More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:15 pm

People like to blame Bush and Republicans for the current financial crisis. I'm not saying he's not got a lot of responsibility, but they want to sweep crap like Clinton deregulating derivatives and Democrats pushing homeownership for everyone (read underprivelged minorities who can't afford them) through Freddie/Fannie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29724816

In fact, it was a law approved by Congress in 2000 that allowed companies to place tens of trillions of dollars of these risky credit default swap bets.

After the 1998 collapse of Long Term Capital Management, a giant hedge fund that pioneered the use of derivatives, the Fed engineered a rescue to prevent the unwinding of risky bets from spreading to the larger financial system. That brought calls for tighter regulation of derivatives, including a push for greater derivatives regulation at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, led by a former Wall Street attorney named Brooksley Born.

But strong opposition to the proposal from then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and senior Clinton administration officials sank the idea. On Dec. 21, 2000, President Clinton signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which further eased restrictions on derivatives like credit default swaps.

“For at least 150 years, these sorts of gambling contracts were unenforceable if they weren’t traded on an exchange,” said Stout, the UCLA professor. “We eliminated 150 years of insurance regulation and derivatives regulation all in the name of rocket science and financial engineering.”
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:24 pm

If Republicans had any real interest in our economy or welfare they had 8 years to undo Clinton's programs.

They did not.

You're just showing how much more you care about bashing democrats than you do about this country or it's people.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:12 pm

Hey I agree, and if you read my opening statement, I did not absolve Bush of any fault. He was in charge at least 6 years, and is largely responsible.

but blaming Bush entirely for the problem is dishonest at best. Democrats were right there in the beginning.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:05 pm

Image
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:11 am

kiryan wrote:People like to blame Bush and Republicans for the current financial crisis. I'm not saying he's not got a lot of responsibility, but they want to sweep crap like Clinton deregulating derivatives and Democrats pushing homeownership for everyone (read underprivelged minorities who can't afford them) through Freddie/Fannie.”


Kiryan, Bush had as much time as Clinton did to reverse this. While I'm not saying that the Bush administration didn't do a good job preparing the country for the ultimate turbulence it was going to face in the face of a changing world economy, I'm not going to say that blame can be put on any administrations or government.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:15 am

If Long Term Capital Management had been allowed to fail, institutions would have been a lot more careful in their use of derivatives thereafter, and also, a lot more careful about what counterparties they dealt with. There have been several strong articles that have suggested that LTCM is the genesis of the current crisis. The LTCM bailout was a bailout of their counterparties - an attempt to avoid a systemic meltdown. The lesson learned was that no large counterparty would ever be allowed to fail, and thus, due dilligence was lax in these derivative contracts leading up to the current crisis. When are we going to stop teaching that lesson?

Kiryan is blaming the Clinton Administration for not increasing regulation of derivatives. If we are going to bail everyone out, he is right, we need some hella strong regulations. If we want a free market capitalist country, which has been shown time and time again to increase the standard of living of everyone living therein, we don't need much regulation. What we simply need is the willingness to let the free market processes work.. to allow bad decisions to result in their natural consequences.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Kifle » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:41 am

Corth wrote:If we are going to bail everyone out, he is right, we need some hella strong regulations. If we want a free market capitalist country, which has been shown time and time again to increase the standard of living of everyone living therein, we don't need much regulation. What we simply need is the willingness to let the free market processes work.. to allow bad decisions to result in their natural consequences.


What is the difference between making the right financial decisions and being forced to make the right financial decisions as a large financial institution? Isn't the outcome the same without any need for regime change (e.g. institutions failing and being replaced)? It stands to reason if the same decisions are being made, cause being the only variable factor, the output remains the same without collapse, jobs are not lost nor gained, and the amount of total capital remains the same.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:15 pm

The point, Kifle, is to address the 'moral hazard' issue. If we fail to punish bad decisions, and in fact reward them, chances are we will have more bad decisions. There is nothing much that can be done about the current crisis except ride it out. What I am suggesting is that we do things now, other than regulation, that will help avoid future meltdowns.

The crux of the problem in the financial system was a mispricing of risk. Institutions were not as concerned as they should have been about counterparty and default risk. Perhaps the reason for this mispricing of risk is that the government had demonstrated in the past, with LTCM and other scenarios, that you didn't need to worry about such things. Moreover, the financial institutions had a huge financial incentive to take big leveraged risks. If things worked out well, they made an enormous amount of money in bonuses. If things didn't work out well.. the losses are socialized (government picks up the tab) - and apparently you still get your bonuses.

Basically, for capitalism to work you need both the carrot and the stick. We all know what the carrot is. The stick can be lots of regulation, or it can be bankruptcy/failure. In recent years there has been no stick at all. There soon will be, but there is not enough debate on what kind of stick is more appropriate.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Kifle » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:42 pm

Corth wrote:The point, Kifle, is to address the 'moral hazard' issue. If we fail to punish bad decisions, and in fact reward them, chances are we will have more bad decisions. There is nothing much that can be done about the current crisis except ride it out. What I am suggesting is that we do things now, other than regulation, that will help avoid future meltdowns.

The crux of the problem in the financial system was a mispricing of risk. Institutions were not as concerned as they should have been about counterparty and default risk. Perhaps the reason for this mispricing of risk is that the government had demonstrated in the past, with LTCM and other scenarios, that you didn't need to worry about such things. Moreover, the financial institutions had a huge financial incentive to take big leveraged risks. If things worked out well, they made an enormous amount of money in bonuses. If things didn't work out well.. the losses are socialized (government picks up the tab) - and apparently you still get your bonuses.

Basically, for capitalism to work you need both the carrot and the stick. We all know what the carrot is. The stick can be lots of regulation, or it can be bankruptcy/failure. In recent years there has been no stick at all. There soon will be, but there is not enough debate on what kind of stick is more appropriate.


I understand the basic economic issue raised here; however, I was just wanting to understand from a capitalism purist what the difference between right decisions through fear of failure and right decisions through regulation. The way I see it, and I think this should be limited to institutions which hold the power to destroy the financial structure of the nation (and the world for that matter), regulation is the safest bet.

Through regulation, you will have a smaller body of people making the decision limitations (narrowing the min/max margin), thus creating a playing field where there is minimal chance for economic collapse. While the smaller number and broad regulations do constrict innovation to an extent and create an "all or none" survival setting, it would avoid the current problems of failing financial institutions which are "too big to fail."

If we leave things on the opposite spectrum -- no regulation with no safty nets, you keep your high chance for innovation, but you also bring with it the ultimate negative of complete financial collapse. Also keep in mind that the economy is no longer border restricted -- it is global. Being the backbone of many economies, the United States has a heavy burden placed on its shoulders as being on of the few who "can't fail." True, this is not an ultimate failure if the US fails, but it would make life horrible for many.

From a utilitarian view, I can not fully condone minimal or no regulation. I find that if innovation is not completely suffocated by regulation, and if the regulation is done correctly, the utility of such a economic structure would outweigh the negatives. And I think it should be realized that sacrificing freedom for security is a trade-off made daily and that Ben Franklin was kind of a dumbass.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:57 pm

Regulation is a less efficient 'stick'. All things being equal, its better than no stick at all. However, it has its costs. Look at Sarbanes-Oxley for a good example. Entire departments need to be created within large corporations to produce paperwork needed to comply with that law. Thats a shitload of money that could otherwise be used for productive purposes. Is it warranted? Possibly. But it would certainly be better if we didn't need such a regulation in the first place. The goal is to create wealth, not paper.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Kifle » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:10 pm

Corth wrote:Regulation is a less efficient 'stick'. All things being equal, its better than no stick at all. However, it has its costs. Look at Sarbanes-Oxley for a good example. Entire departments need to be created within large corporations to produce paperwork needed to comply with that law. Thats a shitload of money that could otherwise be used for productive purposes. Is it warranted? Possibly. But it would certainly be better if we didn't need such a regulation in the first place. The goal is to create wealth, not paper.


Job creation = wealth... just less lopsided in its distribution. Oh yeah, I went there.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:59 pm

Corth wrote:What I am suggesting is that we do things now, other than regulation, that will help avoid future meltdowns.


Like what?

There soon will be, but there is not enough debate on what kind of stick is more appropriate.


Why not two sticks?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:23 pm

1. Allow the institutions that made bad decisions to deal with the consequences of same without help from taxpayers.

2. Agreed. In some circumstances regulation must be used. The preference should be to allow the market to self-regulate when it is capable of doing so.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:29 pm

Kifle wrote:
Corth wrote:Regulation is a less efficient 'stick'. All things being equal, its better than no stick at all. However, it has its costs. Look at Sarbanes-Oxley for a good example. Entire departments need to be created within large corporations to produce paperwork needed to comply with that law. Thats a shitload of money that could otherwise be used for productive purposes. Is it warranted? Possibly. But it would certainly be better if we didn't need such a regulation in the first place. The goal is to create wealth, not paper.


Job creation = wealth... just less lopsided in its distribution. Oh yeah, I went there.


No wealth is created from simply making paper for the sake of complying with a regulation. Wealth is created by building things or providing services that people need. Yes, jobs are created by the regulation because companies need to ensure compliance, but these jobs depend upon other wealth creating jobs for their sustainability. Certainly if we were to force companies to allocate 10% of the workforce to dig holes and fill them back up, our standard of living as a whole would suffer. Compliance jobs create just as much wealth as the hole digging job.

Which is not to say they aren't important. In many cases they are. I am not saying regulation should be tossed out the window - and compliance jobs are a part of regulation. I am saying though that regulations are a less efficient way than the market in many cases to force a certain standard of conduct. So long as you allow the market to do its job, that is.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:36 pm

Corth wrote:1. Allow the institutions that made bad decisions to deal with the consequences of same without help from taxpayers.

2. Agreed. In some circumstances regulation must be used. The preference should be to allow the market to self-regulate when it is capable of doing so.




You're just choosing which consequences the tax payers will deal with though, aren't you? I mean, what would the effects on our overall economy be if the largest banks disappeared overnight?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:56 pm

In the short term it would hurt more if we allowed failure. In the long term, it would reaffirm the free market principles that allowed the US to be prosperous in the first place. It would create a better standard of living in the long term.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:04 pm

Corth wrote:In the short term it would hurt more if we allowed failure. In the long term, it would reaffirm the free market principles that allowed the US to be prosperous in the first place. It would create a better standard of living in the long term.



How can you predict the better standard of living over the long term? How much more would it hurt to let our banking sector implode? How can you even be sure we could recover...?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Ashiwi » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:07 pm

Corth wrote:In the short term it would hurt more if we allowed failure. In the long term, it would reaffirm the free market principles that allowed the US to be prosperous in the first place. It would create a better standard of living in the long term.


100% absolutely agree. Short term bandages are only going to create an atmosphere where people are repeating past mistakes. If you want to put the blame anywhere, you have to put it square on the heads of the American people as a whole. "He who won't work, won't eat" has become "Gather status symbols quick at any price and forget about the consequences."

In our system, the government can't take full blame for doing something we either asked them to do, or allowed them to do without protest.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:20 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:In the short term it would hurt more if we allowed failure. In the long term, it would reaffirm the free market principles that allowed the US to be prosperous in the first place. It would create a better standard of living in the long term.



How can you predict the better standard of living over the long term? How much more would it hurt to let our banking sector implode? How can you even be sure we could recover...?


I'm suggesting we go with what has historically worked. The free market has made the US into the wealthiest country in the world (lets acknowledge debate on distribution of wealth and leave that for a minute). I am suggesting we reaffirm those principles that got us to where we are. Can I be sure of anything? About as sure as the politicians are who are spending the taxpayer's money without giving it much thought.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:23 pm

Corth wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:In the short term it would hurt more if we allowed failure. In the long term, it would reaffirm the free market principles that allowed the US to be prosperous in the first place. It would create a better standard of living in the long term.



How can you predict the better standard of living over the long term? How much more would it hurt to let our banking sector implode? How can you even be sure we could recover...?


I'm suggesting we go with what has historically worked. The free market has made the US into the wealthiest country in the world (lets acknowledge debate on distribution of wealth and leave that for a minute). I am suggesting we reaffirm those principles that got us to where we are. Can I be sure of anything? About as sure as the politicians are who are spending the taxpayer's money without giving it much thought.


Didn't those free market principles get us the Great Depression? Do you think we're better off for that?

