The elites would NOT have been fine without the bailouts which is exactly why they lobbied with near irresistible pressure they did. There was no plan for a bailout at all without them. IT WAS THEIR PLAN! To say otherwise is compete ignorance, denial, or blatant dishonesty. Sure, most of them would have remained wealthy by middle class standards, but their system of wealth accumulation would likely have collapsed and THAT panicked them.
"The elites would NOT have been fine without the bailouts" Omnicronimous
Man, the REST of us would NOT have been fine without bailouts - the freezing of all credit - further loss of pensions - gov shut downs - an $11 trillion loss would likely have been a $44 to $80 trillion loss. The citizenry would have been wiped out. That's when the ELite come in and clean up. They would have been the last man standing. The ONLY people with money - they win either way. That's the beauty of power, right?
Your claims such as "The elite want the FED ended" are just ridiculous. The FED was founded by and has been run by the elites ever since.
The Elites don't care what their tax rate is. I.E. Gates and Buffet. The only wealthy people after lower taxes are a few idealists and up and comers. The reason the elites don't care? Because higher income tax doesn't effect their accumulated wealth and it insulates them from would-be challengers in the market.
"Thank God we still have free speech!!' thejihadresistance
Conservatives have openly stated that they want one party rule!
Cons hope to remain addicted to oil, serve the Elite with more tax cuts, screw the middle class by obliterating their wealth, pollution for profit, war for profit and a smear campaign of lies.
Now the right claims Obama is a Republican! I thought he was a hard core liberal fascist?? I have no doubt you can't see the veil of lies. YOu are trained by it.
@HopeForPeaceNow Is that enough or do you need more? I'd rather not have to do your homework for you, but I'll get a few more examples if you need me to.
Personally, I don't think you're interested in the truth though. I think you are either going to deny while being too afraid to confirm or you're going to lie. Either way, I don't care. The truth is plain to see and I've been following the communist rhetoric planning for this since last year.
"The truth is plain to see and I've been following the communist rhetoric planning for this since last year." Omnicronimous
I do research for a living. I can provide cites for everything I believe. It would seem that you are claiming communists set up Occupy Wall Street. Please send your cites to my email. I found no trace of what you claim
Now - do you know why you support the move the wealth of the middle class into the coffers of the ELite? I'd be happy to send you MY cites on why I don't.
@HopeForPeaceNow Meanwhile everyone that reads this comments section can see how dishonest you are. "I see 2 socialists on that list". "You're claiming Stiglitz (yeah, I corrected your spelling) is a communist?"
You're so freaking obvious ignoring the glaring obvious facts. You didn't even look up 80 Days of Rage did you? You didn't look past the CPUSA website is my guess. I'm sure you didn't check out a single communist student group website. Your position is all wet.
@HopeForPeaceNow Oh yeah, and I failed to mention that idiot Michael Moore. But enough people already know he was down there pedaling his agenda already that I don't think it really needed to be said. Still, for the record, he's down there trying to turn America into Cuba.
@HopeForPeaceNow What percentage of the population makes up the "elite"? Where did you find a statistic that said the "elite" owned 93% of the U.S. wealth? Why is someone that is wealthy automatically my enemy? Why is giving more power to the government to seize wealth at the point of a gun good for me or anyone else outside of those that hold power in government?
Let me be clear. The only enemies I have are those that would assume the authority to take away my rights or those of my countrymen.
"Where did you find a statistic that said the "elite" owned 93% of the U.S. wealth" Omnicronimous
Who rules America. Proff Bill Domhoff. Any search of "wealth distribution" would show you. YOu send me your sites for Commies planning Occupy and I'll sand you tons of cites on WD.
@HopeForPeaceNow He had no valid statistical proof then and I'm sure he has even less to work with now if he's even still maintaining the claim.
What makes the Tea Party different? How about the fact that most of them want the Fed eliminated? How about the fact that they want lower taxes for everyone? How about the fact that they want to end social programs? How about the fact that they are opposed to bail outs of any kind? Remember? They were the ONLY ones out in the street then!
"He had no valid statistical proof ' Omnicronimous
EXCUSE ME?? DO you know Wolfe's work? Did you follow the cites? Are you claiming the top 20% DON"T own 93% of financial wealth? How silly will you feel when you find you are wrong?
@HopeForPeaceNow I just hopped on and have enough time to say this: 1 - You don't know my education level or occupation. 2. Domhoff's education and occupation do not make him correct. 3. I don't have to qualify my own opinion vs. Domhoff's to qualify his opinion as fringe. Fringe - peripheral, marginal, or extreme. Even the most of the left considers Domhoff to be fringe. Plenty of his peers both disagree and refute his claims. 4. You've completely redirected the entire discussion.
"You don't know my education level or occupation. " Omnicronimous
I know you don't study economics - you thought wither was a socialist economics theory. You sadly called me ignorant when I pointed that out.
I know you don't know much about the current debate on regulation if you think the Elite don't want Free Markets. Banks have paid over 30 million in lobbyists fees to stop every aspect of Frank-Dodd, from Warren to regs for hedgefunds to derivatives. You are 100% wrong.
I don't see that you found any difference between the Tea Party agenda and the ELite agenda.
Elite want the FED ended (do you know why?). Elite want lower taxes,down to 25%from 39% in the Ryan plan. The Elite want to end social programs - shrink gov. Elite IN TRUTH - would have been fine without bailouts. It was not their reality that would have crashed and burned.
