Hickenlooper blows it in CA, gets booed

[Pumpkin Row]

Ah yes, the banks got greedy by making loans to people who couldn't pay them. Gosh, Joe, you're right, businesses have been looking in the wrong place for money, they should take it from people who don't have it.

Tell me, Joe, if they got greedy, and that's what caused to make those loans, why is it that they have standards in the first place?

Oh wait, it's for that exact reason. It's not like the Government incentivized them to lower their standards further, to increase the amount of homeowners or something. Can't possibly be that. Oh wait...

This is where you are little confused, Hentai Row.

The problem was not that the banks were required to loan to poor people.

The problem was that they made loans for McMansions to middle class people who though they could flip them in a few years, and then misrepresented the value of those loans when they sold them as investments.

The CRA was put in place in the 1970's, and it worked just fine for decades.

So, I see that you once again did not address my argument at all. This is, of course, normal because you're just someone who flings narratives and adhoms at people without making an argument. I will, therefor, restate my question so you can ignore it again:

Explain to me how giving loans to people who cannot pay them makes someone money. That's your argument, so explain how it works. You know, since it's totally, TOTALLY not the Government forcing them to lower standards for loans in order to make the housing percentage goal.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Or perhaps I didn't really understand your question, since it wasn't constructed very well.

A business doesn't need government regulations to not make poor business decisions. I didi't say that. That's just a weird, simplistic straw man argument you made up attempting to prove a point. And demand is irrelevant. There is great demand for heroin.

Poor business decisions include hurting or negatively affecting consumers in any way, since that consumer would then stop using the service. Since Government regulations are supposedly to stop business from acting that way, you have to have blind faith that the Government actually understands business in order to think regulations are in any way beneficial. In order to have that blind faith, you have to also be too simple to understand that the people implementing these regulations are just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers who lie to you at every opportunity in order to support their narrative.

If there's a demand for heroine, people should be allowed to buy that heroine from a willing dealer. That person using heroine doesn't affect anyone else.

And "No existing regulation exists to protect consumers, every single one exists to further the existence of Government and create monopolies and pseudo-monopolies." How absolutely, abundantly, delightfully silly and simplistic. Dogmatic jargon, nothing more.

You have the standard, shallow, psuedo-libertarian outlook on all this, convinced that markets can self-police and self-correct. Funny, so did Alan Greenspan, the sainted libertarian Fed Chairman responsible for his share of the Meltdown, a man who ADMITTED he screwed up, and a guy who ADMITTED he didn't understand how the very unregulated financial instruments responsible for the Meltdown (CMOs and CDOs) even WORKED. Oops! Oh, and he's also the guy BEGGED by CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Born to regulate toxic, unregulated Credit Default Swaps and laughed her off. Yeah, THAT Alan Greenspan. The guy who thinks just like YOU.

And "since you apparently don't know how business works" makes me smile, as a CFP/ChFC/CLU, having written four books and 30 or so articles on it, with +/- 110 business owner clients. If your credentials are similar, great, we can continue this. If not, I've wasted some time here on just another winger on a message board.
.

If he had the same outlook, he wouldn't have been running for a seat in any public office, he would have been seeking to undermine the Government by starving it of funds, so that it self-destructs instead. The mere fact that he's a politician in the first place should tip you off that anything he does is for the benefit of that Organization, not for the benefit of the people.

Absent of Government, businesses do what's in their own self-interest, which is to make as much money as possible, which requires consumers to buy their products. To that end, they do not need robbers, murderers, and kidnappers telling them how to run their businesses.

I also want to point out that all you gave was a politician stating that he had no idea what he was doing, you did nothing to explain why the Government supposedly needs restrict the freedom of people to use their property as they see fit.

I find it amusing that you called me a psuedo-Libertarian, just because you're too chicken shit to take the Non-Aggression Principal to it's logical conclusion, and instead want to LARP with the other party voters as people who somehow influence the Government in the decisions it makes, despite your input barely making a .1% difference in the chance of legislation passing. You have no idea what a Libertarian is, and neither do any of your other party voters, because if you WERE Libertarians, you wouldn't be using the Government to initiate force against innocent people.

It's riveting that you wrote books, good for you, however that's just an appeal to authority on the subject, you did nothing to explain your position or the supposed logic behind it. YOU'RE just another winger, you just attempt to give the illusion that voting Libertarian means something, despite the fact that you're just as much a part of the blame game the Republicans and Democrats. I actually laughed when you accused me of being a winger, because I actually oppose all rulers, regardless of supposed political stance. I'm an Anarchist, just for the record.

