Sen. Warren and End of the Minimum Wage Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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…[/quote]
You fail to note the amount of predatory lending that was going on. Millions. Abuses were rampant. I wouldn’t expect you to recognize this as your sources are run by corporations which favors a news attitude of blaming this on the public instead of the financing sector itself. Convenient I suppose.

102

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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…[/quote]

No doubt this is correct. However, it’s hard for anyone(potential homebuyers, banks) to resist a carrot(homes they can’t afford, profit without risk) being dangled in front of them. Zeppelin just chooses not to see this.

103

[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]

I do understand the term it is you who doesn’t understand the point. These banks do not believe in the market, they believe in monopolies. Although they defend the “free market” their actions are quite different. It shows you what they really believe in. Like the difference between a politicains rhetoric and the policies they back.

104

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[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]

I do understand the term it is you who doesn’t understand the point. These banks do not believe in the market, they believe in monopolies. Although they defend the “free market” their actions are quite different. It shows you what they really believe in. Like the difference between a politicains rhetoric and the policies they back.
[/quote]

What? Please clarify. I certainly don’t understand the argument that government becoming involved in business is bad, so the government should become more involved in order to solve the problem.

105

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[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]

I do understand the term it is you who doesn’t understand the point. These banks do not believe in the market, they believe in monopolies. Although they defend the “free market” their actions are quite different. It shows you what they really believe in. Like the difference between a politicains rhetoric and the policies they back.
[/quote]

What? Please clarify. I certainly don’t understand the argument that government becoming involved in business is bad, so the government should become more involved in order to solve the problem. [/quote]

These issues didn’t happen during the era of effective regulation. Please explain why?

106

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You fail to note the amount of predatory lending that was going on. [/quote]

Assumptive conjecture.

There are millions of people selling millions of shitty products right now. Look at the fitness industry, and all the debunked supps over the years.

Just because someone is selling something, doesn’t absolve the buying from having to do their own due diligence.

I spend about 400 hours a year doing audit and tax for RE. Both commercial and residential. During 2007 I was closer to 800… I know what a) went on and b) how it works.

I’m sorry the “real world” doesn’t play out like the “real news” but you might want to see what the contibutors to your “non-corporate” funded news file as, lol.

107

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

These issues didn’t happen during the era of effective regulation. Please explain why?
[/quote]

Begging the question, again.

108

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You fail to note the amount of predatory lending that was going on. [/quote]

Assumptive conjecture.

There are millions of people selling millions of shitty products right now. Look at the fitness industry, and all the debunked supps over the years.

Just because someone is selling something, doesn’t absolve the buying from having to do their own due diligence.

I spend about 400 hours a year doing audit and tax for RE. Both commercial and residential. During 2007 I was closer to 800… I know what a) went on and b) how it works.

I’m sorry the “real world” doesn’t play out like the “real news” but you might want to see what the contibutors to your “non-corporate” funded news file as, lol. [/quote]

just because someone is selling shit it doesn’t absolve them of responsibilty,does it?

I’m sorry for you that the real world doesn’t work out the way the corporate news claims. Too bad that you are clouded by a world of propaganda. Plenty of research done about this but you won’t believe it because it doesn’t jive with your pre-conceived ideas.

109

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

These issues didn’t happen during the era of effective regulation. Please explain why?
[/quote]

Begging the question, again.[/quote]

Valid question. These issues didn’t happen during the era of effective regulation, why?

110

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You fail to note the amount of predatory lending that was going on. [/quote]

Assumptive conjecture.

There are millions of people selling millions of shitty products right now. Look at the fitness industry, and all the debunked supps over the years.

Just because someone is selling something, doesn’t absolve the buying from having to do their own due diligence.

I spend about 400 hours a year doing audit and tax for RE. Both commercial and residential. During 2007 I was closer to 800… I know what a) went on and b) how it works.

I’m sorry the “real world” doesn’t play out like the “real news” but you might want to see what the contibutors to your “non-corporate” funded news file as, lol. [/quote]

Disagree! A mortgage professional has the responsibilty to inform consumers. He is a licensed professional. It is his duty. So your argument is wrong again.

111

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

These issues didn’t happen during the era of effective regulation. Please explain why?
[/quote]

Begging the question, again.[/quote]

Valid question. These issues didn’t happen during the era of effective regulation, why?[/quote]

Do you know what begging the question means?

112

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
A mortgage professional has the responsibilty to inform consumers. He is a licensed professional. It is his duty. So your argument is wrong again.
[/quote]

LOL. Do you read the contracts you sign? Yeah, the terms of your mortgage are in there.

Nice try though.

113

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[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]

I do understand the term it is you who doesn’t understand the point. These banks do not believe in the market, they believe in monopolies. Although they defend the “free market” their actions are quite different. It shows you what they really believe in. Like the difference between a politicains rhetoric and the policies they back.
[/quote]

What? Please clarify. I certainly don’t understand the argument that government becoming involved in business is bad, so the government should become more involved in order to solve the problem. [/quote]

These issues didn’t happen during the era of effective regulation. Please explain why?
[/quote]

Effective regulation is an oxymoron(Actually, I guess the argument can be made that regulation does produce an effect, so all regulation is effective). You see effective regulation as all regulation until its ill effects trickle down and hurt more than just “the man”.

114

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You fail to note the amount of predatory lending that was going on. [/quote]

Assumptive conjecture.

There are millions of people selling millions of shitty products right now. Look at the fitness industry, and all the debunked supps over the years.

Just because someone is selling something, doesn’t absolve the buying from having to do their own due diligence.

I spend about 400 hours a year doing audit and tax for RE. Both commercial and residential. During 2007 I was closer to 800… I know what a) went on and b) how it works.

I’m sorry the “real world” doesn’t play out like the “real news” but you might want to see what the contibutors to your “non-corporate” funded news file as, lol. [/quote]

just because someone is selling shit it doesn’t absolve them of responsibilty,does it?

I’m sorry for you that the real world doesn’t work out the way the corporate news claims. Too bad that you are clouded by a world of propaganda. Plenty of research done about this but you won’t believe it because it doesn’t jive with your pre-conceived ideas.[/quote]

If I label a pile of dog shit “GOLD” and sell it for $20, you will blame me if someone buys it?

115

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[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]

I do understand the term it is you who doesn’t understand the point. These banks do not believe in the market, they believe in monopolies. Although they defend the “free market” their actions are quite different. It shows you what they really believe in. Like the difference between a politicains rhetoric and the policies they back.
[/quote]

What? Please clarify. I certainly don’t understand the argument that government becoming involved in business is bad, so the government should become more involved in order to solve the problem. [/quote]

These issues didn’t happen during the era of effective regulation. Please explain why?
[/quote]

Effective regulation is an oxymoron(Actually, I guess the argument can be made that regulation does produce an effect, so all regulation is effective). You see effective regulation as all regulation until its ill effects trickle down and hurt more than just “the man”.[/quote]

Yeah it’s an oxymoron. But the fact remains that during an era of effective regulation we didn’t have a financial meltdown.

116

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

just because someone is selling shit it doesn’t absolve them of responsibilty,does it?[/quote]

No it doesn’t, but they don’t cause anything. They bring a product to market. Knowingly selling shit or not, it doesn’t mean they are the only ones to blame in a voluntary exchange.

You look silly when you say this, of all people.

Legionary is one fo the more level headed people here, SMH too, and they have both mention things like this in your post are getting silly given your own bias issues…

Might want to give that whole “i’m the only non-sheeple” thing a rest…

117

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You fail to note the amount of predatory lending that was going on. [/quote]

Assumptive conjecture.

There are millions of people selling millions of shitty products right now. Look at the fitness industry, and all the debunked supps over the years.

Just because someone is selling something, doesn’t absolve the buying from having to do their own due diligence.

I spend about 400 hours a year doing audit and tax for RE. Both commercial and residential. During 2007 I was closer to 800… I know what a) went on and b) how it works.

I’m sorry the “real world” doesn’t play out like the “real news” but you might want to see what the contibutors to your “non-corporate” funded news file as, lol. [/quote]

just because someone is selling shit it doesn’t absolve them of responsibilty,does it?

I’m sorry for you that the real world doesn’t work out the way the corporate news claims. Too bad that you are clouded by a world of propaganda. Plenty of research done about this but you won’t believe it because it doesn’t jive with your pre-conceived ideas.[/quote]

If I label a pile of dog shit “GOLD” and sell it for $20, you will blame me if someone buys it?[/quote]

Stupid analogy! Mortgage professional are licensed and it is their duty to inform consumers. Just like someone who is a real estate agent.

118

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

just because someone is selling shit it doesn’t absolve them of responsibilty,does it?[/quote]

No it doesn’t, but they don’t cause anything. They bring a product to market. Knowingly selling shit or not, it doesn’t mean they are the only ones to blame in a voluntary exchange.

You look silly when you say this, of all people.

Legionary is one fo the more level headed people here, SMH too, and they have both mention things like this in your post are getting silly given your own bias issues…

Might want to give that whole “i’m the only non-sheeple” thing a rest…[/quote]

Wrong!It is their duty to inform the consumer.

119

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[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]

I do understand the term it is you who doesn’t understand the point. These banks do not believe in the market, they believe in monopolies. Although they defend the “free market” their actions are quite different. It shows you what they really believe in. Like the difference between a politicains rhetoric and the policies they back.
[/quote]

What? Please clarify. I certainly don’t understand the argument that government becoming involved in business is bad, so the government should become more involved in order to solve the problem. [/quote]

These issues didn’t happen during the era of effective regulation. Please explain why?
[/quote]

Effective regulation is an oxymoron(Actually, I guess the argument can be made that regulation does produce an effect, so all regulation is effective). You see effective regulation as all regulation until its ill effects trickle down and hurt more than just “the man”.[/quote]

Yeah it’s an oxymoron. But the fact remains that during an era of effective regulation we didn’t have a financial meltdown. [/quote]

The fact is that as soon as regulation stopped producing a desirable effect in the minds of the majority, its name was changed.

120

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[/quote]

That’s an outstanding question, pittbulll.
[/quote]

MAN we agree