Elite want no regulations or supervision. No minimum wage. Oil addiction.
@HopeForPeaceNow Again another of your claims - that elites want no regulation - is totally bogus. They're the ones that lobby for the specific regulations we get and have! Every single time there are more regulations stacked on they have the capital to adjust while smaller companies - the competition - is stiffled, weakened, or wiped out altogether. Name the last time any major regulations were made that were openly opposed by the banking system.
@HopeForPeaceNow My education in relation to Whither Socialism - Umm, perhaps you haven't heard, but the title of the book has been attached to the guys alternative market theories for a while now. You may be informed in certain schools of information, but you're definitely oblivious to much. Especially to presume that I don't have an education in economics.
You have no refutation that Domhoff's position isn't fringe, that Stiglitz isn't socialist, and pretty much everyone else I named.
@HopeForPeaceNow Back to the elite want to end the fed - You're out. You're simply out of it with that. I named only two elites and that's your response is to repeat yourself and state utter nonsense about elites indoctrinating people with consumerism and economic cycles? For one, Time (left leaning supporters of Occupy Wall Street) has the wealth statistic divvied up as 80% to the top 20%, which is a little closer to the truth than your nonsense.
@HopeForPeaceNow There is no Republican Jesus, but the phenomenon of so many Tea Party people being devout Christians has to do with the fact that the Christian faith compels believers to value free will. There is no room for conversion by force. Essential Christian values such as treating others as you would want to be treated and being charitable to the poor as individuals is what makes the synergy happen. It has nothing to do with being Republican or idolizing a flag.
@HopeForPeaceNow The veil of lies is the one being cast over the eyes of the impoverished by socialists such as yourself. Socialism is bureaucratic feudalism. In a free market people can be self employed, choose their employer, or not be employed at all and work for a church, own a self-sustained farm, or live off mom and dad. Socialism always pulls toward totalitarianism with governments dictating work conditions, living locations and conditions, healthcare, education, and even diet.
@HopeForPeace Now In finishing up for today - You know what is the most ridiculous thing about your position? On the one hand you would claim that the "elites" have ALL the wealth of the world and control the government (going back beyond the '60s according to Domhoff) and on the other hand you'd like to paint them enemies of the very system that they've constructed.
They oppose institutional minimum wage? Big bankers LOVE minimum wage! It helps drive inflation and kills smaller banker rivals!
Its authority is derived from the U.S. Congress and is subject to congressional oversight..
They are pushing for a pure free market where they are the only power.
They train their believers that consumerism, natural business cycles an d innovation are all that's needed for the 80% with 7% of financial wealth to steer the 20% with 93% of financial wealth.
@HopeForPeaceNow You really need me to name more elites that are generally progressives and/or socialists? How about nearly the entire Rockefeller family? The Turners? Heinz? George Soros? Eli Broad? Julian Robertson Jr.? Pat Stryker? The Kennedys? Mark Cuban? Oprah Winfrey?
Do I really need to name more? The fact is that the statistics themselves place most conservative, libertarian, or Republican voters in the middle class to upper middle class category. The top and bottom favor liberal.
@HopeForPeaceNow Religion intrinsically gives adherents a common moral ground. Socialism and communism always polarize toward atheism (as many Marxists have said, atheism and socialism are always tied together) because the ultimate loyalty of the citizen must be to the state. The state requires relative morality. The communist/socialist state is materialist in philosophy and application. Thus the Christian "right" in America will always clash with socialism.
@HopeForPeaceNow The fact that the founding of the U.S. was done largely by Christians with Judeo-Christian morality as the basis for the protected rights given to the citizens of this country is what compels Christians to be patriotic and "wrap" themselves in a flag. The flag represents a common morality, and the patriotism is reflected in brotherly love for countrymen within that morality. It is NOT blind patriotism to a state. Blind patriotism to a state is exactly what communism demands.
"Christians with Judeo-Christian morality" Omnicronimous I LOVE THIS comment! Thank you!
The founders believed only land owning white men could vote. They refused to end slavery, practiced white male supremacy and believed God commanded them to commit the genocide of all native people( 2-6 million).
That is the TRUTH of our "Christian heritage". ALL of the "Christian" men you refer to based their lives on these idea. Except a few - Jefferson cut up his bible with a pair of scissors.
@HopeForPeaceNow 1. Again, instead of admitting that you'd been refuted you went on to take the conversation into another direction... again. You were refuted as to the nature of the organization of this movement. What I find laughable is that you actually turn around and defend socialism. Me - These guys are socialists and communists. You - No. Me - Yes, here's who they are and here is their admitted position. You - No. Socialism isn't bad. You're ignorant.
Look back at my reply to your first spew. YOU FAIL TO ANSWER ONE POINT!
'Cons hope to remain addicted to oil, serve the Elite with more tax cuts, screw the middle class by obliterating their wealth, pollution for profit, war for profit and a smear campaign of lies" MOI
Did you address the Con platform of one party rule? No. Yo are a typical trained whore for the Elite.
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” George Washington
Jefferson wrote in freedom of religion because Anglicans had declared their religion the religion of the land. Their preachers were paid by the state and you could not preach without a license - and only Anglican religion. Baptists went to Jefferson to end this - thus "shall make no laws".
