<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Big Government vs Big Business</title>
	<link>http://www.anti-incumbents.com/why-anti-incubments/big-government-vs-big-business/</link>
	<description>Anti incumbent and anti-establishment voting issues and candidates</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:01:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Public Insurance Adjuster</title>
		<link>http://www.anti-incumbents.com/why-anti-incubments/big-government-vs-big-business/#comment-2756</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.anti-incumbents.com/why-anti-incubments/big-government-vs-big-business/#comment-2756</guid>
					<description>I think Greenspan is getting senile, today he said that you can stop asset bubbles by increasing capital requirements. That just increases the cost of credit. The next time you have a real estate bubble, you'll have the same problem, assuming that banks are still in the business of loaning against real estate. If you want to stop this problem, then eliminate the federal subsidies for real estate development and investment, then require people in that industry to put their own money at risk instead of someone elses. If Greenspan really wants to change the banking system, though, then simply ban 95% and 90% LTV loans. Require a bigger equity cushion.  BTW, the "too big to fail" argument is a fallacious one. During the Great Depression, Canada had no bank failures. The reason was that their banks were very large. The banks closed branches, etc., but none of them failed. By contrast, the US was dominated by thousands of very small banks, and we had more than 10,000 of them fail. So there is nothing inherently unsafe about a banking system dominated by large banks. The real problem with large banks is that during good times, they don't provide enough competition for each other.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Greenspan is getting senile, today he said that you can stop asset bubbles by increasing capital requirements. That just increases the cost of credit. The next time you have a real estate bubble, you&#8217;ll have the same problem, assuming that banks are still in the business of loaning against real estate. If you want to stop this problem, then eliminate the federal subsidies for real estate development and investment, then require people in that industry to put their own money at risk instead of someone elses. If Greenspan really wants to change the banking system, though, then simply ban 95% and 90% LTV loans. Require a bigger equity cushion.  BTW, the &#8220;too big to fail&#8221; argument is a fallacious one. During the Great Depression, Canada had no bank failures. The reason was that their banks were very large. The banks closed branches, etc., but none of them failed. By contrast, the US was dominated by thousands of very small banks, and we had more than 10,000 of them fail. So there is nothing inherently unsafe about a banking system dominated by large banks. The real problem with large banks is that during good times, they don&#8217;t provide enough competition for each other.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Aetna Quote</title>
		<link>http://www.anti-incumbents.com/why-anti-incubments/big-government-vs-big-business/#comment-2755</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:38:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.anti-incumbents.com/why-anti-incubments/big-government-vs-big-business/#comment-2755</guid>
					<description>Our major issue in this country is our two political parties.  Our forefathers knew that a two party system would be our downfall and took steps to try to stop this type of politics, and thus anyone who seriously thinks that politics isn't corrupt or slaves to Corporate America hasn't not been paying attention. George Jr. will go down in History as one of the worst administrations in history and I could go on for hours showing why, but my point is that the Obama administration has offered nothing different (besides health reform, granted) and has in fact continued nearly every single Bush program.  Obama has almost the same political donors and thus has the same pressures as Bush did. Health reform will turn out to be the most expensive and destructive waste of tax payer money ever.  I just wish I could offer a better alternative for other frustrated people, but I can't and those that think that the tea partiers are the future, remember that Sarah Palin is an important figure to them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our major issue in this country is our two political parties.  Our forefathers knew that a two party system would be our downfall and took steps to try to stop this type of politics, and thus anyone who seriously thinks that politics isn&#8217;t corrupt or slaves to Corporate America hasn&#8217;t not been paying attention. George Jr. will go down in History as one of the worst administrations in history and I could go on for hours showing why, but my point is that the Obama administration has offered nothing different (besides health reform, granted) and has in fact continued nearly every single Bush program.  Obama has almost the same political donors and thus has the same pressures as Bush did. Health reform will turn out to be the most expensive and destructive waste of tax payer money ever.  I just wish I could offer a better alternative for other frustrated people, but I can&#8217;t and those that think that the tea partiers are the future, remember that Sarah Palin is an important figure to them.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Concerned citizen</title>
		<link>http://www.anti-incumbents.com/why-anti-incubments/big-government-vs-big-business/#comment-1300</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:18:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.anti-incumbents.com/why-anti-incubments/big-government-vs-big-business/#comment-1300</guid>
					<description>"never follow the herd"  Sometimes following the herd is the right thing to do.  NEVER following is just as bad as ALWAYS following.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;never follow the herd&#8221;  Sometimes following the herd is the right thing to do.  NEVER following is just as bad as ALWAYS following.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: rsp5rsp5</title>
		<link>http://www.anti-incumbents.com/why-anti-incubments/big-government-vs-big-business/#comment-1285</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.anti-incumbents.com/why-anti-incubments/big-government-vs-big-business/#comment-1285</guid>
					<description>You forgot a few numbers.
16.	Never accept this state of corruption.
17.	Never give up.
18.	Do what you can to promote an anti-incumbent movement.
19.	Purge government of incumbents and mandate term limits with your vote.
20.	Never forget that they work for us.
Check out the symbol they inspired me to create on ebay, it’s under anti-incumbent tee.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You forgot a few numbers.<br />
16.	Never accept this state of corruption.<br />
17.	Never give up.<br />
18.	Do what you can to promote an anti-incumbent movement.<br />
19.	Purge government of incumbents and mandate term limits with your vote.<br />
20.	Never forget that they work for us.<br />
Check out the symbol they inspired me to create on ebay, it’s under anti-incumbent tee.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
