Sen. Warren and End of the Minimum Wage Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The little guy created the mess. Some very large banks and corporations exacerbated the debacle, but the blame for that mess lies squarely upon every person in the US who borrowed way too much for their own personal capacity to pay it back.
[/quote]

Thank you! (internet applause)[/quote]

I disagree with Skyz, The banks made all the profit . The people that bought outside their ability to pay no longer have the possession they could not afford . Just follow the money
[/quote]

I’ll be sure to run that by the hundreds that closed down in the months following the crash.

Or the ones that were bailed out?

Wait, what was that you said about profit?
[/quote]

If I steal your money then it is ok ? Or do I have to be a bank ?
[/quote]

If I ask you for some and we enter into a contract wherein I pay you back plus interest, then I welch on it, then there was no theft except on the part of the borrower.

I’m surprised that no regular people were charged with theft by deception. I think that the only thing that prevented it is that the banks were so damn willing to be decieved, and the large majority of America that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar cried foul louder and faster than the lending institutions.

Or are you accusing banks of usury because they tried to make money?

[/quote]

Let’s say I contract with you $100,000 to build an addition to your house . Then I take the $100,000 as a bonus file bankruptcy and don’t honor my obligation ? There are laws about me doing that . But banks must not because American Tax payers bail out the banks and key peopke take the money as bonuses . The money was for the banks obligations . Same as your 100k
[/quote]

Boy everybody gets so bent out of shape about that bail out.

Nobody ever mentions the 22 billion that the fed cleared off of one company alone.

They also ignore that the annual salaries for execs of companies participating in TARP were controlled by a pay czar appointed to the program. (see article in post at the beginning of the thread pertaining to clawbacks for more on that.)

82

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]

If I’m not mistaken, you are self employed, correct?

83

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?

[/quote]

Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]

Move to N. Korea or Cuba then.

Profit isn’t stealing, unless you are a lefty. [/quote]

So the banks that caused the meltdown didn’t steal?

84

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?

[/quote]

Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]

Move to N. Korea or Cuba then.

Profit isn’t stealing, unless you are a lefty. [/quote]

So the banks that caused the meltdown didn’t steal?
[/quote]

Please explain.

85

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?

[/quote]

Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]

Move to N. Korea or Cuba then.

Profit isn’t stealing, unless you are a lefty. [/quote]

So the banks that caused the meltdown didn’t steal?
[/quote]

Please explain.[/quote]

They helped to gut the regulation so they could make the riskiest of trading money and if they lost it was all backed by the government which in the end is the public. If that isn’t stealing,please explain?

86

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?

[/quote]

Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]

Move to N. Korea or Cuba then.

Profit isn’t stealing, unless you are a lefty. [/quote]

So the banks that caused the meltdown didn’t steal?
[/quote]

Please explain.[/quote]

They helped to gut the regulation so they could make the riskiest of trading money and if they lost it was all backed by the government which in the end is the public. If that isn’t stealing,please explain?
[/quote]

So your issue is with the government overstepping its bounds. Thank you for your explanation.

87

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?

[/quote]

Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]

Move to N. Korea or Cuba then.

Profit isn’t stealing, unless you are a lefty. [/quote]

So the banks that caused the meltdown didn’t steal?
[/quote]

“Banks” didn’t cause the meltdown.

Stop begging the question.

88

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What does TARP stand for?

[/quote]
I really tried to find a good one :)Troubled asset relief eye roll (boring)

89

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?

[/quote]

Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]

Move to N. Korea or Cuba then.

Profit isn’t stealing, unless you are a lefty. [/quote]

So the banks that caused the meltdown didn’t steal?
[/quote]

“Banks” didn’t cause the meltdown.

Stop begging the question. [/quote]

banks caused the problem so they could rob the bank , then mire it in canned rhetoric

90

[quote]NickViar wrote:

So your issue is with the government overstepping its bounds. Thank you for your explanation.[/quote]

It is funny, because big government is his answer for everything.

91

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

banks caused the problem so they could rob the bank , then mire it in canned rhetoric
[/quote]

No they didn’t cause the problem. Holy shit.

They didn’t force people into buying homes they couldn’t afford. They didn’t force people to buy the subordinated debt. They did prevent people from looking into the property behind the debt. They didn’t force the insurance company to insure the assets.

This isn’t communist Russia, yet. Private enterprise doesn’t force your hand, until the government gets involved and forces you to buy health insurance.

edit: a very important is v isn’t

92

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

banks caused the problem so they could rob the bank , then mire it in canned rhetoric
[/quote]

No they didn’t cause the problem. Holy shit.

They didn’t force people into buying homes they couldn’t afford. They didn’t force people to buy the subordinated debt. They did prevent people from looking into the property behind the debt. They didn’t force the insurance company to insure the assets.

This isn’t communist Russia, yet. Private enterprise doesn’t force your hand, until the government gets involved and forces you to buy health insurance.

edit: a very important is v isn’t[/quote]

I believe his argument(poorly articulated) is that banks took on risks they would not have had they not been backed by the government. He chooses to blame business instead of the government for problems resulting from the relationship.

He fails to see that by allowing government to get involved in business, Americans approved government functioning as a business. A business typically invests its money the way it feels will most benefit it. Government’s money comes from taxpayers and it invests that money in the way it feels will benefit it. The difference between government and business is that government can take as much as it wants with force.

93

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?

[/quote]

Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]

Move to N. Korea or Cuba then.

Profit isn’t stealing, unless you are a lefty. [/quote]

So the banks that caused the meltdown didn’t steal?
[/quote]

“Banks” didn’t cause the meltdown.

Stop begging the question. [/quote]

Yes they were a major cause of the meltdown.

