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

[francoHFW]

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.

Such as?

 

[Spare_change]

Repealing regulations creates/saves jobs ...

Coal industry says Trump's repeal of Obama-era rule saves jobs

 

[The Derp]

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

LOL! So now, once again, you've migrated your position to a broader accusation of generalized all business. Well, I know why you're deciding to now go so broadly; you know your argument is shit and the only way you can save face is to make a generalized, vague argument about ambiguous "regulation", without being able to actually cite any regulation you are talking about. Your position has now migrated to one of "all regulations are bad." And that's just a crock of shit and you know it.

I think you realize your entire argument has run it's course, which is why you have to now speak in broad terms; the specific, granular details just tear your argument to shreds, and you're too much of an egomaniac to say "you know what, Derp? I was wrong. I was speaking out of my ass because I wanted to preserve my fragile, glass menagerie ego for the sake of a message board. I was talking out of my ass and making it up as I go because I'm not secure in the facts. I apologize for the sophistry, and for wasting your time." And I would respond to that by saying, "you know what, Toddster? I forgive you for speaking out of your ass. I forgive you for trying to make everything about yourself and your ego. I forgive you for not knowing about things when you post about them. And I forgive you for being such an arrogant jerk about it."

See? I'm not such a bad guy.

 

[The Derp]

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..

What "idiot regulation" specifically are you talking about? You can't say, of course, because you don't know. You're just making this shit up as you go. Clearly you didn't come to these conclusions on your own, so I want to know who told you that Dodd-Frank was an attack on business, and how did they say it was an attack on business? You can't just throw up generalized "because regulations" without citing some of those specific regulations.

So someone told you that this bill was an "attack on banks", but you didn't even bother to ask that person "how?" That's because you're ******* lazy.

As for the merging...ummm...did you just ******* forget about all the bank mergers that happened pre-Bush Collapse? In your world, did banks only start merging and acquiring other banks after the financial collapse, because of Dodd-Frank?????? I have news for you, idiot, banks merging was happening long before the Bush/Conservative Financial Collapse. I used to have an account with Fleet Bank (remember them?). What happened to Fleet bank? Well, it was bought up by Bank of America in 2004. And Fleet Bank had previously bought and merged with BankBoston in 1999. BankBoston itself was a merger between Bank of Boston (my first bank) and BayBank in 1996.

So you want people to think that Dodd-Frank caused the disappearance of small and medium banks but like most of what you say, it's not ******* true.

 

[The Derp]

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

They are when they then buy them again to repackage and sell them. In your mind, did banks not hold any toxic assets related to the Bush Financial Collapse? If not, then why were their toxic assets relieved as a part of TARP? This is more of that same thing of you making shit up as you go.

Because they have more loans than they did in 2004.

You say they "have more loans", well, their revenue is also higher as I pointed out in the charts I provided earlier that showed Q2 2017 revenue at a combined $115B. So it seems to me there's plenty of cash for banks to lend. They're not lending for a specific reason. What could that specific reason be? Oh right, greed...the one human condition Conservative policy never seems to account for. Banks make more money gambling in the securities markets than they do on the interest from lending. That's why they fought to get self-regulation in 2004...so they could over-leverage themselves to purchase risky securities cobbled together from shitty loans their lending units were handing out without securing any documentation, and without having them underwritten by GSE's. All of that is because of laissez-faire Conservatism; eschewing regulations for self-regulation, filling a subprime bubble to give the impression the economy was growing as a result of tax cuts when it was really growing as a result of household debt, and standing by, dumbly, as they abused their power to self-regulate.

Nothing's changed for you people. Your thinking is still stuck in that mindset, even after all the failures of your policy playing out over and over at the federal level and the state level.

Because they just lost a bunch of money when people stopped paying their mortgages.

Well, hold on a second. What mortgages were the ones people weren't paying? The junky subprime loans issued by private lenders, beginning in 2004. Now, what about 2004 holds significance for those subprimes? Because that was when Bush's regulators ceased enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans, so non-GSE backed subprimes exploded and the bubble grew. Then, beginning in late 2006, those shitty subprimes from 2004 began entering delinquency...and as more and more of those loans -truly the ones people didn't pay back- went delinquent, it created a domino effect where all other types of loans began entering default as well. This chart clearly shows which loans started defaulting first, creating the first snowball that spiraled into an avalanche:

Funny thing about this chart is that GSE loan performance, the firms you blame for the bubble and financial collapse, were the most secure of any types of loans, and were the last ones to enter delinquency.

 

[The Derp]

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

Methods? 54 MPG cars already exist. I drive one every day. By moving to a larger hybrid and/or electric fleet, which most automakers are already doing, that's how you increase MPGs overall.

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.

There isn't a secret. My car already gets that mileage. A car that I bought in 2012. So in 2012, automakers were already making cars that could get 54 MPGs.

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.

We don't all have to drive Priuses, I just choose to drive a Prius because it's the most efficient car that was there when I was looking to buy. But the technology to get us to that 54 MPGs already exists in several models. It's just a willingness on the part of US automakers to do it. And most of them already do and already offer models that get 54 MPGs. So I don't see what your problem is other than you trying to save your ego on a message board by being contrarian and not giving me the satisfaction. We have 8 years to get to that goal and we're practically there anyway since the technology exists and is in commercial use.

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

He said, very explicitly "Thanks in part to our all-of-the-above strategy for American energy, for the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here at home than we buy from the rest of the world, we generate more renewable energy than ever, and more natural gas than anybody.""

So right there is Obama saying that he had an "all-of-the-above" strategy for American energy, and that there was "more natural gas than anybody".

So now we are in the Conservatard world of words not meaning what they mean and Conservative egos are so fragile, they should be treated like a glass menagerie. Because if not, then the delicate facade of exceptionalism shatters, and we're left with a bunch of humiliated and impotent losers who we can't say with certainty won't go out and shoot up a public event.

 

[The Derp]

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

1. That's what TARP and the Federal Reserve Discount Window (for those firms who wanted a bailout but were too chickenshit to ask) were for.
2. The capital requirements were put back to what they were pre-2004, was there no lending pre-2004?
3. The billions they were fined amounted to a total of less than 7% of their quarterly profits for 8 years.

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

You're under the mistaken impression that banks intend to lend money. They don't. After being bailed out for making risky wagers in the securities markets, and because nothing was done about banks playing in those markets, they just continue doing what they were doing before. Banks make more money gambling than they do lending. Secondly, since revenue for the banks is at pre-Bush Collapse levels, it's hard to believe they don't have capital with which to lend. They sure seem to have enough capital to continue buying risky gambles in securities markets. Why not take some of that capital and lend it out instead? What's preventing the banks from doing that? Nothing.

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

NO! They were eliminated and replaced with self-regulation. Which is the same thing as eliminating the requirement. You are under the mistaken impression that the net capital rule was somehow reduced but it wasn't. If it was, then what was the rule reduced to? You obviously can't say because it didn't set any capitalization ratio. At all.

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

**** ****'s sake, it's right here, dumbass. Reading comprehension problems?!

In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times, the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.​

...​

The commission’s decision effectively to outsource its oversight to the firms themselves fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.

...

“It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.”​

I know that your silly claim is silly.

It's not that they over-leveraged themselves that was the issue, it was what they over-leveraged themselves for that was the issue. So you're missing the point completely by cutting-and-pasting something which has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You screech about how the over-leveraging itself wasn't a problem. And you'd be right if you didn't finish that thought...over-leveraging itself wasn't a problem except for these banks doing that in order to purchase risky securities of and with which they gamble. If the banks were over-leveraging themselves to hand out more loans, that's one thing...but that's not why they did what they did. Lending had nothing to do with it. It was all about gambling on risky bets in the secondary and tertiary markets.

So congrats for missing the point completely.

 

[The Derp]

Another imaginary claim not in the article.

It's mentioned at least three ******* times. So you didn't read the article, did you? If you did, you'd have seen the quotes:

1. In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times, the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.

...

2. The commission’s decision effectively to outsource its oversight to the firms themselves fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.

...

3. “It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.”​

They are both things you made up. Both imaginary.

No, they're not. You just don't know what words mean when you read them. That's because you're a sophist.

 

[The Derp]

"Replaced" and "self-regulation" hat are two things not in your article?

It was mentioned at least three times. You obviously do not comprehend what you read, or you lied about reading it. In either case, you can suck it.

1. In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times, the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.

...

2. The commission’s decision effectively to outsource its oversight to the firms themselves fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.

...

