RunRyder RC
 9  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 27 pages [ <<    <     15      16     ( 17 )     18      19     NEXT    >> ] 10611 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › The Republicans control the House and the Senate!
11-11-2014 09:42 PM  3 years agoPost 321
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You cannot blame conservatives, liberals, republicans, or democrats for 2008 and what is worse to come. Everyone in this country is to blame.
The root cause is education. If citizens knew what they were voting for, they would have had a revolution already. Only a hand full of people can tell you how our banking system works.... and that is a huge problem.
2008 was one of the biggest wealth transfers in the history of this once great country.
I'm going to call this spot on. The key to the crash, though, was your statement "Only a hand full of people can tell you how our banking system works".

Simply put, you can't be educated if the information you need is not available. What we had in the runup to 2008 was essentially an effective complete deregulation of financial markets, one of the main ones being the exotic derivatives market. The regulators who were supposed to be watching the store simply had no idea about what it was they were supposed to be overseeing. That's how really quite dangerous situations like the "subprime mortgage" market and the disaster with CDS's in the derivatives market developed. The key result there was a complete opacity of information. The underlyings in the CDS craze were a complete mystery in terms of risk and general quality. They were simply stated to be AAA grade debt when in fact it was actually "toxic waste". And no one was the wiser, until the whole thing collapsed.

If you leave a market completely alone - either by Laissez-Faire policies or ignorance/incompetence - those are the kinds of outcomes that obtain.

Guess who favors which of these particular attitudes towards markets like the financial ones?

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2014 09:54 PM  3 years agoPost 322
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Simply put, you can't be educated if the information you need is not available. What we had in the runup to 2008 was essentially an effective complete deregulation of financial markets, one of the main ones being the exotic derivatives market. The regulators who were supposed to be watching the store simply had no idea about what it was they were supposed to be overseeing. That's how really quite dangerous situations like the "subprime mortgage" market and the disaster with CDS's in the derivatives market developed. The key result there was a complete opacity of information. The underlyings in the CDS craze were a complete mystery in terms of risk and general quality. They were simply stated to be AAA grade debt when in fact it was actually "toxic waste". And no one was the wiser, until the whole thing collapsed.

If you leave a market completely alone - either by Laissez-Faire policies or ignorance/incompetence - those are the kinds of outcomes that obtain.

Guess who favors which of these particular attitudes towards markets like the financial ones?
Wrong... the govt de-regulated itself then took over a private industry forcing banks to take risks they otherwise wouldnt make because of policy.

They oversaw fannie and freddie and they still control them to this day. All of the other fluff is a result of the policies they forced on private industry.

Its happening today via ZIRP, if you think 2008 was bad due the mispricing of risk, wait till you see what 10 years of ZIRP will do to the broad economy.

The Fed and the GOVT are the root cause of the problem, not the answer.

Ever seen a CAPM equation?

Now zero out that rf variable....

Govt needs to get out of the business of trying to mitigate risks and directing capital flow.

There is always corruption and failure, the effects are just smaller when there isnt a global policy of bad risk taking.

Tic Toc Tic Toc

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2014 09:56 PM  3 years agoPost 323
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They won on fiscal platform, now we watch while they dont follow through again.. and drag us into another war which might be fought on our soil for once.
Nah, I think their sales job was slightly slicker and their voter base was slightly stupider. Put those together and you can win both houses of congress.
China and Russia have been taking steps to decouple world energy markets from the petro dollar. When the dollar is at jeopardy of losing its reserve status when war will pop off.
Yeah it does make your hair stand on end a bit. I think it would take a lot to decouple the USD from petroleum, but it's certainly a possibility.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2014 10:04 PM  3 years agoPost 324
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Wrong... the govt de-regulated itself then took over a private industry forcing banks to take risks they otherwise wouldnt make because of policy.
They oversaw fannie and freddie and they still control them to this day. All of the other fluff is a result of the policies they forced on private industry.
Nah. Fannie and Freddie didn't single-handedly nearly bring down the entire western economy. It was simply a Wild West environment in the financial markets that led to the disaster.
The Fed and the GOVT are the root cause of the problem, not the answer.
Don't agree. It was the lack of government (regulatory) oversight that was the root cause. Basically, Laissez-Faire through incompetence.

