Communism is coming.

[imawhosure]

So what is fundamentally broken and needs fixing with out capitalist system?

1. A regulatory system that is replete with both massive holes and comical redundancies. Since the parties are no longer allowed to work together for the good of the country, all we do now is slap simple band-aids on problems without looking at the big picture. The result is an absolute mess that invites abuse.

2. Rampant and willful ignorance about what caused the Meltdown, which should have taught us a great deal.

3. A business and individual tax system that is so complicated and convoluted that it also invites abuse.

4. Wealth distribution that has become so completely out of control that those who advocate for socialism and communism can point at it all day long and say "see"?

5. A complete imbalance between taxation and government spending that the GOP is happy to exacerbate.

For starters.
.

How are any of these issues Democrat winning points? Even Republicans want smart regulation. The dems will guarantee the comical redundancies. Who do you think drives the insane Tax rules? Would you accept something simple like a flat tax? Government spending is an issue to both sides. The Rino's no longer act like they care, and the Democrats never cared in the first place. I'm guessing #4 is why you vote Democrat. Do you think there is some way to take working people's money and give it to the 'needy'. What is a correct redistribution on your sliding scale. I'm genuinely curious. I won't say it is impossible for the government to help society, but when you have Nadler on one side and Graham on the other, I don't have high hopes. I'm not sure I can remember the last 'government' solution that actually made things better. I know you hate Libertarians, but I see some wisdom in the government getting out of people's way.

The Left seems to think that any regulation is good regulation. The Right seems to think that all regulation is bad regulation. They're both wrong.

The Meltdown taught us nothing, and it should have.

Effective, efficient regulation is not a handicap to capitalism - it's an absolutely necessary component of it. The Right refuses to see that. Therefore, as I mentioned, we keep screwing it up worse because all we know how to do is apply band aids.

Our government is as badly split as we are. As long as we keep enabling that, we'll keep screwing up capitalism. And as long as we keep screwing up capitalism, the socialists and the communists will continue to get stronger.
.

Mac is not looking deep enough, but he has a point.

Let me ask ALL of you something----------------------> name me a career politician from Bernie, to Warren, to Tricky Mitch, that has enough experience to fix ANYTHING that Mac has asked for. In fact, tell me any of them that actually have a clue on how to expand an economy! In fact, name me any of them that spent much of their time in the private sector, or know anything about it.

I could go down the list of virtually ALL the Democratic Candidates for President, and 3/4 of all the Republicans in Congress. Oh, you have some, but the ones in power have been there forever, and their wealth does not tell you how well they did in the private sector, but rather, how well they used their power in government to acquire it.

This is EXACTLY why government should be small as possible. These officials have little of a clue on how to do anything, but get re-elected.

Here, lets see how well these great ideas have worked from politicians, and I am not talking about if they are more good, or more bad, but rather if they are VIABLE financially-------->

1.Social Security...……..broke in less than 20 years, and in fact it is really broke now, the government spent all the supposed fund long ago.

2. Medicare...…………….broke in less than that, or maybe it is vice versa. Government already spent that too.

3. Obamacare...………..didn't do ANYTHING it said except cost more money. Now it is more likeable, but the feds are propping it up with your money, which took all the pain away. It is also not sustainable.

4. Gasoline additives (basically corn) it screws up your engine, it puts MORE pollutants into the air, and without the Fed subsidy, it would cost MORE than plain gasoline.

5. Solar energy...………..it still can't compete with fossil fuels, to expensive. Instead of allowing the technology to improve a renewable source of energy that will eventually put fossil fuels out of business, the Fed SUBSIDIZES it, costing everyone money for no good reason.

6. Education...…………..seems to me there is a biiiiiiiiiiig argument over if we are the number 1, 2, 3, or 4 in spending per student in the world. Funny thing though is---------------->there is NO debate how far down the list we are in results.

Now you notice, when the laws are made AND FORCE FAILURE, the argument is--------->we can NOT go against the law. Of course, they won't change the law either, now will they.

On the other hand, when the law is BROKEN to keep what they want going, they will tell you how evil you are, racist, and anything else they can call you; but here is the kicker---------------->they REFUSE to try and CHANGE the law to their liking, because if they go on record for something so unpopular, they know in most jurisdictions, they will be VOTED OUT!

Point is------------> Trump worked his whole life in the private sector, made millions or billions, doesn't care what the rest of Washington says, he is telling everyone like it is. That is why he is so DANGEROUS!

Here-----------> Imagine if you will Trump against the Democrat in the debate.

DEMOCRAT SAYS------------> Free whatever, you pick, healthcare, college, housing, reparations, or all of them.

Trump says---------------------> We are 22 or 23 TRILLION in the hole, can't balance the budget, SS and Medicare are going broke, and you want to spen (insert the number) trillion.

DEMOCRAT SAYS------------> Mr President, you have run up (pick a number) of the national debt.

