Balta1701 Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 03:28 PM) Any company or person that deals in any financial product what-so-ever. Except for the big boys with the big lobbyists, who are more than happy with the current system, because they wrote the rules to their advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 27, 2010 Author Share Posted April 27, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 02:07 PM) Oh no, you are perfectly right. Having guys surfing porn at the SEC is a great idea while the financial system crumbles. I know, it's government, so the spending it good. I can believe you actually believe that crap, but that is a totally different story. Of course employees of private firms never surf the net for hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 There is waste in government, but not such a significant amount that it's going to have a major impact on the overall budget even if politicians successfully managed to get rid of 100% of it. (not that it doesn't need to be done). And furthermore, anybody who votes for a politician who promises to eliminate all things they vaguely define as "waste" and "earmarks" and believes it, and expects it to happen, deserves to be pissed off later on when it doesn't happen. That is like believing the politician is going to get puppies and rainbows for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 07:05 PM) There is waste in government, but not such a significant amount that it's going to have a major impact on the overall budget even if politicians successfully managed to get rid of 100% of it. (not that it doesn't need to be done). And furthermore, anybody who votes for a politician who promises to eliminate all things they vaguely define as "waste" and "earmarks" and believes it, and expects it to happen, deserves to be pissed off later on when it doesn't happen. That is like believing the politician is going to get puppies and rainbows for everyone. It works every time. People want something for nothing and fall hook, line and sinker when the GOVERNMENT SAVES bulls*** is passed out like candy at a campaign speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:22 PM) It works every time. People want something for nothing and fall hook, line and sinker when the GOVERNMENT SAVES bulls*** is passed out like candy at a campaign speech. Yeah, the knife cuts both ways though. "I pledge to reduce the size of government when I get in office!" Oh but not this, that, that, that, that, that, or that because you want to keep it and you'd vote me out if I did. Actually f*** it, how bout I just vote for a couple of new programs while I'm at it... not big ones of course, but you know, people want it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 07:27 PM) Yeah, the knife cuts both ways though. "I pledge to reduce the size of government when I get in office!" Oh but not this, that, that, that, that, that, or that because you want to keep it and you'd vote me out if I did. Actually f*** it, how bout I just vote for a couple of new programs while I'm at it... not big ones of course, but you know, people want it right? I will say this, though. The defense spending is one part of the government that is explicitly to be provided for according to the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 02:29 PM) Except for the big boys with the big lobbyists, who are more than happy with the current system, because they wrote the rules to their advantage. As opposed to Barack Obama who has the incentive to keep having massive expansions of government, even if they don't really do anything effectively, because he is giving eternal jobs to the same unions who bought him off? At the end of the day we all know the reason that a Democrat will never find "waste" in government is because the same groups that are doing the wasting, are the same ones underwriting his campaign. If you want to use money as an excuse, that works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I bet you unions wish they had half the political clout you guys give them credit for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 03:21 PM) I bet you unions wish they had half the political clout you guys give them credit for. I bet you wish that banks had half of the clout that Carl Levin has given them credit for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Well they did manage to f*** up a good majority of the world's economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 07:49 PM) Well they did manage to f*** up a good majority of the world's economy. It's clearly the private sector's fault. Greedy f***ing capitalists. GET THEM f***ERS... I'm glad to see that Obama just took over GS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 08:22 PM) It's clearly the private sector's fault. Greedy f***ing capitalists. GET THEM f***ERS... I'm glad to see that Obama just took over GS. Uh, yeah, it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 09:24 PM) Uh, yeah, it was. Uh, yeah, with a LOT of help from our government "regulators". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 10:18 PM) Uh, yeah, with a LOT of help from our government "regulators". That's like blaming the Chicago Police for gang violence -- just because they're ineffective at stopping it doesn't make them ultimately responsible for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 05:57 AM) That's like blaming the Chicago Police for gang violence -- just because they're ineffective at stopping it doesn't make them ultimately responsible for it. Not quite. Fannie and Freddie weren't very private and didn't help matters much. Edited April 29, 2010 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 06:38 AM) Not quite. Fannie and Freddie weren't very private and didn't help matters much. I'll concede that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 05:57 AM) That's like blaming the Chicago Police for gang violence -- just because they're ineffective at stopping it doesn't make them ultimately responsible for it. Unless the Chicago police figured out a way to subsidize the gangs everytime they had a loss, it really isn't similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Quotes from blogs that I enjoy but that I'll be ridiculed for posting because they're from dirty blogs. I've been noticing a new conservative meme lately. Basically, it's this: the government failed to stop the housing bubble, so it's folly to suggest that more government will stop any future bubble. I don't really have anything to say about this. I'm just sort of bemused by the audacity of spending 30 years deregulating everything in sight, watching the financial system implode, and then blaming it all on weak-kneed bureaucrats. It's hard not to admire the chutzpah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) Quotes from blogs that I enjoy but that I'll be ridiculed for posting because they're from dirty blogs. Did I miss the part where billions of dollars went to protecting us from this? Yeah, why would they deserve any blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Here's a novel thought. The housing bubble blame should go on banks AND the people who took personal financial risks AND the government agencies who failed in their duties. All three groups f***ed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 10:31 AM) Here's a novel thought. The housing bubble blame should go on banks AND the people who took personal financial risks AND the government agencies who failed in their duties. All three groups f***ed up. And yet...only 1 of those 3 groups wound up wealthier for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 09:34 AM) And yet...only 1 of those 3 groups wound up wealthier for it. You are right about the largest ever expansion of the federal government and its regulating bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts