The question the GOP needs to ask the electorate in 2012

Patrick · Aug 27, 2011

myp said:
It doesn't mean it wasn't predictable though

And I'll take academically honest studies over politician whims any day.

There was no certainty or near certainty of what would happen. Anyone who had that knowledge could have made billions of dollars off the collapse - know anyone who did based on their "knowing" what would happen? 20-20 hindsight is cheap, politically loaded myopic hindsight is wortheless.

myp · Aug 27, 2011

Patrick said:
There was no certainty or near certainty of what would happen. Anyone who had that knowledge could have made billions of dollars off the collapse - know anyone who did based on their "knowing" what would happen? 20-20 hindsight is cheap, politically loaded myopic hindsight is wortheless.

There are plenty of people who saw it coming and did make money. They didn't make billions though because to make billions you have to invest a ton- and to invest a ton you have to have a ton to begin with

Also everyone that predicts it doesn't have to invest in it, especially if they aren't investors.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if no one saw it (even though in this case plenty did, especially the moral hazards in the system)- the President has some responsibility. The SEC negligence under Bush was a big problem too and one he could have directly done something about.

Patrick · Aug 27, 2011

myp said:
There are plenty of people who saw it coming and did make money.

Like who?

They didn't make billions though because to make billions you have to invest a ton- and to invest a ton you have to have a ton to begin with Also everyone that predicts it doesn't have to invest in it, especially if they aren't investors.

Anyone who knew enough to predict it certainly is smart enough to invest. You could have short sold stock and made tens of millions of dollars if you just had 10,000 to put down - probably within the reach of most adults.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if no one saw it (even though in this case plenty did, especially the moral hazards in the system)- the President has some responsibility. The SEC negligence under Bush was a big problem too and one he could have directly done something about.

That the SEC had anything to do with the crash is just another of the "not enough regulation" myths floated around by the lib media for the consumption of people who don't understand what happened. ONCE AGAIN, I don't take issue with the possibility that Bush might have just possibly foresaw it and headed it off, but rather with your clearly untenable attempt to equalize blame between him and the libs who actually CAUSED the disaster. Here's another analogy: some criminal mugs someone who lies bleeding profusely in the street. An onlooker watches but doesn't do anything to stop the bleeding. Finally the ambulance arrives, but it's too late. Analogously, who do you blame? The mugger and the onlooker equally.

myp · Aug 27, 2011

Many people made money, shorted the markets, and spoke out before it. Not the majority of course, but there were notables- Ritholtz and Schiff being a couple.

But I am done here, you can keep living in the partisan world, when in reality both sides have screwed us all and continue to do so. There is much proof out there, so many studies (both empirical and not), and no liberal conspiracy (statistically such a conspiracy is nearly impossible to achieve). But to each his own, I suppose.

Patrick · Aug 27, 2011

myp said:
Many people made money, shorted the markets, and spoke out before it. Not the majority of course, but there were notables- Ritholtz and Schiff being a couple.

Compared to how many who DIDN'T see it? Millions? Tens of millions?

But I am done here, you can keep living in the partisan world, when in reality both sides have screwed us all and continue to do so.

This "non-partisan" crapola, which in the case of the near financial collapse and the recession it caused, bizarrely attempts to lay the blame equally on both parties, doesn't survive the test of detailed examination, and is basically a liberal ploy to escape their primary culpability. People who take the time to read up on the detailed history won't buy it - period.

myp · Aug 27, 2011

Patrick said:
Compared to how many who DIDN'T see it? Millions? Tens of millions?

There were a good amount of people (most likely all of the Austrian school for one) and even if there weren't that is no excuse for the people whose RESPONSIBILITY it was to make sure that didn't happen.

Patrick said:
This "non-partisan" crapola, which in the case of the near financial collapse and the recession it caused, bizarrely attempts to lay the blame equally on both parties, doesn't survive the test of detailed examination, and is basically a liberal ploy to escape their primary culpability. People who take the time to read up on the detailed history won't buy it - period.

That is your opinion and one that disregards facts and manipulates definitions based on circumstance and what subject you are referring to. I would argue the opposite- anyone who is actually looking at this scientifically and openly will realize that many were at fault- some called themselves Republicans, others Democrats, even though that isn't really the most relevant detail either way. And there are plenty more studies that support what I say than you. You'll probably just blame the "liberals". That's fine you do that and have fun with your childish grudges while you sell your intellectual integrity all in the name of some stupid party symbol.

Patrick · Aug 28, 2011

Ahhhhhhh, darn.

You keep saying you're done, and here you are back again with more of the same old same old.

myp said:
There were a good amount of people (most likely all of the Austrian school for one) and even if there weren't that is no excuse for the people whose RESPONSIBILITY it was to make sure that didn't happen.

Well OF COURSE the austrian school opposed the policies leading up to the debacle - they oppose MOST of what the federal government does today, as do I. That's a long way from making a precise prediction of giant bank failures. You still fail to grasp the difference between soneone who CAUSED the disaster, and someone who might have stopped it if he were prescient in a way that very few people were.