3. “It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.”​

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

So, as usual, there's more than meets the eye to what you say. So, that's what Obama was saying within the context of a cap-and-trade plan (which never happened), that costs would go up because of the costs to retrofit the plants to be less polluting. So, how is that "an attack on fossil fuels"? Because they already do that in the Northeast & New England and their energy prices came down.

 

[The Derp]

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

So, again, your argument shifted from "Obama caused higher energy prices" to "Obama wanted higher energy prices".

Another goalpost shift on your part as information comes down the pike that undermines your argument.

Your original claim was that "Obama raised energy prices". When I posted from Scientific American and the EIA that energy prices reached record lows in 2016, your argument then became "well...Obama wanted higher energy prices". But that wasn't what you were asserting before. You were asserting with absolute certainty that Obama caused energy prices to go higher. THAT WASN'T TRUE, WAS IT? So you changed your argument, mid-stream, to whine about how Obama wanted to do something, but didn't. Even though what Obama did resulted in the lowest energy costs in two decades.

So basically, you're a piece of shit who changes his arguments in order to preserve an ego so fragile, it shatters like a glass menagerie, leaving behind a humiliated and impotent man who will most likely take that rage out on a crowd of people at a public event.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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..

What "idiot regulation" specifically are you talking about? You can't say, of course, because you don't know. You're just making this shit up as you go. Clearly you didn't come to these conclusions on your own, so I want to know who told you that Dodd-Frank was an attack on business, and how did they say it was an attack on business? You can't just throw up generalized "because regulations" without citing some of those specific regulations.

So someone told you that this bill was an "attack on banks", but you didn't even bother to ask that person "how?" That's because you're ******* lazy.

As for the merging...ummm...did you just ******* forget about all the bank mergers that happened pre-Bush Collapse? In your world, did banks only start merging and acquiring other banks after the financial collapse, because of Dodd-Frank?????? I have news for you, idiot, banks merging was happening long before the Bush/Conservative Financial Collapse. I used to have an account with Fleet Bank (remember them?). What happened to Fleet bank? Well, it was bought up by Bank of America in 2004. And Fleet Bank had previously bought and merged with BankBoston in 1999. BankBoston itself was a merger between Bank of Boston (my first bank) and BayBank in 1996.

So you want people to think that Dodd-Frank caused the disappearance of small and medium banks but like most of what you say, it's not ******* true.

As for the merging...ummm...did you just ******* forget about all the bank mergers that happened pre-Bush Collapse?

I'm not whining about bank mergers, liberals are. Waaahhh too big to fail. DURR.

So you want people to think that Dodd-Frank caused the disappearance of small and medium banks

Nope.
I want people to realize that excessive regulations harm small and medium sized banks more than huge banks.

 

[sartre play]

Not any kind of expert on the economy, but hope the Republicans work harder on there new tax plans, as it stands it will increase taxes on the middle class and increase the deficit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

LOL! So now, once again, you've migrated your position to a broader accusation of generalized all business. Well, I know why you're deciding to now go so broadly; you know your argument is shit and the only way you can save face is to make a generalized, vague argument about ambiguous "regulation", without being able to actually cite any regulation you are talking about. Your position has now migrated to one of "all regulations are bad." And that's just a crock of shit and you know it.

I think you realize your entire argument has run it's course, which is why you have to now speak in broad terms; the specific, granular details just tear your argument to shreds, and you're too much of an egomaniac to say "you know what, Derp? I was wrong. I was speaking out of my ass because I wanted to preserve my fragile, glass menagerie ego for the sake of a message board. I was talking out of my ass and making it up as I go because I'm not secure in the facts. I apologize for the sophistry, and for wasting your time." And I would respond to that by saying, "you know what, Toddster? I forgive you for speaking out of your ass. I forgive you for trying to make everything about yourself and your ego. I forgive you for not knowing about things when you post about them. And I forgive you for being such an arrogant jerk about it."

See? I'm not such a bad guy.

So now, once again, you've migrated your position to a broader accusation of generalized all business.

It's true for all businesses.
In the context of this thread, it's true for all banks.

 

[The Derp]

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.

Oil production reached record levels during Obama, so your first claim is entirely, 100% A LIE. Secondly, you base your position that Obama wanted higher energy prices just because, and you support that with a half-edited clip of candidate Obama in 2007 talking about cap-and-trade. Yet, energy prices during Obama reached record lows as crude from Alberta was oversupplied to the US PADD II region, causing price discounting for oil, and natural gas production boomed which led to a drop in the price per barrel. Overall, Obama reduced energy prices to their lowest levels in 20 years, and did it with no help whatsoever from you impotent, humiliated little men.

He tried. He really wanted higher prices.

Wait, wait, wait. Back up a second. So your original claim then, that "Obama caused higher energy prices", was all bullshit!? So if that original claim was bullshit, why would this claim not be bullshit too? You keep insisting on something yet all you can do is cobble together a questionably-edited clip from candidate Obama talking about cap-and-trade in 2007 (which the Northeast did and as a result saved half a billion dollars). You say he wanted higher energy prices by virtue of pollution controls on plants, which the NE already does and actually lowered energy costs.

Nowhere in that clip did Obama say he wanted higher energy prices. What he said was that cap-and-trade rules would result in higher costs because of the controls required to meet pollution standards. But here's the thing, the northeast did this plan and they saw lower energy costs afterward. So whatever Obama was hypothesizing back in 2007 was obviously corrected by the practice of Northeastern States beginning in 2011.

You would know this if you bothered to actually read anything about it. But you don't read. You just repeat what you're told, without question. That's because you're a zealot.

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

AHHHHH! So now you're admitting that energy prices were lower! Well that's a reversal of your previous assertion that energy prices were higher during Obama. So since your initial claim is crap, doesn't that make your other claims crap too?

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

You "won" how? Obama got lower energy costs when you said they were higher. So you were wrong on that point. So now you're trying to move the goalposts all to preserve your ******* ego.

Get. Over. Yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

They are when they then buy them again to repackage and sell them. In your mind, did banks not hold any toxic assets related to the Bush Financial Collapse? If not, then why were their toxic assets relieved as a part of TARP? This is more of that same thing of you making shit up as you go.

Because they have more loans than they did in 2004.

You say they "have more loans", well, their revenue is also higher as I pointed out in the charts I provided earlier that showed Q2 2017 revenue at a combined $115B. So it seems to me there's plenty of cash for banks to lend. They're not lending for a specific reason. What could that specific reason be? Oh right, greed...the one human condition Conservative policy never seems to account for. Banks make more money gambling in the securities markets than they do on the interest from lending. That's why they fought to get self-regulation in 2004...so they could over-leverage themselves to purchase risky securities cobbled together from shitty loans their lending units were handing out without securing any documentation, and without having them underwritten by GSE's. All of that is because of laissez-faire Conservatism; eschewing regulations for self-regulation, filling a subprime bubble to give the impression the economy was growing as a result of tax cuts when it was really growing as a result of household debt, and standing by, dumbly, as they abused their power to self-regulate.

Nothing's changed for you people. Your thinking is still stuck in that mindset, even after all the failures of your policy playing out over and over at the federal level and the state level.

Because they just lost a bunch of money when people stopped paying their mortgages.

Well, hold on a second. What mortgages were the ones people weren't paying? The junky subprime loans issued by private lenders, beginning in 2004. Now, what about 2004 holds significance for those subprimes? Because that was when Bush's regulators ceased enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans, so non-GSE backed subprimes exploded and the bubble grew. Then, beginning in late 2006, those shitty subprimes from 2004 began entering delinquency...and as more and more of those loans -truly the ones people didn't pay back- went delinquent, it created a domino effect where all other types of loans began entering default as well. This chart clearly shows which loans started defaulting first, creating the first snowball that spiraled into an avalanche:

Funny thing about this chart is that GSE loan performance, the firms you blame for the bubble and financial collapse, were the most secure of any types of loans, and were the last ones to enter delinquency.

They are when they then buy them again to repackage and sell them.

Securities that BofA sells require no capital on the books of BofA.

In your mind, did banks not hold any toxic assets related to the Bush Financial Collapse?

Banks held lots of crappy mortgages. Ones they wrote, ones they bought from other originators, even securitized ones they bought. It was in all the papers.

It was the reason why TARP was needed.

You say they "have more loans",

Only because they do.

well, their revenue is also higher

Revenue doesn't meet capital requirements.

So it seems to me there's plenty of cash for banks to lend.

You never explained what happens if capital requirements go from 8% to 10%.

They're not lending for a specific reason. What could that specific reason be? Oh right, greed...

