What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (7 Viewers)

timschochet said:
Well one way is to be pragmatic. For instance TARP. The pragmatic guy says: 

"I don't want to help the big banks, I want to see them broken up, but the risk that our economy will greatly suffer or even collapse is too great. We have to bailout them out now and figure out a long term plan later." 

The ideologue says: 

"I don't want to help the big banks so I won't. I don't care what happens to the economy. I stand on my principles." 

Which one sounds more like Bernie? 
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous.  I guarantee you "I don't care what happens to the economy" never crossed Bernie's mind.

I suspect his thought process was a lot closer to: "Yes, the economy is in trouble, but the better long term solution is to let some of them fail and not bail them out.  Yes, the bottom will be worse, but the recovery will begin sooner and stronger than if we pass TARP."  I believed that then, and still believe it now.  I imagine Bernie would agree.  I suspect Bernie bases his policy preferences on the long term, and believes that short term pain for long term gain is often an acceptable trade-off.  You are more of a short term thinker, which is fine, but it doesn't make long term thinkers wrong or idealogues for preferring long term solutions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
That wasn't my point. My point is that what's good for them isn't necessarily bad for you or me or the country. The game that I refuse to play is demonizing corporations and acting like they're evil. 
Click to expand...
You should work for them - greed is killing corporate America.  I've seen it firsthand.

 
timschochet said:
It didn't. But that's not MY issue. I don't see that as a problem. I think it's fine to regulate banks, and I'm for reasonable restrictions, but I'm not for breaking them up. 
Click to expand...
In other words:  You have no interest in a plan to fix the issues with the financial system that wrecked the economy in 2008.  No wonder you support Hillary

 
timschochet said:
It didn't. But that's not MY issue. I don't see that as a problem. I think it's fine to regulate banks, and I'm for reasonable restrictions, but I'm not for breaking them up. 
Click to expand...
I am not sure you actually understand what it means to "break them up"

Nobody loses their job.  Nobody loses shareholder value.  Nobody loses banking services they were getting from a large bank.

The businesses would be broken into smaller chunks, such that if a smaller chunk failed, it would not bring down the remaining chunks.  That is capitalism.  Allow businesses to take risks, and either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences.  What we have now is not capitalism - banks are free to take risks with no fear of consequences because main street will bail out the bad decisions again.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am not sure you actually understand what it means to "break them up"

Nobody loses their job.  Nobody loses shareholder value.  Nobody loses banking services they were getting from a large bank.

The businesses would be broken into smaller chunks, such that if a smaller chunk failed, it would not bring down the remaining chunks.  That is capitalism.  Allow businesses to take risks, and either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences.  What we have now is not capitalism - banks are free to take risks with no fear of consequences because main street will bail out the bad decisions again.
Click to expand...
If the federal government forces industries to break up, that may be good, it may be bad, but it is NOT capitalism. 

And I am HIGHLY skeptical about the bolded. 

 
timschochet said:
Slapdash said:
You certainly have not mentioned any specifics about how to handle these issues.   We're waiting...
Click to expand...
You're going to be waiting a long time if you're expecting me to have the answers. I don't. But I'm skeptical that Bernie does. 
Click to expand...
It already has been.  You continue to attack Sanders on this issue and say it is one of your most important, yet you have no opinions/understanding of your own.  Pathetic

 
I'm sure we can just ask the big banks nicely not to screw us over.  If that doesn't work, we can always resort to sternly telling them to cut it out.

That has to be a better solution than, you know, actually doing anything tangible.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slapdash said:
It already has been.  You continue to attack Sanders on this issue and say it is one of your most important, yet you have no opinions/understanding of your own.  Pathetic
Click to expand...
No. I attacked him for not voting for TARP. That's a big deal for me. I think it's worthy of criticism, not just because of that issue (though it's important in itself) but because I think it represents that he is more of an ideologue than I am comfortable with in the Presidency. 

