Obama, The Subprime President

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2012 3:32 PM GMT
    http://news.investors.com/article/620516/201207311851/obama-favors-subprime-strategy-for-cars-mortgages-and-education.htm?src=IBDDAE

    hat the president's highly touted rescue of GM was built on subprime lending is no surprise, given how he also champions subprime home and school loans. It's an upside-down economy not built on value or merit.

    Over the weekend, Investor's Business Daily's David Hogberg broke the news that 93% of General Motors' 2012 profits were based on subprime loans, a revelation that put a damper on President Obama's claims to have single-handedly rescued the automaker and restored it to financial health.

    "GM Financial auto loans to customers with FICO scores below (the subprime threshold of) 660 rose from 87% of total loans in Q4 2010 to 93% in Q1 2012," Hogberg found. "The worse the FICO score, the bigger the increase. From Q4 2010 to Q1 2012, GM Financial loans to customers with the worst FICO scores — below 540 — shot up 79% to more than $2.3 billion. ... Prime loans, those above 660, dropped 42% to $676 million."

    This is not a sign of a sustainable comeback. It's a recovery goosed by government fiat under the static condition of an economy that produces little but subprime buyers.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 04, 2012 4:09 PM GMT
    Subprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2012 6:08 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2012 6:18 PM GMT
    riddler78 ,

    YOU NEED TO RETURN TO THE FOLLOWING FORUM TO ADDRESS YOUR DECEPTIONS:

    MotherJones: Democrats Nominate Anti-Gay Conspiracy Theorist for Senate

    THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 04, 2012 9:16 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 7:08 AM GMT
    Balancing saidriddler78 ,

    YOU NEED TO RETURN TO THE FOLLOWING FORUM TO ADDRESS YOUR DECEPTIONS:

    MotherJones: Democrats Nominate Anti-Gay Conspiracy Theorist for Senate

    THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.


    Addressed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 7:13 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 05, 2012 1:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.


    The recession was caused by a bubble in housing that occurred over the Bush years. I've already argued that cars are cheaper and easier to take back, making them less risky. The government has always had to back the economy on some level. The economy is man made and fear driven, and it would spiral and crash if it wasn't tempered by rules to protect people from the greediest of us at the top. We wouldn't be a superpower if we let our biggest industries fail. The CEOs won't take risks without government backing them, because they clam up without their golden parachutes. The DFL protects farmers and laborers from robber barons like Romney running off with all the money. Republicans win votes by appealing to the superstitions of the religious, not by protecting anyone from industries collapsing. That's why Reagan's trickle down economics are popularly known as voodoo economics. You're just playing some smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger game, while Obama is actually rolling up his sleeves and making things happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 2:49 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.


    The recession was caused by a bubble in housing that occurred over the Bush years. I've already argued that cars are cheaper and easier to take back, making them less risky. The government has always had to back the economy on some level. The economy is man made and fear driven, and it would spiral and crash if it wasn't tempered by rules to protect people from the greediest of us at the top. We wouldn't be a superpower if we let our biggest industries fail. The CEOs won't take risks without government backing them, because they clam up without their golden parachutes. The DFL protects farmers and laborers from robber barons like Romney running off with all the money. Republicans win votes by appealing to the superstitions of the religious, not by protecting anyone from industries collapsing. That's why Reagan's trickle down economics are popularly known as voodoo economics. You're just playing some smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger game, while Obama is actually rolling up his sleeves and making things happen.


    Again your poor grasp of the economics here is sad. You can't have an asset bubble without the accompanying finance bubble. The government hasn't always had to back the economy in some level unless you count "getting out of the way" as backing the economy. The US has become a superpower by letting its biggest companies fail which allows better companies to thrive.

    Smoke and mirrors? Just simple economics here - something anyone would learn in econ 101. Making things happen? Seriously? Obviously you haven't seen this:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2576263
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 05, 2012 3:03 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.


    The recession was caused by a bubble in housing that occurred over the Bush years. I've already argued that cars are cheaper and easier to take back, making them less risky. The government has always had to back the economy on some level. The economy is man made and fear driven, and it would spiral and crash if it wasn't tempered by rules to protect people from the greediest of us at the top. We wouldn't be a superpower if we let our biggest industries fail. The CEOs won't take risks without government backing them, because they clam up without their golden parachutes. The DFL protects farmers and laborers from robber barons like Romney running off with all the money. Republicans win votes by appealing to the superstitions of the religious, not by protecting anyone from industries collapsing. That's why Reagan's trickle down economics are popularly known as voodoo economics. You're just playing some smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger game, while Obama is actually rolling up his sleeves and making things happen.


