Members banned from this thread: Jarod, domer76, Guno צְבִי and Jack


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 64

Thread: Has socialism already failed in Anerica

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Has socialism already failed in Anerica

    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    6,560
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 2,936 Times in 2,054 Posts
    Groans
    852
    Groaned 948 Times in 862 Posts

    Default

    Nope. The banking collapse was started when Republican Gramm passed a law in a late-night lame-duck session to change banking laws. It permitted banks to use depositors money and slashed banking reserves to they had almost no money to back up bad loans. Then banks sold investment papers that were backed by mortgages. Bankers were making billions. The banks directed their lenders to drop mortgage requirements because they needed vast amounts of mortgages to fill out more investments. They kept dropping requirements over and over until they were essentially gone. Banks had no liabilities because they chopped up the mortgages and sold them off immediately. It was a crime of capitalism, greed and a lack of regulation. No socialism was involved.
    I could point out the rating agencies were bought off by bankers and overpowered to approve anything banks threw at them. Also not socialism. It is the old partners capitalists and corruption showing why we need lots of serious regulation.
    Regulation works for the people. When repubs buy that regulation is bad, they are for corporations and bankers doing what they want. They will loot you. They always have and always will.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Gonzomin For This Post:

    Trumpet (07-21-2019)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,857
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,362 Times in 14,089 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Nope. The banking collapse was started when Republican Gramm passed a law in a late-night lame-duck session to change banking laws. It permitted banks to use depositors money and slashed banking reserves to they had almost no money to back up bad loans. Then banks sold investment papers that were backed by mortgages. Bankers were making billions. The banks directed their lenders to drop mortgage requirements because they needed vast amounts of mortgages to fill out more investments. They kept dropping requirements over and over until they were essentially gone. Banks had no liabilities because they chopped up the mortgages and sold them off immediately. It was a crime of capitalism, greed and a lack of regulation. No socialism was involved.
    I could point out the rating agencies were bought off by bankers and overpowered to approve anything banks threw at them. Also not socialism. It is the old partners capitalists and corruption showing why we need lots of serious regulation.
    Regulation works for the people. When repubs buy that regulation is bad, they are for corporations and bankers doing what they want. They will loot you. They always have and always will.
    Leaving aside that it is false that this legislation caused the banking collapse why were folks in the Clinton Administration pushing for this legislation and why did Bill Clinton sign this legislation if it was so bad/evil?

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    6,560
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 2,936 Times in 2,054 Posts
    Groans
    852
    Groaned 948 Times in 862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Leaving aside that it is false that this legislation caused the banking collapse why were folks in the Clinton Administration pushing for this legislation and why did Bill Clinton sign this legislation if it was so bad/evil?
    Leaving aside that you are wrong. It was a Republican bill. They had the votes. I remember when it was pushed through Sen, Durbin announced that they fought all night trying to get concessions, but the bill put the American system in jeopardy. There were a couple of other Denms saying the same thing. No Repubs. Your lack of knowledge about the banking crisis is noted. It was signed by Clinton on the way out of office. It was not his bill. It was Gramm and Blileys. Gramms wife was an Enron exec. Phil had tried to get such a bill passed many times.

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,857
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,362 Times in 14,089 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Leaving aside that you are wrong. It was a Republican bill. They had the votes. I remember when it was pushed through Sen, Durbin announced that they fought all night trying to get concessions, but the bill put the American system in jeopardy. There were a couple of other Denms saying the same thing. No Repubs. Your lack of knowledge about the banking crisis is noted. It was signed by Clinton on the way out of office. It was not his bill. It was Gramm and Blileys. Gramms wife was an Enron exec. Phil had tried to get such a bill passed many times.
    This is some very interesting revisionist history. Someone needs to go back read the votes for when this bill passed. The final bill passed the House 362-57 and the Senate 90-8. Hard to get much more bi-partisan than that.

    Bill Clinton signed the bill on Nov 12, 1999. He left office Jan 20, 2001. So basically he signed it over a year before he left office. That isn't signing something on the way out of office.

    These are just simple facts.

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    6,560
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 2,936 Times in 2,054 Posts
    Groans
    852
    Groaned 948 Times in 862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    This is some very interesting revisionist history. Someone needs to go back read the votes for when this bill passed. The final bill passed the House 362-57 and the Senate 90-8. Hard to get much more bi-partisan than that.

    Bill Clinton signed the bill on Nov 12, 1999. He left office Jan 20, 2001. So basically he signed it over a year before he left office. That isn't signing something on the way out of office.

    These are just simple facts.
    Not quite. Gramm tried to get the bill through many times and the Dems voted it down. This time Gramm had the votes. Many of the Dems gave up their votes, since they were going to lose anyway, to wring concession out. They obviously did not get enough. The final numbers do not tell the story, nor the battles. .The vote finalized at something like 3 in the AM. It was the Dems who talked to reporters afterward talking about what a dangerous bill they just passed. You have no understanding of how politics works.
    Last edited by Gonzomin; 07-20-2019 at 11:25 PM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Gonzomin For This Post:

    Trumpet (07-21-2019)

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Leaving aside that you are wrong. It was a Republican bill. They had the votes. I remember when it was pushed through Sen, Durbin announced that they fought all night trying to get concessions, but the bill put the American system in jeopardy. There were a couple of other Denms saying the same thing. No Repubs. Your lack of knowledge about the banking crisis is noted. It was signed by Clinton on the way out of office. It was not his bill. It was Gramm and Blileys. Gramms wife was an Enron exec. Phil had tried to get such a bill passed many times.
    Myopia. You are forgetting the laws requiring banks to make bad loans. You are forgetting the effects of price controls on money itself imposed by the Fed.

