Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

[The Derp]

They don't pay the fines on revenue either.

And the fines they paid were less than 7% of their quarterly profits. And why did they pay the fines in the first place? Because they committed fraud during the mortgage bubble. So I guess in your world, fining banks for committing fraud is an attack on the banks. Which seems to be in line with your blame the victim mentality. I bet you also think rapists are the real victims of rape too, right? After all, if it's an unfair "attack on the banks" to fine them for committing fraud, then you must also think it's an unfair "attack on rapists" for sentencing them to jail. Unless you're now going to set a brand new standard for the thousandth time....

I wonder if that reduced the loans they could make?

Nope. Not at all. Not even a bit. The fines represented less than 7% of their quarterly profits. The banks had no issues with loans prior to the 2004 change to the net capital rule. So why would going back to that rule have any different effect? The banks didn't eliminate the net capital rule to increase lending, silly person. No, the banks removed that rule to increase purchases of risky securities and mortgages that they then spun around in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets because banks got addicted to those profits.

Bush didn't "eliminate capitalization".

By allowing them to self-regulate, that is precisely what he did. But I suppose this is a step up for you, since you didn't even know this rule change happened until I told you it did.

A leverage ratio of 33 to 1 means a 3% capital requirement.
I thought you said he eliminated the requirement?

He did eliminate it because he replaced it with self-regulation...you know that, right? Self-regulation? It's the thing you all say business should be allowed to do. Obviously, it's stupid and doesn't work because business is inherently reckless, particularly so when one of their own sits in the White House and at Treasury. That 33-1 ratio was what the bank decided it wanted to have. It "self-regulated" itself to that leverage ratio.

Were you lying or just stupid?

The stupid one here is you because removing the net capital requirement in favor of self-regulation, is the same thing as removing the net capital requirement.

 

[The Derp]

It means you're adding the word "eliminate" to an article in which it does not appear.

Fine. Then they replaced the net capital rule with self-regulation.

I did. It said change. It did not say eliminate.

Self-regulation replaces net capital rule. So you can dance around the semantics all you want, the same result is there. The net capital rule was replaced with self-regulation.

Only because your "proof" doesn't prove your claim.

Maybe you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to determine that replacing the net capital rule with self-regulation is the same thing as eliminating the net capital rule. Why is that not a possibility? That you're not as smart, clever, or intuitive as you think?

 

[The Derp]

Capital requirements were reduced. Duh.

NO! They weren't reduced, they were replaced with self-regulation. That's the whole point of the article you are either ignoring, or in your rush to sloppily read it, just didn't see or understand. I think it's a combination of both. I think you ignored it and rushed over it so you could hammer out a response before reading and comprehending what was presented to you.

We were talking about banks and added regulations on banks..

Wait a second - we were talking about "attacking banks"...so far, the only examples of "attacks" you could find were fines levied against the banks for committing fraud, and reinstituting the net capital requirement that existed prior to 2004. Neither of which "attack the banks".

When I said smaller firms are hurt more than larger firms, the firms I was discussing were banks.

That's not what you said before. You said "small businesses". Are you now broadening out the definition of "small businesses" to include "small banks"? Just so you know, that would be the fifth time you redefined the standards in this thread regarding this specific topic. All that goalpost shifting must be exhausting; I can imagine trying to defend moral bankruptcy would be tiring. The problem is that you don't know enough about this to make an informed statement on it. So what happens instead is that because you have a vague understanding of this, your argument becomes vague. That's what accounts for your constant parameter redefining. You just aren't as informed as you like people to think, right? All I ask for is consistency. You can't even give that. What a disappointment.

The proof that smaller banks are harmed more than larger banks can be seen in the market shares of the largest banks versus the rest.

But that's not what you said before, and the big banks don't appear to have been harmed at all since they now hold a larger market share, are even bigger than before, and thus, generate bigger profits than before. So you need to make up your mind; was Dodd-Frank an attack on banks, on big banks, on small banks, or on small businesses? Because you also haven't exactly articulated how Dodd-Frank harms small banks...you've only offered your insistence it does. Well pal, insisting on something means nothing to me. So unless you can start rattling off parts of Dodd-Frank that harm banks and state how those parts harm banks, your point remains vague and undefined, therefore not credible.

We can talk about Obama's attacks on firms other than banks, if you'd like.

Why? So you can lie more about it, like you did with energy prices? That was a laugh riot. You maintaining and insisting the same way you're doing here, that Obama caused energy prices to rise...only to be shot down completely by the EIA saying that natural gas prices in 2016 were at a 20 year low.

So why do I get the impression that you just sort of make this shit up as you go? Oh, because that's exactly what you're doing.

Yup. The Obama administration attacked banks from day one.
Then whined that banks weren't lending enough. Durr.

So far, the only "attacks" you could articulate were fines levied against them for the fraud they committed during the mortgage bubble (not an attack), and re-instituting the same net capital rule that existed prior to Bush replacing it with self-regulation, which is the same thing as eliminating it altogether (also, not an attack). Beyond those two things that reasonable people see not as attacks but rather corrections of past mistakes, you got nothing. Which is startling considering you whined like a little bitch about the 20,000 pages of regulations you claim attack the banks...even though you can't cite a single thing from those 20,000 pages that supports your weak premise.

 

[The Derp]

Nope. I said...."Obama attempted to restrict supply. Did you forget the supply/demand curve from the Econ 101 class you failed?"

Again, you only post a fraction of what you actually said. There's that sophistry habit of yours, rearing its ugly head again. Your claim was that Obama caused higher energy prices by doing things like "attempting to restrict supply" (which you didn't prove, BTW, just more insistence on your part). That's what you said. The facts prove something different. So we have a case here where you want something to be true, but the reality makes it not so.

I correctly think that Obama's actions which restricted exploration and production caused prices to be higher than they would have been without his restrictive actions.

LOL! That's not what you said! Again with the parameter redefinition as you struggle to find out your preconceived notions were all bullshit. Your argument was simply that Obama caused higher energy prices. NOT TRUE AT ALL. In fact, Obama secured a 20-year low in natural gas prices. So if he was "attempting to restrict supply", he didn't do a very good job of it as the price of natural gas dropped to a 20-year low. Something you Conservatives have been unable to do for any energy prices. Obama also reduced the cost of renewable energy to all-time lows.

In fact, here's Scientific American from February of this year:

Energy Costs at Record Lows Thanks to Natural Gas and Clean Energy
The nation's rapid adoption of clean energy technologies, combined with sustained natural gas consumption, sagging oil prices and the widespread deployment of energy efficiency measures, helped U.S. consumers drive down energy costs to record lows in 2016.

