Thread: OBAMACARE- You aren't going to like this...

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

We are talking about government regulations.

Like speed limits?

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Oh, yeah, real sheltered.

Powdered milk and government cheese. Damn tasty silver spoon.

Idiot.

as i suggested earlier, you have no idea what you're even looking at, which i'm sure is at least part of the reason you're so angry all the time.

Sure.
How about that Montana used to not have speed limits on certain stretches of their interstates and the feds forced them to implement speed limits. For absolutely no good reason, other than to assert their control.

Originally Posted by spook

as i suggested earlier, you have no idea what you're even looking at, which i'm sure is at least part of the reason you're so angry all the time.

You are such a sad little person. Just a waste of time.

I think you may actually join Dex on the ignore list. Your intelligence levels seem to be about the same.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Sure.
How about that Montana used to not have speed limits on certain stretches of their interstates and the feds forced them to implement speed limits. For absolutely no good reason, other than to assert their control.

I'm in favor of you being prevented from driving in the same state as me at 125 mph while texting.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

You are such a sad little person. Just a waste of time.

I think you may actually join Dex on the ignore list. Your intelligence levels seem to be about the same.

uh huh. i should read more rand.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Like speed limits?

without government regulation, dan samas would be sucking off the welfare state.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Isn't some of that the USA'n legal system? We're rather unique in the G8 how convoluted and byzantine our legal system has become, which necessitates the convoluted regulation so it can't be flouted, which greatly increases cost.

Not sure how the answer this. If by "legal system," you are referring to the judiciary system, then I do not agree. See previous discussion re tort reform. If by "legal system," you are referring to administrative regulations, then yes, I would agree, but that's more a matter of America's political structure (federal govt + 50 states) and the influence of insurance carriers over fed and state legislators. I wouldn't call the "legal system." I'd call that the "political system."

I am not defending the American tort system. IMO, it's inefficient and unfair, and a really stupid and indirect way to regulate. But it seems that Americans prefer to be regulated by the fear of jury verdicts than direct regulation.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

I agree that we are quite close to that place. I disagree that we could move to either side for a fair bit. I think we have gone about as far as we can go towards regulation, and it seems the shit is already hitting the fan.

How do you figure? Many people argue that repealing Glass-Steagall played a huge part in the shit hitting the fan in 2008.

Originally Posted by 13

How do you figure?

it's called being clueless. that libertarian dude with 101 online votes needs more of it.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Sure.
How about that Montana used to not have speed limits on certain stretches of their interstates and the feds forced them to implement speed limits. For absolutely no good reason, other than to assert their control.

That is NOT correct.

I live in Montana and we really had it good back then. Then our control-freak Republican legislature combined with a Republican Governor, citing law-and-order concerns, gave us a speed limit. The rational was "How can the highway patrol give you a ticket for speeding if there is no speed limit ? " These proto-TeaBaggers really understood the meaning of freedomz.

The Feds had nothing to do with it. We did it to ourselves.

Originally Posted by Big Steve

Not sure how the answer this. If by "legal system," you are referring to the judiciary system, then I do not agree. See previous discussion re tort reform. If by "legal system," you are referring to administrative regulations, then yes, I would agree, but that's more a matter of America's political structure (federal govt + 50 states) and the influence of insurance carriers over fed and state legislators. I wouldn't call the "legal system." I'd call that the "political system."

I am not defending the American tort system. IMO, it's inefficient and unfair, and a really stupid and indirect way to regulate. But it seems that Americans prefer to be regulated by the fear of jury verdicts than direct regulation.

I meant it as a cohesive whole - the US has more lawyers per capita than the rest of the G8 and I don't think we've better law than many. Perhaps it'd be clearer if I used an example of accounting in the USA which is, I believe, rule based, not principle based? Rule based produces perhaps better individual outcomes at a cost of a higher cost for the group. Not arguing for "tort reform" which seems to be a cover for "fuck up and not pay".

Originally Posted by 13

Many people argue that repealing Glass-Steagall played a huge part in the shit hitting the fan in 2008.

Many people can be wrong.

Is deregulation to blame for the financial crisis?

By David Barker, Ph.D

(David Barker received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, where he previously taught real estate, urban economics, industrial organization and corporate finance. He has worked as an economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and taught at the University of Iowa.)

...

