I said huge profits. I got no problem with profits.

We agree about Glass-Steagel.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You speak like banks are supposed to act like a charity, or a public work like a sidewalk. Banks didn't 'used to' try to earn profits?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

It's never been any other way, robo-homey. Just make sure position #2 blankfist's goop spells out 'STATIST IDIOTS'.


>> ^siftbot:




Congratulations. You have attained position #1 in the post-singularity carbohydrate liquification list. Human fatty tissue can be made into an effective fuel cell. Thank you in advance for your contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
I'd like to play an RPG where they had a "douchey good" alignment.
You mean, like Siftbot?

>> ^dag:
To be honest, as much as I agree with Grayson - they're both a shade on the douchey side. Kind of the difference between chaotic good and chaotic evil alignments.
I'd like to play an RPG where they had a "douchey good" alignment.

Oh, now I need to apologize. I went back and read your whole post.

Yeah. We agree. Banking regulations.

But nobody forced the banks to make bad loans. Nobody forced the banks to create huge profits. That's just silly.


>> ^bareboards2:

I read half of this and stopped. Sorry. Not really. Just being polite.
There is a great quote from a small banker in North Dakota whose bank sailed through the crisis.
He said -- banks are SUPPOSED to be conservative.
Banks are not forced to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends for their stockholders. They CHOOSE to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends because they CAN. They didn't used to.
Canada didn't have the same problems our country had, because they had BANKING REGULATIONS.
We have to be able to trust our banks to not collapse. Left to their own devices, they will give in to short term greed. I'm not picking on the bankers -- that is human nature. Therefore, BANKING REGULATIONS.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The government forced them to create CDO's?

I read half of this and stopped. Sorry. Not really. Just being polite.

There is a great quote from a small banker in North Dakota whose bank sailed through the crisis.

He said -- banks are SUPPOSED to be conservative.

Banks are not forced to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends for their stockholders. They CHOOSE to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends because they CAN. They didn't used to.

Canada didn't have the same problems our country had, because they had BANKING REGULATIONS.

We have to be able to trust our banks to not collapse. Left to their own devices, they will give in to short term greed. I'm not picking on the bankers -- that is human nature. Therefore, BANKING REGULATIONS.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The government forced them to create CDO's?

Congratulations. You have attained position #1 in the post-singularity carbohydrate liquification list. Human fatty tissue can be made into an effective fuel cell. Thank you in advance for your contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:

I'd like to play an RPG where they had a "douchey good" alignment.

You mean, like Siftbot?


>> ^dag:

To be honest, as much as I agree with Grayson - they're both a shade on the douchey side. Kind of the difference between chaotic good and chaotic evil alignments.

I'd like to play an RPG where they had a "douchey good" alignment.

I'd like to play an RPG where they had a "douchey good" alignment.

You mean, like Siftbot?


>> ^dag:

To be honest, as much as I agree with Grayson - they're both a shade on the douchey side. Kind of the difference between chaotic good and chaotic evil alignments.
I'd like to play an RPG where they had a "douchey good" alignment.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'm not a Republican. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian constitutional constructionist.


You're a fucking idiot.

(Sorry that's all I can manage after reading this shit.)

Only a dogmatic right winger could say that with a straight face. And in the later sentence you proved it. You're so convinced it couldn't have been the free market, you are willing to accept any explanation for the economic collapse that pinned most of the blame on the government.

And it's categorically absurd. Yes, absolutely, the gov't played a role, but the overwhelming majority of the collapse was due to derivatives and CDOs. The only conceivable explanation for the gov't being the primary root cause is either they didn't regulate as they should have, which actually ends up being the antithesis of your argument because it advocates gov't taking a much more involved role from here on out, or it's because of initiatives by the gov't to increase homeownership by giving loans out to people who had little chance to pay it back. Of the later, the simple fact of the matter is the vast majority of the subprime loans were given out by subprime lenders, not Fannie and Freddie, before Fannie and Freddie entered into that market. Even when considering in the end all subprime loans including Fannie and Freddie, the odds of default on subprime loans were several fold higher with subprime lenders than Fannie/Freddie.