As a progressive, I feel no brotherly love from the right. I have Coulter saying every liberal is a Godless communist and their mobs should be shot. You label us all as idiot socialists, then back the Elite in their agenda and call that "Godly"! You teach that the poor are lazy, the Elite are venerated and all non-conservatives are America hating, godless idiots!
Was occupying Iraq moral? Were the Bremer decisions moral?
Is more wealth for the wealthy and rejection of the poor moral?
Was our war machine unleashed on S America through the Regan era moral? Is pollution for profit moral? Is America on oil moral? Is nuclear proliferation moral? Is removing all regulation from the financial markets the elite built, own and run moral? Is a lie machine created to dupe American into supporting the elite moral?
@HopeForPeaceNow Me - I just refuted you and instead of acknowledging you're defending socialism. You - You're ignorant. Republican Jesus wrapped in a flag. Me - Another redirection? The very nature of socialism is inherently oppressive. It's the value for free will that sets Christians at odds with Socialism. Christian values founded this country. You - Haha. Ignorant. Christian values didn't found this country. *Atheist favorite overused George Washington quote**Jefferson cut the Bible*
You're a trained monkey for the Elite. They use their power to remove your job, your home and your financial stability - you worship them as jobcreators.
You have no material knowledge of the issues (Where ... said the "elite" owned 93% of the U.S. wealth? ) you regurgitate what they have trained you to parrot.
Any attempt to school you is as fruitless as teaching a chimp to write his name - in fact - I'm sure I would have more luck at that.
@HopeForPeaceNow Just stop for a second. You've just redirected again. You just tied me to some imagined loyalty to the elite again.
What don't you get? The fact is, you're the one stuck on the notion of elite vs. non-elite. I don't even see things in those terms! I don't care who the wealthiest man in the country is. You seem determined to bring him down, no matter how legitimate his accumulation of wealth may be. I don't care. I only care about liberty. I'm not consumed with wealth.
@HopeForPeaceNow That pretty much sums it up now doesn't it? Do you really want me to get into the God-fearing quotes of the Founders? Volumes could be written on the subject. I don't deny that there were a few of the very prominent Founders that were deists. There was even one prominent atheist. That doesn't diminish that the values expressed in the Constitution were Judeo-Christian values and doesn't refute the fact that the overwhelming majority were Christian.
"Do you really want me to get into the God-fearing quotes of the Founders?" Omnicronimous
OK - so let's humiliate you again -
ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION - IF the FOUNDERS were basing America in Christian values, WHY did, they enforce "All men are created equal as long as they are white"? While they venerated equality, they commited genocide against 50 million Native Americans, they drove out Mexicans from their lands and kept 4 million blacks in slavery.
@HopeForPeaceNow Let me know, because the argument that the Founders weren't Christian is really all you have left. We can go person-by-person over the signatures on the founding documents and vet every single one of them for their religion, or at least as much as is known of it. I have access to the information. Would you rather I simply started listing them? Or, would you rather just concede the point, as you have no grounds for denying it. I could start with Washington and Jefferson.
@HopeForPeaceNow I don't claim that either Washington or Jefferson were fundamentalist Christians. But to assert that either were atheist or even agnostic is either indicative of overwhelming bias coupled with ignorance or that you're just dishonest. Washington's religious devotion called into question? Do you really want to go there? Jefferson was anti-Christian? Want to get into that?
"assert that either were atheist or even agnostic is either indicative of overwhelming bias " O
I never said that you brainedead ape. CAn you read?
WHERE in the BIble does it say - "Obliterate all whose land you want. Take their possessions, drive them out OR enslave them. Just be sure to obliterate all who stand in the way of your wealth"?
I have no DOUBT you can't answer that or 150,000 other questions I could ask about your politics. YOu only know how to mock - that's how your trained.
"The fact that the founding of the U.S. was done largely by Christians with Judeo-Christian morality as the basis for the protected rights given to the citizens of this country is what compels Christians to be patriotic and "wrap" themselves in a flag. " Omnicronimous
@HopeForPeaceNow I don't wish you ill will. From my perspective you're mixed up and angry. You believe you have things right. That's fine. But I am not going to waste my time when you're spouting nonsense.
Me: The differences in systems are_______.
You: Chickens fly spaceships around jello molds!
Do you use recreational drugs by any chance? (Yes, pot counts).
@Omnicronimous The only reason you call this: "Cons hope to remain addicted to oil, serve the Elite with more tax cuts, screw the middle class by obliterating their wealth, pollution for profit, war for profit and a smear campaign of lies."
@Omnicronimous I'm sure this" They train their believers that consumerism, natural business cycles an d innovation are all that's needed for the 80% with 7% of financial wealth to steer the 20% with 93% of financial wealth." Sounds like this:"Chickens fly spaceships around jello molds"to you.
Are you familliar with Austrinan Economics? Ayn Rand?
@HopeForPeaceNow I know I told you once already that I'm not a Tea Party member. I have an affinity for what they're striving for. They are to the free market what Progressives are to socialism. I'm a bit more extreme. I'm a Ron Paul guy. I believe in cutting entire programs. But you have to end regulations at the same time. Including regulations regarding unions, and most importantly, eliminate litigation restrictions. Read my channel. I say as much.
