|
On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote:
If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encourage housing for everyone.
No they weren't. Consensus, even by Mises.org aside from some poor stupid folks, is that the CRA was an ineffective program. Evidence being, banks who took CRA money made nearly the same amount of subprime loans as banks acting purely on their own. In fact, Republicans used this as an excuse to end CRA, claiming it was just a giveaway to banks that were going to make the loans anyway.
Funnily enough they have now completely reversed their claims from it being completely ineffective to having created the Great Recession XD.
In fact, during the height of the boom Fannie & Freddie's market share dropped heavily, only to pick up when all the mortgages were dumped on them. Private companies were more than willing to take more risk than F&F:
![[image loading]](http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1130/fanfred.png)
This governmental talk also fails on a basic empirical point; the housing bubble happened from South Korea to Ireland to the United States. How could a US government law cause a housing bubble in Ireland?
|
You brought up mises.org
oh shit
|
On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote:
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
|
On January 26 2011 07:43 Tralan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote:
If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the government after the bubble collapsed unless I am totally wrong so this point isnt valid. The government was culpable by not regulating the industry but it wasnt the cause of it.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been managed by the federal government for decades. The problem was that the federal government -- through its own policies and regulations -- pressured lenders to make bad loans so that everyone who wanted a house could own a house, even if they couldn't afford it. Private lenders, stuck with obviously bad debt, bundled it together and sold it off to clear their books and try to create some value where there was none. We know the rest of the story....
Basically, the government bailed out its own failed program.
|
On January 26 2011 07:48 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote:
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change?
ex post facto warrants
|
On January 26 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:48 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote:
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change? ex post facto warrants
Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again.
|
On January 26 2011 07:45 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:43 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Here's how the private companies fail against the government competitor: the government prices its premiums well-below what the private companies can afford for as long as it takes for the private companies to go out of business. The idea is that the government can indefinitely subsidize its losses (kinda like how it does with Amtrak and the US Postal Service) whereas private companies cannot. You think the government can subsidize indefinitely???? wow Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can. yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away! Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars. Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from. Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt? Strawman? We are talking about conjured money. It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government. lol please? where did you learn this? seriously learn what? That the gorvernment caused the current recession. Books.
when you make such rediculous statements please post a source
|
On January 26 2011 07:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:43 Tralan wrote:On January 26 2011 07:35 xDaunt wrote:
If you consider that the recession originated in the real estate markets -- subprime lending in particular -- and if you consider that most of the bad loans originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which are run by the federal government, there's a very strong argument to make that the government is responsible for the current recession. This is really a topic for another thread, but the reality is that subprime markets were driven and created by federal policies encouraging housing for everyone. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the government after the bubble collapsed unless I am totally wrong so this point isnt valid. The government was culpable by not regulating the industry but it wasnt the cause of it. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been managed by the federal government for decades. The problem was that the federal government -- through its own policies and regulations -- pressured lenders to make bad loans so that everyone who wanted a house could own a house, even if they couldn't afford it. Private lenders, stuck with obviously bad debt, bundled it together and sold it off to clear their books and try to create some value where there was none. We know the rest of the story.... Basically, the government bailed out its own failed program.
Thanks for the explanation.
|
On January 26 2011 07:51 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:48 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote:
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change? ex post facto warrants Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again.
What is this, a quiz?
|
On January 26 2011 07:51 BroodjeBaller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:45 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:43 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 07:17 Treemonkeys wrote:
[quote]
You think the government can subsidize indefinitely????
wow Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can. yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away! Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars. Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from. Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt? Strawman? We are talking about conjured money. It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government. lol please? where did you learn this? seriously learn what? That the gorvernment caused the current recession. Books. when you make such rediculous statements please post a source
You want a source for how to understand economics and money creation?
|
On January 26 2011 07:53 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:51 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:45 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:43 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:18 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have they not already done so with all sorts of other programs? I'm not saying that government should. I'm just saying that they can.
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away! Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars. Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from. Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt? Strawman? We are talking about conjured money. It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government. lol please? where did you learn this? seriously learn what? That the gorvernment caused the current recession. Books. when you make such rediculous statements please post a source You want a source for how to understand economics and money creation?
No a source which explains how the government caused the recession.
|
On January 26 2011 07:55 BroodjeBaller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:51 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:45 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:43 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:On January 26 2011 07:21 Treemonkeys wrote:
[quote]
yeah, $14 trillion worth of other programs, but this isn't something that lasts, this is the government fucking over the entire country's future
If this was something that worked, they could just send a billion dollar check to everyone, all the poverty in the world would go away!
Not really though, it would just make a loaf of bread cost a billion dollars.
