• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

Which party is more responsible for the state of the economy?

  • The Republican Party

    Votes: 33 63.5%

  • The Democratic Party

    Votes: 19 36.5%
  • Total voters
    52
Centinel said:
No, I don't want a safe deposit box. I want a checking account that contractually prohibits the bank from lending out my money. It would 100% eliminate the possibility that I as a depositor would be left holding the bag if the bank's investments go sour. I would then not need Glass-Steagall or the FDIC to protect me.

The Glass-Steagall is trying to solve the problem the wrong way. Regulating whether banks may invest only in morgtages or whether they may invest in exotic financial instruments is closing the barn door after the horse is out. The root of the problem is that the bank is loaning out money that depositors consider as their assets. The same dollar cannot be simultaneously owned by two different people. That is the root of the problem.

And if the response is that depositors would rather have their interest, well then they are not depositors, they are either lenders or investors, and as such I see no reason why the government has any obligation to backstop any lender's or investor's risk.
Click to expand...

That checking account would cost you a fortune in fees. I am sure that some financial institution somewhere would offer you what you want.

In a fractional reserve banking system the same dollar can be owed to many different people, which is what the US has currently and every modern economy is based on. To switch over to a non fractional banking system would see a massive contraction in the economy as loans stop being made to reduce the money supply

Of course most depositors who are seeking interest bearing savings and checking accounts are investors, otherwise they would stuff their money under the bed for safe keeping. As for why the government backstops lenders and investors risk, it does so for the stability of the economic and societal system. Some view that as being rather important and as such created the FDIC among other regulations
 
Republicans, no contest. The Democrats may be completely incompetent, but at least they're not actively malicious.
 
atrasicarius said:
Republicans, no contest. The Democrats may be completely incompetent, but at least they're not actively malicious.
Click to expand...

wanna explain that claim?. The dems tax policy is completely malicious. Its economic vandalism appealing to butt hurt losers--we will punish the rich to make you feel better
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
In a fractional reserve banking system the same dollar can be owed to many different people, which is what the US has currently and every modern economy is based on. To switch over to a non fractional banking system would see a massive contraction in the economy as loans stop being made to reduce the money supply

Of course most depositors who are seeking interest bearing savings and checking accounts are investors, otherwise they would stuff their money under the bed for safe keeping. As for why the government backstops lenders and investors risk, it does so for the stability of the economic and societal system. Some view that as being rather important and as such created the FDIC among other regulations
Click to expand...

Obviously, people are free to invest their money as they wish, and if they want to risk their money by lending it to a bank that in turn lends it out, I guess that's their business. However, I don't see why it is the responsibility of the government to cover their bets and socialize their losses. Certainly, it doesn't fall within the federal government's set of powers to backstop depositors or banks.
 
TurtleDude said:
wanna explain that claim?. The dems tax policy is completely malicious. Its economic vandalism appealing to butt hurt losers--we will punish the rich to make you feel better
Click to expand...

Not really, not to you. I've explained a time or twelve, and it always goes right over your head. I doubt one more time is gonna help.
 
atrasicarius said:
Not really, not to you. I've explained a time or twelve, and it always goes right over your head. I doubt one more time is gonna help.
Click to expand...

where do you get off thinking any of your explanations are sophisticated enough to go over anyone's head? The dem policies are based on demonizing those who already pay lots of taxes to slake the butt hurt whining of those who are not successful
 
TurtleDude said:
where do you get off thinking any of your explanations are sophisticated enough to go over anyone's head? The dem policies are based on demonizing those who already pay lots of taxes to slake the butt hurt whining of those who are not successful
Click to expand...

Your explanations don't have to be very sophisticated to go over people's heads when their heads are buried in sand.
 
Centinel said:
Obviously, people are free to invest their money as they wish, and if they want to risk their money by lending it to a bank that in turn lends it out, I guess that's their business. However, I don't see why it is the responsibility of the government to cover their bets and socialize their losses. Certainly, it doesn't fall within the federal government's set of powers to backstop depositors or banks.
Click to expand...

And yet it does

So by default it has the power to do so
 
atrasicarius said:
Your explanations don't have to be very sophisticated to go over people's heads when their heads are buried in sand.
Click to expand...

I agree, calling one's self a socialist when you are still a college kid is about as ostrich like as it gets
 
TurtleDude said:
I agree, calling one's self a socialist when you are still a college kid is about as ostrich like as it gets
Click to expand...

Nice comeback.
defiant-peewee-meme-generator-i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i-65f907.jpg

Go back the dungeon and practice a little more.
 
this poll is exactly what is wrong with America! Your all to busy playing the blame game and taking sides instead of actually paying attention to whats going on. Honestly don't care who gets elected next year I juust hope who ever does can actually govern without all this party politics BS.
 
Higgins86 said:
this poll is exactly what is wrong with America! Your all to busy playing the blame game and taking sides instead of actually paying attention to whats going on. Honestly don't care who gets elected next year I juust hope who ever does can actually govern without all this party politics BS.
Click to expand...

Then we need to throw the bums out. Virtually all of them.

FYI:
Even Conservatives Think Republicans Are Sabotaging the Economy to Hurt Obama - Politics - The Atlantic Wire
 
Higgins86 said:
but its a two way street! Lets be honest the Dem's are no more noble and the GOP, both parties are as bad as each other to them its not about helping the people its about getting one over each other.
Click to expand...

Both are cancers upon the American people. I said that in 2003 back on Whistlestopper and it's just as true now as it is then. I take it you're working with the third party initiative? IMO, if that actually gets off the ground a puts a sizable portion of candidates into Congress, we'll see some real changes real fast.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think more than a few dems were hoping for lots of American KIAs in 03-04 to use against Bush in the 04 election.
Click to expand...

That's true. Remember how Navy was bashing Obama over casualties in Afghanistan during the Afghanistan surge? Same ****.

and while your argument may have some merit, some can honestly say Obama an Reid are so bad for America engaging in such actions is -in the long run-better for America
Click to expand...

Obama and Reid are no more better or worse than Mitchell or Boehner. However, Mitchell edges them out in IMO by a hair. When you make it your #1 goal to get rid of Obama, that's not good.

Getting Americans back to work? Not as important
Getting the economy back? Not as important

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the GOP is deliberately stalling the economy to reduce Obama's chances in 2012. The voters should punish them for that. They are putting politics above people, that should be a cardinal sin for public officials.
 
Centinel said:
Yes, as long as the bank has enough on hand to satisfy depositors' withdrawals, everything should be fine. What could possibly go wrong?

I don't wish to earn interest on my deposits. I want a guarantee that my deposits will always immediately be available for my exclusive use. When I deposit my money for safekeeping I am no more loaning it to the bank than I am loaning my coat to the coat check. It is mine, I am entrusting it for safekeeping, and I do not expect that the bailee is going to turn around and use the money for his own money-making purposes.
Click to expand...

Then don't use a bank? And do they not keep all of the checking account on hand (I am not sure about that one)?
 
Centinel said:
And why is it necessary to keep investment banking separate from commercial banking? What is that designed to protect us from?
Click to expand...

Loss of people's life savings by wild speculation and trillions of dollars in bailouts to banks to big to fail. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 was a precursor to the financial speculation leading to the housing bust and a deep U.S. recession. HR 1489- Prudent Banking Act of 2011 separates commercial banking from investment banking and would once again prevent banks from doing business on wall street, and the other way around.
 
Catawba said:
Loss of people's life savings by wild speculation and trillions of dollars in bailouts to banks to big to fail. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 was a precursor to the financial speculation leading to the housing bust and a deep U.S. recession. HR 1489- Prudent Banking Act of 2011 separates commercial banking from investment banking and would once again prevent banks from doing business on wall street, and the other way around.
Click to expand...

Regarding the loss of people's life savings: Lord Tamerlain and I discussed this above. My contention is that Glass-Steagall is just nibbling around the edges of the problem, and it is fractional reserve banking that puts depositors money at risk. Sure, Glass-Steagall can try to mitigate the risk banks take, but the underlying fact of the matter is that banks are risking depositors rent and grocery money as soon as they use it for their own investments.

You can go ahead and pass Glass-Steagall, but until fractional reserve banking is eliminated, depositors money will always be at risk.

