RE: Which America?

RE: Which America? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

subtee -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 12:33:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: divi subteebaby... I find what works better than that is to show some boobs and gash.. quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub You mean all I had to do was show a little boobage instead of trying to use big words, impeccable logic, some wit and humor and an occasional well placed insult? Why didn't somebody tell me this 9 pages ago? Could you both please send me the b & g, so I can "see how it's done?"

Mercnbeth -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 1:00:52 PM)
quote: People are in an anti-government mood (It was Reagan who preached "the problem is government"), and they've been conditioned to believe all spending is bad and all tax cuts are beneficial, regardless of the situation. Politicians who know better also know those people vote, so we have a series of short term decisions for political and popular expediency leading to long term disaster. I don't think you need to keep Reagan as the poster boy. The common voters today doesn't know who he was except as a character for both polarity positions. I'd agree that there is a large and growing segment of people who are anti-government. The poster isn't of a person, not even Obama from my perspective who remains personally popular, it is 'government'. The squeeze is felt by the middle; the un or under employed, the working in private sector middle class who hasn't gotten a raise in 4 years. They don't see relief coming from either party, or any individual politician. They focus their anger on those who they belief are encumbering their efforts to succeed. That is a faceless enemy; a factor used by the 'teabaggers' who then try to form a coalition of the disenfranchised. Of course, my thought process will always be based upon business acumen but from that perspective you can't convince any workforce to work harder and sacrifice more while giving more to others perceived, if not in reality, getting entitlements the workers don't have access. I know you hate the reference I continually make to rewarding failure; but considering human nature, a poor bastard who borrowed from his/her 401k or parents, or took on a 2nd or 3rd job to not default on his/her mortgage has a legitimate reason to be pissed when his/her tax money is used to make payments for someone who didn't make a similar effort, or worse - a Bank getting his tax money as a bail out payment. I focus, and long for a broad stoke entitlement cuts because we need to focus and make life easier for the those being squeezed by more taxes who at the same time are being told by their employers, we have to cut salary to fund the latest corporate allocation of anticipated losses due to the 4 year forthcoming health care mandate. I don't think many want to, or are willing to listen and learn from lessons at this point. Perhaps last January the mood was different but now most see any representation of change as a lie and don't want to hear rhetoric. Avoiding my own recommendation, if Reagan accomplished anything he made the people feel better by making them think they were better off than they were. There were the same percentage of opportunists, such as myself, but it seemed there was enough for all. Meanwhile, he fought and won some very visual if not meaningful battles; 'rescuing' medical students in Granada, and standing 'firm' against the air traffic controllers union. He 'appeared' the leader. More important for many he appeared to be 180 degrees from his predecessor. He gained credibility which generated confidence, which generated positive economic stimulus from the private sector. He also had one luxury, as I stated in previous posts on the subject, that Obama didn't have; the ability to reduce the Fed borrowing rate from historically high levels which put a lot of money on the streets formerly on the sidelines earning 16% invested in government Treasury bonds. Frankly I don't know, or see, a similar opportunity for this Administration, nor do I believe they seek one. I see a lot of academic theory being applied with the results, and reaction by the citizens, not anticipated. Then there are the soon to be exploited outright mistakes; such as the President's representation of the timing of the critical pre-existing exclusion clause of the Health Care Law. Do you think Reagan would have been allowed to make such a mistake by his handlers the day after getting the keystone Law passed of his administration? I see Obama's image status, and disconnect with his basic campaign commitments as a major contributors to many of the issues, problems, and increasing polarization we are experiencing. I agree that the "choices are harder now". I don't see any relief coming from the revenue side without major resistance. That leaves cuts, big ones and not, as may have been the case pre financial industry collapse and bail out, "simple small adjustments". We need a splash which lets the people see that those working for the government are not immunized to what everyone else is experiencing. It would serve not only the practical side of the issue, but it would also address the emotional and mental angst being felt by the general population.