The end of the Glass-Steagall Act’s separation of commercial and investment banking is also unlikely to have been an important cause of the financial crisis. Financial firms that failed, such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros., had not combined with commercial banks. In fact, as some observers have pointed out, if they had, they would have been more likely to survive.
...
Conclusion

Deregulation did not cause the financial crisis, because financial regulation in the United States has always been flawed. In many ways, regulation worsened the crisis, and keeping old regulations might have made it even worse.

Instead of blaming deregulation, it would be more appropriate to ask how regulators could help banks lure business away from the shadow banking system and how the federal government can be prevented from undertaking massive and disruptive social engineering schemes such as the promotion of home ownership.


http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters...ncial_crisis_/

There is an ever growing chorus of highly credentialed and qualified people pointing a finger squarely at government intervention as one of the primary causes(if not the primary cause) of the financial crisis.

Despite this there are a large number of people in this country(most of them politically left of center) who have invested themselves in the tired discredited idea that the financial crisis was caused by deregulation and the resultant greed that that deregulation gave expression to, and to avoid future crisis the government must become more invasive and exert more control over the private sector. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is a lesson in this for the health care debate. The same people who insisted that the government could and should become involved in the housing industry in order to "make it more fair" and "see to it that every American had access to affordable housing" are now pushing for the government to become involved in the health care industry in order to "make it more fair" and "see to it that every American has access to affordable health care".

If we fall for this again, on the heels of the last disaster they caused, we deserve what we get.

Originally Posted by Ruby Sue

I'm retarded and miss the point entirely. Now, I will parrot my ideological master because I don't have the balls to think independently.

Fixed it for you, bud.

Originally Posted by 13

I'm retarded and miss the point entirely. Now, I will parrot my ideological master because I don't have the balls to think independently.

Fixed it for you, bud.

I think I understood the point very well.

I directly addressed your post with a credible, non ideological refutation of your rendition of what 'some people' say, while reinforcing what DBS was saying. The ideological angle is relevant to the discussion because of the ideological tribalism displayed in the national debate that spawned this thread in the first place.

But you didn't like where the facts lead so your retort is to post bullshit.

Good job. That's a strong argument.

Originally Posted by Big Steve

The fundamental flaw in Ayn Rand's garbage "philosophy" was her inability to understand and/or acknowledge that humans are a social species. Do you really believe St. Ayn's proposed unregulated free markets result in equality of opportunity?

Put very well Big Steve. Maybe her social ineptitude is why she had to get raped in The Fountainhead. Of course, Howard Roark made it on his merits because his work was passed off as someone else's.

Opportunity is every bit a social occurrence as it is achievement. Therefore, how can there be equality of opportunity without social equality?
If Roark had possessed the inroads into the social circles his bro had, he could have blazed his own path.
The lone overachiever winning out in the end who gets to rape the woman of his dreams symbolism stuff was subliminal fodder for proletariat pipe dreams.

Originally Posted by splat

how can there be equality of opportunity without social equality?

Social equality is a utopian myth that can never be achieved without denying people the freedom to direct their own lives.

If two equally talented individuals make different choices in life and one goes straight to college after high school and the other ski bums for a couple of years and then settles down in a ski town and opens up a small tour company, they, through their choices, will have created social inequality; social inequality that will be amplified in their children as they are likely to take on the values of their parents and make similar choices as far as career and lifestyle.

The social engineers will look at this as a problem that needs to be corrected. There is no way to 'correct' this situation while still valuing liberty and individual sovereignty.

Originally Posted by 13

How do you figure? Many people argue that repealing Glass-Steagall played a huge part in the shit hitting the fan in 2008.

Originally Posted by 13

Fixed it for you, bud.

A couple of key points from the article above: 1) The unregulated shadow banking system in America was a big driver of the financial crisis.

And 2) the federal government had pushed for expansion of mortgage lending for decades, but the push became much stronger during the George W. Bush administration. Tying homeownership to the fight against terrorism, he said that he wanted to “make sure America is secure from a group of killers, people who hate — you know what they hate? They hate the idea that somebody can go buy a home.”

In the same speech, he advocated smaller down payments, tax credits for house buyers and simpler mortgage documents. “The rules are too complex,” Bush said. “People get discouraged by the fine print on the contracts. They take a look and say, well, I'm not so sure I want to sign this. There's too many words.” The American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 implemented many of Bush’s recommendations, and subprime lending, financed by mortgage securities, accelerated.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

If two equally talented individuals make different choices in life and one goes straight to college after high school and the other ski bums for a couple of years and then settles down in a ski town and opens up a small tour company, they, through their choices, will have created social inequality; social inequality that will be amplified in their children as they are likely to take on the values of their parents and make similar choices as far as career and lifestyle.

