Thread: Obama 2012?

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Deregulation certainly facilitated greed in the end result; likewise I am sure greed facilitated some of the deregulation. I am not sure what you are arguing: Clearly people are greedy and corruptable, so what we need is to regulate certain things to make it so people cannot do that. Right?


Regulations need to be enforced. Strong jaws mean squat without some teeth. That costs money unfortunately. I will use End Of Pipe standards as an example again: EOP standards specify that x level of some pollutant is allowed to be emitted from some facility into the environment. It is determined based on the Best Available Technology (BAT). If a company exceeds EOP for the BAT they pay a fine. Under Clinton the fine grew exponentially per violation. It was not fiscally feasible to avoid an upgrade to the BAT. However, under Bush, the law was adjusted so it was a flat fine. This allowed the polluters (who could afford so) to pay the fine as if it were an operational fee. I just don't get it... A law as a facade is not a law, but lobbyists can make them that way. We need to regulate, and we need to regulate lobbyists and corporate monopolies heavily. In most of these instances tax payers end up paying for the clean up.

Clearly, they have done enough damage to our once strong economy that more harshly regulating them may be in order. Right? What is the alternative?

So my question is who decides where we draw the lines? I agree that a a totally lawless society is probably not in the best interest of anyone. However, I think we would all agree that we have an obesity problem in America. Does that mean we should regulate the consumption of certain foods? Should we ban all fast food, or food that has less than desirable nutritional benefits?

As for guns, I can agree that there are certain people that shouldn't have access to them legally. In Texas I can be screened for these things in a matter of minutes. Why is it that some states, mainly left leaning at that, require that you wait weeks to possess a firearm? Why is it that if I am found to be legally capable of owning a firearm that some states, once again left leaning in most cases, will set restrictions on the number of rounds I can load into said gun?

Arguments can be made on your debate on higher education as well. Some would argue that offering a loan to students at extremely low rates, and favorable terms and lengths, is not profitable. Now, should the government "lose" tax money on said loans simply to ensure that we have an educated society? I am sure you, and many others, would say so, and I may not totally disagree with you. I am sure some that disagree with you would point out the fact that there are tons of kids getting student loans to go to a party school, learn little, then work in an entirely different field than what they studied. Would you be open to government assisted education if the government could decide what you studied, and then what field you worked in once you completed school? Or would you be okay with the government basing your interest rate on your GPA? For every student like you that wants to truly learn, and then put your education to use for the good of society, there are plenty who don't feel as strongly about it. Who decides what category someone falls in, so that the reward is equal to, or greater than, the risk?

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

And I wouldn't really place any blame on the home owners for what happened with the banks. If you're living in a tiny-ass place or your parents house, and someone says to you "Hey, do you want a house?" How many people do you think are gonna say "No thanks, I'll stay in my 1-bedroom studio apartment that I share with 3 other people." I won't deny that bank greed aided the situation, but that's also a typical business situation. If there's a way to make more profit and it's within the law, why not? Greed is always present in commercial ventures. It's what drives an economy. Regulations are there to prevent greed from going overboard and causing exactly what happened. If you could strip away regulations and rely on the benevolent nature of every person to keep things in check, the world would be a better place....but you can't, because not everybody HAS a benevolent nature.

This I will continue to disagree with until the end. If you, or anyone you know, are living in a 1-bedroom studio, and paying $X/month, and someone comes to you and says I can get you into a house, BUT your payment will be $2X/month, then how in the hell do you expect to pay $2X/month? Obviously you don't care about that, all you care about is your personal desire to have a house. Are the banks at fault? Yes, of course. Are the consumers also at fault? Hell yes.

Originally Posted by gatita_andy

O_O

thought u were doing this with pics.
heres one for u all <3

Nope, sorry...have to disagree.

I worked in banking as well. So we want choice, but when we aren't responsible enough to make said choice, ie reading a contract, it is somebody else's fault? I get it now.


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

In most cases it was more like the person was paying 2x for their studio apartment, and offered a house with a payment of 1x, but with a bunch of small print items that jumped the payment up higher than the person was told about....and then when the payment ballooned everyone was like "Why didn't you read your mortgage?" Cause NObody reads their mortgage lol. I've worked in banks, and even to someone working in that field the language and terms used in a mortgage look like Chinese to me.

If you don't read the paperwork dealing with 100K+ purchase than you sir have issues and deserve the blame. It is your job as the buyer to understand the terms in which you sign. The banks, sure they were partly at fault, but I blame the greedy buyer for trying to live beyond their means.


and whoever said that the Economic boom from 1930s to 1980 was caused by USA made products should look in to the effects of employment and the women's rights movement.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Sageworks | Profits Per Employee Increase

This is pretty basic stuff. Of course a company expects to make a profit on each employee - otherwise, there would be no incentives to grow. Contrary to what the right-wing propaganda machine may tell you, companies don't hire employees as a form of charity.

Pretty basic stuff huh? So.....I have 60 employees X $15278 profit THAT each one generates for me, right? Hmmm....that means that I made a $916680 profit last year. FANTASTIC MAN. WOW !! That's an unbelievable 56.67% profit margin on the brow of my employees. It also isn't even close to the truth. And don't try and tell me that I'm part of the right wing movement. You don't know my political beliefs, and you certainly don't know me. You obviouisly don't know much about owing a business and you certainly don't know anything about my business....I ain't reading about it from some ridiculous chart Wicked, I'm living it. A lot of people here respect your opinion and stance on things, but when you throw a chart up that fits your argument but has no basis in reality (especially in my case, and EVERY other businessperson I know) it kinda hurts your credibility.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Sageworks | Profits Per Employee Increase

This is pretty basic stuff. Of course a company expects to make a profit on each employee - otherwise, there would be no incentives to grow. Contrary to what the right-wing propaganda machine may tell you, companies don't hire employees as a form of charity.

The law of diminishing returns would say that your statement is incorrect.