Do we have any Black Republicans here on The Coli?

[MeachTheMonster]

Huh, if the banks failed, their assets would have been absorbed by other more stable institutions. This is not rocket science breh. In iceland many of the large banks there failed and they picked up the pieces and moved forward. There economy is now growing at a fantastic rate and their country is more financially stable as a result. By using tax payer money to bail out a broken system will only lead to the eventual destruction of the country AS WELL AS the banks you love so dearly. Maybe you should stop with the democratic talking points and open a history book.

the government bailed out the banks in iceland.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

the government bailed out the banks in iceland.

Four banks in iceland failed and where recreated with government backing breh. Read and educate your self instead of acting as if you know what your talking about..

Too-Big-to-Fail Prevention Is Tested in Post-Crisis Iceland - Bloomberg

 

[Mook]

Four banks in iceland failed and where recreated with government backing breh. Read and educate your self instead of acting as if you know what your talking about..

Too-Big-to-Fail Prevention Is Tested in Post-Crisis Iceland - Bloomberg

They also arrested the bankers. Of course them, Switzerland, and Denmark are the master Countries though.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Four banks in iceland failed and where recreated with government backing breh. Read and educate your self instead of acting as if you know what your talking about..

Too-Big-to-Fail Prevention Is Tested in Post-Crisis Iceland - Bloomberg

Taxpayer money was used to save and restructure the banks. One of the banks was even nationalized. The only thing they did better, was pose stricter regulations on the banks to prevent this type of collapse from happening again. This is the type of plan that many democrats argued for, but couldn't get passed because the American government is more concerned with election rhetoric than actually fixing the economy.

You argue for free market and less regulation, then you bring up Iceland. A shining example of a government stepping in and fixing a problem with regulations and government resources.

 

[Broke Wave]

Actually I'm 32, educated, and banking well. The podcast is just a hobby. I don't need money. It's all good if you don't feel like debating politics. But let's just keep it real, you couldn't if you wanted to. You tried briefly and got embarrassed. And you're just proving your ignorance with your off-base generalizations.

Even his generalizations of "leftists" seem juvenile and contrived. Either people on the left are garbage collectors (which is a great job by the way... ), or their elitists in universities and Upper class North-Easterners.

This dude just went full rage mode in this thread. There's nothing to be mad about my man. It's just politics. Emotion comes from frustration. If you are frustrated with what you're reading, post some facts.

You keep posting some psuedo-problack bullshyt about "building wealth" and say stuff like "Marriage is a PRO WEALTH institution, but brothas are too concerned with fukkin bytches to realize that." I post some conflicting facts and evidence... and you just

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

Taxpayer money was used to save and restructure the banks. One of the banks was even nationalized. The only thing they did better, was pose stricter regulations on the banks to prevent this type of collapse from happening again. This is the type of plan that many democrats argued for, but couldn't get passed because the American government is more concerned with election rhetoric than actually fixing the economy.

You argue for free market and less regulation, then you bring up Iceland. A shining example of a government stepping in and fixing a problem with regulations and government resources.

I have no problem with the government stepping in and providing a banking system provided that the original bank owners are held accountable and the new banks are beholden only to the intrests of the people. Furthermore, if no one in the free market is able to take over the resources of the failed institution, than the govenrment would in that case have an obligation to provide a banking system for its citizens as a capitalist economy cannot function without a bank. This is very different than what took place here, which was essentially corporate welfare.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I have no problem with the government stepping in and providing a banking system provided that the original bank owners are held accountable and the new banks are beholden only to the intrests of the people. Furthermore, if no one in the free market is able to take over the resources of the failed institution, than the govenrment would in that case have an obligation to provide a banking system for its citizens as a capitalist economy cannot function without a bank. This is very different than what took place here, which was essentially corporate welfare.

You said, they just let the banks fail, and the free market took care of the problem itself. This is not the case. The government had to step in and take even more radical action than our government did, in order to save their economy. I've also seen you argue for small government, what Iceland did is the definition of large government.

If you advocate more and stricter regulations on wall street then I agree with you. The bailout plan was not enough, they should have stepped in and really took over the banks and held them accountable for the mess they made.

But we all know wealth=political power in this country so niether side was willing to turn their backs on the banks and really make some changes.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

You said, they just let the banks fail, and the free market took care of the problem itself. This is not the case. The government had to step in and take even more radical action than our government did, in order to save their economy.

If you advocate more and stricter regulations on wall street then I agree with you. The bailout plan was not enough, they should have stepped ideals really took over the banks and held them accountable for the mess they made.

But we all know wealth=political power in this country so niether side was willing to turn their backs on the banks and really make some changes.

first off, our government took no radical action. They just gave the banks the taxpayer money.

And stricter regulation is not needed because if the banks know that if they fail no one will bail them out, they will regulate themselves. Regulations should only exist in the form of preventing criminal activities, not trying to micromanage business practices.

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

Hold up, I just noticed that Wesley Pipes said in HL all religion is bad EXCEPT for Islam.

So lemme get dis str8. Dis nikka is a pro black republican muslim?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

first off, our government took no radical action. They just gave the banks the taxpayer money.

And stricter regulation is not needed because if the banks know that if they fail no one will bail them out, they will regulate themselves. Regulations should only exist in the form of preventing criminal activities, not trying to micromanage business practices.

You brought up iceland as an example of what should have been done in America. Iceland enforced very strict regulations in order to fix and prevent future issues. Either you agree with their plan or not.

And enforcing regulations isn't financially saving banks from failing. It is forcing them to be honest, and not to engage in risky business practices that would cause them to fail in the first place.

 

[CrimsonTider]

Huh, if the banks failed, their assets would have been absorbed by other more stable institutions. This is not rocket science breh. In iceland many of the large banks there failed and they picked up the pieces and moved forward. Their economy is now growing at a fantastic rate and their country is more financially stable as a result. By using tax payer money to bail out a broken system will only lead to the eventual destruction of the country AS WELL AS the banks you love so dearly. Maybe you should stop with the democratic talking points and open a history book.

And republicans are financially in my intrest because the encourage entrepreneurship and small business. Im a small business owner and the repubs have been more enthusiastic about preserving tax breaks, promoting growth, and encouraging reinvestment whereas democratics are focused on increasing the welfare state to appease those that want handouts. Disagree if you like but by visiting any impoverished neighborhood in America you will find many people who have an anti-entrepreneurship mentality, which has led them to multi-generational poverty. Especially when compared to immigrant populations that tend to think more pro-business.

Democratic talking points the bailout happened under a replublican president.

Not to mention Iceland government took greater steps than ours did.


Second, the TBTF institutions are not some bakery or credit union. These banks are too intertwined in the 3 major sectors ( domestic, government and foreign) to go through a bankruptcy proceeding.

Now to the talking points.

Repubs are more interest in preserving tax cuts you do realize taxes under Obama are the lowest in 60 years


Also the repubs are interested in cutting taxes for the rich. They don't give a fukk about you. If they did, they would be raising taxes on the rich.

As Romney said 47% dont pay taxes that means if taxes are cut for the rich that is less money that the government has to redistribute wealth through the economy.

Where's the proof that the democrats want a welfare state?

Anti entrupuneral spirit is the reason for generations of poverty. kind of racist logic is this?

You are really comparing an immagration to a black plight.

 

[Gus Money]

These types of threads remind me why I lost interest in debating politics.