Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #734519
zk
ParticipantI’d like to see Romney get the nomination. I would get a kick out of fundamentalist christians having to choose between a democrat and a mormon.
Participant[quote=aldante]I noticed in your resonableness and unbiased nature you were not able to give any examples of Bernanke being correct.
You simply do not have a grasp of the facts or of history as it happened.
Bernanke said the exact opposite. He never said that housing was going down. On 7/16/2008he said this:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/16/business/main4265793.shtml?source=related_story
[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? When did I say Bernanke was correct about anything? When did I say he said housing was going down? When did I say he said anything? You don’t even have a grasp of this thread, let alone history.
[quote=aldante]
For those who like facts instead of throwing around monikers, shares of fnma and fhlc jumped 13.8% and 14.6% respectively in one day!
[/quote]What does this have to do with anything?
[quote=aldante]
Again, just because I am passionate about not wanting to get ripped off with my own tax money does not make me an “passionate ideologue…. rarely use or respond to reason, logic, evidence, or facts”.
[/quote]Not wanting to get ripped off with your own tax money does not make you a passionate ideologue. Being convinced that smaller government will eliminate (or greatly reduce) corruption without any evidence to show same is a sign that you’re a passionate ideologue.
[quote=aldante]
If you had read any of the links that I have added you would be responding to the facts that I am putting forth. Of course if you disagree with those fact please let me know why.
[/quote]Show me the parts that say smaller government would have prevented the republican corruption that, in large part, caused the 2008 meltdown, and I’ll respond to them.
[quote=aldante]
You on the other hand have not shown me any evidence showing Bernanke’s long term estimates for the economy have panning out. Did you or did you not read the “Mea culpa” article that I posted earlier? Are you stating that there are not facts in that piece? You may want to ask yourself which one of us is blind here.
[/quote]I’m stating that there are not facts in that piece that show a smaller government will eliminate the type of corruption that causes the problems we had in ’08. That is still the discussion we’re having, right?
[quote=aldante]
And yes my arguement is that if the Government were smaller people would take more responsibility for their own behavior. That is not my unique Idea though. I think that you can go back through the ages and hear it time and time again. Adam Smith got pretty famous discovering that law…the law of self preservation.
[/quote]Why would people take more responsibility for their own behavior if government were smaller?
[quote=aldante]
Or maybe you would like to explain to me why all of the sudden in 200(?) people, normal people in droves started lying on their mortgage application. Please spare me the “the unregulated bankers did it arguement” Those individuals bought cars, took vacations, purchased stocks, bought more houses by lying about their income. That was on them dude no one else. The banks made it easier becasue their loans were being bought and securitized and given a AAA rating immediately.[/quote]
The banks made it easier becasue their loans were being bought and securitized and given a AAA rating immediately. Exactly. And if we’d had better regulation, that wouldn’t have happened.[quote=aldante]
As soon as you make the Governemt responsible for deciding what is right and what is wrong you have to accept that your sense of right and wrong may not agree with who is in charge at the moment.
[/quote]Well, of course. But there does have to be a set of rules. What is allowed and what is not allowed and what the consequences are of not following the rules. And, unless you live in a theocracy, who would formulate, create, and enforce the rules besides the government? You? Each individual?
[quote=aldante] No people need to know that lying is just wrong. That if they lied about their income to get into a million dollar house – that they deserve to have it taken away when they do not make their payments. But according to your glorious regulators – those poor liers, need to be bailed out. No that is not right. If that makes me an idealouge so be it.[/quote]
Why do you call them my glorious regulators? I think they suck and they need to do a better job. How many times have I said that in this thread? Anyway, the regulators weren’t the ones that decided that those poor liars needed to be bailed out. In any case, I whole-heartedly disagreed with the decision(s) to bail out the banks, the homeowners, the wall street fatcats, and whoever else got bailed out. Whatever bailouts were necessary to prevent a depression, I may agree with. Beyond that, I don’t.
Participant[quote=aldante]
ZK,
How is making something incompetent bigger an improvement?
