DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The financial bailout... the cause of the problem?
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 318, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/25/2008 04:14:04 PM · #51
This thread and so many others like it where people go running to their partisan corners defending their party at the expense of getting anything accomplished and only serving to further polarize the country is EXACTLY why our government - the WHOLE government - is paralyzed. Partisan paralysis. The media only feeds the disease. In my dreams of fairy dust and rainbows, I see a country whose citizens are finally fed up and decide that they, themselves will choose to focus on solving problems and instead of being on the least-losingest team. I can't say "winning team" because we are ALL losing.

To all who have made sweeping comments and sweeping vitriolic attacks on the opposing party - ask yourself if you are really doing anything to help solve any problems or are you actually contributing to the problems.

That's all I have to say - continue as you wish.

Message edited by author 2008-09-25 16:14:16.
 09/25/2008 04:14:41 PM · #52
In honor of Ron Burgundy, I declare from now on people are required in this thread to refer to Ann Coulter as "Tits McGee"!
 09/25/2008 04:24:51 PM · #53
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
This thread and so many others like it where people go running to their partisan corners defending their party at the expense of getting anything accomplished and only serving to further polarize the country is EXACTLY why our government - the WHOLE government - is paralyzed. Partisan paralysis. The media only feeds the disease. In my dreams of fairy dust and rainbows, I see a country whose citizens are finally fed up and decide that they, themselves will choose to focus on solving problems and instead of being on the least-losingest team. I can't say "winning team" because we are ALL losing.

To all who have made sweeping comments and sweeping vitriolic attacks on the opposing party - ask yourself if you are really doing anything to help solve any problems or are you actually contributing to the problems.

That's all I have to say - continue as you wish.


I'd say that this thread wasn't created with the purpose of choosing to focus on solving the problem, but to point fingers and provoke a polarized response.

Message edited by author 2008-09-25 16:26:26.
 09/25/2008 04:26:35 PM · #54
Originally posted by David Ey:
Having an agenda is wrong. Anyone having an agenda is lieing and there is no truth in what they say. Only conservatives have agendas. All Republicans lie.


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. But if I wanted to build a strawman, I'm perfectly capable of doing so on my own. Hawkeye called out people for not addressing the substance of his post, but instead attacking the origin. I've now posted two counter arguments, supported by evidence. Your turn. I wait in quivering anticipation.

But to address the (completely unintentional, I'm sure) substance of your post above, I'm actually quite an admirer of a number of conservatives. (Although, true they all tend to be of the older, non-movement conservative variety.) Traditional conservative thought holds much to be admired. It grounds itself in reason and evidence, demands proof in the face of optimism, values individual liberty as a prime touchstone of American value, and generally exhibits a mature and nuanced view of social and political conditions with an appreciation of the complexity and difficulty of enacting formative change without garnering unintended, negative consequences in result.

Movement conservatism, however, has shown itself to be particularly ambivalent -- and sometimes openly hostile -- to verifiable facts and evidence counter to their particular world view. These are the people who denigrated those calling for evidence-based arguments as being "members of the reality-based community." -- The horror. -- Movement conservatism is not conservative in any real sense, but is more accurately described as radical-right ideology (or in some flavors, radical-right theology). It's view and understanding of the world is highly immature, uneducated, and simplistic. A traditional conservative can have a reasoned and dynamic argument with someone of an opposing viewpoint, a movement conservative cannot because they refuse to acknowledge that there are any other legitimate viewpoints.

That said, I don't believe that Coulter is a good example of movement conservativism because I don't believe that even Coulter believes the crap that comes out of her mouth. She has got a schtick that makes her money and lets her feel important. That's all.

