How We Became the United States of France

[fivepoint]

Interesting article from Time Magazine. Thought you'd all like to discuss.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html?cnn=yes

This is the state of our great republic: We've nationalized the financial system, taking control from Wall Street bankers we no longer trust. We're about to quasi-nationalize the Detroit auto companies via massive loans because they're a source of American pride, and too many jobs — and votes — are at stake. Our Social Security system is going broke as we head for a future where too many retirees will be supported by too few workers. How long before we have national healthcare? Put it all together, and the America that emerges is a cartoonish version of the country most despised by red-meat red-state patriots: France. Only with worse food.

Admit it, mes amis, the rugged individualism and cutthroat capitalism that made America the land of unlimited opportunity has been shrink-wrapped by a half dozen short sellers in Greenwich, Conn. and FedExed to Washington D.C. to be spoon-fed back to life by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. We're now no different from any of those Western European semi-socialist welfare states that we love to deride. Italy? Sure, it's had four governments since last Thursday, but none of them would have allowed this to go on; the Italians know how to rig an economy.


Ron Paul's Thoughts:
- It's unconstitutional.
- It's an unnecessary power grab by the government.
- It's looking to avoid some short-term pain only to ensure continuation of the original problem which is the government manipulating and over-regulating the markets through the illegal Federal Reserve. We all lose in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLefrvxbq8

[fivepoint]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122204078161261183.html

Things to Blame:
- The Federal Reserve. The original sin of this crisis was easy money. For too long this decade, especially from 2003 to 2005, the Fed held interest rates below the level of expected inflation, thus creating a vast subsidy for debt that both households and financial firms exploited. The housing bubble was a result, along with its financial counterparts, the subprime loan and the mortgage SIV.

Fed Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke prefer to blame "a global savings glut" that began when the Cold War ended. But Communism was dead for more than a decade before the housing mania took off. The savings glut was in large part a creation of the Fed, which flooded the world with too many dollars that often found their way back into housing markets in the U.S., the U.K. and elsewhere.

- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Created by government, and able to borrow at rates lower than fully private corporations because of the implied backing from taxpayers, these firms turbocharged the credit mania. They channeled far more liquidity into the market than would have been the case otherwise, especially from the Chinese, who thought (rightly) that they were investing in mortgage securities that were as safe as Treasurys but with a higher yield.

These are the firms that bought the increasingly questionable mortgages originated by Angelo Mozilo's Countrywide and others. Even as the bubble was popping, they dived into pools of subprime and Alt-A ("liar") loans to meet Congressional demand to finance "affordable" housing. And they were both the cause and beneficiary of the great interest-group army that lobbied for ever more housing subsidies.

Fan and Fred's patrons on Capitol Hill didn't care about the risks inherent in their combined trillion-dollar-plus mortgage portfolios, so long as they helped meet political goals on housing. Even after taxpayers have had to pick up a bailout tab that may grow as large as $200 billion, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank still won't back a reduction in their mortgage portfolios.

- A credit-rating oligopoly. Thanks to federal and state regulation, a small handful of credit rating agencies pass judgment on the risk for all debt securities in our markets. Many of these judgments turned out to be wrong, and this goes to the root of the credit crisis: Assets officially deemed rock-solid by the government's favored risk experts have lately been recognized as nothing of the kind.

When debt instruments are downgraded, banks must then recognize a paper loss on these assets. In a bitter irony, the losses cause the same credit raters whose judgments allowed the banks to hold these dodgy assets to then lower their ratings on the banks, requiring the banks to raise more money, and pay more to raise it. The major government-anointed credit raters -- S&P, Moody's and Fitch -- were as asleep on mortgages as they were on Enron. Senator Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) tried to weaken this government-created oligopoly, but his reforms didn't begin to take effect until 2007, too late to stop the mania.

- Banking regulators. In the Beltway fable, bank supervision all but vanished in recent years. But the great irony is that the banks that made some of the worst mortgage investments are the most highly regulated. The Fed's regulators blessed, or overlooked, Citigroup's off-balance-sheet SIVs, while the SEC tolerated leverage of 30 or 40 to 1 by Lehman and Bear Stearns.

The New York Sun reports that an SEC rule change that allowed more leverage was made in 2004 under then Chairman William Donaldson, one of the most aggressive regulators in SEC history. Of course the SEC's task was only to protect the investor assets at the broker-dealers, not the holding companies themselves, which everyone thought were not too big to fail. Now we know differently (see Bear Stearns below).

Meanwhile, the least regulated firms -- hedge funds and private-equity companies -- have had the fewest problems, or have folded up their mistakes with the least amount of trauma. All of this reaffirms the historical truth that regulators almost always discover financial excesses only after the fact.

