How things work
- Thread starter uneverno
- Start date
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3247197
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-dodd-we-trust
Pretty good economics lesson, of course the politicians are all in the pockets of these corporations so nothing will ever get done.
Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3247197
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-dodd-we-trust
Pretty good economics lesson, of course the politicians are all in the pockets of these corporations so nothing will ever get done.
Fishtaco
mantisman51
Active Member
His analysis is dead-on. Also, the same executives who were bailed out and given even more bonuses for last year have a secret to their success that is worse than this. The reason Goldman Sachs and the other "investment bankers" made record profit is they borrowed from the Treasury at .15% and invested that basically free money back into Treasury bonds at 2.5-3%. So they earned those outrageous bonuses because the Fed is paying them to borrow the governments money. Private citizens need not attempt such a maneuver, for anyone else it is felony fraud. But we need to let big business and free enterprise loose to rap...er pilla...er we need to leave those poor executives who destroyed our economy and cost millions Americans their savings and homes alone. They are what makes America great and besides if we did actually let free enterprise take it's course, they would all be penniless and bankrupt and Rush Limbaugh would have no one to golf with.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3247932
Funny, all the leftist whine and cry about the bankers getting bonuses but are silent about the government regulators who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the bankers getting bonuses too
Nicely played, and valid point. Meantime, the right contends that it was all legal, ergo, no problem.
Are the regulators composed of exclusively R or D???
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http:///forum/post/3247932
Funny, all the leftist whine and cry about the bankers getting bonuses but are silent about the government regulators who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the bankers getting bonuses too
Nicely played, and valid point. Meantime, the right contends that it was all legal, ergo, no problem.
Are the regulators composed of exclusively R or D???
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3248801
Nicely played, and valid point. Meantime, the right contends that it was all legal, ergo, no problem.
Are the regulators composed of exclusively R or D???
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Just because you may personally find something offensive doesn't make it wrong or illegal. In the case of the banks the Democrats seem to have a hard time understanding that. Actually they could care less, it's just a trumped up political issue like the ee-vile insurance companies.
http:///forum/post/3248801
Nicely played, and valid point. Meantime, the right contends that it was all legal, ergo, no problem.
Are the regulators composed of exclusively R or D???
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Just because you may personally find something offensive doesn't make it wrong or illegal. In the case of the banks the Democrats seem to have a hard time understanding that. Actually they could care less, it's just a trumped up political issue like the ee-vile insurance companies.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3248895
Just because you may personally find something offensive doesn't make it wrong or illegal. In the case of the banks the Democrats seem to have a hard time understanding that. Actually they could care less, it's just a trumped up political issue like the ee-vile insurance companies.
Again, well played. However,
1) what is moral is in the eye of the beholder (unless you can point me to a compendium of absolute economic morality.)
2) What is legal is in the eye of those who make the law, which includes those to whom the lawmakers are beholden (i.e. Who has the gold makes the rules...)
I don't have a hard time understanding either. I'm merely pointing out that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Politicians, whether D or R, are incapable of acting. All they can do is re-act. We the People get stuck with the consequences.
Math cannot be constrained by conceptions of morality or legality. It simply is.
It would make a great deal more sense to base economic law on the constraints of mathematics than the allowance of scruples.
http:///forum/post/3248895
Just because you may personally find something offensive doesn't make it wrong or illegal. In the case of the banks the Democrats seem to have a hard time understanding that. Actually they could care less, it's just a trumped up political issue like the ee-vile insurance companies.
Again, well played. However,
1) what is moral is in the eye of the beholder (unless you can point me to a compendium of absolute economic morality.)
2) What is legal is in the eye of those who make the law, which includes those to whom the lawmakers are beholden (i.e. Who has the gold makes the rules...)
I don't have a hard time understanding either. I'm merely pointing out that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Politicians, whether D or R, are incapable of acting. All they can do is re-act. We the People get stuck with the consequences.
Math cannot be constrained by conceptions of morality or legality. It simply is.
It would make a great deal more sense to base economic law on the constraints of mathematics than the allowance of scruples.
reefraff
Active Member
If the bankers have contracts that say if you perform X you will receive Y it would be immoral for an outside entity to attempt to violate the terms of that contract.
As far as math look at what the Democrats are doing with it in terms of health care. You can't cut 500 million from medicare spending to pay for expanded Healthfare and shore up medicare while at the same time not reducing services but they keep making the claim. They Also make claims about deficit reduction but don't figure in the costs their medicaid mandates are adding on to the states deficits.