Message edited by author 2008-09-25 16:28:44.
 09/25/2008 04:26:57 PM · #55
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
This thread and so many others like it where people go running to their partisan corners defending their party at the expense of getting anything accomplished and only serving to further polarize the country is EXACTLY why our government - the WHOLE government - is paralyzed. Partisan paralysis. The media only feeds the disease. In my dreams of fairy dust and rainbows, I see a country whose citizens are finally fed up and decide that they, themselves will choose to focus on solving problems and instead of being on the least-losingest team. I can't say "winning team" because we are ALL losing.

To all who have made sweeping comments and sweeping vitriolic attacks on the opposing party - ask yourself if you are really doing anything to help solve any problems or are you actually contributing to the problems.

That's all I have to say - continue as you wish.


Kiss me.
 09/25/2008 04:38:51 PM · #56
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
This thread and so many others like it where people go running to their partisan corners defending their party at the expense of getting anything accomplished and only serving to further polarize the country is EXACTLY why our government - the WHOLE government - is paralyzed. Partisan paralysis. The media only feeds the disease. In my dreams of fairy dust and rainbows, I see a country whose citizens are finally fed up and decide that they, themselves will choose to focus on solving problems and instead of being on the least-losingest team. I can't say "winning team" because we are ALL losing.

To all who have made sweeping comments and sweeping vitriolic attacks on the opposing party - ask yourself if you are really doing anything to help solve any problems or are you actually contributing to the problems.

That's all I have to say - continue as you wish.


Well said Art.
 09/25/2008 04:49:50 PM · #57
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
This thread and so many others like it where people go running to their partisan corners defending their party at the expense of getting anything accomplished and only serving to further polarize the country is EXACTLY why our government - the WHOLE government - is paralyzed. Partisan paralysis. The media only feeds the disease. In my dreams of fairy dust and rainbows, I see a country whose citizens are finally fed up and decide that they, themselves will choose to focus on solving problems and instead of being on the least-losingest team. I can't say "winning team" because we are ALL losing.


Speaking as a frustrated left-liberal, I want MORE partisanship, not less. Not blind partisanship - you are correct that is destructive and ultimately counterproductive. But as someone who feels that the evidence and argument favors the ideals the Democratic Party claims to stand for, the last eight years has been an exercise in horrified disbelief as I saw the one party capable of acting as opposition relinquish the role.

I believe that the left has the better argument, I just wish they would make it - forcefully, doggedly, and honestly.

(Don't talk to me about third-parties, either. Third parties are non-starters in the U.S., coming to power only after a complete meltdown of an entrenched majority and then only very, very rarely. [The Republican Party is nearing what might be an opportunity for the rise of a viable alternative party, but odds are long and no similar opportunity is on the horizon for the Democratic Party.])

Message edited by author 2008-09-25 16:53:19.
 09/25/2008 04:53:54 PM · #58
I'm totally embarrassed to have actually read through a paragraph of Coulter trash.

Fool me once, ......shame on...........................shame on you...............if fooled we can't be fooled again.

Bush jr

Message edited by author 2008-09-25 16:56:53.
 09/25/2008 06:18:11 PM · #59
Actually I would let the banks sink in a free market. Which would lead to many of us being out of jobs. That is the price of truly free economy. So no flip flop here. We should have stopped bailing the banks out years ago. This would have created smaller more managable crisis instead of the cluster we are now in.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I find it oddly hypocritical how Republicans, who supposedly support and promote de-regulation of industry and trade as a way to smaller government are now flip-flopping to seek oversight and increased regulation and are blaming democrats for doing exactly what they themselves promote.

I guess it's all in the spin.
09/25/2008 06:25:29 PM · #60
It is. most will not like the results but it will solve the problems.
Originally posted by metatate:
=]

Well, they ALL agree that more regulation SOLVES the problem â€Â¦ so MAYBE the "FREE" Market isn't capable of solving all the problems.

Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Could any of this be caused in the slightest by greed, or is that too simplistic?