Of course, nowadays conservatives are ranting and raving because, for example, they now have to assess and disclose risk profiles in their portfolios. They have to outline exactly how it's assessed, what models were used, and so forth. That's expensive and troublesome, but of course that accountability missing in the first place is where the problems started.

But as complete Laissez-Faire as possible is exactly what conservatives want. Strange, huh?

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2014 10:18 PM  3 years agoPost 325
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So the community reinvestment act had no bearing on the houses that were sold to sub prime buyers?

It was simply the greedy sales people that accepted the greater risk from underwring these loans?

Or maybe the banks at the time that were for some reason Un afraid of going out of business if the buyers couldn't pay their mortgages.

The bailout facilitated by the govt and paid by taxpayers didn't encourage banks to keep gambling with deposits and derivatives?

Laisse faire is not anarachy. There are necessary regulations and underlying assumptions made with its model. It does not assume govt controlled industries and fiat currencies.

Are you saying that the problems that our govt caused should enable them to control things more?

How bout we give them less control over the economy and let the bad investment fail. Like what should have happened in 2008. But the give did not and will not. Because we would revolt if they allowed things to reset.

Tic Toc Tic Toc

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2014 10:49 PM  3 years agoPost 326
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So the community reinvestment act had no bearing on the houses that were sold to sub prime buyers?
Maybe a little, but the CRA didn't nearly bring Iceland to its financial knees, for example. It might have contributed some, but that wasn't enough to nearly destroy the entire Western economic world, no.
It was simply the greedy sales people that accepted the greater risk from underwring these loans?
Actually, it was sales people who simply didn't know the risks associated with the financial instruments underlying those loans. That debt was packaged a good 20 levels deep and of course the viability of that debt was basically a complete mystery.
Or maybe the banks at the time that were for some reason Un afraid of going out of business if the buyers couldn't pay their mortgages.
The bailout facilitated by the govt and paid by taxpayers didn't encourage banks to keep gambling with deposits and derivatives?
The bailout followed the crisis, it didn't precede it.
Laisse faire is not anarachy. There are necessary regulations and underlying assumptions made with its model. It does not assume govt controlled industries and fiat currencies.
American conservative Laissez-Faire definitely is anarchy. Those necessary regulations/underlying assumptions are among the main targets of US conservatives. "deregulation" and "big government" are two of the buzzwords that try to put lipstick on that particular pig. Defunding and/or outright elimination of the government agencies that administer those regulations is the primary method by which they would like this to be done.
Are you saying that the problems that our govt caused should enable them to control things more?
Not at all. I just don't happen to think the causes were all government. Some maybe, but the lack of control was the primary culprit as I said.
How bout we give them less control over the economy and let the bad investment fail.
Well we tried that - we let the financial industry simply run loose and do anything and everything it wanted, with maybe a few slaps on the hand here and there. "Too big to fail" was the result; not enough trust-busting is what that boiled down to. That's how we got into that situation where there had to be bailouts.

The idea is enough control to prevent getting into that situation in the first place.
Like what should have happened in 2008. But the give did not and will not. Because we would revolt if they allowed things to reset.
Can't parse this last sentence here.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2014 11:14 PM  3 years agoPost 327
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The bailout followed the crisis, it didn't precede it.
Actually, it did.

There was no law to that affect. But, both Fannie and Freddy knew they would get bailed out when and if they failed.

You have heard the phrase, "To big to fail?"

They knew it well beforehand, collected their big bonuses and moved on to fail. Which they successfully did and still collect their big bonuses. No penalties. No shut downs. No one fired. No one fails. No one got booted out of political office. No one went to jail. The tax payer pays.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2014 11:25 PM  3 years agoPost 328
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Actually, it did.

