Politics What sides of Political fence do you sit on?

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by magnifier661, Aug 10, 2015.

?

What side(s) of Political Fence do you sit on?

Poll closed Aug 30, 2015.
  1. Liberal on social views, Liberal on economic views

    50.0%
  2. Conservative on social views, Conservative on economic views

    13.6%
  3. Liberal on Social views, Conservative on economic views

    31.8%
  4. Conservative on Social views, Liberal on economic views

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. ANARCHY!

    4.5%
  1. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,447
    Likes Received:
    14,128
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Is underneath WTC7. Obviously.

    I don't see anywhere Bernie claimed that repatriating foreign profits would solve all the problems in the world.
    Candidates are expected to talk about lots of different proposals for how they'd make things better, not just have one single idea.
    The american system, like it or not (I know you don't) is set up to allow incremental change, not radical change.
    I think you are being a little ridiculous claiming that he shouldn't talk about a $74B issue, and calling it a conspiracy theory.

    barfo
     
    dviss1 likes this.
  2. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Koch brothers bogeyman is one of his conspiracy theories.

    Claiming that companies want to shaft their employees is another.

    Weak deflection on your part.
     
  3. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,447
    Likes Received:
    14,128
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Him saying Koch bros. are bogeymen isn't any different than you saying Bernie is a bogeyman.

    So you finally admit to being a conspiracy theorist. Good for you.

    barfo
     
  4. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Now you're blathering.

    Pure nonsense.

    I don't need a bogeyman to get or influence votes.
     
  5. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,447
    Likes Received:
    14,128
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Are you running? Which of the 17 dwarfs are you?

    I'm guessing Santorum.

    barfo
     
  6. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    No, I'm not running. Duh.

    Unlike you, I'm nobody's sycophant, either.
     
  7. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    For @dviss1

    Not a clown.
    http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr733.html

    Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs

    When students fund their education through loans, changes in student borrowing and tuition are interlinked. Higher tuition costs raise loan demand, but loan supply also affects equilibrium tuition costs—for example, by relaxing students’ funding constraints. To resolve this simultaneity problem, we exploit detailed student-level financial data and changes in federal student aid programs to identify the impact of increased student loan funding on tuition. We find that institutions more exposed to changes in the subsidized federal loan program increased their tuition disproportionately around these policy changes, with a sizable pass-through effect on tuition of about 65 percent. We also find that Pell Grant aid and the unsubsidized federal loan program have pass-through effects on tuition, although these are economically and statistically not as strong. The subsidized loan effect on tuition is most pronounced for expensive, private institutions that are somewhat, but not among the most, selective.

    Available only in PDF 51 pages / 1,183 kb

    Can't have free markets!

    This is the result.
     
  8. Nikolokolus

    Nikolokolus There's always next year

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    30,704
    Likes Received:
    6,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what you're saying is that the banking lobby has mostly gotten what it's paid for right?
     
    dviss1 likes this.
  9. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    More like the government gave BofA cash from the treasury so they could buy Merrill Lynch. Accounts I've seen were that BofA didn't want the money.
     
  10. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    28,382
    Likes Received:
    25,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's because all of the Republicans and 2/3rds of the Dems are owned by corporations. You keep acting like the system hasn't been rigged by all this money coming through our elections. You keep blaming the Government when it's the corporations and the lobbyists who line the politicians pockets LEGALLY.
     
  11. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    BofA didn't want the bailout money. So the corporations/lobbyists conspiracy doesn't apply here.

    http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/05/15/first_nine_banks_were_forced_to_take_bailouts/

    First nine banks were forced to take bailouts
    Documents show US was insistent

    NEW YORK - The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents released Wednesday have confirmed.

    Obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents reveal "talking points" used by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the Oct. 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required "in any circumstance," whether the banks found them appealing or not.

    Paulson also told the bankers it would not be prudent to opt out of the program because doing so "would leave you vulnerable and exposed."

    It's no secret that some of the banks had to be pressured to participate, with several CEOs saying they had been strongly encouraged to take the funds. But the documents are the first proof of the government's insistence.

    "These documents show our government exercising unrestrained power over the private sector," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement.

    Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, who was a top aide when Paulson was at Treasury, yesterday said, "Secretary Paulson was not one to read talking points at meetings."

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's office did not respond to requests for comment.

    The outcome of that fateful meeting - it resulted in the government taking direct stakes in the banks through $125 billion in preferred stock purchases - marked a shift in the government's strategy to fixing the financial system.

    The Treasury had first decided to use a chunk of the $700 billion financial bailout package to pay for taking partial ownership stakes in banks, rather than use the money to buy rotten debts from financial institutions. The idea was that the investments would instill confidence in the system and get banks to lend again, following the credit-market freeze.

    The meeting was hosted by Paulson, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairwoman Sheila Bair, and Geithner, who was then president of the New York Fed.

    Banks that were initially required to accept the funds were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co.,State Street Corp., Bank of New York Mellon, and Bank of America Corp., including the soon-to-be-acquired Merrill Lynch.