Regarding bailing out the banks: They should have been allowed to fail. The fear of failure tempers greed. If the government bankrolls the banks, they lose their fear of failure and become ever more reckless, eventually requiring more and bigger bailouts. The free market is a profit and loss system. Without losses, it's just crony capitalism.
 
Centinel said:
Regarding the loss of people's life savings: Lord Tamerlain and I discussed this above. My contention is that Glass-Steagall is just nibbling around the edges of the problem, and it is fractional reserve banking that puts depositors money at risk. Sure, Glass-Steagall can try to mitigate the risk banks take, but the underlying fact of the matter is that banks are risking depositors rent and grocery money as soon as they use it for their own investments.

You can go ahead and pass Glass-Steagall, but until fractional reserve banking is eliminated, depositors money will always be at risk.
Click to expand...

I agree with Lord Tamerlain on that.

Regarding bailing out the banks: They should have been allowed to fail. The fear of failure tempers greed. If the government bankrolls the banks, they lose their fear of failure and become ever more reckless, eventually requiring more and bigger bailouts. The free market is a profit and loss system. Without losses, it's just crony capitalism.
Click to expand...

If the investment banks were not combined with commercial banks I would agree. That is why OWS and I support HR 1489, to again establish the firewall between the two, so taxpayers won't be put in that position again.
 
Catawba said:
If the investment banks were not combined with commercial banks I would agree. That is why OWS and I support HR 1489, to again establish the firewall between the two, so taxpayers won't be put in that position again.
Click to expand...

It is inflationary monetary policy and fractional reserve banking that caused the collapse. You can try various regulations, of course, but depositors money will never be secure until they can deposit in a bank that holds 100% of it.

I'd support HR 1489, if it also contained language to gradually phase out fractional reserve deposit banking over time (excluding time deposit accounts) and established a regulation specifying a given quantity of gold or silver as the monetary unit of account for the US.
 
Centinel said:
It is inflationary monetary policy and fractional reserve banking that caused the collapse. You can try various regulations, of course, but depositors money will never be secure until they can deposit in a bank that holds 100% of it.

I'd support HR 1489, if it also contained language to gradually phase out fractional reserve deposit banking over time (excluding time deposit accounts) and established a regulation specifying a given quantity of gold or silver as the monetary unit of account for the US.
Click to expand...

The evidence is just not there to support your opinion:

DecadeInflation.jpg

US Inflation by Decade Chart

"In the fall of 2008, the U.S. economy stood on the brink of collapse. Part of the reason is that the financial system, particularly the commercial and investment banks, had been deregulated starting in 1980 and culminating in 1999. In 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. The Glass-Steagall Act separated the powers of commercial and investment banking, which insured that banks would not take too much risk with depositors' money."

"After the repeal of Glass-Steagall, greed won out over prudence and banks did indeed take too much risk with their depositors' money. Between 1999 and 2008, Wall Street became less like the fabled financial district and more like the Las Vegas Strip. Even the regulation that still existed didn't seem to be working."

"The housing market, before the Great Recession, was moving full steam ahead and borrowers who couldn't really afford large home mortgages borrowed money anyway for mortgages. Big banks put these mortgages together into packages of securities of derivatives, called credit default swaps, which became the toxic assets that we would later hear so much about. The derivatives market is not regulated so banks could slice and dice these home mortgages into packages of derivatives just about any way they wanted.

Enter Senator Phil Gramm once again. In 2000, Senator Gramm put a provision in legislation that was passed, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, exempting credit default swaps from regulation.

A perfect storm ensued with a phenomenon called sub-prime mortgages. Even those people who really didn't qualify for large mortgages started being approved for those mortgages. Countrywide Mortgage and its founder, Angelo Mozilo, was one of the biggest offenders. The traditional disclosure required of borrowers was not required and Countrywide was making mortgages to just about anyone who walked in the door. Dick Fuld, who was at the helm of Lehman Brothers when it failed, invested in huge amounts of subprime mortgages as did the government agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were later bailed out because of this decision. Lehman Brothers was one of the largest failures of a financial firm in history."
How do we Prevent Another Financial Crisis?
 
Is it true that Sen. Obama offered to help Sen. Dodd with a threatened filibuster to reforms of Fannie and Freddie? Does anyone have a link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom