Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

[Mac1958]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing the Meltdown was just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA! Barney Frank! It was HIM!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 12 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs that didn't even fully INCLUDE shit mortgages?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to SELL OFF those 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 into 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 REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force Greenspan to admit to CONGRESS after the Meltdown happened that he BLEW it, that markets had FAILED to regulate themselves?
   
8. 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?
9. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole fucking THING was COLLAPSING?
10. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY EXPECTED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson $2 BILLION?
11. How did the CRA force banks to spin off companies that sold insane synthetic CDOs that had NOTHING to do with mortgages, but FLOODED them with fees & leverage?
    
12. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO fucking reserves - REQUIRED for ANY OTHER insurance product - to back them up?

Looking forward to it. EDUCATE ME. I've posted these questions many times, no luck so far. I'm not surprised.
.

Thomas Sowell on the root causes of the mortgage lending crisis

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Don't you have any curiosity left? Has your ideology stolen ALL of it from you?

Anyone else want to try?
.

That's about a 6 page homework assignment. Sorry, I don't do homework assigned by leftwingers.

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted or you would have your answers.

When you can display some independent thought, when you can indicate some specific knowledge of what happened within the context of my questions, let me know.

Right now, all you can do is link to something within your tiny worldview and avoid my specific questions.

My standards are significantly higher.
.

 

[bripat9643]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing the Meltdown was just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA! Barney Frank! It was HIM!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 12 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs that didn't even fully INCLUDE shit mortgages?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to SELL OFF those 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 into 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 REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force Greenspan to admit to CONGRESS after the Meltdown happened that he BLEW it, that markets had FAILED to regulate themselves?
   
8. 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?
9. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole fucking THING was COLLAPSING?
10. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY EXPECTED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson $2 BILLION?
11. How did the CRA force banks to spin off companies that sold insane synthetic CDOs that had NOTHING to do with mortgages, but FLOODED them with fees & leverage?
    
12. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO fucking reserves - REQUIRED for ANY OTHER insurance product - to back them up?

Looking forward to it. EDUCATE ME. I've posted these questions many times, no luck so far. I'm not surprised.
.

Thomas Sowell on the root causes of the mortgage lending crisis

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Don't you have any curiosity left? Has your ideology stolen ALL of it from you?

Anyone else want to try?
.

That's about a 6 page homework assignment. Sorry, I don't do homework assigned by leftwingers.

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted or you would have your answers.

When you can display some independent thought, when you can indicate some specific knowledge of what happened within the context of my questions, let me know.

Right now, all you can do is link to something within your tiny worldview and avoid my specific questions.

My standards are significantly higher.
.

I didn't fail to notice that you didn't answer my question. You assign me a 6 page homework assignment, but you can't even read a single link.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Mac1958]

The Trumpsters have been conned into believing the Meltdown was just about having to write mortgages. That's it. That's all. That's the whole story.

We don't need financial regulation! It's all the Dems' fault! It was the damn CRA! Barney Frank! It was HIM!

Let's see if anyone can answer these 12 specific questions, one by one, no deflection:

1. How did the CRA force the banks to create shitty, opaque CMOs and the even more hideous CDOs that didn't even fully INCLUDE shit mortgages?
2. How did the CRA force mortgage companies to SELL OFF those 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 into 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 REFUSE to regulate derivatives while CFTC Chairwoman Brooksley Borns was BEGGING him to?
7. How did the CRA force Greenspan to admit to CONGRESS after the Meltdown happened that he BLEW it, that markets had FAILED to regulate themselves?
   
8. 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?
9. How did the CRA force the banks to SHORT the VERY SAME shit securities they were selling to their CLIENTS, WHILE the whole fucking THING was COLLAPSING?
10. How did the CRA force GS & John Paulson to create shit CMO's that were SPECIFICALLY EXPECTED to FAIL so they could buy swaps on them, making Paulson $2 BILLION?
11. How did the CRA force banks to spin off companies that sold insane synthetic CDOs that had NOTHING to do with mortgages, but FLOODED them with fees & leverage?
    
12. How did the CRA force AIG to write zillions in credit default swaps with ZERO fucking reserves - REQUIRED for ANY OTHER insurance product - to back them up?

Looking forward to it. EDUCATE ME. I've posted these questions many times, no luck so far. I'm not surprised.
.