Thadius -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 1:01:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 You know, the sixties and seventies werent that bad, if you ignore the racism, civil unrest, riots, war, war protests, the shooting of students at kent state.... If you ignore all that those times were a time of innocence and ignorance. You know the funnier part of the story is that all of those folks that were protesting in the '60s and '70s are now controlling the institutions that they railed against, and are pushing for even more infringements than they were willing to accept. Peace, love, hope.

domiguy -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 1:13:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The one party what was "forced" were the Banks/Mortgages lenders by Barnie Frank and his committee; unless you want to revise that history. His position was that every citizen should have get a house and mortgage even if they couldn't afford to pay for it. They required, under penalty, that the financial institutions lend with government guarantees. Now my position was to let those financial institutions fail and not be bailed out, but the government, and this Administration decided not to; more than likely because it would come out that their policies were the primary contributory force. However that's an opinion and not fact. You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy...Thank God you were born the right skin color or I highly doubt you would have prospered. Anywhoooo, when you lie it is rather unbecoming....who exactly was "forced"? The banks and independent mortgage companies were forced to sell ARMs and collect virtually no money down on properties sold to substandard buyers? Much of the problems are specifically due to the lending practices of independent mortgage companies. The banks/ independent mortgage companies thought they had found the pot of gold...A large scale title and loan store. Where the poor would pay through the nose for a sub prime mortgage. Because you do not possess the ability to get your news from more than one or possibly two sources you believed Ron Paul or whatever talking head you value when they threw the entire blame for the mess at the feet of the CRA...This, again, has been widely proven to not be the case at all. The CRA did not tell anyone to go out and make shitty loans. But you wouldn't know that because it is outside of your sphere of reference. So you amble on down the path of ignorance. It's what you know and what I have come to expect from your posts. It has generally been accepted that the banks/independent mortgage companies were the ones that took advantage of the system and that any recommendations made by the CRA were not responsible for the actions that were ultimately taken by the institutions that provided the mortgages. So if anyone is revising history ...IT IS YOU!!!!It was a system that largely went unchecked and developed some fairly bad habits in their pursuit of the all mighty dollar. It is a system that took advantage of the public on both ends. first in the manufacturing of the loans and second in the manner they repackaged them as (AAA). So admit that you lied...And that you will try to be more honest in the future. It is the proper course for a man of dignity. The Obama administration bore none of the responsibility...especially when you consider how long they had filled the office...But you feel that they bailed out the financial institutions because they were partly responsible for their demise? How could you have reached such an opinion? You really need to recheck your thought process. I feel it has been irreparably damaged. This is not an opinion...this is widely held as fact. Why the institutions were bailed out was that it was feared that if left to fail the fallout would have been devastating. You are not a very honest person. Repent.

