Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Can't convince a socialist the Free Market Solutions are better than Government oversight.

Quote:FBT, your biggest problem is that you believe that Fannie and Freddie were the problem at all.

 

Fannie and Freddy just buy mortgages from originators. It was the unregulated practices of the private market and the bizarre unregulated derivatives market that lead to the housing bubble and the 2008 banking crash.

 

The banking crash was directly related to the lack of derivatives regulation. DIRECTLY.

 

It's not the democrats that insist on "get(ting) rid of all the job killing regulations"

 

Nobody is denying that there was a lack of derivative regulation, and that this contributed heavily to the banking collapse.  In fact, I've pointed out elsewhere in this very thread that the repeal of Glass Steagall was at least partly to  blame for the lack of regulation.  I should have been more specific I suppose.  That change in the laws led to the creation of derivatives as an investment instrument.  Toss in excessive liquidity in the credit markets as a result of Greenspan/Bernake's great weapon of choice in trying to prop up the economy by dropping interest rates, and toxic investments like sub-prime loans, and it was a self inflicted collapse.  That's why I say Bush is at least partly to blame since they were pushing the Fed hard to keep pushing down the prime lending rate, but it was Clinton that signed the repeal of Glass Steagall. 

 

I worked for Merrill Lynch during the meltdown.  I worked in the global wealth management area that was bundling those sub prime loans and using them as investment instruments.  It was the same business unit that also encouraged people to use their investment portfolios to purchase more and more real estate because the market was just growing by leaps and bounds with no end in sight. They were also heavily vested in the derivative market.  These moves destroyed a great company. 

 

You don't think Fannie/Freddie were a part of the problem at all, but by carrying the paper on those sub prime mortgages, they artificially inflated the real estate market at a time when Joe Six Pack was using his home as an ATM to pay for cars, trips, toys, and more real estate.  When they had to be bailed out, and the foreclosure mess rocketed forward, that was yet another stake in the heart of the economy that was absolutely a direct result of democrats refusing to do their jobs as oversight. 

Quote:Nobody is denying that there was a lack of derivative regulation, and that this contributed heavily to the banking collapse.  In fact, I've pointed out elsewhere in this very thread that the repeal of Glass Steagall was at least partly to  blame for the lack of regulation.  I should have been more specific I suppose.  That change in the laws led to the creation of derivatives as an investment instrument.  Toss in excessive liquidity in the credit markets as a result of Greenspan/Bernake's great weapon of choice in trying to prop up the economy by dropping interest rates, and toxic investments like sub-prime loans, and it was a self inflicted collapse.  That's why I say Bush is at least partly to blame since they were pushing the Fed hard to keep pushing down the prime lending rate, but it was Clinton that signed the repeal of Glass Steagall. 

 

I worked for Merrill Lynch during the meltdown.  I worked in the global wealth management area that was bundling those sub prime loans and using them as investment instruments.  It was the same business unit that also encouraged people to use their investment portfolios to purchase more and more real estate because the market was just growing by leaps and bounds with no end in sight. 

 

You don't think Fannie/Freddie were a part of the problem at all, but by carrying the paper on those sub prime mortgages, they artificially inflated the real estate market at a time when Joe Six Pack was using his home as an ATM to pay for cars, trips, toys, and more real estate.  When they had to be bailed out, and the foreclosure mess rocketed forward, that was yet another stake in the heart of the economy that was absolutely a direct result of democrats refusing to do their jobs as oversight. 

 

Yes, Glass Steagall's repeal was a problem, and Clinton's signature on that is the sole part of the blame I'd assign to dems.

 

That said the republicans could have pushed real regulation through at any point between 2001 and 2007 if they actually believed in it. However, they didn't.

 

Instead they allowed mortgage backed securities to be sold and backed by credit default swaps, none of which was at all regulated.

 

Fannie and Freddie's fault in this is that they were simply too trusting of the market to actually behave as if they had a stake in things, but thanks to the private sector's hedged position thanks to the unregulated credit default swaps they figured they would win going in either direction, not even considering the health of the overall economy and the fact that the people buying houses were buying them on credit as business was outsourcing all of their jobs.

 

Basically the problems that led to the Bush crash were squarely on Bush and republican policy with a dash of Greenspan for not turning the interest knob up to try to cool down what was obviously an inflating bubble. By that time they only could blame themselves for allowing the "free market" to do what it did.

Quote:Yes, Glass Steagall's repeal was a problem, and Clinton's signature on that is the sole part of the blame I'd assign to dems.

 

That said the republicans could have pushed real regulation through at any point between 2001 and 2007 if they actually believed in it. However, they didn't.

 

Instead they allowed mortgage backed securities to be sold and backed by credit default swaps, none of which was at all regulated.

 

Fannie and Freddie's fault in this is that they were simply too trusting of the market to actually behave as if they had a stake in things, but thanks to the private sector's hedged position thanks to the unregulated credit default swaps they figured they would win going in either direction, not even considering the health of the overall economy and the fact that the people buying houses were buying them on credit as business was outsourcing all of their jobs.

 

Basically the problems that led to the Bush crash were squarely on Bush and republican policy with a dash of Greenspan for not turning the interest knob up to try to cool down what was obviously an inflating bubble. By that time they only could blame themselves for allowing the "free market" to do what it did.

Too trusting?  Fannie/Freddie knew that it didn't matter because they fully expected the government to bail them out if the market collapsed.  They were right. 

 

You admit it was deregulation that caused the problem, then blame it on the republicans who did indeed attempt on multiple occasions to try to bring more regulation into the system but they were rebuffed by those democrats who kept saying there wasn't a problem.  Nobody had the stomach to take a serious approach to this because both parties benefited from creating the perception the economy was booming and people were living the dream.  In the end, it blew up on all of them, and it's impossible to look at what your messiah has done over the past 6 years to fix the problems and claim any success.  I'm sure you'll blame the republicans once again, but he had super majorities in congress for 2 years, and what did he focus on?  Taking over 1/6 of the economy.  Not fixing the problems. 

Quote:Too trusting?  Fannie/Freddie knew that it didn't matter because they fully expected the government to bail them out if the market collapsed.  They were right. 

 

You admit it was deregulation that caused the problem, then blame it on the republicans who did indeed attempt on multiple occasions to try to bring more regulation into the system but they were rebuffed by those democrats who kept saying there wasn't a problem.  Nobody had the stomach to take a serious approach to this because both parties benefited from creating the perception the economy was booming and people were living the dream.  In the end, it blew up on all of them, and it's impossible to look at what your messiah has done over the past 6 years to fix the problems and claim any success.  I'm sure you'll blame the republicans once again, but he had super majorities in congress for 2 years, and what did he focus on?  Taking over 1/6 of the economy.  Not fixing the problems. 

 

I already told you, the republican party had full control of all three segments of government during the first 3 congresses of Bush's time in office.

 

To try to blame their inaction on the dems is ridiculous.

 

Both parties didn't benefit equally from the appearance of a booming economy, that was esteem that the republicans got because they were in power. As soon as things went south they were quick to try to blame the guy that was in office 7 years earlier, sort of how the republicans now are trying to say that Obama needs to take responsibility for the economy as congress tries to stand in his way of doing anything to affect it.

 

If you want to see fixes you need to actually let him fix it, not keep on shutting the government down, not passing his budgets, and constantly going to debt default brinks.

Quote:Well being it take a male and female to create a life, I'd say abortions do directly affect males.

 

Surely you agree that the effect on the female is much more direct and personal.

Quote:Surely you agree that the effect on the female is much more direct and personal.

Sure more personal but your arguing that the if the sex In charge where writing legislation abortion would be more acceptable under law.


So do you believe if we ha a female majority abortions would be on demand at wal mart?

Some of the responses and view points regarding women's rights on this thread are very disturbing.

 

My stance on this issue is that a woman should have a right to abort a pregnancy in the case of rape and incest. 

Quote:A politician's stance on this topic has zero bearing on how this person would lead. That so many people use this topic as a basis for how they will vote nauseates me. Roe v. Wade was how long ago? Why are we still arguing this in the political arena? It's a distraction from the real issues. Google top priorities for Republicans or Democrats and you will not see this topic anywhere close to what people find is most important. You don't support a woman's right to an abortion? Don't have one. Next.

 

You killed it this entire thread. Nailed it. So from a woman, thank you.  

 

Quote: 

Quote:A politician's stance on this topic has zero bearing on how this person would lead. That so many people use this topic as a basis for how they will vote nauseates me. Roe v. Wade was how long ago? Why are we still arguing this in the political arena? It's a distraction from the real issues. Google top priorities for Republicans or Democrats and you will not see this topic anywhere close to what people find is most important. You don't support a woman's right to an abortion? Don't have one. Next.

 

I don't think you are giving the anti-abortion people credit for sincerity.   I think they sincerely believe that life starts at conception, and killing a living fetus is basically murdering a child.   To ask them to go away and stop arguing just because abortion has been legal for many years, is asking way too much. 

 

I think the only way to resolve this issue is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies as much as possible.  Give all women free birth control.  Good God, in this day and age, surely any woman can avoid becoming pregnant if she wants to, and IF she is also given the means to avoid it. 

 

Eliminating unwanted pregnancies would almost eliminate abortion.  At that point, make it legal or illegal, whatever you want.  But there's really no excuse for millions of abortions in this day and age when we have the means to prevent pregancy. 

Quote:I don't think you are giving the anti-abortion people credit for sincerity.   I think they sincerely believe that life starts at conception, and killing a living fetus is basically murdering a child.   To ask them to go away and stop arguing just because abortion has been legal for many years, is asking way too much. 

 

I think the only way to resolve this issue is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies as much as possible.  Give all women free birth control.  Good God, in this day and age, surely any woman can avoid becoming pregnant if she wants to, and IF she is also given the means to avoid it. 

 

Eliminating unwanted pregnancies would almost eliminate abortion.  At that point, make it legal or illegal, whatever you want.  But there's really no excuse for millions of abortions in this day and age when we have the means to prevent pregancy. 