There was no law to that affect. But, both Fannie and Freddy knew they would get bailed out when and if they failed.

You have heard the phrase, "To big to fail?"
Indeed, it's actually a quasi-economic theory now, Ben Bernanke more or less popularized the term, but it goes back a while before then.

It's actually a warmed-over synonym for "monopoly", or something very nearly of monopoly size and scope, when it boils down to it.
They knew it well beforehand, collected their big bonuses and moved on to fail. Which they successfully did and still collect their big bonuses. No penalties. No shut downs. No one fired. No one fails. No one got booted out of political office. No one went to jail. The tax payer pays.
Precisely. The problem, therefore, is "too big to fail" itself, not simply allowing (or not) the government to have to become entangled in supporting TBTF corporate entities.

TBTF is actually a sin of omission, more than it is a sin of meddling and intrusion.

And guess what political platform endorses and encourages "too big to fail", in effect by Laissez-Faire attitudes towards monopolies and trust-busting?

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 12:38 AM  3 years agoPost 329
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

And guess what political platform endorses and encourages "too big to fail", in effect by Laissez-Faire attitudes towards monopolies and trust-busting?
They both do. But, especially the left.

Watch at YouTube

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 12:55 AM  3 years agoPost 330
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

He's trying to sell the Carring and Sharing or More For Free Any where Plan : Fall For It !

You take away the Capital you take away capitalism - GO CYBER !

Trying to loose you in the Soup by adding too many Spices : What's in your pocket ? Get the More cash Back Free ! with a Spark Card

More for FREE SHare ANY WHERE What's in you Pocket ?
A Bug in One and Lint in the Other = SOCIALISM a Pinko COMI

Make it Simple

IF you are ON ENTITLEMENT / Welfare : you GOT NOTHING - ZIPPO

If you are NOT a Citizen: you GOT NOTHING - da Nada

You are LIVING as a Parasite / They Remove parasite's

Essentially you DO NOT EVEN have LAW : We just powder the Wet Spot and Send You Home Harmless - and say thank you NOT - NEEDED : ILLEGAL
Not even Entitled to LAW = COOL BEAN"S

Even a Driver's License or Water BILL Won't Do it :
LAW is for CITIZEN's = OWNERSHIP

No BUG 's No Lint : GOT ZERO and NOT entitled : For they DID NOT EARN or PAY FOR ANY OF IT - Non -Citizen = Sorry Charlie : Non MEmber

Free WIll /At Will : Do not Even HAVE to PROVIDE a JOB

> Good Ship Loli Pop : Plastic is Plastic and GReen Plastic is NOT GOLD and ALL that GLitter's is Not GOLD : GOLD is Citizenship

FUn PArt ?? We done this Dance BEfore and they don't Even Know it

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 01:58 AM  3 years agoPost 331
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They both do. But, especially the left.
And as I'm sure you know, Barney Frank co-authored the Dodd-Frank act some years later (2010), an extensive attempt at financial regulatory reform and anything but an effort to "get the government off our backs".

Also, Alan Greenspan, a well known Randian (even a follower of the Objectivist movement), famously recanted his views on deregulation and general Laissez-Faire towards the financial industry, in particular the exotic derivatives market:

Watch at YouTube

If Alan Greenspan mistook the role of the banks' "enlightened self interest" as an effective method of self-regulation, you can take that to the bank (literally).

So, at the very best, we're talking about just varying shades of grey here.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 02:06 AM  3 years agoPost 332
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So, at the very best, we're talking about just varying shades of grey here.
Depends on which side you are on.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 02:31 AM  3 years agoPost 333
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If Alan Greenspan mistook the role of the banks' "enlightened self interest" as an effective method of self-regulation, you can take that to the bank (literally).

So, at the very best, we're talking about just varying shades of grey here.
No real conservative likes Alan, Barney, Geithner or Paulson. They are all crooks and are wolves in the sheeps den.
Maybe a little, but the CRA didn't nearly bring Iceland to its financial knees, for example. It might have contributed some, but that wasn't enough to nearly destroy the entire Western economic world, no.
I dont think you understand what the CRA did? Check it out...

