DOTR
Gold Member
- Oct 24, 2016
- 14,270
- 3,537
- 290
here’s where you explain that Sanders isn’t *really* a socialist but that paying for your own medical care is actually socialism for real.
Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
here’s where you explain that Sanders isn’t *really* a socialist but that paying for your own medical care is actually socialism for real.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
..saving the entire $5,277/yr ("tax") they now spend "on average."
Can they add that savings to the $2500 a year Obama already saved them?
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,461
- 2,290
Exactly true. Public education at one time was the solution to everything. Now, we spend the most per capita than any industrialized nation on earth. When problems arise, the first thing the Democrats say is we need to throw more money at it.
If anybody thinks healthcare will be different, they are kidding themselves.
DOTR
Gold Member
- Oct 24, 2016
- 14,270
- 3,537
- 290
Bravo! How about a Democrat plan that was so good people could voluntarily opt in while people who think less of it could opt out ? Wouldn’t that be novel?
The fact is they must use force to coerce the majority into supporting their voters.
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 93,245
- 39,850
- 2,250
Trump. Bail outs. We only have a choice of what Socialism we want.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You are talking about the separation of retail, commercial banks, and insurance.
Couple of problems with trying to blame the GLB Act, for the sub-prime crash.
First, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997, and the GLB act was passed in 1999.
So as you can see, the boom in housing prices clearly started in 1997.
The idea that somehow the GLB Act in 1999, somehow retroactively caused a housing bubble that started in 1997, seems unlikely.
Second, no other country had such a prohibition on Commercial and Retail banking. There was no comparable Glass-Steagall Act in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere in Europe, the UK, Japan, or anywhere else.
Yet the problem originated in the US, nowhere else that never had such regulations.
Third, the vast majority of all the banks that failed, were not, and would not, have been affected by these regulations.
Indymac. Retail bank only. Glass-Steagall would not have affected it.
Countrywide Financial. Commercial mortgage bank only.
WaMu, retail only.
Lehman Bro. Commercial only.
And the list of banks that were all single purpose banks, and failed, is large.
Very few banks would have been affected by Glass-Steagall. In fact, I only know of one specific bank that would have been affected, namely Citigroup.
There was one other bank that qualified as far as I know, and that bank did not fail.
So as I said, there is no regulations that were repealed, that had anything to do with the sub-prime crash.
If GLB Act had never happened, Countrywide Financial would not have been affected, and still would have failed. Same with Indymac, WaMu, Lehman Bro, and Bear Stearns. None of those banks were affected at all by the passing of GLB Act, nor if the GLB Act had never happened.
The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs. They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal. The investment side and loan sides were separate.
Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money? Absolutely. The thing then though is when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers. They get their money and the bank goes under.
The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs.
By writing mortgages. Just awful!
They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal.
No, they could write mortgages under Glass-Steagall.
Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money?
I see your ignorance isn't limited to pharma.
when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers.
"Their money"? Share just what it is you feel banks did with deposits....under Glass-Steagall.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,461
- 2,290
Banks are regulated heavily by the government. If you want to sell off your loans to the market, you have to be in compliance with their demands.
The banks didn't come up with 0% down and no credit checks, the government did.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.
You think banks have 2 separate pots of money they lend?
One pot is "customer money", what's the second one?
Butch_Coolidge
Gold Member
- Jul 20, 2018
- 3,940
- 390
- 170
I think it pays out, according to what you paid in. If not, then maybe I should have been a bum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Yeah, except it won't.
The problem with all socialism, is not that it doesn't initially work. All socialism initially works. The problem is when you run out of other people's money to spend.
The soviet union worked.... until it ran out of money, and people were killing their neighbors and eating them.
Venezuela socialism worked... until it ran out of money, and people were eating the family pet and rummaging through trash cans.
Cuban socialism worked... until the Soviets could not prop them up anymore, and people were risking death to swim to Miami.
Greece pensions and health care worked... until they couldn't borrow money and the system imploded, and people were burning sticks to survive the winter.
Yes, social security has worked, because we haven't run out of other people's money just yet. But the facts are already documented.....
