Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight

I've already been through that, read some of my previous posts. And actually, for the most part, yes, it should and can fix itself. I believe a stimulus package is necessary, but a 1,000 page 800 billion That gives 40 million to save a marsh mouse and 13$ a week for tax breaks? that's pathetic. Lower taxes, reduce government spending, and reduce regulations on businesses. This recession really isn't that bad, Obama is just said that to get his garbage bill passed. And no, it is not the worst since the Great depression, the one in the eighties (handed to Regan by carter, no Regan didn't get us into that either) was far worse, with 10% unemployment rate vs 6.8%

You must watch a lot of Fox News

These forums are just trolls trolling trolls while getting trolled by other trolls.

I've already been through that, read some of my previous posts. And actually, for the most part, yes, it should and can fix itself. I believe a stimulus package is necessary, but a 1,000 page 800 billion That gives 40 million to save a marsh mouse and 13$ a week for tax breaks? that's pathetic. Lower taxes, reduce government spending, and reduce regulations on businesses. This recession really isn't that bad, Obama is just said that to get his garbage bill passed. And no, it is not the worst since the Great depression, the one in the eighties (handed to Regan by carter, no Regan didn't get us into that either) was far worse, with 10% unemployment rate vs 6.8%

I agree and there's no way it's getting worse, except now PROLLY cause MUSLOBAMA insists on taxing everyone more cause he and his leftist friends don't care about the working class. Pretty much Reagan was the best president too cause he won the war against communism w/o creating a deficit AND he conquered alzheimers

These forums are just trolls trolling trolls while getting trolled by other trolls.

I love these forums, this is the best insight!!

Reduce regulations on business?

What do you say to the (strong) argument that the free market economy is what caused this problem? Personally I fall into the agency cost theory But without regulation, it's extremely difficult to control the agency cost in this situation.

And what regulations would you reduce? Reg FD? SOX? EPA? OSHA? That's a phrase thrown around by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Storamin wrote:Reduce regulations on business?

What do you say to the (strong) argument that the free market economy is what caused this problem? Personally I fall into the agency cost theory But without regulation, it's extremely difficult to control the agency cost in this situation.

And what regulations would you reduce? Reg FD? SOX? EPA? OSHA? That's a phrase thrown around by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

This is not true, and put out by the Left to thwart capitalism. Too much regulation is what some of the problem is here, not enough.

This is not true, and put out by the Left to thwart capitalism. Too much regulation is what some of the problem is here, not enough.

Yeah they're trying to thwart capitalism!!! GO CAPITALISM FUCK COMMUNISM
Didn't you read my post about COMMUNISM LOSING. Maybe you should read something by Ayn Rand or look at the U.S economy to see what SOCIALIST policies do to good countries with good capitalist people.

If you guys didn't watch it the other night you should watch Obama's speech.

Why

DarkNemesis wrote:

Storamin wrote:Reduce regulations on business?

What do you say to the (strong) argument that the free market economy is what caused this problem? Personally I fall into the agency cost theory But without regulation, it's extremely difficult to control the agency cost in this situation.

And what regulations would you reduce? Reg FD? SOX? EPA? OSHA? That's a phrase thrown around by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

This is not true, and put out by the Left to thwart capitalism. Too much regulation is what some of the problem is here, not enough.

So why isn't it true?? if you're going to make stupid comments, i expect you to back them up with false logic. THIS IS EOTA!

Storamin wrote:

DarkNemesis wrote:

Storamin wrote:Reduce regulations on business?

What do you say to the (strong) argument that the free market economy is what caused this problem? Personally I fall into the agency cost theory But without regulation, it's extremely difficult to control the agency cost in this situation.

And what regulations would you reduce? Reg FD? SOX? EPA? OSHA? That's a phrase thrown around by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

This is not true, and put out by the Left to thwart capitalism. Too much regulation is what some of the problem is here, not enough.

So why isn't it true?? if you're going to make stupid comments, i expect you to back them up with false logic. THIS IS EOTA!

Your such an idiot I don't think you'd understand if I did respond.

