• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group[W:157]

Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Socialists believe that they are that way because they care about people, but their dogmas always interfere with other people's freedoms and rights.

particularly the right to have enough to eat and a decent home to live in.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Socialists believe that they are that way because they care about people, but their dogmas always interfere with other people's freedoms and rights.

Its one of the tragedies of socialism. Too bad they never seem to learn.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Its one of the tragedies of socialism. Too bad they never seem to learn.

And it appears they never will. Each time they try it they feel that this time it will work, despite its history of failure.

Socialists are probably the stupidest people to walk freely among us.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

And it appears they never will. Each time they try it they feel that this time it will work, despite its history of failure.

Socialists are probably the stupidest people to walk freely among us.

Agreed.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

How are you a "libertarian"? How is the state confiscating and redistributing wealth in any way consistent with libertarianism?

I'm a pragmatist.

Political labels are notoriously inaccurate and misleading.

Considering that under our present system confiscation of wealth and redistributing it to corporations and banks, such as we saw with TARP and other programs, is wrong.

If it must be redistributed, I would rather it be returned to the people.

I would rather it not be redistributed at all, but if the govt is going to do that, it's more appropriate that the people get it, not the mismanaged banks and crooks on Wall Street.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Is that an idea limited to socialists?

American Dream Slipping as Homeownership at 18-Year Low - Bloomberg
FASTSTATS - Overweight Prevalence

More government programs and home ownership is down. Meanwhile, Americans certainly have enough to eat.

I'm not sure that anyone could make a cause and effect link between the government programs that have been enacted over the years and home ownership being down currently.

Let the government take over the building industry, and then you'll see a difference.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

I'm not sure that anyone could make a cause and effect link between the government programs that have been enacted over the years and home ownership being down currently.

Let the government take over the building industry, and then you'll see a difference.

We can't ignore the involvement of government involvement through Fanny Mae and other government regulations and organizations in the housing industry since 1968, nor the corruption and graft with.

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lawmakers slam Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac CEOs over pay and bonuses - latimes.com

It inevitably turns out this way.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

I'm a pragmatist.

Political labels are notoriously inaccurate and misleading.

Considering that under our present system confiscation of wealth and redistributing it to corporations and banks, such as we saw with TARP and other programs, is wrong.

If it must be redistributed, I would rather it be returned to the people.

I would rather it not be redistributed at all, but if the govt is going to do that, it's more appropriate that the people get it, not the mismanaged banks and crooks on Wall Street.

Redistributing wealth "to the people" is another political scam designed for those who really believe that the playing field is going to be leveled and that the government will do it.

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed".-Adolf Hitler

A mindless slogan like "Hope and Change", which is the slogan of all politicians, demonstrated that idea perfectly, and the American electorate bought into it twice.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

We can't ignore the involvement of government involvement through Fanny Mae and other government regulations and organizations in the housing industry since 1968, nor the corruption and graft with.

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lawmakers slam Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac CEOs over pay and bonuses - latimes.com

It inevitably turns out this way.

Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac didn't build houses, didn't sell houses, don't represent a take over of the housing industry. All they did was to guarantee mortgages and make it easier for people to buy houses. Those two programs have been around a very long time. I bought my first house with a Fanny Mae loan back in '69.

The link between those two programs and the housing crash seems to me to be a bit tenuous to say the least.

Again: Government programs does not equal socialism.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac didn't build houses, didn't sell houses, don't represent a take over of the housing industry. All they did was to guarantee mortgages and make it easier for people to buy houses. Those two programs have been around a very long time. I bought my first house with a Fanny Mae loan back in '69.

The link between those two programs and the housing crash seems to me to be a bit tenuous to say the least.

Again: Government programs does not equal socialism.


:lamo You point out that they Guaranteed the loans that people couldn't afford, but then say the relationship between that and the crash is "tenuous"? yeah, I don't think it is....
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac didn't build houses, didn't sell houses, don't represent a take over of the housing industry. All they did was to guarantee mortgages and make it easier for people to buy houses. Those two programs have been around a very long time. I bought my first house with a Fanny Mae loan back in '69.
Is it the politicians place to guarantee mortgages? What could go wrong inevitably did go wrong, as all socialist iideas do. The'bubble' was never about houses, it was about money.
The link between those two programs and the housing crash seems to me to be a bit tenuous to say the least.
Not at all. The history is there and what began as a small idea inevitaby turned into a huge industry where 'friends of government' pocketed millions and the middle class lost.
Again: Government programs does not equal socialism.

All government programs lead to larger government programs, a larger bureaucracy, more laws to prop up these flawed programs, fewer personal freedoms, more corruption within the system, and so on. It was ever thus, and examples are everywhere.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

I'm a pragmatist.

Political labels are notoriously inaccurate and misleading.

Considering that under our present system confiscation of wealth and redistributing it to corporations and banks, such as we saw with TARP and other programs, is wrong.

If it must be redistributed, I would rather it be returned to the people.

I would rather it not be redistributed at all, but if the govt is going to do that, it's more appropriate that the people get it, not the mismanaged banks and crooks on Wall Street.

I agree that your self described label of libertarian is inaccurate and misleading.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Redistributing wealth "to the people" is another political scam designed for those who really believe that the playing field is going to be leveled and that the government will do it.

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed".-Adolf Hitler

A mindless slogan like "Hope and Change", which is the slogan of all politicians, demonstrated that idea perfectly, and the American electorate bought into it twice.

Absolutely. Wealth redistribution is the confiscation of the fruits of ones labor by the govt, to be given to others for political favor.

Not many things could be more antithetical to libertarianism.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

:lamo You point out that they Guaranteed the loans that people couldn't afford, but then say the relationship between that and the crash is "tenuous"? yeah, I don't think it is....

