RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everything OR Mia's musings!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everything OR Mia's musings!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everything OR Mia's musings!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 9:33:58 AM

celticlord2112

Posts: 5732
Status: offline

quote:

I did not say abolish it, I said currently it is not working.

The free market is working....where dumbass politicians allow it.

The free market would have straightened out Detroit ages ago.

The free market would have punctured the housing bubble years ago.

The free market would have prevented the credit crunch (simply by not letting things get so damn big in the first place).

The free market is not the problem, nor does it require any "tweaking". What it requires is a chance to operate. To be in fact a free market.

_____________________________

(in reply to MzMia)

Post #: 21

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 9:35:17 AM

Truthiness

Posts: 251
Joined: 11/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

I am thinking that soon the government will be part owner of many if not most
of all major American organizations.

...

I was thinking maybe the government should just take OVER the Big 3.

What is that if not advocating throwing out the free market? Hehe...Government taking over private corporations is the anti-thesis to the free market.

(On another note, the fact that Obama said the Free Market has worked for us, is like the first thing he's said that I agree with and gave me hope that maybe he won't screw things up TOO much.)

< Message edited by Truthiness -- 11/27/2008 9:37:09 AM >

(in reply to MzMia)

Post #: 22

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 9:38:48 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

a better plan IMO would be for the workers to own the businesses they work for by way of shareholdings that cannot be transferred unless the worker leaves the employer, to seek alternative employment (at which time they acquire shares in the new employer) or at retirement (by which time the worker should have an asset worth something, if he/she has taken part in building the business) - such shares being sold back to the company for redistribution to new or existing workers.

this would also give control over executive salaries to the workers, hindering the ridiculous situation we have now, motivate everyone to do their best, give everyone a voice, disenfranchise often nuisance unions replacing them with a we attitude instead of us and them, avoid government interference, and so on.

I cant think of anything much bad in such an idea, perhaps others can?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to MzMia)

Post #: 23

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 9:40:42 AM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

I am thinking that soon the government will be part owner of many if not most
of all major American organizations.

MzMia, I sure as hell hope you're wrong.

Simplifying drastically, we seem to be moving rapidly towards a situation in which there are successful companies and failed ones. The failed companies will have government intervention of some sort (clearly the Paulson/Bush comedy duo has not bothered to write down any rules and seems to have no interest in writing guidelines to spend trillions not does the Legislative Branch have any interest in holding them to any guiidelines or accountability) under which they are given handouts with or without strings, and could possibly be taken over by the government. The successful companies will be called upon to shoulder some or all of the burden of their failed counterparts through taxes or the formation of some other wealth-transferring entity.

The sick part (well, one of them) is that there are very few companies that are so rich and cash flush that they can absorb the burden of shoring up their failed comrades. In other words, the act of assessing the additional amounts to prop up the failures will cause other companies to fail. Domino effect.

Until three months ago, I thought that the Iraq war would stand as Bush's failed legacy. But torpedoing the economy and grafting a Marxist fix onto a capitalistic economy will top it.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to MzMia)

Post #: 24

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 9:46:37 AM

celticlord2112

Posts: 5732
Status: offline

quote:

I cant think of anything much bad in such an idea, perhaps others can?

The prohibition against sale is a sticking point. Some people will rationally (and even prudently) opt to liquidate such assets, finding better uses (in their minds) for the cash obtained thereby. If we wish to leverage the power of private ownership of assets, we have to allow individuals to manage and dispose of those assets according to their own priorities.

However, some form of profit sharing not unlike what you suggest does strike me as a potentially powerful way to motivate workers and spur economic activity.

_____________________________

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 25

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 9:50:51 AM

MzMia

Posts: 5333
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

I am thinking that soon the government will be part owner of many if not most
of all major American organizations.

MzMia, I sure as hell hope you're wrong.

Simplifying drastically, we seem to be moving rapidly towards a situation in which there are successful companies and failed ones. The failed companies will have government intervention of some sort (clearly the Paulson/Bush comedy duo has not bothered to write down any rules and seems to have no interest in writing guidelines to spend trillions not does the Legislative Branch have any interest in holding them to any guiidelines or accountability) under which they are given handouts with or without strings, and could possibly be taken over by the government. The successful companies will be called upon to shoulder some or all of the burden of their failed counterparts through taxes or the formation of some other wealth-transferring entity.

The sick part (well, one of them) is that there are very few companies that are so rich and cash flush that they can absorb the burden of shoring up their failed comrades. In other words, the act of assessing the additional amounts to prop up the failures will cause other companies to fail. Domino effect.

Until three months ago, I thought that the Iraq war would stand as Bush's failed legacy. But torpedoing the economy and grafting a Marxist fix onto a capitalistic economy will top it.

I have a lot of mixed emotions here, I enjoy debating here, because
I LEARN a lot.
Like I have always said, I am not an economist, but you don't have to be
to see that our country is in serious, and I do mean serious trouble.
Again, I am NOT against the free market system, but if it is so damn free, why the
hell did we have to bail out Wall Street to the tune of 700 Billion and now even more,
when we finish with Citigroup?

Either bail out most if not all, or don't bail out any.
Someone please explain what would have happened if we had allowed Wall Street and
the stock market to plummet to the bottom in September?
Why do people have such short memories?

I do know one thing, Obama also feels our economy is in SERIOUS trouble, and he will be making some SERIOUS changes.
Between Wall Street, the housing industry, everything failing, rising unemployment, etc.
I still say the system ain't been working that well lately.

As always, to each their own.
If you think the "free market system" is doing well GLOBALLY and everything is FINE, and the
government should do NOTHING, including bailing out Wall Street, Banks, and Citigroup, the housing industry, extending unemployment benefits, lack of jobs, lack of affordable housing, lack of health care coverage, crumbling infrastructures, did I mention rising unemployment? etc., GREAT!
If you think that the American and the global economy is doing so grand and wonderful, you sure can think that.
If you think we are in serious trouble, {AS I do, and President-elect Obama does also }
Fine!
I am shocked that you did not already see our current economic crisis as part of Bush's legacy? Where have you been the last 16-18 months?
Our country has been spiraling downhill for a long time, are you just NOW seeing it?
I heard the economy and Wall Street are so damn shaky that they need Obama to get on t.v. and say SOMETHING to keep the damn thing from dropping to damn near nothing.
Have a great day!

< Message edited by MzMia -- 11/27/2008 10:14:02 AM >

_____________________________

Namaste'
To Each His/Her Own
"DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt." Mark Twain

What's your favorite fetish?
"My partner's whisper"--bloomswell

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 26

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 9:51:41 AM

UncleNasty

Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

I'm always confused when people blame this on deregulation or the free market.

when have we ever had a free market? and what deregulations caused this problem?

I've never received an answer to either of these questions.

Spot on.

Typically what we get is either limited regulation, or limited adherence to or enforcement of numerous regulation, that appears to be geared to the enrichment of a few.

One handed Uncle Nasty

(in reply to variation30)

Post #: 27

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 9:59:19 AM

UncleNasty

Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

CL, you still think a lot of "deregulation" is a good thing?
Surely you jest.

The government created the housing bubble.

The government magnified the credit crunch.

The government is turning what by rights should be a mild recession into a more severe one.

Government is, as usual, at the heart of the problem.

Remove government, remove the problem.

Which is a whole lot of words to say, yes, I am in favor of less regulation rather than more. Regulation created this mess; how can more regulation possibly fix it?

This begs the question "Who is government?"

It certainly isn't the "people."

My undrestanding is that lobbiests paid by private industry write most of the legislation our congress votes on, and congress does that without even reading the vast majority of that legislation.

One handed Uncle Nasty

(in reply to celticlord2112)

Post #: 28

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 10:07:49 AM

celticlord2112

Posts: 5732
Status: offline

quote:

Someone please explain what would have happened if we had allowed Wall Street and
the stock market to plummet to the bottom in September?

You, me, and boatloads of people would have been able to invest in sound companies at great prices, and would have seen those investments grow fairly rapidly over the next few years.

The financial fuckups would have been relegated to the unemployment line.

Not allowing Wall Street to "plummet" essentially amounts to a guarantee of employment for fools, idiots, and morons.

Let it crash. Let the dumbfucks feel the full force of their failure.

_____________________________

(in reply to MzMia)

Post #: 29

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 10:10:21 AM

UncleNasty

Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

Mia,

Numerous sources I've seen in the past week are stating the amount of all the "bailouts" combined as being currently $7,760,000,000,000. For those with poor vision $7.76 trillion.

One handed Uncle Nasty

(in reply to UncleNasty)

Post #: 30

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 1:51:39 PM

Truthiness

Posts: 251
Joined: 11/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia
Someone please explain what would have happened if we had allowed Wall Street and
the stock market to plummet to the bottom in September?

"What the government is doing now -- and this new program is trying to prop up prices. You want the price structure to adjust. You want the price of houses to go down. You don't want to fix the price of housing. You can't price-fix. We've had too much of that.
"We need a market economy. We need to believe in ourselves. We need to believe and understand how the economy got us -- how the government got us into this mess. And believe me, it wouldn't be that tough. It would be a bad year. But, this way, it's going to be a bad decade."

- Ron Paul.

In short, if we hadn't bailed Wall Street out, we'd recover a lot quicker than we're likely to with all the bailouts. These bailouts are just trying to prop up a bad situation until it can't be propped up anymore, and will be worse once it finally breaks.

quote:

Again, I am NOT against the free market system, but if it is so damn free, why the
hell did we have to bail out Wall Street to the tune of 700 Billion and now even more,
when we finish with Citigroup?

1) We didn't *have* to bail Wall Street out. I still think that was the dumbest move that coulda been done in response to the situation.
2) Interference in the free market system caused the problem, not the free market itself.

(in reply to MzMia)

Post #: 31

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 7:33:47 PM

corysub

Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia
Someone please explain what would have happened if we had allowed Wall Street and
the stock market to plummet to the bottom in September?

"What the government is doing now -- and this new program is trying to prop up prices. You want the price structure to adjust. You want the price of houses to go down. You don't want to fix the price of housing. You can't price-fix. We've had too much of that.
"We need a market economy. We need to believe in ourselves. We need to believe and understand how the economy got us -- how the government got us into this mess. And believe me, it wouldn't be that tough. It would be a bad year. But, this way, it's going to be a bad decade."

- Ron Paul.

In short, if we hadn't bailed Wall Street out, we'd recover a lot quicker than we're likely to with all the bailouts. These bailouts are just trying to prop up a bad situation until it can't be propped up anymore, and will be worse once it finally breaks.

quote:

Again, I am NOT against the free market system, but if it is so damn free, why the
hell did we have to bail out Wall Street to the tune of 700 Billion and now even more,
when we finish with Citigroup?

1) We didn't *have* to bail Wall Street out. I still think that was the dumbest move that coulda been done in response to the situation.
2) Interference in the free market system caused the problem, not the free market itself.

I agree with your last comment totally that government "interference" in the free market caused the problems we face today...not the free market itself. It goes back decades to the pressure brought on banks by Congress led by Barney Frank to put every American in a house because they deserved it! Banks were taken to court by oganizations such as ACORN and counciled by attorneys like Barack Obama to eliminate all requirments for a loan to benefit inner city redevelopment. In no time these lax rules migrated to the suburbs and across the country. FannieMae and Freddie Mac lobbied with tens of millions of dollars to change the rules on what mortgages they could put in their portfolio's...and the game was on as banks were actually encouraged to package these deals and sell them to FannieMae and institutions around the world. Credit was made too easy, and people were getting into houses with no money but paying about what it would cost to rent. AND THAN IT ALL BLEW UP AS INTEREST RATES ROSE!