- The Bear Stearns rescue. In retrospect, the Fed-Treasury intervention only delayed a necessary day of reckoning for Wall Street. While Bear was punished for its sins, the Fed opened its discount window to the other big investment banks and thus sent a signal that they would provide a creditor safety net for bad debt.

Morgan Stanley, Lehman and Goldman Sachs all concluded that they could ride out the panic without changing their business models or reducing their leverage. John Thain at Merrill Lynch was the only CEO willing to sell his bad mortgage paper -- at 22 cents on the dollar. Treasury and the Fed should have followed the Bear trauma with more than additional liquidity. Once they were on the taxpayer dime, the banks needed a thorough scrubbing that might have avoided last week's stampede.

- The Community Reinvestment Act. This 1977 law compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often cannot repay them. Banks that failed to make enough of these loans were often held hostage by activists when they next sought some regulatory approval.

Robert Litan, an economist at the Brookings Institution, told the Washington Post this year that banks "had to show they were making a conscious effort to make loans to subprime borrowers." The much-maligned Phil Gramm fought to limit these CRA requirements in the 1990s, albeit to little effect and much political jeering.

[Agathon]

I hate to say it, but you aren't France. They have a higher standard of living and a better health system than you guys.

If I was French, I would be appalled at your impudence in making the comparison, just as if I were Dutch I would be appalled at you saying that you were the freest country in the world. ;)

[Peterkro]

I don't think French people would (quite rightly) be very impressed by the comparison.

[leekohler]

France is now a bad place? Huh? :confused:

[iJohnHenry]

Yep, ever since Freedom Fries.

Remember them??

Next step, the justice system.

Guilty, until proven innocent.

[jplan2008]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122204078161261183.html

Things to Blame:

Except this is an "Opinion" piece by an unknown author (I couldn't find who the author was, anyway). Backed up by few facts, and the few "facts" had no sources cited.

I don't get the France connection either.

[és:]

France is now a bad place? Huh? :confused:

It's crazy, isn't it. It's almost as if the people that write these articles have never been to France, let alone lived there. France is a wonderful country with one of (if not...) the best healthcare systems in the world. It has more culture than most countries, better food and drink and a much more relaxed lifestyle.

[leekohler]

It's crazy, isn't it. It's almost as if the people that write these articles have never been to France, let alone lived there. France is a wonderful country with one of (if not...) the best healthcare systems in the world. It has more culture than most countries, better food and drink and a much more relaxed lifestyle.

Yeah, I know.

Fivepoint, just a note to you- if you want to be taken seriously in this forum, it would serve you well to avoid the histrionic approach with opinion pieces like this one. ;)

[FrankieTDouglas]

I could only wish we were more like France.

[it5five]

I can only echo the sentiments already in this thread.

We aren't France.

I wish we were.

[skunk]

I expect the French are glad you're not. :cool:

[it5five]

I expect the French are glad you're not. :cool:

It would probably get quite confusing with two countries named "France".

[és:]

Yeah, I know.

Fivepoint, just a note to you- if you want to be taken seriously in this forum, it would serve you well to avoid the histrionic approach with opinion pieces like this one. ;)

Don't spoil his fun, Lee. As proof as to how bad British dentistry is, he once cited a Time Magazine article from 1945 wartime England. This is just scratching the surface.

[leekohler]

Don't spoil his fun, Lee. As proof as to how bad British dentistry is, he once cited a Time Magazine article from 1945 wartime England. This is just scratching the surface.

Is British dentistry bad? Who knew? :D

[it5five]

Don't spoil his fun, Lee. As proof as to how bad British dentistry is, he once cited a Time Magazine article from 1945 wartime England. This is just scratching the surface.

I had forgotten about that. Now I'm sitting here laughing again. Thank you.

[és:]

Is British dentistry bad? Who knew? :D

A picture of a woman one week before entering England

http://www.prevention.com/pvnstatic-assets/images/298x232_article_size/beauty/298x232_LB_teeth_grtwhit_ST.jpg

After a week in England, this is how she looked...

http://dotnet.org.za/photos/robgoss/images/47564/425x353.aspx

[it5five]

And hopefully you will have killed the thread with that picture.

[és:]

I had forgotten about that. Now I'm sitting here laughing again. Thank you.

He does make a good table, though :D

[és:]

And hopefully you will have killed the thread with that picture.

It's undeniable evidence. I expect it to be used against me by FivePoint at some stage.

[hulugu]

Well, color me unimpressed. Like the earlier article by the Investor's Business Daily, even the once-laudable WSJ has given itself over to ideological concerns and some simplistic scapegoating.

The problem was manifold, complex, and resulted because of both governmental influence and the lack thereof. Furthermore, there is a 7-layer dip of incompetence running through this story. From home-buyers who bought palaces on shack salaries, from the mortgage brokers who signed them, to the bundlers who hid these bad loans among good ones and all the way up to the CEOs and the SEC chairman.

