Conservative Economics?
Aright.... I would call myself a liberal. I know the vast majority here are Romney supporters and what not... but I still don't understand why you believe economic policies under him would be better than those under Obama. Could anyone elaborate on why or recommend some books I should read?
The Road to serfdom and my all time favorite book ever by Bastiat: Essays on political economy
http://www.amazon.com/End-This-Depression-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393088774
Bastiat is criminally under-appreciated.
A basic text - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
Slightly less basic - Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell
My favorites - Progress and poverty by Henry George, The Road to Serfdom by Frederich Hayek, The Law by Frederic Bastiat
Romney laid out a plan with few details. And, from what you could clean from his "plan," there was basically no way he could've pulled off the tax cuts he wanted without exploding the deficit.
People on here that supported Romney because he'd "fix the economy" are either being tribal in their support of the GOP or assume that, somehow, because he worked in PE he'd be able to magically fix the economy. These claims couldn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
As someone who is pretty (fiscally) conservative and chose Romney I actually agree with much of what you say. However, I still believe Romney was the best of our 2 choices..
I believe that over the next 4 years Romney was likely to spend less, more likely to undo some of the worst ramifications of Obamacare and keep capital gains taxes at 15%. I'm not even saying that this was his "Plan", I just believe that would have been the reality.
Ultimately, I believe the government is incredibly inefficient at getting value for my money. I sit in a LOT of budget meetings at my company where we discuss how to operate with less than ideal budgets. It forces our departments to get more for less on an annual basis. I don't believe that these difficult conversations happen nearly enough in government and until I think my money is being spent wisely, I'm opposed to giving another #1 to the government.
You're basically getting at my point. You want to believe something despite no evidence to support your belief.
I really struggled with the idea that because Romney was a businessman, he'd know how to fix the economy. That's now how it works and there really aren't many good ways to fix the fallout of the crisis other than waiting it out or inventing a time machine and going back to try and prevent it.
And, honestly, when ideas to boost employment and the economy are put forth, such as an infrastructure bank or something similar, they are completely shut down by the GOP. The entire platform of the GOP has been "obstruct anything at all costs and then blame Obama for things not improving faster." I'm not saying I want rampant gov't spending on stupid bullshit, but I'm not convinced that Romney would actually spend less. Especially not when he offers no specifics, wants a massive tax cut, and to increase defense spending far beyond what the Pentagon has asked for based on some Dick Morris level non-sense "analysis".
Promoting the development of a socioeconomic aristocracy is a very noble goal.
Free to Choose by Milton Friedman is a very good book that outlines some of the problems with government run entities.
People have a preeminent right to their property, aka earnings. Romney was vague because the proletariat cannot understand anything beyond a 7th grade reading level. Same with the anointed one. His bullshit tax the rich crap will do ZERO to fix the economy.
I really liked Romney bringing up that we need to lower rates and reduce exemptions. We spend over $1T through the tax code. People should not get money for having kids, buying a house, donating to charity, etc etc.
We also have inefficient, redundant and costly over regulation. Strip it away and reduce the cost to do business in the US. Lower and simplify the corporate tax code. All these things would increase our competitiveness and reduce the cost of doing business.
Romney was entirely one dimensional. He was all about business and the economy. That is what we need. Obama had a mess and half ass cleaned it up. Obama knows nothing about the economy. Dude was a community organizer which is nothing more than a pied piper.
And there is no such thing as "Conservative economics" There is right and then there is the bullshit Krugman spews.
Some quick replies:
1.) U mad bruh? Sorry, I had to.
2.) re: eliminating deductions. This would be great and all, but he refused to talk specifics. Additionally, multiple independent sources tried to figure out a way that his tax cut would be revenue neutral, they couldn't do it. No matter how generous you were with growth assumptions, even eliminating virtually every deduction wouldn't work. So, Romney offered a half-baked plan with no specifics that couldn't work in reality even with the most generous assumptions.
3.) Demand creates growth. Supply side economics is snake oil. The tax burden on the "job creators" in America is literally the lowest it's ever been. So, cutting them further wouldn't magically lead to more jobs. That's not how it works. You know this. In my two years in PE, taxes were never a legitimate concern when discussing growing our companies. If anything, we benefitted from tax breaks under Obama w.r.t. depreciating new equipment in our CapEx heavy companies.