brainiacsub -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 1:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy [...]It was a system that largely went unchecked and developed some fairly bad habits in their pursuit of the all mighty dollar. It is a system that took advantage of the public on both ends. first in the manufacturing of the loans and second in the manner they repackaged them as (AAA). [...] Merc, I don't want to appear as if I have my head up domi's ass here, but he has made a very good point that should not go unrecognized. If every person who received a subprime loan had all defaulted at once, do you really think we would have had a domestic and international fiscal crisis of the magnitude that we experienced last fall? I agree, as do most economists, that giving loans to people who weren't credit worthy was a big failure of both common sense and regulation, but the real crisis was the selling and repackaging of these mortgages as AAA rated securitities. The derivatives market was highly unregulated and was a disaster waiting to happen. In the late 90's the Chair of the Commodities Future Trading Commission - Brooks Born - testified in front of a Republican Congress warning that the manufacture and trading of these derivatives could collapse the entire financial system given the right triggers. Everyone scoffed at her and Greenspan and others engaged in a very overt campaign to silence her. The trigger of which she had predicted was the massive defaults of the subprime loans. I watched Greenspans testimony on the hill during the bailout hearings and he admitted that his worldview of market economics was very wrong. The Republicans and Libertarians hate to hear this stuff, but it cannot be ignored. I think you are an intelligent man and I like much of what you say. After all, my background is also as a business executive, but you have to be more willing to consider both sides of this issue, not just the ones that appeal to you ideologically.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 1:56:00 PM)
quote: You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy...Thank God you were born the right skin color or I highly doubt you would have prospered. I share the exact same skin color genetic ancestry as President Obama but I appreciate your position regarding me, and I guess the President, having prospered despite that fact. quote: Anywhoooo, when you lie it is rather unbecoming....who exactly was "forced"? The banks and independent mortgage companies were forced to sell ARMs and collect virtually no money down on properties sold to substandard buyers? Much of the problems are specifically due to the lending practices of independent mortgage companies. Working first hand at a high level in the banking industry, I have first hand knowledge that banks were being threatened with sanction and penalties if they didn't "relax" their standards regarding loan qualifications. You are correct however, that many did not solicit those direct, but employed brokers and other third parties, to provide them. It is my opinion that they didn't want to see those files. They were traded between financial entities like I traded baseball cards in my youth. Not one looked at the detail, only the bulk product being sold and yield. The theory being, no matter what everyone moves up and/or sells within 3 years. So what if there was a 10% incremental interest increase in 5 years, or a balloon payment in 4? When that's ready to hit, the borrower will move, or re-finance. It actually played out that way for a number of years, and the scheme worked perfectly, and everyone including the borrower/owner loved it, right up until it failed miserably. quote: Because you do not possess the ability to get your news from more than one or possibly two sources you believed Ron Paul or whatever talking head you value when they threw the entire blame for the mess at the feet of the CRA...This, again, has been widely proven to not be the case at all. The CRA did not tell anyone to go out and make shitty loans. I listen to sports radio during the day. I read at least 10 papers, starting with the three major New York newspapers, and numerous blogs - the majority of which representing political and philosophical positions opposed to mine. How else can I test, and or confirm, my position. I hate to read something and 'head-bob'. I don't learn anything and feel confirming what I already believe is a waste of time. I wasn't even aware that Ron Paul held the same belief regarding the CRA, because I determined a long time ago - he was as irrelevant as Ross Perot as a candidate or source of good ideas. quote: It was a system that largely went unchecked and developed some fairly bad habits in their pursuit of the all mighty dollar. It is a system that took advantage of the public on both ends. first in the manufacturing of the loans and second in the manner they repackaged them as (AAA). Asked for my position on this opinion I would agree. However, knowing what I do, these risks did qualify as AAA right up to the minute they didn't. It was a scheme built on a house of cards, but the value of the underlying collateral, which was always pointed to as being the reason why this was a good idea by Barney Frank and the CRA, was never challenged until it fell apart. Until then, everyone was happy, the banks, the CRA, and most important the people buying, and selling the houses who 'moved up' every couple of years. Also, as you may or may not know, it wasn't even the collateral that caused the collapse it was the performance insurance placed (by AIG) on the collateral. Their actuary based the rate on historical occurrence of default which considered the long established banking loan guidelines concerning DP and income requirements. When those were compromised, blame whoever you want it doesn't change the result, claims started to occur at much higher levels than predicted by the actuarial tables. As a consequence, the performance insurance began to dry up, which resulted in the loan availability drying up, which resulted in people not being able to 'upgrade' every few years, which lowered the existing property values. The snowball continued to build upon itself as it went down hill ultimately crashing the economy. That's history, not a lie, and not revised or skewed to make any complicit party more culpable than any other. If it makes you feel better I'll go further - like most failures - it had 'good intent'. quote: The Obama administration bore none of the responsibility...especially when you consider how long they had filled the office...But you feel that they bailed out the financial institutions because they were partly responsible for their demise? How could you have reached such an opinion? You really need to recheck your thought process. I feel it has been irreparably damaged. As a function of my antiquated mentality, I believe that the person in power and in charge holds responsibility and should be held accountable. I'd point to the Bush Stimulus II package implemented in this Administrations first month in power to substantiate my position regarding Obama. I won't bother to assign 'blame' but if he had taken the time to get more information perhaps he would have come to a different decision on how to use the money and mandate he had coming into the job. quote: This is not an opinion...this is widely held as fact. Why the institutions were bailed out was that it was feared that if left to fail the fallout would have been devastating. When getting to this point of debate on this issue, and it's occurred often not only on CM but first hand conversation, I say we'll have to agree to disagree. "Fear" is the most valuable commodity a politician can have to facilitate an agenda. Whether that was the case or not, is again subject to debate. The fact that this Administration followed the example of their predecessor to use that fear is not up for discussion. Whether that fear was misplaced or not - is problematic. There is no way I can represent 100% accurately what would have occurred if Obama did not support and fund Bush Stimulus II, but I can speculate based on my experience. Those struggling companies, and/or corporations would have been bought and assumed by those who didn't participate, or were not so bad off. Not, as in the case of Bank of America, who was forced, or coerced depending on your political perspective, to buy a mortgage company at par value; but as a distressed entity. The 'market' would have obtained it's actual level and value, whatever it was. DG - I can't prove a negative, however, if you say we would be "worse off" and I don't see how; that represents opinion and not, as in the case of what happened with the CRA, Barry Frank, and the Financial Industry, a matter of pragmatic fact. We'll have to agree to disagree; while both of us make decisions based upon today's reality instead of speculating on what would have, or could have, been.

