Originally posted by Leverage
-
what deregulation?Comment -
Funny how the Right is bitching about Obama not listening to the General when:
KABUL (Reuters) - The extra 30,000 troops that U.S. President Barack Obama ordered for Afghanistan will "make a huge difference" in the country, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChyrstal, said on Wednesday.
"I think we can do an awful lot with those forces," McChrystal told reporters, referring not only to the U.S. troops but the additional troops being pledged by U.S. allies and Afghan forces.
"I think it's going to make a huge difference. I think we'll be in great shape," McChrystal said.
Of course, the Right always act like they are the final authority on military matters so that's not surprise. Even the General agrees Obama's decision will work. Stop hiding behind the General who is actually agreeing with Obama.Comment -
No I totally agree with you. If i were around during the founding of this country I would have been an anti-federalist. The greed I'm talking about is the whole debt society we live in. The shady investment vehicles I'm talking about are credit swap derivatives.Comment -
"The cause of the current troubles dates back to 1980, when U.S. President Ronald Reagan and U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher came to power, Soros said. It was during this time that borrowing ballooned and regulation of banks and financial markets became less stringent.
Avoiding a `Super-Bubble'
These leaders, Soros said, believed that markets are self- correcting, meaning that if prices get out of whack, they will eventually revert to historical norms. Instead, this laissez- faire attitude created the current housing bubble, which in turn led to the seizing up of credit markets and the demise of Bear Stearns, Soros said"Comment -
Originally posted by losturmarblesi know critical thinking isn't your strong suit while cut-pasting is, but you might consider next time linking an article that doesn't contradict it's own title. and you also might consider not highlighting the said part.
look i don't have time to argue. "bush cut back on CRA enforcement" so what is "enforcement"??? oh yeah, that's because in order for a bank to grow and expand into other areas of finance, it had to meet government mandates IE CRA. the damage was already done by the time bush "cut back on CRA enforcement". and there is plenty of blame to go around about CRA, but a hell of a lot of it falls directly on slobbering barney frank's shoulders.
Maybe more reading and less listening to Limbaugh will help you see the TRUTH.
If you're going to blame CRA for the meltdown, then the blame would squarely be on your crackheadboy, Dumbya, is what the author is saying. Since you're so clueless you may want to research what Dumbya did to exasperate the problem: from firing regulators to signing in to law the Downpayment Initiative to help the poor finance homes.
Comment -
Soros??Originally posted by Leverage
well, that explains a lotComment -
greed is irrelevant. greed is self defined. everyone lives by their own self interest, is that greedy? if so, then everyone is greedy.Originally posted by Leverage
the derivatives, i know. they were sub prime loans bundled together, the loans are backed by fannie/freddie, f/f backed by tax payers. so basically just another income redistribution scheme.Comment -
Lol talking shit about Soros is like talking shit about capitalism.Comment -
LOL Soros
can you get any more Left? Nope!Comment -
Lol you think I'm a liberal.Comment -
Greed is quite relevant Michael Douglas. Just because the system is set up to create debt doesn't mean its a good idea to package it and sell it. The derivatives were created for institutional traders to scalp, the bottom fell out by the note holders filing bankrupcy. Which caused the institutions to stop lending. That=credit crisis.Originally posted by losturmarblesComment -
tough situation for a leftie or rightieComment -
Originally posted by Leverage
LOL , one one hand you say "No we had a "crisis" because of greed. Greed plus shady investment vehicles. Period." which I agree with in general but then you quote a guy like Soros and blow it. Then I can't help but shake my head.Comment -
Soros is awesome for destroying England's economy in the 90's. Mad respect for that.Comment -
Very true....When ppl began saying greed is good is when i knew we were all headed south........Its like we've allowed ourselves to become homogenised beyond independent thought then it comes to money, politics and religion....Sad indictment on wider society imoOriginally posted by Leverage
Comment -
soros is an lying idiot. uk never had any trouble or "crisis". the crisis originated in the US. from bad loans given out because of bad government laws.Originally posted by Leverage
in the uk, investment firms and lending banks and insurance companies were free to cross into each other's field or whatever areas they wanted to. it's been like that there forever.
here in the US, in the 1930s, a bunch of ill advised banking laws were passed, one of them being the glass-steagall act which prevented investment firms and lending banks from mixing into each other. and it's been like that until the glass-steagall act was repealed in 99. in order to get that repealed and passed through congress, a deal was made with democrats, where they would vote for it if it forced tougher CRA requirements on banks that decided to diversify into other areas.
it passed, the banks wanted to grow, they wanted to expand, but they had to loan out money to people they knew on average are only going to pay back 50 cents on the dollar, but they also knew that fannie/freddie would end up buying the loans from them, and in the process could charge sub prime interest rates.
people on wall street wise to the scheme, looked to bundled all these high risk loans together, (like parlaying a bunch of moneyline dogs together) but they knew that the loans are going to end paying out at a much higher rate than they should because of the government backing. the enforcement of CRA led to an artificial increase in demand for houses in the market, causing prices to go up, leading to sub-prime loans being highly profitable since it expanded the market, but eventually the bubble popped. and whoever was left holding the hose, lost. and that's why all these banks that were "too big to fail" got bailed out, because the were over leveraged in sub prime derivatives.Comment -
That was the deregulation I was talking about.Originally posted by losturmarblesComment -
Amen to that.Originally posted by ACoochyVery true....When ppl began saying greed is good is when i knew we were all headed south........Its like we've allowed ourselves to become homogenised beyond independent thought then it comes to money, politics and religion....Sad indictment on wider society imoComment -
\Originally posted by losturmarbles
Lost!
