RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed...

RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MarsBonfire -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 11:47:39 AM)
If that sort of government oversight is in place, then why was it possible for Wall Street hucksters to package and sell ghost derivatives for so long? They built a house of cards on a deregulated system and when it finally collapsed, they just walked away, while hundreds of thousands of American families and couples just starting out had their homes yanked out from under them. (American Dream, my ass!) And what happens to those Wall Street con men? Are they arrested and sent to jail? Nope, they are given big, fat bonuses which they had contracted for. * Um... so you're actually saying that there's nothing to see here, and that we should all just move along? *and they are getting ready to do it again, unless the current administration re-regulates the industries. (Thus Obama's speech to Wall Street earlier this month.)

xBullx -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 12:00:24 PM)
You really do need someone to protect you from yourself, don't you? I do believe that regulations exist, they are just glanced over in the spirit of political investment. If Obama's guys want to impress me they can continue getting the Abramoffs of the world with the tools they used to finally get him. He was always there and the laws that got him were also. That being said, buyer beware... Jack-o-boy didn't force anyone to invest in his bullshit. The fact is, I've seen these scams before in other industry and they will continue to happen in our less than perfect universe. If you want to live in a world where the protectionism of government is so tight that it is even designed to protect you from your lazy ass self, then move to one of those places that exist like that already. But you are right about one thing, reulation does need to be continuously re-examined for it effectiveness, if it needs impovement, out with the old and in with the new, don't keep heaping on to the old crap that doesn't work. We actually pay those folks in Washington to serve our common interest, so let's shout until they're doing their collective jobs. quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire If that sort of government oversight is in place, then why was it possible for Wall Street hucksters to package and sell ghost derivatives for so long? They built a house of cards on a deregulated system and when it finally collapsed, they just walked away, while hundreds of thousands of American families and couples just starting out had their homes yanked out from under them. (American Dream, my ass!) And what happens to those Wall Street con men? Are they arrested and sent to jail? Nope, they are given big, fat bonuses which they had contracted for. * Um... so you're actually saying that there's nothing to see here, and that we should all just move along? *and they are getting ready to do it again, unless the current administration re-regulates the industries. (Thus Obama's speech to Wall Street earlier this month.)

blacksword404 -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 12:14:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales The problem with your analogy of the chess game is that it makes this subject a zero sum game. There will be a winner and a loser. That's fine for a game, but not so good for a country. Until we stop trying to run the country like a zero sum game, things are going to continue to deteriorate. That is the way the world works. Someone wins and someone losses. As long as the rules apply equally and not setup to ensure one party or the other continues to win, I say let it play out.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 5:05:22 PM)
Sorry but that does not wash. So what is the difference between two poor guys growing up, and one makes it to six figure a year salary and the other does not? One of my best clients has only a high school education, started in software sales over 15 years ago, and now owns a multi million dollar company that does: Software Sales, Consulting, Application Hosting, Data Storage, Email list servers, and webpage servers. Not to mention the add on of doing the software/hardware for a program that Dentist use, and regular IT work. He has over 30 employees, takes 4 vacations a year that are two weeks long each. The brighterst and/or most driven will win the race in some shape or another, and those that can't will sit on the sidelines and cry about it. quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire The chess game is rigged, even without any government interfereance: the poor man has 500 of his friends sitting in the stands, watching every move the rich guy makes. The rich guy has a stack of gold wish allows him to change the game as he sees fit. Neither is stupid. Both know that the game can't go on without the other. The rich guy knows that if he goes to far, the 500 friends will come pouring out of the stands and beat him to death The poor guy knows that if he pushes too hard to just get much more than the basics, the rich guy will pack up his marbles and go play with the even poorer guy sitting a few tables over.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 5:33:37 PM)
quote: The brighterst and/or most driven will win the race in some shape or another, and those that can't will sit on the sidelines and cry about it. ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Once again, it's the lottery model of government. Of course there are some people who are bright enough, strong enough and just plain determined enough to make it no matter what the odds. Similarly, every now and then some poor janitor wins three hundred million dollars in the lottery. This does not mean buying lottery tickets is sound financial planning. The reason rags to riches stories are so notable is that they are so rare. Even if you name hundreds, we are talking out of a population of millions. The average person, for whatever reason, is not able to do such things. More importantly, most of the upper 5% didn't have to do such things. Most of them are the products of either inherited wealth or vastly preferential upbringing. The vast redistribution of wealth has not come about because the upper 5% is smarter, harder working or more inventive. The shift in wealth from the middle to the upper class has come from the marriage of money and government and has been designed to shift that wealth. If this is allowed to continue, it will destroy this country as surely as any swing to pure socialism. One of the prices for a democratic, capitalistic society is that the course is not a straight one. Corrections are always required. Such a correction is badly needed now.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 6:56:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales The reason rags to riches stories are so notable is that they are so rare. Even if you name hundreds, we are talking out of a population of millions. The average person, for whatever reason, is not able to do such things. More importantly, most of the upper 5% didn't have to do such things. Most of them are the products of either inherited wealth or vastly preferential upbringing. Have you ever wondered why it is rare? It is supposed to be, if it were easy then everyone would be wealthy, and the value of money would change so that it has less. Does it matter where they got their wealth? Someone, somewhere earned it and should be able to do as they see fit with it. quote: The vast redistribution of wealth has not come about because the upper 5% is smarter, harder working or more inventive. The shift in wealth from the middle to the upper class has come from the marriage of money and government and has been designed to shift that wealth. If this is allowed to continue, it will destroy this country as surely as any swing to pure socialism. There is a huge gap I agree, but let us just remove the ability of corporations to buy our politicians, and things will change. There is no need to slit the throat of those that have more blood. I am glad you have admitted to supporting wealth redistribution, and if that is not what you support, could you plainly say so.

servantforuse -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 6:59:39 PM)
Ask Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd why the so called 'hucksters' are still there there ? They were the guys who made the rules. They were responsible for mucking it all up..

Kirata -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 7:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Ask Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd why the so called 'hucksters' are still there there ? They were the guys who made the rules. They were responsible for mucking it all up.. I think I'm starting to miss the religious arguments. K.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 7:17:55 PM)
quote: There is a huge gap I agree, but let us just remove the ability of corporations to buy our politicians, and things will change. There is no need to slit the throat of those that have more blood. I am glad you have admitted to supporting wealth redistribution, and if that is not what you support, could you plainly say so. ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf You ask a fair question and I wish I could give you a yes or no answer. The truth is that I don't know the answer to this one. I see a very skewed and uneven playing field. I see systemic problems that are destroying the middle class, I see problems that need addressing. On the other hand, I do not want to see the oft touted "nanny state", I do not want individual achievement lessened and I do not want to see the government become the major regulator of where wealth goes and who it goes to. What I can tell you is that I believe a redistribution of wealth has occurred, quietly and without shouting, in this country. The gap between the wealthy and the middle class has grown disturbingly. And I think that denying that is a problem, even to the point of discussing the matter in terms of correction is not likely to yield answers. Again, I know this is not as satisfying as a direct yes or no. But the plainest thing I can say is that while I am able to recognize the problem, I have yet to come up with what I feel is the best solution.

rulemylife -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 8:42:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 That is the way the world works. Someone wins and someone losses. As long as the rules apply equally and not setup to ensure one party or the other continues to win, I say let it play out. Which is an inherent contradiction, the rules do not apply equally because you have some starting on third base.

blacksword404 -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 9:09:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 That is the way the world works. Someone wins and someone losses. As long as the rules apply equally and not setup to ensure one party or the other continues to win, I say let it play out. Which is an inherent contradiction, the rules do not apply equally because you have some starting on third base. They don't always but they should.

blacksword404 -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 9:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales What I can tell you is that I believe a redistribution of wealth has occurred, quietly and without shouting, in this country. The gap between the wealthy and the middle class has grown disturbingly. And I think that denying that is a problem, even to the point of discussing the matter in terms of correction is not likely to yield answers. There sure was. The fat cats on wall street were gambling with their money and lost. Then asked the government to steal our money to give to them. Bi-partisan too. The plane at that moment was attempting to level itself and the government intervened.

Kirata -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 10:24:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 There sure was. The fat cats on wall street were gambling with their money and lost. Then asked the government to steal our money to give to them. Bi-partisan too. The plane at that moment was attempting to level itself and the government intervened. [sm=applause.gif] K.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/28/2009 5:21:26 AM)
quote: There sure was. The fat cats on wall street were gambling with their money and lost. Then asked the government to steal our money to give to them. Bi-partisan too. The plane at that moment was attempting to level itself and the government intervened.ORIGINAL: blacksword404 There is a difference between the plane attempting to level itself and crashing into the ground. I think there were far better ways the government (bi-partisanly) could have handled it, but I am convinced that if something big hadn't been done, the results would have been far worse.

Musicmystery -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/28/2009 6:00:20 AM)
quote: I think there were far better ways the government (bi-partisanly) could have handled it I think that's what they both just said.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/28/2009 7:32:02 AM)
quote: I think that's what they both just said.ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I think there were far better ways the government (bi-partisanly) could have handled it I think that's what they both just said. Well, if what they are saying is that the bailout should have been structured differently, I will agree. If what they are saying is that doing nothing at that point and letting pure market forces take over, I disagree. I would have personally rather have seen some kind of action that addressed the problem without allowing the institutions involved to profit from the mess they caused. I can think of a few plans that I think would have worked better (hindsight is a wonderful thing). I am still of the opinion that we did dodge a potentially more disastrous bullet in this case. What troubles me is that, a full year after this meltdown, no new plans or regulations have been put into place to stop it from happening again.

Musicmystery -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/28/2009 8:55:43 AM)
quote: If what they are saying is that doing nothing at that point and letting pure market forces take over, I disagree. You see, the trouble is--they DIDN'T say that. In fact, they didn't say either way. You just assumed.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/28/2009 9:25:46 AM)
quote: You see, the trouble is--they DIDN'T say that. In fact, they didn't say either way. You just assumed. ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Actually, I assumed nothing. I responded to the "plane leveling itself" analogy in a previous post. If there was an assumption about what the subject matter was, it was not on my part.

UncleNasty -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/28/2009 9:35:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: There sure was. The fat cats on wall street were gambling with their money and lost. Then asked the government to steal our money to give to them. Bi-partisan too. The plane at that moment was attempting to level itself and the government intervened.ORIGINAL: blacksword404 There is a difference between the plane attempting to level itself and crashing into the ground. I think there were far better ways the government (bi-partisanly) could have handled it, but I am convinced that if something big hadn't been done, the results would have been far worse. Actually they were gambling with other peoples money and when they lost the government stepped in and gave them more of other peoples money as a rescue. As for there being "far better ways" for the government to have handled the situation I'll not enter into a debate about the quality of any potential governmental responses. Instead I'll point out that there is already law in place that mandates what is to be done in the case of an insolvent bank. I posted this in another thread a day or two ago, but it seems relevant here as well. The Prompt Corrective Action Law, adopted in 1991 in response to the S&L crisis, mandates that insolvent banks be put into receivership. Any and all "bailouts" are in violation of this law. This law, USC Title 12, Chapter 16, Section 1831o, can be found at the following link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00001831---o000-.html The number of individuals, elected representatives, appointees and governmental offices that are in violation of this law is rather staggering. It is easy to legitimately include: Bush, Obama, Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner, members of congress that voted in favor of giving money to private entities... I expect a bit of research could turn up a couple of thousand legitimate defendants for a lawsuit, either civil or criminal. Uncle Nasty

Musicmystery -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/28/2009 10:46:26 AM)
quote: Actually, I assumed nothing. Reread.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875