    Again your poor grasp of the economics here is sad. You can't have an asset bubble without the accompanying finance bubble. The government hasn't always had to back the economy in some level unless you count "getting out of the way" as backing the economy. The US has become a superpower by letting its biggest companies fail which allows better companies to thrive.

    Smoke and mirrors? Just simple economics here - something anyone would learn in econ 101. Making things happen? Seriously? Obviously you haven't seen this:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2576263


    Thanks for link. It was good for some laughs. Now where's the link about how Romney's going to save us?icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 3:04 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.


    The recession was caused by a bubble in housing that occurred over the Bush years. I've already argued that cars are cheaper and easier to take back, making them less risky. The government has always had to back the economy on some level. The economy is man made and fear driven, and it would spiral and crash if it wasn't tempered by rules to protect people from the greediest of us at the top. We wouldn't be a superpower if we let our biggest industries fail. The CEOs won't take risks without government backing them, because they clam up without their golden parachutes. The DFL protects farmers and laborers from robber barons like Romney running off with all the money. Republicans win votes by appealing to the superstitions of the religious, not by protecting anyone from industries collapsing. That's why Reagan's trickle down economics are popularly known as voodoo economics. You're just playing some smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger game, while Obama is actually rolling up his sleeves and making things happen.


    Again your poor grasp of the economics here is sad. You can't have an asset bubble without the accompanying finance bubble. The government hasn't always had to back the economy in some level unless you count "getting out of the way" as backing the economy. The US has become a superpower by letting its biggest companies fail which allows better companies to thrive.

    Smoke and mirrors? Just simple economics here - something anyone would learn in econ 101. Making things happen? Seriously? Obviously you haven't seen this:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2576263


    Thanks for link. It was good for some laughs. Now where's the link about how Romney's going to save us?icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm glad it makes you feel happy to know that there are so many people suffering as a direct result of policies enacted by the Obama Administration and that the suffering will go on because of the interest Americans will pay increasing the cost of borrowing well into the future. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Once again you show how little you actually "get".
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 05, 2012 3:15 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.


    The recession was caused by a bubble in housing that occurred over the Bush years. I've already argued that cars are cheaper and easier to take back, making them less risky. The government has always had to back the economy on some level. The economy is man made and fear driven, and it would spiral and crash if it wasn't tempered by rules to protect people from the greediest of us at the top. We wouldn't be a superpower if we let our biggest industries fail. The CEOs won't take risks without government backing them, because they clam up without their golden parachutes. The DFL protects farmers and laborers from robber barons like Romney running off with all the money. Republicans win votes by appealing to the superstitions of the religious, not by protecting anyone from industries collapsing. That's why Reagan's trickle down economics are popularly known as voodoo economics. You're just playing some smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger game, while Obama is actually rolling up his sleeves and making things happen.


    Again your poor grasp of the economics here is sad. You can't have an asset bubble without the accompanying finance bubble. The government hasn't always had to back the economy in some level unless you count "getting out of the way" as backing the economy. The US has become a superpower by letting its biggest companies fail which allows better companies to thrive.

    Smoke and mirrors? Just simple economics here - something anyone would learn in econ 101. Making things happen? Seriously? Obviously you haven't seen this:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2576263


    Thanks for link. It was good for some laughs. Now where's the link about how Romney's going to save us?icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm glad it makes you feel happy to know that there are so many people suffering as a direct result of policies enacted by the Obama Administration and that the suffering will go on because of the interest Americans will pay increasing the cost of borrowing well into the future. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Once again you show how little you actually "get".


    WTF, people are much better off with Obama!!! He steered us out of another great depression. I think he's the best president since FDR. Romney wouldn't get us out of debt. He would see more jobs outsourced and add more cracks to the foundation. With more people like Romney in the world there is LESS hope for the middle class. Romney's wife is the modern equivalent of Marie Antoinette. They are completely out touch with reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 3:35 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.