Banks loaning money to people who couldn't pay it back was part of the problem. As were a number of things. But please explain to me how capitalism contributed, since you promote stupid ideals, I'm expecting them to be backed up with stupid logic. This is Liberalism!

So how much Fox News do you watch a day?

No... You are such an idiot that we wouldn't understand if you responded.

Tehw00tz wrote:So how much Fox News do you watch a day?

Actually, I really don't watch Fox, though I consider it to be balanced, you, being the flaming Liberal you are, and ignorant to the truth, don't. So how much CNN or MSNBC do you watch?

DarkNemesis wrote:flaming Liberal

rofl
seriously
hahaha

DarkNemesis and Storamin, seriously, you're obviously not intelligent enough to use a keyboard, so why don't you just let whoever is doing your typing to go somewhere where there no idiots nearby. And I'm talking about you two clinical idiots, with an IQ under 20.

I'm fairly sure having an IQ below 20 makes you clinically retarded too. So I guess that would be a complementary burn.

DarkNemesis wrote: Your such an idiot I don't think you'd understand if I did respond.

You're such an idiot you don't understand why you're wrong. C wut I did thar? You're trying to prove something, prove it, don't insult me.

Also, on that note: I gotta stop defending assholes.

DarkNemesis wrote:Banks loaning money to people who couldn't pay it back was part of the problem. As were a number of things. But please explain to me how capitalism contributed, since you promote stupid ideals, I'm expecting them to be backed up with stupid logic. This is Liberalism!

Banks loaning money to people who couldn't pay it back. . .is a result of government regulations, how? Also, 'a number of things'? Really? You can't, y'know, name a few of the other ones?

tl;dr (Because I'm starting to doubt Dark's ability to think logically. Sorry for taking so long.): IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A POINT FORWARD, DEFEND IT WITH FACT THAT WE CAN GO SEE.

Banks loaning money to people who couldn't pay it back. . .is a result of government regulations, how?

Part of the Clinton philosphy was that everyone deserve/has a right to a home. To achieve that, they passed (some act i've read about but can't find at the moment) which mandated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan to people who wouldn't normally qualify for a loan, with the assurances the government would bail them out if they got in trouble. To do this, I believe they had to losen some restrictions on loaning practices, which got spread to other banks (although i dont know if it that was under bush or clinton).

Further, banks existed for hundreds of years without these regulations without fucking themselves over like they did this past decade. I would argue that the addition of regulation turned it from thinking "is this a good idea or not?" to "is this legal or not?", and thus had no self control when regulations were repealed.

And lets not forget banks aren't the only ones responsible. Sure, they lended to risky people..people who could not afford what they were buying. Who's really worse here, the ones that gave money to help buy a home, or the people who took it and should have known they couldn't repay it? This isn't to mean i'm not upset at some banks (quite a few bank execs need to be executed for massive theft imo), but i'm not terribly sympathetic to the 8% of people who acted equally irresponsible.

DarnYak

DarnYak wrote: Part of the Clinton philosphy was that everyone deserve/has a right to a home. To achieve that, they passed (some act i've read about but can't find at the moment) which mandated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan to people who wouldn't normally qualify for a loan, with the assurances the government would bail them out if they got in trouble. To do this, I believe they had to losen some restrictions on loaning practices, which got spread to other banks (although i dont know if it that was under bush or clinton).

Thanks, didn't know that before. I haven't paid too much attention to the history of it.

DarnYak wrote:Further, banks existed for hundreds of years without these regulations without fucking themselves over like they did this past decade. I would argue that the addition of regulation turned it from thinking "is this a good idea or not?" to "is this legal or not?", and thus had no self control when regulations were repealed.

In my opinion, while the above regulation is an exception, there was still the ability to ask "is this a good idea or not?" alongside "is this legal or not?". Just 'cause they lost self-control when regulations were repealed doesn't make it the regulation's fault; that makes it the bank's fault.

