Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Whether enshrining into law the notion people are incapable of reading loan documents, and can't avoid being fleeced by lenders without aid of a govt agency to watch their back is a good thing is another question. I'm not against the consumer agency's banning things like cross-defaults in unrelated consumer loans. But I am nervous about society being told, "Don't bother learning how to navigate a lending agreement. The govt will make it all nice and safe for you. It'll make sure you can stay as uneducated on the subject as you like. Nanny has your back."

I think it is absolutely amazing that this is your take on this. I take that back. Since taking something that is a real problem and reducing it to the most simplistic form and then re-jiggering it to fit your brain-dead look at the world is your thing, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. I'm not even going to bother addressing the substance in your post, since there is none there (and I made a promise that I just wouldn't anyway). But you should note that, once again, I think you're fucking ridiculous.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the craziest, or most disappointing, thing last night was this guy representing the right/TP saying the problem was the Rs ran "an East Coast liberal." Like we need to run one of these rape/abortion guys, rather than realizing that their insanity has cratered the Rs again.

What the hell coverage were you watching?

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think it is absolutely amazing that this is your take on this. I take that back. Since taking something that is a real problem and reducing it to the most simplistic form and then re-jiggering it to fit your brain-dead look at the world is your thing, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. I'm not even going to bother addressing the substance in your post, since there is none there (and I made a promise that I just wouldn't anyway). But you should note that, once again, I think you're fucking ridiculous.

TM

Dude. You (we) won. Let's chill for a day or two. Let Sebby wallow in his wackiness while we enjoy the good feeling for a day or two. He'll still be there when we're done. I promise.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the craziest, or most disappointing, thing last night was this guy representing the right/TP saying the problem was the Rs ran "an East Coast liberal." Like we need to run one of these rape/abortion guys, rather than realizing that their insanity has cratered the Rs again.

The Republicans have a couple big problems. In order to win nationally, they need to attract people into the party whom most of the party viscerally hates. And, the Dems are now the party of fiscal responsibility, while they are the party of tax breaks for the rich. That 47% comment, where Romney complains about other people's taxes being too low, that really defines where they've come to. Hank, you're in an area where the Rs may not yet be over the top. But head south or west, and the nuts are running the asylum.

But, on to letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Say goodbye. If you want to save something, Boehner will have to play let's make a deal, and lay his priorities on the table.

On the good side, once we establish that even a billion dollars can't buy the election, perhaps there is a little less incentive for these guys to french kiss Adelson's and Trump's asses.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Dude. You (we) won. Let's chill for a day or two. Let Sebby wallow in his wackiness while we enjoy the good feeling for a day or two. He'll still be there when we're done. I promise.

We'll get to talk about it with him when the Warren-Grayson bill is on the table.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Dude. You (we) won. Let's chill for a day or two. Let Sebby wallow in his wackiness while we enjoy the good feeling for a day or two. He'll still be there when we're done. I promise.

Sorry. Hard to turn off.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

We've been through this before. The issue isn't just protecting people who are incapable of protecting themselves, or unwilling to do so. On that, I tend to agree with the "fuck 'em" mentality. The problem is that that, as those people default and the defaults mount, they end up fucking all of us.

"Too big to fail" means "too big not to regulate."

You missed my point, I think. I said I was conflicted because I recognize your point: That the average person will fuck his finances up if left to interpret borrowing contracts on his own. And I see the argument that lending agreements are written to screw the borrower, and should be less confusing. I just find it a bit sad, and a sign of the slow decline in the quality of human we're producing here, that our reaction to the problem is just "Make the banks play more fair" instead of "Make the banks play fair and tell Joe Sixpack to educate himself enough to read a borrowing agreement."

The best way to stop the banks from fucking around with consumers is to create a class of informed consumer who can't be so easily fleeced while also applying sensible regulation to avoid the most egregious fleecing techniques. All I'm hearing from Warren is one side of the cure. She'd gain a hell of a lot of bipartisan credibility if she also offered a tough love message: "If you can't understand the agreement, don't sign it. If you do anyway, shame on you."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The Republicans have a couple big problems. In order to win nationally, they need to attract people into the party whom most of the party viscerally hates. And, the Dems are now the party of fiscal responsibility, while they are the party of tax breaks for the rich. That 47% comment, where Romney complains about other people's taxes being too low, that really defines where they've come to. Hank, you're in an area where the Rs may not yet be over the top. But head south or west, and the nuts are running the asylum.