In 2004, they got capital requirements reduced so they could greedily make more loans.
Now making fewer loans is greed? You're making less sense than usual.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Methods? 54 MPG cars already exist. I drive one every day. By moving to a larger hybrid and/or electric fleet, which most automakers are already doing, that's how you increase MPGs overall.

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.

There isn't a secret. My car already gets that mileage. A car that I bought in 2012. So in 2012, automakers were already making cars that could get 54 MPGs.

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.

We don't all have to drive Priuses, I just choose to drive a Prius because it's the most efficient car that was there when I was looking to buy. But the technology to get us to that 54 MPGs already exists in several models. It's just a willingness on the part of US automakers to do it. And most of them already do and already offer models that get 54 MPGs. So I don't see what your problem is other than you trying to save your ego on a message board by being contrarian and not giving me the satisfaction. We have 8 years to get to that goal and we're practically there anyway since the technology exists and is in commercial use.

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

He said, very explicitly "Thanks in part to our all-of-the-above strategy for American energy, for the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here at home than we buy from the rest of the world, we generate more renewable energy than ever, and more natural gas than anybody.""

So right there is Obama saying that he had an "all-of-the-above" strategy for American energy, and that there was "more natural gas than anybody".

So now we are in the Conservatard world of words not meaning what they mean and Conservative egos are so fragile, they should be treated like a glass menagerie. Because if not, then the delicate facade of exceptionalism shatters, and we're left with a bunch of humiliated and impotent losers who we can't say with certainty won't go out and shoot up a public event.

We don't all have to drive Priuses

How else do we get the average across fleets to hit 54 MPG?
Your suggestion is we all buy tiny expensive hybrids.

It's amazing that everyone doesn't already do that, I mean why would the fleet average be about 27 MPG?

He said, very explicitly "Thanks in part to our all-of-the-above strategy for American energy

Yeah, he flapped his gums and did everything he could to kill coal and discourage offshore drilling and fracking.
What strategy did he push to increase gas production?
Did he ever say we need to frack more?

 

[The Derp]

While doing what he could to make them higher.

Your opinion, of course. What Obama did actually resulted in the lowest energy prices in 20 years. So something isn't gelling between your argument and the facts. You assert Obama caused higher prices (you were wrong), then you asserted Obama wanted to cause higher energy prices (questionable claim supported only by a questionably-edited clip), then you admitted energy prices were at their lowest in 20 years (finally), then you tried to foist an imagined position on Obama so you can save face on a message board thread.

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

Not for oil, no. The price per barrel of oil was driven down primarily by natural gas and renewables, and by an oversupply of Tar Sands sludge to the US PADD II region. An oversupply that leads to price discounting for US refineries. Price discounting you want to eliminate by redirecting that sludge to the Gulf. So why do you want to raise energy prices?

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

So now your argument is reduced to simply one of semantics. Typical. Drilling, fracking, whatever you want to call it ended up producing lower oil and energy prices overall. You asserted, rather stupidly and arrogantly, that Obama caused higher energy prices. That was bullshit, of course, so now you have decided to make a semantic argument about something Obama said way back as a candidate. But in all this time, did you admit you were wrong about your claim that Obama caused higher energy prices? Nope. No admission of error there. Instead, you shift the goalposts to get your argument on more firm footing, only to have the ground pulled out from under you, yet again. So your argument, that went from a bold assertion that Obama caused higher energy prices, has now been reduced to you asserting Obama wanted higher energy prices, even though energy prices reached a 20 year low. You seem incapable of explaining how Obama wanted higher energy prices but ended up getting lower ones, only that he was vaguely wrong about something. What that something is has now become a semantic argument on your part. All to distract us from the truth; that you made a bullshit claim you've since been trying to walk back.

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

The demand for oil dropped thanks to Obama's "all of the above" energy strategy that you claimed he didn't have, even though he said it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

1. That's what TARP and the Federal Reserve Discount Window (for those firms who wanted a bailout but were too chickenshit to ask) were for.
2. The capital requirements were put back to what they were pre-2004, was there no lending pre-2004?
3. The billions they were fined amounted to a total of less than 7% of their quarterly profits for 8 years.

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

You're under the mistaken impression that banks intend to lend money. They don't. After being bailed out for making risky wagers in the securities markets, and because nothing was done about banks playing in those markets, they just continue doing what they were doing before. Banks make more money gambling than they do lending. Secondly, since revenue for the banks is at pre-Bush Collapse levels, it's hard to believe they don't have capital with which to lend. They sure seem to have enough capital to continue buying risky gambles in securities markets. Why not take some of that capital and lend it out instead? What's preventing the banks from doing that? Nothing.