Wow, very well said.
Maybe it's the Rum talking but ypu are making a lot of sense here.
perhaps I am confusing you with another poster?
Comment -
Gotta go, Pick up rugby game. Been good talking with you guys. Till next time.Comment -
what is greed? why do you do what you do?Originally posted by ACoochyVery true....When ppl began saying greed is good is when i knew we were all headed south........Its like we've allowed ourselves to become homogenised beyond independent thought then it comes to money, politics and religion....Sad indictment on wider society imo
everyone lives by their own self interest. do you go to work for no wage?
greed is essential to life. i have yet to meet an angel or a saint. is that what you that you claim to be?
no-one said greed is good. but believing greed is bad?, yeah that's way beyond "independent thought" isn't it.Comment -
later.Comment -
Bush wasn't so bad. Actually, better than the original.
Comment -
Leverage, perhaps you should re-think your decision of joining the Air Force as you don't possess anywhere near the necessary intelligence to be a part of that elite group. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you're making the whole Air Force thing up.
Since you're as dumb as a tree stump, I'll clue you in:
Presidents are NOT in charge of our country's financial expenditures. Congress is in charge of our country's purse strings and they make all the important decisions in our country. If that was not the case, Obama would have already signed his government takeover of medicine into law.
Now that we have that out of the way, lets see which party controlled congress from the Reagan through the Obama administrations:
1980-1988 - Ronald Reagan - Democrats had full control of congress during Reagan's entire 8 years in office - $200 billion deficit
1989-1992 - Bush Sr - Democrats had full control of congress during Bush's 4 years in office - $300 billion deficit
1993-2000 - Bill Clinton - REPUBLICANS had control of congress for 6 out of the 8 Clinton years - $200 billion SURPLUS
2001-2006 - Bush Jr - Republicans controlled congress
2007-2008 - Bush Jr - Democrats controlled congress
Do you have the breakdown of Bush Jr's $482 billion deficit? How much of it came in his first 6 years in office as compared to the last 2 when democrats controlled congress
2009 - ????? Barack Obama - Democrats controlling congress - IN less than a year, Obama and the democratic party has created a larger deficit than Bush's entire 8 years combined.
The facts are OVERWHELMING and clear. Our country spends and wastes far more money under democratic controlled congresses than republican controlled.
Leverage said:
Lol you think I'm a liberal.
Without question, you most definitely are but I would be ashamed to admit it as well.Comment -
Actually I'm well aware that the President is not in charge of financial expenditures. Its apparent your not if you continue to blame Obama for the current financial crisis which started months before he was even elected, or the democratic congress because the seeds of the crisis were planted and sprouted before Bush was elected. I never personally attacked anyone during this discussion. Ad Hominim attacks are a sign of a weak position. I don't care enough to write a 3 page argument detailing my beliefs. I'm actually a minarchist. I don't believe the federal government should exist outside of a national currency, infrastructure, courts and a standing military to defend from outside agression. I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, but he sure is better than Bush. How about you get off your computer and actually do something for your country instead about bitching about it over a gambling forum. That's right it would be too much like hard work.Comment -
100X worse than BushOriginally posted by LeverageComment -
He is a Wall Street thug like the rest of em. Surrounded himself by those who protect Wall Street and completely phucked taxpayers n main street in the process. He represents a government by the banks, for the banks.Comment -
I sure hope that we get him out of office in a few years. No need for impeachment, but he is bad news for all of usComment -
you're misusing the term "national defense" to make your argument seem more legitimateComment -
What exactly has Barack Obama done in his 10+ months in office that has benefited our country?I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, but he sure is better than Bush. How about you get off your computer and actually do something for your country instead about bitching about it over a gambling forum. That's right it would be too much like hard work.
The list you generate should be quite lengthy since he has spent so much money in such a short time. Please refrain from mentioning President Bush as he is no longer our country's president.
I have paid more in taxes in 20 years than many people make in a lifetime. I have always produced way more than I consume.
I highly doubt you can claim the same.Comment -
....Comment -
Comment -
Gday losturmarbles, go look up the term utilitarianism if you would like further insight as to why i made that original statement. Hope it opens ur perception and understanding as to why some of us believe in living not beyond our own need, as well theres over 6.5 billion of us now and adhering to the greed mantra is not only a sign of insecurity as well as being perceptually shortsighted but can never serve as a 'greater good' in the long term....Originally posted by losturmarbles
Perhaps if people begun believing in the concept of servicing their own NEED and not GREED then things would be alot more equal across the global board whereby a billion people wouldnt go hungry each day from mal-nutrition, meanwhile we in the west throw nearly 50% of our food away, food that could be helping those that have nothing
And yes marbles, this is how i live my life, couple of days per week volunteer feeding homeless people and on a social level sports investor that takes $$ from multi-nationals, a small portion of which i give to charity.,,Im just saying that il never bowdown to greed as my character and desire for a better world is greater than the insecure feeling of self-protectionism i at times feel.....Remember marbles, this is all learned behaviour, in the same way it can be unlearned...
BOL.....Comment
