Republicans and Poverty

[Derideo_Te]

Coming from someone who lacks the basic comprehension to understand that taxation is not "stealing" that is amusing.

Are all Libertarians this childlike in their feeble grasp of reality or is it only confined to USMB members?

Taxation is a means to secure funds to support serveries that benefit us all. The military, for example, benefits us all. There may be discussion on how the military benefits us at any given time but it is there for us all nonetheless. Voting money away from one group so as to unduly grant a privilege to another is simply the tyranny of the majority. It's not the general welfare that benefits from such a transaction but the specific welfare of one group or another (Clear distinction). That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution was designed to forbid at the federal level. Now this is not to say that the states can't come up with their own scheme. They have the power to and ought to. But when there is little to no return on our money in the form of people clawing their way out of poverty and becoming productive taxpaying citizens then I think I am justified in asserting that I am not greedy for realizing that paying for the poor is increasing poverty. Besides, there is no such thing as "poor" in the United States. Oh you may have a standard to which you judge is "poor," but I don't see starving people in the streets urinating on the sidewalk as I have in so many other countries. The "poor" of the United States is the worlds middle class. We no longer have debates, for example, about feeding the poor. We only have debates about feeding the poor in a healthy manner. So excuse me if I reject your notions of poverty and entitlement. Everyone can't be winners but if you can't make it here then you are a loser who made too many bad decisions and the taxpayer owes you nothing for your chosen lifestyle.

Yet another Libertarian screed of selfishness.

What is the alternative to providing support to those less fortunate than you are?

Abject poverty?

Rampant crime?

Diseases and dead people lying in the streets?

Urchins begging on corners?

The poor selling their children?

That is the alternative to your selfish greed. By eliminating what they receive today you will be turning this country into a 3rd world nation.

All because you have a fallacious sense of entitlement that you don't have to pay taxes to live in this civilized society.

Carry on being a selfish Libertarian because you obviously lack the cognitive skills necessary to make the connection as to what will happen here when you cut off all welfare of the less fortunate. You will just blame the victims of your greed because you cannot make the obvious mental leaps.

The OP started by pointing out that he was raised with a sound work ethic and yet, through no fault of his own, he finds himself in poverty. He didn't make a "poor choice" to be afflicted with OCD. That is what happens to some people.

You lack the basic human empathy to put yourself in the OP's shoes and wonder what it would be like to be him.

That is why you are a greedy and selfish Libertarian who doesn't know how to "play nicely with others". You cannot comprehend that for millions of your fellow Americans they never made the "poor choice" to be born into poverty. But you blame them for their circumstances even though they are probably better human beings than you will ever be.

There you go again. Making a point on empathy is completely separate from making a point on logic. In the end your argument rests on feelings, and that makes it a poor argument. Essentially, you're beef is that I don't "feel" the way you do. And, of course, those that err on the side of logic instead of your feelings should be what? Condemned? Ridiculed?

A selfish and/or greedy act is an act that takes without compensation at the expense of another. I advocate for none of that whilst you demand it. Who's selfish again?

Now with that out of the way might I push you into a realm in which your argument becomes logical? How does "everyone" benefit from making the poor comfortable in their poverty?

Yet another deflection because you cannot address your Libertarian selfishness and greed.

Answer the question.

What is your viable and feasible alternative to eliminating support for the less fortunate?

It's quite simple. Get the federal government out of the poverty business and let the states, who have a vested interest in cleaning up their streets/poverty, do what they will. I don't necessarily need to provide an alternative when the current is model clearly making poverty worse anyway. Making people uncomfortable in their poverty will encourage people to quit using social welfare as an insurance policy when they take into account the risks of their actions. Allowing the state and local governments to deal with it would allow better oversight and increased success.

The states already manage their local poverty so you just admitted that you don't have a viable Libertarian alternative. You are just whining because you are selfish and greedy.

And yes, it has come to my notice that certain Libertarian indoctrinated states are already in the process of shutting down their social support programs. Needless to say poverty and crime will skyrocket and you will blame the victims.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet another extremist rightwinger who failed to comprehend the OP.

He already has a college degree.

He is in this situation because of a medical condition.

Sheesh!!!

