Obama's Socialism Exposed

[Avorysuds]

Reagan raised taxes and that somehow makes him a small government hero. Obama hasn't raised the income tax at all, but somehow hates wealth and is a communist. REALLY??? The cute girls are always ill-informed. Tragic.

No he didn't you moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Awwww. The obvious response to getting called out. I guess, PC, you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us at the beginning so the slight of hand wasn't discovered.

But yeah, definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone. Might want to bone up on your deconstructionism/Derrida. When you throw the word socialist out there...for the discussion to have any meaning...we have to be talking about the same socialism.

I'm sure if felt all warm and fuzzy to troll post with a title about socialism...and bigrebnc probably creamed his pants over it...but to anyone actually reading and internalizing, we had to call bullshit from the beginning.

ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!

*cough**choke**cough* oh wait, you're trying to be serious??

Your Obama Derangement Syndrome is showing. Might want to go get a shot.

1. You know, Vanquished, my fav part of debating with lefties is how you guys reveal your insecurities...
"...you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us ..."

C'mon, don't be afraid of standing up by yourself....if you have confidence in your opinion, than the 'us' stuff wouldn't be necessary.

That's why conservatives do so much better in debates, we're used to dealing with the liberal echo chamber that you grew up in.

2. Next, the "ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"

Now, I'll evisorate your attack on the premise that ACORN was not a major factor in the mortgage meltdown:
a. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

b. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

c. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


Did that wipe the "BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"
off your keyboard?
I guess she who laughs last laughs best, huh?

3. "definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone."
Didn't you notice how the Egypt crisis has led to a new definition of 'democracy' vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood?

Those not too bright are often stuck when conditions change...and I guess that indicates you, huh?

Oh, and the answer to the change in the definition of socialism is in the post just before yours.

Now, write soon, hear?

Low income/minority borrowers have not comprised a significant percentage of the sum total of the mortgage crisis.

 

[boedicca]

Awwww. The obvious response to getting called out. I guess, PC, you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us at the beginning so the slight of hand wasn't discovered.

But yeah, definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone. Might want to bone up on your deconstructionism/Derrida. When you throw the word socialist out there...for the discussion to have any meaning...we have to be talking about the same socialism.

I'm sure if felt all warm and fuzzy to troll post with a title about socialism...and bigrebnc probably creamed his pants over it...but to anyone actually reading and internalizing, we had to call bullshit from the beginning.

ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!

*cough**choke**cough* oh wait, you're trying to be serious??

Your Obama Derangement Syndrome is showing. Might want to go get a shot.

1. You know, Vanquished, my fav part of debating with lefties is how you guys reveal your insecurities...
"...you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us ..."

C'mon, don't be afraid of standing up by yourself....if you have confidence in your opinion, than the 'us' stuff wouldn't be necessary.

That's why conservatives do so much better in debates, we're used to dealing with the liberal echo chamber that you grew up in.

2. Next, the "ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"

Now, I'll evisorate your attack on the premise that ACORN was not a major factor in the mortgage meltdown:
a. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

b. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

c. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


Did that wipe the "BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"
off your keyboard?
I guess she who laughs last laughs best, huh?

3. "definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone."
Didn't you notice how the Egypt crisis has led to a new definition of 'democracy' vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood?

Those not too bright are often stuck when conditions change...and I guess that indicates you, huh?

Oh, and the answer to the change in the definition of socialism is in the post just before yours.

Now, write soon, hear?

Low income/minority borrowers have not comprised a significant percentage of the sum total of the mortgage crisis.

She didn't say they did. They were the wedge that caused lending standards to be lowered for everyone, thus fueling a speculative bubble.

But, of course, intellectual honesty is not your strong suit.

 

[BlindBoo]

Reagan raised taxes and that somehow makes him a small government hero. Obama hasn't raised the income tax at all, but somehow hates wealth and is a communist. REALLY??? The cute girls are always ill-informed. Tragic.

No he didn't you moron.

No?

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're conservative daffynitions are hilarious PC. Keep em comin'.

You can do better than that...don't hide behind nebulous blather...

Hookay..

Sure.

Which form of government is not some form of Collectivism?

And please keep your answer to at least one thread page. There's no extra credit for lots of words.

One based on the language of the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan raised taxes and that somehow makes him a small government hero. Obama hasn't raised the income tax at all, but somehow hates wealth and is a communist. REALLY??? The cute girls are always ill-informed. Tragic.

No he didn't you moron.

No?

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Here, let me help you with that, BB....

1. "Since 1980, U.S. marginal tax rates fell some 40 percent on income and 75 percent on capital gains and dividends, and the American economy added close to 36 million jobs. During the same time period, Europe and Japan created scarcely any net new employment outside of government. American companies now constitute 57 percent of global market capitalization, and the U.S. commands close to one half of the world’s economic assets. America, responsible for one fifth of global GDP in 1980, produced one third of global GDP in 2003. That is Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

2. What is crucial is not the absolute level of government but the size of government compared to the size of the private sector. In every country that enacted tax rate reductions, the absolute growth of the private sector enormously outpaced the growth of government.

3. The growth of the private sector is measured not merely by output but also by assets. In the 25 years since Reagan assumed office, U.S. household assets have more than tripled, to a current record of $52 trillion. Driven by a surging stock market, America’s increase in private wealth dwarfs the increases in debt that cause such agony for one-handed economists in Washington, who dutifully gauge the swell of liabilities but seem blinded to the mountainous growth of assets.

4. By cutting tax rates, Reagan was able to fund a 50 percent increase in defense spending. This expansion of the military was crucial to winning the Cold War. Social spending also grew by some 25 percent—although I should hasten to add that Reagan sharply reduced the nation’s debt by negotiating a Social Security Commission regime that extended the age of retirement and cut back the implicit liabilities in the Social Security program by some six trillion dollars. These reforms radically improved the fiscal position of the government compared to the 1970s, when real Social Security liabilities doubled.

a. Reagan knew that all government spending ultimately depends on the output and assets of the private sector. While the federal budget deficit (exclusive of Social Security) swelled under Reagan in absolute terms as he confronted the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the federal debt shrunk sharply as a share of national assets.

5. Meanwhile, with the top tax rate dropping from 50 to 28 percent under Reagan, tax contributions by the top five percent of earners rose from nine to 18 percent of the total, while contributions from the bottom 20 percent dropped from six to two percent. The top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 94.5 percent of the federal income taxes. Lower tax rates resulted in much larger tax payments by the rich. Reagan’s economic policies proved to be so popular that they were extended, for the most part, under President Clinton and a Republican Congress.

6. Beginning in 1980 with a GDP at one fifth of the global total, the U.S. had attained a national output of $11 trillion by 2003, fully one third of a global GDP of $33 trillion. This is an awesome and unprecedented change. In the entire history of the peacetime world economy, nothing like it has ever happened. Coming after President Carter’s “malaise” in the 1970s, the American ascent is directly attributable to the program of low marginal tax rates, deregulation of energy prices, collapse of inflation, expansion of trade, and active globalization launched by Ronald Reagan.

7.The reason for tax cuts is not to allow the rich to keep their money. It is to enable entrepreneurs to invest money by making their investments profitable. Through the investment process, entrepreneurs give money to others, in their own or other businesses. By earning the money, they learned how to identify the people best able to increase its worth. They learned how to use the money in ways that respond to the needs of their customers. They mastered the magic of lowering prices in order to increase revenues. And they reached out to the largest untapped markets of the world economy, which are always the domains of billions of currently poor people struggling to gain wealth.a. High tax rates stop poor people from getting rich. "https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=08

 

[Sallow]

You can do better than that...don't hide behind nebulous blather...

Hookay..

Sure.

Which form of government is not some form of Collectivism?

And please keep your answer to at least one thread page. There's no extra credit for lots of words.

One based on the language of the Constitution.

Okay..PC..your answer is in..

Lets go to the Wiki page:

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists usually focus on community, society or nation. Collectivism has been widely used to refer to a number of different political and economic philosophies, ranging from communalism and democracy to totalitarian nationalism.
Collectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets go to the Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Looks like Collectivism.

To bad PC..wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hookay..

Sure.

Which form of government is not some form of Collectivism?

And please keep your answer to at least one thread page. There's no extra credit for lots of words.

One based on the language of the Constitution.

Okay..PC..your answer is in..

Lets go to the Wiki page:

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists usually focus on community, society or nation. Collectivism has been widely used to refer to a number of different political and economic philosophies, ranging from communalism and democracy to totalitarian nationalism.
Collectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets go to the Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Looks like Collectivism.

To bad PC..wrong.

Not...not..even one teeny-weeny point??

Sniff.

 

[Sallow]

Not...not..even one teeny-weeny point??

Sniff.

Bob says..more chances!

 

[JakeStarkey]

<snip>

PC and her pundit confuse social democracy with socialism, a common far righty delusion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not...not..even one teeny-weeny point??

Sniff.

Bob says..more chances!

Because of this post, I just started a new OP called "To Defend Our Freedom."

Care to grade that one?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reagan raised taxes and that somehow makes him a small government hero. Obama hasn't raised the income tax at all, but somehow hates wealth and is a communist. REALLY??? The cute girls are always ill-informed. Tragic.

No he didn't you moron.

Yes, avory, Reagan signed into effect increased taxes on the American people.

 

[MaggieMae]

1. Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter. But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding.
Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
Ideas from “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284

2. You might find this enlightening as well.
From Herbert Croly:
The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

Croly, at that time- before he realized the error of his ways, was a Progressive. He changed, so there is hope for you.