Thomas Sowell on the root causes of the mortgage lending crisis

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Don't you have any curiosity left? Has your ideology stolen ALL of it from you?

Anyone else want to try?
.

That's about a 6 page homework assignment. Sorry, I don't do homework assigned by leftwingers.

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted or you would have your answers.

When you can display some independent thought, when you can indicate some specific knowledge of what happened within the context of my questions, let me know.

Right now, all you can do is link to something within your tiny worldview and avoid my specific questions.

My standards are significantly higher.
.

I didn't fail to notice that you didn't answer my question. You assign me a 6 page homework assignment, but you can't even read a single link.

Go fuck yourself.

I know. The standard angry Trumpian grunt.

You're ignorant to what happened, and you're proud. I get it.
.

 

[bripat9643]

Thomas Sowell on the root causes of the mortgage lending crisis

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Don't you have any curiosity left? Has your ideology stolen ALL of it from you?

Anyone else want to try?
.

That's about a 6 page homework assignment. Sorry, I don't do homework assigned by leftwingers.

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted or you would have your answers.

When you can display some independent thought, when you can indicate some specific knowledge of what happened within the context of my questions, let me know.

Right now, all you can do is link to something within your tiny worldview and avoid my specific questions.

My standards are significantly higher.
.

I didn't fail to notice that you didn't answer my question. You assign me a 6 page homework assignment, but you can't even read a single link.

Go fuck yourself.

I know. The standard angry Trumpian grunt.

You're ignorant to what happened, and you're proud. I get it.
.

I debated the whole thing for years. Take your homework assignment and shove it up your ass.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Don't you have any curiosity left? Has your ideology stolen ALL of it from you?

Anyone else want to try?
.

That's about a 6 page homework assignment. Sorry, I don't do homework assigned by leftwingers.

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted or you would have your answers.

When you can display some independent thought, when you can indicate some specific knowledge of what happened within the context of my questions, let me know.

Right now, all you can do is link to something within your tiny worldview and avoid my specific questions.

My standards are significantly higher.
.

I didn't fail to notice that you didn't answer my question. You assign me a 6 page homework assignment, but you can't even read a single link.

Go fuck yourself.

I know. The standard angry Trumpian grunt.

You're ignorant to what happened, and you're proud. I get it.
.

I debated the whole thing for years. Take your homework assignment and shove it up your ass.

I have no doubt you've debated the whole thing for years, from a position of pure simplistic partisan ignorance.

When confronted with your ignorance, you get angry and lash out like a caveman.

After all these years, you still haven't taken the time to learn what happened. I'm not surprised.
.

 

[bripat9643]

That's about a 6 page homework assignment. Sorry, I don't do homework assigned by leftwingers.

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted or you would have your answers.

When you can display some independent thought, when you can indicate some specific knowledge of what happened within the context of my questions, let me know.

Right now, all you can do is link to something within your tiny worldview and avoid my specific questions.

My standards are significantly higher.
.

I didn't fail to notice that you didn't answer my question. You assign me a 6 page homework assignment, but you can't even read a single link.

Go fuck yourself.

I know. The standard angry Trumpian grunt.

You're ignorant to what happened, and you're proud. I get it.
.

I debated the whole thing for years. Take your homework assignment and shove it up your ass.

I have no doubt you've debated the whole thing for years, from a position of pure partisan ignorance.

When confronted with your ignorance, you get angry and lash out like a caveman.

After all these years, you still haven't taken the time to learn what happened. I'm not surprised.
.

Take your homework assignment and fuck off. I have no intention on spending many hours chasing down answers to your questions.

 

[Mac1958]

When you can display some independent thought, when you can indicate some specific knowledge of what happened within the context of my questions, let me know.

Right now, all you can do is link to something within your tiny worldview and avoid my specific questions.

My standards are significantly higher.
.

I didn't fail to notice that you didn't answer my question. You assign me a 6 page homework assignment, but you can't even read a single link.

Go fuck yourself.

I know. The standard angry Trumpian grunt.

You're ignorant to what happened, and you're proud. I get it.
.

I debated the whole thing for years. Take your homework assignment and shove it up your ass.

I have no doubt you've debated the whole thing for years, from a position of pure partisan ignorance.

When confronted with your ignorance, you get angry and lash out like a caveman.

After all these years, you still haven't taken the time to learn what happened. I'm not surprised.
.