But, on to letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Say goodbye. If you want to save something, Boehner will have to play let's make a deal, and lay his priorities on the table.

On the good side, once we establish that even a billion dollars can't buy the election, perhaps there is a little less incentive for these guys to french kiss Adelson's and Trump's asses.

Personally, I'd like to Obama reach across the aisle now, and make it clear that the main message from the electorate was to stop bickering and start dealing with shit. And then state the framework for an intelligent compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff. Shit, even CEOs are supporting tax increases at this piont, the Rs need to get over the notion that it's all about spending cuts.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The best way to stop the banks from fucking around with consumers is to create a class of informed consumer who can't be so easily fleeced ....

And bunnies and rainbows. We need some bunnies and rainbows.

I mean, seriously -- how do you go about the above? Preach "personal responsiblity"? Is that your approach to avoiding another 2008?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Dude. You (we) won. Let's chill for a day or two. Let Sebby wallow in his wackiness while we enjoy the good feeling for a day or two. He'll still be there when we're done. I promise.

You're getting the good feeling just now? When was it ever in doubt that Obama was going to win? I have never, through the entire campaign, believed Romney had a snowball's chance in hell. Frankly, anyone who did was either deluding himself or cognitively challenged.

The market historically does better with Ds in office, and gridlock's a good thing. Business now has absolute certainty on who'll be in charge, and perhaps that will increase hiring. And like I said, more regs = more work for lawyers. I feel like I'm supposed to shit on the victory party here, but honestly, this feels like nothing more than Wednesday, the day after the Tuesday election where what everybody expected to happen happened.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

And bunnies and rainbows. We need some bunnies and rainbows.

I mean, seriously -- how do you go about the above? Preach "personal responsiblity"? Is that your approach to avoiding another 2008?

I don't know, and your argument holds a lot more pragmatic heft than mine. It just disturbs me people in this country - from banks to those who borrow from them - are becoming more and more dependent on Uncle Sam. In an endless variety of ways.

I deal with debtors, and the level of cluelessness, even among business owners, is shocking. And not regarding complex stuff. I've seen people who act incredulous that judgment was confessed on a personal guarantee. It's a business loan, not a credit card application... Did they not read the 16 point font where it stated, "Personal Guarantee"?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The best way to stop the banks from fucking around with consumers is to create a class of informed consumer who can't be so easily fleeced while also applying sensible regulation to avoid the most egregious fleecing techniques.

Actually, I think creating a class of mildly sensible, at least semi-informed bankers may need to come first. It would be nice if they had a horizon longer than the december bonus and an attention span even half as long as a used car salesman.

Good luck with that.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You missed my point, I think. I said I was conflicted because I recognize your point: That the average person will fuck his finances up if left to interpret borrowing contracts on his own. And I see the argument that lending agreements are written to screw the borrower, and should be less confusing. I just find it a bit sad, and a sign of the slow decline in the quality of human we're producing here, that our reaction to the problem is just "Make the banks play more fair" instead of "Make the banks play fair and tell Joe Sixpack to educate himself enough to read a borrowing agreement."

I think there is a third way to interpret it: make the lawyers write it so it can be understood by normal people.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're getting the good feeling just now? When was it ever in doubt that Obama was going to win?

There were other things people were voting on too, you know.

And not everyone is blessed with your iron-clad certainty about inherently uncertain outcomes.

The market historically does better with Ds in office, and gridlock's a good thing.

Which is why you voted for Romney (or said you would).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

And not everyone is blessed with your iron-clad certainty about inherently uncertain outcomes.

This was never uncertain.

Which is why you voted for Romney (or said you would).

I justified voting for Mitt over Gary Johnson on the basis that, if the GOP/Dem chasm in PA tightened, in future races we'd see more in-state campaigning by Presidential candidates. This would be annoying, of course, but it creates economic activity, which PA needs.