4.) The whole over-regulation argument often just comes off as "Dodd-Frank makes us do 30 minutes of paperwork!" Look, we could've just gone back to Glass-Steagall and the banking system we had in the 1990s. But, no one had the spine to do it. So, instead, we have Dodd-Frank. If anyone thinks that we should go back to the fully de-regulated mess that got us into the crisis, they are delusional assholes.
5.) If you bucket Obamacare in with "over-regulation," I'm not sure what to say. If anything, suggest smart alterations to the bill, repeal isn't going to happen. Nor is repeal even a good idea. If you look at the data with a clear and objective mind, there is no way in hell that you'd rather have what we had pre-Obamacare. I know you think it's going to end up being a money pit, but I really don't think there is any reason to believe that. Neither does the CBO. Oh, and neither do countries with actual universal healthcare systems.
6.) The entire argument that Obama has somehow "failed" on the economy only comes from people who either: didn't vote for him in the first place (and never would); people who don't understand the limited role the President actually has in the economy; or people who are deluding themselves when analyzing a post-financial crisis recovery. Shit isn't black and white. Entire industries were destroyed, people are stuck in underwater mortgages, and technology replaced millions of jobs. Compared to Europe, America has had a pretty good recovery. Also, in his four years, Obama has net-positive job creation. In Bush's first four years, he was still negative. And, no, the jobs aren't coming from gov't employees - gov't employment is at a severe low point.
"But...But...Romney saved the Olympics!" With money he got from the Federal Government, not financial engineering wizardry.
I have a God given right to a ninth vacation home in Vail. And if you so much as set one toenail on any of my properties I will have no choice but to release the hounds.
1) Yes, I am livid. Obama was re-elected because he is Obama. Bush 1 lost his 2nd term with better economic stats than Obama has.
2) You are correct, he didn't get into specifics. Political necessity. The mortgage interest deduction needs to go as well as a bunch of other things. People in this country are extremely simple so I can't see faulting Romney for not going into details. Fact is we spend through the tax code, which is a reason when only 50% pay federal income tax and why we receive so little in revenue.
3) I did not mention job creators. Yes, demand creates jobs. We have demand, although not enough. If we lowered costs we would make the US more competitive. Make the USA more enticing, not less. We have an overly complex tax structure with the highest rates.
4) I am not just talking Dodd Frank. And it is more than just 30 minutes of paperwork. I am not talking about restrictions on dumping nuclear waste into the ocean, I am talking about endless rules regarding minutia. Regulate and over regulate. We never focus on improving existing regulations.
How come we continue to have failures and crisis? I mean we layer on more and more and more regulation, yet shit still hits the fan? Slim it down, keep the good stuff and get rid of the fluff.
Big business loves regulation, as the Democrats so happily tout. Why? Barrier to entry. Make things more competitive.
5) I pray to God the CBO is correct with Obamacare. Unfortunately I have no faith in the government. This thing will end up costing so much money and we will never be able to remove it. Last I checked we are running a $1T deficit. Fuck it, lets roll out another perpetual entitlement.
6) Obama can't take credit without taking the blame. Sucks, but how the game is played. Presidents don't do shit, but his "it is Bush's fault" crap is annoying. Could you imagine working for someone who could never take ownership of their mistakes? Please.
The Economy was not job 1 for Obama. I doubt it will be now.
Also, who cares if Romney got money from the Fed. He saved the SLC Olympics. Are you really going to tell me that Obama knows more about the economy and how business works than Romney? C'mon.
At least the people who re-elected him are the ones suffering from his polices. Glad the 47% shuffled off and pulled the lever. Sucks to pay $4.00 for gas and see basic food prices double.
How about this for a simple restructuring, that nobody would ever go for and doesn't need specifics (I think it's got a good mix of progressivity and regressiveness so that no one side should get overly heated, but we'll see):
Serious question here. Is Obamacare really an entitlement? I don't see it as such. Maybe a bastardization of the private market, but the private market alone simply wasn't working.