Take your homework assignment and fuck off. I have no intention on spending many hours chasing down answers to your questions.

Of course not. In post 170, I provided 12 clear, specific, and easily-verifiable points in the form of questions. You can't answer them.

Hey, you're on the "internet". If you had an OUNCE of intellectual curiosity remaining, you would have at least "looked them up".

But no. You're afraid to, because you're afraid that learning the full story may have punctured your little ideological bubble. Scary.

So you get angry and vulgar. Very Trumpian. If you want to try this, it would be much smarter to try it on someone who is as ignorant & angry as you.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Would anyone ELSE like to take a crack at the 12 clear, specific questions about the Meltdown from post 170 above?

Without running from them and grunting & spitting like an angry child?

 

[DOTR]

Meanwhile, wealth disparity increases.

.

Assuming wealth disparity is inherently bad that is. Where did you hear of such a thing?

Years ago, i had a roommate. This roommate spent every single penny that they had, from one week to the next. Paid on Friday, broke... and I mean broke down to $10 to their name broke.... by Thursday.

I watched this happen for 2 full years. For two years, I was saving and investing, and had saved up several thousand, while they got poorer, and had nothing.

Why should there not be disparity? Why should those who act wisely, not have more than those who act foolishly?

I've never understood by people think this is bad.

I don’t think people do. They are told they should. As least among the productive parts of society. The media, pushing a Marxist agenda, will write a dozen stories a day on the invented concern “inequality” and then point to each other and say “see how concerned Americans are?”
I can say, before God, ive never heard a single concern voiced about “inequality” in a store, bar, airport, dentist office, post office, at work..,.unless it’s overheard from a TV in a place, like an airport, that has CNN blaring from wall monitors.
I do find a generalized (and growing) hatred of the media, Hollywood, Wall Street, corporate CEOs and other powerful supporters of the Democrats. But that’s a different concern altogether.

Agenda Setting Theory

 

[DOTR]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

You make a straw man caricature of "Trumpists" and then knock it down. A fish doesn't notice water and I guess you truly don't notice the assumptions behind what you claim. It is not the right that drives this. its the left and its done in the name of raw political power.

Its why I keep saying the first step is ignore the media propaganda. There isnt a man on the right who ever made a stand that didnt get hit with a barrage of "wait I thought you didnt believe in (fill in the blank) and you must oppose (fill in the blank) because this is where I think you should stand". Trump doesnt fall for that.

The left believes in total government control so of course they paint the opposition as being for no government at all. And maybe they even drive some towards that stance...libertarian are an example. Libertarians are total tools of the left and their every move advances the left.

This doesnt drive socialism. Its driven by socialism which is the antithesis of America and what we fought so many decades against.

 

[Mac1958]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

You make a straw man caricature of "Trumpists" and then knock it down. A fish doesn't notice water and I guess you truly don't notice the assumptions behind what you claim. It is not the right that drives this. its the left and its done in the name of raw political power.

Its why I keep saying the first step is ignore the media propaganda. There isnt a man on the right who ever made a stand that didnt get hit with a barrage of "wait I thought you didnt believe in (fill in the blank) and you must oppose (fill in the blank) because this is where I think you should stand". Trump doesnt fall for that.

The left believes in total government control so of course they paint the opposition as being for no government at all. And maybe they even drive some towards that stance...libertarian are an example. Libertarians are total tools of the left and their every move advances the left.

This doesnt drive socialism. Its driven by socialism which is the antithesis of America and what we fought so many decades against.

I'll let you guys squabble over the definition of socialism.

I just wish Trumpsters weren't so good at making capitalism look bad.
.

 

[DOTR]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

You make a straw man caricature of "Trumpists" and then knock it down. A fish doesn't notice water and I guess you truly don't notice the assumptions behind what you claim. It is not the right that drives this. its the left and its done in the name of raw political power.

Its why I keep saying the first step is ignore the media propaganda. There isnt a man on the right who ever made a stand that didnt get hit with a barrage of "wait I thought you didnt believe in (fill in the blank) and you must oppose (fill in the blank) because this is where I think you should stand". Trump doesnt fall for that.

The left believes in total government control so of course they paint the opposition as being for no government at all. And maybe they even drive some towards that stance...libertarian are an example. Libertarians are total tools of the left and their every move advances the left.

This doesnt drive socialism. Its driven by socialism which is the antithesis of America and what we fought so many decades against.

I'll let you guys squabble over the definition of socialism.

I just wish Trumpsters weren't so good at making capitalism look bad.
.

No you dont. You vote socialist.

 

[Mac1958]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

You make a straw man caricature of "Trumpists" and then knock it down. A fish doesn't notice water and I guess you truly don't notice the assumptions behind what you claim. It is not the right that drives this. its the left and its done in the name of raw political power.

Its why I keep saying the first step is ignore the media propaganda. There isnt a man on the right who ever made a stand that didnt get hit with a barrage of "wait I thought you didnt believe in (fill in the blank) and you must oppose (fill in the blank) because this is where I think you should stand". Trump doesnt fall for that.

The left believes in total government control so of course they paint the opposition as being for no government at all. And maybe they even drive some towards that stance...libertarian are an example. Libertarians are total tools of the left and their every move advances the left.

This doesnt drive socialism. Its driven by socialism which is the antithesis of America and what we fought so many decades against.

I'll let you guys squabble over the definition of socialism.

I just wish Trumpsters weren't so good at making capitalism look bad.
.

No you dont. You vote socialist.

Okay, great.
.

 

[pknopp]

Fail. If someone is a murderer they do not respect a right to life. Your argument is that because someone else murders someone that does not mean you do not respect a right to life. That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

Then we are operating on something other than Capitalism. The Federal Reserve is a system far closer to Socialism.

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

How exactly is that capitalism?

That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

Really? So if I open a business tomorrow... does the government not protect my rights? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I make a profit off of my business, and grow my capital, does government not respect my property? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I change how I do business, say the product, or how I distribute the product, does the government not respect my property? Yes it does.

Please explain how the above being true, is not mutually exclusive to claiming government breaks nearly every aspect of capitalism?

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

They are capitalist. They have some socialist aspects, yes. But the basic foundation of their economy is capitalist by any measure.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Iceland is actually higher on the economic freedom index than the US. They are Capitalist.

Some of the biggest capitalist profit driven companies in the world are in the those countries. And the idea that they are socialist is ridiculous. The rich there, live like rich people. The poor there, live like poor people. Legos is based out of Denmark, and the daughter of the multi-billionaire executive team, owns an entire horse ranch with a thousand acres of land, because... she likes to take ponies to the pony shows, and win medals.

The rich are rich. The poor are poor. It's a capitalist based economy like any other.

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

80% of all millionaires and billionaires are first generation rich. 80%. Yes, there are a few people who are born wealthy.

Further, maybe you are bit ignorant of how most things work, but nearly all successful people fail a bunch of times. Bill Gates, completely failed in his first business venture. So did Henry Heinz.
15 Highly Successful People Who Failed On Their Way To Success

Must successful people fail, sometimes multiple times, before they become successful. This is normal.

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

Well again, I'm a capitalist. I'm against government giving money to anyone.

But your entire statement is completely flaws. The rest get very little? What are you smoking?
70% of all government revenue goes to transfers to individuals. Roughly 15% of the entire economy, is being collected and redistributed to individual US citizens.

By any possible measure, the amount of money we gave to the banks, is a tiny fraction of how much is given out in government hand outs.

Again, that does not justify giving any money to anyone. But to claim that bankers are getting the bulk of the money, when over two Trillion dollars is being handed out EVERY SINGLE YEAR to the public... you are being just ignorantly absurd. Just totally insane.

Fail. If someone is a murderer they do not respect a right to life. Your argument is that because someone else murders someone that does not mean you do not respect a right to life. That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

Then we are operating on something other than Capitalism. The Federal Reserve is a system far closer to Socialism.

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

How exactly is that capitalism?

That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

Really? So if I open a business tomorrow... does the government not protect my rights? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I make a profit off of my business, and grow my capital, does government not respect my property? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I change how I do business, say the product, or how I distribute the product, does the government not respect my property? Yes it does.

Please explain how the above being true, is not mutually exclusive to claiming government breaks nearly every aspect of capitalism?

It isn't always true.

Proposed Senatobia roundabout may force businesses to close

You only discuss vast generalizations, not the reality.

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

They are capitalist. They have some socialist aspects, yes. But the basic foundation of their economy is capitalist by any measure.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Iceland is actually higher on the economic freedom index than the US. They are Capitalist.