What Bernie wants to do with the big banks is a different issue. I am not sure he's wrong. I'm not sure he's right. I'm skeptical of his answers, but I'm skeptical of Hillary on this issue as well, frankly. It's NOT one of my most important issues. My top issues for this election are, in order:

1. Keeping Donald Trump out of the White House.

2. Keeping Ted Cruz out of the White House

3. Climate change

4. The economy

5. immigration concerns. 

6. The Supreme Court

 
Rich Conway said:
I'm sure we can just ask the big banks nicely not to screw us over.  If that doesn't work, we can always resort to sternly telling them to cut it out.

That has to be a better solution than, you know, actually doing anything tangible.
Click to expand...
Yea, like letting them go under instead of us bailing them out.   Now that is pathetic. IMO.  Bailing them out I mean.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am not sure you actually understand what it means to "break them up"

Nobody loses their job.  Nobody loses shareholder value.  Nobody loses banking services they were getting from a large bank.

The businesses would be broken into smaller chunks, such that if a smaller chunk failed, it would not bring down the remaining chunks.  That is capitalism.  Allow businesses to take risks, and either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences.  What we have now is not capitalism - banks are free to take risks with no fear of consequences because main street will bail out the bad decisions again.
Click to expand...
The bigger issue is that if these large investment banks are financially tied to commercial banks and the investments tank they take down the lending function with them.  And, since the monetary system requires new loans to keep things buzzing along, if banks don't lend it can create a depression.

Glass-Steagall prevented that from the 1930s by separating those functions (after the big banks had a hefty hand in creating the Great Depression), but it was rolled back in the 1980s and 1990s.  Breaking up the banks again would go a long way towards fixing that mistake.

If you want to listen to something truly prescient, here's Senator Dorgan in 1999 explaining why repealing Glass-Steagall would be a mistake.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
I'm sure we can just ask the big banks nicely not to screw us over.  If that doesn't work, we can always resort to sternly telling them to cut it out.

That has to be a better solution than, you know, actually doing anything tangible.
Click to expand...
I think we're just supposed to the bail them out and not ask questions or address why they needed a bailout in the first place.  This goes for any company with enough people on their payroll in the government and media

 
timschochet said:
No. I attacked him for not voting for TARP. That's a big deal for me. I think it's worthy of criticism, not just because of that issue (though it's important in itself) but because I think it represents that he is more of an ideologue than I am comfortable with in the Presidency. 

What Bernie wants to do with the big banks is a different issue. I am not sure he's wrong. I'm not sure he's right. I'm skeptical of his answers, but I'm skeptical of Hillary on this issue as well, frankly. It's NOT one of my most important issues. My top issues for this election are, in order:

1. Keeping Donald Trump out of the White House.

2. Keeping Ted Cruz out of the White House

3. Climate change

4. The economy

5. immigration concerns. 

6. The Supreme Court
Click to expand...
Yet you've continually complained that Bernie saying mean things about Wall St will be a big hindrance to your #2 actual issue.

 
Rich Conway said:
I'm sure we can just ask the big banks nicely not to screw us over.  If that doesn't work, we can always resort to sternly telling them to cut it out.

That has to be a better solution than, you know, actually doing anything tangible.
Click to expand...
This is a better answer then what Bernie gave to the NY Daily

 
cstu said:
False, we seem to have done just fine with it 1932-2016.
Click to expand...
But an even more obvious support for my position is this very thread.  You guys are perfectly fine supporting a self-described socialist for POTUS!  You still believe a little socialism sprinkled in with capitalism remains little?  

 
Dread Pirate said:
But an even more obvious support for my position is this very thread.  You guys are perfectly fine supporting a self-described socialist for POTUS!  You still believe a little socialism sprinkled in with capitalism remains little?  
Click to expand...
We have our Nations entire history to support such an ideal. Having organized societies takes some forms of socialism to maintain.

