Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: why Obama Socialism matters

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default why Obama Socialism matters

    (snip)"For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun: Obama really was a socialist. [ see - sic] Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.

    Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care. The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well.

    The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology. In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.

    In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.(snip)

    (snip)"If it were up to me to attach labels to modern political ideologies, I would choose the terms "Individualism" and "Statism." "Individualism" would reflect the Founder's ideology, which sought to repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with as little power as possible in the State, especially the federal state. The Founder's had emerged from a long traditional of monarchal and parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, whenever power is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.

    And what of Statism? Well, there's already a name for that ideology, and it's a name that should now be firmly attached to Sen. Obama: Socialism.

    Although one can trace socialist ideas back to the French Revolution (and even before), socialism's true naissance is the 19th Century, when various utopian dreamers envisioned a class-free society in which everyone shared equally in what the socialist utopians firmly believed was a finite economic pie. That is, they did not conceive of the possibility of economic growth. Instead, they believed that, forever and ever, there would only be so many riches and resources to go around.

    The original utopians did not yet look to the state for help establishing a world of perfect equality. Instead, they relied on each enlightened individual's moral sense, and they set up myriad high-minded communes to achieve this end. All of them failed. (For many of us, the most famous would be the Transcendentalist experiment in Concord, Massachusetts, which almost saw poor Louisa May Alcott starve to death as a child.)

    It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis. Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.

    Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas. Herewith some examples:

    My favorite example is always Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship. Or perhaps they're ignorant of the fact that the Nazi's official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left.

    Practically within minutes of the Nazi takeover of the German government, individuals were subordinated to the state. Even industries that remained privately owned (and there were many, as opponents of the Nazis = socialist theory like to point out), were allowed to do so only if their owners bent their efforts to the benefit of the state. Show a hint of individualism, and an unwillingness to cooperate, and you'd swiftly find yourself in Dachau, with a government operative sitting in that executive chair you once owned.(snip)

    (snip)"Here's another example: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In my liberal days in the 1970s and 1980s, it was very popular to downplay what was going on in the USSR and, instead, chalk up fear of the Soviets to the foul remnants of McCarthyism. This was extreme intellectual dishonesty on our part. The fact is that life in the USSR was always horrible.

    From its inception, the Soviet state brutalized people, whether it was the upper echelon party purges or the mass slaughter of the kulaks -- all in the name of collectivism and the protection of the state envisioned by Lenin and Stalin. Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens. Not all of the victims died, or at least they didn't die instantly. Those who didn't receive a swift bullet to the head might starve to death on collective farms or join the millions who ended up as slave laborers in the gulags, with most of the latter incarcerated for thought crimes against the state.

    I've got another example for you: the People's Republic of China, another socialist state. One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die. Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes. The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.

    Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.

    British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.

    The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)

    Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.

    Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America."(snip)

    from

  2. #2
    Featured Member flickad's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,860
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 103 Times in 67 Posts
    My Mood
    Pensive

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    One-sided scaremongering at its finest.

    I live in a 'soft' socialist country that looks like it's doing a helluvalot better than yours at present.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    1,891
    Thanked 5,124 Times in 3,086 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by flickad View Post
    One-sided scaremongering at its finest.

    I live in a 'soft' socialist country that looks like it's doing a helluvalot better than yours at present.
    And capitalists, not socialists, or communists have ruined the American economy. Of course that won't get mentioned. They'll blame those who bought houses through subprime mortgages.

  4. #4
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Kellydancer View Post
    And capitalists, not socialists, or communists have ruined the American economy. Of course that won't get mentioned. They'll blame those who bought houses through subprime mortgages.
    When capitalists are fined and regulated to make bad loans by the government (google Community Reinvestment Act) - what is that called?

  5. #5
    Featured Member Miss_Luscious's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    988
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol View Post
    When capitalists are fined and regulated to make bad loans by the government (google Community Reinvestment Act) - what is that called?
    Actually -

    Federal Reserve Board data shows that:

    -More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions (which are not under the CRA regulation).