DarnYak wrote:And lets not forget banks aren't the only ones responsible. Sure, they lended to risky people..people who could not afford what they were buying. Who's really worse here, the ones that gave money to help buy a home, or the people who took it and should have known they couldn't repay it? This isn't to mean i'm not upset at some banks (quite a few bank execs need to be executed for massive theft imo), but i'm not terribly sympathetic to the 8% of people who acted equally irresponsible.

Again, I think the banks could've thought their loans through a lot more, which would have made things a lot better. That having been said, I too will hold no sympathy for people who didn't think out their course of action, but the lion's share of the blame. in my opinion, does lie on the banks who gave the money out in the first place.

In my opinion, while the above regulation is an exception, there was still the ability to ask "is this a good idea or not?" alongside "is this legal or not?". Just 'cause they lost self-control when regulations were repealed doesn't make it the regulation's fault; that makes it the bank's fault.

My point is more that regulation like this (or laws in general) tends to lead people to start thinking in terms of legality instead of practicality. For instance if speeding laws were repealed, we'd see a fuckton of people suddenly driving stupidly fast. Sure, some self preservation would kick in (since physical harm is more instinctual), but it would certainly lead to a spike in accidents. On the other hand, if there never were speeding laws, people would learn to drive at a reasonable rate rather then by a specified sign.

I'm not saying people werne't being stupid, just that it changes how people think, and not (imo) for the better.

DarnYak

Oh, definitely. I got the message, was just sayin'.

I never called you an idiot, Crypt, reread the post and stop acting like one.

Also, Darnyak expanded what I was trying to say.

DarkNemesis wrote:I never called you an idiot, Crypt, reread the post and stop acting like one.

Nor did I interpret that as calling anyone an idiot. However, 'stop acting like one' IS calling me an idiot.

And the point of my post flew WAY over your head, apparently. Let me break it down a bit: by saying, "If you're trying to prove something, prove it, don't insult me." I used the word 'me' to represent anyone saying otherwise. Hence, "If you're trying to prove something, prove it, don't insult [the person saying otherwise.]" Can't make THAT much more explicit. And. . .you STILL haven't given any kind of proof for your 'remove regulations!' claims:

DarkNemesis wrote:This is not true, and put out by the Left to thwart capitalism

DarkNemesis wrote:Your [sic] such an idiot that I don't think you would understand if I did respond

DarkNemesis wrote:you, being the flaming Liberal you are, are ignorant to the truth.

ALL I see in that is you insulting anyone who disagrees with you, rather than proving your point in a logical manner. Therefore, that just makes you a loudmouth, not someone who knows anything about the economy. The ONE point I saw that had any kind of merit was this:

DarkNemesis wrote:Banks loaning money to people who couldn't pay it back was part of the problem. . .

Except for the fact that, y'know, it's not the governments fault that the bank did that. It's the banks' problem with self-control. That, and the people taking those loans out knowing full well they couldn't pay it back, except if the bank had paid enough attention, that wouldn't have happened.

You need to read Yak's post a little more carefully if you think he's saying, 'remove regulations.' All that I see there is that the change from "Is it a good deal?" to "Is it legal?" made them lose any kind of self-control.

First off, Crypt, I didn't call you an idiot, and acting like one isn't the same, but that's irrelevant.

Second, I'm a little confused you what you mean by proving my "arguments". I really didn't say anything, just simple stuff. Like lowering taxes and wasteful spending is going to help the economy far more than spending 300 million on new fuel efficient cars for government workers or 30 million to save a marsh mouse, or 50 million for endowment of the arts. Why? Because putting money directly back into peoples pockets is giving them an incentive to spend more. Doesn't it make more sense let people keep more of their own money then to send them someone elses? Don't get me wrong, I believe in all of this stuff, but we have to look at what this is: a stimulus package, not an arts package or a wildlife-saving package, a stimulus package. Obama, I think, needs to be the one "proving" stuff, not me, I'm just questioning the contents in this bill. So realistically, I shouldn't have to prove anything. I'm just relaying facts, nothing else. And if I made an argument without any proof or evidence, please point it out and I will try to answer it to the best of my ability.