Sally...do not read any further! It will cause you to become a conservative!

3. In 1937, at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant progressive, noted that:
“Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. . . . [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men’s lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states. . . .

Nearly everywhere the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon the increased power of officials to improve the condition of men.

4. What worried Lippmann the most—and what should worry us still—was the failure of those who considered themselves progressives to “remember how much of what they cherish as progressive has come by emancipation from political dominion, by the limitation of power, by the release of personal energy from authority and collective coercion.”https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp

Do you ever have a nice concise opinion of your own capsulizing your page after page of historical tomes? Most people you might want to reach will be bored to tears. This is a forum for people to post THEIR opinions, not just the opinions of every historian who supports your point of view. I can only read so much of it, and my eyeballs start glazing over and I read no further, so it's a wasted effort on your part.

I know I'm having an effect when you guys start to quibble over style of posting rather than content.

I've asked you many times to express your own opinion instead of a collection of right wing ideologues' opinions.

 

[boedicca]

As you only spew leftwing ideological pablum, why should you object to anyone quoting any ideologue?

 

[MaggieMae]

Could we cut right to the chase here?

Would the problem have developed, that is the mortgage meltdown, if statists such as yourself had not insunuated government into business decisions?
GRE's, CRA, HUD, FDR, Clinton, etc.

No better proof of the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Perhaps the next chapter should be devoted to the enormous subsidies granted by Republican administrations to bolster the profits of Big Oil, Big Pharma, and health insurance companies providing extra coverage under Medicare. Good intentions? I call it corporate welfare, which costs as much as people welfare, if not more. We can argue that, whenever you're ready.

"...Big Oil, Big Pharma, and health insurance companies ..."

Terrible how they make those obscene profits on poor folks!

It seems that being liberal means never having to provide context. First, let’s compare the profit margin of Big Oil to that of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, Nike, etc. The average profit margin for companies in the S & P 500 index was 13 cents. And “The [Oil] industry’s net profit per dollar of revenue was just under 9 cents, compared to… the S&P 500, meaning the “markup” for the oil and gas industry is below average.”
AAPL Key Statistics | Apple Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance, available for each company.

So, where are the complaints about ‘Big Sneaker,’ or ‘Big Shampoo’?

So they should get subsidized because their per dollar net profit was a 'piddling' 9%? AND, with respect to at least Exxon-Mobil, pay NO TAXES? Interesting you choose to argue this point, because isn't it you guys who are always screeching that what a company does with its profit isn't the government's business?

 

[boedicca]

Pay no taxes? You're insane.

Exxon's 2009 income statement shows $15B of taxes on $35B of profit - and that doesn't include the huge amount of at the pump taxes collected on gasoline.

And Chevron paid $8B on $18.6B for the same period.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now I have a wicked headache. Please be more brief, PC. No need for daily history lessons. Most of us get where you're coming from.

'Big Pharma' makes aspirins....

And they write legislation.

 

[MaggieMae]

Right there is a complete misstatement concerning the CRA, which simply required that banks END red-lining loan applications based on location, i.e., poverty neighborhoods. Yet you apparently ONLY read what YOU want which justifies YOUR position, as usual. Straight from your own echo chamber, I might add.

Imagine, if you will, that the discredited far right meme is actually correct: Assume that the CRA was a prime cause of the mortgage, credit and housing related crises.

CRA Thought Experiment | The Big Picture


You might check out all the comments in the above blog, where you'll find a variety of opinions. Always a good idea if you want to remain seen as an intellectual yourself. Barry Ritholz isn't your garden variety blogger either. He wrote the book "Bailout Nation," and others.

Could we cut right to the chase here?

Would the problem have developed, that is the mortgage meltdown, if statists such as yourself had not insunuated government into business decisions?
GRE's, CRA, HUD, FDR, Clinton, etc.

No better proof of the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

It was the government's failure to strictly regulate financial institutions that caused the meltdown. Nothing else.

With the exception of the repercussions from the repeal of Glass–Steagall, regulations left in place were simply ignored.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you ever have a nice concise opinion of your own capsulizing your page after page of historical tomes? Most people you might want to reach will be bored to tears. This is a forum for people to post THEIR opinions, not just the opinions of every historian who supports your point of view. I can only read so much of it, and my eyeballs start glazing over and I read no further, so it's a wasted effort on your part.

I know I'm having an effect when you guys start to quibble over style of posting rather than content.

I've asked you many times to express your own opinion instead of a collection of right wing ideologues' opinions.

But you know they're interesting and you love reading them.

 

[Sallow]

Not...not..even one teeny-weeny point??

Sniff.

Bob says..more chances!

Because of this post, I just started a new OP called "To Defend Our Freedom."

Care to grade that one?

But but..the player in that vid..wins!