Examining the interest rate paradox
Entitlement Liabilities Are a Graver Threat to the Next Generation of Americans Than Climate Change | John Phelan
https://nypost.com/2019/11/16/uncle-sams-debt-explosion/
If boomers 'actually have the money,' why do millennials owe them Social Security?
Here's the problem with people like you.... Greece in the 90s and the 2000s, had people in Greece saying over and over, that they couldn't pay for these problems, the systems needed reformed, the money wasn't there, and the debt was too much.
And every single time anyone tried to address the coming crisis, the public would act, pretty much like you... and scream that "IT WORKS!".
And look what happened to them.
Mass riots and protests
Banks and hospitals closed
Break down of law and order...
And by the way, the cuts to Greek pensions is still ongoing, just last year an 18% cut in pensions across Greece.
Greece’s pensioners protest further pension cuts of up to 18% - Keep Talking Greece
This is the reality. Socialism works just fine... just fantastic... until you run out of other people's money.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Were mortgages restricted by Glass-Steagall or not?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.
Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.
And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.
Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.
Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.
No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.
No bank was sued to make a bad loan.
Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
You are talking about the separation of retail, commercial banks, and insurance.
Couple of problems with trying to blame the GLB Act, for the sub-prime crash.
First, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997, and the GLB act was passed in 1999.
So as you can see, the boom in housing prices clearly started in 1997.
The idea that somehow the GLB Act in 1999, somehow retroactively caused a housing bubble that started in 1997, seems unlikely.
Second, no other country had such a prohibition on Commercial and Retail banking. There was no comparable Glass-Steagall Act in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere in Europe, the UK, Japan, or anywhere else.
Yet the problem originated in the US, nowhere else that never had such regulations.
Third, the vast majority of all the banks that failed, were not, and would not, have been affected by these regulations.
Indymac. Retail bank only. Glass-Steagall would not have affected it.
Countrywide Financial. Commercial mortgage bank only.
WaMu, retail only.
Lehman Bro. Commercial only.
And the list of banks that were all single purpose banks, and failed, is large.
Very few banks would have been affected by Glass-Steagall. In fact, I only know of one specific bank that would have been affected, namely Citigroup.
There was one other bank that qualified as far as I know, and that bank did not fail.
So as I said, there is no regulations that were repealed, that had anything to do with the sub-prime crash.
If GLB Act had never happened, Countrywide Financial would not have been affected, and still would have failed. Same with Indymac, WaMu, Lehman Bro, and Bear Stearns. None of those banks were affected at all by the passing of GLB Act, nor if the GLB Act had never happened.
The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs. They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal. The investment side and loan sides were separate.
Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money? Absolutely. The thing then though is when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers. They get their money and the bank goes under.
We just covered this.
Indymac was not an investment bank. It was retail bank. Only a retail bank. If GLB Act, had never existed..... if Glass Steagall was still enforced 100%...... Indymac would not have been affected by this at all.
They were not doing both investment and loans. Same with Countrywide. Same with Lehman. Same with Bear Stearns.
Moreover, the entire rest of the world, never had the regulations you are talking about. If what you claimed was the problem... .if the big problem was "The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs. They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal. The investment side and loan sides were separate."
if that was the problem, then why didn't the sub-prime crash originate in Europe, or the UK, or Canada, where they have NEVER HAD any such restriction?
And lastly, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997. GLB Act was passed in 1999. How did a policy enacted in 1999, cause a bubble to form in 1997?
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 93,245
- 39,850
- 2,250
You are talking about the separation of retail, commercial banks, and insurance.
Couple of problems with trying to blame the GLB Act, for the sub-prime crash.
First, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997, and the GLB act was passed in 1999.
So as you can see, the boom in housing prices clearly started in 1997.
The idea that somehow the GLB Act in 1999, somehow retroactively caused a housing bubble that started in 1997, seems unlikely.
Second, no other country had such a prohibition on Commercial and Retail banking. There was no comparable Glass-Steagall Act in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere in Europe, the UK, Japan, or anywhere else.