@HopeForPeaceNow I just read your response for the first time tonight. I don't have the time to respond right now but THANK YOU for getting to some issues of substance. Some of what you are making an issue of was presented inaccurately and I will point out what I thought was so. I'll get back to you soon. I have family visiting from out to town, but since this is your video I don't imagine that it isn't going anywhere. Last thing - it's good to be able to confirm you aren't a complete kook. ;-)
@HopeForPeaceNow Not was, is. They're staying with us for a couple of weeks. They're from the opposite side of the country, so it's quite a vacation for them visiting the other coast.
The standard answer from AE is only the Fed dropping interest rates caused the meltdown. This is clearly debunked by reality.
In 2000 we had a massive foreign capital bubble. The Republicans on the FCIC commission did a decent job covering it. They blame the entire meltdown on it, but they are trained to cover for Wall Street, so grain of salt. By simple supply and demand, interest rates could have been even lower from that cash flood.. is that not perfect AE?
@HopeForPeaceNow Do you want to get off the "neocon" bashing and actually discuss economics? Let's get into it. We can go point by point on every single political issue if you'd like. I love discussion. I have folks to discuss with off YouTube, but online discussions can be a great diversion. Especially when you have breakthroughs/connections with people.
I'm no propagandist. I've found plenty. I took the time to challenge you in the first place because you seemed to care. Drop the hostility.
"You: Chickens fly spaceships around jello molds!"
"Drop the hostility."
You get more of what you bring when you drop in here. I never insult until I'm insulted.
Love to yak with ya - What's your theory on why we should remove all regulation and supervision from the financial markets the Elite built, own and run? How are you at defending derivatives? Praxeology vs empirical? What power no NB cycles have in a world where the top 400 corps = 67% of all profit?
"#12 One flat income tax of 7% for everyone. No sales tax, no inheritance tax, no fees..!" Omni
IN 30 years the middle class has lost 13% of it's wealth. The bottom 80% owned 20% of US financial wealth, they now own 7%. The upward shift correlates with 2 factors - in the '70's, even as production rose - incomes stagnated for workers - moving to a record 275X income top vs bottom. 2nd - Reaganomics, flat tax. Is the bottom owning 4% your goal? 2%? 2 million more fall into poverty for every 1%!!
Are you familliar with Austrinan Economics? Ayn Rand? That is a description of what is needed to control greed. You wouldn't know that maybe. Read mush Mises? Rothbard? Hayek? Nah
Tell me what you think will control the Elite under Free Markets. What's your theory?
@HopeForPeaceNow Well, ignoring the parts that sounded like, "Lay stones on car hoods with horse shoes." - Yeah, now you're starting to speak my language. Yes, I'm very familiar with Austrian Economics, Rand, Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek. That's precisely my territory.
You've been on such a gravy train of "neocon" bashing you haven't discussed much of substance. I've mentioned it plenty elsewhere, but perhaps not here. Are you aware that I describe current American economics as corporate fascism?
@HopeForPeaceNow Another distinct difference is that the Tea Party strongly advocates the 2nd Amendment. Lefties like you never take the time to find out what the Tea Party is really about. These are largely the same people that were Ross Perot supporters in the '90s. Most of them are opposed to The Patriot Act, although that is one issue that divides them more than the others.
Last, I'm not a Tea Party member as I don't agree with everything they advocate. I just share most of the same values.
@HopeForPeaceNow top 8 domestic terrorists listed at fbi dot gov slash wanted dt
ARE LIBERAL NUTS GO GREEN COMMUNISTS, most are "eco- terrorists" a few are racists (Black Panther types) You are the bad guys and you know it, go LOOK for yourself, NONE are constitutionalists
@HopeForPeaceNow I can claim it now because the proof is in the list, it is in black and white at the link I provided , you are brainwashed and can't think, you have no list of constitutionalists who are on an FBI list, so again no matter what I show you in the way of proof, you are a zombie, you proved it yet again.
"no matter what I show you in the way of proof, you are a zombie" thejihadresistance
:) Would it EVER be possible for ME to show YOU evidence to open YOUR mind? Think about that.
The list I see is this : Religion, Education, Media, Culture,
THESE ARE USED TODAY BY CONSERVATIVES to indoctrinate you with rhetoric to:
Pollution for profit, war for profit, removal of all regulation and supervision from the Elite's Corps, less taxes for the Elite who are 7% away from owning 100% of US wealth.
"you are brainwashed and can't think," thejihadresistance
The only way to prove YOUR case is to answer WHY YOU SUPPORT:
addiction to oil, war for profit, pollution for profit, health for profit, education for profit and propaganda for profit, the removal of wealth from the middle class, the expansion of wealth for the Elite, the removal of all regulation and supervision for the Elite who built, own and run our financial system (cont)
@HopeForPeaceNow To find the groups involved simply type Communist in the Google search bar. Visit any communist web site for groups based in the U.S. that you find and you'll find forums loaded with messages back and forth about organizing, funding, and maintaining the Occupy Wall Street protest. They call it the October Revolution. One specific group is called 80 Days of Rage after Bill Ayers' group in the '60s. (Oh yeah, forgot Bill Ayers is helping too).
Sorry I searched in CPUSA and such and found no referrence.
I would believe, though that Occupy would appear in their blogs the same way the Tea Party appears in Neo-con sites. Does that mean all TPers are NEO-COns?
It seems you are claiming that the Communist party set the entire thing up - is that your feeling?
