RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


mstrj69 -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 4:52:42 PM)

Arhue all you want, nothing will ever drastically change.  Go back to the mid 60's when gas was 35 cents and wages were 1.50 to 2.00 per hour.  Prices may have gone up but once they hit a plateau where nobody can buy anything, tither the prices will go down or wages will be increased so people can buy what they want.  Do you really think the government wants to pay 50 percent of it's workforce to not work because big corporations are cutting jobs to make more money?  They will tax the corporations until they start to hire again before they will accept 50 percent unemployment.  And the companies and the people with a lot of money know this so they know just how far they can go and not get hurt by their greed.




Mercnbeth -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 5:01:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

What does that have to do with the point that anyone supporting this bail out is supporting Corporate welfare?



The bailout, as I understand it, is geared more to propping up the financial system to prevent a run on Banks.

The twist here is that the US Government is interceding with an investment bank (Bear Stearns), which I don't think has ever happened before.

For the most part, I trust the Federal Reserve's judgment in these matters. In the Fed's eyes, letting Bear Stearns fail posed greater consequences to the system as a whole.


Bear Stearns is also a reflection in the mirror. The topic here is bailing out the foreclosures.

I don't understand your problem. Why the reticence to acknowledge that in this instance you support corporate welfare for whatever reason?

Hell - there are occasions that I consider welfare to individuals appropriate. Not often - but it happens.

So in this case you see a benefit in bailing out an industry. Big deal. There's no shame and you don't have to turn in any liberal membership card or anything.




jackod -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 5:15:29 PM)

Vow,i lived 27 years under the socialist/comunist rule,the same "paradise" that husei obama and hilary want,to impose on the NAIVE american people,one more scary,then the other,the most shocking is that people with relative higher education/celebrity status,DONT have common sence and are BLIND AND THEY will be the FIRST one,that socialist/comunist goverment will get RID OFF,check the history.Im very worried about America,respectfully,jack,los angeles




celticlord2112 -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 6:16:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


It is true. Stalin's Ukrainian famine, China's Great Leap Forward famine, North Korea's famine of the late 90's....


If this passes for your attempt at historical reasoning, I think you'd best stick to your original dogma of being ahistorical.

Why would you equate war, oppression, mass murder, and revolution with the propriety/effectiveness of US government programs?



Your debating tactic works better when it speaks to the actual topic being addressed. If you had slowed down long enough to read the exchange between kittenSol and I, you would realize that I was illustrating how socialism is a fatally flawed system (literally fatal, in fact).

As for the propriety or effectiveness of US government programs....as soon as there's a US government program that IS effective at more than pissing away the money I fork over in taxes every year, we can have that debate. Until that minor miracle occurs, there's really not much point in rehashing the patently obvious evils of said government programs, is there?




Othello27 -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 8:27:02 PM)

ahhh the socialism vs free market debate


Its too simplistic to say socialism is better or the free market is better. Both taken to an extreme can degenerate into a broken system. Therefore a hybrid system is needed and exactly what proportion of each is needed is a mater of huge debate. My guess is assumptions and intuition are not enough to determine where the line should be drawn. Hundreds of years ago scientist often stated what they considered to be "truths" based on intuition and near philosophical reasoning. Then it dawned on them to actually go out and get observations. I believe finding the optimal way to regulate the economy is a daunting task that indeed has been worked on for thousands of years and we still have not reached a consensus. Its will take a complex blend of socialist and free market forces to reach economic optimality if that can even be defined.

Degenerate state of socialism = society is babied by the gov and we all become weak and ultimately poor

Degenerate state of unchecked free market = dominate players eventually kill off competition (the free markets greatest strength) if left unchecked. Society becomes dependent on elite being socially and ethically responsible (which seems to rarely happen)




cloudboy -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 10:49:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Your debating tactic works better when it speaks to the actual topic being addressed. If you had slowed down long enough to read the exchange between kittenSol and I, you would realize that I was illustrating how socialism is a fatally flawed system (literally fatal, in fact).