TRUMP SAYS-----------------> Yes, but I started with 20 trillion in the hole, and now it is 23 Trillion, and 400 and something billion every year, goes to pay THE INTEREST that all other Presidents accrued, so therefore, I have only put us 1.5 TRILLION in the hole, and I had to rebuild the military, and PAY for Obamacare, along with pay for the IOUs that while you were in government, you created by spiriting the money from SS. And WHO/WHOM has controlled the purse strings of the country for the last 2 years?

DEMOCRAT SAYS-------------> If you don't follow my plan, people are going to die, and your Racist! (I just added that line in for a funny, no offense)

So then, WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH? And, where is the money coming from for all this free stuff...……..and if you say the rich, don't even answer because they only have that kinda cash to pay for it for one year, after that, you gotta pay for it...…….and I MEAN YOU, even if you pay zero taxes now, lol, you WILL BE PAYING.

Tell us all------------>even if you want to FOOL yourself that you actually BELIEVE what you are being told that somehow, this can pay for itself...……...tell ALL of the LAST time the government created a program, and got the finances even close, and I mean EVEN CLOSE, at least as far as what they told you what it would personally cost you!

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS LEFTISTS------------> None of these politicians have any idea what the hell they are doing when it comes to these type of things. MOST of them have NEVER been in the private sector, they SUCK THE TEAT OF Washington. They have absolutely no idea how to balance books. No idea how to make payroll. No idea how to cut costs, but you think they can give you NIRVANA? HOW DUMB ARE YOU! Would you hire Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as a financial planner? And yet, you want them to tax YOU and spend TRILLIONS, and believe the price they give you? Your kidding!

Lookie here--------------> You insist, and rightfully so I suppose...………...
SS was created by your peeps.

Medicare was created by your peeps.

Obamacare was created by your peeps too.

ALL of them were sold as REVENUE NEUTRAL, look it up! They said at 1st we would have to infuse cash, but eventually, revenue neutral...…….or at the very worst case scenario, the cost would be minimal.

WELL?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

One more time--------->and you BELIEVE ANY of these people? Do ya think they could show their genius by fixing one of these other programs that are broken, so they could give us confidence that they can now launch a new one? And if not, why not!

 

[Mac1958]

1. A regulatory system that is replete with both massive holes and comical redundancies. Since the parties are no longer allowed to work together for the good of the country, all we do now is slap simple band-aids on problems without looking at the big picture. The result is an absolute mess that invites abuse.

2. Rampant and willful ignorance about what caused the Meltdown, which should have taught us a great deal.

3. A business and individual tax system that is so complicated and convoluted that it also invites abuse.

4. Wealth distribution that has become so completely out of control that those who advocate for socialism and communism can point at it all day long and say "see"?

5. A complete imbalance between taxation and government spending that the GOP is happy to exacerbate.

For starters.
.

How are any of these issues Democrat winning points? Even Republicans want smart regulation. The dems will guarantee the comical redundancies. Who do you think drives the insane Tax rules? Would you accept something simple like a flat tax? Government spending is an issue to both sides. The Rino's no longer act like they care, and the Democrats never cared in the first place. I'm guessing #4 is why you vote Democrat. Do you think there is some way to take working people's money and give it to the 'needy'. What is a correct redistribution on your sliding scale. I'm genuinely curious. I won't say it is impossible for the government to help society, but when you have Nadler on one side and Graham on the other, I don't have high hopes. I'm not sure I can remember the last 'government' solution that actually made things better. I know you hate Libertarians, but I see some wisdom in the government getting out of people's way.

The Left seems to think that any regulation is good regulation. The Right seems to think that all regulation is bad regulation. They're both wrong.

The Meltdown taught us nothing, and it should have.

Effective, efficient regulation is not a handicap to capitalism - it's an absolutely necessary component of it. The Right refuses to see that. Therefore, as I mentioned, we keep screwing it up worse because all we know how to do is apply band aids.

Our government is as badly split as we are. As long as we keep enabling that, we'll keep screwing up capitalism. And as long as we keep screwing up capitalism, the socialists and the communists will continue to get stronger.
.

If both sides are wrong on regulation, why do you vote Democrat? If we stick to economics, besides regulation, at least republicans have figured out 70% taxation kills growth, and doesn't just target the rich. Both sides are wrong on regulation and spending, so why not choose the one that at least gets something right?

Well, I just agree with the Democrats on more issues than the Republicans. The economy is just one issue.

But I don't see the Republicans better on the economy at all. They just claim to be. Look at what Dubya left behind.

The GOP lost its shit on the economy the moment it took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.
.

You are the biggest fucking liar if you think it was solely Booooosh that caused the economy down turn while claiming to be some financial fucking advisor.

You already in your pathetic way showed how ignorant you are when you claimed that the rewriting of the Community Reinvestment Act had no effect on the economy.

It is an actual fact that the toothless 1977 regulations fully expired in July 1997, when President Clinton rewrote them to toughen CRA enforcement as part of a crusade to close the "mortgage gap" between blacks and whites. For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."


