the bad debt in a worst case scenario, they in turn made more loans to people who shouldnt have been qualified for them. The catalyst was when the housing bubble burst and the collateral wasnt worth the loan amount any longer, banks turned to the other banks to buy the bad debt, and eventually there was no more money in the system due to the loss of capital in the housing market and banks failed.

Had the government never been involved in granting loans to people that didnt deserve them, we wouldnt be in the problem we are in now.

20/20 hindsight right?

quote:

Originally posted by Justin Anderson:

Though I agree that you really cant blame a party per se, you can blame a way of thought. That way of thought happens to consume nearly all of one party and a portion of the other. It was regulation in the first place that put us into this mess. The government got involved in providing housing for people that shouldnt have been qualified in the first place, and then later down the road, made it possible for those same banks to buy up bad debt that private bank were burdened with. When private banks realized they had almost no risk, as these quasi-government corporations would buy the bad debt in a worst case scenario, they in turn made more loans to people who shouldnt have been qualified for them. The catalyst was when the housing bubble burst and the collateral wasnt worth the loan amount any longer, banks turned to the other banks to buy the bad debt, and eventually there was no more money in the system due to the loss of capital in the housing market and banks failed.

Had the government never been involved in granting loans to people that didnt deserve them, we wouldnt be in the problem we are in now.

20/20 hindsight right?

I don't think you are correct. In my opinion and the opinion of many economists is that the housing bubble burst because of the recession not the other way around. Gov't providing/encouraging questionable loans was not the reason for what happened.

In my opinion here is what happened:

The economy was chugging along nicely, housing values were going up, the stock market was going up. The starting problem was that banks were looking towards next quarters profits and bonuses and made loans to people who were on the bubble. Those loans were sold to other banks and investment firms as solid equities. Then oil prices started going through the roof. Companies began laying off and those solid loans came back to bite the investors. Folks lost their jobs, loans defaulted and the snow ball had begun. In my opinion and from what I read, many economists opinion, this whole mess was started by bankers short term bonus ambitions and high oil prices.

Now the bailout. Everyone complains about the bailouts, let them fail they say. The larger issue is that if the banks fail the country/world fails. Companies rely on the banks for loans. The majority of large companies take loans out to make payroll, get their monthly sales reciepts, pay the loan, repeat. If the banks aren't loaning the company doesn't make payroll. Small businesses cannot pay cash for capital equipment, no loans, no capital, no growth. Hence the bailouts of the banks are/were needed. The bailouts of the large companies, GM, support the general populous. Keep the people working, paying taxes, buying goods and services.

I fault the gov't for lack of oversite on market conditions, i.e. Bernie Madhoff etc. I fault the gov't for allowing oil prices to climb as high as they did. However, this whole crisis was caused by good ole fashoined American/world greed. There is alot more to it than I have written but my fingers are getting tired

Whoa...
You guys have been having a great debate!
But I think you just stumbled over the common thread. American/WORLD greed. Sammy Hagar had a song back about when Justin was born - 20th Century Man.
"Get it while you can, there ain't much left to take. Get it while you can just like a 20th century man"

I looked at Greenspans report, I thought you could sum it up to that same point Bill that he under estimated the amount of greed and corruption in Freddie Fannie and wall street.

When people are cornered and desperate they usually resort to sophomoric personal attacks on a persons age,race,mentality,fat thights, ETC..

When someone makes charges with facts and truths there is no need for personal attack.When a persons position is weak they usauly try to divert attention with personal attacks and emotional outbursts.

Thats why I like Pauls Posts , no
efemenent emotional outbursts,no sophomoric accusations,just the facts.
To all to which that applies...yes you may be offended

Vern,

I get offended by the common creed from the right and their "ME ME ME" attitude. The total abandonment of the principle of "do unto others as you would have done to you...." is what sickens me. I have heard it stated time and time again, and too many times on this board. "Well, I got mine on my own....Blah Blah Blah."

That is what offends me. Its ok to strive to succeed, but B Anderson summed it up perfectly with his post about greed.

As for sitting back and making sophmoric comments, you are the king with your one liners. However, It's my opinion that most of your sarcastic comments fall short of their intended audience though, and it's not because you excel at typing.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul 061:

In my opinion here is what happened:

The economy was chugging along nicely, housing values were going up, the stock market was going up. The starting problem was that banks were looking towards next quarters profits and bonuses and made loans to people who were on the bubble. Those loans were sold to other banks and investment firms as solid equities. Then oil prices started going through the roof. Companies began laying off and those solid loans came back to bite the investors. Folks lost their jobs, loans defaulted and the snow ball had begun. In my opinion and from what I read, many economists opinion, this whole mess was started by bankers short term bonus ambitions and high oil prices.

Now the bailout. Everyone complains about the bailouts, let them fail they say. The larger issue is that if the banks fail the country/world fails. Companies rely on the banks for loans. The majority of large companies take loans out to make payroll, get their monthly sales reciepts, pay the loan, repeat. If the banks aren't loaning the company doesn't make payroll. Small businesses cannot pay cash for capital equipment, no loans, no capital, no growth. Hence the bailouts of the banks are/were needed. The bailouts of the large companies, GM, support the general populous. Keep the people working, paying taxes, buying goods and services.