None of that rant has any connection whatsoever to what actually caused the Meltdown.

You can throw any number of words at this, but I see no indication that you have any understanding of what actually happened. The actual details.

It's clear that you don't know. That's okay. Most people don't. It's very complicated. But this combination of ignorance and arrogance is tedious.
.

Oh, look, you addressed no part of my post. Then again, you are the guy who just goes around making single-sentence responses with no actual content, there, champ.

It was ultimately expected of you, since your previous post didn't address the argument either. As you said; "I see no indication that you have any understanding of what actually happened", and quoting some random politician in an effort to claim businesses need to be threatened in order to act in their own interests won't change that, Mr. Pseudo-Libertarian.

Not really relevant to the discussion, but I posted your message into the An-Cap Discord, where you called me a Pseudo-Libertarian for advocating for freedom of association, you're a laughing stock. They're probably going to be making memes of you for a few months now. You're welcome.

 

[Mac1958]

Or perhaps I didn't really understand your question, since it wasn't constructed very well.

A business doesn't need government regulations to not make poor business decisions. I didi't say that. That's just a weird, simplistic straw man argument you made up attempting to prove a point. And demand is irrelevant. There is great demand for heroin.

Poor business decisions include hurting or negatively affecting consumers in any way, since that consumer would then stop using the service. Since Government regulations are supposedly to stop business from acting that way, you have to have blind faith that the Government actually understands business in order to think regulations are in any way beneficial. In order to have that blind faith, you have to also be too simple to understand that the people implementing these regulations are just an organization of robbers, murderers, and kidnappers who lie to you at every opportunity in order to support their narrative.

If there's a demand for heroine, people should be allowed to buy that heroine from a willing dealer. That person using heroine doesn't affect anyone else.

And "No existing regulation exists to protect consumers, every single one exists to further the existence of Government and create monopolies and pseudo-monopolies." How absolutely, abundantly, delightfully silly and simplistic. Dogmatic jargon, nothing more.

You have the standard, shallow, psuedo-libertarian outlook on all this, convinced that markets can self-police and self-correct. Funny, so did Alan Greenspan, the sainted libertarian Fed Chairman responsible for his share of the Meltdown, a man who ADMITTED he screwed up, and a guy who ADMITTED he didn't understand how the very unregulated financial instruments responsible for the Meltdown (CMOs and CDOs) even WORKED. Oops! Oh, and he's also the guy BEGGED by CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Born to regulate toxic, unregulated Credit Default Swaps and laughed her off. Yeah, THAT Alan Greenspan. The guy who thinks just like YOU.

And "since you apparently don't know how business works" makes me smile, as a CFP/ChFC/CLU, having written four books and 30 or so articles on it, with +/- 110 business owner clients. If your credentials are similar, great, we can continue this. If not, I've wasted some time here on just another winger on a message board.
.

If he had the same outlook, he wouldn't have been running for a seat in any public office, he would have been seeking to undermine the Government by starving it of funds, so that it self-destructs instead. The mere fact that he's a politician in the first place should tip you off that anything he does is for the benefit of that Organization, not for the benefit of the people.

Absent of Government, businesses do what's in their own self-interest, which is to make as much money as possible, which requires consumers to buy their products. To that end, they do not need robbers, murderers, and kidnappers telling them how to run their businesses.

I also want to point out that all you gave was a politician stating that he had no idea what he was doing, you did nothing to explain why the Government supposedly needs restrict the freedom of people to use their property as they see fit.

I find it amusing that you called me a psuedo-Libertarian, just because you're too chicken shit to take the Non-Aggression Principal to it's logical conclusion, and instead want to LARP with the other party voters as people who somehow influence the Government in the decisions it makes, despite your input barely making a .1% difference in the chance of legislation passing. You have no idea what a Libertarian is, and neither do any of your other party voters, because if you WERE Libertarians, you wouldn't be using the Government to initiate force against innocent people.

It's riveting that you wrote books, good for you, however that's just an appeal to authority on the subject, you did nothing to explain your position or the supposed logic behind it. YOU'RE just another winger, you just attempt to give the illusion that voting Libertarian means something, despite the fact that you're just as much a part of the blame game the Republicans and Democrats. I actually laughed when you accused me of being a winger, because I actually oppose all rulers, regardless of supposed political stance. I'm an Anarchist, just for the record.

