Your view on Socialism/Communism/Liberalism

[Mikeoxenormous]

It was Barnie Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd, once again , who got US fucked in 2008.

No, it was big greedy banks.

I'm sorry I have to keep explaining this to you, but Barnie Frank wasn't the guy who took bad mortgages and sold them off as investments by lying about their value.

That was your boys at the big banks.

Barack Obama Lashes Out at Banks For Risky Mortgages in Weekly Address ...Forgets to Mention His Lawsuit Forced Banks to Ease Lending Practices

But Obama forgot to mention that he was the one who sued banks to force them to make loans to families who couldn’t afford them.
In 1994, Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Citibank had engaged in practices that discriminated against minorities. The lawsuit forced the bank to ease its lending practices.

These are unintended consequences when liberals get involved. They say they are FOR THE PEOPLE, but in the long run, the liberal elite bank owners, get the profits, and the little guy gets screwed.

Jamie Dimon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As head of JPMorgan Chase, Dimon oversaw the transfer of $25 billion in funds from the U.S. Treasury Department to the bank on October 28, 2008, under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Dimon donates primarily to the Democratic Party.

Joe you hate big banks, but big banks are contributing to the diaper wearing candidate who has a vagina. Your interests don't matter , but Dimon's sure does. Maybe if you contributed more to the Clinton Crime Foundation, your voice might be heard.

Poor people buying houses did not cause the meltdown. However let's look for a moment at the practice of redlining. It's where banks just draw a line around poor neighborhoods and refuse to lend there even if the applicant meets all other requirements. I take it you think this kind of thing is just fine.

Depends on what was done to the requirements. Lowering a standard in order that more people qualify isn't necessarily a good thing so as not to hurt someone's feelings by telling them no.

www.belief.com/columnists/reformedchicksblabbing/2009/02/a-school-bus-driver-wants-bail.html

No lending standards were lowered by anyone in the government however the banks themselves lowered standards in order to sell a lot more mortgage bonds to meet the demand from a lot of investors.

25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME

He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.

Funny how easily liberal forget the past.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it was big greedy banks.

I'm sorry I have to keep explaining this to you, but Barnie Frank wasn't the guy who took bad mortgages and sold them off as investments by lying about their value.

That was your boys at the big banks.

Barack Obama Lashes Out at Banks For Risky Mortgages in Weekly Address ...Forgets to Mention His Lawsuit Forced Banks to Ease Lending Practices

But Obama forgot to mention that he was the one who sued banks to force them to make loans to families who couldn’t afford them.
In 1994, Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Citibank had engaged in practices that discriminated against minorities. The lawsuit forced the bank to ease its lending practices.

These are unintended consequences when liberals get involved. They say they are FOR THE PEOPLE, but in the long run, the liberal elite bank owners, get the profits, and the little guy gets screwed.

Jamie Dimon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As head of JPMorgan Chase, Dimon oversaw the transfer of $25 billion in funds from the U.S. Treasury Department to the bank on October 28, 2008, under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Dimon donates primarily to the Democratic Party.

Joe you hate big banks, but big banks are contributing to the diaper wearing candidate who has a vagina. Your interests don't matter , but Dimon's sure does. Maybe if you contributed more to the Clinton Crime Foundation, your voice might be heard.

Poor people buying houses did not cause the meltdown. However let's look for a moment at the practice of redlining. It's where banks just draw a line around poor neighborhoods and refuse to lend there even if the applicant meets all other requirements. I take it you think this kind of thing is just fine.

Depends on what was done to the requirements. Lowering a standard in order that more people qualify isn't necessarily a good thing so as not to hurt someone's feelings by telling them no.

www.belief.com/columnists/reformedchicksblabbing/2009/02/a-school-bus-driver-wants-bail.html

No lending standards were lowered by anyone in the government however the banks themselves lowered standards in order to sell a lot more mortgage bonds to meet the demand from a lot of investors.

25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME

He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.

Funny how easily liberal forget the past.

Who forgot?

As a liberal I don't really see the Democrat Party as really representing liberalism at all. It's just cronyism the same as the Republican Party.

 

[occupied]

No, it was big greedy banks.

I'm sorry I have to keep explaining this to you, but Barnie Frank wasn't the guy who took bad mortgages and sold them off as investments by lying about their value.

That was your boys at the big banks.

Barack Obama Lashes Out at Banks For Risky Mortgages in Weekly Address ...Forgets to Mention His Lawsuit Forced Banks to Ease Lending Practices

But Obama forgot to mention that he was the one who sued banks to force them to make loans to families who couldn’t afford them.
In 1994, Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Citibank had engaged in practices that discriminated against minorities. The lawsuit forced the bank to ease its lending practices.

