Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Pete7469]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

I think the left's explaination would ultimately depend on their compassion for those who absolutely cant support themselves. As a conservative I don't mind supporting those folks as long as its done in a way that doesn't produce more and more of them.

The utter destruction of the black family and black culture is a case in point wherein liberal compassion turns into near-genocide.

I think it's worse than slavery. The slaves were aware of their oppression and would try and escape.

When a black person tries to escape dependency, they're demonized and reviled and not only by the masters, but by their former peers as well.

 

[dnsmith35]

What the left wing extremists refuse to admit is, wealth is not a zero sum game. Yes, as you stated at any specific point in time there is a specific amount of wealth. But in the very next moment wealth can go up, or down. The point is, over time wealth can be increased by increased production or decreased by reductions of productions. It is asinine to contend that the rich are taking from the less wealthy. Their investments pay off more, and it does not detract from lessor earning people. It is one of the most basic economic principles. Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.

One other thing that our current left wing extremist will not admit, it is easy to prove that under the proper conditions supply side economics does improve the economy. It is very difficult to prove that demand side economics improves the economy.

If the government choses to engage in Keynesian economics, they would do better concerning themselves only about government spending which directly increased demand across the board. Effectively like following Eisenhower's example and put the $500 billion Obama threw at the poor and spend it on true shovel ready infrastructure projects.

FDR tried for 8 years to buy our way out of the great depression by hiring people for the CCW and the WPA for minimum wages and giving to the poor. None of it worked. It took a war time mobilization, huge sums of money spent to buy war machinery, which got us out of the depression.

Indeed, while wealth creation is potentially limitless given the discovery and application of new technologies, especially, the level of wealth creation does rise and fall as a result of the rise and fall in the level of production. That's axiomatic. Good eye. Some might mistake my observation to preclude the ups and downs of the economic cycle.

I'm a Lockean, so I'm not keen on the historical concerns of socialist societies.

The Swedish model is indeed all you say it is and more, though as a Christian I can't abide the encroachments on the individual's natural rights and the moral compromises that go along with it. Notwithstanding, it works not only because the benefits are universally distributed in Sweden, but because the work ethic is strong there, its economy is competitive, its government is tolerant of educational choice and other partially privatized services, and the composition of Sweden's population is among the most homogenous on Earth. (Yes, I know there are those who argue that the latter is exaggerated, but Sweden is more racially and, more importantly, ideologically homogenous than America, and has, shall we say, a more selective immigration policy.) It would never work here, but, as you suggest, significant, "across the board" investments in genuinely durable infrastructure serve to promote the factors of production to the benefit of all the people. That's the way to go here sans punitive and insanely complicated income and corporate tax structures.

As for the barking madness that the higher returns of investment enjoyed by the wealthy somehow cheat the less wealthy out of their portion of the pie, that finite pie in the sky as if the production of wealth were a zero-sum game . . . what can a fella do but reiterate the obvious. As you say:

Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.

Just curious, what precisely in your mind constitutes right-wing extremism to the detriment of the economy?

Right wing extremism to me is, if you didn't earn it yourself you can't have. That would mean in the RWer mind that education should be paid for by the individual, there should be no government involvement in providing medical care, or assistance given to the helpless no matter how disabled, and the tendency to be racist and against the equality of women. In my mind, those are extremist RW. Many main stream conservatives believe in some of the same things the basic liberal of today believe, but just like the basic liberal, I cannot condone some of the LWer preferences of taking from the rich just to help those who are simply less wealth. What the LWer will not understand is, there are always poor people, even in a welfare state in which their basic needs are met. LWers tend to see ALL conservatives, or moderates, and basic liberals with the same lens. IE if we are extreme left we are wrong. We could probably converse on the subject for hours, but I think you have my drift.

I'm not looking for a fight, mind you, and we might even agree depending on what you have in mind. You strike me as a reasonable fella.

I'm one of those mad-dog conservatives, you know . . . according to left-wing extremists. A fascist. LOL!

Another thing LWers refuse to recognize is, FASCISM is nothing but a form of socialism. Instead of owning the production and distribution, the government controls it. The racist implications of FASCISM as we have observed it is an aberration, and there are many models of socialism which were not racist in basic intent, but they have still failed. There has never been a successful socialist state and in every case of true socialism the government has become autocratic or dictatorial.