    The recession was caused by a bubble in housing that occurred over the Bush years. I've already argued that cars are cheaper and easier to take back, making them less risky. The government has always had to back the economy on some level. The economy is man made and fear driven, and it would spiral and crash if it wasn't tempered by rules to protect people from the greediest of us at the top. We wouldn't be a superpower if we let our biggest industries fail. The CEOs won't take risks without government backing them, because they clam up without their golden parachutes. The DFL protects farmers and laborers from robber barons like Romney running off with all the money. Republicans win votes by appealing to the superstitions of the religious, not by protecting anyone from industries collapsing. That's why Reagan's trickle down economics are popularly known as voodoo economics. You're just playing some smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger game, while Obama is actually rolling up his sleeves and making things happen.


    Again your poor grasp of the economics here is sad. You can't have an asset bubble without the accompanying finance bubble. The government hasn't always had to back the economy in some level unless you count "getting out of the way" as backing the economy. The US has become a superpower by letting its biggest companies fail which allows better companies to thrive.

    Smoke and mirrors? Just simple economics here - something anyone would learn in econ 101. Making things happen? Seriously? Obviously you haven't seen this:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2576263


    Thanks for link. It was good for some laughs. Now where's the link about how Romney's going to save us?icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm glad it makes you feel happy to know that there are so many people suffering as a direct result of policies enacted by the Obama Administration and that the suffering will go on because of the interest Americans will pay increasing the cost of borrowing well into the future. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Once again you show how little you actually "get".


    WTF, people are much better off with Obama!!! He steered us out of another great depression. I think he's the best president since FDR. Romney wouldn't get us out of debt. He would see more jobs outsourced and add more cracks to the foundation. With more people like Romney in the world there is LESS hope for the middle class. Romney's wife is the modern equivalent of Marie Antoinette. They are completely out touch with reality.


    Except that he didn't. Except that he has made things worse than he said they'd be. Except he wasted trillions to do it.

    And this claim of outsourcing is specious at best given that the alternative was automation. Have you even seen productivity rates in manufacturing in the US? Protectionism has never worked out for countries who have done it given the costs to other parts of the economy - but that again, is basic economics. Sorry, but you failed again.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 05, 2012 4:32 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.


    The recession was caused by a bubble in housing that occurred over the Bush years. I've already argued that cars are cheaper and easier to take back, making them less risky. The government has always had to back the economy on some level. The economy is man made and fear driven, and it would spiral and crash if it wasn't tempered by rules to protect people from the greediest of us at the top. We wouldn't be a superpower if we let our biggest industries fail. The CEOs won't take risks without government backing them, because they clam up without their golden parachutes. The DFL protects farmers and laborers from robber barons like Romney running off with all the money. Republicans win votes by appealing to the superstitions of the religious, not by protecting anyone from industries collapsing. That's why Reagan's trickle down economics are popularly known as voodoo economics. You're just playing some smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger game, while Obama is actually rolling up his sleeves and making things happen.


    Again your poor grasp of the economics here is sad. You can't have an asset bubble without the accompanying finance bubble. The government hasn't always had to back the economy in some level unless you count "getting out of the way" as backing the economy. The US has become a superpower by letting its biggest companies fail which allows better companies to thrive.

    Smoke and mirrors? Just simple economics here - something anyone would learn in econ 101. Making things happen? Seriously? Obviously you haven't seen this:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2576263


    Thanks for link. It was good for some laughs. Now where's the link about how Romney's going to save us?icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm glad it makes you feel happy to know that there are so many people suffering as a direct result of policies enacted by the Obama Administration and that the suffering will go on because of the interest Americans will pay increasing the cost of borrowing well into the future. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Once again you show how little you actually "get".


    WTF, people are much better off with Obama!!! He steered us out of another great depression. I think he's the best president since FDR. Romney wouldn't get us out of debt. He would see more jobs outsourced and add more cracks to the foundation. With more people like Romney in the world there is LESS hope for the middle class. Romney's wife is the modern equivalent of Marie Antoinette. They are completely out touch with reality.


    Except that he didn't. Except that he has made things worse than he said they'd be. Except he wasted trillions to do it.

    And this claim of outsourcing is specious at best given that the alternative was automation. Have you even seen productivity rates in manufacturing in the US? Protectionism has never worked out for countries who have done it given the costs to other parts of the economy - but that again, is basic economics. Sorry, but you failed again.


