5 ms·

Why are you citing a vote from 2008 in reference to the Congress that was just elected in 2012?

by alexqgb 14y ago

yummyfajitas 14y ago
I cited it because I don't believe the Republican position has changed. Do you disagree? Perhaps Republicans hate the Tea Party so much that they decided to support bailouts just to spite them?
- alexqgb 14y ago
  Um, the Bailout Bill was signed by George W. Bush - a Republican approving the work of his own cabinet. The bailout wasn't the issue, by the way. Faced with a catastrophic crisis, propping up a criminal enterprise that we are utterly dependent upon is very much a lesser of two evils choice. The real problem is with sparing these bastards from even a hint of prosecution after the fact. If you want a more accurate view of where the GOP stands today, consider Eric Cantor (i.e. their leadership) who actively courted Wall Street during the election, promising that the Republicans would provide "better service" and getting a highly disproportionate of the bribes (ahem) contributions in return. And don't get me started on Elizabeth Warren. She was actively and articulately opposed to the criminal class that's developed in banking. And the agency she designed (the CPFB) was the target for the most vitriolic rage that the House Republicans have managed to date, and that's saying something, given who we're dealing with.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    I didn't say opposition to bailouts was unanimous among Republicans, merely that the majority opposed them. As for "criminal enterprise" and "prosecution", could you remind me what crime was committed, and by whom? Last I checked, taking a long position on housing (the cause of the crisis) wasn't a crime. If it was, we need to jail every homeowner. Keeping Elizabeth Warren out of the public policy arena is a fantastic move. She is driven primarily by ideology, and displays a remarkable ability to state correct facts in a manner that misleads reporters and the public. See, for example, her nonsensical claims that medical costs cause millions of bankruptcies, or her confusing presentation of data in the "Two Income Trap" which obscures the fact that the primary cause of the two income trap is taxes.
    - alexqgb 14y ago
      Oh for god's sake. Are you really that uninformed about the crash? Do you honestly think it was simply banks "going long"? Tell you what, if it's an education you're after, see "Inside Job". It's right here, free and legal, for your convenience: http://vimeo.com/54817244 http://vimeo.com/54817244. For someone who knows as little about what actually happened as you appear to, it's probably the best crash course available.
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
        As I expected, you can't even articulate what crime you think was committed.
        alexqgb 14y ago
        You are correct. The scale of your ignorance combined with the depth of your obliviousness to it rendered me speechless. Should you actually have any curiosity here (which I suspect you don't), you'll find that the resource I provided offers a view vastly more comprehensive than any one person could include in a single HN post. And not being one to suffer fools gladly, referring you to a comprehensive account of multiple, interlocking frauds spanning a variety of institutions spares me the effort of engaging with someone displaying a Creationist's level of epistemic closure. This particular discussion of rampant corruption and outright criminal conduct (fraud, mostly) has the added benefit of being a very high profile account. It has been widely circulated, closely examined, and generally accepted as a fair and accurate assessment. This level of exposure means you'll have an easy time verifying the claims, should you choose to do so (which, ha). In the meantime, I'm going to go back to being amazed that someone discussing this in 2013 can do so without appearing to know what a derivative is, let alone how one works.
        barry-cotter 14y ago
        The guy you just said didn't know what a derivative is used to workas a quant.

Why are you citing a vote from 2008 in reference to the Congress that was just elected in 2012?

by alexqgb 14y ago

Why are you citing a vote from 2008 in reference to the Congress that was just elected in 2012?

I cited it because I don't believe the Republican position has changed. Do you disagree? Perhaps Republicans hate the Tea Party so much that they decided to support bailouts just to spite them?

alexqgb 14y ago
Um, the Bailout Bill was signed by George W. Bush - a Republican approving the work of his own cabinet. The bailout wasn't the issue, by the way. Faced with a catastrophic crisis, propping up a criminal enterprise that we are utterly dependent upon is very much a lesser of two evils choice. The real problem is with sparing these bastards from even a hint of prosecution after the fact. If you want a more accurate view of where the GOP stands today, consider Eric Cantor (i.e. their leadership) who actively courted Wall Street during the election, promising that the Republicans would provide "better service" and getting a highly disproportionate of the bribes (ahem) contributions in return. And don't get me started on Elizabeth Warren. She was actively and articulately opposed to the criminal class that's developed in banking. And the agency she designed (the CPFB) was the target for the most vitriolic rage that the House Republicans have managed to date, and that's saying something, given who we're dealing with.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  I didn't say opposition to bailouts was unanimous among Republicans, merely that the majority opposed them. As for "criminal enterprise" and "prosecution", could you remind me what crime was committed, and by whom? Last I checked, taking a long position on housing (the cause of the crisis) wasn't a crime. If it was, we need to jail every homeowner. Keeping Elizabeth Warren out of the public policy arena is a fantastic move. She is driven primarily by ideology, and displays a remarkable ability to state correct facts in a manner that misleads reporters and the public. See, for example, her nonsensical claims that medical costs cause millions of bankruptcies, or her confusing presentation of data in the "Two Income Trap" which obscures the fact that the primary cause of the two income trap is taxes.
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    Oh for god's sake. Are you really that uninformed about the crash? Do you honestly think it was simply banks "going long"? Tell you what, if it's an education you're after, see "Inside Job". It's right here, free and legal, for your convenience: http://vimeo.com/54817244 http://vimeo.com/54817244. For someone who knows as little about what actually happened as you appear to, it's probably the best crash course available.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      As I expected, you can't even articulate what crime you think was committed.
      - alexqgb 14y ago
        You are correct. The scale of your ignorance combined with the depth of your obliviousness to it rendered me speechless. Should you actually have any curiosity here (which I suspect you don't), you'll find that the resource I provided offers a view vastly more comprehensive than any one person could include in a single HN post. And not being one to suffer fools gladly, referring you to a comprehensive account of multiple, interlocking frauds spanning a variety of institutions spares me the effort of engaging with someone displaying a Creationist's level of epistemic closure. This particular discussion of rampant corruption and outright criminal conduct (fraud, mostly) has the added benefit of being a very high profile account. It has been widely circulated, closely examined, and generally accepted as a fair and accurate assessment. This level of exposure means you'll have an easy time verifying the claims, should you choose to do so (which, ha). In the meantime, I'm going to go back to being amazed that someone discussing this in 2013 can do so without appearing to know what a derivative is, let alone how one works.
        barry-cotter 14y ago
        The guy you just said didn't know what a derivative is used to workas a quant.