Where energy spending occurred, it was concentrated in low- or zero-carbon forms of energy that should help the United States continue the transition to a sustainable energy future, according to a benchmarking report released this morning by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.​

So you lied. You lied about the cost of energy. You lied about Obama making them higher than the record lows they were at when he was President.

What happened was that you had a preconceived notion, one you probably lapped up from some other brain-dead Conservative, and had that notion blown to smithereens by the facts.

So you migrated your argument to one now wholly on supposition; that the record-low energy prices under Obama would have been even lower if he didn't "regulate" (vague general term from a vague general asshole like you). Of course, that's specious reasoning and you know it. Which is why you do it; because you're an unabashed sophist with no shame.

 

[The Derp]

Obama WANTED prices to be higher.

Did he? Because he talked about how he wanted to lower energy prices, and he did just that. 2016 saw record low energy prices across the board, according to Scientific American.

So now you're trying to force an invented position on Obama that he never had, in order to serve a point no one made, to serve an ego no one cares about.

Obama said we COULDN'T drill our way to lower prices.

And he was right; we couldn't and we didn't. What reduced energy prices were, as Scientific American says, natural gas and renewables. We can't drill for oil our way to lower prices. In fact, what drove down oil prices was the rise of natural gas production. This is well documented.

Reduced/ended sales of oil leases on Federal lands.
Reduced/ended offshore drilling in the Gulf.
Fought against pipeline construction and extension.

Yet oil production under Obama was higher than at any other time in our country's history. So what we have here is you telling me Obama restricted supply, but the facts show that supply was not restricted but rather oversupplied. Like the PADD II region that currently sees an oversupply of Tar Sands Sludge from Alberta. Sludge that you want to redirect to the Gulf where it fetches a higher price on the global markets and causes the price per barrel to rise. KXL will increase energy prices because it redirects the Tar Sands Sludge from the US PADD II region where it us oversupplied to US refineries causing price discounts, to the Gulf where the price will rise to that of the global markets.

That's why Obama opposed KXL and why any American should too.

But I don't expect you to know these things because you are too lazy and lack the effort to do the work necessary.

And he's still pissed off about his failure.

Is he? Under Obama, the demand for oil dropped so much that the price per barrel fell to below $50 and stayed there. That's because Obama took action by expanding natural gas and renewables. So their costs came down to all-time lows and the oil had to follow suit. That's a bad thing, why? That's an "attack on fossil fuels", how?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. An attack on banks. The fact that the largest banks got bigger than ever after it was passed shows that small and medium sized banks were harmed and either closed, merged or were acquired by larger banks.

So now that's the fourth time you've moved your position, FYI. At this point, you scrambling to redefine parameters within the same post is indicating you're not really steady on what you're trying to say. And boy does it show!

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it. So it's not a general "attack on the banks". BTW - we wanted to break up the big banks, but you all refused, citing some bullshit about freedom.

What happens to a banks loan book when capital requirements increase by 25%?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets, which was the only reason they removed the net capital rule in favor of self-regulation, a position Conservatives are known for having. The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending, if that level was what was around prior to 2004? This is where critical thinking skills come in. I'm not so sure you have those skills.

If your capital is $1,000,000 and your requirement is 8%, you can carry about $12.5 million in loans. Make the requirement 10%.Now how much can you carry?

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending, but they didn't and that's not why they removed the rule. Because they were doing plenty of lending before April 2004. They removed the rule in April 2004 not to increase the amount of loans issued, but rather to purchase subprime mortgages and securities with which they were gambling in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. Removing the net capital rule wasn't about loans for consumers or businesses, it was about purchasing securities and gambling in that market.

Banks don't need any capital when they don't hold the loan or security on their books.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books. That's why the removed the rule, so they could purchase more of those loans and securities.

Oh, he tried to force automakers to increase MPG.
What magical processes could they use to suddenly make the average car get 54 mpg?

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025. So once again, we have an instance of you leaving out the part of the sentence that places it in context. I notice you do that a lot when you sense your argument is falling apart. So what you do is remove context for the sake of being obtuse so you don't have to admit you're wrong. It's a pattern with you; one that I've noticed rearing its ugly head over and over on this thread. You did it when you tried to lie about Bush's job numbers. And now you're doing it again when it comes to mileage standards that Obama set in place to hit by 2025. You deliberately left out the "2025" because otherwise, you couldn't make the world's shittiest points. That's your style...sophistry. And you're not that good at it either.

I guess it depends on how they get there.
Why don't you list the top 3 ways to increase mileage.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing and you obviously have no answer because you don't give it any thought, like every other subject you discuss. So you just react and because you are intellectually devoid, you have to put it on others to have things explained to you after posturing for post after post that you have the capability to employ critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion on your own. Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already. And I bought that car in 2012.

Sure, he talked a lot about stuff he had nothing to do with.
Where did he actually, in speech and in action, encourage fracking, oil and gas production? Ever?

Read the passage again. Grow up. Employ critical thinking. Stop trying to convince everyone here that you're dumber than you really are.

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it.

Listen, you silly moron.
All companies are harmed by excessive regulations.
All of them. Banks, large and small.
Non-banks, large and small.

Larger firms, larger banks are harmed less because they have a lot more money to deal with the increased expense caused by the idiotic regulations.

When the smaller firms, bank and non-bank alike find that they cannot continue to function under the ever increasing burden they either go under, merge or are taken over by the larger firms.

Did you notice how the largest banks became even larger after the crisis?
Excessive, stupid regulations were one of the causes of that.

And then you fucking liberal idiots whine that the biggest banks got bigger.

Have you noticed yet that you're making things worse?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets

You're an idiot.

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending

Hey, fucktard, increasing their leverage means they can borrow more in order to lend more.
You whined that they were lending more and taking on more risk.

You made them safer after the crisis by reducing their leverage.
They responded by lending less. Durr.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books.

You said they securitized and sold them. They're no longer on the books. Idiot!

The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending

Because they have more loans than they did in 2004.
Because they just lost a bunch of money when people stopped paying their mortgages.

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025.

And the magic wand they were going to wave between now and 2025 was?????
You haven't given them the secret to doubling the MPG.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing

If you give the methods, the bad thing will be obvious.

Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already.

We all have to drive a Prius? That's the secret?
Because the 54 mpg is a "FLEET AVERAGE"
A couple of pussies driving a Prius isn't gonna bring the fleet average up to 54 MPG.

Read the passage again.

I did. He didn't encourage fracking in word or deed, not once in 8 years. Nada.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They don't pay the fines on revenue either.

And the fines they paid were less than 7% of their quarterly profits. And why did they pay the fines in the first place? Because they committed fraud during the mortgage bubble. So I guess in your world, fining banks for committing fraud is an attack on the banks. Which seems to be in line with your blame the victim mentality. I bet you also think rapists are the real victims of rape too, right? After all, if it's an unfair "attack on the banks" to fine them for committing fraud, then you must also think it's an unfair "attack on rapists" for sentencing them to jail. Unless you're now going to set a brand new standard for the thousandth time....

