34 replies to this topic

[otaku_4_life]

Alright you stupid fucking retarded cunt. Few things to say to you.

HAHAHA YOU MAD BRO?

Warned. - El Presidente

[Riddle]

they invest it. How do you think banks make so much money? Sitting on top of their wads of cash masturbating all day?

Yet, take away government support and the banks collapse. So is that a good business strategy? to rely on government bailouts to save your bacon? If you called building sustainable homes at the cost of government expense as a bad business plan, then banks belong in the same boat.
You cant have it both ways or else you are just being biased.

[way2lazy2care]

Yet, take away government support and the banks collapse. So is that a good business strategy? to rely on government bailouts to save your bacon? If you called building sustainable homes at the cost of government expense as a bad business plan, then banks belong in the same boat.
You cant have it both ways or else you are just being biased.

with the exception of the recent bailouts that is totally not true. The only thing that would change is that the banks would set their own interest rates based on their projections for how well they expect their investments to do instead of using the established interest rates set by the fed.

[Riddle]

with the exception of the recent bailouts that is totally not true. The only thing that would change is that the banks would set their own interest rates based on their projections for how well they expect their investments to do instead of using the established interest rates set by the fed.

Oh... so as long as we ignore how things really work it will turn out like you said.

Eat your own words. The bailouts saved their bacon at the expense of our future generation.

Banks are not obliged to follow the rates set by the fed. Infact, many other nations banks dont follow their own fed bank rates.

Edited by Riddle, 28 May 2010 - 04:27 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

Eat your own words. The bailouts saved their bacon at the expense of our future generation.

Banks are not obliged to follow the rates set by the fed. Infact, many other nations banks dont follow their own fed bank rates.

The bailouts also saved many other companies completely unrelated to banks. What's your point? Their business plan does not rest on government grants like your company's appears to. They make their money off of giving loans at a higher interest rate than they charge for savings and reinvesting the money that people save.

And in now way were the bailouts at the expense of our future generation. Without the bailouts half the people in America would have gone bankrupt because their life savings suddenly vanished. The bailouts are the only good part of government spending in the past couple years.

[The Colonel]

Keep it civil or I'll crack down on all your asses. - El Presidente

[Th0zA]

Your type is the ignore/justification type. Until there are obama (aka real name barry soetoro) stazi patrolling the street with ak's taking your guns you won't do shit about real problems, or even admit that they are there.

I hope for the future of the earth you don't truly believe that garbage.

[Riddle]

What's your point? Their business plan does not rest on government grants like your company's appears to.

You are mistaken if you think my company income rests on government loans. People still have to pay substantially to build their energy efficient/self sustainable homes. I dont think you realise how much research and development that takes place in order to design and make a sustainable house. This is where it is helpful to have government support, since the government doesnt have their own R&D. Therefore, they pay us and in return, we share our R&D.

This is where we differ from banks receiving grants. We are providing something very useful, very high-tech that will only benefit the future.

And in now way were the bailouts at the expense of our future generation. Without the bailouts half the people in America would have gone bankrupt because their life savings suddenly vanished. The bailouts are the only good part of government spending in the past couple years.

You tell me how good those bail-outs look on the mounting debt that will have to eventually be paid off either now or in the future by the next generation of working young americans.
I dont think you realise how we got into this position in the first place. The banks got too excessive, loaning out at no down payments. How do we reward them for their "brilliant business plan"?. Yes, by saving their bacon and taking on the bad debt that NO COMPANY IN THE WORLD will take.

Your last point of how the bailouts are the only good part of government spending is just effing rediculous. im not going to waste my time replying to such a stupid notion.

Edited by Riddle, 29 May 2010 - 10:58 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

You are mistaken if you think my company income rests on government loans. People still have to pay substantially to build their energy efficient/self sustainable homes. I dont think you realise how much research and development that takes place in order to design and make a sustainable house. This is where it is helpful to have government support, since the government doesnt have their own R&D. Therefore, they pay us and in return, we share our R&D.

This is where we differ from banks receiving grants. We are providing something very useful, very high-tech that will only benefit the future.

You said your company would be bankrupt if the government didn't support them.

You tell me how good those bail-outs look on the mounting debt that will have to eventually be paid off either now or in the future by the next generation of working young americans.
I dont think you realise how we got into this position in the first place. The banks got too excessive, loaning out at no down payments. How do we reward them for their "brilliant business plan"?. Yes, by saving their bacon and taking on the bad debt that NO COMPANY IN THE WORLD will take.

Your last point of how the bailouts are the only good part of government spending is just effing rediculous. im not going to waste my time replying to such a stupid notion.

The banks didn't get excessive. There was legislation forcing banks to give out sub-prime loans to encourage home ownership. That's how it started. Banks don't just decide to give out bad loans. They aren't idiots.

[Riddle]

You said your company would be bankrupt if the government didn't support them.

and haven't I pointed out that banks would be bankrupt w/o the bailouts. It's the Same thing rite. According to you, we both have bad business plans because we rely on government support..

Edited by Riddle, 29 May 2010 - 01:18 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

and haven't I pointed out that banks would be bankrupt w/o the bailouts. It's the Same thing rite. According to you, we both have bad business plans because we rely on government support..

not even remotely. Bailouts aren't built into the business plan.

Banks have fine business plans until the government starts making them make poor loans to increase home sales. The fact that you think a bailout is the same as a subsidy shows to your knowledge on the subject. Call me when you understand more.

[Fin]

The banks didn't get excessive. There was legislation forcing banks to give out sub-prime loans to encourage home ownership. That's how it started. Banks don't just decide to give out bad loans. They aren't idiots.

Lets be honest, it wasnt the evil goverment who forced banks to give loans to poor people who could never pay it back (if you want, I can give you links).

While in my opinion the biggest blame lays on those who took loans they could never pay, we must not forget those ( the bankers) who allowed them to take the loans in first place.

[way2lazy2care]

Lets be honest, it wasnt the evil goverment who forced banks to give loans to poor people who could never pay it back (if you want, I can give you links).

While in my opinion the biggest blame lays on those who took loans they could never pay, we must not forget those ( the bankers) who allowed them to take the loans in first place.

I'd say the blame is somewhere in the middle. They still are not comparable situations.

[Riddle]

I'd say the blame is somewhere in the middle. They still are not comparable situations.

Oh, so you blame the people who got evicted out of their own homes equally as the bankers?

Wait a minute, the people who got evicted didnt get a bailout did they now. Oh yeah, that's right, pay the bankers more money and give them the houses aswell while everyone else gets NOTHING.

not even remotely. Bailouts aren't built into the business plan.

Banks have fine business plans until the government starts making them make poor loans to increase home sales. The fact that you think a bailout is the same as a subsidy shows to your knowledge on the subject. Call me when you understand more.

Maybe you dont realize how much control wall street has over the government ( I doubt so since I have mentioned in countless other threads about the control money has over a government and their elected officials). Maybe you havent heard about the attempts made by wall street to deregulate the banks (and succeed). The regulations were in place to STOP such an event, like sub-prime and predatory loaning from happening. It was when we took the regulations away that the banks went wild and everyone else got sucked in. This was a systematic fraud plan straight from the bat. The most elaborate robbery in the history of mankind has happened and yet you preach like this was the best thing ever that the government has done..

Capitalism does not work. There is no way we can live in a society where everyone has the chance to become rich. No way at all. It is fundamentally flawed, in order for you to be rich; someone else has to be poorer. Sooner or later, 1% will be rich and powerful and 99% will be their slaves. That is the true essence of capitalism. History has shown what happens when autocracy takes over. Roman Empire collapse being the most profound example. We are heading in the same direction.

Edited by Riddle, 31 May 2010 - 08:54 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

Oh, so you blame the people who got evicted out of their own homes equally as the bankers?

Wait a minute, the people who got evicted didnt get a bailout did they now. Oh yeah, that's right, pay the bankers more money and give them the houses aswell while everyone else gets NOTHING.

The people who got evicted shouldn't have taken out house loans they couldn't afford. That is the bread and butter of the problem.

http://www.hulu.com/...-dont-buy-stuff

The most elaborate robbery in the history of mankind has happened and yet you preach like this was the best thing ever that the government has done..

I don't think it was the best, I think it was absolutely necessary. That is completely different.

Capitalism does not work. There is no way we can live in a society where everyone has the chance to become rich. No way at all. It is fundamentally flawed, in order for you to be rich; someone else has to be poorer. Sooner or later, 1% will be rich and powerful and 99% will be their slaves. That is the true essence of capitalism. History has shown what happens when autocracy takes over. Roman Empire collapse being the most profound example. We are heading in the same direction.

HAH! HAHAHAHAHAHAH! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Having the chance to be rich is not the same as being rich. The people with sustained well-being will 99% of the time be people that have worked hardest.