Iceland is not really related to the subprime problem. UBS was... but not Iceland.

From a peer reviewed paper:
The first main cause of the crisis was the use of inflation targeting. Throughout
the period of inflation targeting, inflation was generally above its target rate. In
response, the central bank kept rates high, exceeding 15% at times.
In a small economy like Iceland, high interest rates encourage domestic firms
and households to borrow in foreign currency; it also attracts carry traders specu-
lating against ‘uncovered interest parity’. The result was a large foreign-currency
inflow. This lead to a sharp exchange rate appreciation that gave Icelanders an
illusion of wealth and doubly rewarding the carry traders. The currency inflows
also encouraged economic growth and inflation; outcomes that induced the
Central Bank to raise interest rates further.
The end result was a bubble caused by the interaction of high domestic interest
rates, currency appreciation, and capital inflows. While the stylized facts about
currency inflows suggest that they should lead to lower domestic prices, in Iceland
the impact was opposite.
Reference

Its kind of ironic really... Iceland is doing well after they jailed the fraudsters and let their economy reset.
Actually, it was sales people who simply didn't know the risks associated with the financial instruments underlying those loans. That debt was packaged a good 20 levels deep and of course the viability of that debt was basically a complete mystery.
Nor should they. Specialization in economics lends them to be good at one thing. Selling.... Its not their responsibility. The problem was systemic (monetarily and regulatory)

Tic Toc Tic Toc

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 02:40 AM  3 years agoPost 334
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The bailout followed the crisis, it didn't precede it.
Haha you're right but what has changed? They are now lending at 3-4% with all of these government home buying assistance programs available.

Do you think we should have had HARP, HOMEPATH and FHA? Shouldnt FHA be shut down since it, by definition, supply sub prime mortgages?
Nah. Fannie and Freddie didn't single-handedly nearly bring down the entire western economy. It was simply a Wild West environment in the financial markets that led to the disaster.
Actually yes they did, that is why they were nationalized completely in 2008. They did all of the underwriting for those mortgages. The private banks would originate the loans, then sell them to Fannie or Freddie.

I dont know where you live, but at no point especially after Enron, was the American economy the wild west. One of the main reasons for our current crappy economic situation is too much red tape and complicated, expensive to comply regulations. We are getting our ass kicked by the East because they can spin a business with little effort in a day. Here it takes 2 years to get a freaking patent.

Small business was the backbone to our success. Now a days they are locking up 12 years for selling lemonaid without a permit. (True story)
American conservative Laissez-Faire definitely is anarchy. Those necessary regulations/underlying assumptions are among the main targets of US conservatives. "deregulation" and "big government" are two of the buzzwords that try to put lipstick on that particular pig. Defunding and/or outright elimination of the government agencies that administer those regulations is the primary method by which they would like this to be done
Laisse Faire is only a component of Free Markets. One of the components is competition. In fact it even states on the famous wikipedia that corporations need to be carefully monitored in the Laisse Faire definition.

Monopolies are not part of Free Market capitalism. Neither are regulations that direct capital to specific companies or industries. Which is done today, yesterday, 2007, 2001, 1982, 1971 and before. We have not had a true free market since 1913.

I think that we all agree on general points. The difference is you think that people in government are somehow more ethical than private citizens. We are all people and are equally corrupt. Show me a regulation and I will show you a way around it.

SOX is a great example of an expensive ineffective joke. Good thing it prevented the 2008 crisis.

Break up the govt and let that capital and labor do more productive things. If something fails, then it is isolated to that industry. If the government cant direct capital to their corporate buddies then they cant create huge systemic risks to jeopardize the broad economy.

Tic Toc Tic Toc

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 02:58 AM  3 years agoPost 335
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No real conservative likes Alan, Barney, Geithner or Paulson. They are all crooks and are wolves in the sheeps den.
And I'd agree that their actions aren't necessarily representative of their political affiliations. So, it's a little useless to cite their vacillations individually.

Greenspan's retraction, tho, was pretty earth-shaking. I mean, the guy was basically previewing "Atlas Shrugged" as Rand was writing it. That's dedication to Ayn Rand if there ever was such a thing. He wrote and wrote for decades in the Randian/Objectivist mold and was basically completely dedicated to ideas like Laissez-Faire Capitalism /Free Market and other Objectivist thinking in economics.

So for him to turn around and admit that Laissez-Faire had failed was surely very highly motivated.

I guess I disrespect stupidity much more than criminality and for this reason I'm not too upset with A. Greenspan. Ayn Rand was actually quite a brave thinker and Objectivism has a lot of principles that I consider quite rational (not just by definition of course). So Greenspan, I think, has a good head on his shoulders to follow her ideas and I respect him for that.

But Laissez-Faire/extreme free market and other notions like that are basically another one of those bodies of ideas that don't work in practice (kind of like Communism).

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 03:23 AM  3 years agoPost 336
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Laisse Faire is only a component of Free Markets. One of the components is competition. In fact it even states on the famous wikipedia that corporations need to be carefully monitored in the Laisse Faire definition.
Monitored by whom? And monitored for what exactly? And what happens when there's a violation? See, coming up with all that is not an easy or inexpensive job. Basically, first you have to come up with the rules for the game (big job), then you have to implement the rules (bigger job) and then enforce those rules (biggest job).

That's the point, really. History just shows that corporations simply cannot monitor themselves; the 2008 crash and all the zillions of crashes before then exemplify that.

So for better or for worse, this monitoring you're talking about is necessarily government business, if for no other reason than simply the scale of the job. You just can't leave a market completely alone and let the "invisible hand" work its magic and keep it all healthy and working the way it should.

You simply must have some oversight with good knowledge of what being overseen and the teeth required to restore order in case of a problem. And that means an entity big enough and powerful enough to carry that job out. That's what governments are for.
Monopolies are not part of Free Market capitalism.
Wrong. Monopolies are the main goal in FM capitalism. Every participant in a FM economy has as its primary charter to eliminate every one of its competitors and achieve total ownership of its market space. In fact, you'll get fired from your job at a capitalist entity if you say anything other than "we are determined to completely take over our market and destroy our competitors, every single one and by any means necessary". Nobody ever thinks something like "oh well, I think I've gotten enough, I'll back off and give my competitors a whack at it". No, such a thing just does not exist. Monopoly is the primary goal, by definition, period.
Neither are regulations that direct capital to specific companies or industries. Which is done today, yesterday, 2007, 2001, 1982, 1971 and before. We have not had a true free market since 1913.
And in a way, that's a good thing. As I said, complete and utter Laissez-Faire is just disastrous in practice.
I think that we all agree on general points. The difference is you think that people in government are somehow more ethical than private citizens.
I never said that and I don't believe that. OTOH, I do believe in the principle of self-governance, which includes not letting markets on which our economy depends simply run amok. Constraints, such as they need to be implemented, are necessary evils.

I'm not among those who think our politicians are all innocent, no I can assure you of that .
We are all people and are equally corrupt. Show me a regulation and I will show you a way around it.
But that's not an excuse to abandon regulation. You don't make your decisions about law and order based on what the criminal wants or does. That's not what law, order and regulation is about.
SOX is a great example of an expensive ineffective joke. Good thing it prevented the 2008 crisis.
Break up the govt and let that capital and labor do more productive things. If something fails, then it is isolated to that industry. If the government cant direct capital to their corporate buddies then they cant create huge systemic risks to jeopardize the broad economy.
I will say that the present situation - government for sale and only for sale - is definitely not a good thing and not what our founding fathers intended. I do agree that there are bad systemic problems with the way our government currently works.

But again, you don't make decisions about criminal behavior based on what the criminals want or do. You never do that...

