patrick.net

Don't bet on that.

Frank showed a lot of confidence on his White House visits, knowing just where in the East Wing to deliver the sanctifying balm.

Historians are now all but unanimous that the Reagan era was not Frank's first rodeo.

Eleanor. Bess. Mamie. Jackie. Lady Bird. Pat. Betty. Roslyn. And, later, Bar - wielding that giant strap-on which crushed so many visitors into submission - tourists and dignitaries alike.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

Remember, too, he's the only president whose wife sucked off Frank Sinatra!

I miss those two.

FortWayne says

Liberal brainwashing buddy, let it go and you'll see the world for what it is instead of liberal theories and love for socialism which DOES NOT WORK.

Comrade, the fog of stupidity in your post is so dense that I need to begin where it is the thickest and see if I can get through LOL.

FortWayne says

Savings and Loan deregulation grew a lot of loan and savings banks, it's not your or my job to keep banks from crashing, its their own fucking job.

Do you even understand what EXTERNALITIES mean? Here's a reasonable definition from Wikipedia: an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Economists often urge governments to adopt policies that "internalize" an externality, so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them.

When the government deregulates an industry and protect the corporations when they fail , the general public (external to the corporations' failure) gets negatively impacted.Tax payers pay the cost of moral hazard when the financial institutions fail. This is exactly what Reagan set as a precedent. Reagan set the stage for the rise of the ultra-right and oligarchy. Corporate predators were legalized.

Regulations exist to protect the taxpayer from such negative externalities and promote fair competition.
Systematic dismantling of regulations is a significant reason we are in this mess today. Reagan lauded all this.
Let's see if you can suspend your belief in the Reagan myth for a moment and understand this.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Liberals are the problem, since all they are doing is repeating the mistakes of the past.

Name one mistake of the past liberals are repeating.

Guess you're not man enough to answer this.

Yep, definitely not man enough.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

When the government deregulates an industry and protect the corporations when they fail , the general public (external to the corporations' failure) gets negatively impacted.Tax payers pay the cost of moral hazard when the financial institutions fail. This is exactly what Reagan set as a precedent. Reagan set the stage for the rise of the ultra-right and oligarchy. Corporate predators were legalized.

Somehow it turned out good in a long run, we have a lot of banks that can provide savings and checking accounts instead of a few like back in the days where it was a monopoly and you had to bend over backwards to get a checking account. But you can ignore it, because your commie mentors told you that Republicans are bad and everything about them is bad, and the only thing is good is government taking earners money and spending it the way they wise government men desire to.

Everything else you said about moral hazard, Reagan set as a precedent, ultra-right oligarchy, blah blah blah, all same shit liberals say all the time when promoting socialism so they can have more control over our lives. You are parroting that cute high school propaganda word by word. Nice job parrot, want a cracker?

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

Regulations exist to protect the taxpayer from such negative externalities and promote fair competition.

Get with reality bud, most regulation is there to drive competition down by letting only few companies qualify. It is rare when it's there to protect us the taxpayers, we as taxpayers are their fucking cash cow.

FortWayne says

Somehow it turned out good in a long run, we have a lot of banks that can provide savings and checking accounts instead of a few like back in the days where it was a monopoly and you had to bend over backwards to get a checking account.

LOL, Reality on the ground: JP Morgan has over 2.3 trillion in assets and more than 3000 subsidiaries.
Elizabeth Warren is scorching the lies you are believing, here:

www.youtube.com/embed/XYtSMLgaW6U

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

LOL, Reality on the ground: JP Morgan has over 2.3 trillion in assets and more than 3000 subsidiaries.

And how is that a problem? Why is that your problem? Oh, thats right you are a liberal. So if someone has more than you it's a problem, because you are the ultimate authority on what everyone should have and how much of it. I'm sorry your majesty, forgot to ask you just how much money I should have in the bank before I make your list of people who need to pay more in taxes.

FortWayne says

And how is that a problem? Why is that your problem?

When such a systemically important financial institution fails (and there are 25 of those in the US), get ready to bail them out Comrade. It will be the tax payer money on the line. Should be no problem for you as you love doling out tax payer dollars to the corporate predators.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

Elizabeth Warren is scorching the lies you are believing, here:

Damn it, she should be president, not Hillary.

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

When such a systemically important financial institution fails (and there are 25 of those in the US), get ready to bail them out Comrade. It will be the tax payer money on the line. Should be no problem for you as you love doling out tax payer dollars to the corporate predators.

And what does this have to do with you dodging a question where you are bitching about them having 2 trillion?

. FortWayne says

bob2356 says

You never did explain how reagan's tax reforms increasing tax revenue by 54 billion was an overall lowering of taxes. Is that like:

“War is peace. (George Orwell 1984)

Because at that time there were so many loopholes in the tax system that most very high earners never paid any of it. Reagans system reduced overall taxes, while increasing them by removing loopholes. It worked out to be a better system.

What percentage constitutes "most" high earners that never paid any income taxes? Please stop overwhelming us with this overflowing cascade of facts proving your case. The massive volume of research you have been presenting is simply awesome. AKA zero facts, it's true because I believe it should be true.

Did you really say reagan reduced taxes while increasing them? Orwell would be so proud of you. Assuming you know who Orwell is.

FortWayne says

3. Deregulated industries and eroded environmental standards (there is something called 'EXTERNALITIES' which require regulation)

Carter deregulated. You don't know what you are talking about, apparently your baseline condition.

FortWayne says

For a man who claims to have worked on it, you sure seem to not know what actually happened. I highly doubt you did something more than passed out flyers on the street for $4/hour if you are that unaware.

Nope wrong. I know exactly what happened which is why I know you are full of shit. Reaganomics didn't "save" anything and the soviet union was well on it's way to failing when Reagan took office.

I still think you were wearing diapers when reagan was elected.

bob2356 says

Carter deregulated. You don't know what you are talking about, apparently your baseline condition.

Let uomo_senza_nome_0 know, that's his liberal condition.

FortWayne says

And what does this have to do with you dodging a question where you are bitching about them having 2 trillion?

FWayne - I am not dodging any question. A bank that has assets over 2 trillion, with over 3000 subsidiaries, and one that was bailed out during 2008 crisis -- could potentially be at risk of failing again. This risk is non-zero, as the bank itself prepares a living will to the Federal Reserve. You asked why is this the tax payer's problem -- and I gave a clear explanation. The financial institutions have been bailed out before and there was mishandling during these bailouts. Are you not concerned about the moral hazard perpetuated by these bailouts? Or do you want me to explain what moral hazard means? LOL.

And that has to do what with Republicans vs. Democrats? Because your whole whining above only said something about "Republicans are evil, look at how much some banks have.". If that's not your point, you need to make the worlds more clear, whats in your head is not whats in the post.