If more people would plan better for their own future and make decisions conducive to being financially independent, it wouldn't even be an issue trying to help those who have no other choice.

Not everyone has the spare funds to plan for having to spend the rest of their lives working for minimum wages.

In fact that will only happen if salaries are increased across the board for the middle class.

And yes, it was entirely predictable that you would blame the victim who is in this situation through no fault of his own.

 

[Publius1787]

Taxation is a means to secure funds to support serveries that benefit us all. The military, for example, benefits us all. There may be discussion on how the military benefits us at any given time but it is there for us all nonetheless. Voting money away from one group so as to unduly grant a privilege to another is simply the tyranny of the majority. It's not the general welfare that benefits from such a transaction but the specific welfare of one group or another (Clear distinction). That's exactly what the U.S. Constitution was designed to forbid at the federal level. Now this is not to say that the states can't come up with their own scheme. They have the power to and ought to. But when there is little to no return on our money in the form of people clawing their way out of poverty and becoming productive taxpaying citizens then I think I am justified in asserting that I am not greedy for realizing that paying for the poor is increasing poverty. Besides, there is no such thing as "poor" in the United States. Oh you may have a standard to which you judge is "poor," but I don't see starving people in the streets urinating on the sidewalk as I have in so many other countries. The "poor" of the United States is the worlds middle class. We no longer have debates, for example, about feeding the poor. We only have debates about feeding the poor in a healthy manner. So excuse me if I reject your notions of poverty and entitlement. Everyone can't be winners but if you can't make it here then you are a loser who made too many bad decisions and the taxpayer owes you nothing for your chosen lifestyle.

Yet another Libertarian screed of selfishness.

What is the alternative to providing support to those less fortunate than you are?

Abject poverty?

Rampant crime?

Diseases and dead people lying in the streets?

Urchins begging on corners?

The poor selling their children?

That is the alternative to your selfish greed. By eliminating what they receive today you will be turning this country into a 3rd world nation.

All because you have a fallacious sense of entitlement that you don't have to pay taxes to live in this civilized society.

Carry on being a selfish Libertarian because you obviously lack the cognitive skills necessary to make the connection as to what will happen here when you cut off all welfare of the less fortunate. You will just blame the victims of your greed because you cannot make the obvious mental leaps.

The OP started by pointing out that he was raised with a sound work ethic and yet, through no fault of his own, he finds himself in poverty. He didn't make a "poor choice" to be afflicted with OCD. That is what happens to some people.

You lack the basic human empathy to put yourself in the OP's shoes and wonder what it would be like to be him.

That is why you are a greedy and selfish Libertarian who doesn't know how to "play nicely with others". You cannot comprehend that for millions of your fellow Americans they never made the "poor choice" to be born into poverty. But you blame them for their circumstances even though they are probably better human beings than you will ever be.

There you go again. Making a point on empathy is completely separate from making a point on logic. In the end your argument rests on feelings, and that makes it a poor argument. Essentially, you're beef is that I don't "feel" the way you do. And, of course, those that err on the side of logic instead of your feelings should be what? Condemned? Ridiculed?

A selfish and/or greedy act is an act that takes without compensation at the expense of another. I advocate for none of that whilst you demand it. Who's selfish again?

Now with that out of the way might I push you into a realm in which your argument becomes logical? How does "everyone" benefit from making the poor comfortable in their poverty?

Yet another deflection because you cannot address your Libertarian selfishness and greed.

Answer the question.

What is your viable and feasible alternative to eliminating support for the less fortunate?

It's quite simple. Get the federal government out of the poverty business and let the states, who have a vested interest in cleaning up their streets/poverty, do what they will. I don't necessarily need to provide an alternative when the current is model clearly making poverty worse anyway. Making people uncomfortable in their poverty will encourage people to quit using social welfare as an insurance policy when they take into account the risks of their actions. Allowing the state and local governments to deal with it would allow better oversight and increased success.

The states already manage their local poverty so you just admitted that you don't have a viable Libertarian alternative. You are just whining because you are selfish and greedy.

And yes, it has come to my notice that certain Libertarian indoctrinated states are already in the process of shutting down their social support programs. Needless to say poverty and crime will skyrocket and you will blame the victims.