What makes you think the politicians aren't thinking? That one's rhetorical... I don't want to debate something we can't know. Just think about how your built-in prejudices may be coloring your perspective on this.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:25 pm

Ashiwi wrote: "He who won't work, won't eat" has become "Gather status symbols quick at any price and forget about the consequences."


The funny thing is you're agreeing with Corth, who a few weeks ago was claiming we _should_ promote greed as a virtue.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:32 pm

i agree with corth.

especially about moral hazzard

i also want to comment that jobs created to manage compliance with Sarbanes Oxley is not creating jobs. its creating overhead that makes companies less competitive that takes away jobs. this is like the UN wish to create 10 million jobs "taking care of the forests". If you don't produce anything (or support producing something) you really aren't doing anything other than sucking the life out of everything else.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:34 pm

kiryan wrote:i agree with corth.

especially about moral hazzard

i also want to comment that jobs created to manage compliance with Sarbanes Oxley is not creating jobs. its creating overhead that makes companies less competitive that takes away jobs. this is like the UN wish to create 10 million jobs "taking care of the forests". If you don't produce anything (or support producing something) you really aren't doing anything other than sucking the life out of everything else.


Sarbanes-Oxley isn't about creating jobs, though it is, it's about preventing fraud. Are you arguing that companies would be more competitive if they could defraud other companies more easily?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:35 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:In the short term it would hurt more if we allowed failure. In the long term, it would reaffirm the free market principles that allowed the US to be prosperous in the first place. It would create a better standard of living in the long term.



How can you predict the better standard of living over the long term? How much more would it hurt to let our banking sector implode? How can you even be sure we could recover...?


I'm suggesting we go with what has historically worked. The free market has made the US into the wealthiest country in the world (lets acknowledge debate on distribution of wealth and leave that for a minute). I am suggesting we reaffirm those principles that got us to where we are. Can I be sure of anything? About as sure as the politicians are who are spending the taxpayer's money without giving it much thought.


Didn't those free market principles get us the Great Depression? Do you think we're better off for that?

What makes you think the politicians aren't thinking? That one's rhetorical... I don't want to debate something we can't know. Just think about how your built-in prejudices may be coloring your perspective on this.


Yeah we are better off for it. In the great depression banks made mistakes and they failed as a result. They were very hard times, and when we came out of it we had about 80 years of prosperity. The kind of prosperity never before imagined by human beings.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:38 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:i agree with corth.

especially about moral hazzard

i also want to comment that jobs created to manage compliance with Sarbanes Oxley is not creating jobs. its creating overhead that makes companies less competitive that takes away jobs. this is like the UN wish to create 10 million jobs "taking care of the forests". If you don't produce anything (or support producing something) you really aren't doing anything other than sucking the life out of everything else.


Sarbanes-Oxley isn't about creating jobs, though it is, it's about preventing fraud. Are you arguing that companies would be more competitive if they could defraud other companies more easily?


If we could think up a way to prevent fraud without costing as much money as Sarbanes-Oxley costs, wouldn't we want to pursue that? Thats the point. Nobody is in favor of fraud. The question is always what stick do we use, and to what extent.

And I still say we should promote greed as a virtue. When someone lawfully acts for the purpose of earning money, its because he is providing a good or service that helps somebody else. Overall, a positive interaction.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:43 pm

Corth wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:In the short term it would hurt more if we allowed failure. In the long term, it would reaffirm the free market principles that allowed the US to be prosperous in the first place. It would create a better standard of living in the long term.



How can you predict the better standard of living over the long term? How much more would it hurt to let our banking sector implode? How can you even be sure we could recover...?


I'm suggesting we go with what has historically worked. The free market has made the US into the wealthiest country in the world (lets acknowledge debate on distribution of wealth and leave that for a minute). I am suggesting we reaffirm those principles that got us to where we are. Can I be sure of anything? About as sure as the politicians are who are spending the taxpayer's money without giving it much thought.


Didn't those free market principles get us the Great Depression? Do you think we're better off for that?

What makes you think the politicians aren't thinking? That one's rhetorical... I don't want to debate something we can't know. Just think about how your built-in prejudices may be coloring your perspective on this.


Yeah we are better off for it. In the great depression banks made mistakes and they failed as a result. They were very hard times, and when we came out of it we had about 80 years of prosperity. The kind of prosperity never before imagined by human beings.