As far as math look at what the Democrats are doing with it in terms of health care. You can't cut 500 million from medicare spending to pay for expanded Healthfare and shore up medicare while at the same time not reducing services but they keep making the claim. They Also make claims about deficit reduction but don't figure in the costs their medicaid mandates are adding on to the states deficits.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3249353
If the bankers have contracts that say if you perform X you will receive Y it would be immoral for an outside entity to attempt to violate the terms of that contract.
Perhaps. That's your concept of morality. The State will do what it wants to whenever it wants to. It always has and will continue to do so. Whether it's moral or not, it will happen. It's in the nature of Government.
As far as math look at what the Democrats are doing with it in terms of health care. You can't cut 500 million from medicare spending to pay for expanded Healthfare and shore up medicare while at the same time not reducing services but they keep making the claim. They Also make claims about deficit reduction but don't figure in the costs their medicaid mandates are adding on to the states deficits.
That's what I just said. The Democrats, however, are no more guilty than the Republicans.
For example, the Bush tax cuts combined with his stimulus packages were supposed to grow a shaky economy.
Did they? No.
Why?
It's a zero sum game. You cannot change volume by rearranging mass.
http:///forum/post/3249353
If the bankers have contracts that say if you perform X you will receive Y it would be immoral for an outside entity to attempt to violate the terms of that contract.
Perhaps. That's your concept of morality. The State will do what it wants to whenever it wants to. It always has and will continue to do so. Whether it's moral or not, it will happen. It's in the nature of Government.
As far as math look at what the Democrats are doing with it in terms of health care. You can't cut 500 million from medicare spending to pay for expanded Healthfare and shore up medicare while at the same time not reducing services but they keep making the claim. They Also make claims about deficit reduction but don't figure in the costs their medicaid mandates are adding on to the states deficits.
That's what I just said. The Democrats, however, are no more guilty than the Republicans.
For example, the Bush tax cuts combined with his stimulus packages were supposed to grow a shaky economy.
Did they? No.
Why?
It's a zero sum game. You cannot change volume by rearranging mass.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3249358
For example, the Bush tax cuts combined with his stimulus packages were supposed to grow a shaky economy.
Did they? No.
Why?
.
When are you talking about exactly, and what is your definition of growth before I respond to this.
http:///forum/post/3249358
For example, the Bush tax cuts combined with his stimulus packages were supposed to grow a shaky economy.
Did they? No.
Why?
.
When are you talking about exactly, and what is your definition of growth before I respond to this.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3249569
When are you talking about exactly, and what is your definition of growth before I respond to this.
I'd be interested in hearing that too. We had incredible growth in the wake of the tax cuts. It was the Republicans Democratesk spending the fowled thing up, that and Pelosi getting in control and making the problem even worse.
http:///forum/post/3249569
When are you talking about exactly, and what is your definition of growth before I respond to this.
I'd be interested in hearing that too. We had incredible growth in the wake of the tax cuts. It was the Republicans Democratesk spending the fowled thing up, that and Pelosi getting in control and making the problem even worse.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3249569
When are you talking about exactly, and what is your definition of growth before I respond to this.
There was no appreciable change in GDP post the 2003 tax cuts. There has been no appreciable difference in GDP since the 2008 stimulus package either. (and, lest it be claimed I'm trying to be partisan, Obama's 2009 package has changed GDP pretty much not at all either.) http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...dp+growth+rate
I'll grant you that the difference between 1.1 and 3% growth is incredible. However, as the chart points out, the growth in GDP was well underway prior to the tax cuts, and the subsequent decline in growth did not follow corresponding tax increases, nor has there been a substantial change in GDP since either Bush's 2008 stimulus package, or Obama's 2009 package.
As King George I said: "How do you do that voodoo that you do?"
http:///forum/post/3249569
When are you talking about exactly, and what is your definition of growth before I respond to this.
There was no appreciable change in GDP post the 2003 tax cuts. There has been no appreciable difference in GDP since the 2008 stimulus package either. (and, lest it be claimed I'm trying to be partisan, Obama's 2009 package has changed GDP pretty much not at all either.) http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...dp+growth+rate
I'll grant you that the difference between 1.1 and 3% growth is incredible. However, as the chart points out, the growth in GDP was well underway prior to the tax cuts, and the subsequent decline in growth did not follow corresponding tax increases, nor has there been a substantial change in GDP since either Bush's 2008 stimulus package, or Obama's 2009 package.
As King George I said: "How do you do that voodoo that you do?"