Of course not. It is always a Democrat vs Republican thing.
09/25/2008 06:51:12 PM · #61
Originally posted by coronamv:
Actually I would let the banks sink in a free market. Which would lead to many of us being out of jobs. That is the price of truly free economy. So no flip flop here. We should have stopped bailing the banks out years ago. This would have created smaller more managable crisis instead of the cluster we are now in.


Really I think we're in it so deep this answer is putting ideology in front of practicality. You can cure a headache by cutting of your head, but I wouldn't advise it. The free market system would undoubtedly eventually correct itself. In the meantime we may have huge amounts of collateral damage and wind up stagnating like Japan for a decade.
 09/25/2008 06:52:57 PM · #62
Originally posted by coronamv:
Actually I would let the banks sink in a free market. Which would lead to many of us being out of jobs. That is the price of truly free economy. So no flip flop here. We should have stopped bailing the banks out years ago. This would have created smaller more managable crisis instead of the cluster we are now in.


My inclination was intially somewhat along this line -- without the real chance of failure you set up horrible market incentives for corrupt practices and unwise investment -- but I've been convinced in recent weeks that something has to be done to alleviate the chance of a worst-case scenario. I'm still not convinced, however, that the current 11th-hour remedies are good ideas, or even if they will act to stave off an eventual major economic catastrophe.

Properly functioning markets work quite well to correct excess and imbalances, the problem is how to achieve that state. "Free market" mavens usually mean "deregulated" or even "unregulated" when they say "free." The problem with this is that in a truly unregulated market you get incredible volatility, since there will always be problems of information flow, gamesmanship, and other perverse incentives which lead to bubble/bust cycles and other ill effects and bad behaviors. Well-crafted regulation seeks to correct these imbalances and problems -- a capitalistic system needs regulation like a car needs oil, without it the whole thing eventually seizes up and you're just left with a pile of junk.

That said, regulation can of course go to far. Adam Smith was not concerned with regulation per se, but with excessive regulation. While I've seen people try to argue that the current crisis is the result of excessive regulation, it just doesn't hold water since the conditions by which the sub-prime mess could occur was the direct result of New Deal era controls being lifted. Regulation for regulation's sake isn't the answer, but neither is deregulation for deregulation's sake, and if any situation illustrated the need for renewed, well-crafted regulation, the current situation is it.

Message edited by author 2008-09-25 19:21:05.
 09/25/2008 07:04:45 PM · #63
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Regulation for regulation's sake isn't the answer, but neither is deregulation for deregulation's sake, and if any situation illustrated the need for renewed, well-crafted regulation, the current situation is it.


Preach it brutha!
 09/25/2008 07:12:11 PM · #64
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Regulation for regulation's sake isn't the answer, but neither is deregulation for deregulation's sake, and if any situation illustrated the need for renewed, well-crafted regulation, the current situation is it.


Preach it brutha!


Heck, we've already got Bernake passing the collection plate, so why not?
 09/25/2008 07:17:29 PM · #65

Originally posted by "Column":

This crisis was caused by political correctness being forced on the mortgage lending industry in the Clinton era.


Sorry, but if you're BS detector does not instantly go off when such a broad and partisan assertion is made then you need to check your logic drive in for repair. The most obvious rebuttal to this claim is that REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED CONGRESS & THE WHITE HOUSE FOR MOST OF THIS DECADE!!! So, if there was such a serious problem created by the dems and Clinton in the 90's, why didn't the republicans do something about it in the 2000's when they had control of the government?!?

Lack of regulation & greed produced this crisis. Predatory lending produced great profits for many greedy people until this crisis arose and many real estate speculators made tons of money during the real estate bubble by purchasing multiple homes (often not even to use for living in) with little or no down payment and not enough income to make payments if the properties were not sold in the short term.

Sorry I didn't read the whole thread before responding and this may have been pointed out already. I'm just in a hurry and had to respond to such clearly ignorant assertions.
 09/25/2008 08:09:32 PM · #66
Since the topic here is the cause of the problem, Ive only seen half of it discussed.

