24 Sep 08
Originally posted by josephwAre you saying that Palin's recounting of the events surrounding the 'Bridge to Nowhere' are
It's all spin by a media hell bent on getting one of their own socialists in office. They have totally ignored WHO Obama is, and aggressively seek to destroy any republican they can get their hands on while in the midst of an economic melt down caused by the collapse of some of our major loan institutions brought about by the policies and practices of the de ...[text shortened]... bama gets in you can kiss it all goodbye. He and those he appoints will destroy this economy.
historically accurate, that was opposed to and stopped this waste of federal money from transpiring?
Nemesio
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by josephw...while in the midst of an economic melt down... brought about by the policies and practices of the democrats themselves.
It's all spin by a media hell bent on getting one of their own socialists in office. They have totally ignored WHO Obama is, and aggressively seek to destroy any republican they can get their hands on while in the midst of an economic melt down caused by the collapse of some of our major loan institutions brought about by the policies and practices of the de ...[text shortened]... bama gets in you can kiss it all goodbye. He and those he appoints will destroy this economy.
On the contrary, the melt down was precipitated by the deregulation policies of the Republicans, i.e., Reagan, Bush, McCain, etc.
It's ironic that the Bush administration is now forced to institute a government bailout - an entirely socialist procedure. What happened to letting the markets govern themselves without regulation or oversight? Bush is a socialist. McCain is voting for the bailout, which makes him a socialist, too. Whether you like it or not, we're all socialists now.
If Obama gets in you can kiss it all goodbye. He and those he appoints will destroy this economy.
I disagree. If the Democrats were allowed to sensibly regulate the markets, this melt down would never have happened in the first place. As soon as the Democrats place some safeguards in the bailout legislation in order to protect the tax payer from Bush's big government, Obama is going to instituted the responsible and sensible policies of regulation and oversight that will prevent another melt down from happening in the future.
This whole mess is proof that the conservative economic philosophy of deregulation, though perhaps appealing in theory, is a disaster in practice.
25 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat about Jimmy Carter creating the CRA legislation that forced banks to provide mortgages to high risk individuals? What about Clinton who participated in the deregulation process? What about the current democratic Congress that opposes legislation that might save us from economic collapse?
[b]...while in the midst of an economic melt down... brought about by the policies and practices of the democrats themselves.
On the contrary, the melt down was precipitated by the deregulation policies of the Republicans, i.e., Reagan, Bush, McCain, etc.
It's ironic that the Bush administration is now forced to institute a government bailout - ...[text shortened]... h makes him a socialist, too. Whether you like it or not, we're all socialists now.
I think it an unwise thing to cast one party as holier than thou. If not, perhaps they should be renamed, "God's party".
25 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyYou could really use some education on what the CRA is and how it has effected mortgages in the US. Pay particular attention to the role secondary lenders (think Countrywide) played.
What about Jimmy Carter creating the CRA legislation that forced banks to provide mortgages to high risk individuals? What about Clinton who participated in the deregulation process? What about the current democratic Congress that opposes legislation that might save us from economic collapse?
I think it an unwise thing to cast one party as holier than thou. If not, perhaps they should be renamed, "God's party".
Clinton did indeed engage in some deregulation, but it pales in comparison to what most good republicans have been clamoring for over the last few years. Check out Phil Gramm for more information (one of McCain's economic advisors btw).
Opposing legislation that might save us from economic collapse? Are you talking about the 700 billion dollar bailout? The one that asks the taxpayers to take on the cost of essentially 2 Iraq wars? The one that gives the Sect. of the Treasury more power than the president? The one they are trying to rush through congress like they did "The Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq" (we know how great that turned out). Don't worry, congress will pass a bail out, but it won't be anywhere near as irresponsible as the one this administration tried to sneak through with.
I'm sorry, while I agree there is plenty of blame to be passed out, the bulk of it fits neatly on the Republican's doorstep.
25 Sep 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe meltdown was precipitated by unsecured loans, and greed.
[b]...while in the midst of an economic melt down... brought about by the policies and practices of the democrats themselves.
On the contrary, the melt down was precipitated by the deregulation policies of the Republicans, i.e., Reagan, Bush, McCain, etc.
It's ironic that the Bush administration is now forced to institute a government bailout - ...[text shortened]... ic philosophy of deregulation, though perhaps appealing in theory, is a disaster in practice.[/b]
Regulating the free market is socialism.
It was the democrats that squelched oversight, and benefitted from it.
Either way, we shall see.
I enjoy debate about spiritual matters, but polotics makes me angry. Why is it so difficult to do the right thing? All we get from polotitians, on both sides, is bull.
The stage is being set for the inevitable anyway.
