Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #121
You have no idea what you are talking about do you tod?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I love the "obtuse" game. It's pretty fun. And can be played by all.
Is the sky truly blue?
You're so good at it.
Citibank lost money because they guaranteed mortgages?
Did John Thane get rich on credit swaps?
You have no idea what you are talking about do you tod?
We will begin with you supporting your opinion, then I will respond. That's how it's done, Toddster.Please elaborate.
I have no opinion about your comment about conflict of interest.
You're so good at it.
Citibank lost money because they guaranteed mortgages?
Did John Thane get rich on credit swaps?
Credit swaps? Do you mean credit default swaps?
I don't know. He wasn't at Citibank. Did he get rich on them?
Except for Fannie and Freddie, who guaranteed these loans?
I love the "obtuse" game. It's pretty fun. And can be played by all.
Is the sky truly blue?
You're so good at it.
Citibank lost money because they guaranteed mortgages?
We will begin with you supporting your opinion, then I will respond. That's how it's done, Toddster.
I have no opinion about your comment about conflict of interest.
Then you have no point, and we can move on. You have nothing negative to point out about G-S other than your opinion. Who cares? We get it.
I love the "obtuse" game. It's pretty fun. And can be played by all.
Is the sky truly blue?
You're so good at it.
Citibank lost money because they guaranteed mortgages?
You really don't understand, do you? That is why you are in the vast minority on this issue.
Who was it that worked for decades to rid us of Glass Steagal?
What party held up the regulations in that bill for seven years while the banks ran amouk?
Glass Steagal should be reinstated.
We all agree.
I thought you people hated regulations on business?
I give Newt credit here. He pushed for legislation, he recognizes that it was a mistake, and he doesn't mince words over it. Comes right out and says we should reverse course, and is unapologetic about that reversal. I think it speaks well of him. And I agree with him on this issue, we should reinstate it.
gingrich admitting he was part of the reason for the economy being in the shitter.. and being unapologetic about it.... will play well in dem ads if newt gets the nom.......
You have no idea what you are talking about do you tod?
Only a lot more than you.
I know, it's a low bar you set.
This is why I like Newt.
He doesn't really believe all the Republican bullshit.
Changes in economic policy don't necessarily have immediate effects, good or bad. Sometimes the effects develop over time. In the case of Glass-Steagal, its repeal allowed financial institutions to play risky games with other people's money. It was just about guaranteed that this would return to bite us sooner or later, but there was no reason to think it would have an instantaneous effect, and it did not. Fifteen years later, the odds caught up with the banks and the system crashed and burned.
The underlying problems in the economy actually go back to thirty-year-old legislative and administrative changes.
I do agree with this. It takes time for the problems to mature and come to fruition. But to simply pin the entire thing on Newt for a single piece of legislation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of his. I'm just trying to be reasonable.
I have no opinion about your comment about conflict of interest.
Then you have no point, and we can move on. You have nothing negative to point out about G-S other than your opinion. Who cares? We get it.
Your comment meant nothing.
And now you won't elaborate.
G-S didn't prevent banks from writing mortgages.
The crisis was caused by banks losing money on mortgages.
You have no point.
It's not dubious in the least. This is what a lot of people don't understand. Changes in economic policy don't necessarily have immediate effects, good or bad. Sometimes the effects develop over time. In the case of Glass-Steagal, its repeal allowed financial institutions to play risky games with other people's money. It was just about guaranteed that this would return to bite us sooner or later, but there was no reason to think it would have an instantaneous effect, and it did not. Fifteen years later, the odds caught up with the banks and the system crashed and burned.
The underlying problems in the economy actually go back to thirty-year-old legislative and administrative changes.
Bingo!
Someone else who thinks in terms longer than 4 years.
Isn't that incredible. I say it and the left call me an idiot. A lefty says it and you agree. Can you say 'I am a partisan hypocrite'?
You have no idea what you are talking about do you tod?
Only a lot more than you.
I know, it's a low bar you set.
I explained this mess in my own words and cited laws and inactions on laws.
You see this is why the tea party is so bad for the country.
You people pretend you know things when you know nothing