What I am is a liberal, of course. The term conservative is a cultural label, referring, for the most part, to an American who holds to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded, whether all self-identifying conservatives fully embrace or be fully aware of the foundational doctrines of that tradition, concerning natural law and the state of human nature, or not. Of course, the conservative label does refer to a different kind of political species in other parts of the world. Leftist extremists in American don't seem to grasp these subtleties, more at the term's broader connotations. Contemporary American conservatives generally agree on Locke's labor theory of property at the very least, which is as solid as a rock in my opinion. Give me some of that old time rugged individualism: the preservation of private property, the foundation of liberty.

As you have stated so well, the classic liberal was our original economic intention in the US. I will also state that one of the major point of government is to provide for the national defense, law and order, and the protection of personal property - safe from exploitation by the "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY."

I believe in all of the basic and important parts of liberalism to include racial and sex equality, good public education, universal medical care, assistance to those who cannot earn their lively hood on their own, and other typical liberal points of view.

Of the things the dyed in the wool left wing extremists believe that I abhor, is the willingness to follow the propaganda of other extremists instead of thinking for themselves. One example of that is the ignorant contention that JFKs Supply Side reduction in the top marginal tax bracket by 21% and the reduction of corporate taxation are demand side. Nothing can be further from the truth, yet when they bring up exactly the same kind of tax reduction by Reagan or Bush they are terrible SUPPLY SIDE tax reductions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Neither is their absolute hard headed attitude that it was Bush (whom I was not fond of) who caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash. They stick to government sources or semi government sources to claim, "it was all Bush and the CRA had no part in it." That in spite of the fact that more recent studies on the matter, which show their methods of research, in fact conclude that CRA did have a part and that government entities pushed low interest, bad credit and no down payment rules until the bubble broke.

Basically, being liberal DOES NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO BE BLIND TO REALITY, and their blind partisanship keeps the locked into erroneous economic assertions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

I think the left's explaination would ultimately depend on their compassion for those who absolutely cant support themselves. As a conservative I don't mind supporting those folks as long as its done in a way that doesn't produce more and more of them.

The utter destruction of the black family and black culture is a case in point wherein liberal compassion turns into near-genocide.

I think it's worse than slavery. The slaves were aware of their oppression and would try and escape.

When a black person tries to escape dependency, they're demonized and reviled and not only by the masters, but by their former peers as well.

yes I agree. Reagan said, "isn't welfare a form of slavery." Notice how when you say these things the liberals suddenly fall silent. I don't think I"ve heard one step forward to defend how they destroyed the black family. It appears they are not proud of their handy work, but they remain sure they will get it right next time!

 

[boedicca]

Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.

And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.

And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.

Lincoln wanted to end slavery, welfare/ entitlement slavery and dependency we all want to end, but credit card debt is really an individual choice to end or not so not of concern here really.

 

[Foxfyre]

Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.

And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.

Lincoln wanted to end slavery, welfare/ entitlement slavery and dependency we all want to end, but credit card debt is really an individual choice to end or not so not of concern here really.

Within the context of the OP, credit card debt is VOLUNTARY slavery that we all have full choice to make ourselves subject to it or not. And there is no penalty or other consequences imposed upon us when we choose not to make ourselves subject to that. So you are right, it is not an issue in this discussion other than to use to make a point. (Which I think Boedicca was doing. )

Slavery that allows one person to demand work or services from another was not voluntary on the part of those enslaved and that form of slavery ended with the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union bringing Robert E. Lee, and with him the entire Confederacy, to unconditional surrender. I think nobody posting on this thread now or in the future can find a justification for having that kind of slavery.

So wealth redistribution, under threat of fine or imprisonment, effectively forces one citizen to give up a portion of his ethically and legally earned wealth for the benefit of another for no other reason than the other has less than the person who acquired the wealth. And it is in no way voluntary.

Tell me why that isn't a form of slavery.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.

And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.

Lincoln wanted to end slavery, welfare/ entitlement slavery and dependency we all want to end, but credit card debt is really an individual choice to end or not so not of concern here really.

Within the context of the OP, credit card debt is VOLUNTARY slavery that we all have full choice to make ourselves subject to it or not. And there is no penalty or other consequences imposed upon us when we choose not to make ourselves subject to that. So you are right, it is not an issue in this discussion other than to use to make a point. (Which I think Boedicca was doing. )

Slavery that allows one person to demand work or services from another was not voluntary on the part of those enslaved and that form of slavery ended with the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union bringing Robert E. Lee, and with him the entire Confederacy, to unconditional surrender. I think nobody posting on this thread now or in the future can find a justification for having that kind of slavery.

So wealth redistribution, under threat of fine or imprisonment, effectively forces one citizen to give up a portion of his ethically and legally earned wealth for the benefit of another for no other reason than the other has less than the person who acquired the wealth. And it is in no way voluntary.

Tell me why that isn't a form of slavery.

In theory, I think that rather than feel like a slave you're supposed to feel happy for the opportunity to be charitable toward those in need.

If you feel your money is being used to cripple people and buy votes you're shit out of luck and undoubtedly feeling somewhat like a slave in our liberal la la land.

 

[dnsmith35]

I think the left's explaination would ultimately depend on their compassion for those who absolutely cant support themselves. As a conservative I don't mind supporting those folks as long as its done in a way that doesn't produce more and more of them.

The utter destruction of the black family and black culture is a case in point wherein liberal compassion turns into near-genocide.

I think it's worse than slavery. The slaves were aware of their oppression and would try and escape.

When a black person tries to escape dependency, they're demonized and reviled and not only by the masters, but by their former peers as well.

yes I agree. Reagan said, "isn't welfare a form of slavery." Notice how when you say these things the liberals suddenly fall silent. I don't think I"ve heard one step forward to defend how they destroyed the black family. It appears they are not proud of their handy work, but they remain sure they will get it right next time!

The research paper I did for my Ed.S dissertation was solely about the South East Alabama area. I got data from all the rehab counselors in the state service, the high schools in Houston County, AL, and from questionnaires submitted by all of my disabled clients in the county. The questions submitted included those about prior family assistance, current family assistance, the number of workers in the household, whether or not the client was planning to train for a job after completion of the request of assistance from the rehab service plus many more which we don't have the time or space to discuss here. (all in all over 130 survey questions from all of the clients, counselors, school administrations et al. Welfare is absolutely habituating. Yet I don't believe we should simply cut them off. We need to work with recipients and gradually reduce the assistance for all physically, mentally and emotionally capable of working. My null hypothesis was that assistance was NOT habituating, but when subjecting the questions to a Chi Square statistical analysis, it was VERY statistically significantly positive for habituation.

 

[Freewill]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

Moral decisions are made by a person not a government.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, right. So the German invasion of Poland wasn't a moral decision? How about the decision to shove Jews into gas ovens? How about Israel's decision to bomb Gaza? According to you there's no reason for anyone to complain about that?

That has to be on the Top Ten List of dumbest claims ever posted in this forum.

I love the way you turds neatly step over the issue of morality and then immediate proceed to the the technical aspects of how you're going use the proceeds from looting the citizens of this country.

All those decisions were made by people not governments. Obviously what I was saying went way over your head, my fault. Why did you decide to attack my post? Was it because the board allows you to attack or something you believed made you do it? Obviously it is because something you didn't like and you want to make it known. Now my point about the difference between morality of the person and that of the government.

The left wing screams that religion should have no say in the public discourse. But of course religious beliefs enter into decision making every single day. Much like their hatred for religion colors their view. So they lie to themselves and to anyone fool enough to listen. Moral judgment by PEOPLE are made based on their believe system. Is there something wrong with that? How could anything ever be done if their were something wrong with it. The government, on the other hand, is governed by the will of the people based on the people's set of morality.

The Christian faith certainly wants people to convert and take up the cross there is no doubt that is their goal and that is their calling. On the other hand the atheist wants NO opposition. They truly are the ones that want to force people to believe as they.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Yet I don't believe we should simply cut them off. We need to work with recipients and gradually reduce the assistance for all physically, mentally and emotionally capable of working.

My understanding is that when Clinton cut them off ending "welfare as we know it" by making it workfare fully half decided they no longer needed welfare.

 

[dnsmith35]

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?

Once it is a mistake. Repeated after correction, it is a lie.

In all fairness, dumb2three doesn't grasp the shit he posts. He is a feral baboon, flinging shit from the hate sites. He has no actual grasp of the idiotic nonsense he posts, and he cannot debate or discuss them. He cuts & pastes from the leftist whackadoodle sites - period.

What the left wing extremists refuse to understand is, "EVERY PENNY TAKEN OUT OF THE ECONOMY THROUGH TAXES AND BORROWING WHICH IS NOT IMMEDIATELY PAID BACK" reduces the money for the economy to use for production.

If we choose, during specific kinds of economic trouble, to use Keynesian economic theory to stimulate the economy, DO SO BY PUTTING MONEY INTO IMMEDIATE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. That will put people to work and give us a finished product which is good for the economy. Throwing $500 billion at the same people who receive $500 billion annually in safety net programs does not buy us out of a recession.

