If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Obama used his magical time machine to go back in time to 2007, fully implement Obamanomics, and crash the economy into the worst five years since the Great Depression   (forbes.com) divider line 458
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Great Depression, obamanomics, American Thinker, Reaganomics, american incomes, President George Bush, economic liberalism  
•       •       •

4589 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Feb 2013 at 12:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



458 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-10 04:59:04 PM

LargeCanine: The economy has been experiencing anemic growth which is often lower than the rate of population growth, high inflation, and high official and even higher real unemployment. Much of the "growth" is really just government deficit spending and is not real productivity and will have to be repaid someday.



This is just objectively false.  Public sector payrolls are at their lowest level in a decade.  Government simply is not growing.  Like I said, you can argue we're growing to slowly, but the choice we have is between slow, steady growth and contraction, because we know that that is what republican economic policy does; we watched it do so with our own eyes in 2007-9.

Obama hurts the poor with regressive policies like Quantitative Easing in which the government invents money out of nothing, thus reducing the value of each dollar. This hurts the poor because their income and money is worth less, and they have little in the way of tangible assets. Affluent people have tangible assets which increase in price, hedging against inflation. Thus, every time Geithner massively increases the money supply, he is taxing the poor.

You're not going to get any argument from me that there isn't a single piece of economic policy that has come from the Obama administration that couldn't have been more progressive in nature.  But I'm not going to say monetary policy shouldn't be one of the tools in our tool belt to deal with economic crises.  That's really the realm of failed RON PAUL/gold standard monetary lunacy.

Diplomatically, we have alienated our allies and are held in contempt my the Russians and Chinese. Our embassies are being targeted. Friendly governments can't rely on us and are making deals/alliance predicated on American weakness. Obama has been judged by the international community as being feckless and weak.

Exactly which friends have we lost in the last 4 years that we hadn't already lost to the Iraq war?  Frankly, I think it's a good thing that the Russians and Chinese are leery of the US.  We, and our way of life, pose a direct threat to their totalitarian governments.  The last 4 years have seen the global era of sustainable autocracy effectively come to an end, dictators anywhere are no longer safe, and history will show US has been on the right side of this shift.

Oh, and by the way, no one outside of the right-wing infotainment industry think Obama is "feckless and weak".  This is the guy who ended a genocide and deposed one of the US's worst enemies in Libya without a single US casualty, although I understand that you may not recognize what effective foriegn policy looks like when it doesn't involve 10 years of ground war.  In fact, you need to get your talking points straight, as I believe this week they're going with "Obama and his drone war are not weak and feckless enough."

I didn't advocate any particular policy, and saying that I advocated politics leading to contraction is simply you projecting. I never said anything about America being in decline. You are trying to put words into my mouth - building a straw man to knock down. Of course, you knew that, you are just trying to change the subject from Obama.

No, you clearly advocated in favor of austerity earlier in this same comment.  That is a policy that has failed every where and every time is has tried.  You're simply trying to play the "I have no dog in this fight" card because you don't want to have to defend your own positions, and frankly, I don't blame you.  I wouldn't want to have to back up what I say if I was so consistently wrong either.

Look, we live in tough times, I don't dispute that.  But, when you look at the rest of the world, we're actually doing pretty well for ourselves in this country.  Now, you can choose to say that this is in spite of Obama rather than because of him, but like I said earlier, this is merely dogma in the face of contrary evidence.
 
2013-02-10 05:07:13 PM

born_yesterday: GreatGlavinsGhost: Also,

[i1222.photobucket.com image 591x180]

/oblig

Dammit!


Someone told me to hurry and post it before you did.

/heh, heh
 
2013-02-10 05:08:26 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: born_yesterday: GreatGlavinsGhost: Also,

[i1222.photobucket.com image 591x180]

/oblig

Dammit!

Someone told me to hurry and post it before you did.

/heh, heh


Thanks a lot, Obama!
 
2013-02-10 05:10:29 PM

Mrtraveler01: Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?


Does modern conservatism bill itself as such?

Zeppelininthesky: Our bias is against the party of rape, misogamy obstructionism, racism, hate, religious idiocy, rejection of reality, facts, and hatred of everything that is Democrat just to make them look bad.