mnottertail -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 1:58:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I share the exact same ancestry as President Obama but I appreciate your position regarding me, and I guess the President, having prospered despite that fact. You were born in Kenya and faked your birth certificate? Fascinating. I thought he would be the only one. Ron

Mercnbeth -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I share the exact same ancestry as President Obama but I appreciate your position regarding me, and I guess the President, having prospered despite that fact. You were born in Kenya and faked your birth certificate? Fascinating. I thought he would be the only one.Ron Now THAT's FUNNY!

kittinSol -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:08:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I share the exact same ancestry as President Obama but I appreciate your position regarding me, and I guess the President, having prospered despite that fact. Obama can apply for Italian citizenship? What a scoop! I bet the Lipton Yellows are gonna lap that shit up like it's Sarah Palin's snail trail.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:11:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I share the exact same ancestry as President Obama but I appreciate your position regarding me, and I guess the President, having prospered despite that fact. Obama can apply for Italian citizenship? What a scoop! I bet the Lipton Yellows are gonna lap that shit up like it's Sarah Palin's snail trail. No - However I guess in his case - he can do the same thing but have Kenya as a potential relocation target. Hows that additional research coming for me?

kittinSol -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:17:48 PM)
Ah, I see. So you were making shit up again. How surprising.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:26:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Ah, I see. So you were making shit up again. What are you talking about? - and why aren't you working on getting me more information about Italy! Hurry - I'm heading there in less than 60 days!

kittinSol -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:36:03 PM)
Tuscany off-season is the best. I hope you choke on a truffle :-) . That is all.

Real0ne -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:43:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Working first hand at a high level in the banking industry, I have first hand knowledge that banks were being threatened with sanction and penalties if they didn't "relax" their standards regarding loan qualifications. any direct involvement with securities, the dtc or frb? If yes there would be a couple things I would not mind picking your brain on the other side.

popeye1250 -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:44:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 You know, the sixties and seventies werent that bad, if you ignore the racism, civil unrest, riots, war, war protests, the shooting of students at kent state.... If you ignore all that those times were a time of innocence and ignorance. You know the funnier part of the story is that all of those folks that were protesting in the '60s and '70s are now controlling the institutions that they railed against, and are pushing for even more infringements than they were willing to accept. Peace, love, hope. Thad, I remember it well. They were protesting "The Man" now THEY are "The Man!" lol Oh sure, I really "need" the govt deciding what type of vehicles I drive! "They" still haven't learned their lesson, govt is there to "serve" The People, not the other way around!

Mercnbeth -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:46:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Tuscany off-season is the best. I hope you choke on a truffle :-) . That is all. Wait wait - the chocolate kind or fungus? You haven't lived until you've experienced a 'white truffle soup' (In season - of course!) that they make at a little restaurant I know on Capri. PS - Tuscany is overpriced & overrated. The coast area between Positano and a bit north of Sorrento - now that's living!! Back at 'ya :-) .

Real0ne -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 2:54:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Bottom line as far as I'm concerned..if you sit around longing for the good old days of pre-1965 America you are either an avowed racist or in the closet over it.No thinking person can long for those days without acknowledging what was the major issue of the times....this was certainly not America's golden age,we were or should have been embarrassed by the sight of water hoses and German shepherds being turned loose on a particular segment of our society. While nominally fighting a war for freedom and democracy in South East Asia ,black Americans were treated as second class citizens at home and simultaneously being drafted into that sham war.Dying for a country which thought them "less than" If this is what you long for....than all other issues are just so much smoke and mirrors,mere window dressing...what you really want is your own water fountain....you just don't have the balls to ask for it! in my case its 1791 circa. When people talk about going back it usually refers to the rights. allodial title disappeared in 1913 and cast in concrete in 1933. (That means you cant own property btw). In as much as the republic the founders contracted well it took a huge hit in 1812 when they burned down the whitehouse and stripped out the original 13th amendment that basically banned all "attorneys" (not lawyers) from holding an office and replaced it with no slavery. That was the turning point and the 14th was the beginning of the dual government under the corporate constitution. Lincoln cited there were 4 constitutions in his time. Anyway people who want to go back dont usually know how far they are talking about that fits the way they want to live and its usually pre lincoln. That is not say go backwards in social evolution but retain the way law was done back then.

kittinSol -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 3:38:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Tuscany off-season is the best. I hope you choke on a truffle :-) . Wait wait - the chocolate kind or fungus? How inauthentic of you to even ask. I'm talking about the kind of truffles that are discovered by pigs and dogs and that are worth a lot of dosh. Chocolate truffles. In Tuscany. Tsk tsk.

Raiikun -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 4:14:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Chocolate truffles. In Tuscany. Tsk tsk. Doesn't sound like they're in (or going to) Tuscany. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth PS - Tuscany is overpriced & overrated. The coast area between Positano and a bit north of Sorrento - now that's living!! Just sayin' ;) That said, there is a chocolate manufacturing place in Tuscany called Amedei...that does in fact make chocolate truffles. quote: I'm talking about the kind of truffles that are discovered by pigs and dogs and that are worth a lot of dosh. And funny you should say that, since Amedei is known (inaccurately, but still known!) as the makers of the world's most expensive chocolate. ;)

Mercnbeth -> RE: Which America? (3/31/2010 4:22:35 PM)
quote: How inauthentic of you to even ask. I'm talking about the kind of truffles that are discovered by pigs and dogs and that are worth a lot of dosh. Chocolate truffles. In Tuscany. Tsk tsk. A total fraud I am - however, people never seem to believe me when I am honest and disclose that I live in my elderly parents basement with my 375 pound bald, boyfriend 'bob' who plays the role of 'beth' for posting on this and other sites. Sometimes bob takes on a persona from Canada with a dead wife who he enjoys pounding nails into, but after I lock him in the dark pit for a few days - he clears his head, and is back to being my beth. Actually, as an update, only one of my parents is still alive, but I keep the body here and haven't had the funeral so I can still cash the social security checks. That reminds me - I either need to get a freezer or more air freshener before the humid Jersey summer! In truth, I've never claimed to be anything other than a crass, obnoxious, arrogant, (I think there is even a reference of that label applied to me on this thread!) cretin - feel free to get confirmation direct confirmation from bob - I mean beth. I don't know nothing about truffles - I am a simple boy from NJ of mixed ancestry just trying to scrape by....pass some more of those Dollar Store Cheeto's bob!

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625