None of that rant has any connection whatsoever to what actually caused the Meltdown.

You can throw any number of words at this, but I see no indication that you have any understanding of what actually happened. The actual details.

It's clear that you don't know. That's okay. Most people don't. It's very complicated. But this combination of ignorance and arrogance is tedious.
.

Oh, look, you addressed no part of my post. Then again, you are the guy who just goes around making single-sentence responses with no actual content, there, champ.

It was ultimately expected of you, since your previous post didn't address the argument either. As you said; "I see no indication that you have any understanding of what actually happened", and quoting some random politician in an effort to claim businesses need to be threatened in order to act in their own interests won't change that, Mr. Pseudo-Libertarian.

Not really relevant to the discussion, but I posted your message into the An-Cap Discord, where you called me a Pseudo-Libertarian for advocating for freedom of association, you're a laughing stock. They're probably going to be making memes of you for a few months now. You're welcome.

Still nothing about what caused the Meltdown.

Okay, thanks.
.

 

[JoeB131]

So, I see that you once again did not address my argument at all. This is, of course, normal because you're just someone who flings narratives and adhoms at people without making an argument. I will, therefor, restate my question so you can ignore it again:

Explain to me how giving loans to people who cannot pay them makes someone money. That's your argument, so explain how it works. You know, since it's totally, TOTALLY not the Government forcing them to lower standards for loans in order to make the housing percentage goal.

Again, Hentai Row, the problem wasn't loaning to poor people. If they defaulted on their loans on their cheap houses, those cheap houses could be resold after they were foreclosed upon. IN fact, the banks made money, selling houses that people couldn't afford, waiting for them to default, and then reselling them again for more money. Wash, Rinse repeat.

The problem came in when the banks pulled this shit with the middle class, telling us to totally buy that six bedroom McMansion on the tiny lot with no yard, you can hold on to it for two years and resell it at a huge profit....

It fell apart when the housing market crashed, all those McMansions remained unsold at cutrate costs.

Where i live, we had a boom of McMansion building... that came to a stop. A couple of half-completed ones sat idle for years until someone came along and finished them around 2014... that's how long it took the market to recover.

But I'm sure you listened to Hate Radio, and they'll tell you the darkies did it... because that's always their go-to.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So, I see that you once again did not address my argument at all. This is, of course, normal because you're just someone who flings narratives and adhoms at people without making an argument. I will, therefor, restate my question so you can ignore it again:

Explain to me how giving loans to people who cannot pay them makes someone money. That's your argument, so explain how it works. You know, since it's totally, TOTALLY not the Government forcing them to lower standards for loans in order to make the housing percentage goal.

Again, Hentai Row, the problem wasn't loaning to poor people. If they defaulted on their loans on their cheap houses, those cheap houses could be resold after they were foreclosed upon. IN fact, the banks made money, selling houses that people couldn't afford, waiting for them to default, and then reselling them again for more money. Wash, Rinse repeat.

The problem came in when the banks pulled this shit with the middle class, telling us to totally buy that six bedroom McMansion on the tiny lot with no yard, you can hold on to it for two years and resell it at a huge profit....

It fell apart when the housing market crashed, all those McMansions remained unsold at cutrate costs.

Where i live, we had a boom of McMansion building... that came to a stop. A couple of half-completed ones sat idle for years until someone came along and finished them around 2014... that's how long it took the market to recover.

But I'm sure you listened to Hate Radio, and they'll tell you the darkies did it... because that's always their go-to.

So, it totally wasn't something that happened recently in that time period, it was totally house-flipping, which is something that isn't recent and is still happening today. We're also apparently going to totally ignore the crisis in the Subprime Mortgage Market.

I also want to point out that banks telling people to buy things they can't afford wouldn't cause people to actually do that, this claim is blatantly retarded and has no basis.

Your next to last paragraph is anecdotal evidence at best, and doesn't even reinforce your supposed point.

'Ur racist and so iz radio' isn't an argument. I stopped listening to radio when I stopped being a Conservative, anyway.

Your entire argument is that businesses shoot themselves in the foot for a quick buck, despite most of them being interested in long-term profit, and that we need Government, which can't allocate resources properly, to prevent them from doing this. Economically illiterate non-sense and ass-pulling.

 

[Flash]

[


The CRA was put in place in the 1970's, and it worked just fine for decades.