No, the federal government taxes the people and demands that the states manage poverty if they wish to get that money back. With federal money comes federal rules, standards, and regulations. The states must operate in that framework. The federal government should do away with all taxes designed to manipulate the states into managing poverty and allow the states to tax and spend to manage it themselves. There is indeed a big distinction to be recognized here. This is by no means a libertarian alternative. Libertarians would disagree with such a model.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
Your failure to prove your claim hasn't helped your case.

You don't expect liberals to admit that their party created the crisis, knowing exactly how they were going to take advantage of it, do you? Republicans fought for years to stop this and the left screamed that no changes were necessary in Fannie and Freddie's practices. The Dems wanted no change to the regulations and lack of oversight that bought on the crisis. They are already working on a second crisis by returning to the same policies that made the first one happen. You'd think they learned their lesson and wouldn't go down the same path. Actually, I think they know and they are disappointed that the first crisis didn't completely bring down the economy so they want a repeat.

Assbackwards!

 

[Publius1787]

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
Your failure to prove your claim hasn't helped your case.

You don't expect liberals to admit that their party created the crisis, knowing exactly how they were going to take advantage of it, do you? Republicans fought for years to stop this and the left screamed that no changes were necessary in Fannie and Freddie's practices. The Dems wanted no change to the regulations and lack of oversight that bought on the crisis. They are already working on a second crisis by returning to the same policies that made the first one happen. You'd think they learned their lesson and wouldn't go down the same path. Actually, I think they know and they are disappointed that the first crisis didn't completely bring down the economy so they want a repeat.

Assbackwards!

Nope Republicans and Poverty Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am not being paid to provide you with an education. You have the benefit of the internet at your fingertips. Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy.

I am not being paid to provide you with an education.

Or to prove your own claim.
I understand that you can't, that's okay.

Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy

Not to mention the Democratic deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.

But thanks for exposing that you are just another dishonest extremist rightwinger with zero credibility.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
Your failure to prove your claim hasn't helped your case.

Utterly irrelevant since your lies don't alter the facts that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008

That "Wall Street casino" sent almost every one of those mortgage backed securities to Fannie/Freddie before they were bundled and sold. F&F were the facilitators of the financial crisis. Without them there would have been no financial crisis. When there is a kink in the financial armor all banks utilize that kink lest they lose out to their competition. Fannie/Freddie was that kink.

That was because the Wall Street Casino Bosses deceived F&F by telling them that they were prime mortgages instead of the predatory subprime mortgages that were the basis of their Republican deregulated criminal enterprise.

Typical deceitful extremist rightwinger response to blame the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators and their GOP enablers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The states already manage their local poverty so you just admitted that you don't have a viable Libertarian alternative..

now how 100% stupid it that??? China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty!

See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet another Libertarian screed of selfishness.

What is the alternative to providing support to those less fortunate than you are?

Abject poverty?

Rampant crime?

Diseases and dead people lying in the streets?

Urchins begging on corners?

The poor selling their children?

That is the alternative to your selfish greed. By eliminating what they receive today you will be turning this country into a 3rd world nation.

All because you have a fallacious sense of entitlement that you don't have to pay taxes to live in this civilized society.

Carry on being a selfish Libertarian because you obviously lack the cognitive skills necessary to make the connection as to what will happen here when you cut off all welfare of the less fortunate. You will just blame the victims of your greed because you cannot make the obvious mental leaps.

The OP started by pointing out that he was raised with a sound work ethic and yet, through no fault of his own, he finds himself in poverty. He didn't make a "poor choice" to be afflicted with OCD. That is what happens to some people.

You lack the basic human empathy to put yourself in the OP's shoes and wonder what it would be like to be him.

That is why you are a greedy and selfish Libertarian who doesn't know how to "play nicely with others". You cannot comprehend that for millions of your fellow Americans they never made the "poor choice" to be born into poverty. But you blame them for their circumstances even though they are probably better human beings than you will ever be.

There you go again. Making a point on empathy is completely separate from making a point on logic. In the end your argument rests on feelings, and that makes it a poor argument. Essentially, you're beef is that I don't "feel" the way you do. And, of course, those that err on the side of logic instead of your feelings should be what? Condemned? Ridiculed?