"In 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected PPACA will require more than $1.7 trillion in gross federal spending over the period 2012–2022, some of which will be offset by penalties and tax increases related to coverage, resulting in net spending of more than $1.2 trillion for the insurance portion of the bill. However, this is only a partial accounting for the impact of the bill, excluding some offsetting expense reductions and revenue increases that result in a net deficit reduction.[197]198[216][232]
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, by 2019 PPACA will increase expenditures on Medicaid and individual subsidies by $165 billion annually while reducing Medicare expenditures by $125 billion annually.233"
Healthcare for everyone is fine and I get the emotional sell. I've had direct personal experience on the issue. But someone has to pay for it. And we can't always just milk the rich. I hope and pray that the CBO is correct, because if they are wrong this is going to be a serious, SERIOUS thing going forward.
Strawmen everywhere!!!!!
How was the economy not job #1 for Obama? Seriously. You just don't agree with his approach. At least be honest about that. Fact is, Obama did things that he ran on and you don't like them. That's ok, but let's not pretend that he shirked his duties because you don't like his approach.
Anyway, to your numbered points:
2.) See, Romney claimed his tax plan was revenue neutral. So, even if he got rid of the deductions, it theoretically would bring in the same amount of money. So, you're points about needing to get rid of things like the interest deduction don't jive with Romney's plan. To be clear, I agree with you on that. Let's stop subsidizing people living in big homes and having kids, it's ridiculous and acts as a kind of invisible handout. My other point would be, with regards to Romney's plan, if your plan is revenue neutral, why even go through the trouble of lowering rates and getting rid of deductions in the first place? Seems like he had some sort of unspoken agenda, but it's his fault for not being clear.
3.) Lowering the corporate tax to 25% won't produce more jobs / demand. I mean, I'm all for that and have no qualms with doing so. Obama took the same position during the campaign, btw. Let's just not pretend that the economy would suddenly grow faster if rates were dropped further. There's no actual correlation between lowering tax rates and economic growth past a certain point. People like to bring up Reagan lowering rates, but he was lowering them from astronomically high levels. The marginal effect of going from 50%+ to 28% is way bigger than 34% to 28%. Not to mention, it would explode our current deficit even further.
4.) We had failures and crises in the banking / financial sector because of mass de-regulation. This isn't even a point of debate. You can try and frame it otherwise, but it's reality. If there are other regulations outside of financial regulations that are overbearing and arduous for no real reason, then cut them back.
Btw, I know it's more than 30 minutes of paper work for Dodd Frank...but if you're at a smaller fund, it's not nearly so arduous. And, again, I agree that there are issues with Dodd-Frank, but we can thank the power of the banking lobby along with spineless / ensnared Senators for that.
5.) The GOP will tout the CBO when it helps them, and then ignore it and say "I don't trust gov't!" when it hurts their cause. Let's see how things pan out. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where no one goes bankrupt because of a lack of health insurance and no one gets denied because of pre-existing conditions. If we can fix that, reduce overall healthcare costs and spending, and do it while using what amounts to a conservative system that eliminates free riders, then I'm all for it.
Let's not eliminate it because you have a hunch that it'll go poorly based upon a complete lack of evidence.
6.) The idea that Obama spends all his time blaming Bush is one of the biggest straw man arguments on the right. If he talks about inheriting a mess, it's because he did. GDP contracted some 8% in Q4 2007 and the economy was bleeding ~1 million jobs a month when he took office. If you listened to those on the far right, you'd assume he started with unemployment at 4% and dropped a nuclear bomb on half the country his first week in office. I mean, what mistakes would you have Obama own up to? Other than not being a neoconservative.
Speaking of not taking ownership for mistakes, has the GOP ever done that post-Bush? I can't think of one person who will admit that the Bush Doctrine (foreign policy) was a mess (other than Ron Paul and maybe his son.) I mean, Romney's entire foreign policy staff was comprised of Dick Cheney / John Bolton neocon types who dodged drafts while fucking jerking it to the idea of sending more kids off to war. They call Obama a foreign policy disaster without being sarcastic and it's really quite sad.
