Welfare.

[ElasticNinja]

Care to inform us WHO the US is supposed to have assassinated?

Mossadeq was imprisoned, and we were not involved in the coup against the Shah when Khomeini took control. So, who exactly did we assassinate?



That was done in 2000. It wasn't being considered in 2003/4, It had already been done.

The CIA orcharstrated his removal, and you are naive or ill-informed if you think the CIA werent in involved in the shah thing

Oh and sorry for 03/04 error BTW

 

[byteware]

@byteware, EU is by far worlds largest donator of aid in the world

While obviously Portugal, Spain, France & UK had large empires, the first two lost theirs before 1900, the latter actually were nice to theirs from 1900 onward (not excusing past behaviour) and improved economies, education etc, until independenisingthem after WWII

Nowadays most of the unfair trade is caused by US (not excusing WEU countries, eg France's uranium explotation of Niger) yet ye do little to fix it, in some cases making it worse *cough* dollar bananas *cough*

What does that have to do with sending your military to help countries during a National Disaster?

 

[byteware]

The CIA orcharstrated his removal, and you are naive or ill-informed if you think the CIA werent in involved in the shah thing

Oh and sorry for 03/04 error BTW

That as operation Ajax in 1951 to remove Mossadegh. We did NOT remove the Shah in 1979, that one caught us completely by surprise.

 

[ElasticNinja]

That as operation Ajax in 1951 to remove Mossadegh. We did NOT remove the Shah in 1979, that one caught us completely by surprise.

Thats what I was saying *exclamation mark*
aaarrrhhh

 

[AndyLL]

9/11 happened at the END of the year. We were already moving into recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency.

The Global recession actually started in Europe in 2000, and moved to the US in 2001.

This is established fact, not something you can just decide you don't want to believe in.

My numbers were FY. (the neg GDP included 9/11)

The 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history. The collapse of the speculative dot-com bubble, a fall in business outlays and investments, and the September 11th attacks,[47] brought the decade of growth to an end. Despite these major shocks, the recession was brief and shallow.[48] Without the September 11th attacks, the economy may have avoided recession altogether.[
​

Where that statement derived from:
https://www.research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/03/09/Kliesen.pdf

I stand corrected. There were no monetary penalties. There were however, operational ones. There were things you couldn't do. For instance, you couldn't open a new bank office. You couldn't expand. You couldn't put in an ATM that accepted deposits.

I can only find 1 example of that happening in the 30 years of the program.

Yes, once subprime loans started being made, many many unscrupulous businesses started up to take advantage of the extremely HIGH interest rates that these loans paid. That was not how it started.

subprime loans have been around since money was invented. Still has nothing to do with CRA

Something you failed to note... there was NO difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and unregulated subprime loans.

Banks that had subprime loans had the same foreclosure rate as those businesses that were not regulated.

If by regulated yoiu mean rated by the CRA then you just made my point.

CRA had little bearing on the subprime market and resulting foreclosures.

No, Bush TRIED to do so, but Democrats shot down his efforts. Bush and McCain tried to prevent this debacle, but were unable to do so. Their efforts were thwarted by Democratic control of Congress.

Bush had the white house and congress for 6 years. Produce 1 bill that was fillibustered by the Dems.

Republicans blame the democrates when democrate control of Congress or the WH.

Republicans blame the democrates when republicans have control of Congress or the WH.

A little common sense will tell you that the 2006/2007 default numbers aren't really showing you anything other than unemployment.

I didn't even talk about default numbers. I claimed that the subprime loans market peaked in 2006. I was wrong... it was 2005 although 2004 and 2006 had huge numbers also.

More then 10 years after Clinton modified CRA and before Democrates re-took congress.

Republican's had control of congress for 8 years and the WH for 4 before the subprime market took off.

It's really a strench to keep blaming Clinton and the Dems for it. ( not that it will stop the Cons)

 

[byteware]

My numbers were FY. (the neg GDP included 9/11)

By 20 days. FY 2001 ended on 9/30.

I can only find 1 example of that happening in the 30 years of the program.

2 things...

1) This statement isn't relevant, because you are likely searching for news results, and not searching FDIC rulings.

2) Even if it truly only occurred once in 30 years, that would only because the organizations worked hard to remain in compliance. Which would require them to lend to individuals in poor neighborhoods, which they hadn't before because of the subprime nature of the loans.

subprime loans have been around since money was invented. Still has nothing to do with CRA

Subprime loans had been around, but they were avoided like the plague by financial institutions...