I fault the gov't for lack of oversite on market conditions, i.e. Bernie Madhoff etc. I fault the gov't for allowing oil prices to climb as high as they did. However, this whole crisis was caused by good ole fashoined American/world greed. There is alot more to it than I have written but my fingers are getting tired

Good points Paul (Thanks!). and there is a lot of truth to that theory as well. We will probably never know the real cause, just speculate...

On the banks, who made it possible to give people on the bubble (or well below) loans? The government did, with somewhat good intention... the same branch of the gov that believes as Americans (or illegal) we all deserve a home... i.e. entitlement. The gov. told the banks to take on more of these "high risk" loans... the banks, always trying to make a profit, said ok, sounds like a good deal = more loans = more profit... who would pass that up? then the ball started rolling, picked up steam and no one wanted to stop it and it went TO far. It all goes back to basics and people living outside their means (which I am not innocent of). Had the gov not intervened, before and now, we might not be in this mess but that’s hindsight

As for the bailouts… I am torn. I somewhat agree with Paul on the banks… not so much with the big three. Just look in the news and see who planning to file for bankruptcy protection … good thing we "bailed" them out… or wait… maybe we just dumped our kids money down the drains… who's next to fail?

I do want to clarify here that the media has coined the phrase bailouts. However these are loans. Plain and simple.

Another point, we are making a huge deal over this "bailout" to the tune of 70 billion. It is aimed at a series of companies that employ millions of middle class folks. It has dominated our news cycle for weeks now.

What happened to the 700 billion that went to Wallstreet? Where was the backlash from the public? Where did it go? Most important question of the day: How long was it in the news cycle?

Vern, can you answer that?

Get out of the matrix!!! Or maybe I had better get back in, I was less angry when I was.

I've got to go to work. See you guys tonight.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron:
I do want to clarify here that the media has coined the phrase bailouts. However these are loans. Plain and simple.

My only thing with that Aaron is that loans are intended to be paid back or some sort of collateral is relinquished. I don't believe that is the case here.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron:
Vern,

I get offended by the common creed from the right and their "ME ME ME" attitude. The total abandonment of the principle of "do unto others as you would have done to you...." is what sickens me. I have heard it stated time and time again, and too many times on this board. "Well, I got mine on my own....Blah Blah Blah."

That is what offends me. Its ok to strive to succeed, but B Anderson summed it up perfectly with his post about greed.

As for sitting back and making sophmoric comments, you are the king with your one liners. However, It's my opinion that most of your sarcastic comments fall short of their intended audience though, and it's not because you excel at typing.

Aaron, on a personal level, I dont have a "ME ME ME" attitude, ask anybody who knows me. I do believe in the "do unto others as you would have done to you...." principle. However I dont believe in it in an econmomic sense, what I worked hard for is mine, not somebody elses. I get sick of the "ME ME ME attitude when those people didnt earn it.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul 061:

quote:

Originally posted by Justin Anderson:

Though I agree that you really cant blame a party per se, you can blame a way of thought. That way of thought happens to consume nearly all of one party and a portion of the other. It was regulation in the first place that put us into this mess. The government got involved in providing housing for people that shouldnt have been qualified in the first place, and then later down the road, made it possible for those same banks to buy up bad debt that private bank were burdened with. When private banks realized they had almost no risk, as these quasi-government corporations would buy the bad debt in a worst case scenario, they in turn made more loans to people who shouldnt have been qualified for them. The catalyst was when the housing bubble burst and the collateral wasnt worth the loan amount any longer, banks turned to the other banks to buy the bad debt, and eventually there was no more money in the system due to the loss of capital in the housing market and banks failed.

Had the government never been involved in granting loans to people that didnt deserve them, we wouldnt be in the problem we are in now.

20/20 hindsight right?

I don't think you are correct. In my opinion and the opinion of many economists is that the housing bubble burst because of the recession not the other way around. Gov't providing/encouraging questionable loans was not the reason for what happened.

In my opinion here is what happened:

The economy was chugging along nicely, housing values were going up, the stock market was going up. The starting problem was that banks were looking towards next quarters profits and bonuses and made loans to people who were on the bubble. Those loans were sold to other banks and investment firms as solid equities. Then oil prices started going through the roof. Companies began laying off and those solid loans came back to bite the investors. Folks lost their jobs, loans defaulted and the snow ball had begun. In my opinion and from what I read, many economists opinion, this whole mess was started by bankers short term bonus ambitions and high oil prices.

Now the bailout. Everyone complains about the bailouts, let them fail they say. The larger issue is that if the banks fail the country/world fails. Companies rely on the banks for loans. The majority of large companies take loans out to make payroll, get their monthly sales reciepts, pay the loan, repeat. If the banks aren't loaning the company doesn't make payroll. Small businesses cannot pay cash for capital equipment, no loans, no capital, no growth. Hence the bailouts of the banks are/were needed. The bailouts of the large companies, GM, support the general populous. Keep the people working, paying taxes, buying goods and services.

