Important Notice:

ISparticus · 09-17-2008, 02:03 PM

Deregulation: 1920s. Hoover takes the reins off business that was left over from the Trust era in the late 1800s.

The US goes into a depression.

Deregulation: 1980s. Reagan takes the reins off of the S&L industry.

The Keating Five happens (one is John McCain) and the tax payers have to bail out the mess.

Deregulation: 2000s. Bush takes the reins off of the investment banking industry.

2008: We are looking at another financial crisis in which the government has to bail out these companies.

If you like deregulation, you like the fact that you can play it fast and loose and if you end up getting in trouble, the gov't comes in and bails you out.

And the architect of Republican deregulation? Foreclosure Phil Graham, John McCain's economic advisor.

Yeah...

That Phil Graham.

And on the stump McCain keeps talking about "laws there since the 1930s"

Well John, those laws are FROM THE DEPRESSION to PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

Your party pushed for and got a law from the 30s dropped to enable the current mess.

TheDoctorIsIn · 09-17-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock F@%ing Samson

Deregulation: 1920s. Hoover takes the reins off business that was left over from the Trust era in the late 1800s.

The US goes into a depression.

Deregulation: 1980s. Reagan takes the reins off of the S&L industry.

The Keating Five happens (one is John McCain) and the tax payers have to bail out the mess.

Deregulation: 2000s. Bush takes the reins off of the investment banking industry.

2008: We are looking at another financial crisis in which the government has to bail out these companies.

If you like deregulation, you like the fact that you can play it fast and loose and if you end up getting in trouble, the gov't comes in and bails you out.

And the architect of Republican deregulation? Foreclosure Phil Graham, John McCain's economic advisor.

Yeah...

That Phil Graham.

And on the stump McCain keeps talking about "laws there since the 1930s"

Well John, those laws are FROM THE DEPRESSION to PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

Your party pushed for and got a law from the 30s dropped to enable the current mess.

Yep. Hell, the bill that tore down barriers meant to keep this from happening has Gramm's name on it

ISparticus · 09-17-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctorIsIn

Yep. Hell, the bill that tore down barriers meant to keep this from happening has Gramm's name on it

Not the point and you know it. Foreclosure Phil has been pushing for deregulation since he was in congress.

He pushed for the S&L deregulation. Hell, all republicans push for deregulation.

Didn't McCain say "I am fundamentally a de-regulator"?

Negotiator · 09-17-2008, 02:17 PM

Regulation, deregulation, neither one is necessarily good or bad. You want people to have the freedom to make their own decisions, but at the same time you know there are some tricks of the trade that need to be stamped out. I'm all for getting rid of regulation when it's clear that people won't be taken advantage of as a result, or when the current setup is not achieving its goal and needs replacement.

Ultimately, I think regulation should be looked at in the following way: Are people getting jobbed by the guys in control? Yes? Okay, how do we stop that?

The goal of oversight isn't to make things foolproof or guarantee a profit, but to make sure people know what they're getting into. The news and events of the past year or two have made it clear that many did not.

TheDoctorIsIn · 09-17-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock F@%ing Samson

Not the point and you know it. Foreclosure Phil has been pushing for deregulation since he was in congress.

He pushed for the S&L deregulation. Hell, all republicans push for deregulation.

Didn't McCain say "I am fundamentally a de-regulator"?

That's what I'm saying. After the depression came a bill that prevented just this sort of thing from happening. Banking and investing were kept seperate so if one started hurting, the other didn't as a result. Gramm's bill got rid of those regulations, so now when one falls, so does the other.

The Great Danton · 09-17-2008, 02:20 PM

Deregulation didn't cause this mess... the fact that companies knew they could make ill-advised loans and get bailed out if things went sour is what led to this. They knew the government would bail them out. The problem is our current trend of corporate socialism.