A selfish and/or greedy act is an act that takes without compensation at the expense of another. I advocate for none of that whilst you demand it. Who's selfish again?

Now with that out of the way might I push you into a realm in which your argument becomes logical? How does "everyone" benefit from making the poor comfortable in their poverty?

Yet another deflection because you cannot address your Libertarian selfishness and greed.

Answer the question.

What is your viable and feasible alternative to eliminating support for the less fortunate?

It's quite simple. Get the federal government out of the poverty business and let the states, who have a vested interest in cleaning up their streets/poverty, do what they will. I don't necessarily need to provide an alternative when the current is model clearly making poverty worse anyway. Making people uncomfortable in their poverty will encourage people to quit using social welfare as an insurance policy when they take into account the risks of their actions. Allowing the state and local governments to deal with it would allow better oversight and increased success.

The states already manage their local poverty so you just admitted that you don't have a viable Libertarian alternative. You are just whining because you are selfish and greedy.

And yes, it has come to my notice that certain Libertarian indoctrinated states are already in the process of shutting down their social support programs. Needless to say poverty and crime will skyrocket and you will blame the victims.

No, the federal government taxes the people and demands that the states manage poverty if they wish to get that money back. With federal money comes federal rules, standards, and regulations. The states must operate in that framework. The federal government should do away with all taxes designed to manipulate the states into managing poverty and allow the states to tax and spend to manage it themselves. There is indeed a big distinction to be recognized here. This is by no means a libertarian alternative. Libertarians would disagree with such a model.

The only distinction if your disingenuous attempts to hide your own greed and selfishness.

You would be screaming your head off if the funds were not regulated.

Typical hypocrisy of the extremist rightwingers.

 

[Publius1787]

I am not being paid to provide you with an education.

Or to prove your own claim.
I understand that you can't, that's okay.

Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy

Not to mention the Democratic deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.

But thanks for exposing that you are just another dishonest extremist rightwinger with zero credibility.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
Your failure to prove your claim hasn't helped your case.

Utterly irrelevant since your lies don't alter the facts that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008

That "Wall Street casino" sent almost every one of those mortgage backed securities to Fannie/Freddie before they were bundled and sold. F&F were the facilitators of the financial crisis. Without them there would have been no financial crisis. When there is a kink in the financial armor all banks utilize that kink lest they lose out to their competition. Fannie/Freddie was that kink.

That was because the Wall Street Casino Bosses deceived F&F by telling them that they were prime mortgages instead of the predatory subprime mortgages that were the basis of their Republican deregulated criminal enterprise.

Typical deceitful extremist rightwinger response to blame the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators and their GOP enablers.

yeahh ... look at that video one more time. Who is defending Fannie/Freddie again?

 

[Publius1787]

There you go again. Making a point on empathy is completely separate from making a point on logic. In the end your argument rests on feelings, and that makes it a poor argument. Essentially, you're beef is that I don't "feel" the way you do. And, of course, those that err on the side of logic instead of your feelings should be what? Condemned? Ridiculed?

A selfish and/or greedy act is an act that takes without compensation at the expense of another. I advocate for none of that whilst you demand it. Who's selfish again?

Now with that out of the way might I push you into a realm in which your argument becomes logical? How does "everyone" benefit from making the poor comfortable in their poverty?

Yet another deflection because you cannot address your Libertarian selfishness and greed.

Answer the question.

What is your viable and feasible alternative to eliminating support for the less fortunate?

It's quite simple. Get the federal government out of the poverty business and let the states, who have a vested interest in cleaning up their streets/poverty, do what they will. I don't necessarily need to provide an alternative when the current is model clearly making poverty worse anyway. Making people uncomfortable in their poverty will encourage people to quit using social welfare as an insurance policy when they take into account the risks of their actions. Allowing the state and local governments to deal with it would allow better oversight and increased success.

The states already manage their local poverty so you just admitted that you don't have a viable Libertarian alternative. You are just whining because you are selfish and greedy.

And yes, it has come to my notice that certain Libertarian indoctrinated states are already in the process of shutting down their social support programs. Needless to say poverty and crime will skyrocket and you will blame the victims.

No, the federal government taxes the people and demands that the states manage poverty if they wish to get that money back. With federal money comes federal rules, standards, and regulations. The states must operate in that framework. The federal government should do away with all taxes designed to manipulate the states into managing poverty and allow the states to tax and spend to manage it themselves. There is indeed a big distinction to be recognized here. This is by no means a libertarian alternative. Libertarians would disagree with such a model.

The only distinction if your disingenuous attempts to hide your own greed and selfishness.

You would be screaming your head off if the funds were not regulated.

Typical hypocrisy of the extremist rightwingers.

I'm sorry, I was expecting a logical response either debunking my observations or telling me that my observations aren't as relevant as I might think. Instead you feed me this? Listen buddy, I would love to argue the merits of the topic but unless you respond in kind I can come to no other conclusion than you are here for some strange quest for self gratification involving this>>> Dunning Kruger effect - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I will only add that the state governments are regulatory bodies as well. There is no need for federal regulation of social welfare but your above response does concede to me that the states are not necessarily in charge of their programs as you once stated. Thanks for admitting that much.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That was because the Wall Street Casino Bosses deceived F&F by telling them that they were prime mortgages instead of the predatory subprime mortgages that were the basis of their Republican deregulated criminal enterprise.

I read the "article". It didn't explain the so called 2001 deregulation of speculation.
It's okay if you can't prove your claim, I understand.

I agree about Fannie and Freddie, Bush should have killed those lib corps, instead of expanding them.

Thank you for admitting to your appalling ignorance regarding the Republican deregulations that caused the 2008 economic collapse.

Thank you for admitting to your appalling ignorance regarding the Republican deregulations that caused the 2008 economic collapse.

Well gosh, based on your failure to prove your claim, you sure haven't helped anyone reduce their ignorance.
Perhaps you could try again?

I am not being paid to provide you with an education. You have the benefit of the internet at your fingertips. Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy.

I am not being paid to provide you with an education.

Or to prove your own claim.
I understand that you can't, that's okay.

Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy

Not to mention the Democratic deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.

But thanks for exposing that you are just another dishonest extremist rightwinger with zero credibility.

in december 2011 3 top officers of Fan Fred were sued by SEC for failing to disclose that they had been acquiring sub prime loans.

if the Basel rules had not put a regulatory thumb on the scale pushing banks in the direction of subprime the consequences of the collapse would have been much less

 

[Stephanie]

Hey, I'm new. One of the things that confuses me the most about the Republican Party is its stance on poverty. I want to start out by saying that I am an Indiana Republican and I grew up middle class. We lived by two common rules. Work Hard, Believe in God. These two things were not a bad thing to grow up on. I had early success in school, and I got a college degree, but my OCD became increasingly worse. I am now disabled and I am well versed in poverty.

I admit that I like watching Fox News, but people like O'Reily and Hannity seem completely clueless when discussing the poor. They think that if you have two parents and a good attitude that everyone can be successful. This is both naive and quite untrue. I think the biggest misconception is that minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers. The idea of working yourself up some kind of ladder is nice, but it is not reality for millions of people. I know many adults who would be grateful for any kind of work, not just some dream job. I want to focus on the mentally ill and those who have various forms of low IQ. If you have never been before a judge for a disability hearing, then you don't know that getting help for a mental disability is nearly impossible. For every person who cheats, there is at least another person who can't get help.

I'm going to tie everything up by going to the wage debate. I firmly believe that if you work hard for 40 hours a week, then you deserve a living wage. I'm not talking raising a family on one income, I'm talking food, gas, and health care for one person. I don't believe in "bad jobs" or meaningless jobs. I think the first step is to get everyone back to 40 hours a week. It is ridiculous that people have to work three part time jobs. I also think that wages can go up without the world coming to an end. I'm sick of hearing about the 100$ cheeseburger and half of all jobs as we know it will disappear. Instead of clinging so tightly to current wages, I do not think it is too difficult for fellow Republicans to treat minimum wage earners with respect. Bye the way, It is not just Fox, I have yet to see any Republican candidate or political expert view minimum wage jobs as anything other than high school kids who don't really matter.

I'm going to tie everything up by going to the wage debate. I firmly believe that if you work hard for 40 hours a week, then you deserve a living wage.

Lots of young people believe a lot of silly things.
Hopefully, you'll mature, learn and join us who live in reality.

I do not think it is too difficult for fellow Republicans to treat minimum wage earners with respect.

Obama treats them with respect. So much respect he wants to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who compete with them to hold down their wages.

Not just Obama, but business wants those immigrants here. Republicans are too old, to fat and they have no skills. Republicans are having the problem of being pro business and anti immigrant when business is pro immigrant.

omg, grow up. how about we start calling you Democrats, fatty fatty two by four, so fat couldn't get through the door TO WORK and take care of themselves. so they expect a PARTY in government and the Taxpayers TO TAKE care of them

 

[Publius1787]

That was because the Wall Street Casino Bosses deceived F&F by telling them that they were prime mortgages instead of the predatory subprime mortgages that were the basis of their Republican deregulated criminal enterprise.

Thank you for admitting to your appalling ignorance regarding the Republican deregulations that caused the 2008 economic collapse.

Thank you for admitting to your appalling ignorance regarding the Republican deregulations that caused the 2008 economic collapse.

Well gosh, based on your failure to prove your claim, you sure haven't helped anyone reduce their ignorance.
Perhaps you could try again?

I am not being paid to provide you with an education. You have the benefit of the internet at your fingertips. Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy.

I am not being paid to provide you with an education.

Or to prove your own claim.
I understand that you can't, that's okay.

Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy

Not to mention the Democratic deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.

But thanks for exposing that you are just another dishonest extremist rightwinger with zero credibility.

in december 2011 3 top officers of Fan Fred were sued by SEC for failing to disclose that they had been acquiring sub prime loans.

Acquiring? hell, they were responsible for 80% of the subprime market!!!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.

But thanks for exposing that you are just another dishonest extremist rightwinger with zero credibility.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
Your failure to prove your claim hasn't helped your case.

Utterly irrelevant since your lies don't alter the facts that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008

That "Wall Street casino" sent almost every one of those mortgage backed securities to Fannie/Freddie before they were bundled and sold. F&F were the facilitators of the financial crisis. Without them there would have been no financial crisis. When there is a kink in the financial armor all banks utilize that kink lest they lose out to their competition. Fannie/Freddie was that kink.

That was because the Wall Street Casino Bosses deceived F&F by telling them that they were prime mortgages instead of the predatory subprime mortgages that were the basis of their Republican deregulated criminal enterprise.

Typical deceitful extremist rightwinger response to blame the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators and their GOP enablers.

yeahh ... look at that video one more time. Who is defending Fannie/Freddie again?

Colbert summed it all up in 45 seconds for you!

 

[Publius1787]

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
Your failure to prove your claim hasn't helped your case.

Utterly irrelevant since your lies don't alter the facts that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008

That "Wall Street casino" sent almost every one of those mortgage backed securities to Fannie/Freddie before they were bundled and sold. F&F were the facilitators of the financial crisis. Without them there would have been no financial crisis. When there is a kink in the financial armor all banks utilize that kink lest they lose out to their competition. Fannie/Freddie was that kink.

That was because the Wall Street Casino Bosses deceived F&F by telling them that they were prime mortgages instead of the predatory subprime mortgages that were the basis of their Republican deregulated criminal enterprise.

Typical deceitful extremist rightwinger response to blame the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators and their GOP enablers.

yeahh ... look at that video one more time. Who is defending Fannie/Freddie again?

Colbert summed it all up in 45 seconds for you!

I suppose the sad thing is that you think you've just made a valid point.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Barney Frank: "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fanny Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower income people into homes they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it"

 

[Publius1787]

Barney Frank: "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fanny Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower income people into homes they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it"

Someone will ask for a source so I found one for you Hey Barney Frank The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet another deflection because you cannot address your Libertarian selfishness and greed.

Answer the question.

What is your viable and feasible alternative to eliminating support for the less fortunate?

It's quite simple. Get the federal government out of the poverty business and let the states, who have a vested interest in cleaning up their streets/poverty, do what they will. I don't necessarily need to provide an alternative when the current is model clearly making poverty worse anyway. Making people uncomfortable in their poverty will encourage people to quit using social welfare as an insurance policy when they take into account the risks of their actions. Allowing the state and local governments to deal with it would allow better oversight and increased success.