Along with all kinds of regulation and safeguards put in place by the government, right? FDIC, for instance?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:45 pm

greed + monopoly = bad.

im wondering if we should reinstate the old regulations on how big companies certain companies can get. have more, smaller companies... which would undoubtedly go bankrupt more often and cost us more as consumers... vs large companies so big that they can never go bankrupt.

i believe there were several laws changed / repealed to allow banks to get big like this. in the 90s they were talking about how big companies from other countries free from these restrictions were going to dominate the international and local market places... so we removed these restrictions to compete.

look at what is happening in the telephone/cable industry. they are pushing for the same changes to allow them to get bigger and bigger, compete in more areas. we're repeating the cycle.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:49 pm

Corth wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:i agree with corth.

especially about moral hazzard

i also want to comment that jobs created to manage compliance with Sarbanes Oxley is not creating jobs. its creating overhead that makes companies less competitive that takes away jobs. this is like the UN wish to create 10 million jobs "taking care of the forests". If you don't produce anything (or support producing something) you really aren't doing anything other than sucking the life out of everything else.


Sarbanes-Oxley isn't about creating jobs, though it is, it's about preventing fraud. Are you arguing that companies would be more competitive if they could defraud other companies more easily?


If we could think up a way to prevent fraud without costing as much money as Sarbanes-Oxley costs, wouldn't we want to pursue that? Thats the point. Nobody is in favor of fraud. The question is always what stick do we use, and to what extent.

And I still say we should promote greed as a virtue. When someone lawfully acts for the purpose of earning money, its because he is providing a good or service that helps somebody else. Overall, a positive interaction.


Corth, laws are never going to precede harm. It just doesn't happen. Sarbanes-Oxely was a response to Enron's manipulation of the power grid, for instance. They clearly found a way to seek profit that was NOT beneficial to others. Promoting greed as a virtue is why they did this, no one who was taught to do their best to improve others' lives would have done what they did.

What about, and I don't know his name, the Ponzi Scheme guy who's been in the news recently? Again he sought wealth and conned people out of billions of dollars. Sure, he got caught... after 20 years and ruining many peoples' lives. Yet again if we didn't teach him, as a society, that money is all that mattered he might not have done this.

Law punishes people AFTER they cause harm, it does not prevent them from causing harm. Teaching people to respect others and work for the benefit of everyone, however, does prevent them from causing harm.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:50 pm

btw laughing my ass off at the picard picture.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:57 pm

yea im going to have to agree with sarvis to a degree here...

greed by my definition is immoral. we need ethical and moral desire to earn as much as we can by exchanging legitimate value for reasonable compenstaion, but not greed.

At certain points some fortunes are immoral whether earned ethically or not. I wouldn't dare to define what those limits are... or suppport regulation to enforce... or how to teach people how to judge what is and what is not... but i think if you are a certain degree of richness, you have a moral and ethical obligation to redistribute the wealth. thats probably why most rich people engage in a lot of charity and philanthropy.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:01 pm

Sarvis,

Regulations seek to prevent harm from occurring by requiring a certain standard of behavior and creating agencies that oversee the regulated entity. You are talking about criminal laws, which indeed punish people after a harm is committed. The primary goal of regulation, however, is to prevent the harm in the first place. Sarbanes Oxley, for instance, is not a criminal statute. It doesn't come into play once a harm has been committed. Rather, it requires companies and executives, among other thing, to make certain disclosures of information on an ongoing basis, and make certain representations, which can be used to prevent a fraud.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:05 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis,

Regulations seek to prevent harm from occurring by requiring a certain standard of behavior and creating agencies that oversee the regulated entity. You are talking about criminal laws, which indeed punish people after a harm is committed. The primary goal of regulation, however, is to prevent the harm in the first place. Sarbanes Oxley, for instance, is not a criminal statute. It doesn't come into play once a harm has been committed. Rather, it requires companies and executives, among other thing, to make certain disclosures of information on an ongoing basis, and make certain representations, which can be used to prevent a fraud.