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 03:34 AM  3 years agoPost 337
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

But Laissez-Faire/extreme free market and other notions like that are basically another one of those bodies of ideas that don't work in practice
There is no such thing as laissez fair extreme free market nor should there be. It must be regulated to some point. But, how many times do you regulate a welding helmet? Of course, that is just one small example.

When government adds hundreds upon hundreds if pages of regulations upon a private economy and taxes business to the point where its the highest taxed corporate economy in the world, it's no longer a private economy. It's a government economy. There is nothing more inefficient than something that is government run. History is full of examples of that failure.

Private economies must be regulated only to the point of fairness. Who says what is fair? That should be up to the voters. But, the voters have dumbed down, and washington dc so corrupt it seems hopeless to see any significant change back to a normal free market economy.

That is unless the whole thing fails.

That could happen.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 03:44 AM  3 years agoPost 338
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

But, the voters have dumbed down,
I don't think that's completely true. Sure, it's true of you guys that voted those Republican straight tickets the other day, but not true of all voters.
and washington dc so corrupt it seems hopeless to see any significant change back to a normal free market economy.
That is unless the whole thing fails.
That could happen.
That's part of the sales job the Republicans have done on you.

Like I said above, you don't make decisions about government and society based on what the criminal elements in it want or do. You don't throw up your hands and give up (and then vote Republican) because your government has been overrun by crooks.

What you should do is go in and fix the problem. But if enough of you have gone into this trance of following the desires of criminals, well, then there's really no hope for you.

That's a principled difference between a conservative and a non-conservative too.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 03:59 AM  3 years agoPost 339
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Wrong. Monopolies are the main goal in FM capitalism. Every participant in a FM economy has as its primary charter to eliminate every one of its competitors and achieve total ownership of its market space. In fact, you'll get fired from your job at a capitalist entity if you say anything other than "we are determined to completely take over our market and destroy our competitors, every single one and by any means necessary". Nobody ever thinks something like "oh well, I think I've gotten enough, I'll back off and give my competitors a whack at it". No, such a thing just does not exist. Monopoly is the primary goal, by definition, period.
I think this right here is the fallacy. Sounds like I'm up against someone who took a Keynesian college class.

No great thinker, not even Ayn Rand or Adam Smith or even the other sides like Martha Nussbaum or Peter Singer advocated monopolies. That is why anti trust laws date back to the 1800's.

In FMC, monopolies are regulated by the govt and by available competition. Self interest means that other competition will spin up to eat away at the margins of the competition. Look at Shale oil. That is a great example of how margins and cost prevent monopolies in energy. (I'm over simplifying it a bit)

Property rights are probably the most important part of FMC and created a big sticking point between the opposing view points of economic systems.

One thing is undeniably true though. Governments historically have killed the most people, crashed the most economies and are most susceptible to corruption. This is why we have the constitution. Not to limit people, but to limit government.

If the government cannot control industry, they cannot allow it to be corrupted. Its a really hard thing to grasp, but the answer to complex problems usually do not revolve around what seems like the a common sense answer.

Adverse selection and critical thinking are not the strong points of our politicians or electorate.

Tic Toc Tic Toc

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2014 04:10 AM  3 years agoPost 340
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't think that's completely true.
If it wasn't, then a guy like the Obummer would never have been elected. When a politician offers nothing but "Hope and Change" you better know something ain't right.
Sure, it's true of you guys that voted those Republican straight tickets the other day, but not true of all voters.
My apologizes, I should have been more descriptive. I meant democrats have been dumbed down.

Please, don't lecture me about straight repub voting. The only time that has been my case is in the last three elections. Only because the dems have got so bad and so much against America and Americans.

Right now, I am a registered independent. I stopped registering as a repub during the Bush admin and all that worthless immigration reform nonsense.

And, that is only because there was no check box for the Tea Party on my voters app.

Yet.
That's a principled difference between a conservative and a non-conservative too.
No sh#t?

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 27 pages [ <<    <     15      16     ( 17 )     18      19     NEXT    >> ] 10611 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › The Republicans control the House and the Senate!
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 9  Topic Subscribe

Monday, June 18 - 4:55 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online