    -Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

    source


    The Community Reinvestment Act was initially passed in 1977 and has been part of our federal regulations for a long time. In 92 Clinton did change regulations and create a spike in CRA activity but most economists agree that that had ceased by 2001, well before the housing bubble really took off. Bush actually decided in 2004 to no longer require a lot of smaller banks to adhere to the CRA- half of all the sub-prime mortgages involved in this crisis come from such institutions and another 25-30% came from bank subsidiaries which need not always comply with the regulations. Overall probably 1/4 or at best 1/3 of institutions holding subprime loans were even subject to the act. Furthermore, institutions not subject to the regulation were twice as likely to engage in risky lending, which certainly doesn't seem to suggest it was being done because of pressure from the fed. This crisis was caused by a number of factors but the fact is that lenders were trying to make a quick dollar and figuring they could push properties that got defaulted on quickly enough to turn a net profit, and the constant chipping away at regulation and oversight that both democrats and republicans have been doing over the past couple decades meant that there was no accountability for this profoundly unsafe and greedy behavior from the smallest bank up to the fattest of the cats. As much as rabid free-marketers would love to pin this on regulation and the poor the fact is that it was a lack of responsible oversight that caused this crisis.

    So the CRA had very little effect in reality. But if the conservatives want to continue to be delusional as as to not have any blame in the current mess then be my guest.
    "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

    "It's just a matter of people having low self esteem and being way too easily offended." -Random Guy on a Internet Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by Katrine View Post
    Ya'll bitches need to calm down. Cerously.
    In other words: Boo-motherfucking-hoo

  6. #6
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Miss_Luscious View Post
    Actually -

    Federal Reserve Board data shows that:

    -More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions (which are not under the CRA regulation).

    -Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

    source


    The Community Reinvestment Act was initially passed in 1977 and has been part of our federal regulations for a long time. In 92 Clinton did change regulations and create a spike in CRA activity but most economists agree that that had ceased by 2001, well before the housing bubble really took off. Bush actually decided in 2004 to no longer require a lot of smaller banks to adhere to the CRA- half of all the sub-prime mortgages involved in this crisis come from such institutions and another 25-30% came from bank subsidiaries which need not always comply with the regulations. Overall probably 1/4 or at best 1/3 of institutions holding subprime loans were even subject to the act. Furthermore, institutions not subject to the regulation were twice as likely to engage in risky lending, which certainly doesn't seem to suggest it was being done because of pressure from the fed. This crisis was caused by a number of factors but the fact is that lenders were trying to make a quick dollar and figuring they could push properties that got defaulted on quickly enough to turn a net profit, and the constant chipping away at regulation and oversight that both democrats and republicans have been doing over the past couple decades meant that there was no accountability for this profoundly unsafe and greedy behavior from the smallest bank up to the fattest of the cats. As much as rabid free-marketers would love to pin this on regulation and the poor the fact is that it was a lack of responsible oversight that caused this crisis.

    So the CRA had very little effect in reality. But if the conservatives want to continue to be delusional as as to not have any blame in the current mess then be my guest.
    Was there a meeting where it was agreed to post this propaganda as often and on as many threads as possible ? It's been debunked at least three times now.

  7. #7
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    ^^^Has it been debunked? Or have you (and Melonie) posted that you don't think it's valid? Big difference.

  8. #8
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    ^^^Has it been debunked? Or have you (and Melonie) posted that you don't think it's valid? Big difference.
    For anyone able to read things they may not like or automatically agree with, it certainly has.

    Are you seriously contending that we'd have anything remotely resmbling the size and scope of the current mess WITHOUT Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ?

  9. #9
    Featured Member Miss_Luscious's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    988
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    ^^^Has it been debunked? Or have you (and Melonie) posted that you don't think it's valid? Big difference.
    This.