    Another point where you fail is that TARP was a Bush mandate because wall street was going to fail. Even McCain supported it, which goes to show that when republicans find their backs against the walls their answer is to spend money and support big government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 5:19 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.


    The recession was caused by a bubble in housing that occurred over the Bush years. I've already argued that cars are cheaper and easier to take back, making them less risky. The government has always had to back the economy on some level. The economy is man made and fear driven, and it would spiral and crash if it wasn't tempered by rules to protect people from the greediest of us at the top. We wouldn't be a superpower if we let our biggest industries fail. The CEOs won't take risks without government backing them, because they clam up without their golden parachutes. The DFL protects farmers and laborers from robber barons like Romney running off with all the money. Republicans win votes by appealing to the superstitions of the religious, not by protecting anyone from industries collapsing. That's why Reagan's trickle down economics are popularly known as voodoo economics. You're just playing some smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger game, while Obama is actually rolling up his sleeves and making things happen.


    Again your poor grasp of the economics here is sad. You can't have an asset bubble without the accompanying finance bubble. The government hasn't always had to back the economy in some level unless you count "getting out of the way" as backing the economy. The US has become a superpower by letting its biggest companies fail which allows better companies to thrive.

    Smoke and mirrors? Just simple economics here - something anyone would learn in econ 101. Making things happen? Seriously? Obviously you haven't seen this:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2576263


    Thanks for link. It was good for some laughs. Now where's the link about how Romney's going to save us?icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm glad it makes you feel happy to know that there are so many people suffering as a direct result of policies enacted by the Obama Administration and that the suffering will go on because of the interest Americans will pay increasing the cost of borrowing well into the future. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Once again you show how little you actually "get".


    WTF, people are much better off with Obama!!! He steered us out of another great depression. I think he's the best president since FDR. Romney wouldn't get us out of debt. He would see more jobs outsourced and add more cracks to the foundation. With more people like Romney in the world there is LESS hope for the middle class. Romney's wife is the modern equivalent of Marie Antoinette. They are completely out touch with reality.


    Except that he didn't. Except that he has made things worse than he said they'd be. Except he wasted trillions to do it.

    And this claim of outsourcing is specious at best given that the alternative was automation. Have you even seen productivity rates in manufacturing in the US? Protectionism has never worked out for countries who have done it given the costs to other parts of the economy - but that again, is basic economics. Sorry, but you failed again.


    Another point where you fail is that TARP was a Bush mandate because wall street was going to fail. Even McCain supported it, which goes to show that when republicans find their backs against the walls their answer is to spend money and support big government.


    TARP was a mandate that was implemented with the incoming Obama Administration if you've forgotten - so yes, it was a mandate of both Bush and Obama but Obama doubled down with the stimulus. And yes, both had the support of the Republicans just as the Patriot Act had the support of Democrats. People make mistakes - but the least they could do is acknowledge them, "flip-flop" and correct them.

    You seem to view the world in a particularly partisan lens which is another source of your neverending fountain of failure when it comes to issues of policy.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 05, 2012 6:12 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSubprime loans on cars aren't as risky as they are on homes. Cars are much cheaper, and if someone doesn't pay they can be repossessed and resold. It won't create a bubble. It will just give more opportunities for upwardly mobile people to buy cars. icon_biggrin.gif

    Anyways, you're a hypocrite because your idealogy is based on lower regulations, yet you're trying regulate when it's politically convenient for you. Cheap tactics are cheap. This thread is a fail.


    Where am I advocating regulations where it's convenient? You clearly have little understanding of my ideology given your interpretation - but no surprise there.


    You seem to be making a case against Obama for using your ideology. You do believe GM should be allowed to sell cars, right? Subprime loans make that happen, at greater risk to the individual consumer. I thought those were the principles you stood for, or am I just not "understanding?"


    You seem to have a very limited understanding of markets. A business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on the decisions they make. The fact that GM has been able to increase sales by taking on riskier loans - is particularly ironic given that the financial crisis was predicated on the availability of loans being made to riskier borrowers. It suggests that the government has learned nothing - particularly given how much control and influence they have had on GM since then.

    So no, you're really not understanding - given that the whole fact that the government has such influence over GM means they are not just another market player. Would they take such a risk in lending if they weren't/hadn't been backed by the US government? Note that the same thing happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So again, no, you are just not "understanding" - but again, no surprise there.