I wonder if that reduced the loans they could make?

Nope. Not at all. Not even a bit. The fines represented less than 7% of their quarterly profits. The banks had no issues with loans prior to the 2004 change to the net capital rule. So why would going back to that rule have any different effect? The banks didn't eliminate the net capital rule to increase lending, silly person. No, the banks removed that rule to increase purchases of risky securities and mortgages that they then spun around in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets because banks got addicted to those profits.

Bush didn't "eliminate capitalization".

By allowing them to self-regulate, that is precisely what he did. But I suppose this is a step up for you, since you didn't even know this rule change happened until I told you it did.

A leverage ratio of 33 to 1 means a 3% capital requirement.
I thought you said he eliminated the requirement?

He did eliminate it because he replaced it with self-regulation...you know that, right? Self-regulation? It's the thing you all say business should be allowed to do. Obviously, it's stupid and doesn't work because business is inherently reckless, particularly so when one of their own sits in the White House and at Treasury. That 33-1 ratio was what the bank decided it wanted to have. It "self-regulated" itself to that leverage ratio.

Were you lying or just stupid?

The stupid one here is you because removing the net capital requirement in favor of self-regulation, is the same thing as removing the net capital requirement.

Nope. Not at all. Not even a bit. The fines represented less than 7% of their quarterly profits.

Banks that lost billions during the crisis had to rebuild their capital.
Then they had to hold even more capital to meet the higher capital requirements.
Then the government fined them billions, reducing their capital even more.

Right, that won't reduce lending. How many math classes did you fail before you failed Econ 101?

The banks didn't eliminate the net capital rule

Correct. Capital requirements were (supposedly) reduced, not eliminated.

By allowing them to self-regulate, that is precisely what he did.

Self-regulate........yet another claim that is not in the article you linked.

He did eliminate it because he replaced it with self-regulation...you know that, right?

I know that your silly claim is silly.

One of the most seductive narratives about the recent financial crisis is that it was caused by dizzying increases in the amount of leverage on the balance sheets of Wall Street firms, leaving the financial system virtually no margin for error. Leverage, we’ve been told repeatedly, went from about 12-to-1 in 2004 to 33-to-1 in 2008. (Leverage is the ratio of debt or assets to equity; at 33-to-1 leverage, a mere 3 percent drop in the value of a firm’s assets can wipe out its equity.) The reason for the increase, so the story goes, was an underappreciated change, in April 2004, to an obscure Securities and Exchange Commission rule, which let Wall Street off its short leash and allowed unprecedented risk-taking. If not for that, according to the popular press and many accomplished scholars, the crisis might not have happened. The acceptance of this thesis has colored not only how we think about what happened but also the new laws that were designed to prevent the next crisis. The problem is, it’s flat wrong. And because we have misunderstood the facts, we may now be trying to cure the wrong disease.

The spread and evolution of the idea that the financial crisis was caused by a giant increase in leverage, enabled by the SEC, bears a passing resemblance to the old-fashioned, elementary-school game of telephone. While the change to the SEC’s so-called net-capital rule in 2004 was plenty esoteric, in the main, it did not allow big securities firms to take on more leverage. The SEC did two things in 2004: First, it assumed the added responsibility of regulating Wall Street’s larger holding companies—as opposed to just the broker-dealer subsidiaries within them. That’s where more and more funky and risky assets, such as derivatives and mortgages, had been housed over the years. Second, the SEC required the holding companies to report their capital adequacy in a way that was consistent with international standards, and to discount their assets for market, credit, and operational risks. Clearly, the SEC did a poor job of monitoring Wall Street once it obtained this increased regulatory authority. But the rule change increased rather than decreased the SEC’s oversight of the financial sector, and did not suddenly permit a dramatic increase in leverage.

How We Got the Crash Wrong

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It means you're adding the word "eliminate" to an article in which it does not appear.

Fine. Then they replaced the net capital rule with self-regulation.

I did. It said change. It did not say eliminate.

Self-regulation replaces net capital rule. So you can dance around the semantics all you want, the same result is there. The net capital rule was replaced with self-regulation.

Only because your "proof" doesn't prove your claim.

Maybe you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to determine that replacing the net capital rule with self-regulation is the same thing as eliminating the net capital rule. Why is that not a possibility? That you're not as smart, clever, or intuitive as you think?

Fine. Then they replaced the net capital rule with self-regulation.

Another imaginary claim not in the article.

replacing the net capital rule with self-regulation is the same thing as eliminating the net capital rule.

They are both things you made up. Both imaginary.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capital requirements were reduced. Duh.

NO! They weren't reduced, they were replaced with self-regulation. That's the whole point of the article you are either ignoring, or in your rush to sloppily read it, just didn't see or understand. I think it's a combination of both. I think you ignored it and rushed over it so you could hammer out a response before reading and comprehending what was presented to you.

We were talking about banks and added regulations on banks..

Wait a second - we were talking about "attacking banks"...so far, the only examples of "attacks" you could find were fines levied against the banks for committing fraud, and reinstituting the net capital requirement that existed prior to 2004. Neither of which "attack the banks".

When I said smaller firms are hurt more than larger firms, the firms I was discussing were banks.

That's not what you said before. You said "small businesses". Are you now broadening out the definition of "small businesses" to include "small banks"? Just so you know, that would be the fifth time you redefined the standards in this thread regarding this specific topic. All that goalpost shifting must be exhausting; I can imagine trying to defend moral bankruptcy would be tiring. The problem is that you don't know enough about this to make an informed statement on it. So what happens instead is that because you have a vague understanding of this, your argument becomes vague. That's what accounts for your constant parameter redefining. You just aren't as informed as you like people to think, right? All I ask for is consistency. You can't even give that. What a disappointment.

The proof that smaller banks are harmed more than larger banks can be seen in the market shares of the largest banks versus the rest.

But that's not what you said before, and the big banks don't appear to have been harmed at all since they now hold a larger market share, are even bigger than before, and thus, generate bigger profits than before. So you need to make up your mind; was Dodd-Frank an attack on banks, on big banks, on small banks, or on small businesses? Because you also haven't exactly articulated how Dodd-Frank harms small banks...you've only offered your insistence it does. Well pal, insisting on something means nothing to me. So unless you can start rattling off parts of Dodd-Frank that harm banks and state how those parts harm banks, your point remains vague and undefined, therefore not credible.

We can talk about Obama's attacks on firms other than banks, if you'd like.

Why? So you can lie more about it, like you did with energy prices? That was a laugh riot. You maintaining and insisting the same way you're doing here, that Obama caused energy prices to rise...only to be shot down completely by the EIA saying that natural gas prices in 2016 were at a 20 year low.