 
Am I wrong to think that questioning Bernie's Democratic party worthiness is yet another short-sighted blunder from Hillary camp? If Trump gets jilted and runs third-party, Bernie could run 3rd party, part-deux, and waltz into the White House (admittedly, my junior high knowledge of the Electoral College may prove me wrong), and since he's not really a Democrat, why wouldn't he?

 
Mister CIA said:
Am I wrong to think that questioning Bernie's Democratic party worthiness is yet another short-sighted blunder from Hillary camp? If Trump gets jilted and runs third-party, Bernie could run 3rd party, part-deux, and waltz into the White House (admittedly, my junior high knowledge of the Electoral College may prove me wrong), and since he's not really a Democrat, why wouldn't he?
Click to expand...
Someone else can correct me but I think a fair number of states have "sore loser laws" where you can't appear on the ballot if you lose a primary.

 
pantagrapher said:
This is going to be fun watching a bunch of true progressives rally around gun manufacture immunity because they're not allowed to disagree with Bernie.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this line of thinking. There is a very long history in this country of legally manufacturing and selling firearms. It doesn't make sense that someone could sue the manufacturer for something made and sold legally for 250 years now.

There is a HUGE difference between wishing for stricter gun control and outlawing assault weapons and in supporting lawsuits against a gun manufacturer every time some whack-job uses their product to commit a crime. 

(FWIW...I'm pretty neutral on gun control other than to think that the middle road is the wrong road. I believe we should apply the same laws everywhere and they should be either very lenient or very strict.)

 
Shula-holic said:
Someone else can correct me but I think a fair number of states have "sore loser laws" where you can't appear on the ballot if you lose a primary.
Click to expand...
Forgot about that. Still if things spin out of control, I could envision Bernie as a candidate who could muster millions of write-ins. Or to go in a completely different direction, what concessions would Bernie and the Libertarian Party make towards one another to get on the ballot (if that's even logistically feasible)? I'm assuming L party will be on ballots in all 50 states. ... Green Party possibilities escape me.

Just spit-ballin'. Please, no one take me seriously, yet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Your question was what reckless things has the industry done, right?  My answer is that I don't know, but if/when a fact pattern emerges that would trigger liability under state product liability laws (or maybe even dram shop type laws?) I don't see why we need to foreclose that option.

I see your point about particular industries being targeting for liability, and i don't know enough about federal laws on pharmaceutical or medical device liability to compare the two. I would argue that there are policy reasons to protect those industries that don't apply to the firearms industry, but I understand that some people would reasonably disagree with that. And the PLCAA's carveouts do seem well-drafted, but they inevitably capture more than they should.  Here's one example from this site that I think is a bad outcome and maybe answers your initial question too:
 

#### that. If a kid would still be alive today had a gun manufacturer included reasonable safety measures but they failed to do so, that manufacturer should face liability, just as a fireworks manufacturer would.  At a minimum a jury should hear arguments as to whether it was reasonable to expect the manufacturer to install such measures. A law that prevents that is not a good law.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you'll find too many people of any ilk that support a case like this (a defect) from being something a family could sue over.

 
timschochet said:
It was a lousy prediction. Oh well. 

She lost my 13. Bernie had 59% of the vote. According to everything I'm reading, he needs 61% of the vote in every remaining state just to tie her. He's only achieved that percentage in New Hampshire and Vermont. Not impossible but extremely unlikely. 
Click to expand...
NH 15/25 (62%)
VT 16/16 (100%)
KS 24/33 (72%)
ME 16/25 (64%)
ID 18/23 (78%)
UT 27/33 (82%)
AK 13/16 (81%)
HI 17/25 (68%)
WA 71/101 (70%) - estimated

9 states that he's won by 61+.  I believe if my math is correct that Hillary has also won 9 states by 60+.  I understand the demographics kind of speak for themselves but I just wanted to point out that he's gotten that percent in many states - just not the big ones yet (other than WA).

 
cap'n grunge said:
Requiring individuals to purchase health insurance from private insurers is socialism? Really?
Click to expand...
yes.  "Requiring" is the operative word.  And the business are not private when the government is "requiring" them to cover specific things in the policies they sell.  Socialism necessarily relies on coercion hence the reference " a command and control economy".

 
Dread Pirate said:
cap'n grunge says:

This type of logic is why i think pure libertarian philosophy is fatally flawed. If you can't look at how even in a regulated market these powerful men (and women) caused wide spread destruction in the recent economic collapse how exactly do you think things would go down when absolutely no one was trying to put protections in place for the little guy? It's unfathomable to me that anyone thinks that a society would be healthy in a wild west anything goes setting. You think that wealth distribution is bad now, we are talking fiefdoms in your scenario.

No thanks. A little socialism sprinkled on top of capitalism is much healthier in the long run for everybody.

Have you considered the possibility that it was because of the regulated market that such wide spread destruction occurred in the first place?  A little socialism sprinkled on top of capitalism is probably better than all-out socialism, the problem is, when you concede the point that individuals must adjust their own life plans by gov't decree to include something other than what they voluntarily choose, more and more socialism begins to creep in.  So, you can never have just a "little" socialism, really.

You appear to be a conscientious and reasonable man.  Thank you for that.
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten about the Great Depression? Or the widespread disease that occured before the FDA due to faulty/flawed canning? Or the snake oil salesmen touting BS products that cured everything from gout to constipation to depression? Or the thousands of lives cut short in mining and construction jobs that paid piss poor wages while creating abysmal and dangerous working conditions?

A completely free market, in the end, is WORSE than even pure socialism...and Bernie's brand of socialism is far from pure. 

 
AAABatteries said:
NH 15/25 (62%)
VT 16/16 (100%)
KS 24/33 (72%)
ME 16/25 (64%)
ID 18/23 (78%)
UT 27/33 (82%)
AK 13/16 (81%)
HI 17/25 (68%)
WA 71/101 (70%) - estimated

9 states that he's won by 61+.  I believe if my math is correct that Hillary has also won 9 states by 60+.  I understand the demographics kind of speak for themselves but I just wanted to point out that he's gotten that percent in many states - just not the big ones yet (other than WA).
Click to expand...
Caucus states don't count. They require enthusiastic supporters which is unfair to Hillary.

 
Dread Pirate said:
yes.  "Requiring" is the operative word.  And the business are not private when the government is "requiring" them to cover specific things in the policies they sell.  Socialism necessarily relies on coercion hence the reference " a command and control economy".
Click to expand...
Just like car insurance. Yep.  But that doesn't get us to the "socialism" that you are trying to scare people with.

 
Seems to me that if gun makers should be held responsible for how their products are used, Apple should be sued into the Stone Age for not having a phone that shuts off while moving faster than 10 mph and Verizon should be sued for not restricting cell service over the roads.  Car manufactures should be liable for any deaths related to accidents involving speed.  While we're at it, let's tag Coppertone for selling any lotion under spf 40 and all the farmers who use Monsanto products.

 
renesauz said:
Have you forgotten about the Great Depression? Or the widespread disease that occured before the FDA due to faulty/flawed canning? Or the snake oil salesmen touting BS products that cured everything from gout to constipation to depression? Or the thousands of lives cut short in mining and construction jobs that paid piss poor wages while creating abysmal and dangerous working conditions?

A completely free market, in the end, is WORSE than even pure socialism...and Bernie's brand of socialism is far from pure. 
Click to expand...
the Great Depression? Smoot-Hawley, i.e. government policy did that.  The FDA, snake-oil salesman and mining?  Specialized policing of various sectors of our society and/or markets is a far different thing than the behemoth, inefficient bureaucracies we have today and would be consistent with a free market economy and a constitutional republic based on freedom and individual rights.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
536
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
462
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
817
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Top