Only a dumbass Moon Bat would say that a stupid Libtard policy that almost destroyed the American economy "worked just fine".

I swear You Moon Bat are absolute idiots.

It never worked "fine". It was always a disaster waiting to happen.

The Libtard Jimmy Carter's idea of using government pressure to give credit to assholes that neither had the means nor the inclination to ever pay back the money. You know, for social justice reasons. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Only if you ignore how regulations caused 2008, sure. Although, if you want to argue that, absent of Government regulation, businesses would conduct themselves poorly, by all means, explain to me how there's demand for them while they're providing bad service.

Hey, Hentai Row, the only problem with regulations in 2008 is that they weren't being enforced.

The crash happened because the banks got greedy, and the government ignored what they were doing.

This is what rewriting history looks like. Sorry Joe, but the blame for the housing crisis goes to Bill Clinton and Janet Reno who threatened banks to make bad loans to get people 8nto homes they couldn't possibly afford.

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rates — and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

Commonsense & Wonder: Remember Janet Reno threatening the banks?


.

 

[Flash]

Hickenlooper is a Democrat asshole. A piece of shit. However, in the bat shit crazy convoluted party of Moon Bats nowadays he is the voice of reason. LOL!

 

[JoeB131]

Only a dumbass Moon Bat would say that a stupid Libtard policy that almost destroyed the American economy "worked just fine".

I swear You Moon Bat are absolute idiots.

It never worked "fine". It was always a disaster waiting to happen.

The Libtard Jimmy Carter's idea of using government pressure to give credit to assholes that neither had the means nor the inclination to ever pay back the money. You know, for social justice reasons. What could possibly go wrong?

That isn't what the CRA calls for. The CRA just ended the practice of redlining - the practice of not giving loans to people living or wanting to buy in certain neighborhoods. They still had to show proof of income and credit histories to get loans.

Try reading stuff instead of listening to hate radio.

of the top 25 institutions that had to be bailed out, only 1 of them made CRA Loans. The banks that had to be bailed out were operating in affluent neighborhoods making loans to middle class people.... who all lost their jobs in Bush's recession.

 

[JoeB131]

This is what rewriting history looks like. Sorry Joe, but the blame for the housing crisis goes to Bill Clinton and Janet Reno who threatened banks to make bad loans to get people 8nto homes they couldn't possibly afford.

So it took another 12 years for it to collapse? This is your argument? If this was the case, then why didn't the collapse happen in 2001, when the economy hit a soft patch?

Again, the banks didn't take a hit because of low income families buying modest home.

They took a hit when middle class families bought McMansions, and they misrepresented the value of those mortgages to investors... all under the watchful eye of Chris Cox and the Porn-watching FEC.

 

[dblack]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Yep. That'll be our choice in 2020 - socialism vs fascism.

 

[Mac1958]

Yep. That'll be our choice in 2020 - socialism vs fascism.

You think the choice is that stark?
.

 

[JoeB131]

o, it totally wasn't something that happened recently in that time period, it was totally house-flipping, which is something that isn't recent and is still happening today. We're also apparently going to totally ignore the crisis in the Subprime Mortgage Market.

I also want to point out that banks telling people to buy things they can't afford wouldn't cause people to actually do that, this claim is blatantly retarded and has no basis.

Our whole economy is based on corporations telling us to buy things we can't afford. You can have easy credit. Your home is like your bank. We'll give you a second mortgage to pay off your credit cards. We're awesome like that.

And it all collapsed like a house of cards in 2008. As much as it pains me to say it, Mac1958 (who I usually consider a pompous ass) explained this pretty well.

I stopped listening to radio when I stopped being a Conservative, anyway.

You mean when you turned into a crazy person who thinks Sandy Hook was a conspiracy and the NRA was in on it? That kid of "Not being a conservative".

Your entire argument is that businesses shoot themselves in the foot for a quick buck, despite most of them being interested in long-term profit, and that we need Government, which can't allocate resources properly, to prevent them from doing this. Economically illiterate non-sense and ass-pulling.

I've worked for the government and the private sector... Both of them have about equal amounts of big egos, dumb leadership and bad decision making.

The banks got Greedy. This is pretty much what they did in 1990 as well... but we didn't really fix things then.

 

[JoeB131]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Yep. That'll be our choice in 2020 - socialism vs fascism.

Probably. But just remember, Hillary was a bitch and Benghazi.... so that makes it okay.