Misogamy... good one. It's funny because the other day I described how people here describe the Republican party as such and I was told that doesn't happen.

You sound almost like a crude dogberry with your list.
 
2013-02-10 05:12:47 PM

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?

Does modern conservatism bill itself as such?


My point is that modern conservatism isn't conservative in the least.
 
2013-02-10 05:24:58 PM

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?

Does modern conservatism bill itself as such?

My point is that modern conservatism isn't conservative in the least.


Lately, the Republican party has been wildly radical, and simply calling these radicals "Conservative" is sort of like calling kittens born in a stove biscuits...

These radicals are what drove me from the party. Plain and simple.
 
2013-02-10 05:25:09 PM

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?

Does modern conservatism bill itself as such?

Zeppelininthesky: Our bias is against the party of rape, misogamy obstructionism, racism, hate, religious idiocy, rejection of reality, facts, and hatred of everything that is Democrat just to make them look bad.

Misogamy... good one. It's funny because the other day I described how people here describe the Republican party as such and I was told that doesn't happen.

You sound almost like a crude dogberry with your list.


All of those bills outlawing abortion, and pro-rape, are for whom, exactly?
 
2013-02-10 05:26:50 PM

Zeppelininthesky: All of those bills outlawing abortion, and pro-rape, are for whom, exactly?


Pro-rape? Sure. Sure they are.
 
2013-02-10 05:27:33 PM

The Thoroughbred of Sin: I should have stopped reading when I hit this statement ``enormously successful Reaganomics``
but I always try to read an article through to see the argument and judge its worth.

Then I hit this bit of massive b*llsh*t  ``I have explained in previous columns that the financial crisis was caused by government, not Wall Street`` and stopped reading. Obviously this Peter Ferrara person is writing about events that happened on Earth2 or else he forgot to put his tinfoil hat on before writing this ``column``


Republicans and their masters on Wall street have been under the delusion that somehow it was the federal government and it's policies that made them greedy, amoral, psychopathic assholes. In their tiny little minds if all the laws against murder were repealed tomorrow, any killing that happened afterward would not be the murderer's fault, but the government's fault for repealing those laws.

Once regulation after regulation after law after law was repealed from the Carter administration through today, giving Wall Street unprecedented power and control over the national economy, those in charge of that ship of fools just HAD to engage in shady and illegal practices designed to reap billions for themselves without any thought as to what fruit the consequences of that reaping would bear. Never mind what was right, or what was prudent, or what made sense... if there were no specific law, rule, statute, or regulation prohibiting that action, then f*ck the consequences.

Of course these same corporations have spent billions over the decades not only shaping and writing the laws, rules, statues and regulations which remain, but electing politicians who would make sure they weren't enforced the way they should be.

If a law is the only thing that might stop you from doing evil, then it is you that have the problem.
 
2013-02-10 05:32:06 PM

Mrbogey: Zeppelininthesky: All of those bills outlawing abortion, and pro-rape, are for whom, exactly?

Pro-rape? Sure. Sure they are.


You seem to forget all the comments by  Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and quite a few others.
 
2013-02-10 05:32:37 PM
"I have explained in previous columns that the financial crisis was caused by government, not Wall Street, which was just another victim of bad government policies."

That's gold Jerry...GOLD!
 
2013-02-10 05:35:18 PM

Zeppelininthesky: misogamy


I'll admit upfront, I had to google this one. Is this what you really meant to say?
 
2013-02-10 05:38:36 PM

mittromneysdog: misogamy


Let me clarify, they dislike women. They also dislike gays marrying.
 
2013-02-10 05:38:37 PM

Mrbogey: Pro-rape


Preposterous overstatement. They're only pro legitimate rape.
 
2013-02-10 05:40:37 PM
As others have probably done I stopped reading at 'Enormously successful Reaganomics'.
 
2013-02-10 05:41:31 PM

mittromneysdog: Mrbogey: Pro-rape

Preposterous overstatement. They're only pro legitimate rape.


My brain shut the whole thing down
 
2013-02-10 05:41:54 PM

SkinnyHead: tenpoundsofcheese: Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.