The first part already mentioned is giving $650,000 mortgages to people with household incomes of $65,000.

The second part of the problem was "The Smartest Guys In The Room" strike again. That squadron of twenty something MBA's from all the top schools making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year decided they could package these loans into exotic financial instruments and sell them at huge profits. Of course, to these guys long term means the day after tomorrow and all that matters is the quarters earnings and that bonus pool at year end. In reality they took cow shit and sold it as filet mignon, only this time the buyers were not individuals (like they were in the tech bubble a decade ago), but institutions.

Our mistake was any type of bail out for anyone. We should have let them all go under. It would have caused short term dislocations for sure, but in the long run it would have cured us from The Smartest Guys In The Room forever. Now we are stuck with them, a bunch of book smart MBA's with no experience or common sense.
09/25/2008 08:19:34 PM · #67
Seems Hawkeye is good at startin' an argument, but not so good once it's goin'.
 09/25/2008 09:38:02 PM · #68
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
09/25/2008 10:25:51 PM · #69
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
09/25/2008 10:50:49 PM · #70
Reading these threads is like watching an Uwe Boll movie.

You can't really believe it's going on, but there it is, right in front of you, and you can't turn off the TV.

09/25/2008 11:46:38 PM · #71
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
09/25/2008 11:47:52 PM · #72
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Speaking as a frustrated left-liberal, I want MORE partisanship, not less. Not blind partisanship - you are correct that is destructive and ultimately counterproductive...

I believe that the left has the better argument, I just wish they would make it - forcefully, doggedly, and honestly.


Perhaps the reason they don't forcefully, doggedly or honestly present their arguments is because they fear it won't win them any popularity contests and that's what elections pretty much are. It is why people like Kucinich never had a chance. It is why Obama and McCain do. They are good salesmen politicians. They are the ones who are capable of pulling in enough sheep to go along with the actively engaged. So unfortunately blind partisanship IS needed in our current system for any candidate to win. Now maybe if we lived in a culture where people ran for office on purely noble motives we'd see less salesmen run for office instead of the power hungry or career job seekers we get now.

If I had my way, every political office would have term limits and I'd do away with political parties altogether and with it the primaries and caucuses. Everyone runs as an independent which would force candidates to actually have to explain their views/idealogies in more depth and their credentials would be based more on things like accomplishments and experience than on whether or not a D or an R is next to their name, which I think is a good thing. It would force people to be more involved in order to know who to vote for. That in turn would weed out many of the sheep who need that D or R in front of someone's name to know who to vote for.

Message edited by author 2008-09-26 00:07:01.
 09/26/2008 12:36:52 AM · #73
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
09/26/2008 01:30:22 AM · #74
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
09/26/2008 08:19:15 AM · #75
Originally posted by dahkota:
You know, I really should just ignore this drivel as it is really irritating me. But I just want to say that, in my majority black, democratic county, there are less foreclosures than in a close-by, majority white, upper middle class, republican county. Hmmm... makes that article kind of suspect with regard to truth.

Hmmm...so blacks are democrats and upper middle class whites are republicans? No wonder politics are so polarizing - racial bias and prejudice still run beneath the surface. It makes me also wonder how much of a factor race will be when election night in November is over.

As for your point on foreclosures, you make a fine observation. The "creative mortgage lending" really turned into something it wasn't intended to be (although there were risky loan failures in the beginning also). In the end it did turn into a fast buck for many and it also allowed too many people to take on way more than they could afford (yes, including upper middle class "republicans"). Interesting read --> How the Subprime Mortgage Mess Began

Another hmmm...does it mean that all people that drive expensive cars are automatically "republicans" also? Could have sworn I saw some democrats with their elitist view of "yes, let's help the poor and downtrodden...just don't take my highend perks away" driving around in some very expensive vehicles. Oh, I know, they bought that vehicle from a minority owned dealership, so it's ok.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 10:45:09 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 10:45:09 AM EDT.