page 3 for ron paul

9/18/2008 11:27:19 PM

can you imagine how bad ass the US would be if we had nato at our disposal?

9/18/2008 11:29:12 PM

Quote :

"deregulation encouraged this, not the other way around"

but there really wasn't deregulation when it was pretty much known to the lenders that if they got in trouble the govt would be there to back them up. that is pretty much the absolute worst case scenario. I say to you, "Go ahead and make this crazy risk if you want to, in fact I encourage it and I will not stop you...oh but if you fail don't worry I will save your ass" then what would you do?

9/18/2008 11:33:34 PM

not take the risk and not have to worry with all that shit...i mean really

9/18/2008 11:35:57 PM

it's good to know that dnl is one of them


whew. ahhhh.

9/18/2008 11:42:59 PM

one of those people not affected by gas prices or wallstreet?

9/18/2008 11:44:21 PM

Quote :

"but there really wasn't deregulation when it was pretty much known to the lenders that if they got in trouble the govt would be there to back them up. that is pretty much the absolute worst case scenario. I say to you, "Go ahead and make this crazy risk if you want to, in fact I encourage it and I will not stop you...oh but if you fail don't worry I will save your ass" then what would you do?"

^^CDSs allowed that, not the government. CDSs allow lenders to pass on risk to insurance companies and other investors, allowing them to make loans without the need to investigate the risk. deruglation allowed for this. CDSs were deruglated. government bailout never factored into their decision to make the risky loans, they didnt need it because the CDS assured that it would be paid be someone. deruglation allowed them to not have to worry about the risk and make tons of risky loans which were then called in and the snowball effect of covering all of these CDSs was too much.

the government bailed out some institutions because the cost of their failure would have been catastrophic

9/18/2008 11:47:20 PM

no, the guy who burns his grill cheese sammiches. lol

here's a hint: it ryhmes with ptemocrat.

9/18/2008 11:48:32 PM

mexicans are the shit

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM. Reason : mexicrat?]

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM. Reason : ok i copyright that word btw]

9/18/2008 11:49:57 PM

hah. THAT WAS FUNNY!!

9/18/2008 11:51:42 PM

it was less lame than the grilled cheese sammiches thing


i mean seriously, no homo

9/18/2008 11:52:47 PM

Credit default swap:

Quote :

"A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties, whereby the "buyer" or "fixed rate payer" pays periodic payments to the "seller" or "floating rate payer" in exchange for the right to a payoff if there is a default[1] or "credit event" in respect of a third party or "reference entity". If a credit event occurs, the typical contract either settles by delivery by the buyer to the seller of a (usually defaulted) debt obligation of the reference entity against a payment by the seller of the par value ("physical settlement") or the seller pays the buyer the difference between the par value and the market price of a specified debt obligation, typically determined in an auction ("cash settlement"). A credit default swap resembles an insurance policy, as it can be used by a debt holder to hedge, or insure against a default under the debt instrument. However, because there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer a loss, a credit default swap can also be used for speculative purposes and is not generally considered insurance for regulatory purposes. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/16/news/derivatives_benner.fortune/?postversion=2008091621

Quote :

"A credit default swap is like an insurance contract. One side buys protection against the threat of default by a company, a municipality or a package of debt backed by, say, residential mortgages. That buyer pays the seller a premium over a set time period. The seller pays out if the default occurs. Swaps trading has become a major part of the financial system. The market, which relies heavily on borrowed money, is notionally nearly three times as large as the U.S. stock market. It touches most every major financial institution, hedge fund, and mutual fund manager in the world. Moreover, the swaps market ballooned in size before it could be tested by an economic downturn, in which defaults rise and players facing credit downgrades have to pony up additional capital to back their positions. That in turn could lead to more losses in the financial system, which would make credit generally harder to come by for consumers and businesses. ... If AIG should end up in bankruptcy and isn't there to stand behind those contracts, players who wrote swaps insuring against an AIG debt default will have to come up with payments that could reach well into the billions of dollars. ... That's an important job because of how opaque the swaps market is. Contracts are sold many times over. So when it comes time for party A to collect from party B, say a major U.S. bank, it may have already sold the contract to a German bank. That bank in turn may have sold the contract to a hedge fund, and so on. "Like [Warren] Buffett said, the tide has gone out and we're really seeing which people are swimming naked," says Bob Sloan, whose S3 Partners finances and advises hedge funds. "It could get very interesting because for the hedge funds this is new territory." A lot of the outcome, Sloan says, depends on how well investors negotiated their contracts. The total size of the swaps market approaches $62 trillion, though that figure includes positions which are often off-setting. Still, potential losses are huge. In a report released earlier this year, Barclays credit analysts said that a major counterparty that had $2 trillion outstanding in credit derivatives could in a worst case scenario see $36 billion to $47 billion in losses. "

9/18/2008 11:55:33 PM

and the problems shouldn't surprise anyone
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080218/REG/794188688

Quote :

"AIG’s losses show swaps next domino By Marine Cole February 18, 2008 Bank's losses, already exceeding $100 billion since the beginning of the credit crunch, are likely to grow much larger if the problems starting to show up in credit default swaps spread. That threat was underscored last week when insurer American International Group announced a larger than projected decline in the value of its CDS portfolio and said its losses could grow even larger by the time it releases 2007 results, which are due before the end of the month. The problem is by no means limited to AIG. Indeed, banks are even more exposed as counterparties to CDS underwritten by bond insurers such as Ambac Financial Group and MBIA. CDS function as insurance contracts on the risk of default by bond issuers. AIG said last week that paper losses on its CDS portfolio climbed to over $5 billion as of the end of November from a previously estimated $1 billion. Counterparties to CDS contracts written by AIG are mostly banks, which bought them to hedge their exposure to collateralized debt obligations. "

you all can thank the guy on the left for the CDS shit storm

9/19/2008 12:01:13 AM

no really csharp if democrats are so stupid and lazy where do they get all this money from overnight

9/19/2008 12:57:18 AM

Quote :

"deregulation encouraged this, not the other way around "

Deregulation may have allowed banks to act foolishly. The thing that encouraged them to act foolishly was the gov't telling them that Freddie and Fannie would protect them if the ill-advised loans went south. Without painful consequences, why would any bank not take advantage?

In order for the free market to work properly, there must be painful consequences for foolish behavior. If the go'vt prevents the pain, the wrong messages are sent out to banks and investors.

9/19/2008 12:58:49 AM

the gov let lehman brothers sink...i trust the gov...survival of the fittest, the gov just did us a favor

9/19/2008 1:05:00 AM

Quote :

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

unfortunately, government was involved, and that is the reason we are in this mess.

1) Fannie and Freddie: GOVERNMENT Sponsored Entities, with an unfair competitive advantage due to their government backing, reduced restrictions, and greater market access.

2) Gov't trying to make lenders give loans to more unqualified people in the name of "diversity."

9/19/2008 1:08:26 AM

lol so just for the record, mccain said he thought there was too little regulation right?

9/19/2008 1:14:06 AM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/mccain_show_his_economic_inexp.html

is this accurate?

9/19/2008 2:06:20 AM

I'm sure its been said already, but after reading the title, it is worth repeating.

More gov is a big Grand Old Party thing these days. With the Patriot Act & restriction of civil liberties, with heavy government spending (on things including but not limited to war), nationalizing education in many ways through No Child Left Behind act, heck republicans even want to legislate social issues through altering our constitution (gay marriage ban) which is at least symbolically way in the wrong direction of keeping government out of private lives.

9/19/2008 6:52:15 AM

^
That's a great point, Sup. But you forgot the other half. While the Repubs have used gov't to meddle in our social liberties , tThe democrats have increased gov't meddling into our economic lives. They want to redistribute wealth, punish achievement and foment class warfare for political gain.

Both parties are guilty of growing gov't. The founders envisioned our country a sea of liberty with little islands of gov't intrusion. What we have today is a ever-growing sea of gov't with little islands of freedom.

9/19/2008 11:30:31 AM

Nobody wants to "punish achievement", unless you supply your own definition for "punishing achievement" and then try to substitute this term wherever you find the definition.

You're misrepresenting peoples' intentions (perhaps not the consequences of their policies, but this is another debate altogether).

9/19/2008 12:02:03 PM

let's see. I make 30K, i get taxed 15%. If I make 100K, I get taxed 50%. I'd say that's "punishing achievement" right there

9/19/2008 12:11:24 PM

I'm not sure what kind of intentionally oblique, oversimplifying simpleton would ...

Oh hey aaronburro, I didn't see you standing there.

9/19/2008 12:24:16 PM

Quit your job and die in a fucking gutter about it

9/19/2008 12:27:19 PM

Quote :

"democrats have increased gov't meddling into our economic lives. They want to redistribute wealth, punish achievement and foment class warfare for political gain. "

You forget the GOP also enjoys meddling in coporate welfare and Dubya in particular loves starting conflicts and initiating gov't programs that allows him to give no-bid contracts to some of his Big Business buddies.

9/19/2008 1:05:49 PM

Bobo:

Quote :

"If Dems are the ones that believe in big government, how come the deficit rises so damn much under Republican presidents? "

I asked it on page 2, but no one dared, or cared to answer ....

9/19/2008 9:45:15 PM

Quote :

" punish achievement and foment class warfare for political gain."

Republicans always say the "punish achievement" thing, but i've never met a single person IRL who didn't go for a better job or opportunity because they felt like they were being "punished." it's a ludicrous concept.

And class warfare foments itself when the income gap grows, which it usually does under republican policies.

In any case, unless the GOP changes its messages, it's going to go away in the next 20-30 years. If you look at voter demographics, it's primarily white men keeping them afloat. As the percentage of white voters drops, it's going to get harder and harder for the GOP to win elections based on a neo-con platform.

9/19/2008 9:53:00 PM

the baby killers want to control the market too. one step closer w/ obama. hillary is too white (according to moron at least)

9/19/2008 9:55:49 PM

Quote :

" hillary is too white (according to moron at least)"

huh?

9/19/2008 10:00:20 PM

Quote :

"And class warfare foments itself when the income gap grows, which it usually does under republican policies. In any case, unless the GOP changes its messages, it's going to go away in the next 20-30 years. If you look at voter demographics, it's primarily white men keeping them afloat. As the percentage of white voters drops, it's going to get harder and harder for the GOP to win elections based on a neo-con platform. "

I don't mind the GOP action concerning the gov't as far as economic policies. Where I have a problem is their constant "if you disagree with us you are unamerican, USA #1 other countries better watch out or we'll come for you, and the push for Jesus legislation to make our country the United Christian States of America.

9/19/2008 10:03:01 PM

Quote :

"You forget the GOP also enjoys meddling in coporate welfare "

Very true. Politicians, in general, given the ability- will try to gain more and more influence and power over us. We are collectively too lazy and/or busy to keep them under control.

We shouldn't be giving them this much power, that was the beauty of the Constitution.
The first dollar of charity we allowed congress to dole out to some deserving person sealed our doom.

Quote :

"Nobody wants to "punish achievement" "

A "Windfalls Profit Tax" surely taxes achievement. You're making too much profit, you're greedy, You're not being fair, You're making money on something everyone needs... we must take that away from you- only because you have it to take.

The top 50% of income earners pay about 97% of all income tax. If that's not punishment, what is?

9/19/2008 10:03:13 PM

Quote :

"The top 50% of income earners pay about 97% of all income tax. If that's not punishment, what is? "

That's the income gap that helps foment class warfare.

9/19/2008 10:08:21 PM

Does that imply that 50% of the people make 97% of the money? .... That just might be that expanding gap between the rich and the poor ...

9/19/2008 11:02:56 PM

^7
I imagine smaller government but less taxes could lead to deficits.

9/19/2008 11:03:57 PM

Quote :

"And class warfare foments itself when the income gap grows, which it usually does under republican policies. "

what he meant, i believe, was that while the GOP might create the conditions that allow a greater disparity in income (which they don't really have a problem with, and personally, i don't either. don't hold me back because someone else can't hold the pace.), the Democrats stoke the flames of jealousy and contempt for political gain, because they know there are more votes to be had by whipping the base of the pyramid into a froth than by appealing to those at the top who've "made it".


^^ oh come on, dude...the numbers are out there. you don't have to make shit up. i think the fact that we have a progressive tax system is pretty well established, too.

9/20/2008 6:31:36 AM

One of the main drivers of the income gap is the ever-increasing premium paid to skilled workers. This is primarily due to technological change, which both requires higher-skilled labor and displaces lower-skilled labor. The solution is not to blindly punish those at the top who have invested in human capital (thereby disincentivizing future human-capital investment) but to provide better access to training and education in order to lift lower brackets into higher ones. This is why we see very little return from 60+ years of aggressive wealth redistribution.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 8:11 AM. Reason : .]

9/20/2008 8:08:38 AM

Quote :

"This is why we see very little return from 60+ years of aggressive wealth redistribution."

Very little return = peoples' needs being met? Hmm.

Would you consider the publicly funded university system part of wealth redistribution?

9/20/2008 11:29:17 AM

Quote :

"This is why we see very little return from 60+ years of aggressive wealth redistribution."

wow, you must REALLY hate America.

9/20/2008 12:01:22 PM

Very little return in that it has proven to be a very poor means in which to achieve our end, assuming the end is to lift those out of poverty permanently, not just prop them up with subsidies.

Technically, education is a form of wealth redistribution. However, given the overall educational status of the country can vastly increase our productivity, education has neighborhood effects that benefit us all. It also is a better means to achieve the above-mentioned end.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ,]

9/20/2008 12:02:50 PM

^^ I think I have made it clear in this thread that I by no means am against the act of giving. I just believe the government has a poor track record of doing it. Communities and private charities are always more effective in their execution. They are also more effective in that the benefactors of their aid are much less likely to abuse their aid than if it were the government providing the aid.

9/20/2008 12:10:46 PM

Quote :

"Very little return in that it has proven to be a very poor means in which to achieve our end, assuming the end is to lift those out of poverty permanently, not just prop them up with subsidies."

It's impossible in our system for everyone to be lifted out of poverty permanently. How do you expect there to NOT be people whose job it is to sweep floors?

I can't speak for the policy makers, but I always viewed the goal of our society as keeping people from flipping out and wanting to blow stuff up, which we do reasonably well. For the past 60+ years, our so-called "wealth redistribution" (which in reality it's FAR from) has made the US one of the best places to live in the world. We could still be better, but at the least, progressive taxation isn't as crippling as certain people who hate the American way like to make it out to be.

9/20/2008 12:16:42 PM

Quote :

"Deregulation may have allowed banks to act foolishly."

Yes.

Quote :

"The thing that encouraged them to act foolishly was the gov't telling them that Freddie and Fannie would protect them if the ill-advised loans went south. Without painful consequences, why would any bank not take advantage?"

Even with bail-outs, all this shit is still utterly catastrophic. The consequences are still very painful.

There's no way you guys can genuinely believe that people fucked up so fantastically because there was the possibility of a bail-out.

This is blatantly the result of deregulation.

So seriously, please stop lying. This shit is important. I mean, you say there must be painful consequences, that we have to learn our lesson. And I agree. So don't fuck up the lesson...people need to know the truth so this shit won't happen again. Put your anti-government, free market agenda aside for just a second. The truth is more important right now.

9/20/2008 12:52:46 PM

Quote :

"progressive taxation isn't as crippling as certain people who hate the American way like to make it out to be"

What's sadly ironic is that the "American way" as you see it is completely antithetical to the principles the U.S. was founded upon.

Quote :

"For the past 60+ years, our so-called "wealth redistribution" (which in reality it's FAR from) has made the US one of the best places to live in the world."

So redistribution is what makes U.S. a better place to live than France, Germany, Russia, ect? If that is the case, why does Europe, with much higher rates of redistribution, have slower growth rates than the U.S.?

9/20/2008 1:06:54 PM

He said it was one of the best places, not the best place.

9/20/2008 1:09:46 PM

Quote :

" If that is the case, why does Europe, with much higher rates of redistribution, have slower growth rates than the U.S.?"

They don't have extreme deficit spending and $10 trillion in debt.

The US is like the guy who does to the club with Gucci sunglasses and Armani jeans he bought with credit cards. He tries to act like a baller, but everybody knows he can't afford that shit.

9/20/2008 1:28:18 PM

well, to be fair, much of our debt was incurred helping Europe pull out of the destruction caused by WWII.

Quote :

"There's no way you guys can genuinely believe that people fucked up so fantastically because there was the possibility of a bail-out. This is blatantly the result of deregulation."

Bullshit. This is the result of "progressives" pushing for banks to lend to people who had no business trying to purchase a home, all in the name of "fairness" and "diversity" in home-ownership, coupled with government-sponsored entities with implicit government backing. anyone who says otherwise is selling something

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2008 1:38:59 PM

Quote :

"They don't have extreme deficit spending and $10 trillion in debt. "

So U.S. economic prosperity is solely attributable to borrowed funds? If this were the case, would we not see a correlation between GDP and debt/GDP?

9/20/2008 1:59:13 PM

exactly. Like I said, much of our debt is due to intentional deficit spending after WWII in order to push money over to Europe

9/20/2008 2:05:11 PM

It's time to expose the "Big Lie" about Republicans and deficit spending ... (not to mention the fact that aaronburro doesn't know what he's talking about). The deficits were high at the end of WWII, but they were coming down ... until Reagan.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Until Reagan, the national debt was going down, and GDP going up. We have never recovered from the debt he incured. What we have in the Conservative Republicans is a strong idealology that doesn't get backed up by the facts. These are some intersting graphs:

http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/

9/20/2008 9:24:54 PM