Man for someone who tosses the word “strawman” out a lot, you certainly make quite a few of them…
Keyan Zameni
1

Man for someone who tosses the word “strawman” out a lot, you certainly make quite a few of them yourself. You’ve misrepresented almost all my arguments.

Yes, I’ve noticed how fast your arguments change once I refute them.

First, what I said was not an ad hominem, it’s simply fact. If you don’t believe you were childish…well, don’t even know what to say to that.

What I don’t believe is that you’re calling me “childish” without taking a look at how you started on this thread. Suffice to say I responded in kind. So, if you want to see “childish”, find a mirror. End of semantic argumentation. Moving on.

But authoritarianism remains bad, it’s like poison; virtually harmless in low doses, deadly in large ones. Poisons are certainly not good, even in low doses (i.e. lead). The same goes for authoritarianism.

I personally agree. Which is why I vigorously denounce the economic authoritarianism of the left, whilst also denouncing the social authoritarianism of the right.

No shit I think I’m right about Dodd-Frank, but it remains an opinion.

To say that DF is “good” or “not good” is an opinion. It is not an opinion to say that Dodd-Frank doesn’t end “too-big-to-fail”, but codifies it; it is not an opinion to say that Dodd-Frank has had a destructive effect on community banks. Both of those have been commented on as accurate by left-leaning as well as right-leaning commentators. And consensus from both sides is approaching that the Volker Rule’s unintended consequences are worse poision than that it was meant to solve.

I never said you couldn’t criticize the bill, but in a debate, you should actually have ideas of your own.

I agree in principle. Unfortunately, the “if you don’t have an idea you can’t criticize” is more typically used in political discussions to shut up your debate opponent. I tire of this intellectual laziness. If that’s not how you meant it, fair enough. I can’t judge your motives.

The reserve requirements wouldn’t prevent banks from making risky loans, or separate commercial and public banking.

Correct. What it does it provide them the capital to bail themselves out if shit goes bad, rather than relying on the taxpayer. Further, it decreases the capital they have available to put at risk, providing a self-regulating function that actually takes money out of their hands and forces it into T-bills or something else that’s solid.

Banks have virtually limitless incentive to make bad loans because Wall St buys them anyways and/or they are securitized. Without fixing that, you can’t fix Wall St.

If you repeal LBJ’s National Housing Act, which legalized securitization of mortgages, you severely inhibit liquidity in the mortgage markets. Not good. However, once we took Frannie out of the bad loan underwriting game, this stabilized the system rather markedly; they have much deeper pockets than even Wall Street. And we have, now, taken them out of the game, although it didn’t happen until 2013, IIRC.

I’m saying it isn’t enough. Dodd-Frank was essentially the only major attempt to fix the problems that caused the recession, to repeal it would mean going back to an environment that can cause another great recession.

That’s opinion stated as fact. I have to disagree. DF doesn’t make illegal any activity that caused the recession.

I believe that DF increases the risk in the financial system rather than decreases it. Two reasons. First off, it doesn’t The first is that it basically guarantees a government bailout of systemically important institutions should it happen again. If you know you’re going to get bailed out, then the natural reaction is “Risk On”; it’s moral hazard. Secondly, because of its deleterious effect on community banking, it will over the long term result in the concentration of assets in the systemically critical institutions, even more so than they are today. A concentration of assets means a concentration of risk.

I never said communism and whatever bs doesn’t rely on intensive regulation. All I said was fascism does. Wtf does communism have to do with it? Such a red herring.

Not at all. There are no shortage of people, especially these days, running about screaming “fascist” at people while self-identifying themselves as “socialist”. If you’re not one of them, fine. But nowadays, it is a reasonable assumption to make that one somebody self-identifies as “progressive”, they are exhibiting some level of solidarity with socialist ideas, if not sheer hostility to the free market. And, socialism and fascism is, in practice, a distinction without a difference.This is worth repeating. Often.

And no, the ACA is a republican idea fundamentally. Even if we assumed for a moment they never said a word on it before, it is a free market health care system.

(Spits coffee on her keyboard). Oh, Sweet Jesus:

That was just off the top of my head. :-)

Universal healthcare is the progressive’s system.

“Universal” does not address whether something is free market or not. It simply means that it’s had by all.

Right, I personally shoved the ACA down the people’s throat. Do you honestly read what you write at all? And I think even if your figures are correct, double to popular support to begin with is far more democratic than what the gop is trying to do now. Not only that, but near infinite hearings were held on the bill, while the gop had to craft it in secret. Sooooo democratic and free right?

Chuckles. I guess you forgot about “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” (Pelosi).

There seems to be this interesting myth going around in “progressive” circles that the ACA was created in an open and transparent setting. It most certainly wasn’t. It was crafted in committee without a lot of transparency (like the GOP is doing) then released (like the GOP did) then debated (like the GOP is doing) then recrafted (like the Senate is doing) before passage.

There’s very little difference in the processes.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Kady M.’s story.