 

[Freewill]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

Moral decisions are made by a person not a government. What a person uses for their decision regarding morality is unique to the person. Some religious beliefs, some use what they would call naturalism, and some apparently will use "anti" anything.

So we all live in society. A society that needs roads. Roads that the private sector is more or not likely going to build. So as a people we decide we need roads. Why we decide such is not really that important. In other words a person of religion might think it good because we can transport charity works better, someone else might think it good because they want to get to the beach faster. Whatever the reason people decide to build roads and that cost money. So how those roads are financed is the next question. But all the people put money up to pay for that which they use.

Now someone will say, why should the government, the same government we give money to build roads, give my money to someone on welfare. The discussion is the same as with building roads. Although the majority may think that we need to build roads then the money is worth spending, but those who don't drive may think it a waste of time and dirt roads are just fine. So society decides that welfare is something beneficial to society as a whole.

So we as a society decide how to spend money. I don't want to spend money on abortion but society has decided that is OK. One problem that enters in is if society chooses to display a Manger set at Christmas, no longer is the decision by the majority it is the minority that decides. In lies the problem. The majority are pissed because they are forced by the minority to do what they don't want done.

Same with abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other issues that get shoved down the throats of the majority by the minority. And when the issue doesn't go the way of the minority they simply get a court to rule otherwise. And damn be the court that doesn't rule in the favor of the minority.

But the question is not what society has decided is 'okay'. Society once decided that slavery was okay. That limiting women's rights was okay. That putting people in stocks or burning witches at the stake or public hangings was okay. But when analyzed within the cold, brutally honest light of morality, such things could not be justified and society ended these things.

Again, society is not the person, the person makes society. The issue of slavery was certainly justified in the minds of many, what they used for the justification really is a point of argument. But what we do know is that moral honest people rose up against the practice. THEY changed society through the moral conviction of what they believed. Every one of the things you mentioned changed because people made a moral stand against them, they changed society. Society isn't an entity it is made up by people.

Likewise, those things we agree to via social contract--voting bonds to build schools and fund fire departments or police departments or build roads or water systems or sewer systems or street lighting--all these are in the interest of the GENERAL welfare shared by rich and poor, famous and infamous, powerful and less powerful alike without regard to class, race, gender, or sociopolitical standing.

I do believe that is what I also said. That is why the left winger pays for war when they don't like the war and I have to help pay for government sponsored abortions.

That is a very different thing that you claiming what I have earned because I have more than you do. I am asking on what basis of morality can you claim what I have earned when you contributed nothing to the earning of what I have earned? And what is the proper portion of what I earn that you are entitled?

Not sure that last sentence has anything to do with what I posted and if it does I am not sure how to answer the question.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

DO SO BY PUTTING MONEY INTO IMMEDIATE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.

of course we know that does not work! Japan just tried it for 20 years and paved over half the country to no effect whatsoever. What it does is take money from real people using it to improve their standard of living (thus growing the economy in a real way) and waste it on a road or bridge that didn't need to be replaced anyway.

Keynes told FDR to do what you say and FDR did it causing the Great Depression to last forever!.

 

[Dad2three]

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?

Once it is a mistake. Repeated after correction, it is a lie.

In all fairness, dumb2three doesn't grasp the shit he posts. He is a feral baboon, flinging shit from the hate sites. He has no actual grasp of the idiotic nonsense he posts, and he cannot debate or discuss them. He cuts & pastes from the leftist whackadoodle sites - period.

Only did it once dummy. Corrected it. You wing nutters are NEVER honest

 

[Dad2three]

Cool and?

Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?The big event that drove the monetary bubble
ry

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

Liberal intervention in housing market was massive!!

"The big event that drove the drove the monetary bubble being created by the Fed into the housing market was a decision made by the Clnton Administration in Sept of 1999, Bill Clinton put teeth into and his political power behind the goal of Fred/ Fan having at least 50% of their loan portfolios in affordable housing( sub prime) loans." John Allison


In addition to the Federal Reserve System you had Fanny and Freddie which bought and guaranteed many of the mortgages so no one had to worry about them failing. Then you had CRA, FHA, Federal Home Loan Bank Board( 3% down payment loans) SEC, Govt ratings agencies, and several others that were designed to get everybody in their own home.

When the states tried to move against predatory lending by national banks they were blocked by the bank's federal regulator, the office of the comptroller of the currency. That empowered money lenders said Lynn Turner.