To end...did you really blame Obama for $4.00 gas? You're better than that.
How much different is Obamacare in comparison to Romneycare? minus Romneycare being statewide
You may be in PE, but you certainly aren't anywhere near the energy sector.
Obamacare is going to wreak havoc on the healthcare system. Costs are going to continue to be driven up and quality will decline. After Tuesday, it's a less rational decision to seek to enter the medical profession as a physician. And it's inevitable that people will call for the public option, and subsequently, universal coverage.
Other than you asserting this, what evidence do you have for this being true? Health care costs are already starting to slow down (in terms of their increase year-over-year vs. growth of the overall economy.) First time that happened in decades.
I have to roll to DC, but I will reply when I get back.
Google " washington post obamacare-isnt-reducing-health-care-costs" since I can't post links as a new member here.
check out the studies they reference.
Intuitively, it would make sense that they don't actually care about the root cause of costs in healthcare since they had been vying for the public option for quite some time. It's also a pretty simple supply/demand issue. Demand is going to increase as unnecessary "preventive" medicine will drive up demand on a supply of labor with an incredible barrier to entry. If physicians overwhelmingly oppose it, then there must be something wrong here. Also, the plan is establishing a 3.8% "investment tax" to supplement capital gains tax, and as a PE guy, you are in favor of it?
As for other economic policies, I hail from an area of the country where the energy sector is vastly important. And the EPA is about wreck shop on it.
You lost me after this. The washington post should not be considered a news source.
A few points:
1.) Healthcare reform will eliminate the free-rider problem, which is the number one reason we should all cheer for it. It literally forces people to take some self-responsibility and get coverage. Otherwise, their catastrophic care gets billed to the tax payer. We've had the free rider problem for decades and it's getting resolved.
2.) Preventative healthcare is a good thing, not a bad thing. What's bad is when people let problems fester until it's a massive issue (in terms of both $ cost and the physical cost of dealing with the problem.)
3.) If a 3.8% increase in investment taxes means that we'll have a system in which people won't be denied insurance because they were born with a heart problem, then I think that's a worthwhile price to pay. Chances are, if you faced that sort of issue, or had a friend who did, you'd agree. I actually have a friend who was born with a legitimate heart problem. He functions fine, but his healthcare costs are massive (very specialized drugs, procedures when he was younger). People like him shouldn't have to worry about going bankrupt over healthcare bills (should he lose his job).
Being an ex-PE guy doesn't mean that I need to worship at the alter of money. I'd rather have a healthier society than be solely focused on making every dollar I can at all costs.
Yikes, meant to say washington examiner. It was an opinion piece that cited a couple studies released on higher costs.
Here's the link since I'm at 10+ posts now: http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-isnt-reducing-health-care-costs…
Then we have a fundamental disagreement. Socialistic policies hurt output in the long run, thereby causing a net decrease in the quality of life for society as a whole.
Your friend was given a rough go in life with his condition, and I truly empathize with his situation. Unfortunately, forcing an insurance company to cover people like him will have unintended economic consequences in the long run that will hurt a lot people.
Your stance is the ultimate "works in a text book, doesn't work in practice" argument.
1.) I guarandamntee that if it were your kid or sister or dad facing a similar predicament, you wouldn't think of them as an unfortunate statistic. You'd want them covered and wouldn't have sympathy for gigantic insurance companies because of libertarian principles.
2.) I fail to see the "socialist" aspect. It's individuals buying health insurance from private insurance companies. Government does not control the means of production.
3.) The mandate is exactly why it works. The mandate makes it so insurance companies have enough customers to offset people like my friend who is a bigger risk. The mandate allows for universal coverage while eliminating the free rider program without having a universal state-run healthcare system.
Pooled risk is the basis of the insurance system. It's not really insurance if only the selected few are allowed to participate. The only unintended consequence is for insurance companies to act like insurance companies and actually provide insurance...
I also love how Obamacare / Romneycare was a conservative idea that was supported by Romney as recently as 2010, and somehow it's socialist.
Life isn't an Ayn Rand novel. And frankly, she knew it too seeing as she proved to be a complete hypocrite by using medicare later in life.