I fault the gov't for lack of oversite on market conditions, i.e. Bernie Madhoff etc. I fault the gov't for allowing oil prices to climb as high as they did. However, this whole crisis was caused by good ole fashoined American/world greed. There is alot more to it than I have written but my fingers are getting tired

I appreciate the meaningful reponse.

However this is where I disagree and also disagree with the responses above.

The recession was entered in the 4th quarter of 2007, housing prices leveled out and started dropping in 2006/early 2007, before the recession even started. Profits and Bonuses are not examples of greed, thats people just doing their job. You cant operate a business without making a profit, and its hard to encourage employees to get work done unless you offer them bonuses and commission. Nobody forced anybody to take out a loan they couldnt handle, that was a decision individuals made, the bank was at fault for granting it, But if the government or another bank is backing the loan you make to these sort of people in case of forclosure, what does a bank have to lose? It would be common sense in a situation like that to loan to such a person, if the risk was minimal. As far as oil prices and that go, I agree, it had a huge impact on the economy, and if anything started the ball rolling to recession it was that. I dont agree the government could have done anything about that though. The only way to lower the price of a commodity is to lower demand or increase supply. Speculators determined that oil was going to be in high demand and acted upon it, buying futures and selling them at an inflated rate before they were supposed to take shipment, Thats why the oil price got so high. High oil prices did lead to people having less discretionary spending, profits at retailers went down, stock market dropped, people started losing serious money in investments, and people started getting laid off, and the price of housing started to drop. People began to see negitive equity in their homes at the same time they were paying $4 a gallon for gas and losing their job, so a lot of people just abandoned their home altogether leaving the bank responsible for a deflated priced home and a loan amount that was more than the worth of the house. The subprime market had little to do with greed. Madoff, however, was a perfect example of pure unadulterated greed, and should go to jail for what he did with peoples money.

Now the bailout. What has changed since we have spent 2 trillion dollars, soon to be more on this bailout?? Nothing. Banks still arent lending the money, and the locations of where this money is going arent being disclosed. For it being such an urgent matter, the economy has gotten by without the help of the bailout money. We have put 15% of our GDP into this bailout and it has all been funded in the red. Where is that money going to come from? Eventually the taxpayers, either through direct taxation, or an economic equivlent, and the shi**y banks that failed, get to reap profits after they pay the 5% dividend on the loans. The taxpayers will get nothing because the money the government makes off of it will go right into new garbage spending, instead of paying off the debt washington has racked up with this deal. If washington wanted to do something useful, they could have bought the properties in question and sold them at discounted prices to people with decent credit ratings, and had solvent banks administer the loans on a contract basis, That would have been a win/win for everybody. Instead we have taxpayer money lining the pockets of bank execs and their cronies after they failed.

Personally, I would have loved to see the failing banks crumble and the solvent ones succeed.

As far as the auto companies go, you cant rely on a job to always be there, Markets change. The big three have had decades of administrative incompetence, grossly inflated union wages/healthcare/pensions, and havent offered the cars people want (This is coming from a diehard Ford guy). The quality issue is a farce, the domestic auto companies are the leaders in auto techology and manufacturing processes. The media however likes to portray domestic autos as being sub-par to imported counterparts, and I think this has a lot to do with why sales are down.
They need to get some Real direction and restructure, get some people that really have their thumb on what americans want to drive, and come up with a fair plan to offer people who work for them. $70 and hour to sit in a break room cause your not needed on the line, but a contract says you have to be paid is complete BS, no wonder they are going bankrupt.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Justin Anderson,

Did Jason just throw me under the bus?

I do agree with Justin. However Paul uses facts in his posts, the other 2 use MSNBC facts.

I'm going to go to Straddline to beat up Jason for not towing the Ted/FOX line!

MSNBC Facts, Fox Facts, X, Y, Up, Down, +, -.

I might be a slow learner, but something just occured to me. We will never agree. Which came first, the egg or the chicken. This thread has 7 pages of Egg/Chicken. We have undoubtedly reached an impasse.

I guess we can all think that we know the way, and watch it play out before us over the next several years. I'm tired of arguing though, and I never thought I would say that.

Insults are ok, as long as they don't come back, and politics obviously is a subject that most people have a difficulty discussing without letting the passion and the frustration come to a boil.

My wife asked me if this was a motorcycle board or a Political board.

I'm for watching it play out in real life. Plus then, I will just get to collect my beer and steak. Could we change the bet a bit? Maybe the loser could just send out the winners gift cards. Then dinner might not break out into a fist fight.

No way on the gift card. I'm collecting my expensive whisky and steak in person with my debatees. What are you going to do with a certificate? Go to dinner and argue with your wife? Come on, you will never win that one. At least with a few dudes you can imagine you have a chance to think you were right/correct. LOL

If Justin is old enough to drink we will get him a light beer. He is so fired up maybe we should buy him a non-alc beer in a glass and not tell him. He He.

I'll buy Paul a beer for the most posts on here.

Yeah, the old placebo effect might be in effect that night with Justin.

As for arguing with my wife, why do you think I come here? Atleast here I get a 50/50 chance at winning....

Laughing out loud!!!