Everyone is getting the blame...greedy Wall Street...greedy Bankers, greedy brokers, stupid people....but how come our dear politicians slide out from under this mess. I guess people in this country are just as stupid picking politicians as some were in buying houses....both we can't afford.

(in reply to Truthiness)

Post #: 32

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/27/2008 8:28:26 PM

MzMia

Posts: 5333
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

I am in the middle on this one.
I certainly see why we should NOT have bailed WallStreet and
Citigroup out.
The question is, at this point can we stop the bail outs?

I can tell you this, if we don't bail out Detroit, WallStreet will start
slipping again, and we will bail them out again.

With the bailouts, which have ALREADY started there will be more government
involvement.

< Message edited by MzMia -- 11/27/2008 8:40:48 PM >

_____________________________

Namaste'
To Each His/Her Own
"DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt." Mark Twain

What's your favorite fetish?
"My partner's whisper"--bloomswell

(in reply to Truthiness)

Post #: 33

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/28/2008 3:39:15 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

I cant think of anything much bad in such an idea, perhaps others can?

The prohibition against sale is a sticking point. Some people will rationally (and even prudently) opt to liquidate such assets, finding better uses (in their minds) for the cash obtained thereby. If we wish to leverage the power of private ownership of assets, we have to allow individuals to manage and dispose of those assets according to their own priorities.

However, some form of profit sharing not unlike what you suggest does strike me as a potentially powerful way to motivate workers and spur economic activity.

The prevention of the transfer of shares in this way is one of the key factors that commend the entire scheme in my view - this way we avoid much of the problems foisted upon the economy by those who essentially shuffle papers and thereby have the power and control over the entire socio-economic system.

And it is not an entire prohibition after all - one can dispose of one's shares if one wishes to leave the employer, but by way of it being a private rather than public company, those shares are acquired either by the employer or by the other employees (shareholders) given a simple shareholders' agreement being in place.

So perhaps the quick way to produce my solution would be to ban public companies and make all companies private, their shareholders being the employees. This may raise questions about how companies might raise finance - traditionally done by public companies by way of share issues that anyone can purchase.

Failing other security in terms of bank financing, we would perhaps then have to turn to raising finance by way of personal guarantees issued jointly and severally by the employees/shareholders. Naturally this is something that many will not wish to do, but then one would have to ask whether they are truly committed to the company and willing to give their all for their success - or whether they are rather one of the indolent clock watchers with which many companies are lumbered?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to celticlord2112)

Post #: 34

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/28/2008 5:54:22 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

because the "free economy" is not fucking working.

If you take a moment to read up on the origins of the housing bubble and the credit crunch, what wasn't "fucking working" was the regulatory oversight government was supposed to be providing.

The marketplace does work. If the government weren't so quick to subsidize failure and give the fuckups a pass every damn time, the housing bubble would never have happened, and the credit crunch, if it happened at all, would have been considerably smaller.

Government compounds economic misery, every time.

This situation isn't about govt., it is about how capitalism works. It works by creating a plutocracy where law is purchased and then lobbying (investing full time in govt.) to have these regulatory offices look away when the wolves are in the chicken coup.

ALL 50 states attorney's general tried to stop this but Bush and his cronies invoked the 1863 Office of comptroller law to keep them off their thieves. Most all the regulators knew what was going on but the policy paid for had the feds back off.

So the capitalists can go about creating various forms of 'paper-speculation.' The govt. will stand aside while wall street sells this junk, make $billions in earnings and bonuses all the while knowing full well that they can go to the bankers in govt. (Obama haas already shown he will have the same) and make the taxpayer buck-up (pay for) their greed and venality.

Yes, the speculators and govt. are both the problem but they are supposed to be the problem and they both lock us all in via our taxes into the modern vanilla slavery...debt.