Frankly, if a corporation takes the government's assignation that a 40-to-1 or 11-1 leveraging is okay, this company is still stupid for doing so. That the government gave them enough rope to hang themselves doesn't put the government at fault. It's like blaming the casino when you go all in during a poker game.
And, that Lehman Bros and others used the buyout of Bear-Sterns as an excuse to continue with an obviously flawed business model just proves how stupid a corporation can be.

The only innocent in this story are regular homebuyers, students preparing to go to college, and a few others. Every once should sit on their hands, especially those clowns on Wall Street.

[fivepoint]

'es, you are hilarious. I've never talked with people so dismissive of the constitution, bias and blinded by their "lesser of two evils" party talking points, and so interested in the belittlement of others simply because they do not maintain the same socialist ultra-liberal viewpoints.

I post an article on here talking about the USA is losing its freedoms and the free market system which has gotten it to where it is today, at the same time try to make it a little bit fun and interesting, and you guys can do nothing more than make sideways character and legitimacy attacks regarding a humor-filled post I made like 3 months ago! Sad guys, really sad.

Anyway, you are hardly worth my time arguing with. And 'es... if people want to know what you stand for, all they have to do is look over your posts. Half of your time on this forum is spent trying to explain why the U.S. is a horrible country. (I can post some examples if you like) You have an inborn hatred for the country, and apparently the people who live here. It's very unhealthy to let so much hatred lead your life and political viewpoints. I suggest you get some help with that. ;)

[NT1440]

'es, you are hilarious. I've never talked with people so dismissive of the constitution, bias and blinded by their "lesser of two evils" party talking points, and so interested in the belittlement of others simply because they do not maintain the same socialist ultra-liberal viewpoints.

I post an article on here talking about the USA is losing its freedoms and the free market system which has gotten it to where it is today, at the same time try to make it a little bit fun and interesting, and you guys can do nothing more than make sideways character and legitimacy attacks regarding a humor-filled post I made like 3 months ago! Sad guys, really sad.

Anyway, you are hardly worth my time arguing with. And 'es... if people want to know what you stand for, all they have to do is look over your posts. Half of your time on this forum is spent trying to explain why the U.S. is a horrible country. (I can post some examples if you like) You have an inborn hatred for the country, and apparently the people who live here. It's very unhealthy to let so much hatred lead your life and political viewpoints. I suggest you get some help with that. ;)

we belittle you because as far as anyones concerned, you are a troll.

Not because you have different views, but because your evidence is almost always an opinion, just because its written on a site or newspaper does not make it fact.

[fivepoint]

Well, color me unimpressed. Like the earlier article by the Investor's Business Daily, even the once-laudable WSJ has given itself over to ideological concerns and some simplistic scapegoating.

Here is the last line of that WSJ article:
"Our point here isn't to absolve Wall Street or pretend there weren't private excesses. But the investment mistakes would surely have been less extreme, and ultimately their damage more containable, if not for the enormous political support and subsidy for mortgage credit. Beware politicians who peddle fables that cast themselves as the heroes."




The problem was manifold, complex, and resulted because of both governmental influence and the lack thereof. Furthermore, there is a 7-layer dip of incompetence running through this story. From home-buyers who bought palaces on shack salaries, from the mortgage brokers who signed them, to the bundlers who hid these bad loans among good ones and all the way up to the CEOs and the SEC chairman.

Frankly, if a corporation takes the government's assignation that a 40-to-1 or 11-1 leveraging is okay, this company is still stupid for doing so. That the government gave them enough rope to hang themselves doesn't put the government at fault. It's like blaming the casino when you go all in during a poker game.
And, that Lehman Bros and others used the buyout of Bear-Sterns as an excuse to continue with an obviously flawed business model just proves how stupid a corporation can be.

The only innocent in this story are regular homebuyers, students preparing to go to college, and a few others. Every once should sit on their hands, especially those clowns on Wall Street.

I agree with this, 100%. It's not a simple issue, and the companies that were leveraged beyond imagining deserve to die a corporations death. Unfortunately, now these corporations are going to get bailed out (illegally) by our Big Government. In the future, why should companies like these even TRY to be successful? Why compete? Why strive for success? They're better off just losing everything and getting a check from the government!

[és:]

'es, you are hilarious. I've never talked with people so dismissive of the constitution, bias and blinded by their "lesser of two evils" party talking points, and so interested in the belittlement of others simply because they do not maintain the same socialist ultra-liberal viewpoints.

Haven't you noticed? It's nothing to do with Socialism or Liberalism. It's nothing to do with any ideology or philosophy. It's to do with putting up nonsense as credible evidence. This forum and the people on it are too smart and too wise to succumb to such nonsense.

I post an article on here talking about the USA is losing its freedoms and the free market system which has gotten it to where it is today

Trillions in debt, in wars you can't win nor afford and in an electoral race that has more to do with if somebody has black skin or a vagina than what their policies are?