(cont) nuclear proliferation, PAx Americana, de-education, removal of the EPA, the DOE and all public services and the lie machine that buys your vote for the Elite through a Goebbels style propaganda campaign?
WHY do YOU support th policies of the "right"?
I KNOW WHY I support regulation, energy independence, non- predatory foreign policy, fair taxes for the Elite, social safety nets, education and mixed markets.
(cont) nuclear proliferation, PAx Americana, de-education, removal of the EPA, the DOE and all public services and the lie machine that buys your vote for the Elite through a Goebbels style propaganda campaign?
WHY do YOU support th policies of the "right"?
I KNOW WHY I support regulation, energy independence, non- predatory foreign policy, fair taxes for the Elite, social safety nets, education and mixed markets.
@HopeForPeaceNow Let's get started with some of the folks that have spoken at the Occupy Wall Street advocating socialism or open communism:
Roseanne Barr, Frances Fox Piven, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeff Madrick, Russell Simmons, Alec Baldwin, Matthew Broderick, Olympia Dukakis, Cornel West, Harrison Shultz, Naif Littles, Christ Hedges, and on the sidelines (I am not aware if they've visited on site or not) Stephen Lerner and Van Jones.
"Joseph Stiglitz only founded Wither Socialism" Omnicronimous
Umm, sorry to burst your bubble, but do you know what "whither" means?
Have you read the book? That's why I asked. There is NO "Whither socialism" to be founded. You are wrong there.
Van Jones is no longer affiliated. Hedges called himself a socialist in a column, I think, but I've never read any pro-socialist work from him since. I don't know him too well, though.
@HopeForPeaceNow Van Jones is no longer officially affiliated but he advocates the exact same things he did when he was. He wrote what is for the most part the freaking American version of the Communist Manifesto. He can call himself a Martian for all I care. He walks the walk and talks the talk - same schtick as ever.
You seem to be largely ignorant of what exactly Wither Socialism is, so don't attempt to refute it. Hedges has repeatedly called himself a socialist.
"You seem to be largely ignorant of what exactly Wither Socialism is, so don't attempt to refute it." Omnicronimous
" so don't attempt to refute it" That was a vain and ignorant statement. In this case you are in error. YOu have obviously not read the book.
The book is "wHither Socialism?" it compares market strategies from an economics level. I asked you if you've read it. It is NOT A THEORY - it is a question. "Whither Socialism?" If you've read it can you share a few of the ideas?
@HopeForPeaceNow Why do you even make a pretense of having any grounds for dismissing the evidence I've presented? You asked who was there that was socialist/communist. I named what I would think is an adequate number, and there are a couple dozen more I could name. You have nothing to deny it. My point has been made.
Prof. Domhoff's opinion is a fringe opinion in the far left. He's not even an economist. He was considered a kook when his book came out in the '60s.
"Prof. Domhoff's opinion is a fringe opinion in the far left." Omnicronimous
I'll share that with him. He's a friend.
Maybe you'd like to webcam with him on it. I live in Santa Cruz. Do you know Wolff or where he gets his numbers? The top 20% owns 93% of US wealth is based on gov and fed #s. How much have you studied this area?
"Domhoff's opinion is a fringe opinion in the far left' Funny. It's just a number - wealth distribution is a simple #. Are you claiming all who use it are lying?
The telling thing there is last night you asked me where I got my numbers, by this morning you think you know more than a peer reviewed UC proffessor.
When I feed the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor are poor they call me a communist.
When was the last time you heard any progressive call for the relinquishment of all property rights? Is that not the foundation of both communism and socialism?
@HopeForPeaceNow I didn't say the CPUSA exclusively organized it. You didn't search at all if you couldn't find anything. But that's pretty much what I figured. I'll vet every single person I mentioned as socialist or communist in their own words and add more if you'd like. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the list of people I named were socialist/communist makes it glaringly obvious that you're disingenuous.
I don't have time to dig up URLs all night, so I'll be back Sat or Sun.
@HopeForPeaceNow Besides independent communist groups there are student communist groups represented there and many have had professors go with them there. Some of the professors stay there while others have gone back to their jobs. They're a little more difficult to look up. Look up Columbia U. communist student groups, or any number of other high profile schools in the Northeast combined with communist student groups. Or, you can just look for them on video. They hold appropriate signs.
@HopeForPeaceNow Oh, I almost forgot that former N.Y. governor David Patterson spoke down there too.
As for union groups, again, just Google: Unions New York communist socialist. They're mixed in with a bunch of other hits you'll get for opinion and news websites. They're there too though.
And no, I don't think all union members are communist. I know most aren't. However, many union leaders are either communist or socialist. It doesn't reflect the will of their membership.
This video supports the right left paradime. Obama has pick up George W's policies and moved them forward. Obama is doing what he is being paid to do. He is a closer. He will be tarred and feathered like Bush, Clinton and so on.
The droths will run to there NEW HERO Dick Perry and Sara Palin, more Globalists controlled by the real power brokers. It's a race to the bottom. Look past these political pawns. Harvard, Prinston, Yale, Bullets, Bombs, and Banks. FOX is not tea party or Glenn Beck.
Thanks Tea Party for reminding Americans to never doubt that a insignificant small group of reactionary, xenophobic and corporately-manipulated citizens can change the world!
@HopeForPeaceNow I never said that. I referring to the Democrat's declaration of pay-go's sacredness, then forgetting about it. What does regulation have to do with curing cultural problems? You still haven't answered: Where are there children "starving in the streets" in America? Complete silence on your 'experience' with the things you pontificate on. You come across with this condescending, holier than thou attitude, I'm curious what DEEDS you have to validate your credibility?
"I referring to the Democrat's declaration of pay-go's sacredness, then forgetting about it."
When the Democrats took over in 2008 we were in the middle of economic catastrophe. As I said. Not a time to enact Pay-Go. As I said.
I answered that twice. Did you want the parents of the 1 in 3 children to come out and show them to you? IF you saw them would it change your mind about poverty in America? I doubt it.
"Nothing about housing demand is phony. People want to own their homes." Yes but not everyone can afford it. The Fed loans banks money at low rates which enables banks to give more loans more frequently. When that capital floods the housing market it creates the allusion that there is real demand because prices are rising. The demand was created from low rates. Once rates increase people can no longer afford to overpay for houses so their values drop and malinvestment is exposed.
In reality, the GSE's always had regulated lending standards. The phrase "conforming loan" also means conforming to GSE standards. Even under HUD. The right won't tell you that.
After deregulation the private market was able to create the toxic types of loans that flooded the market and artificially raised home ownership and prices. It was the unregulated private market that blew up the bubble, with swaps as insurance.
Hud had been around for years with no bubble before that. CRA was 6%.
@HopeForPeaceNow GSE's set the standard - but it wasn't absolute. Who signed the 'deregulation' you reference into law? I believe we do agree on some things here. The bottom line is, most of the problem would have not existed without government meddling. Had the home mortgage market been truly free to operate in it's own best interest, less loans would have been made, few risky loans made and the solvency of the lenders unquestioned. It all began with 'redlining'.
I beg to differ. The word standard means an absolute. Are you meaning it was easy for GSE's to disregard regulation? I've never read that.
"Who signed the 'deregulation' you reference into law?"
Who wrote it?
"The bottom line is, most of the problem would have not existed without government meddling."
No, gov meddling had not blown up any bubble for 25 years. The safely lent. It was the private market. When they came online, the thing blew up in 3 years.
@HopeForPeaceNow No, I'm talking about private lending. Good comeback, but the signer and many of his party were right in there. Government meddling exacerbated the problem and IMHO tipped the scales. I am and was a big opponent of Bush's (and others of both parties) 'ownership society'. It all goes back to Carters CRA and forward to Greenspans screw ups.
I run a meta media group and we are studying the effect of erroneous narratives. Their who, where, how and why. No matter how clear and relevant the facts, people will cling to the paradigm they identify with. You have been told that gov making banks loan to poor people caused the meltdown. CRA, F&F. Regardless of empirical evidence, you will stick to that. I said CRA was 6%, even Republican dissent 1 discredits it as a cause. Greenspans screw up was deregulatiuon!??
This is the point of the video. A narrative can be so erroneous it makes those who are outside of it sick to look at it, but the adherents will embrace it. That is the depth of our situation today.
Georgetown and Harvard have done great work on the meltdown. I started by putting "private mortgage market" in my search. Maybe read Ed Pinto's work that Wallison bases his dissent on. The word wall street doesn't exist.
@HopeForPeaceNow That's your opinion. No it was 'biased' by government. The issues began decades before the pop. I think we're debating two facets of government involvement. Yes, a 25 year history, however there are much longer historical periods with an absence of HUD and much of the government meddling that make a different case. Spare me the condescension.
A safe 25 years, no killer bubbles. 3 years after they get their hands on the market, the Private market blows it up. Remember IBGYBG? I'll be gone, you'll be gone. They wrote that in their emails to each other. "I'll be on the beach when the thing blows up! No responsibility.
The real issue I have with "government did it alone", is it takes wall street off the hook. An action that must be taken if you want to push for further deregulation. Which you do.
@HopeForPeaceNow One last time. WS and greed are huge in the guilt, that greed was fueled by government issues. A 'true' correction would hammer everyone (with assets) myself included, that's what puts the teeth in the lesson. A market free to succeed or fail, is reality, it's self preservation is the regulator. At this point I'm more concerned with the debt, deficit and trajectory of spending - things many are in denial of or believe we can tax out of. Our economy doesn't have the steam.
"WS and greed are huge in the guilt, that greed was fueled by government issues."
All the more reason it proves Republicans as liars when they try to remove the words wall street from the causes. (FCIC)
The only way - once again, the gov fueled the IBGYBG mentality was to get out of it's way. That level of greed needed no help from gov. They sold the WORLD GDP, $60 trillion in swaps! HUD had zero to do with that regardless of the onslaught of lies the right teaches everyday.
@HopeForPeaceNow The IBMIBG applies to a tiny minority of citizens and doesn't represent a significant segment of those you demonize as 'the rich'. Stop stereotyping. I don't disagree that there were greedy individuals in the financial markets who were bad actors. However, it wasn't everyone on Wall St. and it's a disservice to honest people in the industry who weren't involved. I also maintain that the government fueled the opportunity and removed the risk with bailouts. Both were wrong.
You're rationalizing. It was the acronym used by the actual players. Free Market theology holds that Corps work oi their own best interest. Obviously, from empirical evidence, that is untrue. We gave our economy to people whose outlook was when the everyone else gets screwed, I'll be gone!