You think the choice is that stark?

Only because conventional politics as an institution has failed, miserably.

 

[dblack]

Yep. That'll be our choice in 2020 - socialism vs fascism.

You think the choice is that stark?
.

We'll see. That's certainly how it's shaping up at this point. The ballot might as well say, "How would you like to see your country go down the shitter?" A) Descend into socialism OR B) The Fourth Reich

I still entertain a silly fantasy that a Republican will grow some balls and take the party back from Trump - or that a Democrat will say "Hey, we get it. We don't know better. We'll back off". But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Mac1958]

Yep. That'll be our choice in 2020 - socialism vs fascism.

You think the choice is that stark?
.

We'll see. That's certainly how it's shaping up at this point. The ballot might as well say, "How would you like to see your country go down the shitter?" A) Descend into socialism OR B) The Fourth Reich

I still entertain a silly fantasy that a Republican will grow some balls and take the party back from Trump - or that a Democrat will say "Hey, we get it. We don't know better. We'll back off". But I'm not holding my breath.

I don't know what it will take. Surely it will take someone of stature, probably from both ends, to say enough is enough.

But no, I'm not holding my breath either.
.

 

[Flash]

Only a dumbass Moon Bat would say that a stupid Libtard policy that almost destroyed the American economy "worked just fine".

I swear You Moon Bat are absolute idiots.

It never worked "fine". It was always a disaster waiting to happen.

The Libtard Jimmy Carter's idea of using government pressure to give credit to assholes that neither had the means nor the inclination to ever pay back the money. You know, for social justice reasons. What could possibly go wrong?

That isn't what the CRA calls for. The CRA just ended the practice of redlining - the practice of not giving loans to people living or wanting to buy in certain neighborhoods. They still had to show proof of income and credit histories to get loans.

Try reading stuff instead of listening to hate radio.

of the top 25 institutions that had to be bailed out, only 1 of them made CRA Loans. The banks that had to be bailed out were operating in affluent neighborhoods making loans to middle class people.... who all lost their jobs in Bush's recession.

No Moon Bat you are once again confused. You live in a state of confusion. You are confused about a great many things, aren't you? No wonder you vote for these stupid Democrats. You can't help yourself..

The CRA had the Federal government putting pressure on lenders to give credit to people that normally would not have qualified. It was done for the demented Liberal idea to make homeowners out of ghetto trash. One more of Carter's failed policies.

Inherent to the policy was the backdoor assurance that the Federal government would bail out any lenders that got their asses burned and that is exactly what that shithead Obama did when everything collapsed.

The economy was doing fine for six years under Bush and then the CRA chickens came home to roost.

You asshole Liberals need to understand that your stupid idea of having the filthy government interfere in the free market will always lead to disaster. In this case it was the free market of lending and when the asshole Democrats championed a bill that they thought would make home owners of Negroes and almost tanked our economy.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Our whole economy is based on corporations telling us to buy things we can't afford. You can have easy credit. Your home is like your bank. We'll give you a second mortgage to pay off your credit cards. We're awesome like that.

If you truly believe that, then you should be against Government, since it's what creates and incentivizes corporations in the first place. They're also what makes those commodities unaffordable to so many people.

And it all collapsed like a house of cards in 2008. As much as it pains me to say it, Mac1958 (who I usually consider a pompous ass) explained this pretty well.

Except he didn't actually explain it, he only posts two-sentence, vague replies. He also apparently believes all business owners need the Government, which can't even properly allocate resources, to tell them how to handle their resources. Pretty sure you two only agree because you're both economically illiterate.

You mean when you turned into a crazy person who thinks Sandy Hook was a conspiracy and the NRA was in on it? That kid of "Not being a conservative".

Just because you don't believe the Government is keeping secrets from you, despite the fact they literally have files we're not allowed to view, doesn't make me crazy. Pretty sure that kind of blind religious faith makes YOU crazy, by your own definition.

Just because you're not willing to accept that the NRA flat-out helps write and lobby for gun legislation, doesn't mean I'm crazy for acknowledging it. Say, Joe, what happens every time the Government threatens to further monopolize guns? Oh wait, the Republican Party Voters give the NRA donations, because they're treated like a boogie man. It's almost like the whole thing is a scam.

I also notice that you went off-topic, unable to keep up an honest discussion, there, champ?

I've worked for the government and the private sector... Both of them have about equal amounts of big egos, dumb leadership and bad decision making.