So why do I get the impression that you just sort of make this shit up as you go? Oh, because that's exactly what you're doing.

Yup. The Obama administration attacked banks from day one.
Then whined that banks weren't lending enough. Durr.

So far, the only "attacks" you could articulate were fines levied against them for the fraud they committed during the mortgage bubble (not an attack), and re-instituting the same net capital rule that existed prior to Bush replacing it with self-regulation, which is the same thing as eliminating it altogether (also, not an attack). Beyond those two things that reasonable people see not as attacks but rather corrections of past mistakes, you got nothing. Which is startling considering you whined like a little bitch about the 20,000 pages of regulations you claim attack the banks...even though you can't cite a single thing from those 20,000 pages that supports your weak premise.

NO! They weren't reduced, they were replaced with self-regulation.

"Replaced" and "self-regulation"

What are two things not in your article?

Why? So you can lie more about it, like you did with energy prices?



Yup, Obama clearly wanted lower prices for energy. DERP!

 

[grainbely]

and yet want to give the rich tax cuts, (how ignorant is that) They must have brain damage.

and what will happen to global terrorism they ask , since they do not want to do anything about gun laws in the US, who by the way most mass shooters are white males and US citizens and even some vets, who in the hell cares.

The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

$20,204,000,000,000

Want to try again?

Why did you post the national debt? Are you dishonestly implying that it's all due to welfare? Whatever propaganda source you've bitten on, it's a good one.

NOTHING is as simple as the right tries to dumb things down. Nothing. It's all sloganized to be able to fit into ignorant minds.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. I said...."Obama attempted to restrict supply. Did you forget the supply/demand curve from the Econ 101 class you failed?"

Again, you only post a fraction of what you actually said. There's that sophistry habit of yours, rearing its ugly head again. Your claim was that Obama caused higher energy prices by doing things like "attempting to restrict supply" (which you didn't prove, BTW, just more insistence on your part). That's what you said. The facts prove something different. So we have a case here where you want something to be true, but the reality makes it not so.

I correctly think that Obama's actions which restricted exploration and production caused prices to be higher than they would have been without his restrictive actions.

LOL! That's not what you said! Again with the parameter redefinition as you struggle to find out your preconceived notions were all bullshit. Your argument was simply that Obama caused higher energy prices. NOT TRUE AT ALL. In fact, Obama secured a 20-year low in natural gas prices. So if he was "attempting to restrict supply", he didn't do a very good job of it as the price of natural gas dropped to a 20-year low. Something you Conservatives have been unable to do for any energy prices. Obama also reduced the cost of renewable energy to all-time lows.

In fact, here's Scientific American from February of this year:

Energy Costs at Record Lows Thanks to Natural Gas and Clean Energy
The nation's rapid adoption of clean energy technologies, combined with sustained natural gas consumption, sagging oil prices and the widespread deployment of energy efficiency measures, helped U.S. consumers drive down energy costs to record lows in 2016.

Where energy spending occurred, it was concentrated in low- or zero-carbon forms of energy that should help the United States continue the transition to a sustainable energy future, according to a benchmarking report released this morning by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.​

So you lied. You lied about the cost of energy. You lied about Obama making them higher than the record lows they were at when he was President.

What happened was that you had a preconceived notion, one you probably lapped up from some other brain-dead Conservative, and had that notion blown to smithereens by the facts.

So you migrated your argument to one now wholly on supposition; that the record-low energy prices under Obama would have been even lower if he didn't "regulate" (vague general term from a vague general asshole like you). Of course, that's specious reasoning and you know it. Which is why you do it; because you're an unabashed sophist with no shame.

Your claim was that Obama caused higher energy prices by doing things like "attempting to restrict supply" (which you didn't prove, BTW, just more insistence on your part).

Reducing leases on Federal land restricting offshore drilling both reduced supply.
Unfortunately, for Obama's higher price wishes, frackers on private land gave us greater supply.

Your argument was simply that Obama caused higher energy prices

He tried. He really wanted higher prices.
He failed. LOL!
American ingenuity beats whiney liberals every time.

In fact, Obama secured a 20-year low in natural gas prices.

He had less than zero to do with the low prices.

So if he was "attempting to restrict supply", he didn't do a very good job of it

First correct thing you've said all day. He tried, he failed, we won.

 

[francoHFW]

Nope. An attack on banks. The fact that the largest banks got bigger than ever after it was passed shows that small and medium sized banks were harmed and either closed, merged or were acquired by larger banks.

So now that's the fourth time you've moved your position, FYI. At this point, you scrambling to redefine parameters within the same post is indicating you're not really steady on what you're trying to say. And boy does it show!

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it. So it's not a general "attack on the banks". BTW - we wanted to break up the big banks, but you all refused, citing some bullshit about freedom.

What happens to a banks loan book when capital requirements increase by 25%?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets, which was the only reason they removed the net capital rule in favor of self-regulation, a position Conservatives are known for having. The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending, if that level was what was around prior to 2004? This is where critical thinking skills come in. I'm not so sure you have those skills.

If your capital is $1,000,000 and your requirement is 8%, you can carry about $12.5 million in loans. Make the requirement 10%.Now how much can you carry?

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending, but they didn't and that's not why they removed the rule. Because they were doing plenty of lending before April 2004. They removed the rule in April 2004 not to increase the amount of loans issued, but rather to purchase subprime mortgages and securities with which they were gambling in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. Removing the net capital rule wasn't about loans for consumers or businesses, it was about purchasing securities and gambling in that market.

Banks don't need any capital when they don't hold the loan or security on their books.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books. That's why the removed the rule, so they could purchase more of those loans and securities.

Oh, he tried to force automakers to increase MPG.
What magical processes could they use to suddenly make the average car get 54 mpg?

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025. So once again, we have an instance of you leaving out the part of the sentence that places it in context. I notice you do that a lot when you sense your argument is falling apart. So what you do is remove context for the sake of being obtuse so you don't have to admit you're wrong. It's a pattern with you; one that I've noticed rearing its ugly head over and over on this thread. You did it when you tried to lie about Bush's job numbers. And now you're doing it again when it comes to mileage standards that Obama set in place to hit by 2025. You deliberately left out the "2025" because otherwise, you couldn't make the world's shittiest points. That's your style...sophistry. And you're not that good at it either.

I guess it depends on how they get there.
Why don't you list the top 3 ways to increase mileage.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing and you obviously have no answer because you don't give it any thought, like every other subject you discuss. So you just react and because you are intellectually devoid, you have to put it on others to have things explained to you after posturing for post after post that you have the capability to employ critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion on your own. Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already. And I bought that car in 2012.