Wow thanks for all the responses guys.
Ha, life isn't an Ayn Rand novel. Now I see what we are dealing with here.
Um no, you are right in that I wouldn't look at a family member as statistic. I would do everything in my power to help him or her. Doesn't mean I would ask for the government's help. Even if I personally did, that doesn't make it the right thing to do on a macro scale for society.
Right. So, if your sibling / parent / kid comes down with Stage II brain cancer, you'll find a way to pay out of pocket. You know how much that kind of shit costs, right? Fact is, you'd take all the help you could get because you're a human being.
But, that's besides the point even. The entire point of the mandate / healthcare law is that everyone will be covered because EVERYONE buys into the private health insurance system. That's the entire point. This isn't the government paying for everyone. Most people will still be covered through their employer. Others will buy on an exchange that gives them group buying power.
I honestly don't see an argument against the system beyond speculation about what it'll turn into (which is nothing but a bogeyman argument on the part of the far right.)
I'm also curious...now you see what you're dealing with here? Unless you're answer is "a center-left thinking person," I'm not sure what you're getting at.
WSO is not the place for this kind of garbage so I'm going to avoid taking the debate any further. But yeah you're a real center-left thinking person brah!
"This kind of garbage" = intelligent debate?
FYI - John Wayne was on the down low.
Aaaaand this is where he declares defeat.
Very good arguments TheKing and I wholeheartedly agree!
Herp derp yeaah life isn't an Ayn Rand novel!! You tell him, king!
I signed up for career advice, not engage in political debate so I can be lectured with tired platitudes and talking points by some apoplectic clown. Shouldn't have gotten involved in it.
There's plenty of room for career advice. This is the monkeying around forum.
Good job calling someone who could actually give you legitimate career advice an "apoplectic clown."
Calm down TheKing. He just discovered the thesaurus.
Mad Props to TheKing. I entirely agree with your. Very good points made.
What do you guys think of the possibility of Obamacare / Universal health care lowering the overall health cost in the United States? USA's health expenditure is a whooping 17.6 % of GDP. That's around 8 percentage points more than most European peers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expendit…). I don't know much about this industry, but some pro-Obamacare people claim that it might reduce the overall health cost. Is it plausible?
Yeah, because speculating that this will end up costing people a shit ton is a "boggy man argument". You're right TheKing. The government has never before over promised, but under delivered. I mean look at the Post Office, Amtrak, Medicaid/care, DoD spending, on and on. Never before has there been a government program that was sold to the people as a cost saver and ended up costing us dearly.
King makes some valid points, but he also fails to see the bigger picture on a host of issues.
Financial Regulation
Please, like there wasn't a financial crisis before the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I do not deny the need for better capital and leverage regulation when to the financial system and derivatives in general. But Dodd-Frank was a liberals wet dream with completely overburden some regulation and a trojan horse to create the consumer protection bureau and ban prop trading, the first of which wasn't needed and the second of which is inherent in the very DNA of capitalism---what do you think a bank loan is? It is the bank putting skin in the game and speculating that your business will be around in x years and that your future cash flow/assets will be enough to cover the loan. When a business decides on how much inventory he needs, they are speculating on the cost of their inputs as well as future demand of their product. All of it is speculation and you can either make or lose a lot of money.
The fact that you would use the term "30 minutes of paperwork" when talking about government regulation clearly shows that you fail to grasp the extent of laws and government regulation. Liberals think that every company is ExxonMobil or Goldman Sachs. You fail to notice the thousands of smaller and regional banks. Government regulation like Dodd-Frank is thousands of hours of extra work, millions of dollars in extra costs/internal infrastructure. Dodd Frank is over 800 pages long and still has over 200 line items that have to be decided in the future or determined by a panel or determined by whatever. And a some of these items are harmful/completely pointless that many pray will never get implemented because they are just too radical---they are so radical that not even Europe or Asia are considering them and will gladly take the thousands of new high paying jobs that will be shipped overseas.
And as for the financial crisis, most financial crisis have the same 3 or 4 causes, namely, bad loans and the over extension of credit. When the government mandates and forces companies to give out bad loans so that they can get votes--as was done in the zeroes---you are truly fucked and no matter of regulation can save you. not saying companies weren't at fault, but the government was right next to them drinking the kool-aid and don't be so naive to think that "More Regulation" could of stopped anything.
Tax Rate
Besides making the tax code simpler, Romney's plan would have been revenue neutral despite cutting rates and deductions because of the degree it hits certain people. The vast majority of small business owners file tax returns as individuals--they are not a partnership or corporation. Lowing the tax rate would have given them additional capital to hire workers and expand business which in turn adds workers at other companies or maybe would have given them additional capital to handle increased costs/government regulation so they wouldn't have to lay off any works. To a person a job is just a job, to an employer there is thousands of extra dollars for that "next employee" in terms of medical insurance, benefits, training, etc. The ramp up from a few dozen employes to hundreds is a HUGE COST and thanks to government bills like Obamacare just got a whole lot more expensive and now companies will do everything they can to NOT HIRE additional workers because that would mean more costs that weren't there before.
Meanwhile, while removing deduction, like the mortgage deduction (where 80% of the total exemption value comes from the rich), you would add revenue from additional sources and the vast majority of that would have come from the "wealthy". So while a wealthy business owner might have some overlap between the two, a wealthy none business owner would get hit the hardest and the none wealthy small business owner would have reaped the most benefit.
Again, Romney would have most likely taken something like Simpson Bowles, but he was open to suggestion. He said it in the debates, there was not one definite plan/must have deduction that he would have cut, but he had the outline he wanted and would have allowed congress to negotiate the specifics. As long as it lowered the tax rates and was revenue neutral he was for it.
Obamacare
America is the leading pioneer in medical research and new life saving techniques. Over 280 million Americans have access to some of the best medicine IN THE WORLD. There are some problems with pre-existing conditions and other issues that need to be fixed, but Obamacare is not the answer and one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever pass Congress. Obamacare doesn't give two shits about ordinary people, what it is is a liberal power grab to get government control of the health industry. It gets insurance to 20-30 million Americans who for one reason or another don't have health insurance and hurts the coverage of the other 280 MILLION who do have coverage.
Freeloader problem fixes? Where, you can still go to a hospital and get treatment and the "tax" that is imposed for not getting insurance is actually less than the cost of the insurance----I'm not even going to go into the ASS RAPE of personal choice that Roberts gave when he said a person could be taxes for everytihng, even the things he doesn't do.
There were many smaller measures that could have been taken (most of them republican ideas) that would have increased coverage for millions of people and helped lower cost. They included a few ideas on how to deal with preexisting conditions, removing the state monopoly that insurance companies have to increase competition, reforms to tort law do bring down medical expenses. But none of these smaller ideas were considered, because democrats don't really care small things like cost or quality of care, they simply wanted everyone to be on government health plans.
Obamacare is so long and complex, I won't pretend to be an expert, but the more and more I read about the details, the more I fear for our healthcare. The bill has dozens of new taxes and regulations that have not been implemented yet, but will surely damage care. I mean just looking at some of them, a 40% tax on "Cadillac insurance plans" (of course all union plans are exempt and the government can change what it considers to be a premium insurance plan), taxes on medical companies based on market share, taxes on all medical devices, insurance companies no longer allowed to charge co-pays are certain procedures. All of these costs have to go somewhere and they will be passed onto the consumer and/or lower quality of care.
Once the government gets involved in everyone's healthcare, it can do anything it wants because "your health affects everyone". And what happens when it starts to go bankrupt, new taxes, and it will start denying service to people. The dems laughed at the term "Death Panels", but everyone with half a brain can see it coming because it already is going on in Europe and the UK with longer waiting periods for procedures and procedures being turned down because of age. Talk to Patrick's father, who is a cardiologist, he has some great stories about how fucked we are with Obamacare. One time he a British guy came to the US for a procedure because they wouldn't do it in the UK, Patrick's dad tell him, you know we also found an aneurysm that could go at any moment. The guy responds "Oh, I know, but I'm over 65 so public health doesn't cover it" Patrick's dad removed the aneurysm no problem. The US also has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world.