These are unintended consequences when liberals get involved. They say they are FOR THE PEOPLE, but in the long run, the liberal elite bank owners, get the profits, and the little guy gets screwed.

Jamie Dimon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As head of JPMorgan Chase, Dimon oversaw the transfer of $25 billion in funds from the U.S. Treasury Department to the bank on October 28, 2008, under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Dimon donates primarily to the Democratic Party.

Joe you hate big banks, but big banks are contributing to the diaper wearing candidate who has a vagina. Your interests don't matter , but Dimon's sure does. Maybe if you contributed more to the Clinton Crime Foundation, your voice might be heard.

Poor people buying houses did not cause the meltdown. However let's look for a moment at the practice of redlining. It's where banks just draw a line around poor neighborhoods and refuse to lend there even if the applicant meets all other requirements. I take it you think this kind of thing is just fine.

Depends on what was done to the requirements. Lowering a standard in order that more people qualify isn't necessarily a good thing so as not to hurt someone's feelings by telling them no.

www.belief.com/columnists/reformedchicksblabbing/2009/02/a-school-bus-driver-wants-bail.html

No lending standards were lowered by anyone in the government however the banks themselves lowered standards in order to sell a lot more mortgage bonds to meet the demand from a lot of investors.

25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME

He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.

Funny how easily liberal forget the past.

Clinton does deserve some of the blame but we must remember that the mortgage market was a sure winner up until 2008 so everyone involved gets a pass for not being able to see into the future.
Once again, making the banks lend in these neighborhoods did not cause the crisis. No one made the banks loosen income requirements, they did that themselves in order to meet the massive demand for mortgage based securities from investors. The bulk of the crash was caused by speculators defaulting on their multiple mortgages and the ultimate worthlessness of the various investment instruments based on a dangerously inflated the mortgage market. Clinton may have signed various deregulatory laws that made the bubble possible but the fact remains that the bubble was built during another president's term who deserves a lot more blame.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Your view on Socialism/Communism/Liberalism


The same totalitarian cancer, at different stages of development.

 

[dblack]

The banks were forced to lend in these areas, not to loosen income requirements or anything else.

Well, except for the requirement that the property in question was in an area the bank deemed a safe investment.

The end of redlining had many beneficial effects to America's cities long before the mortgage crisis. Abandoned property got purchased by locals, the horrible old landlords lost their stranglehold on housing, things got cleaned up and people took more pride in their neighborhoods, some of which have since been transformed to upscale neighborhoods. since the great recession things slid back somewhat but before then it was considered by both parties to be a good thing that banks were finally funding investment in areas they had neglected for decades.

Yes. "Both" parties have an interest in controlling private wealth. That doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[occupied]

The banks were forced to lend in these areas, not to loosen income requirements or anything else.

Well, except for the requirement that the property in question was in an area the bank deemed a safe investment.

The end of redlining had many beneficial effects to America's cities long before the mortgage crisis. Abandoned property got purchased by locals, the horrible old landlords lost their stranglehold on housing, things got cleaned up and people took more pride in their neighborhoods, some of which have since been transformed to upscale neighborhoods. since the great recession things slid back somewhat but before then it was considered by both parties to be a good thing that banks were finally funding investment in areas they had neglected for decades.

Yes. "Both" parties have an interest in controlling private wealth. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Since our banking system is a vital part of our economic infrastructure it cannot be allowed to act in ways counter to the well-being of our nation. There has to be rules to follow and it has to be fair. it is the only alternative to nationalization of the financial system. Left to its own devices a financial system will naturally become corrupt and untrustworthy.

 

[dblack]

The banks were forced to lend in these areas, not to loosen income requirements or anything else.

Well, except for the requirement that the property in question was in an area the bank deemed a safe investment.

The end of redlining had many beneficial effects to America's cities long before the mortgage crisis. Abandoned property got purchased by locals, the horrible old landlords lost their stranglehold on housing, things got cleaned up and people took more pride in their neighborhoods, some of which have since been transformed to upscale neighborhoods. since the great recession things slid back somewhat but before then it was considered by both parties to be a good thing that banks were finally funding investment in areas they had neglected for decades.

Yes. "Both" parties have an interest in controlling private wealth. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Since our banking system is a vital part of our economic infrastructure it cannot be allowed to act in ways counter to the well-being of our nation.