As for the propriety or effectiveness of US government programs....as soon as there's a US government program that IS effective at more than pissing away the money I fork over in taxes every year, we can have that debate. Until that minor miracle occurs, there's really not much point in rehashing the patently obvious evils of said government programs, is there?


I did follow your exchanges with kittensol, and the topic was Obama and "socialism." From this you somehow veered through the guard rail --- calling Mao and Stalin into the debate. How those two bear any implication to US government programs or democratic control of the White House, I don't know.







cloudboy -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 10:54:01 PM)


If you want to call it corporate welfare, fine. I think the term "bailout" is more apropos because the Fed was trying to save a failed institution --- not because it had any love for Bear Stearns in particular --- but because it wants to protect the larger banking system from a public panic.




SugarMyChurro -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 11:02:07 PM)

Keep in mind that some of the people doing the most bitching brought this on themselves by actually voting for Junior. And they're gonna vote Republican next time too, because that will really change things!

In Newspeak change means the same old corporatist shit.

[8|]




SugarMyChurro -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 11:09:24 PM)

Lots of people talk the talk, but when will some of you actually take your bullshit "300" style Greco-Roman fantasy and actually fall on your swords? Did you vote for Bush in 2000? Again in 2004?

Then you are an irredeemable political failure.

Why should anyone listen to your opinions ever again?




celticlord2112 -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 11:18:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
I did follow your exchanges with kittensol, and the topic was Obama and "socialism." From this you somehow veered through the guard rail --- calling Mao and Stalin into the debate. How those two bear any implication to US government programs or democratic control of the White House, I don't know.

They are the ultimate result of socialism. USSR == Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. When someone gets orgasmic over socialism, Mao and Stalin is whom they glorify. You may deny this if you wish--the denial will not alter the reality of socialism's bloody consequences.

Obama's only saving grace is that he's too effete and ineffectual to match the accomplishments of a Stalin or a Mao. (Clinton's actually far more dangerous in this regard, because she's just bitchy enough to actually insist on accomplishing something, instead of just talking in circles)




SugarMyChurro -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 11:30:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
When someone gets orgasmic over socialism, Mao and Stalin is whom they glorify. You may deny this if you wish--the denial will not alter the reality of socialism's bloody consequences.


Seriously, where were you educated?

[8|]




celticlord2112 -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 11:33:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
When someone gets orgasmic over socialism, Mao and Stalin is whom they glorify. You may deny this if you wish--the denial will not alter the reality of socialism's bloody consequences.


Seriously, where were you educated?

[8|]

Obviously where history and economics are competently and completely taught. Next question?




Hippiekinkster -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/3/2008 11:57:48 PM)

Cd611: "." Basically the banks back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s drew red lines around neighborhoods and demographics that were considered off limits to mortgages simply because those people were at high risk to not being able to fulfill the obligations of the loan."
"Evidence in a study by mortgage giant Fannie Mae, however, shows that minority applicants are no bigger risks than similarly qualified whites.
Moreover, blind testing of lenders, government settlements and studies by two Federal Reserve banks show the lending gaps are still too large to be explained away so easily" http://syracusethenandnow.org/Redlining/NewRedlining/KansasCityStudy.htm
No bigger risks. Uh-huh. Just more white rationalization for discriminating against blacks.





Hippiekinkster -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/4/2008 12:10:41 AM)

Yup, it be peoples own damn fault they listened to them nice white boys with they MBAs and got themselves in trouble. Yep, them nice white MBA mortgage people was just so ethical and really doin' them poor under-educated minorities a real favor just out of the kindness o they Christian hearts with no expectation of rewards 'ceptin  them heavenly rewards. More of that right-wing Blame the Victim bullshit.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/pred/predlend.cfm
http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/mortgage/sevensigns.html
http://www.dontborrowtrouble.com/




cyberdude611 -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/4/2008 12:31:20 AM)

So the borrowers dont share any blame at all in this? Right? They should get a free government bailout whenever they make a poor financial decision?




SugarMyChurro -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/4/2008 12:39:18 AM)

Yes, just like the banks do.