    It doesn't jive with preconceived notions therefore it is not true. Too bad these are actual facts backed up by data from the Federal Reserve and not by an article in the WSJ or some other right-wing source because then it would be true without a doubt. I'm not going to keep going around and around about it with them though. It's pointless.
    "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

    "It's just a matter of people having low self esteem and being way too easily offended." -Random Guy on a Internet Forum

    Quote Originally Posted by Katrine View Post
    Ya'll bitches need to calm down. Cerously.
    In other words: Boo-motherfucking-hoo

  10. #10
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Miss_Luscious View Post
    This.

    It doesn't jive with preconceived notions therefore it is not true. Too bad these are actual facts backed up by data from the Federal Reserve and not by an article in the WSJ or some other right-wing source because then it would be true without a doubt. I'm not going to keep going around and around about it with them though. It's pointless.
    Neither Mel nor I said that it was "untrue". Just breathtakingly INCOMPLETE.

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    ^^^ the misleading flaw in the 83% origination figure is that, absent other financial data, it somehow implies that the private sector financial institutions financed these 'subprime' loans. Nothing could be further than the truth. In point of fact, virtually every one of the 'subprime' loans originated by private sector lenders was pre-qualified for resale to Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac financed these loans, pure and simple - and in fact actively solicited 'subprime' mortgages for purchase in order to fulfill their gov't policy directive of increasing minority / low income home ownership at virtually any cost. Had Fannie and Freddie not financed these 'subprime' mortgages, private sector financial institutions would never have financed them using their own capital.

  12. #12
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ the misleading flaw in the 83% origination figure is that, absent other financial data, it somehow implies that the private sector financial institutions financed these 'subprime' loans. Nothing could be further than the truth. In point of fact, virtually every one of the 'subprime' loans originated by private sector lenders was pre-qualified for resale to Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac financed these loans, pure and simple - and in fact actively solicited 'subprime' mortgages for purchase in order to fulfill their gov't policy directive of increasing minority / low income home ownership at virtually any cost. Had Fannie and Freddie not financed these 'subprime' mortgages, private sector financial institutions would never have financed them using their own capital.
    Interesting theory, not necessarily true though.

    (snip)"Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

    Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity." (snip)

    http://www.businessweek.com/investin...e_mae_and.html

  13. #13
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    For anyone able to read things they may not like or automatically agree with, it certainly has.

    Are you seriously contending that we'd have anything remotely resmbling the size and scope of the current mess WITHOUT Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ?
    Considering that by 2006, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were holding only approximately 26% of subprime loans, I would say, yes we would.

  14. #14
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    In point of fact, virtually every one of the 'subprime' loans originated by private sector lenders was pre-qualified for resale to Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac financed these loans, pure and simple - and in fact actively solicited 'subprime' mortgages for purchase in order to fulfill their gov't policy directive of increasing minority / low income home ownership at virtually any cost. Had Fannie and Freddie not financed these 'subprime' mortgages, private sector financial institutions would never have financed them using their own capital.
    I'm sure all of the people using subprime loans to flip condos were minority / low income people trying to purchase a house. I'm sure all of the people who used subprime loans to purchase McMansions for $700,000-$800,000 were minority / low income people trying to purchase a house. I'm sure all of the people who used subprime loans to refinance their homes so they could have more spending money were minority / low income people trying to purchase a house.

  15. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    ^^^ red herring ... because gov't bailout plans are not proposing to spend hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars , nor inflicting additional hundreds of billions of dollars worth of bankruptcy court / treasury ordered lender losses via 'forced renegotiation' of mortgage banances / payments / terms, to benefit flippers whose 'jumbo' ARM's are belly-up. The Socialism aspect is the fact that the gov't bailout plans have 'chosen' a certain category of distressed homeowners who will be the beneficiaries of US taxpayer bailout dollars - while at the same time the gov't has chosen a certain category of Americans from whom the vast majority of these additional taxpayer bailout dollars will be collected. This is called .... wealth transfer !