And wasn't Obama part of the Democrat controlled senate at the time?  Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.


Yeah, almost like they voted for two wars AND a tax holiday AT THE SAME TIME. Stunning stupidity, there. Truly makes you question if the man should be Commander-In-Chief.
 
2013-02-10 05:43:29 PM

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: And no, modern liberalism isn't about questioning beliefs. It's essentially what old progressivism used to be. Just another catalogue of ideas that is in search of good packaging.

Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?


Yes!  In a sign that the end must be very near, I agree with you 100%.

Real conservatism requires us to leave (without judgement) these social issues to the states because the Constitution is silent on them.  Regional differences in social mores if fine, maybe even desirable.  But it also requires no using the commerce clause to shove each others' opinions down everybody else's throats.

True conservatism on economic and foreign interests is a worthwhile debate that IMHO has alot of merit.  Sadly, economic conservatives are now mostly "borrow and spend" instead of "tax and borrow and spend" and foreign affairs thinking just means a defense plant in every critical district.

There is a great documentary on HBO about Goldwater and conservatism before we lost our way.  Worth a look, you would probably really like it.
 
2013-02-10 05:47:01 PM
Bulldg4life


"You will now witness the power of this fully armed, and operational DERP STATION!!!!"
 
2013-02-10 06:00:50 PM

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: Why won't you answer the question?

I answered it for you. You were just too daft to realize it.

Granny_Panties: Now log back into your other account randomjsa. We all know it's you. Get over yourself. You'll screw up and out yourself in a more obvious manor eventually.

I figured that's why you edited my name onto his reply. It's odd when I get an email alert saying someone is quoting me and the reply is completely foreign. Your ability to assess sockpuppets is worse than your economic acumen. I hope you aren't speaking for everyone. I'd hate to think less of people I already spend too much time thinking less of.


You haven't answered anything.

WHAT BILLS DID THE DEMOCRATS PASS THAT SUNK THE ECONOMY IN 2007 AND 2008?

Do you understand English? Or are you really this obtuse?

Answer the question. You have not answered it. You are randomjsa. You don't get e-mail sent to you when someone uses your name. So you just openly admitted you are in fact randomjsa? Are you really this dumb? Seriously? So you sponsored yourself with total fark? Let me queses your secret sponsor is randomjsa? Psycho.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.
 
2013-02-10 06:15:58 PM

Granny_Panties: You are randomjsa. You don't get e-mail sent to you when someone uses your name. So you just openly admitted you are in fact randomjsa? Are you really this dumb? Seriously? So you sponsored yourself with total fark? Let me queses your secret sponsor is randomjsa? Psycho.


And yet.... I received an email.

Of course that's probably because I have notifications set to do so when someone says my name in reply format.

Learn how the site works, Sherlock.

As to my sponsorship, I was sponsored for one month by a certain person and I followed it up myself for another 2 months and have passed it along by sponsoring 3 people.

You've become unhinged.
 
2013-02-10 06:16:28 PM
ts3.mm.bing.net

/History's greatest monster!
 
2013-02-10 06:21:47 PM

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: You are randomjsa. You don't get e-mail sent to you when someone uses your name. So you just openly admitted you are in fact randomjsa? Are you really this dumb? Seriously? So you sponsored yourself with total fark? Let me queses your secret sponsor is randomjsa? Psycho.

And yet.... I received an email.

Of course that's probably because I have notifications set to do so when someone says my name in reply format.

Learn how the site works, Sherlock.

As to my sponsorship, I was sponsored for one month by a certain person and I followed it up myself for another 2 months and have passed it along by sponsoring 3 people.

You've become unhinged.


What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008? Answer the question.
 
2013-02-10 06:48:17 PM
i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-10 06:48:25 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Forbes is quoting American Thinker?

Didn't Forbes used to be respectable?


Yeah, but Malcolm's been dead for more than 20 years at this point.
 
2013-02-10 06:50:29 PM

Granny_Panties: What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008? Answer the question.


I have. You just rejected the answer.
 
2013-02-10 06:55:22 PM

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008? Answer the question.

I have. You just rejected the answer.


