States asserting sovereignty?

  • News
  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
  • #26
Al68
I think that's a mighty unreasonable assumption to make. History has shown that presidents are much more likely to consult economists who follow their same line of thinking than they are to consult economists they don't agree with. This is evidenced by the fact that for the last 60 years presidents and the government have almost always chosen Keynesian economics, despite Hayek's economic ideals having never been tested on a nationwide scale. Meanwhile, we are under a constant exposure to a boom and bust system whose hold will never weaken as long as government gets bigger and taxes go up.

Universal tax cuts are such a simple idea. More money in the hands of everyone so that the public can save or spend it on consumer goods, which would create a level of stimulation for the economy that stimulus packages could never match. All this would require is smaller government and less military spending. And therein lies the rub.
Modern socialists are so ate up with socialism they they don't even realize that it's a political philosophy that not everyone shares, or they just pretend that to avoid the need to explain themselves. They don't even call themselves socialist anymore, and even pretend they're not, while sharing the exact same core beliefs.

And they gather up Marxist economists and pretend that there is no philosophy involved, just economists at work. Gimme a break! :yuck:
 
  • #27
Al68
Can you back any of this up with facts? It's the evil Democrats who forced the banks to make stupid loans? Was it the evil Democrats who told the banks to bundle these toxic assets and sell them to investors?
Yes. It was. And the banks were told (by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that if they didn't have a certain percentage of these bad loans bundled with their good ones, they wouldn't take any of them. That's the only reason banks made these bad loans. Otherwise Freddie and Fannie would not do business with them. And Freddie and Fannie were the majority of the mortgage business buying up notes from banks.

Obviously, Fannie and Freddie could only keep this up for so long, then they went bust. That stuck the banks with the toxic notes with no one to sell them to. The banks that were accused of not caring about poor people (didn't go along with Democrats) did fine, and are still doing fine. The ones that went along with the Dems stupid plan to "help poor people buy houses they can't afford" had problems.

All of this is publicly available for anyone to look up themselves on the net. You should not take my word for it. The law that caused these problems is the "Community Reinvestment Act" (expanded in early 90's). Sounds innocent doesn't it?
 
  • #28
Scuzzle
Modern socialists are so ate up with socialism they they don't even realize that it's a political philosophy that not everyone shares, or they just pretend that to avoid the need to explain themselves. They don't even call themselves socialist anymore, and even pretend they're not, while sharing the exact same core beliefs.

And they gather up Marxist economists and pretend that there is no philosophy involved, just economists at work. Gimme a break! :yuck:
Years ago, when I first came to this realization, I was completely heartbroken. Then, I went through stages of denial, and then extreme activism, before I ultimately realized that all I can do is attempt to live my own life and maintain individuality. The realization that socialists have become the masters and commanders is a necessarily important one to come to, as it will teach you a morality whose strength is unrivaled, which will help you get past all of the petty concerns of the "norm", and reach a level of happiness that is uncompared.
 
  • #29
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
Yes. It was. And the banks were told (by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that if they didn't have a certain percentage of these bad loans bundled with their good ones, they wouldn't take any of them. That's the only reason banks made these bad loans. Otherwise Freddie and Fannie would not do business with them. And Freddie and Fannie were the majority of the mortgage business buying up notes from banks.

Obviously, Fannie and Freddie could only keep this up for so long, then they went bust. That stuck the banks with the toxic notes with no one to sell them to. The banks that were accused of not caring about poor people (didn't go along with Democrats) did fine, and are still doing fine. The ones that went along with the Dems stupid plan to "help poor people buy houses they can't afford" had problems.

All of this is publicly available for anyone to look up themselves on the net. You should not take my word for it. The law that caused these problems is the "Community Reinvestment Act" (expanded in early 90's). Sounds innocent doesn't it?
Please provide citations (not flak-job GOP stuff like Limbaugh) to back up your assertions that Democrats forced the banks to make unsafe loans. Predatory lending has been rampant for the last decade or so, and your claim that the Democrats forced the banks to engage in such practices is a bit thin, since the Democrats have been out of power for years, and after re-taking Congress in the last 2 years of W's term, lacked the votes to get ANYTHING through against Republican opposition. Sounds like you've been listening to too much Rush and Fox. (And actually believing it - scary!)
 