Like a typical liberal, you are shortsided in the consequences and refuse to actually look at the details and ramifications of your proposals. Just look at LBJ when he removed social security from a private trust and into the government general account. He said "SS has plenty of money" 40 years later, SS is fucked and looking to go bankrupt.
Well, In all fairness to TheKing, I think he has a solid grasp on economics and finance.
This is the problem with online debating. Like King knows regulation causes more than 30 minutes of people work and people know King knows this, but it seems like we each are talking about different things and thinking each person is talking about something else.
All I am saying is the government puts out good regulation (no dumping toxic waste in the water) and puts out dumb regulation (trying to regulate light bulbs). These good shit is never good enough and the dumb shit is never ending.
Just like Obamacare doesn't do enough to drive down the cost of healthcare and how Dodd Frank doesn't do enough to prevent a collapse. All these half ass measures, layered on top of each other, costing money instead of solving problems.
Like our damn tax code. So many loop holes that rates are irrelevant. Or our high nominal corp tax rate and our very low effective corporate tax rate.
Thank you.
Gekko -
I was being facetious when I said 30 minutes of paperwork. That you decided to write a college length essay in response to me is pretty mind blowing.
I've written about the causes of the financial crisis on here again and again. If you really think that gov't mandates made mortgage brokers write liar loans and made banks lever up the the hill, then I don't know what to tell you. Honestly, if I find time later, I'll dig up my old posts on the crisis and its causes. But, in short, it was a positive feedback loop of low interest rates --> mortgages --> mortgage backed securities / CDOs --> CDS insurance --> AAA ratings on crap securities by the ratings agencies --> demand for AAA securities that had better yield than treasuries (while being rated as safe). The demand for the dubiously rated CDOs, combined with super low interest rates, led to a complete monster that obviously ended up exploding. If you want to blame gov't mandates instead of de-regulation, low interest rates, and irresponsible behavior on apart of EVERYONE involved, then go ahead and be delusional.
If you're actually interested in a debate on these topics, I'm game. Just not now, and not if you're going to throw out ad hominem "you're a typical liberal" bullshit attacks. And, per TNA's post, this sort of thing is better suited for a bar setting, because I'm getting tired of typing the same shit out again and again.
I dont think Romney cares for the poor. Romney said himself we have safety nets for the poor, Hes not worried about Them, remember? "Let Detroit go bankrupt", "lower natural disaster federal aide".
Temporibus nesciunt possimus eaque quas architecto quia non eligendi. Consectetur dolores et dolor sit accusantium commodi. Sed corporis autem enim eius sit perspiciatis eius.
Sit iste sunt placeat dolorem sint. Voluptate eos earum enim dolorum. Reiciendis ullam nihil aut quibusdam hic doloribus occaecati. Eos eum accusamus id earum nisi. Vel cumque odio qui dicta autem.
At qui ut et nihil est iusto fugit. Non quaerat perspiciatis ut qui nisi velit. Distinctio beatae explicabo adipisci ipsum at perspiciatis aut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Cupiditate natus aliquam eum odit. Ab occaecati accusantium voluptatem distinctio est maxime.
Modi hic commodi minima labore veritatis. Sunt est at quo voluptate consequatur inventore aut. Quasi ab aut eveniet quae et labore dignissimos.
Qui ullam qui qui sed perferendis et atque eaque. Numquam quia aut similique adipisci ratione. Alias reprehenderit voluptates maxime soluta. In sed beatae autem.
Soluta atque laudantium dolores voluptas perferendis et. Hic inventore sed fuga repudiandae.
Tempora perspiciatis quia tempora autem vitae commodi. Possimus qui id tempora et. Dolores quod sit quia dicta odio. Sit officia maiores quia iste est voluptatem debitis. Natus ut molestiae neque quo molestiae sit ducimus.
Aliquid laboriosam quidem quia qui. Est laborum rerum quae dolor nihil atque necessitatibus. Porro qui amet quisquam. Et eum architecto consequatur voluptas. Rem voluptas optio nobis nam aut. Beatae voluptatem omnis quisquam fugiat officiis.