If govt. compounded the situation, it is because govt. is supposed to compound the situation, that's what it is paid to do.

If you think we are having fun now...just wait until the derivatives (another attempt at investment insurance) go belly-up. The capitalist is now earning profit and bonuses while Govt. is now supposed to compound the situation your word, the situation with derivatives. There will be another round of very 'profitable' multi-trillion dollar socialism for the bankers.

Kinkroids...now THAT will be a party and one humongous multi-trillion (100's of trillions) bailout...ALL by design by our great capitalists and allowed by our great NON-regulators. Happy now ?

(in reply to celticlord2112)

Post #: 35

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/28/2008 6:07:42 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

I am in the middle on this one.
I certainly see why we should NOT have bailed WallStreet and
Citigroup out.
The question is, at this point can we stop the bail outs?

I can tell you this, if we don't bail out Detroit, WallStreet will start
slipping again, and we will bail them out again.

With the bailouts, which have ALREADY started there will be more government
involvement.

Mia, we can't stop any of the bailouts...the plutocracy is in charge. The American people were 70-80% AGAINST all of these bailouts YET...here we are. What does that tell you ? It tells me that the unregulated, unfettered paper-speculators and capitalists will still stay or even get rich and richer...ALL at our expense when it goes belly-up. It's called a plutocracy.

A plutocracy exists to serve money and the investor class so they can make and KEEP their billions. It does NOT serve the people it keeps them/us in debt and if necessary...more debt.

Our version of capitalism is demonstrating that it is obvious, prima facie rampant immorality.

(in reply to MzMia)

Post #: 36

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/28/2008 6:15:42 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

I'm always confused when people blame this on deregulation or the free market.

when have we ever had a free market? and what deregulations caused this problem?

I've never received an answer to either of these questions.

Read up dude. We are NOT supposed to have a free-market. Free market/capitalism is an oxymoron.

There was a legal firewall preventing some 'banking' businesses from venturing into other financial aspects that was removed so EVERBODY could speculate on some variety of 'shit' paper. They were allowed to form securities (paper) and borrow 100's of billions to speculate for even more profits and bonuses.

(in reply to variation30)

Post #: 37

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/28/2008 6:39:51 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

NO MORE Quotes. Get a fucking god damned GRIP people.

There NEVER was a free-market since the late 19th century culminating and the capitalist market in the formation of the fed in 1913.

The whole concept of a free-market is a capitalists ruse (lie) to have you believe there is one.

WE have a capitalist speculation market in PAPER.

WE ARE FORCED to bailout these thieves because govt. is made up of...you guessed it...capitalists.

WE HAVE a PLUTOCRACY...govt. of money, by money and for money.

Blaming dems or repubs is supposed to have us divided while we go what ? $20 trillion, $50 trillion in debt.

(NOTE: Once and for all, almost NONE of these mortgages were CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) mortgages and had nothing whatsoever to do with that mortgage program. THIS is ALL on wall street, their speculation in paper and their hirlings in govt.)

What we see now IS CAPITALISM, the OWNERSHIP of govt. That's how it is that 70% to 80% of this country was AGAINST this bailout YET we are FORCED to go further into debt so wall street and the bankers can STAY RICH.

How do you like this new 21st century version of slavery (debt) ? Isn't as good as you thought hey ?

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 11/28/2008 7:33:11 AM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 38

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/28/2008 7:36:42 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia
Someone please explain what would have happened if we had allowed Wall Street and
the stock market to plummet to the bottom in September?

"What the government is doing now -- and this new program is trying to prop up prices. You want the price structure to adjust. You want the price of houses to go down. You don't want to fix the price of housing. You can't price-fix. We've had too much of that.
"We need a market economy. We need to believe in ourselves. We need to believe and understand how the economy got us -- how the government got us into this mess. And believe me, it wouldn't be that tough. It would be a bad year. But, this way, it's going to be a bad decade."

- Ron Paul.