And why did CDOs containing subprime loans get pushed up into investment vehicles that could be purchased by retirement programs like 401k, etc., which fueled their growth? Fannie and Freddie backed loans and non-Fannie/Freddie backed loans were both in funds rated AAA by ratings agencies that were not regulated by the US gov't. Instead, they were paid by the investment houses that gave them the investment funds to rate in the first place. No gov't agency put a gun to their head and made them slap lipstick on those pigs.

Absolutely, Fannie and Freddie helped to legitimize subprime lending, but the simple fact of the matter is Fannie and Freddie were late to the subprime game. They even thought that they almost had to in order to, survey says, COMPETE THE MORTGAGE MARKET! Oh yes, that's right, they were compelled to enter into these dangerous loans because they were losing market share to the Countrywide's of the mortgage industry. While gov't certainly liked the idea of the result in increased home ownership rates this would cause, no gov't agency put a gun to their heads to issue subprime loans specifically. They chose to jump into those waters.

The Great Recession is in the end more about what happens when the free market, particularly the financial sector, isn't regulated effectively. I don't blame the financial industry for inventing derivatives and CDOs. Both instruments can be used to reduce risk for all parties involved, and potentially to the entire system. But they inadvertently created a system that led to its own collapse because no entity watched over the system as a whole. How could the investment banks have known they comprised entities that should any of them fail, they would cause the entire system to collapse because of the intricate web of these CDOs and derivatives? How could they possibly know AIG was overextended on derivatives? They simply aren't equipped or structured to know this. But some entity should have, and the ONLY possible answer is the gov't. I'm even sympathetic to the view the gov't as is cannot possibly do this, but that means we need to fashion a gov't that can. It's the only answer.

>> ^lantern53:

Now Wall St. may have fouled up but it was the US gov't which was holding the gun to it's head. Only a gov't could foul things up this badly.

>> ^lantern53:

here you go:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414310280561945.html
'The gov't is here to help you...'
lol


Please find an article by someone using evidence instead of opinion. More to the point find it within a paper or repute rather than the Wall Street Journal which has gone downhill since being taken over by an mad Aussie.

>> ^lantern53:

O'Rourke used to be quite a hipster, the editor of the National Lampoon so many of you young people probably don't know his formerly anarchist self. He just grew up.
Grayson is certifiably insane, however.
Now Wall St. may have fouled up but it was the US gov't which was holding the gun to it's head. Only a gov't could foul things up this badly. The economy goes up and down in cycles, but when the gov't gets involved, serious interference takes place and since the gov't is so powerful (more powerful than Wall St, I guarantee you), the bankers have to do what gov't wants.
This depression is exactly what happens when a powerful gov't interferes in free markets. So if you want to Occupy anything, Occupy the Capitol building.


this is so assbackward its stunning
the government forced them to create CDO's? to bundle up non-AAA holdings and sell them as AAA? to extend themselves beyond their ability to cover their loses?

the problem was the government wasn't protecting it's citizen's interest; they removed regulation after regulation, allowed banks to get involved in too risky endeavours (seperate function of different types of banks), increased the amount of leverage allowed, etc etc

the government should have been the protection to the greed and stupidity capable in FREE MARKETS... and make no mistake, it was SOLELY GREED and STUPIDITY that led to this...

FREE MARKETS as the solution is such incredible SH_T, because all that means, is that it's unregulated... and then the whole lie of supply/demand being the saviour and great equalizer is revealed, the concept of competition comes to an end... as then the amount of money you have determines the flow of the market, have competition? buy them out... lobby to have rules and regulations put into place that prevent you from ever having competition, etc... FREE MARKETS work in the big boy's best interest, not the consumer or the little guy...

btw... because the US government is SO much in the pocket of big money interests... all this is happening (and has been) for the past 30yrs...

repeat: the 30yrs leading up to this recession, government protection/involvement in free markets has been continually lessened.... through removal of regulation meant to protect consumers/main street and through institution (thanks lobbies) of laws/regulations that allowed wall street/banks to literally destroy 20% of the wealth accumulated over the past 200yrs... only to be bailed out by the government in their pockets (and then most of these banks used the bailout money to consolidate power, buyout other banks, and grow even more TOO BIG TO FAIL)

ignorance/culpability... I'm not sure which you more reek of

O'Rourke used to be quite a hipster, the editor of the National Lampoon so many of you young people probably don't know his formerly anarchist self. He just grew up.