ISparticus · 09-17-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctorIsIn

That's what I'm saying. After the depression came a bill that prevented just this sort of thing from happening. Banking and investing were kept seperate so if one started hurting, the other didn't as a result. Gramm's bill got rid of those regulations, so now when one falls, so does the other.

I thought you were being sarcastic.

My bad.

ISparticus · 09-17-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Danton

Deregulation didn't cause this mess... the fact that companies knew they could make ill-advised loans and get bailed out if things went sour is what led to this. They knew the government would bail them out. The problem is our current trend of corporate socialism.

You are probably the only guy who's said that in the last two weeks.

Even Greenspan has said it, and he's solidly in McCain's camp.

TheDoctorIsIn · 09-17-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock F@%ing Samson

I thought you were being sarcastic.

My bad.

Nope. The bill was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gonna be difficult for Gramm and McCain to weasle their way out of involvement with that

TheDoctorIsIn · 09-17-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Danton

Deregulation didn't cause this mess... the fact that companies knew they could make ill-advised loans and get bailed out if things went sour is what led to this. They knew the government would bail them out. The problem is our current trend of corporate socialism.

De-reg allowed them to make poor decisions that would ultimately hurt everyone else though. It's one thing to allow people to make choices that could hurt themselves. But the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed people to make choices that hurt large amounts of bystanders as well.

Bruce Banner Ad · 09-17-2008, 02:27 PM

You forgot Enron.

Deregulation supposedly relies on the free market determining the best price. The problem is, you get inside deals, political kick-backs and collusion, so the price winds up being totally artificial and inflated. Politicians and big business get rich, consumers get screwed.

The Great Danton · 09-17-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctorIsIn

De-reg allowed them to make poor decisions that would ultimately hurt everyone else though. It's one thing to allow people to make choices that could hurt themselves. But the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed people to make choices that hurt large amounts of bystanders as well.

If we weren't essentially guaranteeing these companies bailouts if they failed, they wouldn't have been making the loans in the first place. If they were making poor decisions in an actual free market, they would go bankrupt, no one would be there to bail them out, and the same bad decisions wouldn't be made again by companies in the future.

TheDoctorIsIn · 09-17-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Danton

If we weren't essentially guaranteeing these companies bailouts if they failed, they wouldn't have been making the loans in the first place. If they were making poor decisions in an actual free market, they would go bankrupt, no one would be there to bail them out, and the same bad decisions wouldn't be made again by companies in the future.

Agree that the precedent to bail them out is/was a bad one. But so was allowing them to act on it.

ISparticus · 09-17-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Danton

If we weren't essentially guaranteeing these companies bailouts if they failed, they wouldn't have been making the loans in the first place. If they were making poor decisions in an actual free market, they would go bankrupt, no one would be there to bail them out, and the same bad decisions wouldn't be made again by companies in the future.

That's the problem: Free markets only work

IF EVERYONE PLAYS BY THE RULES.

Fact is, greed takes over and everyone gets as much as they can...knowing the Gov't will have to bail them out.

ISparticus · 09-17-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctorIsIn

Agree that the precedent to bail them out is/was a bad one. But so was allowing them to act on it.

The US has been bailing out industries for over 200 years.

DeputyMSU · 09-17-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock F@%ing Samson

Deregulation: 1920s. Hoover takes the reins off business that was left over from the Trust era in the late 1800s.

The US goes into a depression.

Deregulation: 1980s. Reagan takes the reins off of the S&L industry.

The Keating Five happens (one is John McCain) and the tax payers have to bail out the mess.

Deregulation: 2000s. Bush takes the reins off of the investment banking industry.

2008: We are looking at another financial crisis in which the government has to bail out these companies.

If you like deregulation, you like the fact that you can play it fast and loose and if you end up getting in trouble, the gov't comes in and bails you out.

And the architect of Republican deregulation? Foreclosure Phil Graham, John McCain's economic advisor.

Yeah...

That Phil Graham.

And on the stump McCain keeps talking about "laws there since the 1930s"

Well John, those laws are FROM THE DEPRESSION to PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

Your party pushed for and got a law from the 30s dropped to enable the current mess.

