Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Corporate profits during presidential terms (in percent) Obama 43.1 Clinton 9.2 Kennedy 7.3 Reagan 2.3 Eisenhower 2.1 Nixon 1.9 Conclusion..... Vote Democratic, support big business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Corporate America was once committed to capitalism and the free market. Somewhere along the way they decided it was better to climb in bed with the government and use the heavy hand of government to eliminate their competition for them They no longer need to be better by making better products or providing better service. Cronyism is alive and well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Corporate profits during presidential terms (in percent) Obama 43.1 Clinton 9.2 Kennedy 7.3 Reagan 2.3 Eisenhower 2.1 Nixon 1.9 Conclusion..... Vote Democratic, support big business. What does this mean? Percentage of what? What happened to W. and H.W,, Carter? You can reach a conclusion from this? A link might be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 The Truth. It is a wonderful thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. That is what happens when govt. sticks its nose inside places it has no business being. When they start picking winners and losers and letting people off the hook you get this. That is why the bailout of the banks and GM were bad ideas. Let them go under and even though it will cause some temporary pain it will, in the long run, make things run much better. If people are relieved from the responsibility of bad behavior then they have no reason doing it the right way. If the federal govt. had not interfered in the housing market by essentially blackmailing banks into giving loans to people that were not qualified the housing bubble would not have happened. Then to make a bad situation worse Fannie and Freddie bought up all those bad loans, putting the taxpayer on the hook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. That is what happens when govt. sticks its nose inside places it has no business being. When they start picking winners and losers and letting people off the hook you get this. That is why the bailout of the banks and GM were bad ideas. Let them go under and even though it will cause some temporary pain it will, in the long run, make things run much better. If people are relieved from the responsibility of bad behavior then they have no reason doing it the right way. If the federal govt. had not interfered in the housing market by essentially blackmailing banks into giving loans to people that were not qualified the housing bubble would not have happened. Then to make a bad situation worse Fannie and Freddie bought up all those bad loans, putting the taxpayer on the hook. Well I disagree about the necessity of the bailout. You don't allow a segment of the industry to bring the whole financial system down if you can prevent it. But you should hold those who caused it responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. That is what happens when govt. sticks its nose inside places it has no business being. When they start picking winners and losers and letting people off the hook you get this. That is why the bailout of the banks and GM were bad ideas. Let them go under and even though it will cause some temporary pain it will, in the long run, make things run much better. If people are relieved from the responsibility of bad behavior then they have no reason doing it the right way. If the federal govt. had not interfered in the housing market by essentially blackmailing banks into giving loans to people that were not qualified the housing bubble would not have happened. Then to make a bad situation worse Fannie and Freddie bought up all those bad loans, putting the taxpayer on the hook. Well I disagree about the necessity of the bailout. You don't allow a segment of the industry to bring the whole financial system down if you can prevent it. But you should hold those who caused it responsible. Well then go back to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who started the whole business of threatening banks if they didn't make loans to unqualified people. The pieces of GM that were worth keeping would have been taken over by others and the rest scrapped as it should be. The problems in housing were noticed by some as far back as 04 but were ignored. If the bankers and others had not been assured of being bailed out if things went south then they would not have taken the actions they did. You will always have some bad actors that want to game the system for their own benefit and they should definitely be held accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. That is what happens when govt. sticks its nose inside places it has no business being. When they start picking winners and losers and letting people off the hook you get this. That is why the bailout of the banks and GM were bad ideas. Let them go under and even though it will cause some temporary pain it will, in the long run, make things run much better. If people are relieved from the responsibility of bad behavior then they have no reason doing it the right way. If the federal govt. had not interfered in the housing market by essentially blackmailing banks into giving loans to people that were not qualified the housing bubble would not have happened. Then to make a bad situation worse Fannie and Freddie bought up all those bad loans, putting the taxpayer on the hook. Well I disagree about the necessity of the bailout. You don't allow a segment of the industry to bring the whole financial system down if you can prevent it. But you should hold those who caused it responsible. Well then go back to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who started the whole business of threatening banks if they didn't make loans to unqualified people. The pieces of GM that were worth keeping would have been taken over by others and the rest scrapped as it should be. The problems in housing were noticed by some as far back as 04 but were ignored. If the bankers and others had not been assured of being bailed out if things went south then they would not have taken the actions they did. You will always have some bad actors that want to game the system for their own benefit and they should definitely be held accountable. That's absurd. They didn't create all those leveraged derivatives because they were being threatened by Carter and Clinton. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. Is that what has been labelled "Operation Choke Point"? Eric Holder has been attempting to shake down the banking industry, not giving them free passes, his entire tenure at the DoJ. What are you talking about homie? http://www.fireandre...bank-shakedown/ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/justice-gets-lost-as-the-feds-shake-down-banks-2014-07-17 http://news.investor...nd-jpmorgan.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. Is that what has been labelled "Operation Choke Point"? Eric Holder has been attempting to shake down the banking industry, not giving them free passes, his entire tenure at the DoJ. What are you talking about homie? http://www.fireandre...bank-shakedown/ http://www.marketwat...anks-2014-07-17 http://news.investor...nd-jpmorgan.htm Operation "choke point" has nothing to do with the financial melt-down. The other two examples serve to confirm what I am saying. The financial penalties on these firms are a joke. They are an easily absorbed cost of doing business. They penalize the shareholders instead of the executives who committed the crimes. Financial sanctions against the corporations that these CEO's and executives represent will have no deterrent effect for the future. Not to mention it's simply morally wrong to let people profit from their crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. That is what happens when govt. sticks its nose inside places it has no business being. When they start picking winners and losers and letting people off the hook you get this. That is why the bailout of the banks and GM were bad ideas. Let them go under and even though it will cause some temporary pain it will, in the long run, make things run much better. If people are relieved from the responsibility of bad behavior then they have no reason doing it the right way. If the federal govt. had not interfered in the housing market by essentially blackmailing banks into giving loans to people that were not qualified the housing bubble would not have happened. Then to make a bad situation worse Fannie and Freddie bought up all those bad loans, putting the taxpayer on the hook. In a word, no. Banks were committing fraud and ignoring their own lending standards. They were hardly worried with any governmental requirements. Your post is foolish. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. Is that what has been labelled "Operation Choke Point"? Eric Holder has been attempting to shake down the banking industry, not giving them free passes, his entire tenure at the DoJ. What are you talking about homie? http://www.fireandre...bank-shakedown/ http://www.marketwat...anks-2014-07-17 http://news.investor...nd-jpmorgan.htm Operation "choke point" has nothing to do with the financial melt-down. The other two examples serve to confirm what I am saying. The financial penalties on these firms are a joke. They are a easily absorbed cost of doing business. They penalize the shareholders instead of the executives who committed the crimes. Financial sanctions against the corporations that these CEO's and executives represent will have no deterrent effect for the future. Not to mention it's simply morally wrong to let people profit from their crimes. Some could argue it was morally wrong for the federal govt to seize the assets of AIG and then set up a back door through which assets could be moved for bailing out the financial sector. I agree they should have ALL been allowed to fail - every frickin one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. That is what happens when govt. sticks its nose inside places it has no business being. When they start picking winners and losers and letting people off the hook you get this. That is why the bailout of the banks and GM were bad ideas. Let them go under and even though it will cause some temporary pain it will, in the long run, make things run much better. If people are relieved from the responsibility of bad behavior then they have no reason doing it the right way. If the federal govt. had not interfered in the housing market by essentially blackmailing banks into giving loans to people that were not qualified the housing bubble would not have happened. Then to make a bad situation worse Fannie and Freddie bought up all those bad loans, putting the taxpayer on the hook. In a word, no. Banks were committing fraud and ignoring their own lending standards. They were hardly worried with any governmental requirements. Your post is foolish. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. That is what happens when govt. sticks its nose inside places it has no business being. When they start picking winners and losers and letting people off the hook you get this. That is why the bailout of the banks and GM were bad ideas. Let them go under and even though it will cause some temporary pain it will, in the long run, make things run much better. If people are relieved from the responsibility of bad behavior then they have no reason doing it the right way. If the federal govt. had not interfered in the housing market by essentially blackmailing banks into giving loans to people that were not qualified the housing bubble would not have happened. Then to make a bad situation worse Fannie and Freddie bought up all those bad loans, putting the taxpayer on the hook. In a word, no. Banks were committing fraud and ignoring their own lending standards. They were hardly worried with any governmental requirements. Your post is foolish. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. HAHAHA..the resident genius keeping it all straight for us lessers. You're an arrogant gas bag and if you were only fractionally as smart as you seem to believe, I hardly think you'd spend hours on end in this obscure forum propping yourself up as some kind of savant on all topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted September 28, 2014 Author Share Posted September 28, 2014 :bananadance: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. That is what happens when govt. sticks its nose inside places it has no business being. When they start picking winners and losers and letting people off the hook you get this. That is why the bailout of the banks and GM were bad ideas. Let them go under and even though it will cause some temporary pain it will, in the long run, make things run much better. If people are relieved from the responsibility of bad behavior then they have no reason doing it the right way. If the federal govt. had not interfered in the housing market by essentially blackmailing banks into giving loans to people that were not qualified the housing bubble would not have happened. Then to make a bad situation worse Fannie and Freddie bought up all those bad loans, putting the taxpayer on the hook. In a word, no. Banks were committing fraud and ignoring their own lending standards. They were hardly worried with any governmental requirements. Your post is foolish. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. That is what happens when govt. sticks its nose inside places it has no business being. When they start picking winners and losers and letting people off the hook you get this. That is why the bailout of the banks and GM were bad ideas. Let them go under and even though it will cause some temporary pain it will, in the long run, make things run much better. If people are relieved from the responsibility of bad behavior then they have no reason doing it the right way. If the federal govt. had not interfered in the housing market by essentially blackmailing banks into giving loans to people that were not qualified the housing bubble would not have happened. Then to make a bad situation worse Fannie and Freddie bought up all those bad loans, putting the taxpayer on the hook. In a word, no. Banks were committing fraud and ignoring their own lending standards. They were hardly worried with any governmental requirements. Your post is foolish. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. HAHAHA..the resident genius keeping it all straight for us lessers. You're an arrogant gas bag and if you were only fractionally as smart as you seem to believe, I hardly think you'd spend hours on end in this obscure forum propping yourself up as some kind of savant on all topics. Then it should be quite easy to prove me wrong but, you cannot. You can be an insulting jerk though. That's what you bring to the forum. What a pitiful, miserable, little gnat you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. Is that what has been labelled "Operation Choke Point"? Eric Holder has been attempting to shake down the banking industry, not giving them free passes, his entire tenure at the DoJ. What are you talking about homie? http://www.fireandre...bank-shakedown/ http://www.marketwat...anks-2014-07-17 http://news.investor...nd-jpmorgan.htm Operation "choke point" has nothing to do with the financial melt-down. The other two examples serve to confirm what I am saying. The financial penalties on these firms are a joke. They are a easily absorbed cost of doing business. They penalize the shareholders instead of the executives who committed the crimes. Financial sanctions against the corporations that these CEO's and executives represent will have no deterrent effect for the future. Not to mention it's simply morally wrong to let people profit from their crimes. Some could argue it was morally wrong for the federal govt to seize the assets of AIG and then set up a back door through which assets could be moved for bailing out the financial sector. I agree they should have ALL been allowed to fail - every frickin one of them. That's because you assume our financial system could sustain those failures. Most of the economists who are qualified to know said that was not likely, and the entire system - which after all, is ultimately based on faith - would collapse. Seems to me that if you can prevent such a collapse you do so. But you at least address the friggin problem. The bail-out was addressing the symptoms - or the results - of the problem. Letting the perpetuators off just exacerbates the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. Is that what has been labelled "Operation Choke Point"? Eric Holder has been attempting to shake down the banking industry, not giving them free passes, his entire tenure at the DoJ. What are you talking about homie? http://www.fireandre...bank-shakedown/ http://www.marketwat...anks-2014-07-17 http://news.investor...nd-jpmorgan.htm Operation "choke point" has nothing to do with the financial melt-down. The other two examples serve to confirm what I am saying. The financial penalties on these firms are a joke. They are a easily absorbed cost of doing business. They penalize the shareholders instead of the executives who committed the crimes. Financial sanctions against the corporations that these CEO's and executives represent will have no deterrent effect for the future. Not to mention it's simply morally wrong to let people profit from their crimes. Some could argue it was morally wrong for the federal govt to seize the assets of AIG and then set up a back door through which assets could be moved for bailing out the financial sector. I agree they should have ALL been allowed to fail - every frickin one of them. That's because you assume our financial system could sustain those failures. Most of the economists who are qualified to know said that was not likely, and the entire system - which after all, is ultimately based on faith - would collapse. Seems to me that if you can prevent such a collapse you do so. But you at least address the friggin problem. The bail-out was addressing the symptoms - or the results - of the problem. Letting the perpetuators off just exacerbates the problem. In my opinion, there were two fundamental mistakes made. First, the decision not to backstop Lehman Bros, and Merrill Lynch long enough to arrange a sale. The estimated cost would have been $50 billion. The second mistake was allowing fear to reign and thus promising trillions to ensure the banks would not fail, without any conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted September 28, 2014 Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'm with ICHY. What's the basis? But FWIW, I agree Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the financial industry. He and Holder have given those executives a free "stay out of jail" pass after they almost destroyed the country. As a result, it's almost certain it will happen again. Is that what has been labelled "Operation Choke Point"? Eric Holder has been attempting to shake down the banking industry, not giving them free passes, his entire tenure at the DoJ. What are you talking about homie? http://www.fireandre...bank-shakedown/ http://www.marketwat...anks-2014-07-17 http://news.investor...nd-jpmorgan.htm Operation "choke point" has nothing to do with the financial melt-down. The other two examples serve to confirm what I am saying. The financial penalties on these firms are a joke. They are a easily absorbed cost of doing business. They penalize the shareholders instead of the executives who committed the crimes. Financial sanctions against the corporations that these CEO's and executives represent will have no deterrent effect for the future. Not to mention it's simply morally wrong to let people profit from their crimes. Some could argue it was morally wrong for the federal govt to seize the assets of AIG and then set up a back door through which assets could be moved for bailing out the financial sector. I agree they should have ALL been allowed to fail - every frickin one of them. That's because you assume our financial system could sustain those failures. Most of the economists who are qualified to know said that was not likely, and the entire system - which after all, is ultimately based on faith - would collapse. Seems to me that if you can prevent such a collapse you do so. But you at least address the friggin problem. The bail-out was addressing the symptoms - or the results - of the problem. Letting the perpetuators off just exacerbates the problem. In my opinion, there were two fundamental mistakes made. First, the decision not to backstop Lehman Bros, and Merrill Lynch long enough to arrange a sale. The estimated cost would have been $50 billion. The second mistake was allowing fear to reign and thus promising trillions to ensure the banks would not fail, without any conditions. Well, I am sure there are some pretty good books on it by now, unfortunately I haven't read any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.