  • #30
Scuzzle
Not to be insulting, but you are dishing out the typical liberal talking points. Both of you are arguing under the belief that banks are to blame. Everyone is an end in himself. Don't toss around words like "exploited" and "predatory" when the people who accepted the loan agreements had every bit of the fine print in front of them. There is no concession for laziness or ignorance. No matter how much someone pressures you to sign something without reading, you are the one to ultimately make the decision. And if they are able to convince you to sign away your livelihood without reading the rules, that says just as much about how weak and pathetic you are as it does about how "predatory" the lenders were.

Deregulation shmeregulation. Let's talk about personal responsibility.

Edit: In other words, this is a morality issue. This is a problem with America's mindset, not just the financial district's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Al68
Please provide citations (not flak-job GOP stuff like Limbaugh) to back up your assertions that Democrats forced the banks to make unsafe loans. Predatory lending has been rampant for the last decade or so, and your claim that the Democrats forced the banks to engage in such practices is a bit thin, since the Democrats have been out of power for years, and after re-taking Congress in the last 2 years of W's term, lacked the votes to get ANYTHING through against Republican opposition. Sounds like you've been listening to too much Rush and Fox. (And actually believing it - scary!)
Dude I provided the name of the Act and when is was amended. It's up to you to do your own research to find the truth. You should not take my word for anything.

Democrats didn't actually force the banks to do this, like I said, they bribed them into it with Fanny and Freddie.

And Rush and Fox have nothing to do with whether this is true or not. Neither do CBS, NBC, or ABC. You can look it up for yourself, or you can just decide to believe someone else. Personally, I trust no-one.

I explained what I know to be true, not what I expect you to believe just because I said it. It is easy to verify whether or not what I've said is true. It's your choice whether or not to bother doing it.

Edit: The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 was actually the name of the Act that greatly expanded the provisions in the Community Reinvestment Act. According to Fannie Mae's website: "it established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas." That's a self-serving way of saying get banks to make bad loans. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/charter.jhtml [Broken]

This is the text of the law, including effective dates of each part: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-2515.html [Broken]

And if you believe Rush and Fox conspired to write webpages for fdic.gov :rolleyes:, you could easily find many sources for the text of the law and applicable regulations (greatly expanded by Clinton without congress).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
Not to be insulting, but you are dishing out the typical liberal talking points. Both of you are arguing under the belief that banks are to blame. Everyone is in end in himself. Don't toss around words like "exploited" and "predatory" when the people who accepted the loan agreements had every bit of the fine print in front of them. There is no concession for laziness or ignorance. No matter how much someone pressures you to sign something without reading, you are the one to ultimately make the decision. And if they are able to convince you to sign away your livelihood without reading the rules, that says just as much about how weak and pathetic you are as it does about how "predatory" the lenders were.

Deregulation shmeregulation. Let's talk about personal responsibility.

Edit: In other words, this is a morality issue. This is a problem with America's mindset, not just the financial district's.
Thanks for all the insults. I terminated my relationship with a bank about 10 years back after learning about how they got people (generally older black folks in the south) to re-finance at rates that ballooned rapidly so they could foreclose on them. And my wife and I have not had a loan, nor any interest payments, for about 20 years now. Banks have been sucking gullible people into the real-estate boom promising that their loans will be affordable and that the values of the properties will continue to rise. That's crap!

I am far more fiscally conservative than any Republican I know. Since Reagan, the Neo-cons who hijacked the Republican party have concentrated on deregulating corporations and privatizing corporate profits while socializing corporate losses and dumping them onto common people. This is not a secret.
 
  • #33
Scuzzle
Is it the fault of the banks that the people they are sucking in are gullible?

Humans are not gullible by nature, Americans are gullible by design. I argue that the reasons for this gullibility you speak of are the same reasons behind the corruption of corporate America.