Just as significantly you had very badly conceived govt accounting rules that hid the problems from everyone until it was too late. Accounting rules are supposed to do the opposite, not move billions in potential liabilities off the balance sheet onto tiny footnote on the bottom of a page as happened at Citibank, or onto on sentence at the end of a 10-Q report as happened at AIG, or as generally happened with SIVs (structured investment vehicles). Then you had gov't rules from the last crisis, the Enron Crisis, the created mark-to- market accounting rules for this crisis that many believe greatly exacerbated this crisis.

Then you had the problem with the government backed ratings agencies that simply failed to rate the mortgage backed and related securities, properly. Sorry, it had little to do with the private market, but had everything to do with inane attempts by the liberal to regulate the free market!

You got that right. Overregulation caused the credit meltdown. No one disputes this!

Yeah, except those with a functioning brain

 

[Dad2three]

Sure, IF you don't use reason and logic I am

Carter INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS
Reagan 14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

WOW, IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHY DID CARTER CREATE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN RONNIE, WHO TRIPLED THE DEBT?

Monkey boi, isn't it true that in 1978, the Department of Labor amended labor reporting to include part-time workers under 32 hours a week in reporting? Isn't it true that this instantly and artificially added 6 million people to the employed category?

Oh, your handlers at the hate sites didn't tell you this? Well, why would they?

Should be in the data then right? lol



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberal intervention in housing market was massive!!

"The big event that drove the drove the monetary bubble being created by the Fed into the housing market was a decision made by the Clnton Administration in Sept of 1999, Bill Clinton put teeth into and his political power behind the goal of Fred/ Fan having at least 50% of their loan portfolios in affordable housing( sub prime) loans." John Allison


In addition to the Federal Reserve System you had Fanny and Freddie which bought and guaranteed many of the mortgages so no one had to worry about them failing. Then you had CRA, FHA, Federal Home Loan Bank Board( 3% down payment loans) SEC, Govt ratings agencies, and several others that were designed to get everybody in their own home.

When the states tried to move against predatory lending by national banks they were blocked by the bank's federal regulator, the office of the comptroller of the currency. That empowered money lenders said Lynn Turner.

Just as significantly you had very badly conceived govt accounting rules that hid the problems from everyone until it was too late. Accounting rules are supposed to do the opposite, not move billions in potential liabilities off the balance sheet onto tiny footnote on the bottom of a page as happened at Citibank, or onto on sentence at the end of a 10-Q report as happened at AIG, or as generally happened with SIVs (structured investment vehicles). Then you had gov't rules from the last crisis, the Enron Crisis, the created mark-to- market accounting rules for this crisis that many believe greatly exacerbated this crisis.

Then you had the problem with the government backed ratings agencies that simply failed to rate the mortgage backed and related securities, properly. Sorry, it had little to do with the private market, but had everything to do with inane attempts by the liberal to regulate the free market!

You got that right. Overregulation caused the credit meltdown. No one disputes this!

Yeah, except those with a functioning brain

can dumbto3 tell us how the massive liberal interference designed to get folks into homes the free market said they could not afford did not cause the crisis?? Afraid to try?

 

[Dad2three]

Your own link makes you look like a farkin' tard, fella.

He doesn't read his links or even the nonsense he posts. He is like a lower version of Franco, cut and pasting massive amounts of spam from the leftist hate sites. But this one doesn't even bother to read the crap he posts.

He can't defend the ideas he posts, because he has no grasp of the ideas he posts.

Got it, AGAIN you can't refute a damn thing posted instead use ad homs. I'm shocked....

 

[Dad2three]

Don't sweat Obama's Great Recession.

It'll be over and we'll have full employment when he starts World War III by executive order. Hey, He don't need Congress - He got a phone and He got a pen.

Why He's twice the knave Roosevelt was so why act surprised when it happens?

Yes, the economy was humming along creating 18+ million private sector jobs after Dubya and had 4 surpluses. Oh wait no that was Clinton, Dubya left Obama an economy losing 700,000+ jobs a month and contracting 9%+ (3 years growth) in one quarter and handed him a $1.2+ trillion deficit, and 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED tax cuts..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your own link makes you look like a farkin' tard, fella.

He doesn't read his links or even the nonsense he posts. He is like a lower version of Franco, cut and pasting massive amounts of spam from the leftist hate sites. But this one doesn't even bother to read the crap he posts.

He can't defend the ideas he posts, because he has no grasp of the ideas he posts.

Got it, AGAIN you can't refute a damn thing posted instead use ad homs. I'm shocked....

can dumbto3 tell us how the massive liberal interference designed to get folks into homes the free market said they could not afford did not cause the crisis?? Afraid to try?

Can he tell us why he puts down Bush when Bush was a liberal who said affordable home programs were a good thing!