[/quote]Simply making it bigger isn’t an improvement. It needs to be improved. Whether it’s bigger or smaller isn’t the issue. Improvement isn’t free, though. So some resources would be necessary to implement any improvements.
[quote=aldante]
So we agree that the trillions are coming from the taxpayer? That the FED is able to print money exponentially based on the fact that the U.S. taxpayer must pay their taxes or go to jail right?
The vast majority of the $$ goes to multinational “defense” contractors and companies. This is why the absolute best thing that America does is make weapons. No one even comes close to our ingenuity. Then there are the permanent banker/governement families that sit right next to the FED as the money is being created. If you look at who the top regulators are, they all tend to know one another because they congregate in the same place. That place is Washington D.C. where they draw up “laws” that enable them to continually grow and protect their own wealth.
[/quote]Unless I’m reading that wrong, you’re saying that corruption is rampant. If I agree with that (and I do up to a point), I still don’t see how a generally smaller government helps that problem.
[quote=aldante]
The reason that I say a smaller “Government” is that people are given a false sense of security by the pronouncements and actions of these regulators. People act on those pronouncements.
[/quote]I don’t understand that paragraph at all. So if government was smaller, people wouldn’t have a false sense of security? And that would fix the problems?
[quote=aldante]
Here is a what if: Do you think that if Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke came to the public in summer of 2008 and said ” The Housing market is overbought, please avoid buying a house until the dust settles” billions of dollars would have been saved by those people who bought their house becasue at that time becasue they trusted these “Regulators?” BTW: This is exactly what Paulson was saying to the insiders….this is going down..stay away form Fannie and Freddie.
[/quote]First of all, by the time he gave the warning he gave, housing prices were already collapsing. Second, he didn’t say, “the housing market is overbought and going down, stay away from Fannie and Freddie.” He is alleged to have said, “Fannie and Freddie are going down due to the (already happening) housing collapse.” So, if he said that to the general public, then certain investors would’ve made different moves, but it wouldn’t have affected home buyers to any significant extent.
[quote=aldante]
No these really “smart and trusted” authorities created an atmoshpere that encouraged capital to be misdirected on a very large scale. That is why your tax money this very morning is being pledged to bail out some very wealthy people in Europe.[/quote]
Not sure I see the connection there. Please be more specific.
[quote=aldante]
Please give me examples of how many times Bernanke has been right on the economy. In the mean time here is a link you may enjoy:http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/ny-fed-issues-mea-culpa-nobody-saw-6pm-black-friday
The same thing is played out day after day after day. Our futures are being used (via a tax system legitmized by the use of Force) to create wealth for the wealthy.
If the regulators missed Madoff and the biggest bubble ever how in the HELL can anyone believe that they will get it right the next time????? How big do you want the Governement to be?BTW, what if one of those really powerful people who were ever elected, or vetted by the public is a percription drug addict? Or just plain incompetent? Or evil? How much power do you suggest we give these folks?
No thanks ZK. A great example is when BAC wanted to add a fee to their debit cards. The government did not act. People did and BofA quickly changed their mind.
If you have not already take 30 minutes and read “The Law” by Frédéric Bastiat. He explains why governemt is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and at the same time needs to be kept to its proper SIZE.[/quote]
You keep talking about corruption and incompetence (and now potential drug addicts) in the government. Nothing you’ve said in any of your posts adequately explains why you think a smaller government will fix this.
You’re a small-government conservative. Which is fine, to a point. And that point is the point at which you stop using reason and start saying things like, “In the face of all this evidence that POWER CORRUPTS how anyone can claim that a big government is necessary is IDIOTIC…..IMHO.” The problem with passionate ideologues is that they rarely use or respond to reason, logic, evidence, or facts. And even when they try to (as in your statement above, which talks about evidence that power corrupts), their logic frequently fails, as does yours. You say that there’s “all this evidence that POWER CORRUPTS” and then say that therefore anyone who claims that a big government is necessary is idiotic. You can’t see, because you’re blinded by your biases, that the two aren’t necessarily automatically connected. You are so certain that they are (because of your bias), that it doesn’t occur to you that your logic here is faulty.