Sure, he talked a lot about stuff he had nothing to do with.
Where did he actually, in speech and in action, encourage fracking, oil and gas production? Ever?

Read the passage again. Grow up. Employ critical thinking. Stop trying to convince everyone here that you're dumber than you really are.

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it.

Listen, you silly moron.
All companies are harmed by excessive regulations.
All of them. Banks, large and small.
Non-banks, large and small.

Larger firms, larger banks are harmed less because they have a lot more money to deal with the increased expense caused by the idiotic regulations.

When the smaller firms, bank and non-bank alike find that they cannot continue to function under the ever increasing burden they either go under, merge or are taken over by the larger firms.

Did you notice how the largest banks became even larger after the crisis?
Excessive, stupid regulations were one of the causes of that.

And then you fucking liberal idiots whine that the biggest banks got bigger.

Have you noticed yet that you're making things worse?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets

You're an idiot.

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending

Hey, fucktard, increasing their leverage means they can borrow more in order to lend more.
You whined that they were lending more and taking on more risk.

You made them safer after the crisis by reducing their leverage.
They responded by lending less. Durr.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books.

You said they securitized and sold them. They're no longer on the books. Idiot!

The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending

Because they have more loans than they did in 2004.
Because they just lost a bunch of money when people stopped paying their mortgages.

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025.

And the magic wand they were going to wave between now and 2025 was?????
You haven't given them the secret to doubling the MPG.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing

If you give the methods, the bad thing will be obvious.

Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already.

We all have to drive a Prius? That's the secret?
Because the 54 mpg is a "FLEET AVERAGE"
A couple of pussies driving a Prius isn't gonna bring the fleet average up to 54 MPG.

Read the passage again.

I did. He didn't encourage fracking in word or deed, not once in 8 years. Nada.

He also didn't stop it and only made it safer through regulation in a hiatus... He didn't have to grandstand like your lying hypocrite a hole Heroes...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama WANTED prices to be higher.

Did he? Because he talked about how he wanted to lower energy prices, and he did just that. 2016 saw record low energy prices across the board, according to Scientific American.

So now you're trying to force an invented position on Obama that he never had, in order to serve a point no one made, to serve an ego no one cares about.

Obama said we COULDN'T drill our way to lower prices.

And he was right; we couldn't and we didn't. What reduced energy prices were, as Scientific American says, natural gas and renewables. We can't drill for oil our way to lower prices. In fact, what drove down oil prices was the rise of natural gas production. This is well documented.

Reduced/ended sales of oil leases on Federal lands.
Reduced/ended offshore drilling in the Gulf.
Fought against pipeline construction and extension.

Yet oil production under Obama was higher than at any other time in our country's history. So what we have here is you telling me Obama restricted supply, but the facts show that supply was not restricted but rather oversupplied. Like the PADD II region that currently sees an oversupply of Tar Sands Sludge from Alberta. Sludge that you want to redirect to the Gulf where it fetches a higher price on the global markets and causes the price per barrel to rise. KXL will increase energy prices because it redirects the Tar Sands Sludge from the US PADD II region where it us oversupplied to US refineries causing price discounts, to the Gulf where the price will rise to that of the global markets.

That's why Obama opposed KXL and why any American should too.

But I don't expect you to know these things because you are too lazy and lack the effort to do the work necessary.

And he's still pissed off about his failure.

Is he? Under Obama, the demand for oil dropped so much that the price per barrel fell to below $50 and stayed there. That's because Obama took action by expanding natural gas and renewables. So their costs came down to all-time lows and the oil had to follow suit. That's a bad thing, why? That's an "attack on fossil fuels", how?

Did he?

Yup



Because he talked about how he wanted to lower energy prices

While doing what he could to make them higher.

And he was right; we couldn't and we didn't.

We couldn't and didn't drill our way to lower prices?

In fact, what drove down oil prices was the rise of natural gas production.

Drilling for natural gas gave us lower prices? Drilling for natural gas gave us lower prices?
Drilling for natural gas gave us lower prices?

That sounds like we ...... could and did drill our way to lower prices.

Yet oil production under Obama was higher than at any other time in our country's history.

Yup. Obama fought, Obama lost, we won.

Is he?

Yes.

Under Obama, the demand for oil dropped so much that the price per barrel fell to below $50 and stayed there

That's an interesting claim. What was the demand for oil in 2009? In 2017? Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. An attack on banks. The fact that the largest banks got bigger than ever after it was passed shows that small and medium sized banks were harmed and either closed, merged or were acquired by larger banks.

So now that's the fourth time you've moved your position, FYI. At this point, you scrambling to redefine parameters within the same post is indicating you're not really steady on what you're trying to say. And boy does it show!

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it. So it's not a general "attack on the banks". BTW - we wanted to break up the big banks, but you all refused, citing some bullshit about freedom.

What happens to a banks loan book when capital requirements increase by 25%?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets, which was the only reason they removed the net capital rule in favor of self-regulation, a position Conservatives are known for having. The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending, if that level was what was around prior to 2004? This is where critical thinking skills come in. I'm not so sure you have those skills.

If your capital is $1,000,000 and your requirement is 8%, you can carry about $12.5 million in loans. Make the requirement 10%.Now how much can you carry?

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending, but they didn't and that's not why they removed the rule. Because they were doing plenty of lending before April 2004. They removed the rule in April 2004 not to increase the amount of loans issued, but rather to purchase subprime mortgages and securities with which they were gambling in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. Removing the net capital rule wasn't about loans for consumers or businesses, it was about purchasing securities and gambling in that market.

Banks don't need any capital when they don't hold the loan or security on their books.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books. That's why the removed the rule, so they could purchase more of those loans and securities.

Oh, he tried to force automakers to increase MPG.
What magical processes could they use to suddenly make the average car get 54 mpg?

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025. So once again, we have an instance of you leaving out the part of the sentence that places it in context. I notice you do that a lot when you sense your argument is falling apart. So what you do is remove context for the sake of being obtuse so you don't have to admit you're wrong. It's a pattern with you; one that I've noticed rearing its ugly head over and over on this thread. You did it when you tried to lie about Bush's job numbers. And now you're doing it again when it comes to mileage standards that Obama set in place to hit by 2025. You deliberately left out the "2025" because otherwise, you couldn't make the world's shittiest points. That's your style...sophistry. And you're not that good at it either.

I guess it depends on how they get there.
Why don't you list the top 3 ways to increase mileage.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing and you obviously have no answer because you don't give it any thought, like every other subject you discuss. So you just react and because you are intellectually devoid, you have to put it on others to have things explained to you after posturing for post after post that you have the capability to employ critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion on your own. Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already. And I bought that car in 2012.

Sure, he talked a lot about stuff he had nothing to do with.
Where did he actually, in speech and in action, encourage fracking, oil and gas production? Ever?