Under Clinton's CRA "investment test," moreover, banks for the first time earned CRA credit for purchasing subprime securities. A wave of these securitizations in the secondary mortgage market and on Wall Street began in 1997, which also happened to mark the start of the housing bubble.

We also know clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in December of 2000 and that exempted default swaps from any regulation.

We also know fruitcake Barney Frank and Dodd headed up the Fannie and Freddie debacle.

We also know that the democrats took over the House and Senate in 2007 and it is an actual fact that they ignored all warnings put out by the White House of the bubble. It is all documented in the White House archives you loser.

You are either the most incompetent financial advisor on the planet or a fucking liar.

A socialist financial advisor everyone.

Oh, here we go again - another talk radio bunny who thinks he understands the Meltdown, having avoided a mountain of available facts.

Here are ten specific, direct and pertinent questions specifically about the Meltdown. Answer them or try your talking points on someone else:

Okay, tell me:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to SPECIFICALLY REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO reserves to back them up, ZERO regulation on them?

Go ahead. Show us how much you know. I've numbered 'em for you so you can real specific.

It will be very clear if you know what you're talking about.

Oh, and by the way, HERE ARE THE BANKS, ADMITTING TO IT.


.

 

[Theowl32]

How are any of these issues Democrat winning points? Even Republicans want smart regulation. The dems will guarantee the comical redundancies. Who do you think drives the insane Tax rules? Would you accept something simple like a flat tax? Government spending is an issue to both sides. The Rino's no longer act like they care, and the Democrats never cared in the first place. I'm guessing #4 is why you vote Democrat. Do you think there is some way to take working people's money and give it to the 'needy'. What is a correct redistribution on your sliding scale. I'm genuinely curious. I won't say it is impossible for the government to help society, but when you have Nadler on one side and Graham on the other, I don't have high hopes. I'm not sure I can remember the last 'government' solution that actually made things better. I know you hate Libertarians, but I see some wisdom in the government getting out of people's way.

The Left seems to think that any regulation is good regulation. The Right seems to think that all regulation is bad regulation. They're both wrong.

The Meltdown taught us nothing, and it should have.

Effective, efficient regulation is not a handicap to capitalism - it's an absolutely necessary component of it. The Right refuses to see that. Therefore, as I mentioned, we keep screwing it up worse because all we know how to do is apply band aids.

Our government is as badly split as we are. As long as we keep enabling that, we'll keep screwing up capitalism. And as long as we keep screwing up capitalism, the socialists and the communists will continue to get stronger.
.

If both sides are wrong on regulation, why do you vote Democrat? If we stick to economics, besides regulation, at least republicans have figured out 70% taxation kills growth, and doesn't just target the rich. Both sides are wrong on regulation and spending, so why not choose the one that at least gets something right?

Well, I just agree with the Democrats on more issues than the Republicans. The economy is just one issue.

But I don't see the Republicans better on the economy at all. They just claim to be. Look at what Dubya left behind.

The GOP lost its shit on the economy the moment it took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.
.

You are the biggest fucking liar if you think it was solely Booooosh that caused the economy down turn while claiming to be some financial fucking advisor.

You already in your pathetic way showed how ignorant you are when you claimed that the rewriting of the Community Reinvestment Act had no effect on the economy.

It is an actual fact that the toothless 1977 regulations fully expired in July 1997, when President Clinton rewrote them to toughen CRA enforcement as part of a crusade to close the "mortgage gap" between blacks and whites. For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."


Under Clinton's CRA "investment test," moreover, banks for the first time earned CRA credit for purchasing subprime securities. A wave of these securitizations in the secondary mortgage market and on Wall Street began in 1997, which also happened to mark the start of the housing bubble.

We also know clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in December of 2000 and that exempted default swaps from any regulation.

We also know fruitcake Barney Frank and Dodd headed up the Fannie and Freddie debacle.

We also know that the democrats took over the House and Senate in 2007 and it is an actual fact that they ignored all warnings put out by the White House of the bubble. It is all documented in the White House archives you loser.

You are either the most incompetent financial advisor on the planet or a fucking liar.

A socialist financial advisor everyone.

Oh, here we go again - another talk radio bunny who thinks he understands the Meltdown, having avoided a mountain of available facts.

Here are ten specific, direct and pertinent questions specifically about the Meltdown. Answer them or try your talking points on someone else:

Okay, tell me:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to SPECIFICALLY REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO reserves to back them up, ZERO regulation on them?

Go ahead. Show us how much you know. I've numbered 'em for you so you can real specific.

It will be very clear if you know what you're talking about.

Oh, and by the way, HERE ARE THE BANKS, ADMITTING TO IT.


.

FICTION: "Many of these (CRA) loans were not very risky," the FCIC report claims.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.


The CRA requires the Federal Reserve to consider the CRA performance of the bank seeking such approvals. It's the law's chief enforcement mechanism. And community organizers exploited it to a fare-thee-well.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).


FICTION: The Fed "never considered pledges to community groups in evaluating mergers and acquisitions," the FCIC report claimed, failing again to tell the full story.