  16. #16
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    I'm sure all of the people using subprime loans to flip condos were minority / low income people trying to purchase a house. I'm sure all of the people who used subprime loans to purchase McMansions for $700,000-$800,000 were minority / low income people trying to purchase a house. I'm sure all of the people who used subprime loans to refinance their homes so they could have more spending money were minority / low income people trying to purchase a house.
    Wait a minute. Let's ALL try to stay on the " road of F A C T S ".

    There was ALWAYS sub-prime lending. Household Finance ; The Money Store; Stores selling appliances on credit at up to 25% interest; "Payday loans". The thing was that the amounts lent were relatively small and the default rate was factored in by the lender.

    Even AFTER the CRA was passed there was NOT a wave of sub-prime mortgage lending by private banks. Even after Clinton, Cuomo, Gorelick and Reno changed the regs., private banks ( B A N K S ) did not immediately cave and start writing mortgages for anyone with a job and a pulse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had fairly strict lending guidelines.

    It started to change when Jim Johnson took over Fannie Mae and he helped to create a MARKET for sub-prime mortgages by radically expanding the amount of mortgages in both number and aggregate amount that Fannie would take on and Freddie followed suit. Easy money from the Fed; an explosion in private mortgage lenders like Countrywide and the securitizing and BUNDLING of the mortgages coupled with the use of Credit Default Swaps to insure the bond -buyers from default laid the foundation for the current debt crisis. Johnson also instituted a bonus system at Fannie based on the increase of ASSETS and what counted as an "asset" were mortgages and mortgage backed securities REGARDLESS of the quality of the borrowers. Johnson left and Raines took over and the books of Fannie and Freddie really started to get cooked.

    Mortgages to low and middle income borrowers were marketed by mortgage brokers; banks and private mortgage companies like Countrywide. Most of those mortgages were sold and sometimes RE-SOLD ; sometimes many times over both in whole or in PIECES. Individual mortgages and individual securities were often sold in pieces ( TRANCHES ) so that some borrowers who WANTED to try and renegotiate and stay, rather than default, could NOT find out WHO actually held their mortgage. The biggest buyers; not the only ones; but the biggest under Johnson and Raines were FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC. Somebody else was writing the original mortgage ( banks; S & L's; thrifts; private mortgage lenders) but Fannie and Freddie were either buying them or issuing a guarantee. They weren't the only ones but they were the ONLY buyers with the word "Federal" in their name and the only buyers and guarantors with implicit backing from the Federal Government.

    A well intentioned statute ( CRA ) designed to increase lending to the very communities that were depositing money into savings and checking accounts but being denied loans disproportionately based primarily on race and residence, mushroomed into an attempt to mandate lending regardless of basic lending guidelines when Cuomo changed the regs. Before Cuomo, under the CRA, if a bank wanted to merge or expand the community had an opportunity to file objections and the overall lending of the bank was looked at i.e. "was it serving the community." The burden was on the OBJECTORS to show "red-lining". Groups like ACORN who could not make their case and come up with real evidence of racially based discrimination, resorted to harassment tactics like sit-ins in bank lobbies and picketing homes of bank presidents. Some banks gave in and gave out a few loans and some said : "Watch this ! " and just closed their branches in certain poor neighborhoods. Cuomo came along and said " NO ! If you want to merge or expand you MUST show that you are lending to black people and other inner city residents. If you can't show that you are doing so, it will be assumed that you are racially discriminating so the banks were effectively forced to devote a portion of their loans to "low-income " borrowers. What most of them did was re-sell those mortgages as fast as possible at a DISCOUNT. Now Fannie and Freddie came along and were willing to buy those mortgages AT PAR. Bankers aren't stupid and gladly sold such mortgages at much higher prices to Fannie and Freddie.

    That's how Fannie and Freddie expanded the market for sub-prime loans. They didn't create the sub-prime market. They just enlarged it.