Ummm.....Bush proposed new oversight regulations on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae back in 2003.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - New York Times

That effort was opposed by Democrats:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

John McCain co-sponsored similar legislation in 2005:
GovTrack: Senate Record: FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM... (109-s20060525-16)

This bill was killed in committee....Chris Dodd was the ranking banking committee at the time....and is also the number 1 receiver of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions (#2 is Barack Obama).

Hot Air » Blog Archive » McCain’s attempt to fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2005; Update: Obama can’t get AIG right

So please tell me how Bush and McCain are to blame for lax regulations on the mortgage industry when they were the ones attempting to put oversight of Fannie and Freddie in place.

Oh...and BTW....McCain was cleared of all charges in the Keating Five scandal....along with John Glenn.

ISparticus · 09-17-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeputyMSU

Ummm.....Bush proposed new oversight regulations on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae back in 2003.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - New York Times

That effort was opposed by Democrats:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

John McCain co-sponsored similar legislation in 2005:
GovTrack: Senate Record: FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM... (109-s20060525-16)

This bill was killed in committee....Chris Dodd was the ranking banking committee at the time....and is also the number 1 receiver of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions (#2 is Barack Obama).

Hot Air » Blog Archive » McCain’s attempt to fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2005; Update: Obama can’t get AIG right

So please tell me how Bush and McCain are to blame for lax regulations on the mortgage industry when they were the ones attempting to put oversight of Fannie and Freddie in place.

Oh...and BTW....McCain was cleared of all charges in the Keating Five scandal....along with John Glenn.

"I am fundamentally a deregulator" -John McCain

He can run from his words all he wants, he's just a liar and the American people are beginning to see that.

His clearance of charges was/is a joke.

Last Post · 09-17-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctorIsIn

Nope. The bill was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gonna be difficult for Gramm and McCain to weasle their way out of involvement with that

Which president signed that bill?? I think the same one that signed NAFTA.

Was that Bush senior, Ronald Reagan or Bush Junior??? Hmmm, which president did that?

Last Post · 09-17-2008, 05:31 PM

What's funny is that you make McCain out to be a corrupt person, I personally think he's just inept. He does what ppl tell him to do and has no clue wtf he's doing.

TheDoctorIsIn · 09-17-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Last Post

Which president signed that bill?? I think the same one that signed NAFTA.

Was that Bush senior, Ronald Reagan or Bush Junior??? Hmmm, which president did that?

Clinton signed them both. Of course, that's not what this thread is about, as he isn't running for President. But keep trying to justify McCain's problems by screaming "Clinton!"

ISparticus · 09-17-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Last Post

What's funny is that you make McCain out to be a corrupt person, I personally think he's just inept. He does what ppl tell him to do and has no clue wtf he's doing.

I don't think John McCain is a corrupt person nor inept.

I love the guy...and am just devastated he caved into the right wing.

Here I thought we had a chance to have a MODERATE in the white house...(and whether you agree with him or not, Obama's platform is moderate)

TheDoctorIsIn · 09-17-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Last Post

What's funny is that you make McCain out to be a corrupt person, I personally think he's just inept. He does what ppl tell him to do and has no clue wtf he's doing.

Actually, I agree 100%. I think 8 years ago McCain wouldn't have stood for any of this crap. He's just become a puppet now

ISparticus · 09-17-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctorIsIn

Actually, I agree 100%. I think 8 years ago McCain wouldn't have stood for any of this crap. He's just become a puppet now

He and a few others were the only ones in the (R) party I respected for their integrity.

Last Post · 09-17-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoctorIsIn

Clinton signed them both. Of course, that's not what this thread is about, as he isn't running for President. But keep trying to justify McCain's problems by screaming "Clinton!"

Yeah, but how can you make it a partisan issue when a democratic president signed it??

So McCain counters "so you hate Bill Clinton?".

Problem goes away.