"doesn't represent a significant segment of those you demonize as 'the rich'. "
I never implied all rich people feel that way. I said it was use don wall street. I was right.
"it's a disservice to honest people in the industry who weren't involved."
No, mentioning a relevant fact doesn't demean anyone.
The best way to serve honest people is to give them a safe place to out their money. Today the right has constructed a lie to ensure the market never is safe. $ over safety, claims Wallison.
@HopeForPeaceNow I wonder, have you ever been in business? Employed a significant number of people? Do you have many investments? You pontificate on the matters, makes me wonder if you have any actual experience or is it all academic and/or hypothetical? Do you understand risk/reward? Fundamentals of equities? When you demonize 'wall street' because of a few bad apples, you stereotype and demean. If you don't grasp that fact you aren't as intelligent as I gave you credit.
"I also maintain that the government fueled the opportunity and removed the risk with bailouts."
The risk never would have been there is we had not allowed too big to fail by lack of regulation.
You damn the American people between choosing death or poverty!
WHERE did the gov fuel? It only got out of their way. But, I have given you many examples, you will never be able to see because you are a trained conservative. No amount of truth can ever sway you.
@HopeForPeaceNow By imposing regulations, removing them, encouraging artificial market activity.
Spare me the stale, condescension and personal put-downs. "you're a conservative and brainwashed, so you're stupid and your opinion doesn't count". I'll put my position in life against yours any day and let's just see who really has it together. I started with nothing and worked my way through college and business. What's your story?
@HopeForPeaceNow No. They removed the pain that is a necessary part of the equation of the free market. (you know the RISK part) And what's worse, they did it with money borrowed in the name of the taxpayer.
"A 'true' correction would hammer everyone (with assets) "
The base of this is issue is not letting Corps get so big they drag us all down in their folly. That would take regulation the right vehemently opposes.
The TRUE chaos that would have been wrought by letting the Bush Recession go includes Gov shutting down with in 3-4 weeks. No police, no pensions, no jobs, no banks, America would have shut down, along with the world. Dead bodies.THAT is the choice deregulation/Bush left us.
@HopeForPeaceNow I would posit that it's "not let government get so big". Make bad actors operate without safety nets and suffer the consequences of their behavior. "Bush Recession"? Spare me. You paint illogical, unlikely worst case arguments to justify government bureaucracy and central control. What deregulation did BUSH leave us?
"Make bad actors operate without safety nets and suffer the consequences of their behavior."
No friend, I'm so sorry. You are wrong.
They make YOU and I and the rest of the world suffer the consequences.
Europe may not recover. That's the effect of IBGYBG. We'll write all these bad contracts and fill the economies of the world with them, then reap our rewards! That is literally what happened.
I see you posit lots of opinions. I see no evidence offered.
@HopeForPeaceNow Just because the acronym was used on a couple emails doesn't make it a plague. It was bad behavior on the part of a few bad actors. I don't deny what happened. Everything will recover, snap out of your depression and finish you glass half empty of the Kool Aid. You can make your case for big brother all day, I don't agree. You're banging your head against a brick wall. Evidence of what?
"less loans would have been made, few risky loans made"
THEY INVENTED RISKY LOANS.???
No, not FEW risky loans, a bubble that blew up the global economy!
You just watched the opposite of what you are saying. that called "empirical" evidence. You lived through it. The private market owned the majority of Sps 2000-2005.
I know this is not what they teach you. But, again, they are lying.
@HopeForPeaceNow Again, we're debating two facets. Let me put it in simple terms: I disagree with all the bailouts, stimuless, government 'fixes' and incentives. If the market makes risky loans they should suffer the consequences, at some point the fear of risk was absolved, that was a false belief and the bad actors needed some pain to return to reality. It wouldn't have been pretty but it would be real. I'm getting scrambled letters that say I've said enough here.
"they should suffer the consequences,'justfactsallowed
Are you aware what the consequences to the American people would have been had we let the economy tailspin? YOU would suffer the consequences. All the more reason to never let them lose in the candy store without supervision - a mission the right is on today. Greed regulated itself, although we just found out painfully that it doesn't.
Too big to fail - lack of all regulation on size is the problem. The right supports it!
The right points only at gov so as to demonize it away. They oppose regulation, and always have. That's why they got rid of B Born and passed a law to ensure derivatives could not be regulated. $60 trillion (the world GDP) were sold of Swap derivatives alone, leveraged at 20/1 - they were the main anchor that sank the top 5. Swaps were sold as insurance for the toxic subprime securities of wall street. They change the story to win more deregulation.
@RealHarrySeaward YES! Add to that 'balloon notes', ARM's and lowered (or 'fixed') lending standards (thanks Carter). Democrat pushed FNMA/FMAC (thanks Roosevelt) bad lending with government securitizing. The problem with the 'ownership' society was, many should have never been owners and didn't really qualify - it was a well intended time bomb. Roll all those bad loans into a derivative package, insure it with AIG and sell them abroad and to pension funds - KABOOM!
@HopeForPeaceNow Private market prodded by a meddling government. Wall street took it from there, it was a product. I agree with SOME of your points, absolutely. However we're still 'eating the cooking' from GSE's, different segment holding the bag. GSE's DID have derivatives (are you confusing them with CDS's?) FNM held $900b on their sheets in 2009, that's what the takeover/bailouts were about. It's complicated and I don't pretend to understand all the nuances.