    Paulson wanted healthy institutions that did not necessarily need capital to participate in the program first, to remove any stigma that might be associated with a bailout. He told reporters the intervention was "what we must do to restore confidence in our financial system."
     
  12. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    28,382
    Likes Received:
    25,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So Bush insisted they take the money? We are to trust the word of fucking Hank Paulson? Jesus....
     
  13. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    What part of the article didn't you understand? It isn't Paulson's word about anything here. It's what went down and was documented.

    It's not just Bush, either. It was Obama, Lawrence Summers (Obama's advisor), Bernanke (Obama's Fed Chairman) and others.

    The government insisted the banks take bailout money. It wasn't banks lobbying the government for the money. The opposite.

    Your complaint seems to be about the banks. They're a PRODUCT OF GOVERNMENT.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104

    Details Obama's and his advisors' involvement in lying to congress about intentions for TARP funds.

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/27/news/economy/tarp_takeback/

    Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Bank of New York/Mellon (BK, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) - all 'mega-banks' that the government forced to take bailout money - say they want to return taxpayer funds "as soon as practical."

    http://www.businessinsider.com/unco...-paulson-forced-banks-to-take-the-cash-2009-5

    The first 1-pager is Paulson's talking points for the bank. It basically confirms that he put a gun to all their heads. It says they must agree to take their cash, and that if they protested, then each bank's regulator would force them to take it anyway.

    http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/art...documents-paulson-forced-9-banks-to-take-tarp

    Documents: Paulson forced 9 banks to take TARP

    http://www.chron.com/business/steffy/article/Take-this-money-whether-you-need-it-or-not-1610794.php

    Take this money whether you need it or not
    Here, banks, take this money whether you need it or not

    Texas banks, which have largely been on the sidelines of the financial crisis, are signing up for federal bailout funds even though they don’t need them.

    That, apparently, is what the Treasury Department wants. Although the bailout was supposed to shore up capital for troubled banks and encourage lending, the government is urging stronger banks to take the money.

    “They’ve been calling us; they want us to participate. They’ve been asking banks to participate,” said Dan Rollins, president of Houston-basedProsperity Bank. The deadline for applying is Nov. 14, and Rollins said Prosperity hasn’t decided if it will.
     
  14. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    28,382
    Likes Received:
    25,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fine Bush told them to take it. That still has nothing to do with them gambling with our money and THAT being legal.
    But... I'll bet you blame government for that instead of the banks...
     
  15. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Bush didn't tell them to take it.

    The banks did nothing illegal.

    It was your beloved Democrats that encouraged the banks to loan money to people that couldn't afford the payments. They blocked attempts by republicans to regulate the banks for years before the crash.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

    Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work).

    Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation.
     
  16. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    28,382
    Likes Received:
    25,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Saying the banks did nothing illegal is true. What they were allowed to do to us was lobbied for by them....
     
  17. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    28,382
    Likes Received:
    25,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hank Paulson was under Bush. If he forced them to take the bailouts then that's Bush bro... That was all passed by the Bush.
     
  18. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    It makes no difference who forced the banks to take the money. They didn't lobby for it. The opposite. It was forced down their throats.

    Bill Clinton signed the bill that repealed Glass Steagall.


    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/

    Bill Clinton: Glass-Steagall repeal had nothing to do with financial crisis

    By the time Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act, commonly known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley, repealing the key components of Glass-Steagall in 1999, the regulation was nearly toothless. The law was simply catching up to what the market had already accomplished in the previous 10 to 15 years, said Kathleen Day, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and an expert in financial crises.

    ...

    Is this what caused the most recent financial crisis? There’s plenty of room for debate here, given that there isn’t a single what-caused-the-crisis narrative that every economist accepts. It’s safe to say, though, that there is not a prominent group of economists who argue "but for the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, the crisis would not have happened."

    Lawrence White, an economist at New York University, doesn’t see Glass-Steagall playing any role in the financial crisis whatsoever. He pointed to the crisis’ biggest culprits: firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and AIG, to name a few. He added that much of the crisis hinged on activity by these institutions that would have been possible with or without Glass-Steagall, such as mass investment in notoriously bad mortgage loans. (Clinton’s staff linked us to commentary by several other experts who share White’s view.)

    We also contacted Barry Ritholtz, a wealth management expert and commentator, who said Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to stop the financial crisis

     
    HailBlazers likes this.
  19. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    28,382
    Likes Received:
    25,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already know who signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. Phil Gramm wrote it and it was co sponsored by the other two. Bill Clinton made several mistakes as president. This was one of them.
     
  20. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Bush tried 17 times to regulate Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac. Rejected by Democrats. McCain tried to also. Rejected by Democrats.

    It was more important to put people into homes they couldn't afford (social justice! tax the rich! FAIL) than it was to assure the government created institutions wouldn't fail.
     
    HailBlazers likes this.

Share This Page