What's the difference? It's all funny money anyway...




meatcleaver -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/4/2008 1:16:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

You're missing mc's point, which is that proper oversight would have prevented this debacle. Having such oversight is not "socialism," either, as cyberdude would insinuate.

cb,
It's not difficult to predict what you did wrong YESTERDAY.



This crisis was foreseen long ago and predicted, it was in governemtn's interests to ignore the warnings while the economy was booming, after all, it would probably be someone elses baby by the time the shit hit the fan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
What does that have to do with the point that anyone supporting this bail out is supporting Corporate welfare?  


The banks will be bailed out because they have the governemtn and everyone else by the short and curlies. I don't know what your business is Merc but if money isn't circulating because banks are too scared to make loans because they don't know the value of their assets or their assets have shrunk, many small and medium businesses will go to the wall and thousands will lose their jobs. Its alright being a purist but I wonder how purist you would be if your business went bust because of the potential of this crisis was allowed to play out.




meatcleaver -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/4/2008 1:33:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

You're missing mc's point, which is that proper oversight would have prevented this debacle. Having such oversight is not "socialism."


Not really...Because it was the government that told the banks to open the floodgates.

It's called "redlining." Basically the banks back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s drew red lines around neighborhoods and demographics that were considered off limits to mortgages simply because those people were at high risk to not being able to fulfill the obligations of the loan. Well the congress believed this wasnt fair and it prevented the poor from being able to get a piece of the American dream. So they pushed the banks to reverse the redlines. Suddenly everyone qualified for a mortgage. No down payment. No income verification. No documentation. And homeownership in the United States soared from 2002 to 2006. Everyone thought it was the perfect way to recover from September 11th.

Then the bottom fell out....

Suddenly these adjustable rate mortgages reset. People's mortgage payments started to rise. The buying slowed down. And now you got people stuck with horrifying mortgages, depreciating assets, and banks are going under.

Why? Because the government forced these banks to change their lending policies. And some of these brokers found ways to make money in the process of other people's misfortunes.


You're ill informed, governments didn't force banks to change their lending policies, the root in this crisis was the financial big bang, the liberalisation of the banking systems and allowing financial companies to be more and more creative in the ways they could make money earn more money. What was allowed to happen was financial alchemy, private equity, hedge funds and banking encouraged excessive risk taking and when they started to make big profits they were blinded by greed, thinking they could do no wrong but they had built a castle on sand and sand that was going to be washed away in a high tide, which is precisely what happened. Governments are culpable for allowing a liberalisation where the banks and finance houses create their own rules, police themselves and set their own salaries and bonuses. A situation which encouraged people not to consider thier exposure to bad debt. Finance companies were selling insecure loans as triple AAA debt(something only blue chip companies could normally get), which is beyond me why that isn't considered fraud and people aren't being put in jail. Hell, I bet there isn't a person in the world who wouldn't like to be allowed to write their own pay check using other people's money which is what the hedge funds were doing.

The problem is caused through unfettered capitalism in the financial markets and governments that were claiming economic success on a financial bubble. For all the US and UK (who are the most exposed) growth in their economies, most was inflated profits in the financial markets and not higher production in the real economy.




kittinSol -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/4/2008 5:30:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
When someone gets orgasmic over socialism, Mao and Stalin is whom they glorify. You may deny this if you wish--the denial will not alter the reality of socialism's bloody consequences.


Seriously, where were you educated?

[8|]

Obviously where history and economics are competently and completely taught. Next question?


Did you seriously think someone could climax because of the word 'socialism' [:D] ? It's not that difficult to recognise irony, is it? So much earnestness... [sm=biggrin.gif]. Lighten up, man.

PS: Socialism does not equate Mao or Stalin. But I think you know this. Perhaps it's your attempt at irony [;)] ?




MissSCD -> RE: "Obama Can't Win"; Hillary Clinton (4/4/2008 5:50:12 AM)

For the first time ever, no way in hell in she going to win this election.  She has pissed me off by allowing Bill to run his mouth.  That tells me, he will be making the decisions once more.
For the good of the party, she needs to step down and unite with Obama.   If they don't do this, McCain will win it, and we will never get out of his war.
 
Regards, MissSCD




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.140625