Study it out Libs!
 
2013-02-10 07:01:05 PM

udhq: SkinnyHead: That isn't my argument. I'm not defending Bush, I am arguing against what seems to be the Lib theme of this thread, which is to mock the concept that Obama should bear responsibility for the bad economy that has persisted throughout his presidency.

Bad economy?

He inherited the fastest shrinking economy in 50 years and stopped the contraction almost immediately.  The US has out-performed almost every other major economy in the world under his leadership.


Yup.  There have been riots in the streets in Greece and Britain, we've got idiots tying teabags to their hats and calling it political dissent.
And don't even get into the REAL third-world countries, where warlords and their buddies tool around in old Toyota pickups shooting shiat at random with their bed-mounted machine guns.
 
2013-02-10 07:05:02 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Lionel Mandrake: Forbes is quoting American Thinker?

Didn't Forbes used to be respectable?

Yeah, but Malcolm's been dead for more than 20 years at this point.


You ever see Steve Forbes on those Fox Sunday "business" shows? If he wasn't born on third, he'd be bagging groceries.
 
2013-02-10 07:06:10 PM

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008? Answer the question.

I have. You just rejected the answer.


Where? I don't see it. Why won't you answer that simple question?

What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008?
 
2013-02-10 07:08:16 PM
randomjsa:
At what point precisely is Obama responsible for anything negative? As it stands right now he is somehow simultaneously responsible for absolutely nothing and absolutely everything. He's like the Schrodinger's cat of presidents. The only other people who behave like this are religious fundamentalists trying to simultaneously tell you what a great guy their god is while at the same time explaining away all the bad things that happen as either not his fault or your own fault.

Somebody buy Obama a white suit and white tie, stat.
www.jimcarreyonline.com
 
2013-02-10 07:09:44 PM

mittromneysdog: Mrbogey: Pro-rape

Preposterous overstatement. They're only pro legitimate rape.


As opposed to...amateur legitimate rape?
 
2013-02-10 07:32:15 PM

rewind2846: Once regulation after regulation after law after law was repealed from the Carter administration through today, giving Wall Street unprecedented power and control over the national economy,


Wall street would have no control over the economy if it didn't have government there to back up its bad bets and false financial products.  What Enron did was illegal. What bernie Madoff did was illegal. What Allen Sanford did was illegal.  People dont give a shiat where their bank invests their money because their deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC and the banks have no incentive to invest responsibly because their bets are backed up by the Fed and "too big to fail"

Remember, any company - bank included can only offer you a product you arent forced to buy or a job you're not forced to work. the only way business can "Control" you is if they partner with government.  We call that cronyism and statists are all to happy to see it continue so long as their preferred companies are first in line at the trough.
 
2013-02-10 07:42:55 PM

o5iiawah: rewind2846: Once regulation after regulation after law after law was repealed from the Carter administration through today, giving Wall Street unprecedented power and control over the national economy,

Wall street would have no control over the economy if it didn't have government there to back up its bad bets and false financial products.  What Enron did was illegal. What bernie Madoff did was illegal. What Allen Sanford did was illegal.  People dont give a shiat where their bank invests their money because their deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC and the banks have no incentive to invest responsibly because their bets are backed up by the Fed and "too big to fail"

Remember, any company - bank included can only offer you a product you arent forced to buy or a job you're not forced to work. the only way business can "Control" you is if they partner with government.  We call that cronyism and statists are all to happy to see it continue so long as their preferred companies are first in line at the trough.


So we shouldn't have the FDIC?

I'm confused.
 
2013-02-10 07:48:43 PM

Mrtraveler01: So we shouldn't have the FDIC?


We should have let everything crash and gone through with Great Depression 2:  Electric Boogaloo for Galt's Gulch to become a reality.
 
2013-02-10 07:50:26 PM

Zeppelininthesky: LargeCanine: Mrtraveler01: LargeCanine: Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies.

And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?

Europe's ecconomic issues are self-inflicted, much like ours.

So you agree that Bush's bad policies tanked the economy? Good to know.


Your debate technique does you no credit.

Bush's weak dollar policy and failure to restrain spending were wrong and bad for the long term health of the economy. Obama's policies include and even weaker dollar and even more deficit spending. Bush's policies were bad, Obama's an order of magnitude worse.
 
2013-02-10 07:53:27 PM

LargeCanine: Zeppelininthesky: LargeCanine: Mrtraveler01: LargeCanine: Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies.

And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?

Europe's ecconomic issues are self-inflicted, much like ours.

So you agree that Bush's bad policies tanked the economy? Good to know.

Your debate technique does you no credit.

Bush's weak dollar policy and failure to restrain spending were wrong and bad for the long term health of the economy. Obama's policies include and even weaker dollar and even more deficit spending. Bush's policies were bad, Obama's an order of magnitude worse.


You're one of those people who believe Government should be run like a household budget right?
 
2013-02-10 07:57:25 PM

Mrtraveler01: So we shouldn't have the FDIC?

I'm confused.


Why should the average taxpayer be on the hook for a private transaction between a depositor and a bank?  Isn't it the depositor's job to research the bank and find out what sorts of investments the bank makes with depositor funds?   If a bank wants to divert its depositor funds into investing in lottery tickets and people are willing to deposit money into the bank, why the hell should you be on the hook when the whole thing comes crashing down?

The larger problem is the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of toxic assets that got passed around the market like a game of musical chairs with each bank knowing full well that when the music stopped, the last bank without a chair would get a bailout, a few million for the CEO and would be on their merry way.
 
2013-02-10 07:58:20 PM

udhq: LargeCanine: The economy has been experiencing anemic growth which is often lower than the rate of population growth, high inflation, and high official and even higher real unemployment. Much of the "growth" is really just government deficit spending and is not real productivity and will have to be repaid someday.


This is just objectively false.  Public sector payrolls are at their lowest level in a decade.  Government simply is not growing.  Like I said, you can argue we're growing to slowly, but the choice we have is between slow, steady growth and contraction, because we know that that is what republican economic policy does; we watched it do so with our own eyes in 2007-9.

Obama hurts the poor with regressive policies like Quantitative Easing in which the government invents money out of nothing, thus reducing the value of each dollar. This hurts the poor because their income and money is worth less, and they have little in the way of tangible assets. Affluent people have tangible assets which increase in price, hedging against inflation. Thus, every time Geithner massively increases the money supply, he is taxing the poor.

You're not going to get any argument from me that there isn't a single piece of economic policy that has come from the Obama administration that couldn't have been more progressive in nature.  But I'm not going to say monetary policy shouldn't be one of the tools in our tool belt to deal with economic crises.  That's really the realm of failed RON PAUL/gold standard monetary lunacy.

Diplomatically, we have alienated our allies and are held in contempt my the Russians and Chinese. Our embassies are being targeted. Friendly governments can't rely on us and are making deals/alliance predicated on American weakness. Obama has been judged by the international community as being feckless and weak.

Exactly which friends have we lost in the last 4 years that we hadn't already lost to the Iraq war?  Frankly, I think it's a good thing that the Rus ...


Okaaaaaay..... I said nothing about drones or public payrolls and you keep trying to change the subject. Its pretty clear that you are arguing with someone else in your head.
 
2013-02-10 08:00:29 PM

Fart_Machine: You're one of those people who believe Government should be run like a household budget right?


And governments operating on perverse debt to GDP ratios, loose monetary policy and stimulus spending are succeeding where?
 
2013-02-10 08:04:07 PM

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: You're one of those people who believe Government should be run like a household budget right?

And governments operating on perverse debt to GDP ratios, loose monetary policy and stimulus spending are succeeding where?


Are you his sock puppet account or were you going to answer the question?
 
2013-02-10 08:07:27 PM

o5iiawah: Mrtraveler01: So we shouldn't have the FDIC?

I'm confused.

Why should the average taxpayer be on the hook for a private transaction between a depositor and a bank?  Isn't it the depositor's job to research the bank and find out what sorts of investments the bank makes with depositor funds?   If a bank wants to divert its depositor funds into investing in lottery tickets and people are willing to deposit money into the bank, why the hell should you be on the hook when the whole thing comes crashing down?