Yet the problem originated in the US, nowhere else that never had such regulations.
Third, the vast majority of all the banks that failed, were not, and would not, have been affected by these regulations.
Indymac. Retail bank only. Glass-Steagall would not have affected it.
Countrywide Financial. Commercial mortgage bank only.
WaMu, retail only.
Lehman Bro. Commercial only.
And the list of banks that were all single purpose banks, and failed, is large.
Very few banks would have been affected by Glass-Steagall. In fact, I only know of one specific bank that would have been affected, namely Citigroup.
There was one other bank that qualified as far as I know, and that bank did not fail.
So as I said, there is no regulations that were repealed, that had anything to do with the sub-prime crash.
If GLB Act had never happened, Countrywide Financial would not have been affected, and still would have failed. Same with Indymac, WaMu, Lehman Bro, and Bear Stearns. None of those banks were affected at all by the passing of GLB Act, nor if the GLB Act had never happened.
The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs. They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal. The investment side and loan sides were separate.
Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money? Absolutely. The thing then though is when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers. They get their money and the bank goes under.
The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs.
By writing mortgages. Just awful!
They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal.
No, they could write mortgages under Glass-Steagall.
Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money?
I see your ignorance isn't limited to pharma.
when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers.
"Their money"? Share just what it is you feel banks did with deposits....under Glass-Steagall.
You can ignore what happened if you wish.
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 93,245
- 39,850
- 2,250
The government didn't make the loans. The banks did. It was a pay back for removing regulations.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You are talking about the separation of retail, commercial banks, and insurance.
Couple of problems with trying to blame the GLB Act, for the sub-prime crash.
First, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997, and the GLB act was passed in 1999.
So as you can see, the boom in housing prices clearly started in 1997.
The idea that somehow the GLB Act in 1999, somehow retroactively caused a housing bubble that started in 1997, seems unlikely.
Second, no other country had such a prohibition on Commercial and Retail banking. There was no comparable Glass-Steagall Act in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere in Europe, the UK, Japan, or anywhere else.
Yet the problem originated in the US, nowhere else that never had such regulations.
Third, the vast majority of all the banks that failed, were not, and would not, have been affected by these regulations.
Indymac. Retail bank only. Glass-Steagall would not have affected it.
Countrywide Financial. Commercial mortgage bank only.
WaMu, retail only.
Lehman Bro. Commercial only.
And the list of banks that were all single purpose banks, and failed, is large.
Very few banks would have been affected by Glass-Steagall. In fact, I only know of one specific bank that would have been affected, namely Citigroup.
There was one other bank that qualified as far as I know, and that bank did not fail.
So as I said, there is no regulations that were repealed, that had anything to do with the sub-prime crash.
If GLB Act had never happened, Countrywide Financial would not have been affected, and still would have failed. Same with Indymac, WaMu, Lehman Bro, and Bear Stearns. None of those banks were affected at all by the passing of GLB Act, nor if the GLB Act had never happened.
The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs. They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal. The investment side and loan sides were separate.
Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money? Absolutely. The thing then though is when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers. They get their money and the bank goes under.
The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs.
By writing mortgages. Just awful!
They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal.
No, they could write mortgages under Glass-Steagall.
Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money?
I see your ignorance isn't limited to pharma.
when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers.
"Their money"? Share just what it is you feel banks did with deposits....under Glass-Steagall.
You can ignore what happened if you wish.
I won't ignore your moronic posts.
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 93,245
- 39,850
- 2,250
Investors money. But you know this.
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 93,245
- 39,850
- 2,250
No, investing was.
pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 93,245
- 39,850
- 2,250
Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.
Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.
And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.
Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.
Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.
No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.
No bank was sued to make a bad loan.
Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.
Who did Obama sue?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You think that if I buy Bank of America stock, they segregate loans made with my money from loans made with deposits?
That's honestly the funniest thing I've heard all day.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
Texas Woman Indicted for Attempted Arson of Republican Party Headquarters- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
Zone1 One significant reason why many do not believe in religion, it is just too damn hard- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 4
-