Some of the biggest capitalist profit driven companies in the world are in the those countries. And the idea that they are socialist is ridiculous. The rich there, live like rich people. The poor there, live like poor people. Legos is based out of Denmark, and the daughter of the multi-billionaire executive team, owns an entire horse ranch with a thousand acres of land, because... she likes to take ponies to the pony shows, and win medals.

The rich are rich. The poor are poor. It's a capitalist based economy like any other.

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

80% of all millionaires and billionaires are first generation rich. 80%. Yes, there are a few people who are born wealthy.

Further, maybe you are bit ignorant of how most things work, but nearly all successful people fail a bunch of times. Bill Gates, completely failed in his first business venture. So did Henry Heinz.
15 Highly Successful People Who Failed On Their Way To Success

Must successful people fail, sometimes multiple times, before they become successful. This is normal.

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

Well again, I'm a capitalist. I'm against government giving money to anyone.

But your entire statement is completely flaws. The rest get very little? What are you smoking?
70% of all government revenue goes to transfers to individuals. Roughly 15% of the entire economy, is being collected and redistributed to individual US citizens.

By any possible measure, the amount of money we gave to the banks, is a tiny fraction of how much is given out in government hand outs.

Again, that does not justify giving any money to anyone. But to claim that bankers are getting the bulk of the money, when over two Trillion dollars is being handed out EVERY SINGLE YEAR to the public... you are being just ignorantly absurd. Just totally insane.

I keep on providing examples and you keep on using the excuse that you do not support that. It's irrelevant if you support it or not. It is what we do in the name of "capitalism" and there is nothing capitalistic about it.

But we're not doing that in the 'name of capitalism'.

What a dumb thing to say. Really? So Obama stood up there and said "In the name of Capitalism, I'm using tax money to bailout GM, and sell it to the Unions, for their political support!"

Do you realize how incompetent that sounds? Who did that? No one. Not a single person.

When Clinton sent Andrew Cuomo to sue banks to force them to make bad sub-prime loans... was he saying "In the name of Capitalism, we're going to dictate what loans banks make!"? Of course not.

What dumb comment.

Internet poster "Government did this!"

Me " That's not capitalism, and Capitalist like me oppose it"

Internet poster "you are making excuses!"

What?? Your arguments are dumb sir. Really dumb.

You only discuss vast generalizations, not the reality.

Basing your entire argument on the exceptions, is bad logic.
Life is not defined by the exceptions.

This is like claiming that the entire Soviet Union was Capitalist... because a few dozen farms were in fact privately owned for profit businesses. The massive socialized farms in the USSR, were failing so bad, that even Stalin allowed a small collection of private for-profit capitalist farms.

It's a ridiculous claim. The soviet union was socialized. They had a few splatterings of capitalism, but they were very much socialized.

The US is a capitalist based economy. We have a few splatterings of socialism, and we fight against them. But we are capitalist in nature by any possible measure.

If those running the economy are not running it under capitalism, we are not a capitalistic nation.

Under capitalism the government doesn't run the economy, dumbass.

Which in part is why we are not a capitalist country.

 

[Markle]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

The reason is simple and you spelled it out. If "we" don't say NO, NO, NO, we get what we have in California. The further Democrats go to the left, and I'm sure you'll agree right now the Democrats have never been further to the left, we have to go to the right to find a balance.

Former President Barack Obama added tens of thousands of regulations that choked our economy and gave us the slowest recovery in history. Michelle Obama forced a school lunch menu on schools the led to tons of food being thrown away. President Donald Trump is proving those things are detrimental to our economy and society with the changes he has made.

It was different decades ago. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill would fight furiously during the day. Then they'd meet that evening and have drinks and talk. In your wildest imagination, can you see that happening today?

 

[Mac1958]

As long as American right wingers refuse to understand that regulations and controls are not a bane to capitalism, but a CRITICAL COMPONENT of capitalism, socialism will continue to gain adherents.

They somehow don't see this. They prefer to just shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the socialists appreciate their dogged assistance.
.

No one, not the staunchest Conservative believes we should have no regulations. The issue comes in when too many regulations. Do you agree?

Of course, a prime example is California. They have regulated their forests to death. For many decades they have prohibited logging, controlled burns, even roads going into and through those forests. As a result, they have uncontrollable fires, costing many lives and billions of dollars in damage. How is that good for California?

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

I invite you to show me a Trumpster here arguing what I just said. If you say it, it will be the first time. All we get is a simplistic NO NO NO.
.

The reason is simple and you spelled it out. If "we" don't say NO, NO, NO, we get what we have in California. The further Democrats go to the left, and I'm sure you'll agree right now the Democrats have never been further to the left, we have to go to the right to find a balance.

Former President Barack Obama added tens of thousands of regulations that choked our economy and gave us the slowest recovery in history. Michelle Obama forced a school lunch menu on schools the led to tons of food being thrown away. President Donald Trump is proving those things are detrimental to our economy and society with the changes he has made.

It was different decades ago. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill would fight furiously during the day. Then they'd meet that evening and have drinks and talk. In your wildest imagination, can you see that happening today?

Definitely not, sadly.
.

 

[Markle]

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

The problem is that the Trumpsters are terrible, shallow, simplistic, misled, lousy representatives of capitalism.

Did you really post both of the above quotes or was one your evil twin?

And, not coincidentally, the interest in socialism grows.
.

Among who is the interest in Socialism growing? Ignorant people who have not yet experienced life or had Socialism explained to them.

 

[bripat9643]

That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

Really? So if I open a business tomorrow... does the government not protect my rights? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I make a profit off of my business, and grow my capital, does government not respect my property? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I change how I do business, say the product, or how I distribute the product, does the government not respect my property? Yes it does.

Please explain how the above being true, is not mutually exclusive to claiming government breaks nearly every aspect of capitalism?

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

They are capitalist. They have some socialist aspects, yes. But the basic foundation of their economy is capitalist by any measure.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Iceland is actually higher on the economic freedom index than the US. They are Capitalist.

Some of the biggest capitalist profit driven companies in the world are in the those countries. And the idea that they are socialist is ridiculous. The rich there, live like rich people. The poor there, live like poor people. Legos is based out of Denmark, and the daughter of the multi-billionaire executive team, owns an entire horse ranch with a thousand acres of land, because... she likes to take ponies to the pony shows, and win medals.

The rich are rich. The poor are poor. It's a capitalist based economy like any other.

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

80% of all millionaires and billionaires are first generation rich. 80%. Yes, there are a few people who are born wealthy.

Further, maybe you are bit ignorant of how most things work, but nearly all successful people fail a bunch of times. Bill Gates, completely failed in his first business venture. So did Henry Heinz.
15 Highly Successful People Who Failed On Their Way To Success

Must successful people fail, sometimes multiple times, before they become successful. This is normal.

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

Well again, I'm a capitalist. I'm against government giving money to anyone.

But your entire statement is completely flaws. The rest get very little? What are you smoking?
70% of all government revenue goes to transfers to individuals. Roughly 15% of the entire economy, is being collected and redistributed to individual US citizens.

By any possible measure, the amount of money we gave to the banks, is a tiny fraction of how much is given out in government hand outs.

Again, that does not justify giving any money to anyone. But to claim that bankers are getting the bulk of the money, when over two Trillion dollars is being handed out EVERY SINGLE YEAR to the public... you are being just ignorantly absurd. Just totally insane.

That would be correct BUT it is the government breaking nearly every aspect of capitalism so it can not be operating on capitalism. It's operating on something else.

Really? So if I open a business tomorrow... does the government not protect my rights? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I make a profit off of my business, and grow my capital, does government not respect my property? Yes it does. That's capitalism. If I change how I do business, say the product, or how I distribute the product, does the government not respect my property? Yes it does.

Please explain how the above being true, is not mutually exclusive to claiming government breaks nearly every aspect of capitalism?

It isn't always true.

Proposed Senatobia roundabout may force businesses to close

You only discuss vast generalizations, not the reality.

People in Scandinavian countries that people condemn as socialist nations can't open their own business and be a success?

They are capitalist. They have some socialist aspects, yes. But the basic foundation of their economy is capitalist by any measure.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Iceland is actually higher on the economic freedom index than the US. They are Capitalist.

Some of the biggest capitalist profit driven companies in the world are in the those countries. And the idea that they are socialist is ridiculous. The rich there, live like rich people. The poor there, live like poor people. Legos is based out of Denmark, and the daughter of the multi-billionaire executive team, owns an entire horse ranch with a thousand acres of land, because... she likes to take ponies to the pony shows, and win medals.

The rich are rich. The poor are poor. It's a capitalist based economy like any other.