Sarbanes Oxley came into existence AFTER harm was caused. I didn't say it came into play after, I said it was created after. The point is that someone will come up with another borderline legal way to game the system, harm others and make a huge profit in the process. Laws and regulations will never prevent that. Teaching people that humans are more important than dollars will.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:05 pm

I'm surprised you are taking that position. All the tinfoil hat lefties are arguing in favor of more regulation. I agree that moral behavior should be something that is expected of us, and perhaps we should also encourage the idea of shame upon those who fail their morality tests.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:27 pm

Corth wrote:I'm surprised you are taking that position. All the tinfoil hat lefties are arguing in favor of more regulation. I agree that moral behavior should be something that is expected of us, and perhaps we should also encourage the idea of shame upon those who fail their morality tests.


Again Corth, two sticks. Regulation has it's place, but can never be ahead of the devious minded.

The problem is we can't really fail people on their morality tests if all we teach them is they're supposed to seek out money above everything else. Greed is not a virtue, it's a useful vice and should be treated as such. Especially in a world where the harm caused by our actions can be placed so far out of sight that we never need to deal with it. There is no reason people should die in a factory fire in random third world countries so that we can buy cheap, lead filled toys for a dollar less. It's unconscionable.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:00 pm

society is the problem, and its a problem because for the past 50 years, liberals have been telling us place no restrictions on your behavior nothing is off limits. divorce your husband/wife if your not happy, have sex with as many people as you want, engage in homosexuality, cohabitate, let your kids watch MTV trash on TV and listen to disgusting music.

Is it any wonder why capitalists now think its ok to make indecent amounts of money using any vehicle available?

I blame liberals for the destuction of the values that made this country great. specifically hippies.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:19 pm

kiryan wrote:society is the problem, and its a problem because for the past 50 years, liberals have been telling us place no restrictions on your behavior nothing is off limits. divorce your husband/wife if your not happy, have sex with as many people as you want, engage in homosexuality, cohabitate, let your kids watch MTV trash on TV and listen to disgusting music.

Is it any wonder why capitalists now think its ok to make indecent amounts of money using any vehicle available?

I blame liberals for the destuction of the values that made this country great. specifically hippies.


You mentioned a lot of things Liberals taught people was ok. The one thing you didn't mention was: harm others to make money.

Odd, that.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:41 pm

I'll blame them indirectly for that.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:03 pm

kiryan wrote:I'll blame them indirectly for that.


You'd have to, since that's the Republican mantra.

The thing is, most of the things you listed don't really harm anyone. Who the fuck cares if two people want to divorce? It's really probably better for the kid than growing up with two parents who do nothing but fight.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:28 pm

because the foundation of divorce is a committment and if two people won't hold themselves to a higher standard to keep this committment... especially when children are involved.

because kids do suffer.

but heres the answer you are really looking for... because we could save 112 billion a year for tax payers and it would help reduce poverty!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... lies_N.htm (yes they note that the research was biased)

NEW YORK (AP) — Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

(and the real crazies)
http://www.divorcereform.org/soc.html
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:37 pm

kiryan wrote:because the foundation of divorce is a committment and if two people won't hold themselves to a higher standard to keep this committment... especially when children are involved.

because kids do suffer.

but heres the answer you are really looking for... because we could save 112 billion a year for tax payers and it would help reduce poverty!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... lies_N.htm (yes they note that the research was biased)

NEW YORK (AP) — Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

(and the real crazies)
http://www.divorcereform.org/soc.html


So you think women should stay with abusive husbands so you can save a few tax dollars?

Mass starvation, wife beating, death, poverty... it's like a running gag with conservatives. Anything's ok as long as it doesn't cost you a dollar!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:24 pm

come on sarvis, this is going to save tax payers 112 billion! yes most of the money is going to go to professional marriage counselors (read pastors and conservative counselors), but hey its going to save us money!

How many millions were in the stimulus to pass out condoms because we're gonna save money? but I see, saving tax payers money is an argument that only works when we are promoting liberal agenda.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:57 am

kiryan wrote:come on sarvis, this is going to save tax payers 112 billion! yes most of the money is going to go to professional marriage counselors (read pastors and conservative counselors), but hey its going to save us money!

How many millions were in the stimulus to pass out condoms because we're gonna save money? but I see, saving tax payers money is an argument that only works when we are promoting liberal agenda.


Nice try, but condoms save money by preventing unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease. In other words: by HELPING people.

You want to save money by HURTING people.