As I said in my first post, there’s no talking common sense with someone who can be so ridiculously blind to his own biases. And, as you’ve shown, I was right. If you want to prove me wrong, explain to me how a small government would fix or would have prevented the (mostly republican) corruption that caused these problems in the first place.
Participant[quote=aldante]ZK,
Where do the trillions of dollars come from?[/quote]We all know where the trillions of dollars came from. The question is where did they go. And a lot of them were spent where they wouldn’t have to have been had there been effective regulation. I don’t understand your response to swave. Your theory that the SEC was terribly and horribly ineffective is, in my opinion, correct. So you want to downsize it? How is that going to help?
Participant[quote=aldante]
Now you want the same government that allowed Madoff to happen (that was breaucrates not Republicans or Democrates agreed?) regulate the private rating agencies?
[/quote]No, I don’t want the same government to regulate the private ratings agencies. I want a more proactive government to regulate those agencies. That should be obvious. You’re making my point for me. The government has been failing to regulate finance and needs to do more of it and a better job of it.
[quote=aldante]
Remember 2008 when the “smartest The free enterprise system does not guarentee anything. That is the difference. Yet the Government will guarentee the loans on toxic loans with our tax payer money? Get a grip.
[/quote]That’s gibberish. Try it in English. Then I’ll respond.
[quote=aldante]
As to the efficency of the Government takeovers- if there were not enough examples already, how is GM working out for you?
[/quote]
When did we start talking about the efficiency of government takeovers? This is the kind of bullshit that logic-challenged right wingers constantly resort to. Pay attention.
[quote=aldante]
Sorry, big government makes big mistakes. The only reason trillions of dollars have been wasted is becasue the government is involved. Republican or Democrat.[/quote]The reason trillions of dollars have been wasted is corruption and underregulation.
ParticipantAldante, you’re hilarious. You take republican corruption and somehow, with smoke and mirrors, turn it into a way to rail at “liberals.” There’s no talking common sense with someone who can be so ridiculously blind to his own biases.
You can’t run a country the size of the U.S.A. with a government small enough that there’s no chance for corruption. To say that what Paulson did couldn’t have been done with a smaller government is rubbish.
Is big government necessary? Depends on how you define big. Would a government small enough to avoid any chance of corruption be big enough to run our country? Only in the dreams of your typical, borderline-paranoid anti-government wingnut.
Most of the problems of the 2008 collapse could have, and probably would have, been avoided by more regulation (bigger government) not less. Especially closer regulation of the ratings agencies.
Participant[quote=zk]
And I’d still be interested to hear whether you think the government should regulate these chemicals if they’re show to be dangerous.[/quote]Really, my only question about the “chemical lobotomy” theory is why you think it’s one of the best explanations, and your explanations are good enough to explain that. You probably just meant that it makes as much sense to you as anything else you’ve heard.
What I’m really curious about is whether you think the government should regulate these chemicals if they’re dangerous.
Participant[quote=paramount]That’s really an unsatisfying explanation (and largely incorrect) and really only address potential behavior in the moment. In the midst of a mob scene – well that part of the behavior is well understood.
[/quote]I thought that was the behavior you were referring to, as there was no indication otherwise. As far as it being unsatisfying, whether or not something satisfies you is irrelevant. As far as it being incorrect, you’re going to have to do more than just say it’s incorrect for it to carry any weight.
[quote=paramount]The real question is that given a choice to be home in bed (for most), why do some people choose in some cases to camp out on a cold sidewalk for days just to save a few bucks (maybe…). Or wait in line for hours on end in the cold to get a shot of saving a few messily bucks in most cases. Often just for ‘stuff’ – so it’s not for survival.
[/quote]Fair enough. But I don’t see how you can unequivocally say that that’s irrational behavior. Stampeding over other humans and hysterically screaming and pushing and grabbing, I can see as irrational (which is why I thought that was the behavior you were referring to). But spending 6 hours in line to save $100? That could easily be considered rational behavior for many. What if you make $8.50 an hour? What if you want to work as many hours as you can but can’t find more work? Maybe you shouldn’t be buying an XBox, but that’s a different discussion. If you’re going to buy one, and you can save $100 on and XBox or a laptop or a big screen TV, and all you have to do is sit around for 6 hours, it could easily make sense for a person. I don’t think most people don’t wait in line for that long, though. I think most people wait in line for an hour or two, maybe three, and for them they’d have to save even less for it to make sense.