Except, that to remain in compliance after Clinton's revamp, they would be required to lend to individuals that they would otherwise reject.

If by regulated yoiu mean rated by the CRA then you just made my point.

CRA had little bearing on the subprime market and resulting foreclosures.

Umm... only if you haven't been paying attention. CRA had EVERYTHING to do with the subprime market and resulting foreclosures. CRA Made the subprime market. Yes, other organizations took advantage of it, but without the subprime market that the CRA began, there would be no crash.

Bush had the white house and congress for 6 years. Produce 1 bill that was fillibustered by the Dems.

S. 190:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.

It was not fillibustered by Dems, but it did get not one single vote from Dems. That would have required nearly every Republican to vote for it, and that couldn't be expected either.

I didn't even talk about default numbers. I claimed that the subprime loans market peaked in 2006. I was wrong... it was 2005 although 2004 and 2006 had huge numbers also.

More then 10 years after Clinton modified CRA and before Democrates re-took congress.

Republican's had control of congress for 8 years and the WH for 4 before the subprime market took off.

It's really a strench to keep blaming Clinton and the Dems for it. ( not that it will stop the Cons)

So, what you are saying is that since Republicans didn't change what Clinton did... it's THEIR fault? I get it.

 

[AndyLL]

By 20 days. FY 2001 ended on 9/30.

We were talking the recession of 2001. The official report on it:

Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research

The was a minor trough leading up to Sept but Sept, Nov Dec is when GDP droped like a rock. (for obvious reasons)

1) This statement isn't relevant, because you are likely searching for news results, and not searching FDIC rulings.

2) Even if it truly only occurred once in 30 years, that would only because the organizations worked hard to remain in compliance. Which would require them to lend to individuals in poor neighborhoods, which they hadn't before because of the subprime nature of the loans.

Lets see some proof.

Subprime loans had been around, but they were avoided like the plague by financial institutions...

Not true... when I was programming car leases/loans in the late 80s subprime loans was a huge money maker.

Umm... only if you haven't been paying attention. CRA had EVERYTHING to do with the subprime market and resulting foreclosures. CRA Made the subprime market. Yes, other organizations took advantage of it, but without the subprime market that the CRA began, there would be no crash.

I have posted link after link of peer reviewed papers, research, and raw data showing that CRA had nothing to do with it.

You have posted.... nothing but opinion.

S. 190:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.


It was not fillibustered by Dems, but it did get not one single vote from Dems. That would have required nearly every Republican to vote for it, and that couldn't be expected either.

Assigned to a committe and died. It was a republican controlled committee. The committee chairman never took up the bill and it went away at the end of session. Richard Shelby was the chairman.

And finally... just months after taking control of Congress the democrates passed a bill restricting F&F. (With the white houses support)

So your contention that it was the Democrates that held up F&F regulation is absurd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/business/23fannie.html

----

It takes me significant time to research and post data backing up my assertions.

What I am getting back is opinions that sound like Rush/Beck talking points with no real data to back them up.

So I'm bowing out until I see some government data/reports or peer reviewed articles contesting my assertions.

Andy

 

[byteware]

We were talking the recession of 2001. The official report on it:

Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research

The was a minor trough leading up to Sept but Sept, Nov Dec is when GDP droped like a rock. (for obvious reasons)

Ok... I'm going to be clear again. The recession started in FY 2001, per your own information. FY 2001 ended on Sept 30 2001. Only 19 days after 9/11.

Yes, no one is arguing that 9/11 didn't make the recession worse, but the economy was moving into recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency.

Lets see some proof. ]

Of what? That it's not relevant to the discussion at hand? Exactly what kind of proof would you accept for that?

Or that if it's true, it would mean that companies worked to stay in compliance with CRA?

Neither of these are statements that REQUIRE proof.

Not true... when I was programming car leases/loans in the late 80s subprime loans was a huge money maker.

Yes, they were. This is widely known. It is also widely known that this led to the Savings and Loan Crisis in the 80's and 90's as well.

This is why banks have been avoiding these types of loans.

I have posted link after link of peer reviewed papers, research, and raw data showing that CRA had nothing to do with it.

You have posted opinion pieces. And I have used your own raw data to refute your own points.

You have posted.... nothing but opinion.

And your OWN data to prove you wrong.

Assigned to a committe and died. It was a republican controlled committee. The committee chairman never took up the bill and it went away at the end of session. Richard Shelby was the chairman.