The larger problem is the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of toxic assets that got passed around the market like a game of musical chairs with each bank knowing full well that when the music stopped, the last bank without a chair would get a bailout, a few million for the CEO and would be on their merry way.


Agreed. No one should receive subsidies or bailouts. Its wrong when either party does it.
 
2013-02-10 08:09:15 PM

o5iiawah: Why should the average taxpayer be on the hook for a private transaction between a depositor and a bank? Isn't it the depositor's job to research the bank and find out what sorts of investments the bank makes with depositor funds? If a bank wants to divert its depositor funds into investing in lottery tickets and people are willing to deposit money into the bank, why the hell should you be on the hook when the whole thing comes crashing down?


Probably because the depositor tends to be the little guy who gets left holding the bag.  But by all means we should fark over those people because the industry was deregulated.
 
2013-02-10 08:15:35 PM

Fart_Machine: Are you his sock puppet account or were you going to answer the question?


My account is 4+ years older than yours.  I've stated time and time again that I dont have alts. just questions people cant answer without getting their ass in a bind.

LargeCanine: Agreed. No one should receive subsidies or bailouts. Its wrong when either party does it.


It isn't really a party thing so much as a - how you believe the market should be run - thing.  A marketplace is an aggregate of individuals making choices in regards to what stuff should cost, how much their labor is worth and is best run if people are free to act voluntarily with one another.  A government regulator, who has the power to shut down a bank can be bribed to keep it open in exchange for certain leeway with some assets on the sheet that dont look so hot.  The bad bank stays open, depositors see the stamp-of-approval on the bank, know their money is guaranteed by the FDIC so they dont bother to research the investments and when the cards come crashing, everyone gets paid but the taxpayer.
 
2013-02-10 08:15:59 PM

LargeCanine: Agreed. No one should receive subsidies or bailouts. Its wrong when either party does it.


The FDIC is insurance because without it we'd get the bank runs that contributed to the crash of the economy back in the 1930's.  It isn't a subsidy or a bailout.
 
2013-02-10 08:17:32 PM

Fart_Machine: Probably because the depositor tends to be the little guy who gets left holding the bag.  But by all means we should fark over those people because the industry was deregulated.


So instead, the depositor gets paid, the too-big-to-fail bank gets paid and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.  Brilliant.
 
2013-02-10 08:17:55 PM

o5iiawah: My account is 4+ years older than yours. I've stated time and time again that I dont have alts. just questions people cant answer without getting their ass in a bind.


You answered a question with a question which added nothing but an irrelevant strawman.  And the age of your account doesn't mean anything.
 
2013-02-10 08:20:39 PM

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Probably because the depositor tends to be the little guy who gets left holding the bag.  But by all means we should fark over those people because the industry was deregulated.

So instead, the depositor gets paid, the too-big-to-fail bank gets paid and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.  Brilliant.


You know that the bailouts and the FDIC are two different things right?  FDIC protects the depositors and has been around since the 1930's.  The bailouts for the banks were part of a measure passed in 2008.  You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-02-10 08:24:14 PM

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: My account is 4+ years older than yours. I've stated time and time again that I dont have alts. just questions people cant answer without getting their ass in a bind.

You answered a question with a question which added nothing but an irrelevant strawman.  And the age of your account doesn't mean anything.


You didn't ask a question, it was snark which I was ignoring. When you have something interesting to say, I may decide to reply.

I don't have an alt either.  Your insinuation is indicative of the weakness of your position.
 
2013-02-10 08:24:42 PM

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Probably because the depositor tends to be the little guy who gets left holding the bag.  But by all means we should fark over those people because the industry was deregulated.

So instead, the depositor gets paid, the too-big-to-fail bank gets paid and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.  Brilliant.

You know that the bailouts and the FDIC are two different things right?  FDIC protects the depositors and has been around since the 1930's.  The bailouts for the banks were part of a measure passed in 2008.  You have no idea what you're talking about.


I have every idea what I am talking about. I clearly broke them down as two separate government intrusions in the banking market which provide no incentive for banks to make good bets (bailouts) and no incentive for depositors to choose good banks (FDIC).

Thats as pretty simple as it gets.
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report