Hmmm, I wonder where this recession is coming from. Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt? Strawman? We are talking about conjured money. It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government. lol please? where did you learn this? seriously learn what? That the gorvernment caused the current recession. Books. when you make such rediculous statements please post a source You want a source for how to understand economics and money creation? No a source which explains how the government caused the recession.
You don't need a source for that, you only need to understand economics.
|
On January 26 2011 07:53 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:51 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:48 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote:
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change? ex post facto warrants Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again. What is this, a quiz?
If you're going to say the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, one would think this would at least require: (1) knowing what the Patriot Act authorizes, and (2) knowing what the Constitution authorizes.
I'm going to assume from that last statement that you don't actually know either of those. In other words, your statement is bullshit and you are an ignoramus for making it. Thanks for participating in this discussion, it's not often I get other people to admit to their idiocy.
|
The only reason republicans are so against this bill is that the insurance companies are putting money in republican pockets. Then they get on the news and spread lies to make the people believe that this bill is hurting them. If you are one of those glad to see this repealed I really hope that you own an insurance company or are a major stakeholder in one, otherwise your likely very misinformed and just repeating someone-else's lies.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Patriot I had all of the nasty stuff. Sneaks and peeks. Roving wiretaps. Blanket wiretaps. Librarians clause. NSLs were a bigger problem. Most of these provisions sunset or were modified for Patriot II.
|
On January 26 2011 07:58 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:51 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:48 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote:
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change? ex post facto warrants Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again. What is this, a quiz? If you're going to say the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, one would think this would at least require: (1) knowing what the Patriot Act authorizes, and (2) knowing what the Constitution authorizes. I'm going to assume from that last statement that you don't actually know either of those. In other words, your statement is bullshit and you are an ignoramus for making it.
I don't really care what you assume.
|
On January 26 2011 07:58 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:58 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:51 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:48 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote:
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change? ex post facto warrants Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again. What is this, a quiz? If you're going to say the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, one would think this would at least require: (1) knowing what the Patriot Act authorizes, and (2) knowing what the Constitution authorizes. I'm going to assume from that last statement that you don't actually know either of those. In other words, your statement is bullshit and you are an ignoramus for making it. I don't really care what you assume.
Yes, it's pretty clear given that you can't even answer the fucking simple question of what the Patriot Act authorizes, that you are a buffoon who spouts ignorant shit. I mean, I've asked you half a dozen of times what the Patriot Act authorizes, and you either give me wrong answers, or evade the question with bullshit like "Is this a quiz?" What, exactly, should one assume except that you don't know anything about this topic?
|
On January 26 2011 08:00 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:58 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:58 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:51 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:50 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:48 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 07:41 Treemonkeys wrote:
It authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists.
This statement is so vague, it's meaningless. The fourth amendment authorizes surveillance on suspected terrorists through warrants. What does the Patriot Act change? ex post facto warrants Patriot Act doesn't authorize "ex post facto" warrants. Not even sure what that means, but if you mean warrants after the search is conducted, not authorized. Try again. What is this, a quiz? If you're going to say the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, one would think this would at least require: (1) knowing what the Patriot Act authorizes, and (2) knowing what the Constitution authorizes. I'm going to assume from that last statement that you don't actually know either of those. In other words, your statement is bullshit and you are an ignoramus for making it. I don't really care what you assume. Yes, it's pretty clear given that you can't even answer the fucking simple question of what the Patriot Act authorizes, that you are a buffoon who spouts ignorant shit. I mean, I've asked you half a dozen of times what the Patriot Act authorizes, and you either give me wrong answers, or evade the question with bullshit like "Is this a quiz?" What, exactly, should one assume except that you don't know anything about this topic?
I already answered and you were like lol try again, so I asked if I was being quized.
Can't be to careful.
|
On January 26 2011 07:56 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 07:55 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:51 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:45 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:43 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:31 BroodjeBaller wrote:On January 26 2011 07:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 07:26 Romantic wrote:
[quote]
Strawmen aside, do you really think the recession is due to government debt? Strawman? We are talking about conjured money. It's more complicated than just debt, but it is because of the government. lol please? where did you learn this? seriously learn what? That the gorvernment caused the current recession. Books. when you make such rediculous statements please post a source You want a source for how to understand economics and money creation? No a source which explains how the government caused the recession. You don't need a source for that, you only need to understand economics.
edit:cba trolls
|
Back on topic:
I find it saddening that every time I think the republicans will get up from the gutter and start acting like men and women, they fall even lower. This repeal is purelely showboating with the only goal being to re-gain the oval office. There is no motivation what-so-ever to actually improve the lives of Americans.
Here in Denmark, while our opposition is kind of scary to think of as a potential government (inconsistent promises and a weak leader), at least they can keep the political debate political.
I don't really care what you guys over there get done about the health care, it just saddens me that politics is just pure mud-throwing today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
