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

[The Derp]

Frackers drilled more. Prices were lower. Obama was wrong. Again.

Wait a second! You just said in the post before that the natural gas prices were "higher". I posted from the EIA that wasn't even close to true. So you were wrong about that point, weren't you? You mistakenly thought that natural gas prices were higher because of Obama's regulations, but they turned out to be at a 20-year low, which is the opposite of what you thought.

So what I want to know is why you thought that energy prices were higher under Obama? Who told you that? Because we know you didn't reach that conclusion on your own. If you had not been so lazy and actually did the work of researching this, I wouldn't have to humiliate you by proving you wrong on a message board. So who told you that energy prices went up under Obama? Who fed you that lie? From where did you get it? Because we know you didn't come to that conclusion on your own.

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

LOL! Attempted to restrict supply, how? What the **** are you talking about? Oil production increased during Obama. In fact, from Forbes:

The irony is that President Obama - who is not viewed as a friend of the oil and gas industry - has presided over rising oil production in each of the seven years he has been in office. (On a separate note, expect that streak to be broken in 2016). From that low point in 2008, U.S. oil production has grown each year to reach 9.4 million bpd in 2015 -- a gain of 88% during Obama's presidency. This is in fact the largest domestic oil production increase during any presidency in U.S. history.
​

So now what we have is an instance of you making shit up again because you didn't bother to have the minimal effort required to conduct a simple Google search to support your point before making it. I mean, really, it's just intellectual laziness and sloppiness with your posts at this point.

 

[The Derp]

So, $846K to create a job? That means, assuming we don't borrow any money, and the job were to last 100 years, we would need to collect $10,152 per year in order to break even.

How are you reaching that stupid conclusion? Are you being a sophist on purpose, or is it unintentional?

That means that the salary for that job would have to be minimum $200,000 per year in order to pay that amount in taxes. You sure all those 11 million jobs were that advanced?

That was Toddster's attempt to put a price tag on the amount Obama spent translating to number of jobs. Let's not forget that the Conservative alternative to Obama was a net loss of 460,000 jobs and $5T in debt, which translates to $10M per job lost.

 

[The Derp]

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

So then why not cap the formula payout for the top earners? I don't understand why that isn't an option. Right now, those collecting SS are getting more than they put into the system, just by virtue of inflation and COLA. So you're trying to obfuscate the debate by pretending that it's set in stone that benefits must rise to match a rise in taxable income. There's no rule that says that anywhere.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Obama temporarily cut payroll taxes because the Conservatives in Congress refused to do anything to help recover the economy from the chaos they caused with their policies. Obama's tax cut expired. All your tax cut proposals are to income tax and corporate tax and are permanent.

So that's the difference. I know, I know, it undermines your rather stupidly general tax cut argument, getting into the details and such, but that's fine. You're not much of a detail-oriented person anyway. You do a lot of sloppy, rushed work reacting to things others say.

 

[The Derp]

P tax cuts for everybody help the economy.

No they don't. Never have, never will. In fact, GOP tax cuts are so ******* terrible that even Republicans are repealing them. Just like they did in Kansas this past spring.

 

[JBond]

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.

You sure are a greedy little wench. Quit begging for other people's money and try a little harder. Lazy libs.

 

[JBond]

P tax cuts for everybody help the economy.

No they don't. Never have, never will. In fact, GOP tax cuts are so ******* terrible that even Republicans are repealing them. Just like they did in Kansas this past spring.

The greedy little libs in Kansas passed retroactive tax increases and will be kicked out of office over it.

Fyi, tax cuts do work. The problem is you are a greedy whore that is envious of all the people that are more successful than you, which is just about everyone.

 

[The Derp]

Here's a hint, revenue is not equal to profit.

Ummm...the banks don't pay the fines on after-tax income. But whatever. Don't want revenue, fine! Q2 2017 saw banks make $48B in profit. Those banks paid $115B in fines over 8 years. That's $3B a quarter, which is 6% of their profits. So yeah, the fines were merely a blip on their balance sheets, easily made up in a quarter. And why were they fined? Because they committed fraud. So fining a bank for committing fraud is an "attack on banks" in your world? Interesting you think that. Do you also think that the real victims of rape are the rapists?

Bush didn't "eliminate capitalization".

Oh, yes he did:

From New York Times, October 2nd, 2008:

But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control.
[...]
[The Wall Street banks] wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.
[...]
Over the following months and years, each of the firms would take advantage of the looser rules. At Bear Stearns, the leverage ratio — a measurement of how much the firm was borrowing compared to its total assets — rose sharply, to 33 to 1. In other words, for every dollar in equity, it had $33 of debt. The ratios at the other firms also rose significantly.​

It was all left to the banks to "self-regulate" as to what levels of capitalization they had. And when left to their own devices, what is it you think the banks did, exactly? What Bear Stearns did...