FACT: The Fed based its decisions in large part on input from CRA advocacy groups, who gave a thumbs up or down to the proposed mergers depending on how much the banks pledged in new urban lending. So these pledges were a form of ransom that banks paid to groups holding their expansion plans hostage.


"Banks had the impression that they could not obtain regulatory approval of a merger or acquisition unless they made all the advocates 'go away happy,'" said former JP Morgan Chase officer Mark Willis, as quoted in "The Great American Bank Robbery."

Don't take his word for it. Listen to Washington's top CRA lobbyist tell it.


"The federal agencies are required to consider public comments in issuing CRA ratings and rendering decisions on merger applications. Comments on a bank's CRA record often bolster the bank's performance," NCRC President John Taylor said in 2007. "CRA agreements are often negotiated between banks and community groups during the merger application process."


FICTION: "These commitments were generally promises by financial institutions to lend," claimed FCIC Chairman Phil Angelides, and they weren't necessarily fulfilled.

FACT: The NCRC said banks followed up on their commitments. A study by the Brookings Institution concluded that they "consistently" met their targets.


The University of Connecticut tracked $1 trillion in loan commitments pledged since 1993 and found that by 2000 the banks had made well over $600 billion of the loans.


FICTION: "These loans performed well," the FCIC report maintained.

FACT: Brookings found that the loan commitments were set aside for low-income minorities with "marginal credit scores" and posed a higher risk. They were even riskier than regular CRA loans, because the banks delegated underwriting authority to the nonprofit shakedown groups, which had no experience judging credit risk.


NACA thinks traditional underwriting standards are "patronizing and racist." It advertises that anyone — "regardless of how bad your credit is" — can qualify for the mortgages it's arranged through special deals with banks. Not surprisingly, one study found that its delinquency rates were eight times higher than the national average.

Banks reported delinquency rates ranging from 5% to 50% on loans made pursuant to their merger-related commitments.


Yet the FCIC refused to investigate the more than 300 CRA agreements that banks and community organizers entered into before the subprime bubble burst.


Despite repeated requests by Commissioner Peter Wallison, the panel never examined the performance of the trillions in loan commitments.

"Commission management constrained the staff in their investigation into CRA by limiting the number of document requests and interviews and by preventing staff from following up with the institutions," said Wallison, a former Reagan Treasury official.


Without seriously looking into the issue, the FCIC published a report absolving the CRA of any blame for the financial crisis.

Why would Chairman Angelides steer blame away from the CRA? Because he's a big fan of the CRA. And as California state treasurer, from 1999 to 2007, he steered billions in state funds into unsafe CRA mortgages securitized by Freddie Mac.


At the time, Greenlining advised Angelides on where to invest California state funds, even providing him with its own CRA report card on "good" and "bad" banks. He has also personally benefited from CRA projects brokered by his real estate development firms, according to "The Great American Bank Robbery."

As part of the CRA racket, Angelides should have been a witness in the crisis investigation, not its chief inquisitor. With the cover-up complete, he now hopes that CRA critics will go away.


"The debate about the role of the CRA should now be over as evidence presented in the commission's report is clear," Angelides declared earlier this month.


Sorry, sir, but the debate will end when the public has all the facts, not just your cooked report.

Community Reinvestment Act: Separating Fact From Fiction | Investor's Business Daily



Don't buy anything this piece of ignorant socialist shit sells you about himself people.

He is a fucking idiot if he is actually trying to dump the ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY on republicans let alone JUST BUSH.

Only ignorant fucking pathetic little yappy dogs would try that and this piece of shit passes himself as a financial expert.

 

[Mac1958]

The Left seems to think that any regulation is good regulation. The Right seems to think that all regulation is bad regulation. They're both wrong.

The Meltdown taught us nothing, and it should have.

Effective, efficient regulation is not a handicap to capitalism - it's an absolutely necessary component of it. The Right refuses to see that. Therefore, as I mentioned, we keep screwing it up worse because all we know how to do is apply band aids.

Our government is as badly split as we are. As long as we keep enabling that, we'll keep screwing up capitalism. And as long as we keep screwing up capitalism, the socialists and the communists will continue to get stronger.
.

If both sides are wrong on regulation, why do you vote Democrat? If we stick to economics, besides regulation, at least republicans have figured out 70% taxation kills growth, and doesn't just target the rich. Both sides are wrong on regulation and spending, so why not choose the one that at least gets something right?

Well, I just agree with the Democrats on more issues than the Republicans. The economy is just one issue.

But I don't see the Republicans better on the economy at all. They just claim to be. Look at what Dubya left behind.

The GOP lost its shit on the economy the moment it took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.
.

You are the biggest fucking liar if you think it was solely Booooosh that caused the economy down turn while claiming to be some financial fucking advisor.

You already in your pathetic way showed how ignorant you are when you claimed that the rewriting of the Community Reinvestment Act had no effect on the economy.

It is an actual fact that the toothless 1977 regulations fully expired in July 1997, when President Clinton rewrote them to toughen CRA enforcement as part of a crusade to close the "mortgage gap" between blacks and whites. For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."