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Nope. The banking collapse was started when Republican Gramm passed a law in a late-night lame-duck session to change banking laws. It permitted banks to use depositors money and slashed banking reserves to they had almost no money to back up bad loans. Then banks sold investment papers that were backed by mortgages. Bankers were making billions. The banks directed their lenders to drop mortgage requirements because they needed vast amounts of mortgages to fill out more investments. They kept dropping requirements over and over until they were essentially gone. Banks had no liabilities because they chopped up the mortgages and sold them off immediately. It was a crime of capitalism, greed and a lack of regulation. No socialism was involved.
    I could point out the rating agencies were bought off by bankers and overpowered to approve anything banks threw at them. Also not socialism. It is the old partners capitalists and corruption showing why we need lots of serious regulation.
    Regulation works for the people. When repubs buy that regulation is bad, they are for corporations and bankers doing what they want. They will loot you. They always have and always will.
    If bankers were doing all this voluntarily, why did lawyers like Obama sue banks to require them to do it more often?.....

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    6,560
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 2,936 Times in 2,054 Posts
    Groans
    852
    Groaned 948 Times in 862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    If bankers were doing all this voluntarily, why did lawyers like Obama sue banks to require them to do it more often?.....
    Same old ignorance. You never disappoint. Obama had nothing to do with the crash. It started during Bush and the Repubs deregulation. It was crashing before Obama got in office.

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Same old ignorance. You never disappoint. Obama had nothing to do with the crash. It started during Bush and the Repubs deregulation. It was crashing before Obama got in office.
    In his own words, this was the first successful thing he ever did.
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Same old ignorance. You never disappoint. Obama had nothing to do with the crash. It started during Bush and the Repubs deregulation. It was crashing before Obama got in office.
    were you not aware that before Obama became a senator he sued CitiBank and got a settlement requiring them to issue sub par mortgages.....

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Truth Detector (07-24-2019)

  15. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Same old ignorance. You never disappoint. Obama had nothing to do with the crash. It started during Bush and the Repubs deregulation. It was crashing before Obama got in office.
    It started with Carter, then enhanced with Clinton. If Bush was at fault for anything, it was in not doing anything to stop it.

  16. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Nope. The banking collapse was started when Republican Gramm passed a law in a late-night lame-duck session to change banking laws. It permitted banks to use depositors money and slashed banking reserves to they had almost no money to back up bad loans. Then banks sold investment papers that were backed by mortgages. Bankers were making billions. The banks directed their lenders to drop mortgage requirements because they needed vast amounts of mortgages to fill out more investments. They kept dropping requirements over and over until they were essentially gone. Banks had no liabilities because they chopped up the mortgages and sold them off immediately. It was a crime of capitalism, greed and a lack of regulation. No socialism was involved.
    I could point out the rating agencies were bought off by bankers and overpowered to approve anything banks threw at them. Also not socialism. It is the old partners capitalists and corruption showing why we need lots of serious regulation.
    Regulation works for the people. When repubs buy that regulation is bad, they are for corporations and bankers doing what they want. They will loot you. They always have and always will.
    In all fairness, those nations with socialist banking and financial institutions have loads of regulations and have the same kinds of abuses, corruption, and poor financial dealings as the U. S.

    Greed is greed whether a person is working for a private or governmental financial institution. Why do people think a person not greedy because he works for a socialist institution?

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Into the Night (07-24-2019)

  18. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    In all fairness, those nations with socialist banking and financial institutions have loads of regulations and have the same kinds of abuses, corruption, and poor financial dealings as the U. S.

    Greed is greed whether a person is working for a private or governmental financial institution. Why do people think a person not greedy because he works for a socialist institution?
    This is quite right. The problem is the socialist nature of the banking system itself. In the United States, we have the Fed and the current banking laws creating the socialist banking system.

  19. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Nope. The banking collapse was started when Republican Gramm passed a law in a late-night lame-duck session to change banking laws. It permitted banks to use depositors money and slashed banking reserves to they had almost no money to back up bad loans. Then banks sold investment papers that were backed by mortgages. Bankers were making billions. The banks directed their lenders to drop mortgage requirements because they needed vast amounts of mortgages to fill out more investments. They kept dropping requirements over and over until they were essentially gone. Banks had no liabilities because they chopped up the mortgages and sold them off immediately. It was a crime of capitalism, greed and a lack of regulation. No socialism was involved.
    I could point out the rating agencies were bought off by bankers and overpowered to approve anything banks threw at them. Also not socialism. It is the old partners capitalists and corruption showing why we need lots of serious regulation.
    Regulation works for the people. When repubs buy that regulation is bad, they are for corporations and bankers doing what they want. They will loot you. They always have and always will.
    The banks made those mortgages because they were REQUIRED to by law at the time. Socialism.
    The artificially low interest rates from the Fed provided the money to do it. Price controls. Socialism.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 338
    Last Post: 03-18-2019, 11:40 AM
  2. Venezuela: socialism failed the people
    By Superfreak in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 01-24-2018, 02:13 PM
  3. The 'Job Creators' have failed
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 06:50 PM
  4. Globalization Has Failed
    By Hermes Thoth in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 01:09 AM
  5. the failed presidency
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-03-2008, 02:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •