aren't the last few days proof that the more government involvement the worse off we are?

I'm not talking about specific politicians, I'm talking about the fundamental belief that Democrats share...?

9/18/2008 3:39:47 PM

the last few days and the current economic meltdown is the result of no government regulation.

now get out of here with you shit shat thread.

9/18/2008 3:42:35 PM

what do you mean, last few days?

i believe deregulation is the cause behind the financial meltdown, if that's what you're referring to. in any case, the current administration has been all for expanding the federal government anyhow, so it's not just democrats.

9/18/2008 3:43:39 PM

1. i think it's actually a result of both in some ways
2. neither party is innocent, at least not for the last 15 years, and especially not for the last 8.

9/18/2008 3:45:12 PM

There is very little question that markets need to be regulated to some extent, the big problem is where to draw the line. It's very apparent in this example that deregulation fucked us over. You also have to decide at what point the government can step in and try to avoid a complete economic meltdown.

I'm not qualified to answer these problems - and I doubt anyone on TWW is, but I know it's not a all or nothing answer.

9/18/2008 3:46:14 PM

more govt involvement = more debt

more debt = more taxes

more taxes = no

9/18/2008 3:46:37 PM

but slightly higher taxes that equate to a stable economy and thus a higher standard of living is something that's not completely bad either. i don't often hear you bitching about the fire department or police being funded by taxpayer dollars, why not have the equivalent for the financial industry?

not all taxes are bad

9/18/2008 3:51:20 PM

Quote :

"in any case, the current administration has been all for expanding the federal government anyhow, so it's not just democrats."

Sad, but true.

9/18/2008 3:51:31 PM

If you guys really feel happy-go-lucky about paying off JoeSchmoes bad loan as well as his 20k dollar credit card debt he can't pay back, then feel free to volunteer yourselves to pay for those stupid financial decisions.

Why should I and my family have to suffer for the mistakes of some retards buying houses they can't afford buying spinners on their credit cards?

No.

9/18/2008 3:57:02 PM

Quote :

"i don't often hear you bitching about the fire department or police being funded by taxpayer dollars, why not have the equivalent for the financial industry? not all taxes are bad "

no, they're not, but the FD and PD being handled at a local level and funded by local taxes, which is a legitimate function of local government, and a case of the people benefitting from it being the oens paying for it, is a different deal from the issues that I and many others have with the federal government FAR exceeding any reasonable view of what the Constitution permits.

a lot of federal programs are total bullshit, and even more are totally unconstitutional.

9/18/2008 3:57:43 PM

How about we trade FCC regulation for something that regulates the stock market?

9/18/2008 4:02:34 PM

Quote :

"So Since Dems Believe in More Govt Involvement..."

Not necessarily. I think many Dems believe in some critical mass of government such that it's efficiently dealing with a minimal set of things it should operate on. How big that minimal/effective government should be depends on what you think government's responsibility is. While many Democrats believe more should be included in that set than many Republicans, it's not fair to characterize Democrats as believing government should be huge and bloated. Reasonable Democrats think it should be effective and as minimal as needed (where this is defined differently than say, a Republican or a Libertarian or a Socialist).

9/18/2008 4:03:42 PM

Quote :

"aren't the last few days proof that the more government involvement the worse off we are? "

yeah, nice.... way to misread the situation completely.
Where do you get your news from?

9/18/2008 4:05:18 PM

Why would any of you let the government take over to save Intel? If intel wants to design a shitty chip that nobody buys, then they'll fail and go under.

Why should you add a new tax to my household to try to save it?

9/18/2008 4:05:19 PM

what the hell are you talking about

9/18/2008 4:07:13 PM

I don't think much of anyone would support floating Intel. The situation would be vastly different however if Intel's demise would mean that all Intel CPU's in the world/US would stop functioning and the unemployment rate would skyrocket.

Financials are completely different from the service/hardware market.

9/18/2008 4:08:00 PM

Quote :

"last few days proof that the more government involvement the worse off we are? "

Our country was founded on the idea of freedom.

Less government involvement = more freedom.

Quote :

".What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: "We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law . . . We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities." Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom? ...While [liberals] value many personal liberties, they have no great attachment to forms of freedom that involve buying, selling, trading and accumulating. Those, after all, can involve selfishness, and Democrats, like Republicans, don't want to protect selfishness."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0907chapmansep07,0,5991702.column

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : j]

9/18/2008 4:09:50 PM

^ that's moving towards my argument that economic slowdowns/recessions cull the herd. it's a needed catalyst for evolution of the business world...you know, some giraffes had to starve to death before the rest of them got long necks.

Quote :

"How about we trade FCC regulation for something that regulates the stock market?"

because the FCC will never make me rich

and neither will the stock market if the gov't gets its hands in it too much.


by the way, what kind of FCC regulation are we talking about here? Saying naughty words on the radio? I don't give a shit. I already think you should be able to do that.




^ that is my attitude towards government regulation. Regulation isn't ALWAYS a bad thing--my attitude towards it is that regulation should be used for the net maximization of freedom.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : anti-monopoly regulation is one example]

9/18/2008 4:10:00 PM

I think theDuke is doing a poor job moderating simply because csharp has somehow retained posting privileges. This guy is beyond retarded.

Other than that though, Duke is doing a decent job.

9/18/2008 4:10:02 PM

Quote :

"more govt involvement = more debt"

we just took on a hell of a lot of debt because the government WASN'T involved in the business of these financial institutions. your argument makes no sense.

Quote :

"aren't the last few days proof that the more government involvement the worse off we are? "

no, quite the opposite. this thread is a complete failure.

9/18/2008 4:10:21 PM

Quote :

"^ that's moving towards my argument that economic slowdowns/recessions cull the herd. it's a needed catalyst for evolution of the business world...you know, some giraffes had to starve to death before the rest of them got long necks."

To be precise it's just that the long-necked giraffes enjoyed better reproductive success. Nothing suggests the less successful ones starved, they just didn't have the resources or ability to reproduce as much.

9/18/2008 4:14:12 PM

Quote :

"If you guys really feel happy-go-lucky about paying off JoeSchmoes bad loan as well as his 20k dollar credit card debt he can't pay back, then feel free to volunteer yourselves to pay for those stupid financial decisions."

Funny story, that's the exact idea that they proposed today to pull us out of this mess! Wall Street seemed to like it.....

9/18/2008 4:14:16 PM

The reason I'm in favor of regulation in this area is because these companies and the jerkoffs that lead them have no problem pulling shit that makes their company incredibly rich in the short term - heck it probably isn't illegal either, however one day they crash, long after the guys have pulled in their haul and retired. Who has to pick up the pieces and is left with huge unemployment, no income, etc? It's not the guys that fucked the system, that's for sure.

9/18/2008 4:14:27 PM

this thread is retarded

9/18/2008 4:14:34 PM

^^^^ because they fucking died

length of the neck didn't determine reproductive success...you're getting confused with why horses today have huge schlongs.


^^^ well no shit wall street liked it. what does that have to do with this argument?

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 4:16 PM. Reason : asdfads]

9/18/2008 4:15:39 PM

Quote :

"^^ because they fucking died length of the neck didn't determine reproductive success...you're getting confused with why horses today have huge schlongs."

More resources translates into more reproductive success in many cases.

It's not necessarily a matter of the other ones dying off, saying that is simplifying too much and unnecessarily (and incorrectly) constrains the possibility space.

9/18/2008 4:16:50 PM

Quote :

"this thread is retarded"

Give her a break, she's not a Soap Box regular, she doesn't know any better.

9/18/2008 4:17:30 PM

I think the key here is that she's a woman!

9/18/2008 4:18:25 PM

Quote :

"this thread is retarded"

yep, she needs to stick to name dropping in chit chat. at least that makes me laugh.

9/18/2008 4:19:06 PM

^^ Is that lipstick on the smiley? Are you trying to make a sexist remark about Palin there or something?

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2008 4:19:22 PM

^^^^^that's what i'm saying...more resources like more food.

i mean, yes...you're technically correct. the short-necked giraffes did not reproduce as efficiently, and that's why we have long-necked giraffes today.

The reason they didn't reproduce as effeciently is because they couldn't eat. That is a major buzzkill.



at any rate, it's just an analogy. There is a school of thought that sees long-term, big-picture benefit from these economic bumps in the road. It kills bad companies and forces strong companies to bring their A-game. It forces consolidations where more efficiency can be had, etc.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : asdfasdfasd]

9/18/2008 4:21:23 PM

Duke, I didn't mean to harp on your analogy since your argument didn't even hinge on it -- it's just a pet peeve of mine with certain sorts of theories.

9/18/2008 4:23:08 PM

Quote :

"I think theDuke is doing a poor job moderating simply because csharp has somehow retained posting privileges. This guy is beyond retarded. Other than that though, Duke is doing a decent job."

lol

9/18/2008 4:23:10 PM

um...if I'm not mistaken, back when FDR was around, Fannie and Freddie were created because he believed that every American should be able to be a homeowner and so the govt stepped in.... That's just one thing but it's pretty telling.....

Any time the govt makes things easier and more accessible to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get it, shit goes wrong. I swear to all that is holy that I wish Darwin was alive today to run for Pres

9/18/2008 4:43:00 PM

Quote :

"I swear to all that is holy that I wish Darwin was alive today to run for Pres"

Haha

Amen

9/18/2008 4:43:53 PM

^^He would lose for wanting to teach evolution in schools

9/18/2008 4:46:20 PM

Quote :

"it's not fair to characterize Democrats as believing government should be huge and bloated"

hilarious that this guy says its not fair to characterize people in a certain way

9/18/2008 4:50:57 PM

Quote :

"Any time the govt makes things easier and more accessible to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get it, shit goes wrong."

aaaaaaaaahahahahaha, that's awesome!
your justification for the shit that went down in the past couple months is the passage of a 1938 law? Nice, dude. really, congratulations. you must be on the way to setting a record for most time spent with one's head up ones ass.

9/18/2008 4:55:25 PM

republicans = personal responsibility, liability

democrats = govt should make sure everbody has everything

9/18/2008 4:56:35 PM

9/18/2008 5:01:39 PM

9/18/2008 5:05:22 PM

Quote :

"republicans = personal responsibility lack of corporate responsibility."

9/18/2008 5:06:03 PM

no wonder the democrats want to tax the rich. they want to tax the hard working republicans.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CELEBRITIES THAT ARE DEMOCRATS AND RICH???!?!?!???

9/18/2008 5:11:09 PM

democrats think greed is choosing to work hard and earn money

9/18/2008 5:12:10 PM

then i'm the greediest son of a bitch you'll ever meet.

9/18/2008 5:13:25 PM

Quote :

"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CELEBRITIES THAT ARE DEMOCRATS AND RICH???!?!?!???"

what about them?

9/18/2008 5:14:22 PM

I know... what about them?

They provide the most jobs and economic stimulus to the nation by far. Starting companies left and right and what not. You gotta love that Clooney and Barbra. At least they are out there giving 1 guy a chance b4 he wastes his whole life away never having run a business.

9/18/2008 5:17:45 PM

what?

9/18/2008 5:21:42 PM

the BIG BAD EVIL CORPORATIONS provide jobs...yet people view them as big bad evil corporations who do nothing but greedily make money for their rich fat white CEOs...all while shitting on the little person

9/18/2008 5:22:47 PM

If government was involved from the start, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today...

9/18/2008 5:32:21 PM