[quote=paramount]
Q: What reasoning sets in motion that makes Black Friday so appealing in the 1st place? Is it the hype? No, not really.
A: It’s an addiction – an addiction to consumerism and the drive to maintain an illusion of a living standard that is not sustainable.
[/quote]
Interesting theory. What evidence do you have for this?
[quote=paramount]
Could that addiction and illusion be partially induced by chemicals, much like a smoker is addicted to cigarettes via nicotine. Diminishing ones ability to make rational choices. Sure, it is possible.[/quote]
Sure, it’s possible. Anything is possible. But first, you assume that your addiction theory is correct, which you haven’t shown it to be. Second, even if your theory is correct, an addiction to consumerism being “partially induced by chemicals” would be nothing like a smoker being addicted to cigarettes via nicotine. With nicotine there is a direct link to the addictive behavior. In your theory, apparently, these chemicals would have some unspecified and unknown affect on the brain diminishing one’s ability to make rational choices. Not similar at all.
But my question was, and still is, why do you think this is one of the best explanations? What evidence is there for it?
And I’d still be interested to hear whether you think the government should regulate these chemicals if they’re show to be dangerous.
Participant[quote=paramount]
Please enlighten.Since there are many, how about just 3 (for the case of mob mentality as it relates to so-called Black Friday)?[/quote]
I said there were many rational explanations for various irrational behaviors, not for each irrational behavior. For instance, if a schizophrenic hears voices telling him to kill his mailman, and he kills him, there’s one rational explanation for that. The poor bastard had schizophrenia.
As far as black Friday behavior goes, it’s just basic human nature. You put a bunch of people in a position where they’ve been listening to hype for weeks, they’ve been waiting in line for hours, their adrenaline is flowing, the moment they’ve been waiting and preparing for arrives, and they can’t think of their fellow man any more, only the coveted goal that awaits them if they push and run and grab. So they push and run and grab.
It doesn’t take much to make humans, especially in a group, act irrationally. They’ve certainly been doing it since long before any of the aforementioned chemicals were invented.
So I still don’t understand why you think this is “one of the best explanations.” Please enlighten.
[quote=paramount]There are pharmaceuticals and fluoride in our water supply
Our food is genetically modified
Food packaging leaches chemicals
Preservatives, colorants, antibiotics, dyes and many other chemicals in our food
Chem trails
Vaccinations
The pharma industrial complex has us on all types of drugsI’m sure there is some biological effect from all of this junk being ingested by so many Americans.
We’ve been exposed.[/quote]
You’re sure? How are you sure? And what makes you think that the “biological effect” is strong enough to modify our behavior? Do you have any proof? Any evidence? Anything at all besides random b.s. youtube videos?
Also, if you think that all these chemicals are adversely affecting our health and our behavior, do you think the government should step in and more aggressively regulate these chemicals?
ParticipantOk, rereading it, I guess you mean that if the behavior is irrational, then the explanation of that behavior must also be irrational.
But that doesn’t make any sense at all. Of course there are many rational explanations for various irrational behaviors.
Why do you think that a “chemically lobotomized” population is “one of the best explanations” for this behavior?
Participant[quote=paramount]Not quite, since I’m not committed to an explanation.
[/quote]Ok, I think you left out a word or something. What did you mean to say here:
[quote=paramount]
The behavior seems irrational so must be the explanation.
[/quote]
Participant[quote=paramount]
The behavior seems irrational so must be the explanation.
[/quote]
I see. So, by your logic, before the invention of all those chemicals there was no irrational behavior. Must’ve been nice.
Participantparamount, you’re kidding, right?
Or do you really think that people act that way because they’re “chemically lobotomized” by fluoride, flu shots, chemotherapy, mercury, aspartame, and msg?
Participant -
AuthorPosts