Under Clinton's CRA "investment test," moreover, banks for the first time earned CRA credit for purchasing subprime securities. A wave of these securitizations in the secondary mortgage market and on Wall Street began in 1997, which also happened to mark the start of the housing bubble.

We also know clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in December of 2000 and that exempted default swaps from any regulation.

We also know fruitcake Barney Frank and Dodd headed up the Fannie and Freddie debacle.

We also know that the democrats took over the House and Senate in 2007 and it is an actual fact that they ignored all warnings put out by the White House of the bubble. It is all documented in the White House archives you loser.

You are either the most incompetent financial advisor on the planet or a fucking liar.

A socialist financial advisor everyone.

Oh, here we go again - another talk radio bunny who thinks he understands the Meltdown, having avoided a mountain of available facts.

Here are ten specific, direct and pertinent questions specifically about the Meltdown. Answer them or try your talking points on someone else:

Okay, tell me:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to sell shit mortgages to the banks to be put in those CMO's, often by the very next day?
   
3. How did the CRA force the ratings agencies to slap AAA (TREASURY-level) ratings on those shit securities, making them highly attractive to buy?
4. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to write no-doc loans with insane balloons, knowing they'd be sold off in 12 hours to a shit CMO at NO risk?
   
5. How did the CRA force the banks to threaten the ratings agencies with lost business if they didn't give them AAA ratings on shit securities?
   
6. How did the CRA force Alan Greenspan to SPECIFICALLY REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force the banks to drop their standards to the ground when they needed more shit CMO's and CDO's to SELL OFF for huge fees?
8. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole thing was collapsing?
9. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson a cool $2 BILLION?
10. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO reserves to back them up, ZERO regulation on them?

Go ahead. Show us how much you know. I've numbered 'em for you so you can real specific.

It will be very clear if you know what you're talking about.

Oh, and by the way, HERE ARE THE BANKS, ADMITTING TO IT.


.

FICTION: "Many of these (CRA) loans were not very risky," the FCIC report claims.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.


The CRA requires the Federal Reserve to consider the CRA performance of the bank seeking such approvals. It's the law's chief enforcement mechanism. And community organizers exploited it to a fare-thee-well.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).


FICTION: The Fed "never considered pledges to community groups in evaluating mergers and acquisitions," the FCIC report claimed, failing again to tell the full story.


FACT: The Fed based its decisions in large part on input from CRA advocacy groups, who gave a thumbs up or down to the proposed mergers depending on how much the banks pledged in new urban lending. So these pledges were a form of ransom that banks paid to groups holding their expansion plans hostage.


"Banks had the impression that they could not obtain regulatory approval of a merger or acquisition unless they made all the advocates 'go away happy,'" said former JP Morgan Chase officer Mark Willis, as quoted in "The Great American Bank Robbery."

Don't take his word for it. Listen to Washington's top CRA lobbyist tell it.


"The federal agencies are required to consider public comments in issuing CRA ratings and rendering decisions on merger applications. Comments on a bank's CRA record often bolster the bank's performance," NCRC President John Taylor said in 2007. "CRA agreements are often negotiated between banks and community groups during the merger application process."


FICTION: "These commitments were generally promises by financial institutions to lend," claimed FCIC Chairman Phil Angelides, and they weren't necessarily fulfilled.

FACT: The NCRC said banks followed up on their commitments. A study by the Brookings Institution concluded that they "consistently" met their targets.


The University of Connecticut tracked $1 trillion in loan commitments pledged since 1993 and found that by 2000 the banks had made well over $600 billion of the loans.


FICTION: "These loans performed well," the FCIC report maintained.

FACT: Brookings found that the loan commitments were set aside for low-income minorities with "marginal credit scores" and posed a higher risk. They were even riskier than regular CRA loans, because the banks delegated underwriting authority to the nonprofit shakedown groups, which had no experience judging credit risk.


NACA thinks traditional underwriting standards are "patronizing and racist." It advertises that anyone — "regardless of how bad your credit is" — can qualify for the mortgages it's arranged through special deals with banks. Not surprisingly, one study found that its delinquency rates were eight times higher than the national average.

Banks reported delinquency rates ranging from 5% to 50% on loans made pursuant to their merger-related commitments.


Yet the FCIC refused to investigate the more than 300 CRA agreements that banks and community organizers entered into before the subprime bubble burst.


Despite repeated requests by Commissioner Peter Wallison, the panel never examined the performance of the trillions in loan commitments.

"Commission management constrained the staff in their investigation into CRA by limiting the number of document requests and interviews and by preventing staff from following up with the institutions," said Wallison, a former Reagan Treasury official.


Without seriously looking into the issue, the FCIC published a report absolving the CRA of any blame for the financial crisis.

Why would Chairman Angelides steer blame away from the CRA? Because he's a big fan of the CRA. And as California state treasurer, from 1999 to 2007, he steered billions in state funds into unsafe CRA mortgages securitized by Freddie Mac.