The banks got Greedy. This is pretty much what they did in 1990 as well... but we didn't really fix things then.

Firstly, stating that you've worked in Government and the Private Sector doesn't make or reinforce your argument, that's an appeal to authority. Supposedly having that experience is supposed to give you the components to construct your argument, not make the argument. I'm amazed that so many people don't understand logical fallacies.

Secondly, if it weren't for Government subsidizing businesses in the first place, those businesses which are making bad decisions would have gone under, and if it weren't for Government making so much red tape to keep competitors out of the Market, they'd be replaced with more competition with better products and services.

Thirdly, businesses being greedy does not cause a recession, for the reasons I've already outlined in previous posts. Getting greedy doesn't cause someone to go after money that people don't have, Dark Angel even pointed out evidence that the Government was threatening banks to make them take bad loans. At this point, you're not even making an argument, just ignoring others.

You should approach me with the expectation of being proven wrong, it's all that ever happens.

 

[JoeB131]

No Moon Bat you are once again confused. You live in a state of confusion. You are confused about a great many things, aren't you? No wonder you vote for these stupid Democrats. You can't help yourself..

The CRA had the Federal government putting pressure on lenders to give credit to people that normally would not have qualified. It was done for the demented Liberal idea to make homeowners out of ghetto trash. One more of Carter's failed policies.

Actually, the CRA did just fine. One of the great accomplishments that Reagan took credit for in the 1980's is the establishment of a black "Middle Class". The CRA was a major contributor to that.

The hilarious thing is you are sticking up for banksters who would take everything you owned if you got an opportunity.

Firstly, stating that you've worked in Government and the Private Sector doesn't make or reinforce your argument, that's an appeal to authority. Supposedly having that experience is supposed to give you the components to construct your argument, not make the argument. I'm amazed that so many people don't understand logical fallacies.

No, dummy, it means that I've actually gotten out of the basement and done stuff, unlike you who lives in someone's basement wanking off to Hentai.

Just because you don't believe the Government is keeping secrets from you, despite the fact they literally have files we're not allowed to view, doesn't make me crazy. Pretty sure that kind of blind religious faith makes YOU crazy, by your own definition.

I'm sure the government keeps all sorts of secrets from me... and I'm kind of fine with that. If I don't need to know, I make sure no one tells me. But when you Sandy Hook nuts try to claim that the government staged and elaborate hoax for... um reasons, and the NRA was in on it, that's just.. silly.

Making Dale Smith seem sane isn't an accomplishment.

Just because you're not willing to accept that the NRA flat-out helps write and lobby for gun legislation, doesn't mean I'm crazy for acknowledging it. Say, Joe, what happens every time the Government threatens to further monopolize guns? Oh wait, the Republican Party Voters give the NRA donations, because they're treated like a boogie man. It's almost like the whole thing is a scam.

Uh, yeah, the gun lobby writes legislation to make it easy for people to get guns, when most of us think it should be HARD to get a gun. The thing is, the government isn't monopolizing guns. They are justmaking half-assed efforts to keep them out of the hands of crazies like most of the NRA membership.

Secondly, if it weren't for Government subsidizing businesses in the first place, those businesses which are making bad decisions would have gone under, and if it weren't for Government making so much red tape to keep competitors out of the Market, they'd be replaced with more competition with better products and services.

Horseshit. Government regulation protects consumers. The problem is, the banks spend a lot of money watering down legislation as much as they can. Banking SHOULD be boring. After the 1929 Depression, we wrote a bunch of very sensible laws to keep the banks from doing what they did. Yes, the banks were insured, but they were also regulated.

Kind of like any other sensible insurance plan. You don't take unnecessary risks.

The problem was that from 1980 onwards, the GOP has worked very hard to undo those regulations, and 1990 and 2008 were the results.

 

[JoeB131]

The economy was doing fine for six years under Bush and then the CRA chickens came home to roost.

You asshole Liberals need to understand that your stupid idea of having the filthy government interfere in the free market will always lead to disaster. In this case it was the free market of lending and when the asshole Democrats championed a bill that they thought would make home owners of Negroes and almost tanked our economy.

The economy was good under Bush? Did you miss the 2001 and 2008 recessions? Bush had maybe three good years in there 2004 - 2006.

The Free Market was the problem in 2008. Left to their own devices, the bankers got rich and the rest of us got a lot poorer.