Is that all the reading you did on the subject?

It was passed out of committee on a party line vote. Democrats stated that they would filibuster it, and Republicans didn't have the votes to overcome a filibuster.

Democrats held news conferences declaring that Republicans were trying to prevent the middle class from owning homes.

It didn't get voted on, because it couldn't pass. That's the thing about not having a filibuster proof majority.

You should do more thorough research, you might learn a thing or two.

And finally... just months after taking control of Congress the democrates passed a bill restricting F&F. (With the white houses support)

So your contention that it was the Democrates that held up F&F regulation is absurd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/business/23fannie.html

----

Seriously? The same legislation, but with increased regulatory authority, passed the house in 2005. That's the same bill that stalled in the Senate because they couldn't overcome the threat of Democratic filibuster.

Really... do your research. The house passed their version of the Bill in 2005. The Senate didn't. The same thing occurred in 2007, except with a lot less teeth.

It takes me significant time to research and post data backing up my assertions.

And I appreciate it... I use that very data to prove your position wrong. Effectively.

I would suggest taking a class that would help you read graphs and better understand the data that you present.

This goes back to your 5% + 5% = 5% misreading of the Health Care versus M/M graph earlier in this conversation.

 

[AndyLL]

Ok... I'm going to be clear again. The recession started in FY 2001, per your own information. FY 2001 ended on Sept 30 2001. Only 19 days after 9/11.

Yes, no one is arguing that 9/11 didn't make the recession worse, but the economy was moving into recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency.

Did you even read the study? Unstead of just saying 'your wrong' point out what in the study shows I'm wrong.

You asserted that Clinton's policies caused a significant recession and that bush's tax cuts pulled us out of it.

I asserted that 9/11 was the main cause of the recesson and showed Government data that showed there was only a single quarter drop in GDP. (making it a minor recession at best)

You quibbled about dates and asserted that 9/11 couldn't have caused the recession.

I posted a link from the National Bureau of Economics ( do you even know who they are?) that backed up my position... very weak recession that might not have been a recession without 9/11.

You say 'your wrong' and do the happy internet bannana dance.

Of what? That it's not relevant to the discussion at hand? Exactly what kind of proof would you accept for that?

Or that if it's true, it would mean that companies worked to stay in compliance with CRA?

You make a assertion. You really should try to back it up with something other then your own opinion.

You state that the CRA is so overbearing to companies that it lead to the 2nd worst financial meltdown in US history.

If it was that bad you ought to be able to find something to back up your opinion.

You have not shown one piece of evidence showing that the CRA had anything to do with the number of sub-prime

Yes, they were. This is widely known. It is also widely known that this led to the Savings and Loan Crisis in the 80's and 90's as well.

This is why banks have been avoiding these types of loans.

Once again. Show even minimal proof to back up your opinion. I have worked in the financial field for 25 years now. I've seen just the opposite.

You have posted opinion pieces.

The CBO, Treasury, NBE, Fed Bank studies... opinion pieces?

There was one 'opinion' piece and it was footnoted showing where the authors 'opinion' came from.

You have posted links to...

well nothing.

And I have used your own raw data to refute your own points.

The one piece of data your pulled out of my link actually proved my point.

Did you not realize if CRA regulated banks and non CRA regulated banks have the same default rates that the conclusion is that CRA has nothing to do with the default rate? ( not to mention that we are not talking about default rates)

It was passed out of committee on a party line vote. Democrats stated that they would filibuster it, and Republicans didn't have the votes to overcome a filibuster.

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

Wrong again. Never even taken up by the committe.

Democrats held news conferences declaring that Republicans were trying to prevent the middle class from owning homes.

So what?

It didn't get voted on, because it couldn't pass. That's the thing about not having a filibuster proof majority.

The Republican's passed a ton of things during Bush years that the Democrates didn't like... why didn't they attempt to pass this?

You should do more thorough research, you might learn a thing or two.

Once again... you have posted zero proof to back up your opinions and everyone of them have been dis-proved.

Seriously? The same legislation, but with increased regulatory authority, passed the house in 2005. That's the same bill that stalled in the Senate because they couldn't overcome the threat of Democratic filibuster.

Same bill? The republican bill was trying to privatize F&F. The democrat bill added regulation and limits to loan size.

Not even close to the same bill.

Republican's overwhelmely voted against it.

So Republican's in 6 years of controlling congress do not even debate the F&F bills in committee.