Read the passage again. Grow up. Employ critical thinking. Stop trying to convince everyone here that you're dumber than you really are.

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it.

Listen, you silly moron.
All companies are harmed by excessive regulations.
All of them. Banks, large and small.
Non-banks, large and small.

Larger firms, larger banks are harmed less because they have a lot more money to deal with the increased expense caused by the idiotic regulations.

When the smaller firms, bank and non-bank alike find that they cannot continue to function under the ever increasing burden they either go under, merge or are taken over by the larger firms.

Did you notice how the largest banks became even larger after the crisis?
Excessive, stupid regulations were one of the causes of that.

And then you fucking liberal idiots whine that the biggest banks got bigger.

Have you noticed yet that you're making things worse?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets

You're an idiot.

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending

Hey, fucktard, increasing their leverage means they can borrow more in order to lend more.
You whined that they were lending more and taking on more risk.

You made them safer after the crisis by reducing their leverage.
They responded by lending less. Durr.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books.

You said they securitized and sold them. They're no longer on the books. Idiot!

The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending

Because they have more loans than they did in 2004.
Because they just lost a bunch of money when people stopped paying their mortgages.

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025.

And the magic wand they were going to wave between now and 2025 was?????
You haven't given them the secret to doubling the MPG.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing

If you give the methods, the bad thing will be obvious.

Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already.

We all have to drive a Prius? That's the secret?
Because the 54 mpg is a "FLEET AVERAGE"
A couple of pussies driving a Prius isn't gonna bring the fleet average up to 54 MPG.

Read the passage again.

I did. He didn't encourage fracking in word or deed, not once in 8 years. Nada.

He also didn't stop it and only made it safer through regulation in a hiatus... He didn't have to grandstand like your lying hypocrite a hole Heroes...

Obama restricts offshore drilling in latest poke at Trump

 

[usmbguest5318]

Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it...and yet want to give the rich tax cuts, (how ignorant is that) They must have brain damage.

and what will happen to global terrorism they ask , since they do not want to do anything about gun laws in the US, who by the way most mass shooters are white males and US citizens and even some vets, who in the hell cares.

Well, no they didn't, but among modern presidents, Republicans certainly caused enough of it that the difference between what they must "own" and what Democrats must "own" doesn't justify either side pointing fingers at the other on this point.

• Democrats: $9,677,000,000,000
• Republicans: $9,631,000,000,000

That's a $46B difference. What will about that much get you?

• Well, one government contract
• The budget for the Department of State
• It's a little more than the budget of NC and a little less than the budget of New Jersey
• It's less than the net worth of the ten of the wealthiest people in the world.
• In Zimbabwean dollars, it's almost enough to buy two loaves of bread. LOL
• It's enough to buy several or quite a few of the items listed here: What A Billion Dollars Buys You - Forbes
• It's around one percent of the total U.S. federal budget.
• It's 2/1000ths of the U.S. 2016 GDP.

 

[francoHFW]

Nope. An attack on banks. The fact that the largest banks got bigger than ever after it was passed shows that small and medium sized banks were harmed and either closed, merged or were acquired by larger banks.

So now that's the fourth time you've moved your position, FYI. At this point, you scrambling to redefine parameters within the same post is indicating you're not really steady on what you're trying to say. And boy does it show!

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it. So it's not a general "attack on the banks". BTW - we wanted to break up the big banks, but you all refused, citing some bullshit about freedom.

What happens to a banks loan book when capital requirements increase by 25%?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets, which was the only reason they removed the net capital rule in favor of self-regulation, a position Conservatives are known for having. The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending, if that level was what was around prior to 2004? This is where critical thinking skills come in. I'm not so sure you have those skills.

If your capital is $1,000,000 and your requirement is 8%, you can carry about $12.5 million in loans. Make the requirement 10%.Now how much can you carry?

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending, but they didn't and that's not why they removed the rule. Because they were doing plenty of lending before April 2004. They removed the rule in April 2004 not to increase the amount of loans issued, but rather to purchase subprime mortgages and securities with which they were gambling in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. Removing the net capital rule wasn't about loans for consumers or businesses, it was about purchasing securities and gambling in that market.

Banks don't need any capital when they don't hold the loan or security on their books.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books. That's why the removed the rule, so they could purchase more of those loans and securities.

Oh, he tried to force automakers to increase MPG.
What magical processes could they use to suddenly make the average car get 54 mpg?

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025. So once again, we have an instance of you leaving out the part of the sentence that places it in context. I notice you do that a lot when you sense your argument is falling apart. So what you do is remove context for the sake of being obtuse so you don't have to admit you're wrong. It's a pattern with you; one that I've noticed rearing its ugly head over and over on this thread. You did it when you tried to lie about Bush's job numbers. And now you're doing it again when it comes to mileage standards that Obama set in place to hit by 2025. You deliberately left out the "2025" because otherwise, you couldn't make the world's shittiest points. That's your style...sophistry. And you're not that good at it either.

I guess it depends on how they get there.
Why don't you list the top 3 ways to increase mileage.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing and you obviously have no answer because you don't give it any thought, like every other subject you discuss. So you just react and because you are intellectually devoid, you have to put it on others to have things explained to you after posturing for post after post that you have the capability to employ critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion on your own. Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already. And I bought that car in 2012.

Sure, he talked a lot about stuff he had nothing to do with.
Where did he actually, in speech and in action, encourage fracking, oil and gas production? Ever?

Read the passage again. Grow up. Employ critical thinking. Stop trying to convince everyone here that you're dumber than you really are.

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it.

Listen, you silly moron.
All companies are harmed by excessive regulations.
All of them. Banks, large and small.
Non-banks, large and small.

Larger firms, larger banks are harmed less because they have a lot more money to deal with the increased expense caused by the idiotic regulations.

When the smaller firms, bank and non-bank alike find that they cannot continue to function under the ever increasing burden they either go under, merge or are taken over by the larger firms.

Did you notice how the largest banks became even larger after the crisis?
Excessive, stupid regulations were one of the causes of that.

And then you fucking liberal idiots whine that the biggest banks got bigger.

Have you noticed yet that you're making things worse?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets

You're an idiot.

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending

Hey, fucktard, increasing their leverage means they can borrow more in order to lend more.
You whined that they were lending more and taking on more risk.

You made them safer after the crisis by reducing their leverage.
They responded by lending less. Durr.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books.

You said they securitized and sold them. They're no longer on the books. Idiot!

The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending

Because they have more loans than they did in 2004.
Because they just lost a bunch of money when people stopped paying their mortgages.

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025.

And the magic wand they were going to wave between now and 2025 was?????
You haven't given them the secret to doubling the MPG.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing

If you give the methods, the bad thing will be obvious.

Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already.

We all have to drive a Prius? That's the secret?
Because the 54 mpg is a "FLEET AVERAGE"
A couple of pussies driving a Prius isn't gonna bring the fleet average up to 54 MPG.

Read the passage again.

I did. He didn't encourage fracking in word or deed, not once in 8 years. Nada.

He also didn't stop it and only made it safer through regulation in a hiatus... He didn't have to grandstand like your lying hypocrite a hole Heroes...

Obama restricts offshore drilling in latest poke at Trump

Of course, that's not fracking two. There are and of course there are plenty of places to do fracking without having to ruin beautiful environment... The jackasses and dupes in Oklahoma Nebraska and Texas who Love fracking can enjoy the hundreds of earthquakes they're getting now LOL

 

[francoHFW]

Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it...and yet want to give the rich tax cuts, (how ignorant is that) They must have brain damage.

and what will happen to global terrorism they ask , since they do not want to do anything about gun laws in the US, who by the way most mass shooters are white males and US citizens and even some vets, who in the hell cares.

Well, no they didn't, but among modern presidents, Republicans certainly caused enough of it that the difference between what they must "own" and what Democrats must "own" doesn't justify either side pointing fingers at the other on this point.

• Democrats: $9,677,000,000,000
• Republicans: $9,631,000,000,000

That's a $46B difference. What will about that much get you?

• Well, one government contract
• The budget for the Department of State
• It's a little more than the budget of NC and a little less than the budget of New Jersey
• It's less than the net worth of the ten of the wealthiest people in the world.
• In Zimbabwean dollars, it's almost enough to buy two loaves of bread. LOL
• It's enough to buy several or quite a few of the items listed here: What A Billion Dollars Buys You - Forbes
• It's around one percent of the total U.S. federal budget.
• It's 2/1000ths of the U.S. 2016 GDP.

Of course most of Obama's deficit where to avert a full-blown W bush World depression and to assist victims with unemployment and Welfare laws already on the books. Reagan tripled the debt and w double dick in Good Times. That's how they made it good times borrowing and defense debt. Great job GOP and silly dupes like you

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. An attack on banks. The fact that the largest banks got bigger than ever after it was passed shows that small and medium sized banks were harmed and either closed, merged or were acquired by larger banks.

So now that's the fourth time you've moved your position, FYI. At this point, you scrambling to redefine parameters within the same post is indicating you're not really steady on what you're trying to say. And boy does it show!

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it. So it's not a general "attack on the banks". BTW - we wanted to break up the big banks, but you all refused, citing some bullshit about freedom.

What happens to a banks loan book when capital requirements increase by 25%?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets, which was the only reason they removed the net capital rule in favor of self-regulation, a position Conservatives are known for having. The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending, if that level was what was around prior to 2004? This is where critical thinking skills come in. I'm not so sure you have those skills.

If your capital is $1,000,000 and your requirement is 8%, you can carry about $12.5 million in loans. Make the requirement 10%.Now how much can you carry?

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending, but they didn't and that's not why they removed the rule. Because they were doing plenty of lending before April 2004. They removed the rule in April 2004 not to increase the amount of loans issued, but rather to purchase subprime mortgages and securities with which they were gambling in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. Removing the net capital rule wasn't about loans for consumers or businesses, it was about purchasing securities and gambling in that market.

Banks don't need any capital when they don't hold the loan or security on their books.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books. That's why the removed the rule, so they could purchase more of those loans and securities.

Oh, he tried to force automakers to increase MPG.
What magical processes could they use to suddenly make the average car get 54 mpg?

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025. So once again, we have an instance of you leaving out the part of the sentence that places it in context. I notice you do that a lot when you sense your argument is falling apart. So what you do is remove context for the sake of being obtuse so you don't have to admit you're wrong. It's a pattern with you; one that I've noticed rearing its ugly head over and over on this thread. You did it when you tried to lie about Bush's job numbers. And now you're doing it again when it comes to mileage standards that Obama set in place to hit by 2025. You deliberately left out the "2025" because otherwise, you couldn't make the world's shittiest points. That's your style...sophistry. And you're not that good at it either.

I guess it depends on how they get there.
Why don't you list the top 3 ways to increase mileage.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing and you obviously have no answer because you don't give it any thought, like every other subject you discuss. So you just react and because you are intellectually devoid, you have to put it on others to have things explained to you after posturing for post after post that you have the capability to employ critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion on your own. Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already. And I bought that car in 2012.

Sure, he talked a lot about stuff he had nothing to do with.
Where did he actually, in speech and in action, encourage fracking, oil and gas production? Ever?

Read the passage again. Grow up. Employ critical thinking. Stop trying to convince everyone here that you're dumber than you really are.

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it.

Listen, you silly moron.
All companies are harmed by excessive regulations.
All of them. Banks, large and small.
Non-banks, large and small.

Larger firms, larger banks are harmed less because they have a lot more money to deal with the increased expense caused by the idiotic regulations.

When the smaller firms, bank and non-bank alike find that they cannot continue to function under the ever increasing burden they either go under, merge or are taken over by the larger firms.

Did you notice how the largest banks became even larger after the crisis?
Excessive, stupid regulations were one of the causes of that.

And then you fucking liberal idiots whine that the biggest banks got bigger.

Have you noticed yet that you're making things worse?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets

You're an idiot.

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending

Hey, fucktard, increasing their leverage means they can borrow more in order to lend more.
You whined that they were lending more and taking on more risk.

You made them safer after the crisis by reducing their leverage.
They responded by lending less. Durr.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books.

You said they securitized and sold them. They're no longer on the books. Idiot!

The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending

Because they have more loans than they did in 2004.
Because they just lost a bunch of money when people stopped paying their mortgages.

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025.

And the magic wand they were going to wave between now and 2025 was?????
You haven't given them the secret to doubling the MPG.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing

If you give the methods, the bad thing will be obvious.

Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already.

We all have to drive a Prius? That's the secret?
Because the 54 mpg is a "FLEET AVERAGE"
A couple of pussies driving a Prius isn't gonna bring the fleet average up to 54 MPG.

Read the passage again.

I did. He didn't encourage fracking in word or deed, not once in 8 years. Nada.

He also didn't stop it and only made it safer through regulation in a hiatus... He didn't have to grandstand like your lying hypocrite a hole Heroes...

Obama restricts offshore drilling in latest poke at Trump

Of course, that's not fracking two. There are and of course there are plenty of places to do fracking without having to ruin beautiful environment... The jackasses and dupes in Oklahoma Nebraska and Texas who Love fracking can enjoy the hundreds of earthquakes they're getting now LOL

Did Obama lease a lot of Federal land for fracking? Or did he fight fracking?

 

[francoHFW]

So now that's the fourth time you've moved your position, FYI. At this point, you scrambling to redefine parameters within the same post is indicating you're not really steady on what you're trying to say. And boy does it show!

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it. So it's not a general "attack on the banks". BTW - we wanted to break up the big banks, but you all refused, citing some bullshit about freedom.


Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets, which was the only reason they removed the net capital rule in favor of self-regulation, a position Conservatives are known for having. The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending, if that level was what was around prior to 2004? This is where critical thinking skills come in. I'm not so sure you have those skills.


You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending, but they didn't and that's not why they removed the rule. Because they were doing plenty of lending before April 2004. They removed the rule in April 2004 not to increase the amount of loans issued, but rather to purchase subprime mortgages and securities with which they were gambling in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets. Removing the net capital rule wasn't about loans for consumers or businesses, it was about purchasing securities and gambling in that market.


Right, but the loans and securities were on their books. That's why the removed the rule, so they could purchase more of those loans and securities.


The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025. So once again, we have an instance of you leaving out the part of the sentence that places it in context. I notice you do that a lot when you sense your argument is falling apart. So what you do is remove context for the sake of being obtuse so you don't have to admit you're wrong. It's a pattern with you; one that I've noticed rearing its ugly head over and over on this thread. You did it when you tried to lie about Bush's job numbers. And now you're doing it again when it comes to mileage standards that Obama set in place to hit by 2025. You deliberately left out the "2025" because otherwise, you couldn't make the world's shittiest points. That's your style...sophistry. And you're not that good at it either.


Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing and you obviously have no answer because you don't give it any thought, like every other subject you discuss. So you just react and because you are intellectually devoid, you have to put it on others to have things explained to you after posturing for post after post that you have the capability to employ critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion on your own. Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already. And I bought that car in 2012.


Read the passage again. Grow up. Employ critical thinking. Stop trying to convince everyone here that you're dumber than you really are.

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it.

Listen, you silly moron.
All companies are harmed by excessive regulations.
All of them. Banks, large and small.
Non-banks, large and small.

Larger firms, larger banks are harmed less because they have a lot more money to deal with the increased expense caused by the idiotic regulations.

When the smaller firms, bank and non-bank alike find that they cannot continue to function under the ever increasing burden they either go under, merge or are taken over by the larger firms.

Did you notice how the largest banks became even larger after the crisis?
Excessive, stupid regulations were one of the causes of that.

And then you fucking liberal idiots whine that the biggest banks got bigger.

Have you noticed yet that you're making things worse?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets

You're an idiot.

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending

Hey, fucktard, increasing their leverage means they can borrow more in order to lend more.
You whined that they were lending more and taking on more risk.

You made them safer after the crisis by reducing their leverage.
They responded by lending less. Durr.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books.

You said they securitized and sold them. They're no longer on the books. Idiot!

The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending

Because they have more loans than they did in 2004.
Because they just lost a bunch of money when people stopped paying their mortgages.

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025.

And the magic wand they were going to wave between now and 2025 was?????
You haven't given them the secret to doubling the MPG.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing

If you give the methods, the bad thing will be obvious.

Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already.

We all have to drive a Prius? That's the secret?
Because the 54 mpg is a "FLEET AVERAGE"
A couple of pussies driving a Prius isn't gonna bring the fleet average up to 54 MPG.

Read the passage again.

I did. He didn't encourage fracking in word or deed, not once in 8 years. Nada.

He also didn't stop it and only made it safer through regulation in a hiatus... He didn't have to grandstand like your lying hypocrite a hole Heroes...

Obama restricts offshore drilling in latest poke at Trump

Of course, that's not fracking two. There are and of course there are plenty of places to do fracking without having to ruin beautiful environment... The jackasses and dupes in Oklahoma Nebraska and Texas who Love fracking can enjoy the hundreds of earthquakes they're getting now LOL

Did Obama lease a lot of Federal land for fracking? Or did he fight fracking?

There's plenty of non federal land for fracking. You can save federal land and not be fighting fracking, dupe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK, but you said "an attack on the banks", yet the big banks all came out ahead from it.

Listen, you silly moron.
All companies are harmed by excessive regulations.
All of them. Banks, large and small.
Non-banks, large and small.

Larger firms, larger banks are harmed less because they have a lot more money to deal with the increased expense caused by the idiotic regulations.

When the smaller firms, bank and non-bank alike find that they cannot continue to function under the ever increasing burden they either go under, merge or are taken over by the larger firms.

Did you notice how the largest banks became even larger after the crisis?
Excessive, stupid regulations were one of the causes of that.

And then you fucking liberal idiots whine that the biggest banks got bigger.

Have you noticed yet that you're making things worse?

Nothing if those banks aren't pouring all their capital into untrustworthy derivatives markets

You're an idiot.

You're working from the assumption that those banks removed the net capital rule in order to increase lending

Hey, fucktard, increasing their leverage means they can borrow more in order to lend more.
You whined that they were lending more and taking on more risk.

You made them safer after the crisis by reducing their leverage.
They responded by lending less. Durr.

Right, but the loans and securities were on their books.

You said they securitized and sold them. They're no longer on the books. Idiot!

The banks lent money with no problem prior to the 2004 rule change, so why would a return to that level of capitalization affect lending

Because they have more loans than they did in 2004.
Because they just lost a bunch of money when people stopped paying their mortgages.

The MPG of 54 was the target for 2025.

And the magic wand they were going to wave between now and 2025 was?????
You haven't given them the secret to doubling the MPG.

Wait a second, I asked you why it was a bad thing

If you give the methods, the bad thing will be obvious.

Want to know how we get to 54 MPGs? Well, it's not that fucking hard considering the Prius I currently drive gets 54 MPGs already.

We all have to drive a Prius? That's the secret?
Because the 54 mpg is a "FLEET AVERAGE"
A couple of pussies driving a Prius isn't gonna bring the fleet average up to 54 MPG.

Read the passage again.

I did. He didn't encourage fracking in word or deed, not once in 8 years. Nada.

He also didn't stop it and only made it safer through regulation in a hiatus... He didn't have to grandstand like your lying hypocrite a hole Heroes...

Obama restricts offshore drilling in latest poke at Trump

Of course, that's not fracking two. There are and of course there are plenty of places to do fracking without having to ruin beautiful environment... The jackasses and dupes in Oklahoma Nebraska and Texas who Love fracking can enjoy the hundreds of earthquakes they're getting now LOL

Did Obama lease a lot of Federal land for fracking? Or did he fight fracking?

There's plenty of non federal land for fracking. You can save federal land and not be fighting fracking, dupe.

There's plenty of non federal land for fracking.

Obviously.
That's why oil and gas production increased so much, despite every roadblock Obama threw up.