Kind of a big difference there, once you go beyond partisan bullshit.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:52 pm

how is marriage counseling hurting people? how is learning how to make a committment and keep it even when things are "tough" hurting people? How is having 2 adults there that love their child hurting anyone?

We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!

Some divorces probably do need to happen (thats not biblical), but a lot of them could and should be saved.

We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!

and you wonder why chicks don't think you are marriage material. thats why people date btw, its not just for porking its the trial period to a long term partnership.

We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!

I think I just had an demogasm because we're going to save billions by increasing spending.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:59 pm

kiryan wrote:how is marriage counseling hurting people? how is learning how to make a committment and keep it even when things are "tough" hurting people? How is having 2 adults there that love their child hurting anyone?

We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!

Some divorces probably do need to happen (thats not biblical), but a lot of them could and should be saved.

We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!

and you wonder why chicks don't think you are marriage material. thats why people date btw, its not just for porking its the trial period to a long term partnership.

We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!

I think I just had an demogasm because we're going to save billions by increasing spending.


I never said I wanted a divorce, or that I thought dating was just an attempt to "pork" a girl. You may have failed to notice that I wanted to stay with one girl, and in fact am still hurting over her loss. You may have failed to notice that because you're trying far too hard to prove a bad point, and felt like you could rake me over the coals on some personal matter I shared with everyone earlier.

I never said I was against marriage counseling, but any marriage counselor will tell you some marriages can't be saved. I don't think you'll find many, outside of Churches anyway, who think two people who simply cannot get along should remain married because they made a commitment.

Therefore yes, divorce should be allowed.

I never said promoted, nor has anyone. Just allowed.

Stop hating Liberals because one of them kicked your puppy when you were 3.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:09 pm

want to save money by HURTING people.

how else am i supposed to interpret that than as against saving marriages?

you want to talk about hurting people, look at the hurt caused by the sexualization of our society driven by social liberals. the destruction of our moral values.

--

yea i took a cheap shot and no i will not be sorry because you feel bad.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:14 pm

kiryan wrote:want to save money by HURTING people.

how else am i supposed to interpret that than as against saving marriages?

you want to talk about hurting people, look at the hurt caused by the sexualization of our society driven by social liberals. the destruction of our moral values.

--

yea i took a cheap shot and no i will not be sorry because you feel bad.


I wouldn't expect you to be sorry. Your entire stance on every issue shows how little you care about people. From advocating mass starvation in Africa to stating no one should ever divorce to save you some tax dollars, despite the fact that there is real physical and psychological harm in some marriages.

Now, what hurt do you think we've caused by "sexualizing" people? You DO understand that:

A) People are sexual anyway, have always wanted to have sex and always will have sex
B) The sexualization of youth is driven by marketing companies who want to sell to tweens

No, of course not. You don't understand those because you've demonized liberals so you can blame them for everything. A girl's wearing her Paris Hilton branded slutware? Damn Liberals!

Look in a mirror. Look at the guy who says anything for a dollar, and then look at who marketed that Paris Hilton Slutware to a 6 year old. He should look familiar.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:56 pm

Some divorces probably do need to happen (thats not biblical), but a lot of them could and should be saved.

Thats what I said. I didn't say people who are being abused need to stay together. jack ass

BUT WE COULD SAVE 112 BILLIONS!

--

Blame evil corporations for everything, including your job.

You obviously don't understand the real effect that hippies and feminists have had on our society and our values. what exactly do you think social liberal means.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Sarvis » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:17 pm

kiryan wrote:Some divorces probably do need to happen (thats not biblical), but a lot of them could and should be saved.

Thats what I said. I didn't say people who are being abused need to stay together. jack ass

BUT WE COULD SAVE 112 BILLIONS!

--

Blame evil corporations for everything, including your job.


Wow, straw man much? I didn't say corporations were evil, I said they market sexuality to kids. Care to dispute the actual point, or just rant about liberals some more?

You obviously don't understand the real effect that hippies and feminists have had on our society and our values. what exactly do you think social liberal means.


Let's see, hippies? Probably not much. They might someday get pot legalized, in which case we'll save trillions in the futile war on drugs... but they'll probably space out and forget to sign the petition.