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

NO! They were eliminated and replaced with self-regulation. Which is the same thing as eliminating the requirement. You are under the mistaken impression that the net capital rule was somehow reduced but it wasn't. If it was, then what was the rule reduced to? You obviously can't say because it didn't set any capitalization ratio. At all.

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

**** ****'s sake, it's right here, dumbass. Reading comprehension problems?!

In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times, the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.​

...​

The commission’s decision effectively to outsource its oversight to the firms themselves fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.

...

“It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.”​

I know that your silly claim is silly.

It's not that they over-leveraged themselves that was the issue, it was what they over-leveraged themselves for that was the issue. So you're missing the point completely by cutting-and-pasting something which has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You screech about how the over-leveraging itself wasn't a problem. And you'd be right if you didn't finish that thought...over-leveraging itself wasn't a problem except for these banks doing that in order to purchase risky securities of and with which they gamble. If the banks were over-leveraging themselves to hand out more loans, that's one thing...but that's not why they did what they did. Lending had nothing to do with it. It was all about gambling on risky bets in the secondary and tertiary markets.

So congrats for missing the point completely.

That's what TARP and the Federal Reserve Discount Window were for.

You think an overnight loan from the Discount Window increases a bank's capital?

LOL!

So besides failing math and Econ 101, you also failed Accounting 101.

The capital requirements were put back to what they were pre-2004, was there no lending pre-2004?

$1 billion in capital supports how much in loans at an 8% capital requirement?
How much in loans at a 10% capital requirement? Use a calculator.
Post your answer.

And just another FYI, capital requirements are now much higher than pre-2004.

You are under the mistaken impression that the net capital rule was somehow reduced but it wasn't.

You said it was eliminated. Your NYT link said, " 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"

If it was, then what was the rule reduced to?

The NYT says the change was published. You should find it and post it.
Who knows, maybe it will actually back up your claim? LOL!

 

[The Derp]

It's true for all businesses.
In the context of this thread, it's true for all banks.

Yes we know you're a caveman in that you grunt "ungh...regulations = bad!" Someone told you that untruth and you bought it. So who told you this and why did you buy it? We know you didn't come to this conclusion on your own, that you got it from someone else. So from whom did you get this position and why did you blindly accept it? So in your world, any regulation is a bad regulation, right? Is that your position? Because it sure seems to be.

 

[The Derp]

How else do we get the average across fleets to hit 54 MPG?

Once again, if you bothered to open the link I provided, you'd see there are plenty of hybrid models out there that get 54 MPGs. But you didn't click the link because you're a *****. People give you links, and you either don't open them (proving you're an ignoramus) or you do open them, but sloppily and hastily scan over them without comprehending that which you read because any challenge to your preconceived notions is met with outright denial for the sake of your ego.

That's because you're not nearly as clever or informed as you want people to think.

Your suggestion is we all buy tiny expensive hybrids.

They're not tiny, A) (ever been in a Ford Flex?). And B) they're not expensive. You can get a used Toyota Prius for around $10K. So I am not sure what sort of cars you are looking at, but I suspect this is just you being a lazy ************ who lacks the capabilities to be informed about a topic.

It's amazing that everyone doesn't already do that, I mean why would the fleet average be about 27 MPG?

The reason people don't do it already is because of liars like you who lie about everything, and because people are stupid they believe you. Just like they believed all the Russian trolls on Facebook and Twitter during the campaign. It takes a special kind of idiot to buy Conservative bullshit.

Yeah, he flapped his gums and did everything he could to kill coal and discourage offshore drilling and fracking.

Wait a second! So you claimed Obama didn't want to drill and frack and all that stuff. Now you're saying he did in fact say that, but was secretly working to do the opposite. Coal was dying long before Obama was President, pal. It was so bad that they literally have to remove mountaintops to find coal because they can't dig for it anymore safely. I don't understand your fascination with coal. I think you just obsess over it because you know it causes conflict in debate, and you're all about your own ego.

So once again, as the facts come in, your position changes. At this point, I don't expect you to have a consistent position from post-to-post. Heck, I don't expect you to have a consistent position within your own posts.