25 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwSomething you could clear up for me please ...
The meltdown was precipitated by unsecured loans, and greed.
Regulating the free market is socialism.
It was the democrats that squelched oversight, and benefitted from it.
Either way, we shall see.
I enjoy debate about spiritual matters, but polotics makes me angry. Why is it so difficult to do the right thing? All we get from polotitians, on both sides, is bull.
The stage is being set for the inevitable anyway.
Where in the US Constitution does it state that America cannot have a socialist economic system?
Where in the US Constitution does it state that the US must ever and only have a capitalist economic system ?
25 Sep 08
Originally posted by jaywillPrivate property.
Something you could clear up for me please ...
Where in the US Constitution does it state that America cannot have a socialist economic system?
Where in the US Constitution does it state that the US must ever and only have a capitalist economic system ?
Anything socialistic is antithetical to the constitution.
America is run by "the people". Socialism requires the relinquishing of personal property rights as well as others.
It's a "no brainer". Any attempt to put government in charge of anything the constitution does not specifically allow means it will fail. Miserably.
It has been said that when a government controls the food source it controls the people. The same holds true with the market place.
Put the government in charge of the economy and we will be controlled by the government.
Is that what we want? To be controlled? Maybe that brings security to some, but I'd rather be free.
26 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by josephw===============================
Private property.
Anything socialistic is antithetical to the constitution.
America is run by "the people". Socialism requires the relinquishing of personal property rights as well as others.
It's a "no brainer". Any attempt to put government in charge of anything the constitution does not specifically allow means it will fail. Miserably.
It has ...[text shortened]... hat we want? To be controlled? Maybe that brings security to some, but I'd rather be free.
Private property.
=================================
Is there no private property in Canada?
Don't they have more of a Socialist economic system?
================================
Anything socialistic is antithetical to the constitution.
================================
I think you are making that assumption without backing it up.
Refer me to the clause about "private property" to see if I can extrapolate from that the further reaching conclusion you state is essential to the US Constitution.
=============================
America is run by "the people". Socialism requires the relinquishing of personal property rights as well as others.
====================================
The Chinese called their system at one time "The People's Dictatorship." So "Run By the People" can be somewhat of a perception, don't you think? At least to some degree, is this not rhetorical?
====================================
It's a "no brainer". Any attempt to put government in charge of anything the constitution does not specifically allow means it will fail. Miserably.
=================================
So the US Constitution calls for Anarchy as a way of government ?
========================================
It has been said that when a government controls the food source it controls the people. The same holds true with the market place.
==========================================
Well when enough companies merge they also have a monopoly on a commodity.
Say all the Water companies merged into one huge conglomerate called "Water Inc." Then you could only get water from that huge company according to their rules.
I can see various mega corporations merging to become "Energy Inc" or "Food Inc." or "Air Inc".
Megamergers of huge corporations also can control people.
Does the Antichrist in the book of Revelation look to you like a Socialist or a Capitalist? He looks to me more like a Capitalist. You cannot Buy or Sell anything unless you have the mark of the Beast.
=================================
Put the government in charge of the economy and we will be controlled by the government.
===================================
You don't think your economy cannot be controlled by the corporation that lays you off ?
I worked for a Bank in a medium size US city. They fired me off. I lost my house as a result. Don't tell me that a company cannot control your economy. The Government didn't do it.
===================================
Is that what we want? To be controlled? Maybe that brings security to some, but I'd rather be free.
=========================================
What I want is not to be so naive that I think returning to the Anarchy of the pre-Flood days is the answer to all societies woes.
You want anarchy. That's probably also why you so badly need a gun.
I think there are some limits to your philosophy. You may have some points. But I don't like it when people try to dress up Anarchy to be some sacred and noble way of life.
Secondly, the framers of the US Constitution were wise enough to allow such a thing as an way to CHANGE it - a Constitutional Congress. Obviously, they had the wisdom to realize that This Document may need to be altared.
So instead of worshipping the US Constitution like a golden calf, I think you also need to listen to it's own pervision. It pre-cludes that it is not perfect and may need to be altared.
26 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's a question of whether usury is permissible or not.
Isn't giving out an unsecured loan some form of fraud at some level and thus regulating - or essentially outlawing illegal practices - is not necessarily socialist?
It's interesting to note that things like sub-prime loans are not possible under Shariah financing.
26 Sep 08
And then there is the issue of profiting by taking risks with other peoples money without necessarily fully disclosing the risks you are taking. That could be fraud.
My understanding of the govt bailout of some of the financial institutions was an attempt to restore trust in those institutions. If there was trust in the institutions previously, then it is clear that the clients are not aware of the risks being taken with their money.