The Worst (First 100) Days Ever - Page 6

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Evidence that they "deregulated" it?



The Bush admin did this?



They WERE regulated. They ARE regulated. Lack of regulation was not the problem, e.



I don't agree with that. Take a look. They raised them steadily, finally reaching over 6%.



Awesome...how should we have stopped it? The bubble was created by the free market...and it corrected itself.



That might be true, but how did it cause the meltdown?



I would say it actually started with Carter and the CRA. I don't know about bank regulations...you'd have to give me some examples. And what about the government pushing lenders to make subprime loans? The government is as much at fault as the banks are.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He's not going anywhere for a long, long time.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Yes, by all means...someone needs to balance out my tendency to argue on the facts...it must be balanced with meaningless, wandering rhetoric. That is where you come in. Indeed.

" someone needs to balance out my tendency to distort on the facts. "

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Please demonstrate one instance where I've "distorted the facts." A link would be nice.

Savings & loan crisis
Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion of taxpayer monies. [29] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments made with this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of which were operating, more or less, as banks, thus requiring the FDIC to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money. This with some other "deregulation" policies ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history to that date. The Savings and Loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. See Keating Five.
An indication of this scandal's size, Martin Mayer wrote at the time, "The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources... the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes." [30]

John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[31]

Quote:
7. Dismantling of bank regulations that were put in after the great depression (starting with Regan)

I would say it actually started with Carter and the CRA. I don't know about bank regulations...you'd have to give me some examples. And what about the government pushing lenders to make subprime loans? The government is as much at fault as the banks are.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I love how you try to pre-empt any counter argument by implying that disagreeing with your premise constitutes "obfuscating, denial or distorting facts." I won't be falling for that little trick of yours. I will post my opinions and continue to make intellectually honest arguments based on fact.

Speaking of which, I do appreciate the Reagan example. However, I'd ask you to consider that when one types "Reagan Administration scandals" into Google or Wikipedia, one is likely to get a list of articles that just happen to assign blame for certain scandals to that administration. It's really not surprising.

As for the article itself, I have a problem with it: It's not "damning" at all. The problem is it violates Wiki's neutrality policy, because it contains unsupported statements and opinions, such as:



That would need to be supported. Then we have this....



That one is really bad. Which policies? How did they lead to the scandal? The article is written with clear point of view, which is not up to Wiki's standards. For another point of view, let's just type in "savings and loan crisis" into Wiki and see what happens. Oh, look:



"Deregulation" isn't even mentioned until item #5. 15 reasons are given. Two of them saying something about deregulation.

So tell me, who is distorting the facts...the person that does research on "Reagan administration scandals," or the one that researches "savings and loan crisis." Hmmm?






You have no examples. You have examples of how you distort the facts, actually. Hilarious.

You have no examples. You have examples of how you distort the facts, actually. Hilarious

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Classic stuff, jimmac!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

By all means, go look up some poll data on the public's perception of Reagan currently. Then tell me how generally accepted your notion is.

Boomers vs. Generation X

Nostalgia appears to play a modest role in Americans' choice of past president to serve the country today. The most popular choice of Baby Boomers, now aged about 50 to 64, is the man who was president of their youth: Kennedy. The top choice of those 30 to 49 years of age (broadly speaking, Generation X) is the president who served during their childhood or young adult years: Reagan.

Seniors are more likely than any other group to choose Roosevelt. Younger adults -- those 18 to 29 and 30 to 49 -- are the most likely to choose Clinton.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Agreed.



I don't deny that, but I also don't see what it has to do with this discussion.



jimmac, the reason I asked you to look up polling data was because you posted something about "almost everyone agrees" it was Reagan's fault, or something like that. You were specifically discussing public opinion, which is why I responded with comment about....public opinion.



Irrelevant, vague, biased and completely subjective.



I like it fine, thanks. Unfortunately your post and opinion is not based on Gallup data, even though you do provide a link. It's like arguing that there are 100,000,000 elephants on Earth, then providing a Gallup link to support it that shows public perception of professional athletes.


You must be fucking kidding me. You did a search for "Was Reagan responsible forthe S&L scandel [sic]? I even talked about getting biased results based on the search terms, yet you ignored it.

Let's do some more to illustrate biased results:

Is Obama a Muslim?

Is Lady GaGa a Man?

Are College Employees Stupid?

You see? Biased results. Oh, and by the way: If we're going to continue this discussion, you might want to learn to spell the word SCANDAL. I was going to ignore it, but after the third or fourth time, I thought you should know how to spell the goddamned word.

I don't deny that, but I also don't see what it has to do with this discussion.

You must be fucking kidding me. You did a search for "Was Reagan responsible forthe S&L scandel [sic]? I even talked about getting biased results based on the search terms, yet you ignored it.

Let's do some more to illustrate biased results:

Is Obama a Muslim?

Is Lady GaGa a Man?

Are College Employees Stupid?

You see? Biased results. Oh, and by the way: If we're going to continue this discussion, you might want to learn to spell the word SCANDAL. I was going to ignore it, but after the third or fourth time, I thought you should know how to spell the goddamned word.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Crap Jimmac, you've gone through multiple threads and done nothing other than dismiss everything and roll your eyes.

It mighe be time for ignore again.

realize that you're attempting to impress with that with that bloated post-bomb of a list. It's really a worthless argument to get into, because you're employing a strawman tactic.

mighe

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What..just any random-ass poll? A list of popularity doesn't do much except prove my point.



What, pray tell, am I avoiding? I'm saying that you're getting biased results based on what you type into Google. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I even gave you examples.



You know full well we're not talking about "mistakes" or typographical errors. We're talking about the fact that you DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPELL BASIC WORDS. We know that because you've used the same spelling 3-4 times. It calls into question your skills in using the written language. At least it explains your rambling, incoherent arguments.


First, see above. It's not just a mistake or typo...everyone makes those. You make much larger, egregious errors. And yes, jimmac...multiple writing errors matter in life. People judge your intellect from your writing. It's just a fact. Sorry if you don't like it.

Secondly, the example I used was NOT supposed to be an insult (Are College Employees Stupid?). It was an example of BIASED RESULTS as I explained earlier.

Jesus, you're ability to misinterpret and miss the point is without parallel.

It calls into question your skills in using the written language. At least it explains your rambling, incoherent arguments.