That is your opinion and one that disregards facts and manipulates definitions based on circumstance and what subject you are referring to.

Absolutely false. I carefully layed out for you the actions, laws, dates, persons, chains of events, and chronology. You refused to even respond to plenty of it, and refuted none of it. Now you're distorting not only what led up to the recession, but even what was said in this thread. You've been given the facts, and as John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things.

myp · Aug 28, 2011

The Austrian school is willing to look at facts despite their favorite politician being Ron Paul, a Republican. They put a lot of the blame on Bush (as well as Clinton, other Dems, and other Repubs), correctly so.

Patrick · Aug 28, 2011

myp said:
The Austrian school is willing to look at facts despite their favorite politician being Ron Paul, a Republican. They put a lot of the blame on Bush (as well as Clinton, other Dems, and other Repubs), correctly so.

Let's bag this thread - deal?

Patrick · Aug 28, 2011

Patrick said:
Let's bag this thread - deal?

Hard question, eh?

Hokayyyyyyyyyyy

myp · Aug 28, 2011

Patrick said:
Hard question, eh? Hokayyyyyyyyyyy

Trolling??

Patrick · Aug 28, 2011

myp said:
Trolling??

I asked you if you wanted to call it quits for the endless back-and-forth in this thread. What part don't you get??

David · Aug 29, 2011

Patrick said:
I asked you if you wanted to call it quits for the endless back-and-forth in this thread. What part don't you get??

And when he walked away you decided to goad him back in. Seriously, if you're going to troll don't be so obvious about it.

Skydog · Aug 31, 2011

Patrick said:
"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Actually the question should be is the GOP even relevant to anything any longer? You guys have a super list of president wannabes; good luck getting any of them elected (and now comes the Cris Christie please run mantra).

Patrick · Aug 31, 2011

Skydog said:
Actually the question should be is the GOP even relevant to anything any longer? You guys have a super list of president wannabes; good luck getting any of them elected (and now comes the Cris Christie please run mantra).

The GOP was pretty "relevent" in the 2010 midterms when it kicked you leftwingers asses, now wasn't it?

More to come in 2012. You'll lose the presidency, you won't get the House - the only "if" is can you hang onto the senate.

David · Aug 31, 2011

Patrick said:
The GOP was pretty "relevent" in the 2010 midterms when it kicked you leftwingers asses, now wasn't it? More to come in 2012. You'll lose the presidency, you won't get the House - the only "if" is can you hang onto the senate.

The TP's '10 electoral victory were in local elections (the House isn't a state or national race to win) and in gerrymandered districts. Had you not lost CA (good luck winning the WH without those electoral votes), taken the Senate and had you 'victors' not immediately become the most loathed politicians in gov't you might actually have a reason to brag.

Patrick · Aug 31, 2011

David said:
The TP's '10 electoral victory were in local elections (the House isn't a state or national race to win) and in gerrymandered districts.

Gerrymandered districts?? You're losing it.

Had you not lost CA (good luck winning the WH without those electoral votes), taken the Senate and had you 'victors' not immediately become the most loathed politicians in gov't you might actually have a reason to brag.

The GOP would have taken the senate, except VERY LUCKY for you lefties, only 1/3 of the senate had to stand for re-election. If they ALL had had to run, you would have been out on your ass there too. The republicans are only loathsome to you vile, evil, libfascists. As for California, don't take it for granted. Although the democrats have had a registration advantage there for a long time, Californians have an independent streak - they voted for Reagan TWICE. In 2012, with a 12% unemployment rate in a state nearly destroyed and bankrupted by democrats, they will have to decide whether they want to vote for a guy just because he's black, accepting as the cost four more years of national destruction.

David · Aug 31, 2011

Patrick said:
Gerrymandered districts?? You're losing it.

No, I'm not. You're an idiot for trying to act like it's a none issue

The GOP would have taken the senate, except VERY LUCKY for you lefties, only 1/3 of the senate had to stand for re-election. If they ALL had had to run, you would have been out on your ass there too. The republicans are only loathsome to you vile, evil, libfascists. As for California, don't take it for granted. Although the democrats have had a registration advantage there for a long time, Californians have an independent streak - they voted for Reagan TWICE. In 2012, with a 12% unemployment rate in a state nearly destroyed and bankrupted by democrats, they will have to decide whether they want to vote for a guy just because he's black, accepting as the cost four more years of national destruction.

Poll numbers, look them up.

CatholicCrusader · Sep 1, 2011

myp said:
.........BOTH parties were involved over the course of a few decades..........

Thats like taking one guy who robbed a store for $20 and another guy who stole $600 million in jewelry, and lumping them both into the same catagory.

Sure, the GOP made some goofs, but they pale in comparison to the destruction wrought by the Left.

David · Sep 1, 2011

CatholicCrusader said:
Thats like taking one guy who robbed a store for $20 and another guy who stole $600 million in jewelry, and lumping them both into the same catagory.

Sure, the GOP made some goofs, but they pale in comparison to the destruction wrought by the Left.

Reagan. Bush the Lesser.

The question the GOP needs to ask the electorate in 2012

Similar threads