What choices did Trump make to make himself rich? Trump is rich based upon what vagina he came out of. Trump failed and failed only to have daddy bail him out. Trump got banks to go along based upon who his daddy was. Can just anyone make that choice?

80% of all millionaires and billionaires are first generation rich. 80%. Yes, there are a few people who are born wealthy.

Further, maybe you are bit ignorant of how most things work, but nearly all successful people fail a bunch of times. Bill Gates, completely failed in his first business venture. So did Henry Heinz.
15 Highly Successful People Who Failed On Their Way To Success

Must successful people fail, sometimes multiple times, before they become successful. This is normal.

Bankers are rich beyond rich but they failed. They failed but yet the government gave them billions and billions more. Right now the Federal Reserve still is. How much of the billions and billions being pumped is going to the country as a whole? Why should only a small percentage get the largest portion of this while the rest get very little?

Well again, I'm a capitalist. I'm against government giving money to anyone.

But your entire statement is completely flaws. The rest get very little? What are you smoking?
70% of all government revenue goes to transfers to individuals. Roughly 15% of the entire economy, is being collected and redistributed to individual US citizens.

By any possible measure, the amount of money we gave to the banks, is a tiny fraction of how much is given out in government hand outs.

Again, that does not justify giving any money to anyone. But to claim that bankers are getting the bulk of the money, when over two Trillion dollars is being handed out EVERY SINGLE YEAR to the public... you are being just ignorantly absurd. Just totally insane.

I keep on providing examples and you keep on using the excuse that you do not support that. It's irrelevant if you support it or not. It is what we do in the name of "capitalism" and there is nothing capitalistic about it.

But we're not doing that in the 'name of capitalism'.

What a dumb thing to say. Really? So Obama stood up there and said "In the name of Capitalism, I'm using tax money to bailout GM, and sell it to the Unions, for their political support!"

Do you realize how incompetent that sounds? Who did that? No one. Not a single person.

When Clinton sent Andrew Cuomo to sue banks to force them to make bad sub-prime loans... was he saying "In the name of Capitalism, we're going to dictate what loans banks make!"? Of course not.

What dumb comment.

Internet poster "Government did this!"

Me " That's not capitalism, and Capitalist like me oppose it"

Internet poster "you are making excuses!"

What?? Your arguments are dumb sir. Really dumb.

You only discuss vast generalizations, not the reality.

Basing your entire argument on the exceptions, is bad logic.
Life is not defined by the exceptions.

This is like claiming that the entire Soviet Union was Capitalist... because a few dozen farms were in fact privately owned for profit businesses. The massive socialized farms in the USSR, were failing so bad, that even Stalin allowed a small collection of private for-profit capitalist farms.

It's a ridiculous claim. The soviet union was socialized. They had a few splatterings of capitalism, but they were very much socialized.

The US is a capitalist based economy. We have a few splatterings of socialism, and we fight against them. But we are capitalist in nature by any possible measure.

If those running the economy are not running it under capitalism, we are not a capitalistic nation.

Under capitalism the government doesn't run the economy, dumbass.

Which in part is why we are not a capitalist country.

Then why are you constantly whining about capitalism?

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

The problem is that the Trumpsters are terrible, shallow, simplistic, misled, lousy representatives of capitalism.

Did you really post both of the above quotes or was one your evil twin?

And, not coincidentally, the interest in socialism grows.
.

Among who is the interest in Socialism growing? Ignorant people who have not yet experienced life or had Socialism explained to them.

No evil twin. Each side has a hand in messing this up. My point is pretty clear.

And you just provided an example of why Trumpsters are so lousy at educating people on this. Insults don't work.

Anything else?
.

 

[Norman]

Yes, the question is the flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness of regulation, not the sheer amount, as Democrats seem to think.

The problem is that the Trumpsters are terrible, shallow, simplistic, misled, lousy representatives of capitalism.

Did you really post both of the above quotes or was one your evil twin?

And, not coincidentally, the interest in socialism grows.
.

Among who is the interest in Socialism growing? Ignorant people who have not yet experienced life or had Socialism explained to them.

No evil twin. Each side has a hand in messing this up. My point is pretty clear.

And you just provided an example of why Trumpsters are so lousy at educating people on this. Insults don't work.

Anything else?
.

Mac: Insults don't work.
Also Mac. Insults Trump supporters using a string of words, while not understanding the issues very well.