Feminists? They've made it possible for wives who are abused to leave their husbands and actually still have a career capable of feeding their children. OH NO!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby oteb » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:34 pm

kiryan wrote:We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!


That's enough for another iraq war! GO FOR IT!

Totally offtopic but can anyone tell me if its actually true (heard it somewhere) that every republican president since 1900 has led a war some place or other
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: More on Clinton's role in creating this financial mess

Postby Corth » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:15 am

oteb wrote:
kiryan wrote:We could save 112 billion dollars a year!!!!


That's enough for another iraq war! GO FOR IT!

Totally offtopic but can anyone tell me if its actually true (heard it somewhere) that every republican president since 1900 has led a war some place or other


Indian Wars occurred in every Presidency up to the 20th Century. Many were the results of broken treaties.They will not be counted.

Franco-American Naval War(Quasi War): John Adams, Federalist(Ancestor Party of the Republicans); See XYZ affair for reason of war

First Barbary War: Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican(Ancestor Party of the Democrats); Tripolitians ransomed American Sailors and tried to blackmail US. When the US refused the Pasha(equivalent to king) declared war.

Second Barbary War and War of 1812: James Madison, Democratic-Republican; Second Barbary War began the same way as the first only with the Bey of Algiers declaring war. While the War of 1812 can be argued as being a war about sailor's rights, the real motive was Canada.

Mexican-American War: James K. Polk, Democratic; The Republic of Texas had a claim to Land between the Rio Grand and San Antionio(which the US inherited), which was not valid. Polk sent troops to the territory to protect it and the Mexican government sent troops to drive it out.

American Civil War: Abraham Lincoln, Republican; First fought to preserve the Union(the right to secede is still debated to this day) later to end slavery.

Korea(1876); Ulysses S. Grant, Republican; Called Choson at the time, the country attacked and destroyed an American Navy Vessel. The war was fought with similar motives as Perry's visit with Japan.

Spanish-American War and Phillipine Insurrection: William McKinley, Republican; American Naval Ship Maine sent to monitor alleged mistreatment of the civilians of Cuba and protect American economic interests. The ship was destroyed and the press (the real instigators of the war)of the time placed the now doubtful blame on the Spanish. US fought the war to free Cuba. McKinley announced that giving the Filipinos Independence outright would be like simply handing them over the Germans or Japanese(because of the geographic position) and harm American economic Interests.

Haiti; Vera Cruz occupation, Pancho Villa, World War I: Woodrow Wilson, Democratic; Troops were sent in to stabilize Haiti, Vera Cruz was occupied to prevent ships from Germany delivering guns to the government. Pancho Villa made several attacks on Americans(because he was not recognized as President of Mexico) forcing Wilson to send troops to capture Villa. WWI involvement was the result of Germany violating Neutrality rights.

Nicaragua: Calvin Coolidge, Republican; Like Haiti the objective was stabilization.

World War II: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democratic; Asked for declaration of war after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Germany and Italy declared war two days later.

Korean war (1950-54): Harry S. Truman, Democrat; North Korea, in violation of a UN treaty, invaded South Korea. Troops were sent to contain communism.

Vietnam War: Lyndon B. Johnson, Democratic; involvement started after two American gunboats were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin(the reports have now been proven falsified.).

Grenada: Ronald Reagan, Republican; When a Communist government took over the country, it persecuted the American college students studying there.

Panama, Persian Gulf War Operation Restoring Freedom: George HW Bush, Republican; Noriega, leader of Panama was charged with drug traffickingand through Noriega's power, Panama would declare war(Though retaining the Canal is alleged to be the real motive). Persian Gulf War was fought to Liberate Kuwait from Iraq and protect Saudi Arabia from an Invasion(also to protect oil interests). Troops were sent to Somalia to assist in the feeding the hungry after guerrillas shot up UN aid convoys.

Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party; troops were sent to Bosnia to enforce peacekeeping. Yugoslavia was attacked over genocide upon the ethnic Albanians
in Kosovo. Air assaults were done upon Iraq after it failed to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

Afghanistan and Iraq: George W. Bush, Republican; Invasion of Afghanistan was the result of the Taliban ruled government's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden. Iraq's invasion is still under debate.

Final Score: Democrats: 16
Republicans: 10

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 851AAZgpzV
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests