CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Cdelvalle

Reward Points:196
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
85%
Arguments:145
Debates:3
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

That's the thing about that act - if it wasn't for that act, then the big banks would have never been able to buy Morgan Stanley or the other "investment bank".

And i completely agree that poorly thought out regulation is in fact, one of the biggest problems we face.

Too little or too much regulation are both bad things.

3 points

Do you also care about the billions being wasted on programs that don't work? How about the billions spent on earmarks?

Or the $147 billion tacked onto an already expensive $700 billion bailout package?

The government spends too much. And while i do think the rich should pay a little more in taxes, i also believe the federal government has ALOT of fat it needs to cut.

2 points

OK I got ya.

I think it's excellent for people to start their own business. But they better know their market. For example, it might be hard to start a lawn mowing business right now considering people are cutting back on expenses.

So the thing to do is this:

1. think about what people need during an economic downturn.

2. think about how you can supply that to them

3. start slow. you don't want to quit your job unless you're 100% sure the side business is bringing in the dollars.

Some ideas that might work are...

- computer repair (people would rather fix the old computer then buy a new one)

- car repair (more people are repairing their cars instead of buying new ones)

- selling information products online ( it just takes awhile to build the list, etc... but a good idea is anything GREEN related)

- become a drug dealer: as people lose their jobs, they buy more drugs! ok this is a joke > : )

1 point

You have to think about what people would want in an economic downturn and give it to them.

Cheap is king. Undercut a competitor and you should do fine.

Then again, you've been super vague. Who knows what your home business is.

0 points

I'd love to see where your facts come from, because every medical journal i've ever read (including the British government) have said that pot is LESS HARMFUL than alcohol.

Just do a google search and you'll find plenty of proof to show that.

It's also obvious you've never smoked pot. I know plenty of potheads, and none of them "stopped caring about their lives and only wanted to get high".

You are obviously confusing pot or crack or heroin.

2 points

Um. Ever heard of prohibition?

Ever read about how it got overturned because of american citizens revolting against it?

The fact that people can come together to change laws is part of what makes this country great.

3 points

"Drama Queen? EVERY Democrat has played the same lying horseshit."

Because republicans don't lie, right? Every politician lies. It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal.

"Trickle down economics DOES work. You just use the wrong yardstick just like all liberals."

And which yard-stick should we use? the one created by conservatives?

Trickle-down does work - but only to an extent. It's obvious that it didn't work too well over the last 8 years, though. The average household earnings have stayed flat that entire time.

I don't believe in a cure for poverty, because there is no cure for human nature. But i believe that we can take more care of middle-class Americans then we currently do. we just went through an administration that helped the rich a great deal. Whats the problem with helping the middle-class go to college for free? or having a little more money left-over in their paychecks?

I agree - thinking that Obama will do everything he's promised is foolish, especially considering what has happened over the last two to three months.

But I bet Obama will do more for the middle-class in this country then any president has in a long time. That's because democrats are expected to gain a 60 member majority in the senate... and a huge one in the house too.

Think about - who is hurting most right now: the rich or the middle class? The answer should be obvious.

1 point

all of this money should come back as the assets mature. Plus, it looks like companies will be on the hook to pay for some of the losses, if they even occur.

1 point

So you don't think, not even for a second, that it was the financial industry that lobbied the hell out of our politicians for relaxed rules?

You don't think that leveraging by 30 times... would eventually lead to chaos? You don't think that banks and the financial institutions did absolutely nothing wrong? That it was all a cause of legislation?

Last time I checked, legislation typically comes about because the industry lobbies politicians for new rules and regulations. And let's not forget that our entire Federal Reserve system is bought and owned by the biggest bankers in the nation.

It seems to me, that Wall Street has a little too much power on capital hill. And that greed, more than anything else, drove their decisions and got them into the mess they are in today.

If the industry didn't agree with what congress was saying, wouldn't they have lobbied against that? And somehow, i bet they didn't lobby against it at all. In fact, they got in deeper and deeper even recognizing the serious risks of it.

Anyone who paid attention to the financial markets saw this coming years ago. So why weren't the big banks and institutions prepared for it? Greed and stupidity.

As far as Mark to Market rules, I don't think they are bad at all. The only time they are bad is when big banks put too much of their worth into one group of assets that all go bad at the same time (like right now).

Lesson? Maybe some diversification would have done the trick, don't ya think?

Also, these rules had been around long before Sarbanes Oxley. One thing Sarbanes did was eliminate mark to model or mark to fantasy accounting (you know, what Enron did).

Either way, it looks like the SEC temporarily haulted Mark to Market accounting. Mainly because real estate assets are worth dick and banks would have been trully exposed for the frauds they perpetrated.

A classic case of insiders helping insiders, no doubt.

I just don't know why you don't understand that. Or why you give off the impression that in an unregulated market, worse frauds than happen today would be the norm.

1 point

I agree with everything except your last statement.

Did you know that Barack Obama signed a bill that prevented reform of Fannie and Freddie back in 2005? Had that bill passed, Fannie and Freddie would have been fixed then, and not bailed out (Causing the mess it did) now.

From a recent response...

"A bill passed the Senate Banking Committee that would create a regulator that would cause Fannie and Freddie to rid their investments in high risk paper as well as additional oversight. Too bad the bill didn't pass, because things would be a lot different today. The bill never made it to the Senate floor because the democrats blocked it.

It was Senate Bill #190 and was, incidentally, co-sponsored by Senator John McCain, blocked by Senator Chris Dodd (who received over $125,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie), Senator Barack Obama (who received over $165,000 from Fannie and Freddie), Senator Hillary Clinton (who received over $75,000 from Fannie and Freddie). You can throw Barney Franks in there too."

I don't trust Barack because I don't trust any politician. They are all opportunists who are bought out by the elite.

Displaying 3 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Just a Big Misunderstanding

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here