At the time, Greenlining advised Angelides on where to invest California state funds, even providing him with its own CRA report card on "good" and "bad" banks. He has also personally benefited from CRA projects brokered by his real estate development firms, according to "The Great American Bank Robbery."

As part of the CRA racket, Angelides should have been a witness in the crisis investigation, not its chief inquisitor. With the cover-up complete, he now hopes that CRA critics will go away.


"The debate about the role of the CRA should now be over as evidence presented in the commission's report is clear," Angelides declared earlier this month.


Sorry, sir, but the debate will end when the public has all the facts, not just your cooked report.

Community Reinvestment Act: Separating Fact From Fiction | Investor's Business Daily



Don't buy anything this piece of ignorant socialist shit sells you about himself people.

He is a fucking idiot if he is actually trying to dump the ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY on republicans let alone JUST BUSH.

Only ignorant fucking pathetic little yappy dogs would try that and this piece of shit passes himself as a financial expert.

As expected.

That's okay, slugger. None of your fellow willfully ignorant talk radio bunnies can answer those questions either.

So you can try your cut-and-paste deflections on someone else.

I told you - it would be very clear if you know what you're talking about, and you don't.

Next.
.

 

[francoHFW]

The Left seems to think that any regulation is good regulation. The Right seems to think that all regulation is bad regulation. They're both wrong.

The Meltdown taught us nothing, and it should have.

Effective, efficient regulation is not a handicap to capitalism - it's an absolutely necessary component of it. The Right refuses to see that. Therefore, as I mentioned, we keep screwing it up worse because all we know how to do is apply band aids.

Our government is as badly split as we are. As long as we keep enabling that, we'll keep screwing up capitalism. And as long as we keep screwing up capitalism, the socialists and the communists will continue to get stronger.
.

If both sides are wrong on regulation, why do you vote Democrat? If we stick to economics, besides regulation, at least republicans have figured out 70% taxation kills growth, and doesn't just target the rich. Both sides are wrong on regulation and spending, so why not choose the one that at least gets something right?

Well, I just agree with the Democrats on more issues than the Republicans. The economy is just one issue.

But I don't see the Republicans better on the economy at all. They just claim to be. Look at what Dubya left behind.

The GOP lost its shit on the economy the moment it took Reagan's "government is the problem" speech tag line as literal gospel.
.

You are the biggest fucking liar if you think it was solely Booooosh that caused the economy down turn while claiming to be some financial fucking advisor.

You already in your pathetic way showed how ignorant you are when you claimed that the rewriting of the Community Reinvestment Act had no effect on the economy.

It is an actual fact that the toothless 1977 regulations fully expired in July 1997, when President Clinton rewrote them to toughen CRA enforcement as part of a crusade to close the "mortgage gap" between blacks and whites. For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."


Under Clinton's CRA "investment test," moreover, banks for the first time earned CRA credit for purchasing subprime securities. A wave of these securitizations in the secondary mortgage market and on Wall Street began in 1997, which also happened to mark the start of the housing bubble.

We also know clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in December of 2000 and that exempted default swaps from any regulation.

We also know fruitcake Barney Frank and Dodd headed up the Fannie and Freddie debacle.

We also know that the democrats took over the House and Senate in 2007 and it is an actual fact that they ignored all warnings put out by the White House of the bubble. It is all documented in the White House archives you loser.

You are either the most incompetent financial advisor on the planet or a fucking liar.

A socialist financial advisor everyone.

The bills that Clinton signed were GOP bills, dumbass. And there was no problem until GOP deregulation and croney regulators let Wall Street real estate corps like countrywide and insurance companies like a i g run wild. Everyone knows it but you morons.Fannie and Freddie share of the market went from 75% to 25% in a year dumbass...

Didn't say it wasn't a bipartisan problem you dirtbag piece of brainwashed shit. To blame ONLY BUUUUUSH or the republicans like you fucking losers do.

Funny how you fucking losers always ignore that clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds long before Buuuuuush took office and then went ape fucking shit when Buuuush enforced it.


You also ignore these from official White House archives:

2007:

• August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
  
  
• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
  
  
• December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008

• February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nasonreiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
  
  
• March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
  
  
• April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

• May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
  • "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
    
    
  • "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
    
    
  • "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
  • 
    
  • June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
    
    
  • July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
    
    
  • September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

You are all fucking losers and Mac is a fucking liar.

Every time the Republicans have eight years they destroy the economy, like two thousand eight 1989 and 1929. They are the swamp.

Fannie and Freddie was not the problem, but GOP propaganda said it was and they are always trying to get rid of Fannie and Freddie. Republicans want their cronies in private business to run everything so they can screw everybody over again, and then let us pay.

 

[Staidhup]

Last one out turn off the light switch, helps prevent power surges if the electricity returns
All joking aside the aftermath would amount to total financial devastation and rapid decline in the standard of living, suspension of constitutional rights, due process, and what remains expropriated and managed by government mandates.
The exodus of personal wealth and business closures combined would simply crash the entire economy. The aftermath would have an international effect beyond comprehension. Then there will be riots and lots of blood. Yet then again everything will be free!