Grayson is certifiably insane, however.

Now Wall St. may have fouled up but it was the US gov't which was holding the gun to it's head. Only a gov't could foul things up this badly. The economy goes up and down in cycles, but when the gov't gets involved, serious interference takes place and since the gov't is so powerful (more powerful than Wall St, I guarantee you), the bankers have to do what gov't wants.

This depression is exactly what happens when a powerful gov't interferes in free markets. So if you want to Occupy anything, Occupy the Capitol building.

What do they want?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

There you go.

9/9/9 plan … followers are too stupid to realize he's talking about raising taxes.

No – his plan is a staged plan moving towards a fair tax with 9/9/9 as a starting point. Everyone is aware of what it is because it clear, simple, and down on paper. This is in stark contrast to Democrats who want to raise taxes on the middle class but are saying they only want to tax 'millionaires and billionaires’ as with the Obama tax scheme that he calls a ‘jobs bill’.

starting today, the media will go back to ignoring them, on the grounds that now they're just a front for Unions and Democratic political organizations. In other words, at the first signs that this protest might align with a broader liberal agenda, they'll go back to dismissing them

This is just one of those areas where you are going to have to admit you are completely off target Net. The presence of union & other radical leftists REINFORCES the image of these whackos in the minds of the media. You said the media would ignore the protestors 'starting today'. This morning on the news I saw no fewer than FIVE different stories on three networks about the protests ‘ratcheting up’, ‘spreading’, et al. The media coverage isn’t decreasing. It is increasing.

There is no secret about why this is the case. It is because the majority of the media is dominated by leftist sympathizers, and so they naturally gravitate towards these other leftists. For the media, the ‘occupiers’ are a romantic throwback to their own liberal college days. They love these schmucks.

Consider how they treat them. In almost every story the occupiers are given actual SERIOUS consideration. The reporters do not challenge them or their ideas. The reporters slant the stories so that the protestors are shown in a sympathetic light. The media hides away their crazy signs, their lunatic fringes, their violent chants, their anti-american Marxist speakers, their illegal street and sidewalk blockings, and all the other bad things they do or say. But they broadcast ad-nauseum the vids of the cops arresting them as they wail and cry about how they are ‘peaceful’… There are puff peice stories about them needing blankets, and food. Boo hoo hoo.

Now think back again and recall how the very same media treats the Tea Party. From the beginning, the media has tagged the Tea Party as astroturf, racist, hate-fuelled, radical, fringe purveyors of violence. They’ve gone out of their way to paint the Tea Partiers as crazy, evil dupes of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Interviews with TP members routinely come from a position of antagonism or outright hostility. Media goes out of their way to find ignore huge crowds of rational, everyday normal folks and thier simple message of fiscal responsibility. But if there's ONE bozo at a rally acting like an @$$hole with a "Obama is Hitler" sign then the media will devote whole news segments to that guy and try to make it look like he is the rule rather than the exception.

Two different protest groups. Two completely different styles of media treatment. And all because the news media is dominated by an east-coast knee-jerk position of leftist philosophy. They say they are unbiased - but talk is cheap. When talk ISN'T cheap, they prove they are biased. Almost 90% of all news media donations to political candidates in 2008 were to Democrats. When was the last time you were in ANY population that was so lopsided? In any normal population, you'll have like 40% GOP, 40% Democrat, and 20% 'other'. The news media is so slanted to the left that it is hard to find any other group quite as radically lopsided and not officially a 'cult'.

As far as Cain goes - he's 100% right. These bozos are attacking the wrong target. If you want to succeed in life you don't go about it by blaming others. You do it by rolling up your sleeves and going to work. The bulk of these protesters are lily-white college doofuses who have never had a real job. Maybe they should try it before they go hatin' on it.

Sorry Net – but you’re wrong on this and today’s media treatment alone proves it.