Hickenlooper blows it in CA, gets booed

[iamwhatiseem]

Capitalism has turned a lot of people off, and is in trouble, in part because today's conservatives have wrecked it with their goofy, ignorant, simplistic pseudo-libertarian approach to it...

What do you mean, exactly?

Several things. But the biggest and most destructive is this ridiculous notion that regulation is a bane to capitalism, when the fact is that regulation is a critical component of capitalism. The question shouldn't be whether regulation should exist, it should be on how to make it more efficient and effective. But no, that's too complicated for those who place Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line right next to their Bible in importance.

My other favorite is the way the Right is trained to turn a completely blind eye to our increasing wealth inequality, advocating against a safety net, mocking those on the low end of the socio-economic spectrum, which plays right into the hands of those pushing socialism, all gift-wrapped nice and pretty for them like it's Christmas morning. This is pure willful ignorance.

I'm a capitalist and I hate watching what the Right is doing to capitalism.
.

Ok....but you are aware that wealth inequality grew at a faster pace, and wider gap during Obama than anytime in American history?
Just sayin.
You are limiting your thinking.

Good gawd. I don't go by who is in the freaking White House. This is a systemic, even cultural issue.

My thinking is not limited.
.

Then your statements are.
I have seen you consistently refer to "the right" ruining American capitalism. That is limited thinking.
There are literally 100's of examples of BOTH sides in the past 40 years exploiting the American people in favor of the investor class/corporations. If not 1000's.
Only speaking about one side is most certainly - limited thinking.
There needs to be as many reasonable voices in the colossal wilderness of left vs. right nonsense. And only pointing to one side is among the noise.

 

[Mac1958]

Capitalism has turned a lot of people off, and is in trouble, in part because today's conservatives have wrecked it with their goofy, ignorant, simplistic pseudo-libertarian approach to it...

What do you mean, exactly?

Several things. But the biggest and most destructive is this ridiculous notion that regulation is a bane to capitalism, when the fact is that regulation is a critical component of capitalism. The question shouldn't be whether regulation should exist, it should be on how to make it more efficient and effective. But no, that's too complicated for those who place Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line right next to their Bible in importance.

My other favorite is the way the Right is trained to turn a completely blind eye to our increasing wealth inequality, advocating against a safety net, mocking those on the low end of the socio-economic spectrum, which plays right into the hands of those pushing socialism, all gift-wrapped nice and pretty for them like it's Christmas morning. This is pure willful ignorance.

I'm a capitalist and I hate watching what the Right is doing to capitalism.
.

Ok....but you are aware that wealth inequality grew at a faster pace, and wider gap during Obama than anytime in American history?
Just sayin.
You are limiting your thinking.

Good gawd. I don't go by who is in the freaking White House. This is a systemic, even cultural issue.

My thinking is not limited.
.

Then your statements are.
I have seen you consistently refer to "the right" ruining American capitalism. That is limited thinking.
There are literally 100's of examples of BOTH sides in the past 40 years exploiting the American people in favor of the investor class/corporations. If not 1000's.
Only speaking about one side is most certainly - limited thinking.
There needs to be as many reasonable voices in the colossal wilderness of left vs. right nonsense. And only pointing to one side is among the noise.

Great, thanks.
.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

.
The eventual democratic candidate will my run on a socialist platform
He or she will run on. Healthcare, education, immigration reform, the environment

Same thing the socialist want

Oh my friend, sometimes your post are so full of shit there needs to be a second Los Angeles to store it all.

The leftist don't want healthcare. They want healthcare without having to pay for it. And no where in the world does that exist.
Also - a little note for you. More immigrants have become American citizens year by year under Trump than Obama. You won't see that little diddy on CNN.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Very telling of where the Dimocrat party is in California.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Very telling of where the Dimocrat party is in California.

California??
Try any collegiate town across America.
This generation is looking desperately to replace their parents. And the government is all they got to do it with.

 

[Theowl32]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Hypocrite

 

[Mac1958]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Hypocrite

Goofball!
.

 

[DustyInfinity]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Hypocrite

Goofball!
.