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    That's how Fannie and Freddie expanded the market for sub-prime loans. They didn't create the sub-prime market. They just enlarged it.
    ... as well as setting the precedent via lowering 'FNM / FRE Conforming Loan standards' and thus creating the expectation that any minority / low income person with a 'pulse' should be considered sufficiently creditworthy for a loan approval ... be that loan a mortgage, an auto loan, a credit card etc.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Fannie and Freddie loan policy to minority / low income borrowers does bring an element of socialism into play, it is far from the only element. For example, last night's debate raised the issue of increased income taxation (or more correctly, wealth transfer to those who don't actually pay any income tax) multiple times with references to 'Joe the Plumber' i.e. the plumber who Barack Obama told should help 'spread the wealth around'. Here's a video clip from a morning news show interview ...



    The basic point of course revolves around the socialistic aspects of increasing taxes on productive people, and not for payment of general gov't needs, but for the specific purpose of providing gov't subsidies to less productive people.

  18. #18
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Deogol View Post
    When capitalists are fined and regulated to make bad loans by the government (google Community Reinvestment Act) - what is that called?
    When capitalists make an unregulated Vegas gambling game out of capitalism and then risk as much cash as they can, what is that called?
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  19. #19
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    When capitalists make an unregulated Vegas gambling game out of capitalism and then risk as much cash as they can, what is that called?
    privatizing the profits but socializing the losses !!! In other words, the implicit guarantee of a government bailout ENCOURAGED speculative investments !!

  20. #20
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    At least FreddieMac and FannieMae were well intentioned initially. The Vegas-like behavior of their financiers, and all theothers getting the entire world economy, were purely self-centered, greed-inspired and anti-social at best. Many of them probably will come under indictment. We only have a few months left to impeach Bush, who allowed this de-regulation fiasco to proceed unchecked. Self-monitoring, indeed!!

    I see you used that quote we discussed before, the one you seemed not to understand.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  21. #21
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Obama a Socialist? What about Bush? He is the one proposing all this taxpayer bailout money be given to corporations and banks. Obama even said he didn't like the bailout bill, but didn't see that we had a choice at this time.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  22. #22
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    We have a lot of the bad aspects of socialism but not the healthcare.

  23. #23
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    people languishing for many months to receive badly needed but expensive medical treatment ... or remortgaging their homes to pay for prompt private medical treatment in another country ... might disagree with you

  24. #24
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Likely the most frequent cause of bankruptcy in years past has been medical bills far beyond what a person could or an insurance company would pay. People wanted to live and wer willing to risk their financial futures.

    If you had to, would you do the same for a loved one?
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  25. #25
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: why Obama Socialism matters

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ red herring ... because gov't bailout plans are not proposing to spend hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars , nor inflicting additional hundreds of billions of dollars worth of bankruptcy court / treasury ordered lender losses via 'forced renegotiation' of mortgage banances / payments / terms, to benefit flippers whose 'jumbo' ARM's are belly-up. The Socialism aspect is the fact that the gov't bailout plans have 'chosen' a certain category of distressed homeowners who will be the beneficiaries of US taxpayer bailout dollars - while at the same time the gov't has chosen a certain category of Americans from whom the vast majority of these additional taxpayer bailout dollars will be collected. This is called .... wealth transfer !
    I haven't looked at the bailout plan in detail, but it is my understanding that the bailout is for financial institutions, not homeowners, to prevent the credit market from drying up.

    The only proposal I've heard to bail out homeowners, came from McCain in one of the debates, in an attempt to stop his downward slide in the polls.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-22-2008, 11:52 PM
  2. Size Matters
    By StarGazer05 in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-10-2005, 11:07 AM
  3. weight matters...
    By regan143 in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-08-2005, 02:25 AM
  4. Family Matters!
    By Adara in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-12-2005, 09:20 PM
  5. Triumph of Socialism
    By myssi in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-27-2005, 02:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •