Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

What about Dodd-Frank? Should we pretend that doesn't exist? 

We can stop pretending it doesn't exist right after we stop pretending that the institutions that were already too big to fail prior to 2008 haven't gotten even bigger since then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • NCCommish

    1324

  • timschochet

    1199

  • The Commish

    1082

  • Sinn Fein

    948

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A curse upon New York - no New York sports franchise will win a title in 2016. For every person that likes this post I'll add a year to the curse.

Want to offer a particularly large #### you to the people who made tonight possible. We could've had Bernie ####### Sanders as our president. Enjoy president Trump.

Here's Bernie's speech from Oct. 12, 2011 on the Panama deal. It is unbelievable how time after time after time, he has been on the right side of issues.   Finally, Mr. President, let's talk abou

12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

What about Dodd-Frank? Should we pretend that doesn't exist? 

Most of its impact has been absorbed by smaller institutions. I'm not entirely sure Dodd-Frank is something so great we should tout it as any shining example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 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? 

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.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:
23 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

8 years later and we still haven't done that.  Hillary isn't going to do it either.

What about Dodd-Frank? Should we pretend that doesn't exist? 

How did Dodd-Frank fix the too big to fail problem, in your own words

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hillary Clinton: 'I have a considerable lead'

- Video: warning, cackle-laughter episode, which means someone struck a nerve.

I actually think that was a good moment for her. No, I don't particularly care for her laugh - but the fact that she laughed it off then counter punched then pivoted to her case was a pretty good example of what a political pro looks like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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. 

You should work for them - greed is killing corporate America.  I've seen it firsthand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

How did Dodd-Frank fix the too big to fail problem, in your own words

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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. 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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. 

Tim do you realize the systemic risk they pose?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

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

That's not true. It's not Bernie's way or the highway. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 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.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

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. 

Is capitalism buying influence?  If not quit pretending america is a capitalism utopia.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:
21 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

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

That's not true. It's not Bernie's way or the highway. 

You certainly have not mentioned any specifics about how to handle these issues.   We're waiting...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

You certainly have not mentioned any specifics about how to handle these issues.   We're waiting...

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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. 

Capitalism flew out the window when businesses didn't face market repercussions for making terrible business decisions.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:
4 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

You certainly have not mentioned any specifics about how to handle these issues.   We're waiting...

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. 

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

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

If that fails, just charge them $225,000 every time we go and speak to them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

Yea, like letting them go under instead of us bailing them out.   Now that is pathetic. IMO.  Bailing them out I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 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.

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.

Edited by wdcrob
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 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.

This is a better answer then what Bernie gave to the NY Daily

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cstu said:

 

False, we seem to have done just fine with it 1932-2016.

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?  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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?  

We have our Nations entire history to support such an ideal. Having organized societies takes some forms of socialism to maintain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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?

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 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.

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.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 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.

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.

Edited by Mister CIA
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dread Pirate said:

I think you fail to appreciate the seismic-like shift toward socialism the ACA has created.  

Requiring individuals to purchase health insurance from private insurers is socialism? Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 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. 

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cap'n grunge said:

Requiring individuals to purchase health insurance from private insurers is socialism? Really?

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".

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 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.

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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).

Caucus states don't count. They require enthusiastic supporters which is unfair to Hillary.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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".

Just like car insurance. Yep.  But that doesn't get us to the "socialism" that you are trying to scare people with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...