Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe it isn't fair but I don't really include Ron Paul in with the rest. Yes, I will concede any arguments to the contrary but.......Ron pretty much has been a (L) that ran as an (R) to have any chance at winning.
Cruz just creeps me out.
Same could be said for Trump but he won.....He was able to read the populace where the others completely missed it. While I won't vote for him I do give him a lot of credit for that.
Those (L) principles that the Pauls follow (both father and son) ARE conservative... balanced budgets, avoiding unnecessary wars, limited spending, smaller government, no bailouts, etc. They're not mutually exclusive.
The distinction (conservative vs. libertarian) starts to emerge with respect to drugs, foreign intervention, and other areas but economic policies such as limited government, lower taxes, and no bailouts are absolutely conservative (though one could classify them as libertarian as well).
The Pauls are Republicans and make no bones about it; the difference is that they're principled conservative Republicans, unlike most who have (R) after their name.
1. We agree on the interventionism. I tired of it as well. That a subject I can work with libitarians on.
That isn't Hillary and it doesn't seem to be Trump.
Quote:
2. I'm about managed capitalism. Dodd Frank is ok. But me thinks going back to glass-steagal is better. And we need to enforce any laws that we have. That means more government involvement and montering. So not so much down with libitarians on that on.
That isn't Hillary and I have no clue on Trump. I understand your point on (L)'s but allow me an argument. Yes, the (L)'s would have allowed the banks to screw up like they did on the run up to 2008. Not good. BUT they would have allowed them to fail and go out of business. Those who failed would have been ruined. No we would not have the ruin we were lied to about.
Vacuums will be filled. There might have been some short term pain but it wouldn't still be with us nearly 8 years later now.
Quote:
3. I sorry from my perspective Bernie was out after New York. California was the nail in a the coffin. If he want to stay in that's fine by me. But I have no doubt that he will throw his endorsement behind Hillary. And that's not a betrayal. He always said he would back the democratic nominee.
His supporters will see it as a betrayal just as they have with Warren. You can't back someone that will do the very things you have argued against for so long and not be considered that way.
Quote:
4. No. No big street protest. Methinks. Occupy Wall Street was the last big one for s while.
We will see. I argued at the time that OWS did not go far enough.
Quote:
5. I think where we differ. Is that I'm still willing to believe change it is possible from the inside the Democratic Party. Also I'm willing to deal with the political machinations of some of the actors in the party in order to achieve the end goal of turning the party left.
I wish you luck. I don't see it happening. Especially not with Hillary.
Quote:
6. Have you though about joining them the Green Party trying to push It to aim for more realistic goals like house seats. Why not take that party and make it your own.
Here in WV the Green party is pretty much a no go. It's a very conservative state despite there being a lot of registered (D) voters. (which is quickly slipping away because of coal). We have the Mountain Party and the Libertarians. The Libertarians just got a mayor elected a few cities north of me. I know him but not real well.
I am working with the (L) candidate for Sheriff locally. I was the official photographer for the (L) parties convention here in WV. Sounds impressive but not really. LOL.....I know the state chairman and he knew I would work cheap. (for lunch). I'm just an amateur.
That's all well and good, but we have a two party system which means your choices are effectively Hillary or Trump. Bernie is correctly focused on making sure Trump does not win. Hillary and Bernie have more similarities than differences. Their Senate voting records was 93% identical.
That's absolutely false. Bernie has more similarities with Trump than with Hillary. Trump is not a conservative at all.
Both oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
Both support maintaining or expanding current levels of Social Security benefits.
Both support some upper-income tax hikes.
Both lament the pernicious role of money in politics (this is why, as Stan herself notes, Trump likes to falsely claim he’s funding his own campaign).
Both opposed the Iraq war (Stan herself notes that Trump “would have left Saddam Hussein in power”) and believe the money spent on it could have been put to better use domestically.
Both have been known to worry that increased immigration could depress working-class wages.
Hillary is more Republican than both. She supports military action and has been the hawk in Obama's admin. Openly sides with big businesses on trade issues.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,506,556 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
That isn't Hillary and it doesn't seem to be Trump.