As long as you have people who use ignorance as an excuse and spout such gems as "I didn't know any better, and they took advantage of me", you will have incredible violations of business ethics because the people behind the desk will stave off guilt by saying, "It's okay if I pressure them to sign without reading the terms. After all, it's there responsibility, not mine." And the person person on the other side will say, "It's not my fault if I'm foreclosed on. Who reads the fine print? Nobody reads the fine print!"
 
  • #34
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
4
THAT is why WWII helped to pull us out: It was a massive federal spending program. Note also that after this massive spending program that propelled us to levels of debt never seen before [122% of GDP], we experienced a long period of growth that made possible the highest standard of living in the world.
Something else happened with World War II, and that is the nation had to coalesce to sustain a coordinated effort to defeat Nazism. In some ways, the US became a Wehrmacht, in order to defeat one. Greater efficiencies and more centralized planning and larger bureaucracy, was the strategy that managed to defeat the Axis fighting on 2 fronts as we were. Our armies were generally better supplied with excess of material.

If there is a lesson perhaps it is not just in spending per se, but maybe in greater bureaucracy and centralization? As opposed to the disparate agendas of the various states?
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Is it greed that caused banks to make loans to people they knew could not afford to pay them back? Or was it Democrats twisting their arms? Mortgages for 100% of the home's value, 125% 2nd mortgages, no down payment. Closing costs rolled in. Bad credit. Too much debt already. Etc., etc. Banks didn't make these toxic loans before Democrats started turning the screws. And they claimed that anyone who opposed this practice just didn't care about poor people.
Beyond the fact that this problem goes way beyond Fannie and Freddie, the biggest problem seems to be the credit default swaps. I guess this was the fault of poor people as well. :rolleyes:

I suppose that Fannie and Freddie were responsible for the people buying $200,000 homes in Sacramento and San Diego for $400,000. I also suppose that they were responsible for the second [investment] home that my sister and her husband bought at hyperinflated prices using creative financing; to the tune of half a million.

The phrase "trickle down economics" is a perfect example of this. Like there are people who's stated position is that gov't should give money to rich people so it will "trickle down" to the rest of us.
Uh, where have you been? That was the claim. Are you old enough to remember this or are you just making it up as you go?

Does it make you feel better if we call it supply-side economics?
 
Last edited:
  • #36
166
1
I enthusiastically supported Reagan, mostly because he promised to shrink the Federal government. I shouldn't have been that stupid. During his first term, the size of the government increased by 25%, and spending increased while revenues dropped in part due to tax-cuts for the rich that were going to "trickle down" and make us all prosperous. What a load of crap! The Democrats could have run a mangy dog against him for the 2nd term, and I would have voted for the dog.
I guess that mangy dog would be Mondale? I voted for that dog as well. :biggrin:
 
  • #37
166
1
Like there are people who's stated position is that gov't should give money to rich people so it will "trickle down" to the rest of us. Yeah, right. Who could believe that's the position of the other side? Delusion? Blinders?
So let's get this straight: you believe tax increases on the rich is theft or stealing, so by that logic a tax decrese should be "giving money to rich people", right?
 
  • #38
166
1
I terminated my relationship with a bank about 10 years back after learning about how they got people (generally older black folks in the south) to re-finance at rates that ballooned rapidly so they could foreclose on them. And my wife and I have not had a loan, nor any interest payments, for about 20 years now. Banks have been sucking gullible people into the real-estate boom promising that their loans will be affordable and that the values of the properties will continue to rise. That's crap!

I'm jealous.....I want to do that as well! As soon as this housing market recovers, I'm gonna sell my house and convert to a life of no credit for sure. Those banks will not get another stinking dime from me after that! :biggrin:
 
  • #39
Al68
Beyond the fact that this problem goes way beyond Fannie and Freddie, the biggest problem seems to be the credit default swaps. I guess this was the fault of poor people as well. :rolleyes:
Obviously Fannie and Freddie were only part of the problem. But they were a big part. And none of this was the fault of poor people, they were the biggest victims.
Al68 said:
The phrase "trickle down economics" is a perfect example of this. Like there are people who's stated position is that gov't should give money to rich people so it will "trickle down" to the rest of us.
Uh, where have you been? That was the claim. Are you old enough to remember this or are you just making it up as you go?

