The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:If I were to start threads they would be on 'big issues.' For example, the financial meltdown, and what King George is doing about it. . .

As a libertarian, isn't your concern that he is doing ANYTHING about it?

As it happens, everything that the government is doing concerns me. However, in a fantasy world here are some things a government could do that I wouldn't mind: (1) Let the companies fail, (2) Dimsantle Fannie and Freddie, (3) Return our currency to sound money, preferably the gold standard, (4) Cease all of our current wars, bring all of those toops home, dissolve our foreign military bases, (5) Get rid of the income tax and don't replace it; cut spending to reflect the decrease in income (i.e., to the government's budget in the year 2000)

If the government did those things we would be well on our way to a booming economy. We'd need a cure period for all of the bad investments to be liquidated and repositioned, but we need that anyway and nothing the politicians do will prevent it. (In fact, they are making the eventual correction worse with the actions they are taking now.)

Here here!

Irn-Bru wrote:

Government got us into this mess and is using it to grab more power. It is government that underwrote massive bad loans, guaranteed them, created two bogus "companies" to try to dump them off on and when it didn't work, government bailed itself out and declared it a failure of capitalism.

I agree with all of this, but you are missing *the most important piece* of this puzzle: how the hell could an entire industry have made terrible financial decisions for almost a decade and not get punished for it? As always, follow the money: easy credit in near-infinite amounts. . .the Federal Reserve. Without the Fed, the government would have had to have taxed to do what it did. But since they don't face that reality (i.e., that someone has to pay for it), should anyone be surprised? That's why the Fed is the key here. (BTW, don't look for your boy Boortz to mention it, though. )

I like Boortz, but he's not exactly my "boy" though. I know you were teasing.

I agree with you on the "easy credit in near-infinite amounts," but the goverrnment created this mess so much more directly. They were providing it AND pounding financial services firms to lend it and ease restrictions out of social engineering. They underwrote 90% of the loans themselves. As PulpExposure's article pointed out they either owned or insured 50% of mortgages, which means their standards were so loose themselves they couldn't sell 5/9ths the mortgages the government underwrote without insuring them. What's going to happen when government loans the money to 50% of mortgage holders who are not a good enough risk for the market to take them even with as you point out vast amounts of very cheap money?

I agree with everything you said, like I said I'm just saying it was even WORSE then that. Then of course the lawyers running congress did what lawyers do best, point their long boney fingers at someone else.

Here's yet another example of the cops using reasonable, minimal force.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/taser.deat ... 25077.html

Personally, I don't think this even happened. And look at the way the liberal media didn't even point to the good things the cops did! (No offense, Kazoo. )

Let me get this straight in common man talk. The government forced companies to give loans to the people who couldn't afford a regular 30yr fixed loans? And since the government underwrote the interest only type loans, they actually hold the keys to the car that is headed straight off of a cliff? So all of this talk about a bailout using taxpayer money is to try and cover up the governments stupidity.

Essentially, they tried to take a capitalistic society and turn into socialistic society without many people really taking notice to what was happening. They did it through the guise of two of the biggest financial corporations in this Country. Goes to show how closely related republicans and democrats in wanting total government control over the entire Country.

Irn-Bru wrote:Here's yet another example of the cops using reasonable, minimal force.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/taser.deat ... 25077.html

Personally, I don't think this even happened. And look at the way the liberal media didn't even point to the good things the cops did! (No offense, Kazoo. )

I argued for the cops protecting the right of one group of citizens peacefully assembling from another group that wants to infringe on their rights. No one is questioning the protesters right to protest, only to intimidate, interfere, insult, and obstruct other's rights. How is protesting in the doorway "free speech?" Basic libertarianism, a legitimate function of government. Even as ribbing me, I don't get the connection between that and cops tasering someone in Brooklyn. Can you explain that even as a "joke?" It's such a reach I don't get it.

He was ribbing you about the liberal media part, not the 1st amendment issue.

JSPB22 wrote:He was ribbing you about the liberal media part, not the 1st amendment issue.

Um..OK

JSPB22 wrote:He was ribbing you about the liberal media part, not the 1st amendment issue.

That, and his (IMHO(!)) unreasonable trust in police action. These thugs definitely committed a crime in this case. What are the odds that they see any kind of discipline, much less the penalty they deserve?

Or, I could be living in a "fantasy" world where cops should be punished for crimes like this one. Because otherwise no one would be a policeman?

Irn-Bru wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:He was ribbing you about the liberal media part, not the 1st amendment issue.

That, and his (IMHO(!)) unreasonable trust in police action. These thugs definitely committed a crime in this case. What are the odds that they see any kind of discipline, much less the penalty they deserve?

Or, I could be living in a "fantasy" world where cops should be punished for crimes like this one. Because otherwise no one would be a policeman?

Uncle! I mean everyone else mixes people's arguments, changes the context of quotes and applies what they said about one thing to another, but I wasn't prepared for you doing it! You always (until now) play these straight. You caught me off guard. I'm going to concede this one while I'm behind because you're too formidable for me to dig my way out when I'm this far in.

But I will be better prepared next time for you to change the rules on me! Well done.

Heh, well I wasn't trying to make that serious of a point. Er, that is, it is a serious matter, but obviously I don't think it's a direct analogy to what we were discussing before. And I wasn't really making an argument. . .when I read that story it just struck me that I should post it to THN.

The National Taxpayer's Union put out an analysis of each presidential candidate's spending agenda and found that Barr would actually cut spending by about $200 billion while both McCain and Obama would increase it.

Now, that's something worth debating says Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia (1995-2003).

"This study just goes to show that both Republicans and Democrats will only add more to our already sky-rocketing debt," he said in a statement today. "On Election Day, voters can choose John McCain's big government, Barack Obama's bigger government, or Bob Barr's smaller government."

NTU