    The recession was caused by a bubble in housing that occurred over the Bush years. I've already argued that cars are cheaper and easier to take back, making them less risky. The government has always had to back the economy on some level. The economy is man made and fear driven, and it would spiral and crash if it wasn't tempered by rules to protect people from the greediest of us at the top. We wouldn't be a superpower if we let our biggest industries fail. The CEOs won't take risks without government backing them, because they clam up without their golden parachutes. The DFL protects farmers and laborers from robber barons like Romney running off with all the money. Republicans win votes by appealing to the superstitions of the religious, not by protecting anyone from industries collapsing. That's why Reagan's trickle down economics are popularly known as voodoo economics. You're just playing some smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger game, while Obama is actually rolling up his sleeves and making things happen.


    Again your poor grasp of the economics here is sad. You can't have an asset bubble without the accompanying finance bubble. The government hasn't always had to back the economy in some level unless you count "getting out of the way" as backing the economy. The US has become a superpower by letting its biggest companies fail which allows better companies to thrive.

    Smoke and mirrors? Just simple economics here - something anyone would learn in econ 101. Making things happen? Seriously? Obviously you haven't seen this:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2576263


    Thanks for link. It was good for some laughs. Now where's the link about how Romney's going to save us?icon_rolleyes.gif


    I'm glad it makes you feel happy to know that there are so many people suffering as a direct result of policies enacted by the Obama Administration and that the suffering will go on because of the interest Americans will pay increasing the cost of borrowing well into the future. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Once again you show how little you actually "get".


    WTF, people are much better off with Obama!!! He steered us out of another great depression. I think he's the best president since FDR. Romney wouldn't get us out of debt. He would see more jobs outsourced and add more cracks to the foundation. With more people like Romney in the world there is LESS hope for the middle class. Romney's wife is the modern equivalent of Marie Antoinette. They are completely out touch with reality.


    Except that he didn't. Except that he has made things worse than he said they'd be. Except he wasted trillions to do it.

    And this claim of outsourcing is specious at best given that the alternative was automation. Have you even seen productivity rates in manufacturing in the US? Protectionism has never worked out for countries who have done it given the costs to other parts of the economy - but that again, is basic economics. Sorry, but you failed again.


    Another point where you fail is that TARP was a Bush mandate because wall street was going to fail. Even McCain supported it, which goes to show that when republicans find their backs against the walls their answer is to spend money and support big government.


    TARP was a mandate that was implemented with the incoming Obama Administration if you've forgotten - so yes, it was a mandate of both Bush and Obama but Obama doubled down with the stimulus. And yes, both had the support of the Republicans just as the Patriot Act had the support of Democrats. People make mistakes - but the least they could do is acknowledge them, "flip-flop" and correct them.

    You seem to view the world in a particularly partisan lens which is another source of your neverending fountain of failure when it comes to issues of policy.


    So you're saying if Obama sides with the republicans in a bipartisan effort he gets attacked? That's SO hypocritical. Obama saved the economy, killed Bin Laden, and declared gays have equal rights. What have the republicans done lately?

    *crickets*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 6:21 PM GMT
    ^^
    well aside from being racist bigots as per usual, and acting immature like children sending the President a birthday cake with a rude message, they've done absolutely nothing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 6:22 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidSo you're saying if Obama sides with the republicans in a bipartisan effort he gets attacked? That's SO hypocritical. Obama saved the economy, killed Bin Laden, and declared gays have equal rights. What have the republicans done lately?

    *crickets*


    He gets attacked because he has taken the leadership role on the issue. Obama did not save the economy - he made it worse. How is this hypocritical? Do you even know the meaning of the word?

    "Doing something" in his case meant that he added trillions of debt onto the backs of future American taxpayers while having a negative impact to his own projected unemployment numbers.

    As I noted previously I applaud what you would call his "flip-flops" on gay marriage and rights. But this doesn't detract from the fact he has been a failure when it comes to domestic economic policy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 6:23 PM GMT
    eightball said^^
    well aside from being racist bigots as per usual, and acting immature like children sending the President a birthday cake with a rude message, they've done absolutely nothing.


    Racist bigots? Perhaps the only one racist here is you. You would have preferred a chocolate cake be sent? You'd call that racist too. The message was entirely on point.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Aug 05, 2012 6:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidSo you're saying if Obama sides with the republicans in a bipartisan effort he gets attacked? That's SO hypocritical. Obama saved the economy, killed Bin Laden, and declared gays have equal rights. What have the republicans done lately?

    *crickets*


    He gets attacked because he has taken the leadership role on the issue. Obama did not save the economy - he made it worse. How is this hypocritical? Do you even know the meaning of the word?

    "Doing something" in his case meant that he added trillions of debt onto the backs of future American taxpayers while having a negative impact to his own projected unemployment numbers.

    As I noted previously I applaud what you would call his "flip-flops" on gay marriage and rights. But this doesn't detract from the fact he has been a failure when it comes to domestic economic policy.


    But he did save the economy. The banks failed. TARP bailed them out. Instead of sinking into another great depression, we had a recession. Obama spared us the worst and is now working to recover from the hits and fix the broken system.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 6:35 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    eightball said^^
    well aside from being racist bigots as per usual, and acting immature like children sending the President a birthday cake with a rude message, they've done absolutely nothing.


    Racist bigots? Perhaps the only one racist here is you. You would have preferred a chocolate cake be sent? You'd call that racist too. The message was entirely on point.


    your idiocy is mind-numbing... but it's to be expected from a republican.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 6:38 PM GMT
    eightball said
    riddler78 said
    eightball said^^
    well aside from being racist bigots as per usual, and acting immature like children sending the President a birthday cake with a rude message, they've done absolutely nothing.


    Racist bigots? Perhaps the only one racist here is you. You would have preferred a chocolate cake be sent? You'd call that racist too. The message was entirely on point.


    your idiocy is mind-numbing... but it's to be expected from a republican.


    Ah so this is what counts for you, as an idiot as a rebuttal - I won't denigrate Democrats by assuming that you're a Democrat but have you ever exercised critical thought or is that a little beyond your capabilities?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 6:48 PM GMT
    go troll elsewhere, mouthbreather.

    since you say the message of the bday cake was "on point," you obviously fell for the 'you didn't build that" misquote. If you listened to or read the actual speech it's pretty fucking obvious what he meant. But someone with such a limited capacity such as yourself can't be arsed to listen to a full speech and the edited quote makes for a juicy soundbite.

    Slicing up quotes is standard operating procedure in political campaigns for a reason - it's hard to combat without coming off as whiny or indignant (however justified it may be). Both sides do it and it can be really hard to correct once it's out there.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 6:53 PM GMT
    eightball saidgo troll elsewhere, mouthbreather.

    since you say the message of the bday cake was "on point," you obviously fell for the 'you didn't build that" misquote. If you listened to or read the actual speech it's pretty fucking obvious what he meant. But someone with such a limited capacity such as yourself can't be arsed to listen to a full speech and the edited quote makes for a juicy soundbite.

    Slicing up quotes is standard operating procedure in political campaigns for a reason - it's hard to combat without coming off as whiny or indignant (however justified it may be). Both sides do it and it can be really hard to correct once it's out there.




    Again, the message was absolutely on point - the fact you didn't bother to watch the entire context of the speech says more about your inability to think for yourself than me. It was pretty "fucking obvious" what he meant. Do please get an education. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2012 6:58 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    eightball saidgo troll elsewhere, mouthbreather.

    since you say the message of the bday cake was "on point," you obviously fell for the 'you didn't build that" misquote. If you listened to or read the actual speech it's pretty fucking obvious what he meant. But someone with such a limited capacity such as yourself can't be arsed to listen to a full speech and the edited quote makes for a juicy soundbite.

    Slicing up quotes is standard operating procedure in political campaigns for a reason - it's hard to combat without coming off as whiny or indignant (however justified it may be). Both sides do it and it can be really hard to correct once it's out there.




    Again, the message was absolutely on point - the fact you didn't bother to watch the entire context of the speech says more about your inability to think for yourself than me. It was pretty "fucking obvious" what he meant. Do please get an education. icon_rolleyes.gif


    lolol yes, seethe in your anger, hypocrite!

    to quote you, "Do you really have nothing to say other than to make personal attacks? Why are your ideas so weak as to whither in the face of any critical thought?"

    its quite evident that YOU didn't bother reading or watching the speech in full given that you still think the message of the cake is "on point."

    RIP your intelligence and reading comprehension. but maybe its an onset of early senility.