| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
 | ||
| Reindog |
This recession would have been over a long time ago if the Statists had not "helped" us.  | ||
| Fredfast |
Ft - Correct me if I'm wrong. Bush deregulated the banking industry. We went into the great recession as a result. Obamas efforts at regulating the banks were stymied again by the Republicans. In the mean time the gap between the rich and poor grows. Is a CEO worth that kind of money? You don't have to answer. I know what it will be. Mad Dog - You're blind. You're in need of a good service dog. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Clinton repealed Glass Steagall. You know, the bill passed after the Depression that Prohibited Speculation, Risk, Loans, and Assets from being held, brokered, and leveraged by the same entity..... Next shill argument please | ||
| Mikexlr650 |
You are being corrected, Glass-Steagall was removed under President Bill Clinton. | ||
| Mikexlr650 |
Damn, I type too slow... | ||
| Court |
Fred Are Alec Baldwin, Nancy Pelosi and George Soros worth their millions? How about Michelle when she got the $250,000 raise for being a hospital administrator? Was she worth it? | ||
| Reepicheep |
And don't forget who *required* bankers to issue loans that they would never have approved for their own banks, in an attempt at redistribution and social justice. The attack from Barney Frank (leading Democrat) on the person that was warning that these bad loans would blow up and cause a market crash was horrible... Nobody should be subjected to that for doing their job, even if they were wrong. And they weren't. How did this whole "forced loans to unqualified people" turn out? People making loans: By and large screwed, now sitting on houses that take forever to forclose and can't be sold for anywhere near what they loaned on them. People getting loans: By and large screwed, as their lives and credit was destroyed when they bought a house they were encouraged to buy but that all the "grown ups" in the room knew they could never afford, but couldn't warn them ***by law***. Seriously. It was ***illegal*** for a banker to tell a loan recipient there was no way in hell they would ever be able to make those payments. American Taxpayer: Totally screwed, as they had to throw good money after bad and bail out underwater banks and underwater mortages that they told people not to enter into and that they never would have profited from anyway. The banks make the profit, the taxpayers carry all the risk. It's like betting in vegas with somebody elses credit card... they pay the losses, you take the wins. Who were the *only* ones that had a pure upside to this? 1) Democratic politicians, who got lots of power as a result of yelling about social reform and social injustice, but who's arguments were based on bad math and bad logic. 2) Guilty liberals who "feel like something should be done so they did it" in spite, again, of bad math and bad logic. Conservatives aren't against social reform... in fact in terms of their own time and money, I bet they are responsible for 80% of it. What they are against is "social reform fantasy", where attractive but wrong ideas devestate both the help-ers, and the help-ees, while making rich and powerful liberals richer and more powerful. | ||
| Oldog |
Bush deregulated the banking industry. We went into the great recession as a result. Wow that sounds like barrys party line >> blame bush << Fred wealthy people are wealthy because they work, look for and make good use of opportunity, act to correct problems, I have met dozens in my job Most of the successful folks reward hard work of their employees, I am a prime example.. The greed heads I have met at some point fall on hard times because they make bad choices( greed ) a question for you Fred, how much has prince barry increased his net worth since he has become president? how a bout moochelle? a last thought, the aprox pop of the US is 300 mil, men women and children, if about 1/2 million are out of work ( 1/6 of the pop ), how is the unemployment rate 8% that should give you the idea that perhaps you are being lied to....... by the government........} | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The derivative Toxic Funds of TARP that were cooking into the books of housing 'ownership' is the EXACT same methodology that was stewed into 'Health Care Reform'. Said it five years ago.... It is just coming out to the 'main stream' media now. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368364/insur ance-company-bailouts-editors It was there five years ago - had you read the bill. Now compare how many people have 'houses' versus how many have 'insurance' .... it is a bigger pool of tangent risk to rip off and bilk. Pure pump and dump call - and the opportunity for Central Government to come in and seize the sector, and the imposition of greater IRS theft from your accounts. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Fred, how much profit is enough? What would you constitute not "greedy"? 10%, 15%, 25% Fred, what do the wealthy do with their money? It was the Republicans in 2007 and 2008 that were trying to tighten regulations on banks and were stymied by the newly elected democrats like Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. The market speculation was built upon guarantees provided by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. When those guarantees were defaulted upon, the risk level of the portfolio exceeded the potential return and the value dropped to zero. It was government intervention attempting to make sure that everyone "owned a home". Kinda like paying people $15/hr so that they can "get an apartment". | ||