The link is between the mortgage lenders who made loans to people who couldn't afford them, then sold the paper to Fannie and freddy as good loans. The reason that worked is lack of government oversight, not government programs.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

The link is between the mortgage lenders who made loans to people who couldn't afford them, then sold the paper to Fannie and freddy as good loans. The reason that worked is lack of government oversight, not government programs.

But who encouraged loans to people who couldn't afford them? It certainly wasn't the banks. In fact a noted Community Organizer was one of those who sued banks for discriminating against minorities, forcing the banks to make risky loans.

Lack of government foresight is commonplace and expected. The first job of government, and its bureaucracy, is to protect themselves and cover their asses. Their interest in the people comes well after that, and only at election time.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

But who encouraged loans to people who couldn't afford them? It certainly wasn't the banks. In fact a noted Community Organizer was one of those who sued banks for discriminating against minorities, forcing the banks to make risky loans.

Lack of government foresight is commonplace and expected. The first job of government, and its bureaucracy, is to protect themselves and cover their asses. Their interest in the people comes well after that, and only at election time.

It's not about loans to minorities, but about loans to people who could not afford them. If Fannie and Freddy are the problem, why didn't the housing crash happen sooner? Both programs were in place decades before the housing crash.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

It's not about loans to minorities, but about loans to people who could not afford them. If Fannie and Freddy are the problem, why didn't the housing crash happen sooner? Both programs were in place decades before the housing crash.

Here's where Barrack Obama, among others, sued Citibank for not approving enough mortgages to Black people, so this was a matter of race.
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago blacks | The Daily Caller

My take, right or wrong, is that the banks are in the business to make money while also being cautious. Such was their reputation. I doubt they were refusing loans to Blacks because of their color, but because of their financial stability. Whites and Hispanics must also demonstrate that they can repay loans, and all of us know, whatever our color, how important are credit history is.

This was just one of the examples of government getting involved where they had no business. Even Black owned banks were refusing loans to many of these people.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Here's where Barrack Obama, among others, sued Citibank for not approving enough mortgages to Black people, so this was a matter of race.
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago blacks | The Daily Caller

My take, right or wrong, is that the banks are in the business to make money while also being cautious. Such was their reputation. I doubt they were refusing loans to Blacks because of their color, but because of their financial stability. Whites and Hispanics must also demonstrate that they can repay loans, and all of us know, whatever our color, how important are credit history is.

This was just one of the examples of government getting involved where they had no business. Even Black owned banks were refusing loans to many of these people.
Again: The housing crash was not due to black people buying homes. Neither the black lawyer/community organizer who sued to stop discrimination, nor the color of the skin of the home buyers had a thing to do with the housing crisis.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Redistributing wealth "to the people" is another political scam designed for those who really believe that the playing field is going to be leveled and that the government will do it.

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed".-Adolf Hitler

A mindless slogan like "Hope and Change", which is the slogan of all politicians, demonstrated that idea perfectly, and the American electorate bought into it twice.


Yes, your point about the frequent retelling of a lie is spot on. The federal government and its lapdog media practice that 24/7 in a number of areas.

As for my pragmatist self, if they are going to redistribute my tax dollars, and they are, I would prefer that instead of giving it to Wall Street and the Pentagon to waste and plunder, that they give some back to the people. By way of infrastructure would be fine by me.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

It's not about loans to minorities, but about loans to people who could not afford them. If Fannie and Freddy are the problem, why didn't the housing crash happen sooner? Both programs were in place decades before the housing crash.

This is the case here and it says "African American', and lists barrack Obama, who was part of ACORN then, as one of the lawyers. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

The link is between the mortgage lenders who made loans to people who couldn't afford them, then sold the paper to Fannie and freddy as good loans. The reason that worked is lack of government oversight, not government programs.

You do understand that the government was using Freddie as a quasi government guarantor while the regulation of the Cloward/Piven backed CRA serves as the hammer to get the banks to loan money they never would have otherwise right.
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

Correct, it was about not discriminating against African Americans, but the housing crash was not due to giving loans to African Americans.

The point was that neither the government or the courts should be deciding who gets loans and who doesn't. It is not their money. And we know that Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac was corrupt and dishonest, as was inevitable. What often starts out as a good idea by a government with good intentions inevitably becomes corrupt and expensive. I know of no case where this wasn't the outcome. It's just another case of the Law Of Unintended Consequences, as well as an abuse of power..
 
Re: Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group

The point was that neither the government or the courts should be deciding who gets loans and who doesn't. It is not their money. And we know that Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac was corrupt and dishonest, as was inevitable. What often starts out as a good idea by a government with good intentions inevitably becomes corrupt and expensive. I know of no case where this wasn't the outcome. It's just another case of the Law Of Unintended Consequences, as well as an abuse of power..

The problem is that the government wasn't deciding who shouldn't get loans. The lenders were giving loans to people (black and white) who simply didn't have the resources to make the payments. They were making loans with payments that didn't even keep up the interest payments, some with "balloon" payments down the road. No one was looking down the road more than a couple of years, as the expectation was that the house would accrue value faster than the rate of inflation. Some people made money on the idea, too. It worked as long as housing prices kept soaring.

Here's the choice: Buy a $100,000 house you can actually afford, or a $300,000 house you can't afford. Due to creative financing, the mortgage payments are roughly the same. You have a much nicer house to live in, and expect it to gain, say, 15% a year in value. 15% of 100,000 is $15,000, but the second house will gain $45,000. Sell it before the balloon payments kick in, and you walk away with the cash. Lots of middle class Americans made money doing just that.
 
Back
Top Bottom