The states already manage their local poverty so you just admitted that you don't have a viable Libertarian alternative. You are just whining because you are selfish and greedy.

And yes, it has come to my notice that certain Libertarian indoctrinated states are already in the process of shutting down their social support programs. Needless to say poverty and crime will skyrocket and you will blame the victims.

No, the federal government taxes the people and demands that the states manage poverty if they wish to get that money back. With federal money comes federal rules, standards, and regulations. The states must operate in that framework. The federal government should do away with all taxes designed to manipulate the states into managing poverty and allow the states to tax and spend to manage it themselves. There is indeed a big distinction to be recognized here. This is by no means a libertarian alternative. Libertarians would disagree with such a model.

The only distinction if your disingenuous attempts to hide your own greed and selfishness.

You would be screaming your head off if the funds were not regulated.

Typical hypocrisy of the extremist rightwingers.

I'm sorry, I was expecting a logical response either debunking my observations or telling me that my observations aren't as relevant as I might think. Instead you feed me this? Listen buddy, I would love to argue the merits of the topic but unless you respond in kind I can come to no other conclusion than you are here for some strange quest for self gratification involving this>>> Dunning Kruger effect - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I will only add that the state governments are regulatory bodies as well. There is no need for federal regulation of social welfare but your above response does concede to me that the states are not necessarily in charge of their programs as you once stated. Thanks for admitting that much.

More deceitfulness from you was only to be expected. Kansas, Missouri and Arizona are all cutting their support for the least fortunate.

Welfare cuts in Kansas Missouri could be a hint of things to come The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star

Facing 1 Billion Deficit Arizona Sharply Limits Welfare - US News

You can't argue with those facts and here are some more;

Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America Money The Guardian

So those 3 Libertarian indoctrinated states are actually going to increase poverty in this nation to satisfy the toxic agenda of selfish greedy people like yourself.

And yes, this is your agenda!

Poverty and Welfare Libertarian Party

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I am not being paid to provide you with an education.

Or to prove your own claim.
I understand that you can't, that's okay.

Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy

Not to mention the Democratic deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.

But thanks for exposing that you are just another dishonest extremist rightwinger with zero credibility.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
Your failure to prove your claim hasn't helped your case.

Utterly irrelevant since your lies don't alter the facts that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008

That "Wall Street casino" sent almost every one of those mortgage backed securities to Fannie/Freddie before they were bundled and sold. F&F were the facilitators of the financial crisis. Without them there would have been no financial crisis. When there is a kink in the financial armor all banks utilize that kink lest they lose out to their competition. Fannie/Freddie was that kink.

That was because the Wall Street Casino Bosses deceived F&F by telling them that they were prime mortgages instead of the predatory subprime mortgages that were the basis of their Republican deregulated criminal enterprise.

Typical deceitful extremist rightwinger response to blame the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators and their GOP enablers.

in 1992 House and Senate acted directing the GSEs to meet a quota of subprime loans at 30% of all loans

 

[Derideo_Te]

That was because the Wall Street Casino Bosses deceived F&F by telling them that they were prime mortgages instead of the predatory subprime mortgages that were the basis of their Republican deregulated criminal enterprise.

Thank you for admitting to your appalling ignorance regarding the Republican deregulations that caused the 2008 economic collapse.

Well gosh, based on your failure to prove your claim, you sure haven't helped anyone reduce their ignorance.
Perhaps you could try again?

I am not being paid to provide you with an education. You have the benefit of the internet at your fingertips. Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy.

I am not being paid to provide you with an education.

Or to prove your own claim.
I understand that you can't, that's okay.

Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy

Not to mention the Democratic deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives.

Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.

But thanks for exposing that you are just another dishonest extremist rightwinger with zero credibility.

in december 2011 3 top officers of Fan Fred were sued by SEC for failing to disclose that they had been acquiring sub prime loans.

Acquiring? hell, they were responsible for 80% of the subprime market!!!

Assumes facts not in evidence.

F&F were still regulated. The vast bulk of all predatory subprime loans came from unregulated Wall Street Casino funding nonbank sources.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.