Democrates within 6 months of taking over congress pass F&F regulation.

So your assertion that republicans tried to regulate F&F and the democrates blocked it is proven false like all your other opinions.

And I appreciate it... I use that very data to prove your position wrong. Effectively.

you've proved nothing other then you can only parrot Rush and Beck have have no thoughts of your own.

This goes back to your 5% + 5% = 5% misreading of the Health Care versus M/M graph earlier in this conversation.

You post a hard to read chart from a right wing organition that has no links to where there data comes from that seems to present a conclusion you like.

I post the raw report and numbers from the CBO that actually disprove your point.

You do the happy bananna dance because you caught me in a typo and think that it proves your pretty chart with no real numbers beats the raw data.

Congrats...a fine internet debator you are.

 

[byteware]

Did you even read the study? Unstead of just saying 'your wrong' point out what in the study shows I'm wrong.

I did that already.

You asserted that Clinton's policies caused a significant recession and that bush's tax cuts pulled us out of it.

I said we were moving into a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency.

I asserted that 9/11 was the main cause of the recesson and showed Government data that showed there was only a single quarter drop in GDP. (making it a minor recession at best)

With one exception. The government data shows us in negative GDP growth in the Fiscal year that ended 19 days after 9/11. I guess it's possible that we grew for 345 days, and then those 20 days wiped out all that growth and put us in the negative, but I've not read anything anywhere that asserts that to be true.

You quibbled about dates and asserted that 9/11 couldn't have caused the recession.

The recession started in Europe in 2000, and the US in 2001. It didn't CAUSE the recession. It can't cause something that already started.

It definitely made it worse though. There's no arguing that. That's no quibbling. That's just fact. I'm sorry, if getting the facts straight is an aside for you.

I posted a link from the National Bureau of Economics ( do you even know who they are?) that backed up my position... very weak recession that might not have been a recession without 9/11.

No one has purported that we lost all our Year's worth of GDP growth in 20 days. No one. Not even the National Bureau of Economics.

You say 'your wrong' and do the happy internet bannana dance.

Luckily, your own data proves you are wrong in your assertion.

You make a assertion. You really should try to back it up with something other then your own opinion.

Then you aren't paying attention. I'm backing up my assertions with YOUR data.

You state that the CRA is so overbearing to companies that it lead to the 2nd worst financial meltdown in US history.

Did I state it was overbearing? I stated it required loans to be made.

If it was that bad you ought to be able to find something to back up your opinion.

Should I simply post the same links over and over again? Or didn't you read it the first time around?

You have not shown one piece of evidence showing that the CRA had anything to do with the number of sub-prime

Your OWN DATA shows the Subprime mortgages starting up again right after the CRA regulatory changes went into effect. YOUR OWN DATA.

Once again. Show even minimal proof to back up your opinion. I have worked in the financial field for 25 years now. I've seen just the opposite.

First things first... Do you really expect me to research things you should already know?

I wouldn't use your job to back up your position here. You are the same person, who (as far as I know) still asserts that 5% M/M + 5% The rest of health care = 5% on a graph.

You have posted links to...

well nothing.

Is your own data not good enough?

The one piece of data your pulled out of my link actually proved my point.

Did you not realize if CRA regulated banks and non CRA regulated banks have the same default rates that the conclusion is that CRA has nothing to do with the default rate? ( not to mention that we are not talking about default rates)

Did you not even read your own source? It had nothing to do with whether or not they MADE subprime loans at the same rate. It only had to do with the rate of defaults among the subprime loans that WERE made.

It does nothing to prove your point.

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)



Wrong again. Never even taken up by the committe.

First off, even govtrack shows it was taken up by the committee. It simply stops where it was sent back asking for a change.

GSE reform bill clears Senate Committee along party-line vote. | Banking & Finance > Banking & Finance Overview from AllBusiness.com

It was, however, reported all over the internet to have been passed out of committee on September 1st. Take a look around.


So what?

The Republican's passed a ton of things during Bush years that the Democrates didn't like... why didn't they attempt to pass this?

Republicans, like Democrats, are a group of people. With SOME democrat support, it could have passed, but without ANY Democrat support, it would require the Republicans to get EVERY member in line. Obama can't do that, and neither could Bush/McCain.

Same bill? The republican bill was trying to privatize F&F. The democrat bill added regulation and limits to loan size.

I see that you haven't bothered to read either of them.

The purpose of S 190 was to create a Independent Federal Regulatory Agency to oversee F&F. That was the ENTIRE purpose of S 190.

Here is the summary. I recommend reading the WHOLE thing, personally, but I don't expect you will.

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board. Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting. Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements. Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

S. 190 [109th] - Summary: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

Not even close to the same bill.

Yes... it had quite a bit LESS regulation that the previous version the House Republicans passed in 2005.

House passes GSE reform bill. | Goliath Business News

What regulatory power the 2007 bill did contain was put there as a compromise between Democrats and President Bush... (per your NYTimes source)

But in House action last Thursday, the bill was reshaped in a way that lessens the power of the new federal regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over their mortgage holdings compared with an earlier version that moved through the House. An amendment adopted by voice vote puts some restrictions on that authority.

The Bush administration has insisted that the new regulator have the discretion and authority to reduce the companies' mortgage portfolios. White House support is considered crucial to the bill's prospects in the Senate and for eventual congressional passage after years of failed efforts to enact such legislation.

Republican's overwhelmely voted against it.

Really? Because records show that half the Republicans voted against it, and half voted for it 104/90. I guess we'll chalk that up to a difference in our definitions of overwhelmingly.

Again... this is from your OWN NYTimes source.

All 104 opposing votes came from Republicans. Ninety other GOP lawmakers joined the unified 223 Democrats.

So Republican's in 6 years of controlling congress do not even debate the F&F bills in committee.

Democrates within 6 months of taking over congress pass F&F regulation.

So your assertion that republicans tried to regulate F&F and the democrates blocked it is proven false like all your other opinions.

Again... a little more research would do you good.

The House passed a version of the Democrats bill

H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

Interestingly enough... The Democrats were 122 for/74 against.

you've proved nothing other then you can only parrot Rush and Beck have have no thoughts of your own.

Interestingly enough, I listen to neither.

But if that's what it takes to make yourself feel like you know something, then by all means.

 

[AndyLL]

Read your links before posting them. The headline was wrong. It never made it to a final vote in committee.

However, even before the vote, Bunning and other committee members both Republican and Democrat noted that S. 190's lack of bipartisan support will make the bill's movement an uphill battle.
"We came to this point last year, and we could not get a bipartisan consensus and no bill was put forward," said Bunning. "Unfortunately, I believe we will have the same result. I believe we will move a bill out of committee, but without bipartisan consensus the bill will again go nowhere, and we will not have the world-class regulator we need."--

Based on GovTrack... it never made it out of committe. If it had GovTrack would have had the results of the final vote.

That is the quality of the links you post to try to prove you point.

Spin it however you want.

Republican's control congress. No Bill.
Democrates control congress. Bill

 

[byteware]

Can you not Read?

Republican's Control Congress. Bill passes House, No bill passes Senate.

H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

Democrats Control Congress. Bill passes House, No bill passes Senate.

H.R. 1427 [110th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

Spin it how you want it... those are the FACTS.

 

[Member243850]

Okay... i think i will have to explain to all that support why the socialist / communist policies of Obummer will not work out in the end and please read it carefully plz:

The Conservative Mama: Economics Professor FAILS Entire Class to Prove Why Obama's Policies Are No Good

EDIT

The world is like a jungle..... only the strongest survive.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Okay... i think i will have to explain to all that support why the socialist / communist policies of Obummer will not work out in the end and please read it carefully plz:

The Conservative Mama: Economics Professor FAILS Entire Class to Prove Why Obama's Policies Are No Good

EDIT

The world is like a jungle..... only the strongest survive.

Communist?
LOL you needs a dictionary stat!

 

[Member243850]

Communist?
LOL you needs a dictionary stat!

Socialism is the beggining of communism dude....actually...anywayz

Did you reflect on the articile dude? It is very important that you understand what it means... did you read it carefully?

Did you actually read it at all? I am starting to wonder if you did actually read it... because it sounds like you did not read it at all...

I needs a dictionary!

HAHAHHAHAAAA!!

 

[ElasticNinja]

Socialism is the beggining of communism dude....actually...anywayz

Did you reflect on the articile dude? It is very important that you understand what it means... did you read it carefully?

Did you actually read it at all? I am starting to wonder if you did actually read it... because it sounds like you did not read it at all...

Of course I read it
Thats not socialism
In fact its not even communism!


And the idea of saying you "needs" was intentional BTW

 

[Member243850]

Of course I read it
Thats not socialism
In fact its not even communism!

What?

Taken from wikipedia:

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property.[1] The exact definition of communism varies and it is commonly used interchangeably with socialism, however, communist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism.

 

[ElasticNinja]

WHAT!!!!

Taken from wikipedia:

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property.[1] The exact definition of communism varies and it is commonly used interchangeably with socialism, however, communist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism.

Yup communist theory
In communist societies, people didnt all get payed the same BTW
Anyway communism fails due to lack of incentives for entrepenaurs, it usually looses touch with the people and is terrible at producing what the consumer wants


An example of extreme democratic socialism that worked well is Kerela (God's Own Country).
Obviously the US doesnt need that form but Kerela needed it desperately (like Russia and China, but they were real communist and had brutal dictators, which fecked everything up)

 

[Member243850]

Alright dude...

I understand where you are comming from.... yes people need help sometimes.... etc etc however i think you need to understand the dangers of socialism or whatever Obama and his government are doing here...

Don't get me wrong i think communism can be a good idea if people are responsible and do work.... but people will be people... i really hope you can understand dude

And yes in theory communism is great.... but in reality it is a disaster....

 

[ElasticNinja]

Don't get me wrong i think communism can be a good idea if people are responsible and do work.... but people will be people... i really hope you can understand dude

And yes in theory communism is great.... but in reality it is a disaster....

Agree

Alright dude...

I understand where you are comming from.... yes people need help sometimes.... etc etc however i think you need to understand the dangers of socialism or whatever Obama and his government are doing here...

I dont really see Obama as a socialist
He [and most of his party] is more center wing with liberal social policies on things like abortion, sexed etc

 

[Member243850]

Yeah... i see what u mean buddy

Although what he is doing with the welfare will scare the people that work hard away... i really wish it wasn't true... but it's just the way it is sadly

He also gave General Motors billions of dollars to bail out a very failing company...

I think he is a little bit of a socialist but thats just my opinion... and i could be wrong... i am wrong often.... i am actually very baised due to my surroundings here in SA.... so maybe i shud keep quite i dunno...

What do you think dude?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Yeah... i see what u mean buddy

Although what he is doing with the welfare will scare the people that work hard away... i really wish it wasn't true... but it's just the way it is sadly

He also gave General Motors billions of dollars to bail out a very failing company...

I think he is a little bit of a socialist but thats just my opinion... and i could be wrong... i am wrong often.... i am actually very baised due to my surroundings here in SA.... so maybe i shud keep quite i dunno...

What do you think dude?

Unfortunately many hard working people who were not sponging off the state are now on welfare due to the economic collapse
These people have mortagages to pay off and if you stop their welfare will be homeless

I agree about GM
In the 90's instead of making efficient, versatile cars, they (and chrysler) focused on making crappy massive cars and instead tried to convince the American consumer that they wanted them
They didnt do this very successfully (although Americans do love crap oversized tank-sorry SUV's) while East Asian and EU car makers made quality efficient cars

All hope was lost when Bush (on Big Oils request) removed any incentives to make efficient proper sized cars

 

[Member243850]

Unfortunately many hard working people who were not sponging off the state are now on welfare due to the economic collapse
These people have mortagages to pay off and if you stop their welfare will be homeless

I agree about GM
In the 90's instead of making efficient, versatile cars, they (and chrysler) focused on making crappy massive cars and tried to convince the American consumer that they wanted them

Ahhh! Yes i agree!

I did not think about that! But then the real question is.... why is there an economic mini depression going on here? Why? i don't actually know? Can you tell me if thats okay?



Damn you are an extreemly clever child... you are way more smarter than me hahahaha lol

 

[ElasticNinja]

Ahhh! Yes i agree!

I did not think about that! But then the real question is.... why is there an economic mini depression going on here? Why? i don't actually know? Can you tell me if thats okay?

I think the reason we are in a depression (it is excluding US stimilus - THX guys ) is basically

Less Regulations on bank lending > increased risky lending > property boom > improves economy on borrowed money > people get confident so take out more loans > increased property boom > improves economy on more borrowed money > people get confident so take out even more loans > too much houses built > everyone realises economy is built on sand > KA-BOOM!!!

Overly simplified and linear
But hey!

 

[Member243850]

Hmm... i think i shud research more on this economic melt down...

Maybe i will get the answers i am looking for here...

Thanx dude! I think i asked a question that is very complicated to answer... i will go looking! Hpopefully i will get some great answers

The economic metl down has been a disaster for billions of poeple it's really sad actually

Anywayz...