| Sifo |
Bush deregulated the banking industry. We went into the great recession as a result. Regardless of the deregulation that was done, and who did it, that only effected who owned the assets when it crashed. It certainly didn't cause the crash. The cause was people who defaulted on their mortgages. As long as they were paying there was no problem. As pointed out, government regulations forced banks to provide mortgages to people who would obviously have to default at the first financial bump in the road. When that bump hit many people, in the form of a recession we went into a death spiral. Things got worse for many more who then defaulted. | ||
| Sifo |
I wish people that think business should pay higher wages and make less profit would lead by example. Go start your own business, pay people more and charge customers less. It's easy! | ||
| Reindog |
Actually, I have been blind in one eye since birth. Didn't stop me from going from being a Community Organizer in Alexandria, VA to earning a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering as I refuse to be a victim
Thanks for offering. You're hired. | ||
| Sifo |
   | ||
| Fredfast |
"Fred wealthy people are wealthy because they work, look for and make good use of opportunity, act to correct problems, I have met dozens in my job" Not true. Almost all are wealthy because they inherited. | ||
| Sifo |
Not true. Almost all are wealthy because they inherited. Setting aside for a moment the validity of that statement, what is the problem with being able to pass wealth along to whom you wish? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Fred, since you are unwilling to answer my question regarding what the wealthy do with their money, I'll answer it for you. There are ONLY four things the wealthy do with their money: - Spend it (exchange wealth for goods and services provided by others) - Save it (bank deposits) - Invest it (grow companies, provide capital for new businesses) - Give it away. It doesn't matter whether someone "inherited it", the four outcomes remain the same. If you want to obtain wealth from the wealthy, why not obtain an maintain a marketable skill that would prompt someone to purchase your goods or services or entice them to invest in your business? Demanding more pay for same work just doesn't get the job done. | ||
| Reindog |
FFF has already elucidated his Marxist views on inheritance years ago. This is a rerun. Please show a modicum of intelligence and debate or get off this thread as trolling is not welcome here. This thread is about the most Wonderful of all Wonderfuls: pResident Obama. These sidebars are fine up to a point. FFF: get yer own thread if you want to demonize the producers of society. But get back to the point of supporting or not supporting the Wonderful policies of this already failed pResident. | ||
| Reindog |
FB, The fifth way of money is relinquish it to the Government via taxes and fines to redistribute to those who did not earn it in the name of Fairness and to garner political power to the government thieves. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The four things the wealthy do with their wealth are voluntary. Everything else is an involuntary confiscation. Somehow the guy that turns a screw on the floor is more valuable than the guy running a multi-billion dollar enterprise. If you don't want to make minimum wage, stay in school, don't have a baby, stay off drugs, don't make bad decisions. America is the country people from every other country come to in order to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of property. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere. | ||
| Fredfast |
"It doesn't matter whether someone "inherited it", the four outcomes remain the same." If you believe in earning through hard work, it does matter. We need to get closer to that ideal that "all men are created equal". The way it is now, they're not. | ||
| Sifo |
And why should you not be allowed to pass your wealth to whom you wish? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Doubling down on Marxism. The President's speech in December. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obama-income -inequality-100662.html Lenin's speech on income equality in Pre Soviet Russia.... "Another feature of the development by capitalism of the social productive forces is that the growth of the means of production (productive consumption) outstrips by far the growth of personal consumption: we have indicated on more than one occasion how this is manifested in agriculture and in industry. This feature springs from the general laws of the realisation of the product in capitalist society, and fully conforms to the antagonistic nature of this society" Pure Communist Rhetoric, no matter the source | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Fred, it isn't up to you to create the moral environment as to whether someone is bettered by "hard work" or not. Wealth isn't a "social good" that is owned by the populace. It is private property owned by individuals. If I wanted to spoil my children and make them complete and total degenerates, it's my prerogative to do so. It isn't your call. All men have equal opportunity. Outcomes may vary. All men AREN'T equal. Some are smarter, stronger, more talented than others. That's life. What you propose are exactly the hindrances described in 1984. They were ridiculous then and even more so now. At the root of your issue, is that you want what someone else has without the drive, ambition, or talent to obtain it. Therefore you want to elect those who would take from those who have and give it to you. If you are a "God fearing man" you understand the dangers of envy and covetousness. | ||