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

 

[Mac1958]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Hypocrite

Goofball!
.

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

 

[DustyInfinity]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Hypocrite

Goofball!
.

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

 

[Mac1958]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

Hypocrite

Goofball!
.

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

Yes, under-regulations can be a very bad thing, as we clearly saw in the years leading up the Meltdown in 2008. I'll be more than happy to provide some examples upon request; I'll just take them from the seminar I do on the topic.

And yes, mocking would include calling people "freeloaders", which we see on this site and in conservative media with great regularity.
.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Hypocrite

Goofball!
.

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

Yes, under-regulations can be a very bad thing, as we clearly saw in the years leading up the Meltdown in 2008. I'll be more than happy to provide some examples upon request; I'll just take them from the seminar I do on the topic.

And yes, mocking would include calling people "freeloaders", which we see on this site and in conservative media with great regularity.
.

Only if you ignore how regulations caused 2008, sure. Although, if you want to argue that, absent of Government regulation, businesses would conduct themselves poorly, by all means, explain to me how there's demand for them while they're providing bad service.

 

[rightwinger]

Hypocrite

Goofball!
.

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

Yes, under-regulations can be a very bad thing, as we clearly saw in the years leading up the Meltdown in 2008. I'll be more than happy to provide some examples upon request; I'll just take them from the seminar I do on the topic.

And yes, mocking would include calling people "freeloaders", which we see on this site and in conservative media with great regularity.
.

2008 was caused by allowing unchecked greed to be confused with a solid economy

 

[Mac1958]

Goofball!
.

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

Yes, under-regulations can be a very bad thing, as we clearly saw in the years leading up the Meltdown in 2008. I'll be more than happy to provide some examples upon request; I'll just take them from the seminar I do on the topic.

And yes, mocking would include calling people "freeloaders", which we see on this site and in conservative media with great regularity.
.

Only if you ignore how regulations caused 2008, sure. Although, if you want to argue that, absent of Government regulation, businesses would conduct themselves poorly, by all means, explain to me how there's demand for them while they're providing bad service.

There is zero correlation between demand for a product or service and its suitability or legality. None. Many regs exist to protect consumers and maintain the order of markets. Too bad that was largely ignored in the runup to the Meltdown. Some didn't learn the lesson, obviously.
.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

When visiting the asylum you can't tell the inmates they are crazy. It doesn't go down well.

What!?

No "Koolaid" to wash it down?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

Yes, under-regulations can be a very bad thing, as we clearly saw in the years leading up the Meltdown in 2008. I'll be more than happy to provide some examples upon request; I'll just take them from the seminar I do on the topic.

And yes, mocking would include calling people "freeloaders", which we see on this site and in conservative media with great regularity.
.

Only if you ignore how regulations caused 2008, sure. Although, if you want to argue that, absent of Government regulation, businesses would conduct themselves poorly, by all means, explain to me how there's demand for them while they're providing bad service.

There is zero correlation between demand for a product or service and its suitability or legality. None. Many regs exist to protect consumers and maintain the order of markets. Too bad that was largely ignored in the runup to the Meltdown. Some didn't learn the lesson, obviously.
.

Well, no, there isn't, but that's an argument against Government, not against what I stated.

No existing regulation exists to protect consumers, every single one exists to further the existence of Government and create monopolies and pseudo-monopolies. They make it more difficult and expensive to create and distribute products, which is more difficult for smaller businesses to deal with, since larger ones have more money, recognition, and scope.

Now, since you totally ignored what I said, let me better explain so you can deflect again. A business exists to make money, and that money is made by fulfilling a demand. If a business is not fulfilling a demand, they will make no money, and that business will go under. With that explained, since you apparently don't know how business works, how then would a business need Government regulations to NOT make poor business decisions?

Basically, if the Government wasn't involved in the private sector, or really existent at all, there would never have been a recession in the first place, since it was the Government's regulations and financial support in industries that incentivized the practices which caused this problem in the first place.

 

[OKTexas]

Well he got one thing right, main street America ain't gonna buy the socialism BS.

.

The eventual democratic candidate will my run on a socialist platform
He or she will run on. Healthcare, education, immigration reform, the environment

Same thing the socialist want

And Trump will kick their ass.

.

 

[Mac1958]

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

Yes, under-regulations can be a very bad thing, as we clearly saw in the years leading up the Meltdown in 2008. I'll be more than happy to provide some examples upon request; I'll just take them from the seminar I do on the topic.

And yes, mocking would include calling people "freeloaders", which we see on this site and in conservative media with great regularity.
.

Only if you ignore how regulations caused 2008, sure. Although, if you want to argue that, absent of Government regulation, businesses would conduct themselves poorly, by all means, explain to me how there's demand for them while they're providing bad service.

There is zero correlation between demand for a product or service and its suitability or legality. None. Many regs exist to protect consumers and maintain the order of markets. Too bad that was largely ignored in the runup to the Meltdown. Some didn't learn the lesson, obviously.
.

Well, no, there isn't, but that's an argument against Government, not against what I stated.

No existing regulation exists to protect consumers, every single one exists to further the existence of Government and create monopolies and pseudo-monopolies. They make it more difficult and expensive to create and distribute products, which is more difficult for smaller businesses to deal with, since larger ones have more money, recognition, and scope.

Now, since you totally ignored what I said, let me better explain so you can deflect again. A business exists to make money, and that money is made by fulfilling a demand. If a business is not fulfilling a demand, they will make no money, and that business will go under. With that explained, since you apparently don't know how business works, how then would a business need Government regulations to NOT make poor business decisions?

Basically, if the Government wasn't involved in the private sector, or really existent at all, there would never have been a recession in the first place, since it was the Government's regulations and financial support in industries that incentivized the practices which caused this problem in the first place.

Or perhaps I didn't really understand your question, since it wasn't constructed very well.

A business doesn't need government regulations to not make poor business decisions. I didi't say that. That's just a weird, simplistic straw man argument you made up attempting to prove a point. And demand is irrelevant. There is great demand for heroin.

And "No existing regulation exists to protect consumers, every single one exists to further the existence of Government and create monopolies and pseudo-monopolies." How absolutely, abundantly, delightfully silly and simplistic. Dogmatic jargon, nothing more.

You have the standard, shallow, psuedo-libertarian outlook on all this, convinced that markets can self-police and self-correct. Funny, so did Alan Greenspan, the sainted libertarian Fed Chairman responsible for his share of the Meltdown, a man who ADMITTED he screwed up, and a guy who ADMITTED he didn't understand how the very unregulated financial instruments responsible for the Meltdown (CMOs and CDOs) even WORKED. Oops! Oh, and he's also the guy BEGGED by CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Born to regulate toxic, unregulated Credit Default Swaps and laughed her off. Yeah, THAT Alan Greenspan. The guy who thinks just like YOU.

And "since you apparently don't know how business works" makes me smile, as a CFP/ChFC/CLU, having written four books and 30 or so articles on it, with +/- 110 business owner clients. If your credentials are similar, great, we can continue this. If not, I've wasted some time here on just another winger on a message board.
.

 

[Mac1958]

2008 was caused by allowing unchecked greed to be confused with a solid economy

Essentially. The level of regulatory oversight at that time was comically low.

I can tell you exactly where I was standing, on September 16, 2008, when I realized the whole thing might be coming down. The day the Reserve Primary Fund "broke the buck". I'll never forget that moment. And we came within hours of catastrophe a couple of times during period.

The level of ignorance and denial about that period is just amazing. And worse, while there are some safeguards in place that has strengthened our position, the system is still a mess. That's because our "leaders" aren't allowed to work together to create a cohesive regulatory system. So what we still have is a bunch of band aids - ridiculous redundancies here, gaping holes there.

We refuse to learn.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Only if you ignore how regulations caused 2008, sure. Although, if you want to argue that, absent of Government regulation, businesses would conduct themselves poorly, by all means, explain to me how there's demand for them while they're providing bad service.

Hey, Hentai Row, the only problem with regulations in 2008 is that they weren't being enforced.

The crash happened because the banks got greedy, and the government ignored what they were doing.