Anyway, you are hardly worth my time arguing with. Very true. People on this forum like things to be backed up by fact. You have dismissed facts and decided that 'the point is, you're wrong'.

Half of your time on this forum is spent trying to explain why the U.S. is a horrible country. (I can post some examples if you like)

Yeah, go for it. It's not a horrible country, it's a wonderful country. It's a country run by an idiot and his friends. It's a country that has badly lost its way.

You, however, can't seem to see the difference between my hating the way your country is run and some of the things that it's doing in the world and the way I feel about your actual country.

You just want to stick up for your country at all costs. You don't want to make it better by pulling apart the injustice of the current regime. Very unpatriotic of you.

You have an inborn hatred for the country, and apparently the people who live here.

I'd love you to show me one time where I've said anything against the American people. I can show you quotes where I've said 'I love the American people', if you'd like. Those facts don't matter because "the point is, I'm wrong''. Isn't that right, fivepoint.

[it5five]

fivepoint, I think you'll find most people agreeing that we should not have bailed out these corporations. Especially, in my opinion, because it's all of these large firms crying for de-regulation until de-regulation comes back to hurt them. Then they have no problem with "government interference" when it benefits them. It appears they don't want to play by any rules, but want someone to catch them when they fall.

What I think you'll find people disagreeing with is the characterization that somehow bailing out these corporations makes us "like France". I know, it was the title of the article you posted, but it was a poor choice for the Time writer and it's a poor choice to re-use it here. It is not only wildly incorrect, but it somehow suggests that being "like France" is bad, which is something conservatives love to spout any chance they get. Then, you use opinion pieces from conservative rags as fact to back up your points.

[fivepoint]

we belittle you because as far as anyones concerned, you are a troll.

Not because you have different views, but because your evidence is almost always an opinion, just because its written on a site or newspaper does not make it fact.

Why, because I talk about the constitution? Because I talk about trying to maintain liberties afforded to us by the Bill of Rights? Because I support Ron Paul and other generally unpopular viewpoints?

No, sir, I think you hit the nail right on the head. It IS because I have different views. It's because I don't link to the same sources as you guys. I link to the constitution and to WSJ. I link to a commentary from Ron Paul on YouTube, and get lambasted for quoting “opinion” pieces… and yet someone else can come in here posting something form the Huffington Post which is full of far more bias and ‘spin’ and you say nothing… because that person happens to be voting for the same Illinois Senator that you are.

The hypocrisy is opaque, sir. I post relevant meaningful content, other people post 1 sentence replies questioning my motives, questioning my sanity, and forming a generally offensive pose just because I disagree.

This is the whole reason I made this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=566705) a few days ago. I'd like to see us go beyond this type of discussion. I'd like to see us talk about more important things than "I hate GW. I hate everything America does. Vote Obama." I'm glad that we have people here of different viewpoints, but I find it sad that people who aren't far left liberal socialists often times get bullied out of the conversations on this forum

[hulugu]

Here is the last line of that WSJ article:
"Our point here isn't to absolve Wall Street or pretend there weren't private excesses. But the investment mistakes would surely have been less extreme, and ultimately their damage more containable, if not for the enormous political support and subsidy for mortgage credit. Beware politicians who peddle fables that cast themselves as the heroes."

I still think the article aims its arrows for their ideological target, and I simply don't think the entire mess can be boiled down to the government. They may have provided the environment, but the companies, investors, and consumers are the one who played in it.

I agree with this, 100%. It's not a simple issue, and the companies that were leveraged beyond imagining deserve to die a corporations death. Unfortunately, now these corporations are going to get bailed out (illegally) by our Big Government. In the future, why should companies like these even TRY to be successful? Why compete? Why strive for success? They're better off just losing everything and getting a check from the government!

Well, the argument is, letting them fail will crater the economy. And since the world economy is like a bike race, once one of the leaders falls, it tends to take the rest of the pack with them. I'm not learned enough on economic relationships to be sure of this, but I can see why it makes sense.

I'm also nervous about giving Treasury such powers. I'd be happier if they were temporary.

Frankly, I think things might go better if the captains of industry were lashed to their ships. If it sinks, they should drown.

[hulugu]

we belittle you because as far as anyones concerned, you are a troll.

Not because you have different views, but because your evidence is almost always an opinion, just because its written on a site or newspaper does not make it fact.

This isn't a fair characterization. I disagree with Fivepoint, but he is *not* acting as a troll. The inclusion of opinion pieces from the WSJ and Time are perfectly valid sources for discussion. Now, I'd like to see more specific links with references, but others have posted similar sites and articles without censure.

[NT1440]

This isn't a fair characterization. I disagree with Fivepoint, but he is *not* acting as a troll. The inclusion of opinion pieces from the WSJ and Time are perfectly valid sources for discussion. Now, I'd like to see more specific links with references, but others have posted similar sites and articles without censure.