That isn't Hillary and I have no clue on Trump. I understand your point on (L)'s but allow me an argument. Yes, the (L)'s would have allowed the banks to screw up like they did on the run up to 2008. Not good. BUT they would have allowed them to fail and go out of business. Those who failed would have been ruined. No we would not have the ruin we were lied to about.
Vacuums will be filled. There might have been some short term pain but it wouldn't still be with us nearly 8 years later now.
While I think letting the large financial/insurance institutions fail would have been the morally right thing to do. And people and politicians did consider it for a short time. The soon realized that if they let them collapse they take pretty much everything with them. The big banks were (still are) a extremely integral to the running of this country. From college loans to short term daily business loans, etc. etc.
on top of this job losses would have been more serve. Not just because of the loss of jobs in the banks/others But for all the jobs surround them. Whether directly (ex. Data services) or ancillary (bars, restaurants, stores, etc.) that service the people who work in those institutions. Of course sales of other items such as cars, washers, other goods die because of job losses and tight credit. More job losses. And it keeps going.
Now If you you want to believe that's a lie and wouldn't have happened. That's your prerogative. But from my pov. Your completely wrong.
Also what do you think all those unemployed people are going to be doing in the meantime wait for a recovery to happen? Sit around on a beach take in the sun. No. They're going to be pretty p.o. and looking for heads to roll which is find....but....I would argue that they'd demand government intervention of sometime to allieviate there burden. So they ain't heading toward libitarianism but to a minimum FDR style socail democratic train of governance (history repeating itself) at worse..Perhap some type of "real" socailism. Basically you'd be burying your own ideology if you'd let that crash happen.
Lastly how is an economy suppose to bounce back if the people of that country don't trust the system to have the ability to be stablized. You say that there would be only short term pain. But I say no. People would be much less likely to risk anything if they "think" the market is not stable or if the risks of failure are too high. The psychological damage would far out strip anything anything we have today. We would not be as well off today if we let everything fail in 2008.
So in essence. I agree to disagree with you profusely on this point.
Quote:
His supporters will see it as a betrayal just as they have with Warren. You can't back someone that will do the very things you have argued against for so long and not be considered that way.
No he won't. Because he said he was going to back the Democratic nominee from the beginning. So we're going to have to agree to disagree on this also. I say pretty much of nothing substantial negative happens to Bernie when he doesn't eclares his support for Hillary.
Quote:
We will see. I argued at the time that OWS did not go far enough.
I wish you luck. I don't see it happening. Especially not with Hillary.
Thank you
Quote:
Here in WV the Green party is pretty much a no go. It's a very conservative state despite there being a lot of registered (D) voters. (which is quickly slipping away because of coal). We have the Mountain Party and the Libertarians. The Libertarians just got a mayor elected a few cities north of me. I know him but not real well.
I am working with the (L) candidate for Sheriff locally. I was the official photographer for the (L) parties convention here in WV. Sounds impressive but not really. LOL.....I know the state chairman and he knew I would work cheap. (for lunch). I'm just an amateur.
I got to meet both Johnson and Petersen. I had dinner with the candidate for governor a couple weeks ago. A great guy I will vote for.
Yeah. Actually had to rewrite my ending in that post. Obviously I was a tad late and rewriting it. My bad. That one's on me. Honestly while I'm a lefty liberal at heart. I hold no ill will toward anyone who votes libitarian. I wish you good luck.
While I think letting the large financial/insurance institutions fail would have been the morally right thing to do. And people and politicians did consider it for a short time. The soon realized that if they let them collapse they take pretty much everything with them. The big banks were (still are) a extremely integral to the running of this country. From college loans to short term daily business loans, etc. etc.
No. Banks are important. Any specific bank is not. Banks fail all the time. We survive.
Quote:
on top of this job losses would have been more serve. Not just because of the loss of jobs in the banks/others But for all the jobs surround them. Whether directly (ex. Data services) or ancillary (bars, restaurants, stores, etc.) that service the people who work in those institutions. Of course sales of other items such as cars, washers, other goods die because of job losses and tight credit. More job losses. And it keeps going.
Other banks would have grown and hired.
Quote:
Now If you you want to believe that's a lie and wouldn't have happened. That's your prerogative. But from my pov. Your completely wrong.
We were told over and over and over and over that GM could not go through a bankruptcy. That if it did it would mean the loss of jobs and tons of jobs down stream. You do understand that GM did end up going through a bankruptcy and none of that happened?
Quote:
Also what do you think all those unemployed people are going to be doing in the meantime wait for a recovery to happen? Sit around on a beach take in the sun. No. They're going to be pretty p.o. and looking for heads to roll which is find....but....I would argue that they'd demand government intervention of sometime to allieviate there burden. So they ain't heading toward libitarianism but to a minimum FDR style socail democratic train of governance (history repeating itself) at worse..Perhap some type of "real" socailism. Basically you'd be burying your own ideology if you'd let that crash happen.
Just for the sake of argument, it would have been far cheaper and less damaging to bail out the people as opposed to Wall Street.
Quote:
Lastly how is an economy suppose to bounce back if the people of that country don't trust the system to have the ability to be stablized. You say that there would be only short term pain. But I say no. People would be much less likely to risk anything if they "think" the market is not stable or if the risks of failure are too high. The psychological damage would far out strip anything anything we have today. We would not be as well off today if we let everything fail in 2008.
So in essence. I agree to disagree with you profusely on this point.
People do NOT trust the system now. Wall Street just noted that as far as participation in the markets go we are in a recession. Or in other words, they are pulling their money because they do not trust the system. We are still 8 years later harming the middle class by artificially propping up Wall Street and the banks.
We could have been past this by now if we had not reinflated the bubble.
Quote:
No he won't. Because he said he was going to back the Democratic nominee from the beginning. So we're going to have to agree to disagree on this also. I say pretty much of nothing substantial negative happens to Bernie when he doesn't eclares his support for Hillary.
I didn't say anything about him. My statement was about those that have supported him.
Quote:
Yeah. Actually had to rewrite my ending in that post. Obviously I was a tad late and rewriting it. My bad. That one's on me. Honestly while I'm a lefty liberal at heart. I hold no ill will toward anyone who votes libitarian. I wish you good luck.
I'm leaning (G) for president but in state I will vote mainly (L).
Those (L) principles that the Pauls follow (both father and son) ARE conservative... balanced budgets, avoiding unnecessary wars, limited spending, smaller government, no bailouts, etc. They're not mutually exclusive.
Yes on the economic side (L)'s and Conservatives have always been very close.
Quote:
The distinction (conservative vs. libertarian) starts to emerge with respect to drugs, foreign intervention, and other areas but economic policies such as limited government, lower taxes, and no bailouts are absolutely conservative (though one could classify them as libertarian as well).
The Pauls are Republicans and make no bones about it; the difference is that they're principled conservative Republicans, unlike most who have (R) after their name.
Conservative Republicans don't support many of Ron Paul's positions. Generally speaking they are for things like the Patriot Act. Not for the relaxation of drug laws. Paul was the only (R) that voted against the Iraq war.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,506,556 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
No. Banks are important. Any specific bank is not. Banks fail all the time. We survive.
Other banks would have grown and hired
How? The contagion that affected the financial market was spread out through most the of the banking system. Not just a few bank. There would have been very few bank in good position after the crash. They could have never handle the burden in the immediate aftermath. We'd probably still be working on cleaning up the financial system now if we didn't prop up the financial system.
Quote:
We were told over and over and over and over that GM could not go through a bankruptcy. That if it did it would mean the loss of jobs and tons of jobs down stream. You do understand that GM did end up going through a bankruptcy and none of that happened?
You do realize that they would have failed (and collapsed) IF the government didn't prop them up. The government held shares in the company until 2013. Btw. Taxpayer lost about 11 billion on that "not bailout". Unlike tarp "bailout" where it's said we made 15 billion.
Quote:
Just for the sake of argument, it would have been far cheaper and less damaging to bail out the people as opposed to Wall Street.
Well how do you suggest we bailout the people? I need to see your plan on how you would do this before I comment. And expose strengths and weakness of your proposal.
Quote:
People do NOT trust the system now. Wall Street just noted that as far as participation in the markets go we are in a recession. Or in other words, they are pulling their money because they do not trust the system. We are still 8 years later harming the middle class by artificially propping up Wall Street and the banks.
We could have been past this by now if we had not reinflated the bubble.
From my pov. We would be in worse position if we just let everything fail. We'd still be in near depression level of investment as oppose recession. For casual investors. Why invest in a market at all if I'm bound to lose everything overnight. There no reason to come back in the near future. You can say the slate is clean. But that doesn't mean the investors will believe you. At least with the bailout. Investors can at least say I probably won't lose everything playing the market. Risk vs reward at the end of the day.
With retirement investors. People still do invest in the market because of IRAs and the like. So no matter what people say. Unless they have no retirement plan at all (counting on SS) or perhaps the have the rare but coveted pension, people invest in the market. That why the market again would be worse. Because more people would have lost their jobs (most likely permanently if an older worker). Hence less money would be going into the market. Hence much slower recovery.
Quote:
I didn't say anything about him. My statement was about those that have supported him.
At the end of the day. Not only will Bernie be unscathed be supporting the democratic nominee (Hillary). He will become something of a folk hero on liberal circles. With the exception of the A minority of his supporters. But I we'll see in time.
At the end of the day. Not only will Bernie be unscathed be supporting the democratic nominee (Hillary). He will become something of a folk hero on liberal circles. With the exception of the A minority of his supporters. But I we'll see in time.
No Debs but definitely up there with LaFollette and Henry Wallace which ain't bad but that will have to do.
How? The contagion that affected the financial market was spread out through most the of the banking system. Not just a few bank. There would have been very few bank in good position after the crash. They could have never handle the burden in the immediate aftermath. We'd probably still be working on cleaning up the financial system now if we didn't prop up the financial system.
A lot of things were not in a good position after the crash. That's what a crash does.
Quote:
You do realize that they would have failed (and collapsed) IF the government didn't prop them up. The government held shares in the company until 2013. Btw. Taxpayer lost about 11 billion on that "not bailout". Unlike tarp "bailout" where it's said we made 15 billion.
No we didn't. I've posted the facts right in this thread more than once. Bankruptcy is there for a business to get a chance to re-organize, not go out of business.
[quote]Well how do you suggest we bailout the people? I need to see your plan on how you would do this before I comment. And expose strengths and weakness of your proposal. [ck"/quote]
I have no proposal. I would have done nothing, let the chips fall where they may and maybe we would have learned a lesson and moved on. Mine was just a general statement. We did institute one program to help the people. We gave the banks billions to help people "stay in their homes". The banks just ended up stealing that money to "pay back" TARP.
Quote:
From my pov. We would be in worse position if we just let everything fail. We'd still be in near depression level of investment as oppose recession. For casual investors. Why invest in a market at all if I'm bound to lose everything overnight.
DON'T. If you can not risk your money keep it under the mattress. That is how it is suppose to work. It's why Wall Street is suppose to be careful with the money people give it.
That is now it is suppose to work. You are not supposed to be guaranteed a concern.
Quote:
There no reason to come back in the near future. You can say the slate is clean. But that doesn't mean the investors will believe you. At least with the bailout. Investors can at least say I probably won't lose everything playing the market. Risk vs reward at the end of the day.
Yes, risk away, be irresponsible. The government will make sure the taxpayers will be responsible for your losses. Maybe you would be interested in an 8% tax to refund anyone that losses money gambling? Just think about how the casinos' would boom?
Quote:
With retirement investors. People still do invest in the market because of IRAs and the like. So no matter what people say. Unless they have no retirement plan at all (counting on SS) or perhaps the have the rare but coveted pension, people invest in the market. That why the market again would be worse. Because more people would have lost their jobs (most likely permanently if an older worker). Hence less money would be going into the market. Hence much slower recovery.