A society where people have that choice is great. As desired now it seems parties want certain people to have no knowledge of skiing a'tall

Originally Posted by Harry

That is NOT correct.

I live in Montana and we really had it good back then. Then our control-freak Republican legislature combined with a Republican Governor, citing law-and-order concerns, gave us a speed limit. The rational was "How can the highway patrol give you a ticket for speeding if there is no speed limit ? " These proto-TeaBaggers really understood the meaning of freedomz.

The Feds had nothing to do with it. We did it to ourselves.

As I remember it during the Carter admin. ? When gas prices were an ongoing issue the fed. Govt mandated the 55MPH speed limit and that's what forced states to lower speed limits, or they'd lose fed. Funds. Happened a long time ago so my facts could be off, but that's how I remember it.

Originally Posted by Triage

A couple of key points from the article above: 1) The unregulated shadow banking system in America was a big driver of the financial crisis.

And 2) the federal government had pushed for expansion of mortgage lending for decades, but the push became much stronger during the George W. Bush administration. Tying homeownership to the fight against terrorism, he said that he wanted to “make sure America is secure from a group of killers, people who hate — you know what they hate? They hate the idea that somebody can go buy a home.”

In the same speech, he advocated smaller down payments, tax credits for house buyers and simpler mortgage documents. “The rules are too complex,” Bush said. “People get discouraged by the fine print on the contracts. They take a look and say, well, I'm not so sure I want to sign this. There's too many words.” The American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 implemented many of Bush’s

recommendations, and subprime lending, financed by mortgage securities, accelerated.

"during the Bush admin.". Wasn't it specifically Frank and Dodd who were pushing for additional loosening of financial constraints on mortgage requirements ???

Originally Posted by Rubicon

There is a lesson in this for the health care debate. The same people who insisted that the government could and should become involved in the housing industry in order to "make it more fair" and "see to it that every American had access to affordable housing" are now pushing for the government to become involved in the health care industry in order to "make it more fair" and "see to it that every American has access to affordable health care".

If we fall for this again, on the heels of the last disaster they caused, we deserve what we get.

Hell yeah. It really chaps my ass everytime I see another working family have access to the trailer or double wide home. Fuck these people, right? Seriously, who is so poor they could possibly want independence by moving into a trailer on the edge of a farm where they bust their ass 100 hours a week, for what. The only thing more unimaginable is the idea these people even would want access to basic health care. Really makes me uncomfortable seeing them and their sick children in the waiting room while I wait to get my supplemental insurance paperwork filled out so I can collect the $50 rebate for having my taint squeezed.

Liberty for all.

Except those people.

Originally Posted by OSECS

As I remember it during the Carter admin. ? When gas prices were an ongoing issue the fed. Govt mandated the 55MPH speed limit and that's what forced states to lower speed limits, or they'd lose fed. Funds. Happened a long time ago so my facts could be off, but that's how I remember it.

You're correct.

Harry remembers things how he wants to. Harry, I ask you to find one shred of evidence online to support your position.

http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/speedlimits1.htm

Originally Posted by kingdom-tele

Hell yeah. It really chaps my ass everytime I see another working family have access to the trailer or double wide home. Fuck these people, right? Seriously, who is so poor they could possibly want independence by moving into a trailer on the edge of a farm where they bust their ass 100 hours a week, for what. The only thing more unimaginable is the idea these people even would want access to basic health care. Really makes me uncomfortable seeing them and their sick children in the waiting room while I wait to get my supplemental insurance paperwork filled out so I can collect the $50 rebate for having my taint squeezed.

Liberty for all.

Except those people.

Another black & whiter.

We should take the mansion away from the guy that owns the business that employs one of them as a janitor, sell everything in it, and build them a new home.

Yay for equality.

Originally Posted by OSECS

"during the Bush admin.". Wasn't it specifically Frank and Dodd who were pushing for additional loosening of financial constraints on mortgage requirements ???

2002: June 17:President G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through billions of dollars in tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith based organizations

2003: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy $81 billion in subprime securities.

June: Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan lowers federal reserve’s key interest rate to 1%, the lowest in 45 years.
December: President Bush signs the American Dream Downpayment Act to be implemented under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The goal was to provide a maximum downpayment assistance grant of either $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever was greater. In addition, the Bush Administration committed to reforming the homebuying process that would lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan. It was said it would further stimulate homeownership for all Americans.[37]