Does it make you feel better if we call it supply-side economics?
Yes, I'm old enough to remember Democrats talking about "trickle down economics" to no end. It was a phrase invented by Democrats to twist and convolute the position of their opposition into one that was very easy to argue against. AKA Strawman argument.
 
  • #40
Al68
So let's get this straight: you believe tax increases on the rich is theft or stealing, so by that logic a tax decrese should be "giving money to rich people", right?
No and no.
 
  • #41
166
1
No and no.

I know this is a rant, but Democrats have rationalized their theft so much that they now have a moral code that actually glorifies their thievery. Their moral code glorifies the act of taking from those "that can afford it" then blaming them for having money left over. Then having the nerve to claim that anyone who opposes their thievery is just taking the side of the rich against the majority. Disgusting and despicable to anyone without that corrupt moral code, but most Americans fall for the hateful propaganda they have been spewing for decades.
Any of that sound familiar? :rolleyes:
 
  • #42
Al68
Al68 said:
I know this is a rant, but Democrats have rationalized their theft so much that they now have a moral code that actually glorifies their thievery. Their moral code glorifies the act of taking from those "that can afford it" then blaming them for having money left over. Then having the nerve to claim that anyone who opposes their thievery is just taking the side of the rich against the majority. Disgusting and despicable to anyone without that corrupt moral code, but most Americans fall for the hateful propaganda they have been spewing for decades.
Any of that sound familiar? :rolleyes:
Yep. Nowhere in there did I say that taxes were necessarily theft. My point was that the tax code can be and is used for theft.
So let's get this straight: you believe tax increases on the rich is theft or stealing, so by that logic a tax decrese should be "giving money to rich people", right?
By that logic I gave you a car yesterday. (since I didn't take yours).
 
  • #43
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
Yes, I'm old enough to remember Democrats talking about "trickle down economics" to no end. It was a phrase invented by Democrats to twist and convolute the position of their opposition into one that was very easy to argue against. AKA Strawman argument.
Apparently you are not old enough to remember the Republican primary, in which George H. W. Bush constantly derided Reagan's plan as "Voodoo Economics" or you have conveniently forgotten that little (months-long, and nightly on the news) detail. Reagan was a tool of the neo-cons and was the final nail in the coffin of the "conservative" wing of the Republican party.
 
  • #44
Al68
Apparently you are not old enough to remember the Republican primary, in which George H. W. Bush constantly derided Reagan's plan as "Voodoo Economics" or you have conveniently forgotten that little (months-long, and nightly on the news) detail. .
Nope, didn't forget. Actually proves my point that it was Reagan's opponents that claimed such things. And you won't hear me giving HW Bush any praise. He acted like a Dem then, and later trying to undo what Reagan did, ie "read my lips".

Of course HW was either proven wrong, or voodoo works, because annual federal tax revenue doubled during the 80's. The exact result he claimed wouldn't happen.
 
  • #45
100
1
Bobby Jindal says that he will reject any stimulus money that is earmarked for extending unemployment benefits because it will cost businesses in his state more money to maintain the extensions when the Federal money is gone.
Obama actually agreed with him on this point.
 
  • #46
100
1
Can you back any of this up with facts? It's the evil Democrats who forced the banks to make stupid loans? Was it the evil Democrats who told the banks to bundle these toxic assets and sell them to investors? There is plenty to dislike about our two-party system, and about the political tactics of the major parties, and demonizing Democrats isn't a sign that you've got much of handle on that. The banks and investment firms have been pumping money into Washington (on both sides) demanding deregulation. They got their way, and the taxpayers take it in the neck while they collect their huge "retention incentives" (not bonuses anymore) and laugh all the way to the (offshore) bank.
both sides are guilty, but yes. i think the bill that specifically legalized gaming (gambling) in the securities markets was passed on the tail end of Clinton's watch.
 

Related Threads on States asserting sovereignty?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
4K
Top