In short, if we hadn't bailed Wall Street out, we'd recover a lot quicker than we're likely to with all the bailouts. These bailouts are just trying to prop up a bad situation until it can't be propped up anymore, and will be worse once it finally breaks.

quote:

Again, I am NOT against the free market system, but if it is so damn free, why the
hell did we have to bail out Wall Street to the tune of 700 Billion and now even more,
when we finish with Citigroup?

1) We didn't *have* to bail Wall Street out. I still think that was the dumbest move that coulda been done in response to the situation.
2) Interference in the free market system caused the problem, not the free market itself.

I agree with your last comment totally that government "interference" in the free market caused the problems we face today...not the free market itself. It goes back decades to the pressure brought on banks by Congress led by Barney Frank to put every American in a house because they deserved it! Banks were taken to court by oganizations such as ACORN and counciled by attorneys like Barack Obama to eliminate all requirments for a loan to benefit inner city redevelopment. In no time these lax rules migrated to the suburbs and across the country. FannieMae and Freddie Mac lobbied with tens of millions of dollars to change the rules on what mortgages they could put in their portfolio's...and the game was on as banks were actually encouraged to package these deals and sell them to FannieMae and institutions around the world. Credit was made too easy, and people were getting into houses with no money but paying about what it would cost to rent. AND THAN IT ALL BLEW UP AS INTEREST RATES ROSE!

Everyone is getting the blame...greedy Wall Street...greedy Bankers, greedy brokers, stupid people....but how come our dear politicians slide out from under this mess. I guess people in this country are just as stupid picking politicians as some were in buying houses....both we can't afford.

One more quote...this is more unmitigated bullshit.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 11/28/2008 7:42:16 AM >

(in reply to corysub)

Post #: 39

RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everyth... - 11/28/2008 9:11:47 AM

UncleNasty

Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

"Blaming dems or repubs is supposed to have us divided while we go what ? $20 trillion, $50 trillion in debt.

(NOTE: Once and for all, almost NONE of these mortgages were CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) mortgages and had nothing whatsoever to do with that mortgage program. THIS is ALL on wall street, their speculation in paper and their hirlings in govt.)"

Lots of truth in the two above statements MRodgers, at least in my opinion.

A divided populace will not see their battles against each other as being the distraction from the truth it is intended to be. I've recognized that and made attempts at persuading others for a number of years. So many are so retrenched and passionate in their erroneous "Us v Them" dichotomy .... Well, effective identification of the hidden third party that is the real puppet master and enemy never quite happens.

Transactional analysis was a popular model of therapy in the late 60's, 70's and 80's and birthed a number of books by authors like Harris and Berne that were intended more for laymen. "I'm OK You're OK" and "Games People Play" were among the more recognized titles. I don't recall which book, be it one of those two or another during the same period, I found this gem in but there was a "game" identified, labled and named "Lets you and him fight." Doubtful any further commentary on this is needed for folks with open minds to understand my intentions and meaning here.

Mortgages being the cause of this entire economic melt down, and usually with the attitude of it being a combination of far left legislation and deadbeat borrowers, is also far off the mark of truth. Once exposed to the MSM coverage with those "stories" being the truth it is very difficult to disuade those that believe in those false explanations.

Question: How many of you that have fallen in step with the MSM explanations of it being the "fault" of the $17.00/hr illegal alien, hispanic, land scaping, dead beat borrower, actually know one or more of them?

The truths, as my reseach has led me to believe (dare I say know) is much different. But again the collective "we" have effectively been distracted from it and once again are fighting amongst ourselves, all to the benefit of that other guy standing outside the circle saying "Hey, lets you and him fight."

The bailouts, yes plural, are now being totaled by numerous sources of information as 7.76 trillion dollars. A factor of 11 larger than the one, TARP, that got all the media attention. And we aren't done yet.

So, how tight does the noose around your neck have to be before you realize you're being hanged?

One handed Uncle Nasty

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Will the government soon own part of almost everything OR Mia's musings!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109