Forcing banks to hold 3 or 4 times their pre-crisis capital levels is an attack on banks.

How so? Explain how requiring banks to have the capital is an attack, how? You mean it's an attack on bad banking practices. That's what you mean. It's an attack on over-leveraging. That's what you mean. So once again, we have an instance of you not being fully truthful in your response and changing the definition of what words mean to suit your ego. Ugh. Get over yourself already. Your ego means nothing.

After hiking capital requirements, attacking banks for not lending is also an attack on banks.

After hiking capital requirements to prevent banks from over-leveraging so they can purchase risky securities and derivatives in the secondary and tertiary markets. How did they attack the banks for "not lending"? Explain that. What did the government do that forced banks to lend - because the banks didn't end up lending?

 

[The Derp]

The greedy little libs in Kansas passed retroactive tax increases and will be kicked out of office over it.

Actually, they got elected to do just that. Brownback is the unpopular one in the state, not the Republicans in the legislature that stood up to him. In fact, Brownback lost at least half a dozen key state legislature allies in 2016, and will only lose more until he leaves office. And it wasn't "libs" that repealed the tax cuts, it was Republicans. And why? Because the tax cuts didn't deliver on a single promise made of them; KS' GDP and job growth were both below the national average. So Kansas was dragging down the Obama economy. Thanks for nothing.

Fyi, tax cuts do work. The problem is you are a greedy whore that is envious of all the people that are more successful than you, which is just about everyone.

Tax cuts don't work and you insisting they do doesn't make it so. If tax cuts actually worked, then the Republicans in KS wouldn't have just repealed them.

 

[The Derp]

Fyi, tax cuts do work. The problem is you are a greedy whore that is envious of all the people that are more successful than you, which is just about everyone.

Just because your governing ideology sucks donkey balls doesn't mean people are envious of you or your imagined success. Get over yourself, you whiny little *****.

 

[The Derp]

Good idea. But you're the one who said "private employment".

Yeah, and total private employment shows Bush lost jobs. You didn't post total private employment. You only posted employment for production and non-supervisory employees. MY link to BLS is total private employment. So why are you not looking at all employees? Because doing so shows Bush lost jobs.

So here's what happened:

1. You mistakenly thought Bush created net jobs.
2. You went to BLS to confirm that bias and discovered that looking at total private jobs, all employees, I was right and Bush lost jobs.
3. So then you went and literally redefined the parameters, most likely a half a dozen times to produce numbers that show Bush gained jobs.

So the question is how many different times did you have to adjust the parameters to make it look like there was job growth? 3? 4? 5? You have to go pretty far down the list to get a section of employees that confirmed your false assumption. So you lied and misrepresented the data, omitting key parts, in order to what - try to win an argument on a message board? Pathetic.

And why did you not look at total employment for all private sector jobs? What was your reason for not doing that? Other than the fact that it proved me right and you didn't want to give me that satisfaction?

I know! I posted actual numbers to prove your error.

LOL! You inexplicably limited your search to just "Production and Non-Supervisory Employees". Why did you do that? Wait - we know why. Because if you were to look at total employment, all private employees, it would show Bush lost jobs. Which would mean I was right. Which would mean you were wrong. Which would mean you'd have to admit it. Which would mean overcoming your ego. Which seems impossible for you.

 

[BlindBoo]

So there's a magic formula that exists where tax cuts pay for themselves? Well, we've been seeking that formula for 37 years, isn't it possible such a formula doesn't actually exist?

/-----/
OK Sparky, now that I'm of my iPhone on on my PC I can find the charts I needed. Please note the tax revenue increases during the Reagan tax cut years:
Sooooooo how is it possible that revenues went up while the tax rates went down? Well Libtard? Explain it.
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

• FY 2005 - $2.15 trillion.
• FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
• FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 2002 - $1.85 trillion.
• FY 2001 - $1.99 trilion.
• FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion.
• FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
• FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
• FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
• FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
• FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
• FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
• FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
• FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
• FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
• FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
• FY 1989 - $991 billion.
• FY 1988 - $909 billion.
• FY 1987 - $854 billion.
• FY 1986 - $769 billion.
• FY 1985 - $734 billion.
• FY 1984 - $666 billion.
• FY 1983 - $601 billion.
• FY 1982 - $618 billion.
• FY 1981 - $599 billion.
• FY 1980 - $517 billion.

revenue increased under reagan -- prolly why he increased the debt 189% isnt it, you f'n dope.

/----/ Spending increased because Reagan had to rebuild the military after Jimma Carter slashed it to the bone. BTW Billy Clintoon and Obozo slashed the military as well. Why? Because DemocRATS hate the military.

Democrats don't hate the military, they don't start stupid, expensive wars. Blowing shit up is expensive. Maintaining two battle ready armies in two foreign counties is expensive, as are building operational bases and supplying them. A lot of money gets spent in the theatre of operations and never returns to the US.

Reagan managed to avoid wars which meant that almost all military spending was done in the US creating American jobs.

/----/ Seriously?
7 Times Hillary Showed She HATES The Military

John Kerry calls American troops terrorists - YouTube
View attachment 153520▶ 1:15

Nov 9, 2006 - Uploaded by notoriousgop
John Kerry says American troops terrorize women and children and that they ... The world hates us and the US ...

So you think that having our soldiers raiding homes in the middle of the night didn't terrorize the women and children?

Typical pseudo-conservative lie saying he call our troops terrorist. There are lies, ******* lies and lies only ******* morons can believe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Banks don't need capital to hold mortgages that they securitize and sell. Moron.

They didn't as of April 2004. They did before that. Your problem is that you don't know what the **** you're talking about. Bush eliminated the net capital rule in April 2004 in order to allow Wall Street to over-leverage its capital to purchase and then securitize subprime loans. It's exactly why the net capital rule was removed. There was no other reason.

Dodd-Frank was more expensive for small and medium size banks than for JPMorgan.

But that wasn't what you said earlier. So you've unapologetically moved the goalposts in this debate because you got out ahead of yourself, because you have a habit of talking out of your ass. You said Dodd-Frank was "an attack on banks". You didn't define what "banks" meant, because words don't mean what they mean anymore. So you jumped from it being "an attack on the banks" to it being "an attack on small business" back to it being "an attack on banks, but small and medium ones". So right there, you changed the parameters of what you meant twice and you expect me to take it seriously? Seems like you're just talking out of your ass, with no clear thought as to what you mean. So you're just reacting. You're not thinking. So Dodd-Frank wasn't an attack on Wall Street banks, then, despite you saying it was, right? So do you want to re-state what you meant in this debate for a third time or what?

When you make it harder for banks to make loans....banks make fewer loans.Hard to believe, I know.

Exactly how was it harder for banks to make loans as a result of Dodd-Frank? Take me through the process and how the Dodd-Frank regulation prevented a bank like Citi from giving a loan to a small business. You should be able to since you think you know all about what Dodd-Frank did and how it attacked banks/small businesses/small & medium banks/whatever the next parameter change is. What's hard to believe is anything you say since we've come to find out you have no shame when it comes to presenting half-truths and shifting goalposts.

I know. Idiotic to add regulations and then whine that lending was reduced.

How did Dodd-Frank regulations prevent banks from lending? That's a ******* lie if there ever was one. Re-instituting a net capital rule doesn't prevent a bank from making a loan. It prevents a bank from purchasing derivative assets that they repackage and sell above what their net capital is. That's got nothing to do with lending to consumers and small businesses.

Obama doubled MPG between 2009 and 2013? Hilarious! Link?

He doubled the fuel efficiency standards to 54 mpgs by 2025. Hard to see how or why that's a bad thing. Stop being a sophist. You know what he did. It's shit like this that makes it so hard to take anything you say seriously. Because you bounce from feigned obtuseness to genuine obtuseness.

If only you had the proof I asked for....show me where Obama encouraged fracking.

I quoted his SOTU speech where he talked about more natural gas than ever before. Not sure what the **** more you want. Fracking is how you extract natural gas. So...do you lack the critical thinking skills to put two-and-two together? Of course. Because you're a sometimes sophist and sometimes obtuse jackass.

They didn't as of April 2004. They did before that.

Feel free to cut and paste the portion of the article that shows they have to hold capital for anything they sell.
Or not. LOL!

Bush eliminated the net capital rule in April 2004

Is it that you can't read your source, or do you just not understand it? ESL?

It was unanimous. The decision, changing what was known as the net capital rule, was completed and published in The Federal Register a few months later.

Changing does not mean eliminating.

But that wasn't what you said earlier.

Regulations are more costly for the small than for the large.
Banks and other firms. Durr.

You said Dodd-Frank was "an attack on banks".

Absolutely. 100%.

So you jumped from it being "an attack on the banks" to it being "an attack on small business"

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.


Exactly how was it harder for banks to make loans as a result of Dodd-Frank?

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

How did Dodd-Frank regulations prevent banks from lending?

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?

a net capital rule doesn't prevent a bank from making a loan. It prevents a bank from purchasing derivative assets that they repackage and sell above what their net capital is.

Banks don't need any capital when they don't hold the loan or security on their books.
Stop talking out of your ass.

He doubled the fuel efficiency standards to 54 mpgs by 2025.

Oh, he tried to force automakers to increase MPG.
What magical processes could they use to suddenly make the average car get 54 mpg?
It must be something really easy, right? LOL!

Hard to see how or why that's a bad thing.

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

I quoted his SOTU speech where he talked about more natural gas than ever before.

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?

 

[The Derp]

Feel free to cut and paste the portion of the article that shows they have to hold capital for anything they sell.

What do you think "eliminating the net capital rule" means? It means it was up to banks to determine the appropriate levels of capitalization, not Treasury or regulators. So banks didn't limit themselves in that regard and that's how you got an over-leveraged bank.

Why don't you just read the article? I read the shit you post, half-truths and all. You appear to be too lazy to read a simple article when provided to you. So first you say to prove it, so I prove it with a link to an article, then you tell me to cut and paste for you where in the article it says that. Here's a novel idea: how about you get off your lazy ass and read the article yourself? Why is that not an option?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Frackers drilled more. Prices were lower. Obama was wrong. Again.

Wait a second! You just said in the post before that the natural gas prices were "higher". I posted from the EIA that wasn't even close to true. So you were wrong about that point, weren't you? You mistakenly thought that natural gas prices were higher because of Obama's regulations, but they turned out to be at a 20-year low, which is the opposite of what you thought.

Who told you that? Because we know you didn't reach that conclusion on your own. If you had not been so lazy and actually did the work of researching this, I wouldn't have to humiliate you by proving you wrong on a message board. So who told you that energy prices went up under Obama? Who fed you that lie? From where did you get it? Because we know you didn't come to that conclusion on your own.

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

LOL! Attempted to restrict supply, how? What the **** are you talking about? Oil production increased during Obama. In fact, from Forbes:

The irony is that President Obama - who is not viewed as a friend of the oil and gas industry - has presided over rising oil production in each of the seven years he has been in office. (On a separate note, expect that streak to be broken in 2016). From that low point in 2008, U.S. oil production has grown each year to reach 9.4 million bpd in 2015 -- a gain of 88% during Obama's presidency. This is in fact the largest domestic oil production increase during any presidency in U.S. history.
​

So now what we have is an instance of you making shit up again because you didn't bother to have the minimal effort required to conduct a simple Google search to support your point before making it. I mean, really, it's just intellectual laziness and sloppiness with your posts at this point.

Wait a second! You just said in the post before that the natural gas prices were "higher".

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

You mistakenly thought that natural gas prices were higher because of Obama's regulations,

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.

It was in that Econ 101 class that you failed.

So what I want to know is why you thought that energy prices were higher under Obama?

Obama WANTED prices to be higher.

His desire was unfulfilled.

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

He was mistaken.

Attempted to restrict supply, how?

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

President Obama - who is not viewed as a friend of the oil and gas industry - has presided over rising oil production in each of the seven years he has been in office

And he's still pissed off about his failure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

So then why not cap the formula payout for the top earners? I don't understand why that isn't an option. Right now, those collecting SS are getting more than they put into the system, just by virtue of inflation and COLA. So you're trying to obfuscate the debate by pretending that it's set in stone that benefits must rise to match a rise in taxable income. There's no rule that says that anywhere.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Obama temporarily cut payroll taxes because the Conservatives in Congress refused to do anything to help recover the economy from the chaos they caused with their policies. Obama's tax cut expired. All your tax cut proposals are to income tax and corporate tax and are permanent.

So that's the difference. I know, I know, it undermines your rather stupidly general tax cut argument, getting into the details and such, but that's fine. You're not much of a detail-oriented person anyway. You do a lot of sloppy, rushed work reacting to things others say.

So then why not cap the formula payout for the top earners?

You want to make it a welfare program?
That might reduce support for the Social Security.
Could be a dangerous move.

Obama temporarily cut payroll taxes

To help the economy. Was he wrong when he said they help?
Or were you wrong when you said they don't?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's a hint, revenue is not equal to profit.

