• 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!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

I tend to agree. I do believe things would have been much, MUCH worse if we hadn't bailed out AIG and a few of the other big players. But maybe we needed to feel the pain a little more. As it stands, I'm not sure we learned a damn thing. I know a lot of people on this thread certainly didn't , anyway.

That's my point. We didn't learn a thing as a nation. We should have made such a large point, that it never happens again.
 
That's not liberal logic... it's the truth. There is no attribute other than his income keeping him from qualifying for those programs.

There are a lot of programs that I don't use that I understand need to be funded. I don't bitch about it, because I'm not childish.

sure it is. he is funding a program he can't use. that the end of it.
it has no benefit to him other than taking his money and giving it to someone else that did nothing for it.

no you just don't care other people that like to keep what they earn do care.
 
You really don't know the difference between a loan and a handout. That explains a lot.

Sure, and I get that in the circumstances, the "loan" WAS a handout? It was a lifeline, without which, in the FREE MARKET they'd have collapsed to rubble.

Again, we have someone who calls himself a "conservative" defending crony capitalism - government picking winners and losers. I'd think you'd be embarrassed. As you said, many banks DID go under. How many could have made it if they got a loan from Uncle Fed for whatever it took to get them through the rough spots? Hundreds? That's my guess....
 
Sure, and I get that in the circumstances, the "loan" WAS a handout? It was a lifeline, without which, in the FREE MARKET they'd have collapsed to rubble.

Again, we have someone who calls himself a "conservative" defending crony capitalism - government picking winners and losers. I'd think you'd be embarrassed. As you said, many banks DID go under. How many could have made it if they got a loan from Uncle Fed for whatever it took to get them through the rough spots? Hundreds? That's my guess....

The free market would not have collapsed. The banks that did things right would have grown to fill the void.
 
I don't think you understand what really happened. The bad "securities" were homes they couldn't sell for enough to cover the defaults. And AIG insured them and those swaps were all over the world. If AIG was allowed to go bankrupt, the swaps would have become worth exactly zero and then the damage is global and unrecoverable. Loan AIG and other institutions enough to cover their obligations and the crash doesn't hit the whole world (and pensions and retirement plans for everyone). And the thing is.... All those financial instruments made sense and would never have been a problem in any normal circumstances.

You've got to be joking. That's like saying, "selling flood insurance to ocean front houses in Florida at low, low rates makes total sense, except when there's a hurricane."

But circumstances weren't normal. People bought into the idea that a home will only go up in value and so they bought whatever they could at any price asked and felt all fat and happy. The market overheated and housing prices dropped and now they're not so happy and figure that since they paid more than the house is worth, they just walk, take the credit hit and stick the banks (and ultimately, all the rest of us) with the losses. THAT was the basis of the crash.

You must be a banker of some sort or have family in banking, because I've never seen anyone so unwilling to place blame at the feet of lenders who BEGGED deadbeats to borrow, stripped out record pay and bonuses, then left taxpayers with the task of bailing out their FAILED institutions. It's remarkable, really.

And you put the "people bought into the idea that a home will only go up in value" as if this was a popular movement. It was $billions in PR by the home builders, realtors, lenders, magazines, TV shows, newspapers, and more who convinced them, then appraisers justified those prices, lenders begged them to take out more loans, then took those loans, agencies rated them AAA, etc.
 
The free market would not have collapsed. The banks that did things right would have grown to fill the void.

Maybe I was unclear - BoA would have been reduced to rubble. I wasn't making a comment on the banking system as a whole.
 
Maybe I was unclear - BoA would have been reduced to rubble. I wasn't making a comment on the banking system as a whole.

I have no problem with BOA being extinct.
 
Wow. You really do think the purpose of the military is to be global corporate security guards. That explains a lot.

Not its purpose, just one of its many roles. Seems fairly obvious that the global stability and influence we 'purchase' with the world's largest military force is a direct and intended benefit to U.S. corporate interests abroad, and that's a good thing overall. Do you think otherwise? Do you not think that our immense military capabilities substantially reduces the risk of businesses investing $billions in some fairly unstable locations across the globe?
 
Not its purpose, just one of its many roles. Seems fairly obvious that the global stability and influence we 'purchase' with the world's largest military force is a direct and intended benefit to U.S. corporate interests abroad, and that's a good thing overall. Do you think otherwise? Do you not think that our immense military capabilities substantially reduces the risk of businesses investing $billions in some fairly unstable locations across the globe?