I reject the nationalism inherent in this view. Government should be a servant of the people, not the other way around. We enlist government to protect our freedom to decide for ourselves what is good for us, not to tell us what is good for us and force us to comply.

 

[occupied]

The banks were forced to lend in these areas, not to loosen income requirements or anything else.

Well, except for the requirement that the property in question was in an area the bank deemed a safe investment.

The end of redlining had many beneficial effects to America's cities long before the mortgage crisis. Abandoned property got purchased by locals, the horrible old landlords lost their stranglehold on housing, things got cleaned up and people took more pride in their neighborhoods, some of which have since been transformed to upscale neighborhoods. since the great recession things slid back somewhat but before then it was considered by both parties to be a good thing that banks were finally funding investment in areas they had neglected for decades.

Yes. "Both" parties have an interest in controlling private wealth. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Since our banking system is a vital part of our economic infrastructure it cannot be allowed to act in ways counter to the well-being of our nation.

I reject the nationalism inherent in this view. Government should be a servant of the people, not the other way around. We enlist government to protect our freedom to decide for ourselves what is good for us, not to tell us what is good for us and force us to comply.

Being a servant of the people also involves protecting the nation from those who would use their economic power to fuck us over. It's not like there is no history of banks ruining the lives of a multitude in order to make a profit. Been happening as long as there have been banks. Allowing unchecked economic power is as much a threat to freedom as unchecked political power, maybe even more.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The banks were forced to lend in these areas, not to loosen income requirements or anything else.

Well, except for the requirement that the property in question was in an area the bank deemed a safe investment.

The end of redlining had many beneficial effects to America's cities long before the mortgage crisis. Abandoned property got purchased by locals, the horrible old landlords lost their stranglehold on housing, things got cleaned up and people took more pride in their neighborhoods, some of which have since been transformed to upscale neighborhoods. since the great recession things slid back somewhat but before then it was considered by both parties to be a good thing that banks were finally funding investment in areas they had neglected for decades.

What was really interesting about what you said, is that the liberals were in charge of those cities, where horrible landlords had a strangle hold on housing while donating to those liberal politicians coffers so they could be reelected. And we all saw how well that went with Detroit, didn't we. Yep liberal compassion eventually screws over everyone, then everyone is poor and miserable, that is called "FAIRNESS".

 

[dblack]

Well, except for the requirement that the property in question was in an area the bank deemed a safe investment.

The end of redlining had many beneficial effects to America's cities long before the mortgage crisis. Abandoned property got purchased by locals, the horrible old landlords lost their stranglehold on housing, things got cleaned up and people took more pride in their neighborhoods, some of which have since been transformed to upscale neighborhoods. since the great recession things slid back somewhat but before then it was considered by both parties to be a good thing that banks were finally funding investment in areas they had neglected for decades.

Yes. "Both" parties have an interest in controlling private wealth. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Since our banking system is a vital part of our economic infrastructure it cannot be allowed to act in ways counter to the well-being of our nation.

I reject the nationalism inherent in this view. Government should be a servant of the people, not the other way around. We enlist government to protect our freedom to decide for ourselves what is good for us, not to tell us what is good for us and force us to comply.

Being a servant of the people also involves protecting the nation from those who would use their economic power to fuck us over. It's not like there is no history of banks ruining the lives of a multitude in order to make a profit. Been happening as long as there have been banks. Allowing unchecked economic power is as much threat to freedom as unchecked political power, maybe even more.

The only 'check' economic power needs is the same laws that apply in every other arena. Government should pass, and enforce, laws that prohibit theft, fraud and other forms of coercion. Otherwise, they have no business interfering in voluntary trade. That's really what's at issue here: whether government should have the power to tell individuals who they can trade with and how.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Well, except for the requirement that the property in question was in an area the bank deemed a safe investment.

The end of redlining had many beneficial effects to America's cities long before the mortgage crisis. Abandoned property got purchased by locals, the horrible old landlords lost their stranglehold on housing, things got cleaned up and people took more pride in their neighborhoods, some of which have since been transformed to upscale neighborhoods. since the great recession things slid back somewhat but before then it was considered by both parties to be a good thing that banks were finally funding investment in areas they had neglected for decades.

Yes. "Both" parties have an interest in controlling private wealth. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Since our banking system is a vital part of our economic infrastructure it cannot be allowed to act in ways counter to the well-being of our nation.

I reject the nationalism inherent in this view. Government should be a servant of the people, not the other way around. We enlist government to protect our freedom to decide for ourselves what is good for us, not to tell us what is good for us and force us to comply.

Being a servant of the people also involves protecting the nation from those who would use their economic power to fuck us over. It's not like there is no history of banks ruining the lives of a multitude in order to make a profit. Been happening as long as there have been banks. Allowing unchecked economic power is as much a threat to freedom as unchecked political power, maybe even more.

At one time, a handshake was all that was needed to seal the deal. But liberals and their lawyers started finding ways to screw over the rest of the US citizens to now legal documents have to be 1000's of pages long, like we saw with the "Must pass the Bill, before we know what is in the Bill". And that Bill the liberals passed behind closed doors have screwed over US citizens that was supposed to save them $2,500. Keep opening that pie hole, just digs you deeper into a hole.

 

[occupied]

The end of redlining had many beneficial effects to America's cities long before the mortgage crisis. Abandoned property got purchased by locals, the horrible old landlords lost their stranglehold on housing, things got cleaned up and people took more pride in their neighborhoods, some of which have since been transformed to upscale neighborhoods. since the great recession things slid back somewhat but before then it was considered by both parties to be a good thing that banks were finally funding investment in areas they had neglected for decades.

Yes. "Both" parties have an interest in controlling private wealth. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Since our banking system is a vital part of our economic infrastructure it cannot be allowed to act in ways counter to the well-being of our nation.

I reject the nationalism inherent in this view. Government should be a servant of the people, not the other way around. We enlist government to protect our freedom to decide for ourselves what is good for us, not to tell us what is good for us and force us to comply.

Being a servant of the people also involves protecting the nation from those who would use their economic power to fuck us over. It's not like there is no history of banks ruining the lives of a multitude in order to make a profit. Been happening as long as there have been banks. Allowing unchecked economic power is as much a threat to freedom as unchecked political power, maybe even more.

At one time, a handshake was all that was needed to seal the deal. But liberals and their lawyers started finding ways to screw over the rest of the US citizens to now legal documents have to be 1000's of pages long, like we saw with the "Must pass the Bill, before we know what is in the Bill". And that Bill the liberals passed behind closed doors have screwed over US citizens that was supposed to save them $2,500. Keep opening that pie hole, just digs you deeper into a hole.

Banking and lawyers predate America by a millennium and have always been a necessary evil in a monetary system where dishonest people must somehow be kept honest. The early history of our country is fraught with mega scams by bankers and investors. Americans used to know very well that banks and bankers were never to be trusted. I can't figure how we forgot that.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

We have seen Bernie Sanders almost take the throne from Hillary Clinton. Except for the Super Delegates, he had the most votes. So what is so appealing about Socialism/Communism/Liberalism. Even Whoopi Goldberg, who has made millions of dollars from a Capitalist Society, says "that Communism works on paper, but, when Humans get placed in Charge, then it's nuts. So why do you all want Socialism?

I'm not a socialist, communist, whatever ist.

However Socialism can work for some things. Like health. In the US health is one of the biggest areas of corruption, it take up about 3% of US GDP alone. The British healthcare system would be a lot better if the Tories weren't trying to make it into the US system, claiming it's too expensive but then wanting a system that costs twice as much.

Most areas of business you need that competition, but when it comes to healthcare, competition seems to just add layers. Like health insurance. Why do you need to pay for health insurance, and then pay for the profits on top of this health insurance? You don't need to in the US.
The US system sees hospitals trying to keep you in hospital and give you too much care, in the UK they want you out of the hospital as quickly as possible. I've experienced hospitals in other countries (not US or UK) where you go, they demand you stay three weeks in a hospital bed because you need part of your finger sewing up. Or go to one hospital for a scan and be quoted 4 times more for the scan than at another hospital. It's crazy, but a socialized system with health works, and it's been proven to work, and is cheaper in the long run.

Prisons don't work well either. Too many problems when private companies take over. When it's in Louisiana and it's private prisons owned by the police, then the police are trying to get more people in prisons than there should be, they're essentially making sure those who leave prison will come back anyway, it's ridiculous.

Fire services don't work well when private, used to be the case in England back in the day.
Fire engines would turn up, see there was no plaque on the house and go home with the fire still blazing.

Okay lets take a look at this analogy.
Back in the day if you paid for fire protection, the fire trucks would show up and you would have your house saved, if you didn't pay your house would burn down.
Back in the day, if you paid for your retirement, when you retired you would end up having a nest egg to live on, if you didn't you would go hungry.
Back in the day if you worked hard, you would keep 97 cents on the dollar while the government took 3 cents so they could provide US citizens an army to keep out invasions.

Today, if you don't pay fire protection, you get it because your neighbor had to pay.
Today, if you didn't save for retirement, then you get a SS benefit(even if you didn't pay into it) because your neighbor had to pay.
Toady, if you don't work , you get Free cellphone, free food, free healthcare, while your neighbor has to pay for it.

Detroit is bankrupt because those that had to pay moved away, leaving a failed city and lots of poor people who couldn't move away. What part of that don't you understand?
Venezuela failed because the government made all the people who could pay, leave or took all their money, who stayed, now there isn't any money there.

 

[2aguy]

We have seen Bernie Sanders almost take the throne from Hillary Clinton. Except for the Super Delegates, he had the most votes. So what is so appealing about Socialism/Communism/Liberalism. Even Whoopi Goldberg, who has made millions of dollars from a Capitalist Society, says "that Communism works on paper, but, when Humans get placed in Charge, then it's nuts. So why do you all want Socialism?

This is easy......they promise free stuff without work.......and vengeance against people who have more than you do......

That is the key to socialism...

 

[JimBowie1958]

We have seen Bernie Sanders almost take the throne from Hillary Clinton. Except for the Super Delegates, he had the most votes. So what is so appealing about Socialism/Communism/Liberalism. Even Whoopi Goldberg, who has made millions of dollars from a Capitalist Society, says "that Communism works on paper, but, when Humans get placed in Charge, then it's nuts. So why do you all want Socialism?

1. Sanders did not get more votes thatn Clinton did over all, but how many of the people that voted for Hillary would ahve done so had Bernie been seen as having a fair chance we will never know.

2. Socialism is not communism. It predates communism and Marxism. It began as an idea of how we might restore the life style of First Century Christianity, not some Heathen Dictatorial Empire.

Socialism can be good, but only if it exists peacefully with and alongside the engine of capitalism. Without an underlying capitalist economy, Socialism runs out of money given enough time each and EVERY time..

We need both in some combination, and I like what they have done in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. These are good examples that provide us with models of how to do it RIGHT. With the coming jobless economy due to the Robotics Revolution we will have to adapt Nordic Model Socialism and a Universal Basic Income or we will have a very bloody civil war.

Venezuela is a Marxist shit pile and no Socialist today wants that here, only the Marxists are giving excuses for that disaster.

 

[JimBowie1958]

socialism and communism are great theories.

Only problem is, we know the theory fails in practice.


So there's no logical reason for the common man to want it. Those is power, have clear benefits.

How has Socialism failed in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland?

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is easy......they promise free stuff without work.......and vengeance against people who have more than you do......

That is the key to socialism...

That is the key to MARXISM, not all forms of socialism

 

[2aguy]

This is easy......they promise free stuff without work.......and vengeance against people who have more than you do......

That is the key to socialism...

That is the key to MARXISM, not all forms of socialism

Socialism leads to this effect...you can see it in Europe.....more people get on welfare, so now they are importing foreign workers......free stuff and eventually the new, non European immigrants are going to get mad at the Europeans.......and the cycle will continue...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Socialism leads to this effect...you can see it in Europe.....more people get on welfare, so now they are importing foreign workers......free stuff and eventually the new, non European immigrants are going to get mad at the Europeans.......and the cycle will continue...

That is bad immigration policy, not Socialism

Denmark is a Nordic Model Socialist nation and they set a second tier for their welfare system for immigrants that puts them near starvation level incomes.

Muslims avoid Denmark like the plague ever since.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Calvin Coolidge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During Coolidge's presidency, the United States experienced a period of rapid economic growth known as the "Roaring Twenties." He left the administration's industrial policy in the hands of his activist Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, who energetically used government auspices to promote business efficiency and develop airlines and radio.[108] Coolidge disdained regulation, and demonstrated this by appointing commissioners to the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission who did little to restrict the activities of businesses under their jurisdiction.[109] The regulatory state under Coolidge was, as one biographer described it, "thin to the point of invisibility."[110]

It all comes back to the liberals and how much they hate people who are happy.
Religious people are happy knowing that God and hard work will reward each individual so they can have personal satisfaction. Liberals say how you can you be happy when the guy next to you cant be happy like you? So they take away from the happy person, and give to the unhappy person, now both are unhappy. That is socialism. It was first tried in the Mayflower Compact and the US almost never happened. Thank God, not liberals, that the people woke up and allowed each individual, to reach their own successes. Those that didn't , died of starvation. Venezuela, now those people of Socialism are all starving. That is the liberal way.