• 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!

Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

Goldenboy219;1058731847]It is intellectually dishonest for you to label or accuse me of anything negative in regards to my character or success, given the history of my statements in this thread. When i say you are expressing ignorance, senile tendencies or even question your ability, it is because you commonly mis-organize data, claim opinion as fact, or totally disregard important points pertaining to the subject matter. Providing raw data, and completely taking it out of context to fit some sort of political fantasia is not the work of an honest debater. Because you attack me and my sources while totally disregarding my argument, i have no desire to continue in this discussion.

Since what you post here is mostly your opinion or the opinion of others which are very subjective, I posted mine and stand by it until proven wrong. What have you contributed to society lately?

Your argument is based upon an ideology that is a failure. When you post Krugman as a source and ignore his vision as to the role of govt. you ignore that his opinion is biased towards an ideology. I posted BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and U.S. Treasury which reports actual data. I interpreted that data which at the time was in real dollars for the time and thus not subject to your claims of inflation or based upon the value of the dollar today.

I reported the link to actual data, it cannot be taken out of context because it is right there in black and white. I stand by my statement that after EVERY income tax rate cut in U.S. History govt. revenue grew, GDP grew, jobs were created. Based upon that reality it is impossible for tax rate cuts that grew govt. revenue to cause the deficits you want to blame on those tax rate cuts.

For the record, inflation based growth is not real, and does not improve the standard of living within any country it accompanies. Inflation is a necessary evil we are forced to live with if we as a country aspire any economic growth, but only to a point. Too much or too little can diminish real growth, and therefore we must take into consideration the difference between nominal and real growth. Failure to do so instantaneously reduces your argument to jack ****. Now be a man and admit your error; after all it is the decent thing to do.

Since inflation was higher during the Carter years and the first two years of the Reagan Administration prior to the Reagan tax cuts, your point is moot. there was real economic growth, real job creation, real take home pay increases and that spirred the economy and had nothing to do with the deficits created which are always do to spending. And we all know who authorizes the spending, don't we?

The only economic policy that makes any sense is supply side, not what your economists are reporting. Theirs is biased and pointed towards a failed ideology. Personal behavior is never considered. In their world tax cuts mean deficits because they ignore the affects of tax cuts on creating new taxpayers. If the taxpayer base stays the same and taxes are cut, revenue to the govt. would drop. Obviously that didn't happen during either the Reagan or Bush years.

Now as for the improper posting of the charts, I quite frankly haven't reviewed what I posted because I also posted the links. Since I don't know how to insert an excel chart into a post, I copied the information over from the link. If I made a mistake that mistake would have been reflected in the link, a link which showed exactly what I was saying, tax cuts grew AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts.

Emphasis on what I copied and if that was right or wrong is really irrelevant when the link was provided. You want me to apologize, ok, if I copied the information incorrectly I apologize. I stand by the statement however that I made regarding tax cuts and individual behavior.

Now if you want to carry this further then you need to open your mind to real world activities and personal behavior. it isn't a black or white issue and economic analysis on the part of any economist is subjective. What isn't subjective is the actual data posted on BEA.gov, bls.govt, and the U.S. Treasury Department.
 
The garbage that ignores Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the real fraud in this country which is a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. and growing. We have a govt. today that will add 3 trillion dollars to the debt in two years yet is more worried about attacking private industry. That is what this Administration does, attack private business and expands the role of govt.
please be specific. which parts of the bill are garbage?
 
please be specific. which parts of the bill are garbage?

The omission of Freddie and Fannie from the bill make it garbage. In addition i don't believe a govt. that cannot control its own financial house should be involved in trying to manage the private sector. All this is a further diversion from the mess our govt. is in and selecting a villian to divert attention from the mismanagement of our country's finances.
 
The omission of Freddie and Fannie from the bill make it garbage. In addition i don't believe a govt. that cannot control its own financial house should be involved in trying to manage the private sector. All this is a further diversion from the mess our govt. is in and selecting a villian to divert attention from the mismanagement of our country's finances.
so, you've got nothing. thanks.
 
so, you've got nothing. thanks.

No, troll, he definitely gave you something - you just don't know how to debate it. That's nobody's fault but your own...
 
so, you've got nothing. thanks.

:rofl now that is funny, only in the liberal world can the financial institutions that led to the financial meltdown be left out of any financial reform bill and that be called having nothing. Do you realize how dumb that sounds and makes you look?
 
do you really have a clue what caused the financial meltdown? or are you parroting right wing talking points?
 
do you really have a clue what caused the financial meltdown? or are you parroting right wing talking points?

Since obviously you don't think I know, why don't you tell me?

Apparently the sub prime mortage crisis had no affect according to your insinuations. Bundled mortgage derivatives based upon worthless mortgages again had nothing to do with this either, right?

What exactly is the leftwing telling you caused the financial meltdown, evil Wall Street bonuses?
 
Since obviously you don't think I know, why don't you tell me?

Apparently the sub prime mortage crisis had no affect according to your insinuations. Bundled mortgage derivatives based upon worthless mortgages again had nothing to do with this either, right?

What exactly is the leftwing telling you caused the financial meltdown, evil Wall Street bonuses?
and derivatives are exactly what is being targeted in this bill. my institution didn't make sub prime loans, as many banks didn't.

of course the sub prime mortgages had some effect. however, no one forced any institution to make those loans, despite what you might believe.
 
do you really have a clue what caused the financial meltdown?

I do, but you obviously don't, since you think Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with it. Please take your lame trolling elsewhere. You have nothing to contribute.

or are you parroting right wing talking points?

Right wing talking point!? I don't know anybody who thinks Fannie and Freddie's bundling of mortgage derivatives is a right wing talking point. You're in your own universe right now...
 
and derivatives are exactly what is being targeted in this bill.

But not the main originators of those derivatives, hello! Targeting a financial instrument for regulation and not the party primarily responsible for their origination and distribution is kind of stupid, don't you think?

my institution didn't make sub prime loans, as many banks didn't.

of course the sub prime mortgages had some effect. however, no one forced any institution to make those loans, despite what you might believe.

SOME effect!? Holy crap, what are you smoking?

The bundling of subprime mortgages with good mortgages is what allowed the contagion to spread throughout the system. How clueless are you!?
 
and derivatives are exactly what is being targeted in this bill. my institution didn't make sub prime loans, as many banks didn't.

of course the sub prime mortgages had some effect. however, no one forced any institution to make those loans, despite what you might believe.

If you are in the business do you know who Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are and what they do?

How can there be financial reform without including those agencies? Are you telling me that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd supported financial reform of Fannie and Freddie when Bush proposed it?
 
If you are in the business do you know who Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are and what they do?

How can there be financial reform without including those agencies? Are you telling me that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd supported financial reform of Fannie and Freddie when Bush proposed it?
we are discussing the current bill and why you believe it's garbage. by your own admission, misuse of derivatives was a big part of the problem, and yet you discount that the bill addresses that issue.

yes, i know who they are, and i know what happened. they should be reformed, but they are not banks, and as such need a different set of regulations.
 
we are discussing the current bill and why you believe it's garbage. by your own admission, misuse of derivatives was a big part of the problem, and yet you discount that the bill addresses that issue.

yes, i know who they are, and i know what happened. they should be reformed, but they are not banks, and as such need a different set of regulations.

Because it doesn't solve anything when it leaves out two of the biggest contributors to the problem. You don't see that? Why does the govt. feel a need to regulate private industry when they cannot regulate their own? This is nothing more than a show bill where your Representatives are diverting from their own involvement.
 
we are discussing the current bill and why you believe it's garbage. by your own admission, misuse of derivatives was a big part of the problem, and yet you discount that the bill addresses that issue.

yes, i know who they are, and i know what happened. they should be reformed, but they are not banks, and as such need a different set of regulations.

Here is more proof that the current legislation for financial reform that doesn't include Fannie Mae is a piece of garbage

Fannie Taps Treasury for $15.3 Billion More After a 10th Loss - Bloomberg.com


Are you starting to wake up yet?
 
Less government spending. They should reduce taxes to increase investment and allow struggling businesses to keep some extra money to get through. If anything government spending ultimately hurts the nation.

You do realize that's what happened right before the Great Depression? I mean, the steep tax cuts.
 
Are you starting to wake up yet?

Interesting coming from you.

Want to explain to me how we'd have this mess if the mortgages weren't securitized and then purchased with leverage?

I'd love to see an argument showing how 1% of the economy caused a credit crisis.

This outta be good. I await total fail by you.
 
The bundling of subprime mortgages with good mortgages is what allowed the contagion to spread throughout the system. How clueless are you!?

Not quite. Buying them with debt is the real problem. With pure cash purchases, it would hurt, but there wouldn't be future cash flow obligations on them. Their balance sheets would see real devaluation in equity to balance to decline in assets, but liabilities as a total function of the balance sheet wouldn't materially change in terms of solvency.

I take it you are for cracking down on Moody's and S&P?
 
Here is more proof that the current legislation for financial reform that doesn't include Fannie Mae is a piece of garbage

Fannie Taps Treasury for $15.3 Billion More After a 10th Loss - Bloomberg.com


Are you starting to wake up yet?

If you would wake up, you would realize that it was under Republican leadership in 2004, that Fannie and Freddie were forced to put high-interest high-risk loans as applying toward their mandate to meet mandated goals of helping low-income families obtain housing.

While, in 2000, (see same link) under Clinton's administration instructed Fannie and Freddie NOT to purchase high-interest subprime loans as it was against the initiative to help people buy homes.

Once again, in 2004, that was overturned and the mandate to help low-income people own homes supported PRIVATE INDUSTRY subprime high-interest loans was re-instituted.

NOW - before you go off, I'm not letting Democrats wipe their hands clean of this crisis. They played a big part in it as well and Fannie and Freddie should probably be addressed in this bill. However, the TARP (if I understand it correctly) took a lot of the shareholder responsibilities away from them and basically turned them back into public entities. So hasn't that already been addressed?

However, I want the facts clear: in 2000, under Clinton (and to give credit - a Republican Congress) - Fannie and Freddie were instructed NOT to support the subprime loans that killed our economy. It was in 2004, under Bush (and to give blame - a Republican Congress) that they were given credit for these crappy loans once again.
 
If you would wake up, you would realize that it was under Republican leadership in 2004, that Fannie and Freddie were forced to put high-interest high-risk loans as applying toward their mandate to meet mandated goals of helping low-income families obtain housing.

While, in 2000, (see same link) under Clinton's administration instructed Fannie and Freddie NOT to purchase high-interest subprime loans as it was against the initiative to help people buy homes.

Once again, in 2004, that was overturned and the mandate to help low-income people own homes supported PRIVATE INDUSTRY subprime high-interest loans was re-instituted.

NOW - before you go off, I'm not letting Democrats wipe their hands clean of this crisis. They played a big part in it as well and Fannie and Freddie should probably be addressed in this bill. However, the TARP (if I understand it correctly) took a lot of the shareholder responsibilities away from them and basically turned them back into public entities. So hasn't that already been addressed?

However, I want the facts clear: in 2000, under Clinton (and to give credit - a Republican Congress) - Fannie and Freddie were instructed NOT to support the subprime loans that killed our economy. It was in 2004, under Bush (and to give blame - a Republican Congress) that they were given credit for these crappy loans once again.

You seem to have a basic understanding of civics and how our Congress works. It takes 60 votes to get legislation passed in the Senate. Don't really care who controlled the Congress at the time because the GOP didn't have 60 votes to get regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Obviously it doesn't matter what Barney Franks said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nor do the comments of Chris Dodd, Franks in the House and Dodd in the Senate. partisan rhetoric is what most are good at here.

How can there be any Financial Reform bill without including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that remains the point that is being ignored here. Do you honestly believe it was the Republicans and Bush that wanted to give loans to low income people who had no hope of paying the mortgage? That is quite a stretch and out of touch with reality. Who said owing a home is a civil right?
 
Back
Top Bottom