It's not one of their many roles. US corporations have lost properties, factories, plantations, etc., numerous times due to instability of foreign governments and the military isn't there to protect their properties. We might send in the military to extract US citizens if war breaks out around them but they don't have to be factory owners for that. You need to use a different argument if you want to ply Obama's retarded "you didn't build that" pinkoism.
 
The free market would not have collapsed. The banks that did things right would have grown to fill the void.

A very naive view.. text book sure, but in reality no. To have this happen, you would actually have to have a free market.. which we dont.
 
Sure, and I get that in the circumstances, the "loan" WAS a handout? It was a lifeline, without which, in the FREE MARKET they'd have collapsed to rubble.

Again, we have someone who calls himself a "conservative" defending crony capitalism - government picking winners and losers. I'd think you'd be embarrassed. As you said, many banks DID go under. How many could have made it if they got a loan from Uncle Fed for whatever it took to get them through the rough spots? Hundreds? That's my guess....

Dude, you really don't get what happened here at all. We didn't send them a lifeline. Not really. What we did was to save the banking industry from collapse. We only loaned these banks money to keep them above water so they could make good on THEIR obligations. Granted, these corporations remained in business because of these loans, but it wasn't keeping them in business that we cared about. We loaned them money so that THEY could absorb the losses. Why let them go bankrupt and eat all their losses when we could loan them the money to pay their obligations and get it back with interest? I understand why the bailout happened and maybe you'd be happier now if the global recession would have been a global depression instead, but I think we're actually much better off than we would have been if we hadn't bailed them out (and richer, too, since we're getting really good interest rates off these loans - enough to make them want to sue for how unfair the terms were. Poor little dears. :D
 
It's not one of their many roles. US corporations have lost properties, factories, plantations, etc., numerous times due to instability of foreign governments and the military isn't there to protect their properties. We might send in the military to extract US citizens if war breaks out around them but they don't have to be factory owners for that. You need to use a different argument if you want to ply Obama's retarded "you didn't build that" pinkoism.

First of all, I said "reduced the risk" not "eliminated all risk."

U.S. foreign policy isn't tied to the hip to corporate interests? Give me a break. Of course it is, there is nothing wrong with that, and obviously the world's largest military is an integral part of our foreign policy apparatus. And there was a lot more to my comment that you ignored.

Bottom line is the needs of corporate America are at the very top, if not #1 on the list of the constituencies our government serves. You have to be naive to pretend otherwise, and we can all acknowledge that without necessarily condemning this fact of life. Our economy affects the well being of citizens so what serves the best interests of business can and often if not generally does serve all our interests.
 
First of all, I said "reduced the risk" not "eliminated all risk."

The US military does precious little, if anything, to "reduce the risk" of their factories, properties and even money being seized by foreign governments. It sounds like a good argument just to say it but when you really try to point to examples where the US military stopped a revolution because it was bad for a US corporation, you come up with no examples to make the case. You're better off with "you didn't build that" even though the rich and the corporations really did "build that" since they pay the vast majority of all the taxes in this country. Arguing that "your success is only because of the infrastructure built primarily with YOUR tax dollars" isn't a very compelling argument for "we the 47% who pay no income taxes" raising YOUR taxes however it pleases us to pay for whatever WE want.

You, too, live in the country protected by that military, and the fact that you can't do a highly profitable business here isn't anyone else's fault and it is no excuse to stick those that are the most successful with all the bill for something that benefits you just as much, whether you took full advantage of it or not.
 
Last edited:
Dude, you really don't get what happened here at all. We didn't send them a lifeline. Not really. What we did was to save the banking industry from collapse. We only loaned these banks money to keep them above water so they could make good on THEIR obligations. Granted, these corporations remained in business because of these loans, but it wasn't keeping them in business that we cared about. We loaned them money so that THEY could absorb the losses. Why let them go bankrupt and eat all their losses when we could loan them the money to pay their obligations and get it back with interest? I understand why the bailout happened and maybe you'd be happier now if the global recession would have been a global depression instead, but I think we're actually much better off than we would have been if we hadn't bailed them out (and richer, too, since we're getting really good interest rates off these loans - enough to make them want to sue for how unfair the terms were. Poor little dears. :D

I get what happened quite well. The first thing I understand clearly is the direct loans ($45 billion in the case of BoA that wasn't available at any price in the "free market") were just the tip of the iceberg of the $TRILLIONS spent, loaned, granted, guaranteed for free, etc. that was necessary to stabilize the system and prevent BoA and others from disappearing as going concerns. Much of it continued for YEARS.

But I don't really care to debate whether or not the loans and the other $trillions injected into the system were a "lifeline" or "bailout" or not - of course they were. Even bankers admit this much.
 
I get what happened quite well. The first thing I understand clearly is the direct loans ($45 billion in the case of BoA that wasn't available at any price in the "free market") were just the tip of the iceberg of the $TRILLIONS spent, loaned, granted, guaranteed for free, etc. that was necessary to stabilize the system and prevent BoA and others from disappearing as going concerns. Much of it continued for YEARS.

But I don't really care to debate whether or not the loans and the other $trillions injected into the system were a "lifeline" or "bailout" or not - of course they were. Even bankers admit this much.

They saved some banks. Others didn't fare so well. But in no case was it a "handout" and we didn't save banks because of some love for them. It was a matter of patching up the big-ass hole in the boat that we're all in so that WE didn't drown. And getting a better return on OUR investment for our loan to them than they got for their loans to deadbeats seems to even the score pretty well. It was punitive and the punishment was deserved. But we got our pound of flesh by way of double digit interest rates on the bailout money in a time when most investors would have killed to get double digit interest on their money. :D
 
The US military does precious little, if anything, to "reduce the risk" of their factories, properties and even money being seized by foreign governments. It sounds like a good argument just to say it but when you really try to point to examples where the US military stopped a revolution because it was bad for a US corporation, you come up with no examples to make the case.

OK, you're right, we have history''s most powerful military force that projects its power across the planet and this does nothing to add to the stability that businesses interests rely on for investment, functioning markets, etc. :doh

Come on, you can't even believe that. If you want to argue degrees, or that the benefits they receive pale in comparison to the taxes they pay, fine. But to pretend that business interests aren't at or near the very top of the concerns of our entire foreign policy establishment, of which the military is a core component, just is incredible.

You're better off with "you didn't build that" even though the rich and the corporations really did "build that" since they pay the vast majority of all the taxes in this country. Arguing that "your success is only because of the infrastructure built primarily with YOUR tax dollars" isn't a very compelling argument for "we the 47% who pay no income taxes" raising YOUR taxes however it pleases us to pay for whatever WE want.

It's not just infrastructure - goodness.

You, too, live in the country protected by that military, and the fact that you can't do a highly profitable business here isn't anyone else's fault and it is no excuse to stick those that are the most successful with all the bill for something that benefits you just as much, whether you took full advantage of it or not.

No need to make this personal, especially when you know nothing about me. You may find this hard to believe, but disagreeing with you on these matters doesn't mean the person is some kind of failure. It might make you feel better to think that, but you're just kidding yourself.
 
They saved some banks. Others didn't fare so well. But in no case was it a "handout" and we didn't save banks because of some love for them. It was a matter of patching up the big-ass hole in the boat that we're all in so that WE didn't drown.

Of course it was a handout - crony capitalism at its finest. But I agree that it was necessary. Doesn't change what it was.

And getting a better return on OUR investment for our loan to them than they got for their loans to deadbeats seems to even the score pretty well.

If they didn't get a good return on their loans to deadbeats, which they were begging the deadbeats to take, then they have no one to blame but the idiots in their organizations who made those loans, paid out record bonuses on the "profits" of those loans while the bubble was inflating, then came running to Uncle Sam for a bailout when the loans went bad.

It was punitive and the punishment was deserved. But we got our pound of flesh by way of double digit interest rates on the bailout money in a time when most investors would have killed to get double digit interest on their money. :D

Wrong - investors wouldn't loan to the banks at ANY price at that point because without the MASSIVE and coordinated GOVERNMENT rescue of those banks, the loans would never have been repaid.
 
Of course it was a handout - crony capitalism at its finest. But I agree that it was necessary. Doesn't change what it was.



If they didn't get a good return on their loans to deadbeats, which they were begging the deadbeats to take, then they have no one to blame but the idiots in their organizations who made those loans, paid out record bonuses on the "profits" of those loans while the bubble was inflating, then came running to Uncle Sam for a bailout when the loans went bad.



Wrong - investors wouldn't loan to the banks at ANY price at that point because without the MASSIVE and coordinated GOVERNMENT rescue of those banks, the loans would never have been repaid.

OK. You're convinced that Obama engaged in crony capitalism and no amount of explanation to the contrary is going to change your mind so I leave you to your opinion on that. But...... gotta say.... if a little odd to argue that it was necessary AND it was crony capitalism. Crony capitalism, by it's very "meme" indicates that it wasn't necessary but gratuitous. But nevermind. I've got work to do.
 
Last edited:
you DISHONESTLY quoted what I said

i said I GET NOTHING EXTRA in return for all those tax dollars forced out of them

You poor ****ing baby. All you do is bitch about the small amount of money you spend in taxes. Why not grow a pair and deal with it. You have more left over than a vast majority of the rest of the country so shut up already!
 
the same way they did.
save and invest, save and invest. it has nothing to do with luck.

I look to double my salary over the next 5 years or so. it won't have anything to do with luck but being good at what I do.
I have been to places with real wage gap. America is nothing.
So have I.
And, I don't think I'd like to see the rest of the world become like those places, would you?
 
You poor ****ing baby. All you do is bitch about the small amount of money you spend in taxes. Why not grow a pair and deal with it. You have more left over than a vast majority of the rest of the country so shut up already!

typical attitude of a big government statist. Unless you are willing to pay as much taxes as I currently do, your silly rants have no merit or honesty. Your attitude is parasitic and this crap that its ok to tax people who are more productive and industrious than you are to the point that they have a few more bucks than the 47% who suck on the public tit is disgusting

I see you have not addressed the fact that my comment was dishonestly misquoted
 
No, it was banks and bankers who created them, and spent $billions buying the regulations that allowed them to do so. And "democrats" - LOL. Republicans were just along for the ride. Never had any power to influence anything! Of course republicans get credit for the growth and the jobs, but not the bubble that created the growth and jobs.



Redistribution from homeowners to lenders and other financial institutions making record profits, paying our record bonuses, under regulations they spent decades shaping with $billions spent lobbying and campaigning. But it was all the fault of someone else.....

Sheesh, it should be obvious the "equity and fairness" stuff is just the bones thrown to the proles as a small price for what the financial behemoths wanted. Like the cost of tipping the valet at a five star resort.


You literally just made that up. How absolutley ridiculous.

Clintons Fannie Mae Vice Chair appointee Jamie Gorelick publicly lobbied banks in the late 90s to sell the GSEs their Subprime loans so Fannie and Freddie could turn them into Securities.

And the GSEs were happy to oblige. Freddie Mac guaranteed the first large block of Subprime loans in 1998. 380 Million dollar worth.

In the end the wound up holding Trillions of dollars in Subprime securities and loans.

Fannie and Freddie were the only two Financial entities put under SEC investigation for their part in the Subprime mortgage crisis.

In 2004, 2006 and 2011.

The banks.....Lol.
 
So have I.
And, I don't think I'd like to see the rest of the world become like those places, would you?

good thing that won't happen or can't.
the economy is to fluid and our system is setup in a way that they can't own it all.
 
good thing that won't happen or can't.
the economy is to fluid and our system is setup in a way that they can't own it all.

Really?

Remember, we're not talking about America. We're talking about the world. The theme is that the 1% of the wealthiest will own more than half of the world's wealth, not the US wealth.

Just how is the world economy set up?
 
typical attitude of a big government statist. Unless you are willing to pay as much taxes as I currently do, your silly rants have no merit or honesty. Your attitude is parasitic and this crap that its ok to tax people who are more productive and industrious than you are to the point that they have a few more bucks than the 47% who suck on the public tit is disgusting

I see you have not addressed the fact that my comment was dishonestly misquoted

your wasting your time.

they see it as not fair that you worked saved and invested carried low debt or no debt and worked to be successful to where you got.
all they can see is that you somehow cheated someone else out of their due and that you should be forced to pay simply because you got lucky

it had nothing to do with your skill or knowledge or drive to work it was all luck.
 
Back
Top Bottom