94

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Really? You want government determining when and where profit can be made?

[/quote]

Yes I want the Gov to make laws that prohibit stealing no matter how complex the MO is
[/quote]

Move to N. Korea or Cuba then.

Profit isn’t stealing, unless you are a lefty. [/quote]

So the banks that caused the meltdown didn’t steal?
[/quote]

Please explain.[/quote]

They helped to gut the regulation so they could make the riskiest of trading money and if they lost it was all backed by the government which in the end is the public. If that isn’t stealing,please explain?
[/quote]

So your issue is with the government overstepping its bounds. Thank you for your explanation.[/quote]
No the answer is the banking sector overstepped it’s bounds as soon as the regulations were removed. This was done by design.

95

[quote]NickViar wrote:

I believe his argument(poorly articulated) is that banks took on risks they would not have had they not been backed by the government. He chooses to blame business instead of the government for problems resulting from the relationship.[/quote]

Well, that is a better argument than the one I think he is trying to make, but it still doesn’t mean the banks caused a damn thing.

Christ they insured the damn assets. Seems pretty damn prudent to me.

Those bailouts never should have happened, no doubt. And Dodd-Frank has done nothing but make the big banks bigger, and give the government more power to play around.

The other big difference you are missing is government is a 3rd party that never pays a direct price for being wrong.

96

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

banks caused the problem so they could rob the bank , then mire it in canned rhetoric
[/quote]

No they didn’t cause the problem. Holy shit.

They didn’t force people into buying homes they couldn’t afford. They didn’t force people to buy the subordinated debt. They did prevent people from looking into the property behind the debt. They didn’t force the insurance company to insure the assets.

This isn’t communist Russia, yet. Private enterprise doesn’t force your hand, until the government gets involved and forces you to buy health insurance.

edit: a very important is v isn’t[/quote]

I believe his argument(poorly articulated) is that banks took on risks they would not have had they not been backed by the government. He chooses to blame business instead of the government for problems resulting from the relationship.

He fails to see that by allowing government to get involved in business, Americans approved government functioning as a business. A business typically invests its money the way it feels will most benefit it. Government’s money comes from taxpayers and it invests that money in the way it feels will benefit it. The difference between government and business is that government can take as much as it wants with force.[/quote]

And you fail to see that the banks who back the so called “free market” purposely gutted the regulations to involve themselves in this type of trading.

97

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Yes they were a major cause of the meltdown.
[/quote]

Yes, and guns kill people, and spoons made the ass in your avitar fat.

98

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

And you fail to see that the banks who back the so called “free market” purposely gutted the regulations to involve themselves in this type of trading.
[/quote]

This is dumb, and it is dumb because you don’t understand what you are talking about.

Do you have any idea how easy it would have been to set up a fund to buy all these assets and sell them on the market that way?

No you don’t.

Whether or not whatever regulation you want to hang your hat on was in place, the packages would still have been made, still have been sold, and shit would have still hit the fan when the RE market tanked. Because, and get this, millions of people took out loans they couldn’t afford…

99

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

banks caused the problem so they could rob the bank , then mire it in canned rhetoric
[/quote]

No they didn’t cause the problem. Holy shit.

They didn’t force people into buying homes they couldn’t afford. They didn’t force people to buy the subordinated debt. They did prevent people from looking into the property behind the debt. They didn’t force the insurance company to insure the assets.

This isn’t communist Russia, yet. Private enterprise doesn’t force your hand, until the government gets involved and forces you to buy health insurance.

edit: a very important is v isn’t[/quote]

I believe his argument(poorly articulated) is that banks took on risks they would not have had they not been backed by the government. He chooses to blame business instead of the government for problems resulting from the relationship.

He fails to see that by allowing government to get involved in business, Americans approved government functioning as a business. A business typically invests its money the way it feels will most benefit it. Government’s money comes from taxpayers and it invests that money in the way it feels will benefit it. The difference between government and business is that government can take as much as it wants with force.[/quote]

And you fail to see that the banks who back the so called “free market” purposely gutted the regulations to involve themselves in this type of trading.
[/quote]

What type of trading? Please don’t use the words “free market” to describe the scenario in question. You don’t understand the term. You associate “free market” and “capitalism” with government intervening on behalf of business.

In a free market, a business which made loans to people who were unable to pay them back would collapse. It would not be bailed out. It would not be backed by the government.

100

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

banks caused the problem so they could rob the bank , then mire it in canned rhetoric
[/quote]

No they didn’t cause the problem. Holy shit.

They didn’t force people into buying homes they couldn’t afford. They didn’t force people to buy the subordinated debt. They did prevent people from looking into the property behind the debt. They didn’t force the insurance company to insure the assets.

This isn’t communist Russia, yet. Private enterprise doesn’t force your hand, until the government gets involved and forces you to buy health insurance.

edit: a very important is v isn’t[/quote]

I believe his argument(poorly articulated) is that banks took on risks they would not have had they not been backed by the government. He chooses to blame business instead of the government for problems resulting from the relationship.

He fails to see that by allowing government to get involved in business, Americans approved government functioning as a business. A business typically invests its money the way it feels will most benefit it. Government’s money comes from taxpayers and it invests that money in the way it feels will benefit it. The difference between government and business is that government can take as much as it wants with force.[/quote]

And you fail to see that the banks who back the so called “free market” purposely gutted the regulations to involve themselves in this type of trading.
[/quote]

What type of trading? Please don’t use the words “free market” to describe the scenario in question. You don’t understand the term. You associate “free market” and “capitalism” with government intervening on behalf of business.

In a free market, a business which made loans to people who were unable to pay them back would collapse. It would not be bailed out. It would not be backed by the government. [/quote]

this, 1000x this.