For discussion yes they are fine, but when he uses them as "fact" when they are in actuality opinion pieces. Thats a no.

[Mike Teezie]

Why, because I talk about the constitution? Because I talk about trying to maintain liberties afforded to us by the Bill of Rights? Because I support Ron Paul and other generally unpopular viewpoints?

No, sir, I think you hit the nail right on the head. It IS because I have different views. It's because I don't link to the same sources as you guys. I link to the constitution and to WSJ. I link to a commentary from Ron Paul on YouTube, and get lambasted for quoting “opinion” pieces… and yet someone else can come in here posting something form the Huffington Post which is full of far more bias and ‘spin’ and you say nothing… because that person happens to be voting for the same Illinois Senator that you are.

The hypocrisy is opaque, sir. I post relevant meaningful content, other people post 1 sentence replies questioning my motives, questioning my sanity, and forming a generally offensive pose just because I disagree.

This is the whole reason I made this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=566705) a few days ago. I'd like to see us go beyond this type of discussion. I'd like to see us talk about more important things than "I hate GW. I hate everything America does. Vote Obama." I'm glad that we have people here of different viewpoints, but I find it sad that people who aren't far left liberal socialists often times get bullied out of the conversations on this forum

I have been a heavy lurker and sometimes poster in this forum for almost six years now. Never have I encountered a far left liberal socialist. Not one.

I'm liberal, and damn proud of it. Socialist, no, and far left, no.

That said, I agree with hulugu, I don't see your posts as trolling. I disagree entirely, but you aren't trolling.

[fivepoint]

I still think the article aims its arrows for their ideological target, and I simply don't think the entire mess can be boiled down to the government. They may have provided the environment, but the companies, investors, and consumers are the one who played in it.

I completely agree that it can't be boiled down to just the government. Here's the thing. Nobody, even the article I posted claimed that it was ONLY the government that caused the problem! Apparently this is an idea that people like to attribute to me, even though I never said anything of the sort. Possibly due to me not being clear enough. Let me try again. The issue is that with less regulation, these things would still happen. Businesses would still go under, and greed would eventually get the best of many companies. But, you know what? Not all at once. And not in nearly to the same amount. That's why the free market system Is so great. It’s self healing. When a company can’t fulfill it’s duties, can’t compete, it goes under. It dies, and a stronger more fit-for-business company takes it’s place. With a free press involved the system is beautiful. However, because the government is too heavily involved, because the government is in the business of manipulating the dollar, because the government created the illegal Fed, and pratically forced companies into loaning to the poorest of the poor, we are in THIS situation.

Of course there are multiple reasons for this downturn. Of course there is plenty of blame to go around. What I am trying to say is that further increasing the size of government and allowing them to take control of multi-billion dollar public corporations is a big mistake. It's not the way to solve the problem. It IS already one of the main problems.



Well, the argument is, letting them fail will crater the economy. And since the world economy is like a bike race, once one of the leaders falls, it tends to take the rest of the pack with them. I'm not learned enough on economic relationships to be sure of this, but I can see why it makes sense.

I'm also nervous about giving Treasury such powers. I'd be happier if they were temporary.

Frankly, I think things might go better if the captains of industry were lashed to their ships. If it sinks, they should drown.

To me, it boils down to this: A little pain now, or a lot of pain later. Throwing more money at the issue and continuing on with the same policies and market manipulations is not going to solve anything! My dad always used to tell me... look for what CAUSED the problem first, not just how to fix it in the short term.

What we need to find here is the source of the problem. Why did this happen to all of these companies at the same time? Why is our dollar worth half what it used to be? If we can't answer those questions, then who cares about $700 Billion! It's all small potatoes compared to where we'll be heading.

[it5five]

This is the whole reason I made this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=566705) a few days ago. I'd like to see us go beyond this type of discussion. I'd like to see us talk about more important things than "I hate GW. I hate everything America does. Vote Obama." I'm glad that we have people here of different viewpoints, but I find it sad that people who aren't far left liberal socialists often times get bullied out of the conversations on this forum

http://anglopapist.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/tin-foil-hat.jpg

Conservatives aren't "bullied out of the conversations" on this forum. It's just that most (not all) conservatives who post on here use nothing but talking points and opinion pieces to back up their argument. I guess you could say they are intellectually "bullied" out of the conversations, but nobody ever purposefully attacks another poster simply for being conservative.

Tip: Not all of the liberals here are "far left liberal socialists". Characterizing everyone that disagrees with you as that might have something to do with your general unpopularity and the hostile reception to your posts.

[fivepoint]

This isn't a fair characterization. I disagree with Fivepoint, but he is *not* acting as a troll. The inclusion of opinion pieces from the WSJ and Time are perfectly valid sources for discussion. Now, I'd like to see more specific links with references, but others have posted similar sites and articles without censure.

Hulu, thank you for your maturity.

[és:]

Tip: Not all of the liberals here are "far left liberal socialists". Characterizing everyone that disagrees with you as that might have something to do with your general unpopularity and the hostile reception to your posts.

It's that he uses it as an insult. Socialist! Oh no, he must be here to take me to the gulags.

[CorvusCamenarum]

I'm also nervous about giving Treasury such powers. I'd be happier if they were temporary.

Frankly, I think things might go better if the captains of industry were lashed to their ships. If it sinks, they should drown.
I'd feel a lot better if they weren't getting any special powers at all. We can boil a lot of this garbage away to the fact that everyone who was playing this absurd game was gambling on the chance that the poorest segments of society (i.e. people who had little to no chance of repaying wacky mortgages) would suddenly become rich and all would be well. We shouldn't be giving these obviously incompetent boobs do-over powers.

[fivepoint]

Conservatives aren't "bullied out of the conversations" on this forum. It's just that most (not all) conservatives who post on here use nothing but talking points and opinion pieces to back up their argument. I guess you could say they are intellectually "bullied" out of the conversations, but nobody ever purposefully attacks another poster simply for being conservative.

Tip: Not all of the liberals here are "far left liberal socialists". Characterizing everyone that disagrees with you as that might have something to do with your general unpopularity and the hostile reception to your posts.


While I agree that all people here aren't "far left liberal socialists" I do disagree that people aren't bullied on this forum. Try and imagine a young inexperience conservative finding these forums. They've always thought that abortion was wrong, and so they ask someone here about it in a thread (why they think it is good to support abortion). I would bet that within 24 hours there would be 10 posts with people calling that person a bigot religious zealot who wanted to control other people's bodies, with all sorts of "factual" links backing up their viewpoints.

It's no longer about right vs. wrong, it's now about ganging up on the person for having religion, for valuing human life, and for generally believing in personal responsibility. No number of "factual links" can help that argument. They get attacked, try to explain themselves, but eventually leave because nobody gives an inch. Nobody even bothers to say "I can see where you're coming from." The general tendency on these forums (from what I've seen) is to attack anyone different. Is to post as many links to partisan sources as possible (even if they do include "facts") and to declare themselves a winner of the argument. If that doesn't work, people like 'es resort to personal attacks and belittling the person.

Again, not saying this happens "every time!" Just too darn often. People need to learn to be a bit more respectful, in my humble opinion. Not everyone here has a tough skin. The culture of hatred in this forum has undoubtedly stifled much creative conversation that COULD have taken place.

[hulugu]

I completely agree that it can't be boiled down to just the government. Here's the thing. Nobody, even the article I posted claimed that it was ONLY the government that caused the problem! Apparently this is an idea that people like to attribute to me, even though I never said anything of the sort. Possibly due to me not being clear enough. Let me try again. The issue is that with less regulation, these things would still happen. Businesses would still go under, and greed would eventually get the best of many companies. But, you know what? Not all at once. And not in nearly to the same amount. That's why the free market system Is so great. It’s self healing. When a company can’t fulfill it’s duties, can’t compete, it goes under. It dies, and a stronger more fit-for-business company takes it’s place. With a free press involved the system is beautiful. However, because the government is too heavily involved, because the government is in the business of manipulating the dollar, because the government created the illegal Fed, and pratically forced companies into loaning to the poorest of the poor, we are in THIS situation.

Of course there are multiple reasons for this downturn. Of course there is plenty of blame to go around. What I am trying to say is that further increasing the size of government and allowing them to take control of multi-billion dollar public corporations is a big mistake. It's not the way to solve the problem. It IS already one of the main problems.





To me, it boils down to this: A little pain now, or a lot of pain later. Throwing more money at the issue and continuing on with the same policies and market manipulations is not going to solve anything! My dad always used to tell me... look for what CAUSED the problem first, not just how to fix it in the short term.

What we need to find here is the source of the problem. Why did this happen to all of these companies at the same time? Why is our dollar worth half what it used to be? If we can't answer those questions, then who cares about $700 Billion! It's all small potatoes compared to where we'll be heading.

The article, IMHO, tries to wave away that other stuff so they can make their argument, but I understand your point.

As for why this happened, I really don't know the answer. Clearly, the Fed's manipulation of interests rates is part of the problem, so is the massive growth of our national debt. The sudden rise in oil prices and the lack of a comprehensive energy policy, two foreign wars, and as 'Rat suggested in the economics thread the 2000 stock bubble, should also be considered.

Furthermore, I'd suggest to anyone who is thinking about this issue look at why the Federal Reserve was created as well as the various banking laws. I'd also look at the 1999 Gram bill and the 2005 "Bankruptcy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act)" bill, which allowed credit card companies to jack up interest rates, hitting low-income borrowers, including those who certainly had sub-prime loans.