 

[francoHFW]

So what is fundamentally broken and needs fixing with out capitalist system?

1. A regulatory system that is replete with both massive holes and comical redundancies. Since the parties are no longer allowed to work together for the good of the country, all we do now is slap simple band-aids on problems without looking at the big picture. The result is an absolute mess that invites abuse.

2. Rampant and willful ignorance about what caused the Meltdown, which should have taught us a great deal.

3. A business and individual tax system that is so complicated and convoluted that it also invites abuse.

4. Wealth distribution that has become so completely out of control that those who advocate for socialism and communism can point at it all day long and say "see"?

5. A complete imbalance between taxation and government spending that the GOP is happy to exacerbate.

For starters.
.

How are any of these issues Democrat winning points? Even Republicans want smart regulation. The dems will guarantee the comical redundancies. Who do you think drives the insane Tax rules? Would you accept something simple like a flat tax? Government spending is an issue to both sides. The Rino's no longer act like they care, and the Democrats never cared in the first place. I'm guessing #4 is why you vote Democrat. Do you think there is some way to take working people's money and give it to the 'needy'. What is a correct redistribution on your sliding scale. I'm genuinely curious. I won't say it is impossible for the government to help society, but when you have Nadler on one side and Graham on the other, I don't have high hopes. I'm not sure I can remember the last 'government' solution that actually made things better. I know you hate Libertarians, but I see some wisdom in the government getting out of people's way.

The Left seems to think that any regulation is good regulation. The Right seems to think that all regulation is bad regulation. They're both wrong.

The Meltdown taught us nothing, and it should have.

Effective, efficient regulation is not a handicap to capitalism - it's an absolutely necessary component of it. The Right refuses to see that. Therefore, as I mentioned, we keep screwing it up worse because all we know how to do is apply band aids.

Our government is as badly split as we are. As long as we keep enabling that, we'll keep screwing up capitalism. And as long as we keep screwing up capitalism, the socialists and the communists will continue to get stronger.
.

Mac is not looking deep enough, but he has a point.

Let me ask ALL of you something----------------------> name me a career politician from Bernie, to Warren, to Tricky Mitch, that has enough experience to fix ANYTHING that Mac has asked for. In fact, tell me any of them that actually have a clue on how to expand an economy! In fact, name me any of them that spent much of their time in the private sector, or know anything about it.

I could go down the list of virtually ALL the Democratic Candidates for President, and 3/4 of all the Republicans in Congress. Oh, you have some, but the ones in power have been there forever, and their wealth does not tell you how well they did in the private sector, but rather, how well they used their power in government to acquire it.

This is EXACTLY why government should be small as possible. These officials have little of a clue on how to do anything, but get re-elected.

Here, lets see how well these great ideas have worked from politicians, and I am not talking about if they are more good, or more bad, but rather if they are VIABLE financially-------->

1.Social Security...……..broke in less than 20 years, and in fact it is really broke now, the government spent all the supposed fund long ago.

2. Medicare...…………….broke in less than that, or maybe it is vice versa. Government already spent that too.

3. Obamacare...………..didn't do ANYTHING it said except cost more money. Now it is more likeable, but the feds are propping it up with your money, which took all the pain away. It is also not sustainable.

4. Gasoline additives (basically corn) it screws up your engine, it puts MORE pollutants into the air, and without the Fed subsidy, it would cost MORE than plain gasoline.

5. Solar energy...………..it still can't compete with fossil fuels, to expensive. Instead of allowing the technology to improve a renewable source of energy that will eventually put fossil fuels out of business, the Fed SUBSIDIZES it, costing everyone money for no good reason.

6. Education...…………..seems to me there is a biiiiiiiiiiig argument over if we are the number 1, 2, 3, or 4 in spending per student in the world. Funny thing though is---------------->there is NO debate how far down the list we are in results.

Now you notice, when the laws are made AND FORCE FAILURE, the argument is--------->we can NOT go against the law. Of course, they won't change the law either, now will they.

On the other hand, when the law is BROKEN to keep what they want going, they will tell you how evil you are, racist, and anything else they can call you; but here is the kicker---------------->they REFUSE to try and CHANGE the law to their liking, because if they go on record for something so unpopular, they know in most jurisdictions, they will be VOTED OUT!

Point is------------> Trump worked his whole life in the private sector, made millions or billions, doesn't care what the rest of Washington says, he is telling everyone like it is. That is why he is so DANGEROUS!

Here-----------> Imagine if you will Trump against the Democrat in the debate.

DEMOCRAT SAYS------------> Free whatever, you pick, healthcare, college, housing, reparations, or all of them.

Trump says---------------------> We are 22 or 23 TRILLION in the hole, can't balance the budget, SS and Medicare are going broke, and you want to spen (insert the number) trillion.

DEMOCRAT SAYS------------> Mr President, you have run up (pick a number) of the national debt.

TRUMP SAYS-----------------> Yes, but I started with 20 trillion in the hole, and now it is 23 Trillion, and 400 and something billion every year, goes to pay THE INTEREST that all other Presidents accrued, so therefore, I have only put us 1.5 TRILLION in the hole, and I had to rebuild the military, and PAY for Obamacare, along with pay for the IOUs that while you were in government, you created by spiriting the money from SS. And WHO/WHOM has controlled the purse strings of the country for the last 2 years?

DEMOCRAT SAYS-------------> If you don't follow my plan, people are going to die, and your Racist! (I just added that line in for a funny, no offense)

So then, WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH? And, where is the money coming from for all this free stuff...……..and if you say the rich, don't even answer because they only have that kinda cash to pay for it for one year, after that, you gotta pay for it...…….and I MEAN YOU, even if you pay zero taxes now, lol, you WILL BE PAYING.

Tell us all------------>even if you want to FOOL yourself that you actually BELIEVE what you are being told that somehow, this can pay for itself...……...tell ALL of the LAST time the government created a program, and got the finances even close, and I mean EVEN CLOSE, at least as far as what they told you what it would personally cost you!

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS LEFTISTS------------> None of these politicians have any idea what the hell they are doing when it comes to these type of things. MOST of them have NEVER been in the private sector, they SUCK THE TEAT OF Washington. They have absolutely no idea how to balance books. No idea how to make payroll. No idea how to cut costs, but you think they can give you NIRVANA? HOW DUMB ARE YOU! Would you hire Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as a financial planner? And yet, you want them to tax YOU and spend TRILLIONS, and believe the price they give you? Your kidding!

Lookie here--------------> You insist, and rightfully so I suppose...………...
SS was created by your peeps.

Medicare was created by your peeps.

Obamacare was created by your peeps too.

ALL of them were sold as REVENUE NEUTRAL, look it up! They said at 1st we would have to infuse cash, but eventually, revenue neutral...…….or at the very worst case scenario, the cost would be minimal.

WELL?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

One more time--------->and you BELIEVE ANY of these people? Do ya think they could show their genius by fixing one of these other programs that are broken, so they could give us confidence that they can now launch a new one? And if not, why not!

Speak for yourself and the Republican swamp, brainwashed functional moron.. they've been a disaster for 35 years now and you don't even know about it. How is Reagan pal Saddam? They've had two economic meltdowns and started the stupidest Wars ever and given us the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever. You are so dumb. Oops brainwashed functionally dumb I mean.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

This was written in 1963. READ IT. It's the left's playbook, quite obviously: The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

The Zionist Communist Takeover Of
America - 45 Declared Goals

Here, in part, are the most blatant Zionist Communist achievements listed in that original list of 45 Goals. Read this group very carefully…these are the most sweeping, revolutionary, devastating and deadly Goals on the list from 1963. ( I will list all original 45 further down the page.)

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

11. Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

The youth of today have a voice, and people like you don't listen.

Who of sound mind would? They've been trained by such as you, and they repeat the same stupid stuff.

I get to listen to my son. He's immature and a snowflake.......................Late bloomer.

 

[FA_Q2]

So what is fundamentally broken and needs fixing with out capitalist system?

1. A regulatory system that is replete with both massive holes and comical redundancies. Since the parties are no longer allowed to work together for the good of the country, all we do now is slap simple band-aids on problems without looking at the big picture. The result is an absolute mess that invites abuse.

2. Rampant and willful ignorance about what caused the Meltdown, which should have taught us a great deal.

3. A business and individual tax system that is so complicated and convoluted that it also invites abuse.

4. Wealth distribution that has become so completely out of control that those who advocate for socialism and communism can point at it all day long and say "see"?

5. A complete imbalance between taxation and government spending that the GOP is happy to exacerbate.

For starters.
.

I would have stated those are issues with our duoplistic and overbearing system of government, not on the economic system but those really are not separable so I get your point and cant argue.

 

[FA_Q2]

Red scares do not work anymore. You cold war fossils have so overused the terms "communism" and "socialism" and been such horrible people doing it that you have robbed your favorite scare tactic of it's teeth. If we ever move towards socialism it will be because You people have been such terrible buttheads trying to defend a broken system rather than fix it.

Wow, do you now understand how corrosive overusing a term when it does not apply is?

Is it way over optimistic to thin you may see how this applies to racist?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are all fucking losers and Mac is a fucking liar.

Commies. They are all fucking commies.

 

[Faun]

Candi CdeBaca

Hear it, and get ready folks. That is their manifesto. By any means necessary. Do we fully understand what that means? DO WE FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS?

Just so we are clear here. They lie, they cheat, they murder, and then stand and accuse accuse accuse others of that which they are guilty. They seduce the morons with tails of free money and free free free free.

Understand that this is a war, and they are not even hiding anymore. They are flat out stating it.

BTW, for your information that bitch won the election even after stating such shit.

Think about it. Communism is coming and we will all get what we deserve since we all allowed it to happen. If they say they will implement it by whatever means, we should defend liberty and the free market by any means.