 

I'm as anti-government subsidize there is. However if giving away free contraceptives was tied hand in hand with outlawing abortions outside of the rare case of "rape, or threat of life for mother" I'd be all for it. I'd say outlawing abortions all together but I try to stay within the realm of reason.

Quote:I'm as anti-government subsidize there is. However if giving away free contraceptives was tied hand in hand with outlawing abortions outside of the rare case of "rape, or threat of life for mother" I'd be all for it. I'd say outlawing abortions all together but I try to stay within the realm of reason.

Outlawing abortions isn't very libertarian I wouldn't think.

Quote:Outlawing abortions isn't very libertarian I wouldn't think.

 

governments role is to protect property and life, if you view abortion as ending a life it than becomes permissible to have government intervention. I've said several times there's more than one way to reduce or restrict abortions. I'm open to any of them in my opinion ending the life of an innocent child is one of the worse thing this nations guilty of.

Quote:governments role is to protect property and life, if you view abortion as ending a life it than becomes permissible to have government intervention. I've said several times there's more than one way to reduce or restrict abortions. I'm open to any of them in my opinion ending the life of an innocent child is one of the worse thing this nations guilty of.

This nation? I thought it was mostly doctors performing the abortions.

Quote:This nation? I thought it was mostly doctors performing the abortions.

 

Yeah it's an issue with our society, but lets stick with discussing the politics of the issue. If we get into who's problem it is we might step outside the COC.

Quote:I don't think you are giving the anti-abortion people credit for sincerity.   I think they sincerely believe that life starts at conception, and killing a living fetus is basically murdering a child.   To ask them to go away and stop arguing just because abortion has been legal for many years, is asking way too much. 

 

I think the only way to resolve this issue is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies as much as possible.  Give all women free birth control.  Good God, in this day and age, surely any woman can avoid becoming pregnant if she wants to, and IF she is also given the means to avoid it. 

 

Eliminating unwanted pregnancies would almost eliminate abortion.  At that point, make it legal or illegal, whatever you want.  But there's really no excuse for millions of abortions in this day and age when we have the means to prevent pregancy. 

 

A couple of points regarding this.

 

First of all, to eliminate unwanted pregnancies as much as possible.  Education and abstinence is a first line of defense.  The left seems to be all about "sex education" except when the idea of abstaining is taught as a good option.

 

Second, why "give away" birth control?  Who exactly is going to pay for that?  Why should it be up to me as a taxpayer to pay for some college chick's birth control that want's to "hook up" whenever she wants?  My feeling is, if she is "woman enough" to do the deed she should be responsible enough to take care of her body.  After all, we don't want government to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body right?

 

Finally, as the old saying goes, "it takes two to tango".  What about the male in this case?  Should we give males free birth control as well?  Free anything just makes a person lazy.  As a young high school kid, I personally knew how to use a condom, and on my limited high school kid "income" I was able to afford it.

Quote:A couple of points regarding this.

 

First of all, to eliminate unwanted pregnancies as much as possible.  Education and abstinence is a first line of defense.  The left seems to be all about "sex education" except when the idea of abstaining is taught as a good option.

 

Second, why "give away" birth control?  Who exactly is going to pay for that?  Why should it be up to me as a taxpayer to pay for some college chick's birth control that want's to "hook up" whenever she wants?  My feeling is, if she is "woman enough" to do the deed she should be responsible enough to take care of her body.  After all, we don't want government to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body right?

 

Finally, as the old saying goes, "it takes two to tango".  What about the male in this case?  Should we give males free birth control as well?  Free anything just makes a person lazy.  As a young high school kid, I personally knew how to use a condom, and on my limited high school kid "income" I was able to afford it.

Abstinence education has been shown to not work. 

Quote:Abstinence education has been shown to not work. 

 

Can you cite any respectable study that shows that?  It seemed to work during my childhood.

Quote:Can you cite any respectable study that shows that? It seemed to work during my childhood.

Come on jagsibelieve, let's get it right out in the open that you 'believe' in sex after marriage.


Anyways, abstinence only education has been scientifically proven to be futile. Google it if you want; lots of the science journals are behind paywalls though.

Quote:Come on jagsibelieve, let's get it right out in the open that you 'believe' in sex after marriage.


Anyways, abstinence only education has been scientifically proven to be futile. Google it if you want; lots of the science journals are behind paywalls though.

 

So you can't cite any respectable scientific study that actually proves that abstinence education doesn't work.  Don't put it on me to cite sources, you are the one that said it.  Prove it.

 

I'm speaking about life and how I've lived it and know it.

 

How many single mothers under the age of 20 were there in say 1973 as compared to now?  We'll use statistics from 2013.  Has the number gone up or down?

 

Next look at the same statistics, but use the years say 1953 to 1973.

 

What is the difference?

 

I'll tell you one thing.  It used to be a "stigma" for a girl under the age of 20 to become pregnant out of wedlock.  What is it now?  Where are the "fathers" in these cases?