[és:]

They've always thought that abortion was wrong, and so they ask someone here about it in a thread (why they think it is good to support abortion). I would bet that within 24 hours there would be 10 posts with people calling that person a bigot religious zealot who wanted to control other people's bodies, with all sorts of "factual" links backing up their viewpoints.


Why do you show such disregard for 'factual' links. What is wrong with facts? I know you don't like to use them very often, but it's the difference between having credibility and being laughed at by your peers.

Now, abortion is a subject that I know a lot about. I would offer anyone that is asking for information a list of facts regarding abortion, cut of dates and I'd offer my opinion regarding it - that would be the same for a conservative or a liberal, for somebody that is against all abortion and for late abortion. That's what is fair. I 'would bet that within 24 hours' you'd get somebody shoving propaganda down their throat.

As I've told you, I hold various tradition conservative views. I have no problem with people that can back up their opinions and have the intellectual rigour to discuss them without resorting to propaganda, distorted facts and twisted logic to push their bias down other people throat.

Facts are where it's at, my friend.

EDIT: I also take exception to the bullying stuff. Nobody gets bullied. What you need to expect and accept is that you're going to have your views challenged, and you'll need to back them up without resorting to calling people a socialist, or and saying that you're being picked on because your version of events isn't accepted. That applies to me as much as it does to you. Just back up what you say, with credible information, and you'll never have a problem.

[skunk]

Try and imagine a young inexperience conservative finding these forums. They've always thought that abortion was wrong, and so they ask someone here about it in a thread (why they think it is good to support abortion). I would bet that within 24 hours there would be 10 posts with people calling that person a bigot religious zealot who wanted to control other people's bodies, with all sorts of "factual" links backing up their viewpoints.Not if that person was, as you suggest, simply asking about it.
It's no longer about right vs. wrong, it's now about ganging up on the person for having religion, for valuing human life, and for generally believing in personal responsibility.No. It isn't about being attacked for having religion or valuing human life or believing in personal responsibility. I doubt that you'd find a single person here who would argue with any of those values. However, if the "young, inexperienced conservative" (what a fetching picture that is!) starts to paint his or her religion as the only valid reality, to depict the value of a human life as solely residing in the womb and being thrown on the trash heap thereafter, to equate personal responsibility with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude and a complete absence of compassion, then in all probability several members here would indeed take issue.

[bradl]

Why do you show such disregard for 'factual' links. What is wrong with facts?

Facts are where it's at, my friend.



Facts are stubborn things... -John Adams

Sorry, couldn't resist! ;)

BL.

[és:]

Facts are stubborn things... -John Adams

Sorry, couldn't resist! ;)

BL.

What a wonderful quote that is. The full version for anyone that doesn't yet know it...

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence” - John Adams.

And another:

“Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes” - Jawaharlal Nehru

[Agathon]

What a wonderful quote that is. The full version for anyone that doesn't yet know it...

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence” - John Adams.

And another:

“Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes” - Jawaharlal Nehru

Why do you hate freedom?

[NT1440]

Why do you hate freedom?

What kind of a question is that?:confused:

[és:]

Why do you hate freedom?

Why do you think I hate freedom? Why ask me that question? Define freedom?

[Much Ado]

Why do you hate freedom?

What on earth do you mean by that?

I was keeping out of this thread, but that's just too much.

[és:]

What kind of a question is that?:confused:

Why do you hate strange questions! ;)

[Iscariot]

'es, you are hilarious.

…

And 'es... if people want to know what you stand for, all they have to do is look over your posts.

fivepoint, if you would like to put the proper (acute) accent over the e in és' name, press option+e, and then e again. Although és may be using a special character for it.

[Agathon]

What on earth do you mean by that?

I was keeping out of this thread, but that's just too much.

You've been had. :)

[és:]

You've been had. :)

He's free to be had. :mad: ;)

[és:]

fivepoint, if you would like to put the proper (acute) accent over the e in és' name, press option+e, and then e again. Although és may be using a special character for it.

Nope, that's the puppy. és:

[Much Ado]

You've been had. :)

So this time it is a joke? After all this time, it is actually a joke? I don't believe it. Just when I was starting to realize that some of the crazy comments floating around were actually genuine, you come along with a joke. Where the hell do I go now? Start from first principles, that's it. I think therefore I am. That's a good start. Right, back to PRSI. Evolution is a fraud- serious? Intelligent design is true- serious...ish? Deep breaths, Ado, deep breaths. Keep it together. "Why do you hate freedom"... seri... bah, no. I need a drink.

[Agathon]

So this time it is a joke? After all this time, it is actually a joke? I don't believe it. Just when I was starting to realize that some of the crazy comments floating around were actually genuine, you come along with a joke. Where the hell do I go now? Start from first principles, that's it. I think therefore I am. That's a good start. Right, back to PRSI. Evolution is a fraud- serious? Intelligent design is true- serious...ish? Deep breaths, Ado, deep breaths. Keep it together. "Why do you hate freedom"... seri... bah, no. I need a drink.

"There are no jokes – the truth is the funniest joke of all" – Muhammad Ali. ;)

[jplan2008]

I agree with the OP that we, and Congress, need to discuss the cause of the problem, and MANY here have referred to "socialism" of the financial markets.

My issue with the original post was that it took a tongue-in-cheek title of an article, and a sarcastic two paragraphs of an article, and pointed to them as "fact." Does the author of the Time article truly believe our system is the same as France's? Despite giving some hyperbole about France's system, No. Does the OP? I'm not sure -- by using the thread title, and only those two paragraphs, maybe. Then the post gave Ron Paul's opinion. Then later there was an opinion piece by someone, telling us the causes. Yes, we know that Ron Paul is against government financial intervention. And we know that there are individuals out there who believe that regulation was the cause and not that deregulation was the cause.

So I'm not sure what we're supposed to be debating? Are we truly supposed to debate whether we've become the United States of France? Are we supposed to debate a sarcastic article, where it's hard to see where sarcasm ends and opinion begins? Are we going to debate Ron Paul's opinion? That's fine, there's plenty of information available about his opinions to debate. Are we supposed to debate an un-named individual's list of causes? I'd rather not, since it was pretty lacking in facts and references. I'd rather the OP found a more comprehensive overview, preferably with facts to double-check, but at the least with a by-line, and then we can discuss that. (a few items in that opinion piece I personally agreed with, but it was a mish-mash, and referred to articles in papers without links and without the full name of the paper (I assume the Sun is the Phoenix Sun, but I can't be sure). Or, if the OP states his own opinion, and lays it out, that's fine, too.

[bradl]

I agree with the OP that we, and Congress, need to discuss the cause of the problem, and MANY here have referred to "socialism" of the financial markets.


to bring another quote in (and that may be my only type of contribution to this thread! :p)...

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -Ronald Reagan

Just something to think about..

BL.

[mactastic]

to bring another quote in (and that may be my only type of contribution to this thread! :p)...

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -Ronald Reagan

Just something to think about..

BL.
Would that be the same Ronald Reagan who presided over one of the largest increases in the federal government up to that time?

Just something to think about...

[SMM]

To es - that picture is disgusting and I found it to be classless and in very poor taste. I seldom take such a 'old biddy' attitude about things, but that is over the line.

[bobber205]

To es - that picture is disgusting and I found it to be classless and in very poor taste. I seldom take such a 'old biddy' attitude about things, but that is over the line.

I thought is was pretty funny, if not a bit gross. :)

[és:]

To es - that picture is disgusting

That was the point.

and I found it to be classless and in very poor taste.

In poor taste it might have been, but I find you calling my actions classless a bit offensive. I guess we're even.

It was a joke about something that fivepoint and I had argued about previously. Just skip the post.

[fivepoint]

Are we going to debate Ron Paul's opinion?

Yes. That's the one. Lets do that. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused by titling my thread the same as the original story I quoted. ;) Seriously though... here is Ron Paul's article on CNN today. I think it's definitely worth a serious discussion.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html
Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.

[jplan2008]

Yes, we can debate Ron Paul, but first I wanted to say that Republican ranking member of Senate Banking Committee, just made a comment about "turning into France" on MSNBC, so although I still think it's absurd, one of our 100 members of the "Upper House," said the same thing.

[és:]

Yes, we can debate Ron Paul, but first I wanted to say that Republican ranking member of Senate Banking Committee, just made a comment about "turning into France" on MSNBC, so although I still think it's absurd, one of our 100 members of the "Upper House," said the same thing.

That's it, I'm moving to America to sell berets and strings of Garlic, I've just placed an order for 300m - what could go wrong. In every morphing of a nation, there is a business opportunity.

[jplan2008]

That's it, I'm moving to America to sell berets and strings of Garlic, I've just placed an order for 300m - what could go wrong. In every morphing of a nation, there is a business opportunity.

Except that everyone here's on a no-carb diet.

No, wait, that was last year.

(I'm not referring to garlic as having carbs, but the bread to go with it)

[Iscariot]

(I'm not referring to garlic as having carbs, but the bread to go with it)

Garlic is 85% carbs.

[és:]

Jokes are funnier without analysis :D

The Garlic is to wear around your body...

http://www.charlietheclown.co.uk/imgs/france.jpg

Looks like I could make a killing on stripy shirts, too.

[bradl]

Would that be the same Ronald Reagan who presided over one of the largest increases in the federal government up to that time?

Just something to think about...

The same. Not justifying what he did when he was President, but just saying that his quote is scarily relevant now.

BL.