Ummm...the banks don't pay the fines on after-tax income. But whatever. Don't want revenue, fine! Q2 2017 saw banks make $48B in profit. Those banks paid $115B in fines over 8 years. That's $3B a quarter, which is 6% of their profits. So yeah, the fines were merely a blip on their balance sheets, easily made up in a quarter. And why were they fined? Because they committed fraud. So fining a bank for committing fraud is an "attack on banks" in your world? Interesting you think that. Do you also think that the real victims of rape are the rapists?

Bush didn't "eliminate capitalization".

Oh, yes he did:

From New York Times, October 2nd, 2008:

But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control.
[...]
[The Wall Street banks] wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.
[...]
Over the following months and years, each of the firms would take advantage of the looser rules. At Bear Stearns the leverage ratio — a measurement of how much the firm was borrowing compared to its total assets — rose sharply, to 33 to 1. In other words, for every dollar in equity, it had $33 of debt
. The ratios at the other firms also rose significantly.​

It was all left to the banks to "self-regulate" as to what levels of capitalization they had. And when left to their own devices, what is it you think the banks did, exactly? What Bear Stearns did...

Forcing banks to hold 3 or 4 times their pre-crisis capital levels is an attack on banks.

How so? Explain how requiring banks to have the capital is an attack, how? You mean it's an attack on bad banking practices. That's what you mean. It's an attack on over-leveraging. That's what you mean. So once again, we have an instance of you not being fully truthful in your response and changing the definition of what words mean to suit your ego. Ugh. Get over yourself already. Your ego means nothing.

After hiking capital requirements, attacking banks for not lending is also an attack on banks.

After hiking capital requirements to prevent banks from over-leveraging so they can purchase risky securities and derivatives in the secondary and tertiary markets. How did they attack the banks for "not lending"? Explain that. What did the government do that forced banks to lend - because the banks didn't end up lending?

Ummm...the banks don't pay the fines on after-tax income.

They don't pay the fines on revenue either.

Those banks paid $115B in fines over 8 years.

I wonder if that reduced the loans they could make?

Bush didn't "eliminate capitalization".

Oh, yes he did:

the leverage ratio — a measurement of how much the firm was borrowing compared to its total assets — rose sharply, to 33 to 1. In other words, for every dollar in equity, it had $33 of debt

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

Were you lying or just stupid?

How did they attack the banks for "not lending"? Explain that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Feel free to cut and paste the portion of the article that shows they have to hold capital for anything they sell.

What do you think "eliminating the net capital rule" means? It means it was up to banks to determine the appropriate levels of capitalization, not Treasury or regulators. So banks didn't limit themselves in that regard and that's how you got an over-leveraged bank.

Why don't you just read the article? I read the shit you post, half-truths and all. You appear to be too lazy to read a simple article when provided to you. So first you say to prove it, so I prove it with a link to an article, then you tell me to cut and paste for you where in the article it says that. Here's a novel idea: how about you get off your lazy ass and read the article yourself? Why is that not an option?

What do you think "eliminating the net capital rule" means?

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

Why don't you just read the article?

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

I prove it with a link to an article, then you tell me to cut and paste for you where in the article it says that.

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

Try again?

 

[The Derp]

It was unanimous. The decision, changing what was known as the net capital rule, was completed and published in The Federal Register a few months later.

And what did the change entail? You left that part out, why? The change entailed the banks setting their own standards for capitalization. And when given the power to self-regulate what is the inevitable result? Abuse.

Regulations are more costly for the small than for the large.
Banks and other firms

But that wasn't what you said before, so you moved the goalposts for a third time now on this. First, it was "banks are attacked", then it was "small business are attacked", then it was "small and medium banks are attacked", now it's "the regulations are costly for the small than the large". So that's a shifting of the goalposts three times in one thread. Your position has migrated so much, it should apply for UNHCR status.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was unanimous. The decision, changing what was known as the net capital rule, was completed and published in The Federal Register a few months later.

And what did the change entail? You left that part out, why? The change entailed the banks setting their own standards for capitalization. And when given the power to self-regulate what is the inevitable result? Abuse.

Regulations are more costly for the small than for the large.
Banks and other firms

But that wasn't what you said before, so you moved the goalposts for a third time now on this. First, it was "banks are attacked", then it was "small business are attacked", then it was "small and medium banks are attacked", now it's "the regulations are costly for the small than the large". So that's a shifting of the goalposts three times in one thread. Your position has migrated so much, it should apply for UNHCR status.

And what did the change entail?

Capital requirements were reduced. Duh.

But that wasn't what you said before

We were talking about banks and added regulations on banks.
When I said smaller firms are hurt more than larger firms, the firms I was discussing were banks.
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.

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

"banks are attacked",

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

 

[The Derp]

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 ******* 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.