Less is going into the markets as they are not trustworthy.
Quote:
At the end of the day. Not only will Bernie be unscathed be supporting the democratic nominee (Hillary). He will become something of a folk hero on liberal circles. With the exception of the A minority of his supporters. But I we'll see in time.
This has been said for months now and that "minority" is growing by the day. It's so odd to see someone defend corporate malfeasance and having taxpayers be forced to fund massive welfare programs for the bankers.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,506,556 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
A lot of things were not in a good position after the crash. That's what a crash does.
And history shows us crashes are not good things. Especsially for the people at the bottom.
Quote:
No we didn't. I've posted the facts right in this thread more than once. Bankruptcy is there for a business to get a chance to re-organize, not go out of business.
Yes we the taxpayers did. We gave GM 33 Billion in Debtor-in-possession financing. Otherwise GM would almost certainly would have been completely liqiudated at the end of bankruptcy process. Chapter 11 does not guarantee survive of a company. And if it was liqiudated you would have loss not only of jobs in the company, but in any companies that service the company.
Quote:
I have no proposal. I would have done nothing, let the chips fall where they may and maybe we would have learned a lesson and moved on. Mine was just a general statement. We did institute one program to help the people. We gave the banks billions to help people "stay in their homes". The banks just ended up stealing that money to "pay back" TARP.
can you explain you comment on stealing? How did they steal? Under tarp they were watched by the government.
And how would we move on concidering a lot of people would have been broke and jobless after your uncontrolled crash?
Quote:
DON'T. If you can not risk your money keep it under the mattress. That is how it is suppose to work. It's why Wall Street is suppose to be careful with the money people give it.
That is now it is suppose to work. You are not supposed to be guaranteed a concern.
There no guarantee at anytime. But after a financial meltdown. There wouldn't be any confidence in the prospect of an market(s) for a long time....not short term pain.
And who gets hurt the most in the end when investors don't put Money in the market. The inventor class? They'd probably had their money in gold and cash. No...it would be people that work in or people are dependent on companies that gain capital "money" from the open market from Fortune 500 to junk status companies/start ups. In essence no money no jobs.
Quote:
Yes, risk away, be irresponsible. The government will make sure the taxpayers will be responsible for your losses. Maybe you would be interested in an 8% tax to refund anyone that losses money gambling? Just think about how the casinos' would boom?
2008 was not just about the irresponsible. It was about the collapse of the financial system. Almost every was going to be affected by it. And the lower one was on the chain. The more one was going to be damaged.
Quote:
Less is going into the markets as they are not trustworthy.
Nope. They're still investing. Sooooo.
Quote:
This has been said for months now and that "minority" is growing by the day. It's so odd to see someone defend corporate malfeasance and having taxpayers be forced to fund massive welfare programs for the bankers.
As I stated in an earlier post. Now that we have Dodd-Frank (I prefer glass-steagall) we need to enforce it and keep ourselves as best we can from a repeat of 2008.
But we didn't have it at the time. And much to many people chagrin most of the bad actors haven't been prosecuted because at the time what they did wasn't illegal. Obama admitted that much in I believe 2013.
What bother about some people's post is that hate for corporate American has blinded them to the fact that 2008's government intervention was less about keeping people in there homes, less about saving the investor class....but mostly about saving as many jobs and businesses as they could. I sometimes find it laughable about how overly simplistic and rose colored view the "let it crash" club has. "We'll bounce right back!" "And there be prosperity galore once we clean out the system!"
Ah no. No there won't. For the reasons I'm already mentioned.
What worst. Is there's absolutely no plan for dealing with the immediate fallout from a crash. "Let the chips fall where they may"?...yeah tell that to guy that just lost his janitors job because the company he was working at went bankrupt and is looking to cut back staff. Or the lady who losses her restaurant because most of the worker in subsidiary companies for GM got laid off because GM got liquidated. And on an on. Look if you want people to head toward strait socialism quick as they can. Then take a libertarian's position on how to handle a financial crisis. You guys are just cutting your own throats.
Last edited by baystater; 06-20-2016 at 08:27 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