| Fredfast |
"And why should you not be allowed to pass your wealth to whom you wish?" You can. Most of it. We're talking 'One Percenters' here. Were talking narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. We're talking MODERATION. We're talking capitalism - regulated. Mad Dog wants to put labels on everything - Marxist. Narrow minds need labels ( and probably symbols too). It makes things clearer for him. Show me a person collecting welfare that doesn't deserve it and I'll show you millionaires with off shore accounts (Romney anybody?) evading their tax responsibility. It scares me to be the most moderate person on this thread. | ||
| Reindog |
Dr. Sowell must be reading this thread as his essay just showed up. F-Cubed, this one is for you. Consider yourself taken behind the woodshed, dude. (Highlighting is my emphasis-tcr) Fact-Free Liberals By Thomas Sowell · Jan. 21, 2014 Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words – “educated,” “smart” and “ignorant.” Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today. President Obama seems completely unaware of how many of the policies he is trying to impose have been tried before, in many times and places around the world, and have failed time and again. Economic equality? That was tried in the 19th century, in communities set up by Robert Owen, the man who coined the term “socialism.” Those communities all collapsed. It was tried even earlier, in 18th century Georgia, when that was a British colony. People in Georgia ended up fleeing to other colonies, as many other people would vote with their feet in the 20th century, by fleeing many other societies around the world that were established in the name of economic equality. But who reads history these days? Moreover, those parts of history that would undermine the vision of the left – which prevails in our education system from elementary school to postgraduate study – are not likely to get much attention. The net results are bright people, with impressive degrees, who have been told for years how brilliant they are, but who are often ignorant of facts that might cause them to question what they have been indoctrinated with in schools and colleges. Recently Kirsten Powers repeated on Fox News Channel the discredited claim that women are paid only about three-quarters of what a man is paid for doing the same work. But there have been empirical studies, going back for decades, showing that there is no such gap when the women and men are in the same occupation, with the same skills, experience, education, hours of work and continuous years of full-time work. Income differences between the sexes reflect the fact that women and men differ in all these things – and more. Young male doctors earn much more than young female doctors. But young male doctors work over 500 hours a year more than young female doctors. Then there is the current hysteria which claims that people in the famous “top one percent” have incomes that are rising sharply and absorbing a wholly disproportionate share of all the income in the country. But check out a Treasury Department study titled “Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005.” It uses income tax data, showing that people who were in the top one percent in 1996 had their incomes fall – repeat, fall – by 26 percent by 2005. What about the other studies that seem to say the opposite? Those are studies of income brackets, not studies of the flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving from one bracket to another over time. More than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005. This is hardly surprising when you consider that their incomes were going down while there was widespread hysteria over the belief that their incomes were going up. Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time. All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation. For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers – and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks. But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites – and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites. When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans – and no one thinks that is racial discrimination. Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is. | ||
| Reindog |
I only put Marxist labels on Marxist ideology. Stop generalizing, dude, as you have already lost your one liner arguments. | ||
| Sifo |
"And why should you not be allowed to pass your wealth to whom you wish?" You can. Most of it. We're talking 'One Percenters' here. Were talking narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. We're talking MODERATION. We're talking capitalism - regulated. Mad Dog wants to put labels on everything - Marxist. Narrow minds need labels ( and probably symbols too). It makes things clearer for him. Show me a person collecting welfare that doesn't deserve it and I'll show you millionaires with off shore accounts (Romney anybody?) evading their tax responsibility. It scares me to be the most moderate person on this thread. Yes, you can. Most of it. The tax man takes a huge share from the 1%ers already. You seem to want to change that though. We are talking right and wrong. Moderation has nothing to do with it. So why should the wealthy not be allowed to pass their wealth to whom they wish? You fail to address the question at all, you simply try to wiggle your position slightly. Moderate? Isn't that a label? Not a correct one BTW. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I marvel at the absolute ignorance. Trolls..... please don't feed them |