"Private market prodded by a meddling government."
How can I say this more clearly?
The government got out of the way - they deregulated the market - they opened the floodgates of an administration with a fundamental aversion to regulation - but the private market needed no prodding or help from gov. Their rules were far lower then GSEs. I don't know how you mean they were meddled with? Gov turned a blind eye to their bubble and hushed any who called for regulation.
The Swaps that were the big issue were sold by wall street as insurance. As GSE's had an implied insurance, they had to make these b paper loans look lucrative and safe. Thus Swaps. They were a measly $60 trillion though.
The total worth of derivatives today is over $700 trillion - 10x the world GDP. 10x all the world's income! That's the power - that's the fallacy.
@HopeForPeaceNow No it was the Federal Reserve who "exploded that market." The Fed inflated the bubble by using low interest rates to expand the money supply which is the boom part of the biz cycle. Once inflation gets out of hand they raise interest rates which brings about the bust part of the biz cycle. If you look at a graph showing the economic booms and busts of the past 4-5 decades you'll see that the Fed interest rates line up almost perfectly with it.
"The Fed inflated the bubble by using low interest rates to expand the money supply"
Yup. I know that's what they teach you. In fact, without the risky instruments invented in the unregulated private market, that $ could have been invested safely. Liquid cash could have meant growth, if it had been done safely. It was not the GSes that invented the loans that blew up the bubble. Sorry.
Also, there was an influx of foreign capital that would have lowered rates naturally, Did you read dissent 1?
@HopeForPeaceNow I agree it wasn't the GSEs that invented the loans. It was the Fed that created the money from thin air but the GSEs did take advantage of their unique ability to barrow that money at lower rates than the private sector. Either way Fannie/Freddie were only 1 of many contributing factors but I place the most blame on the Federal Reserve. The Fed caused recessions before Fannie/Freddie were born, before "risky instruments" were popular and regardless of market regulations.
"I agree it wasn't the GSEs that invented the loans"
If wall street invented the most toxic loans that were the fundamental structural issue, HOW/WHY would you remove them and the word deregulation from the FCIC report??
@HopeForPeaceNow "Did it cause the Depression? Did it cause global economic meltdown, the Bush Recession?"
Actually there's evidence that the Great Depression was orchestrated in order to create another central bank which at the time the citizens didn't want. Yes the Federal Reserve was the driving force that created the recession of 08 just like it caused the boom that led up to it. It also created the boom of the 90's which led to the recession of 2000-2001. There's an obvious pattern.
'Yes the Federal Reserve was the driving force that created the recession of 08"
This is where I find this dynamic of propaganda so interesting. You are clearly a bright person. Have you researched that claim for yourself? The spike in $ printing happened after 2008. Interest rate would have fallen on their own from the influx of foreign capital we experienced in 2000, supply and demand. How exactly do you mean the Fed was the "driving force"?
(cont'd) ...cycle like in 08'. That "influx of foreign capital" is why it became a global recession. The influx was due to what appeared to be a thriving US housing market and a safe investment. Once the housing bubble burst that "influx of foreign capital" was the reason our recession spread around the world. Derivatives and other risky tools only compounded an existing problem.
"The influx was due to what appeared to be a thriving US housing market and a safe investment."
Except it started in 1999.
The "end the Fed" guys are also the Pure Free Market guys.
Their goal is to remove all rules and supervision from the financial market that the ELite built, own run and blew up in front of our faces, making them much richer and us much poorer.
Shciff and Paul and Co build their case, like Wallison, on lies. Their goal is what just blew us up - mass deregulation
@HopeForPeaceNow "The "end the Fed" guys are also the Pure Free Market guys. Their goal is to remove all rules and supervision from the financial market "
Are you high? That's not true at all. First of all the Fed has nothing to due with regulations, it's not even regulated itself. Secondly, there is something called fraud in a free market and it IS ILLEGAL. People like Ron Paul do not tolerate fraud. It's a misconception that a free market is a free for all. Please do some research.
@RealHarrySeaward ""The "end the Fed" guys are also the Pure Free Market guys. Their goal is to remove all rules and supervision from the financial market "" me
You're right, I phrased that poorly. Many of the same players, Ron Paul, etc, who demonize the Fed as the only cause for the meltdown are the same that call for pure Free Markets - markets with zero regulation and zero supervision.
Greed regulated itself is the Austrian economics viewpoint. (Or greed can't be regulated, don;t try)
"It's a misconception that a free market is a free for all. Please do some research."
Did YOU know how many fraud cases were brought before the meltdown?
Is it not clear to you by the way I answer every question with fact that I have researched? You, in my opinion, have not. Yet I would not display the lack of class of putting it to you in such a condescending and erroneous fashion.
You send me your sites, I'll send you mine and we shall see who has researched.
Harry, Thanks for the great debate. No worries if you tire.
I absolutely give you that the Fed played a role. We should address it, no doubt.
May I respectfully say, not the main role. The difference is important in that many who point to the Fed alone, couple it with further deregulation. The discourse we are having around that subject is crucial, in my opinion. The right basing theirs in untruth, demonizing regulation as a pillar of their platform..
look at all the quality candidates,no Communists here!
AthenasConquest 1 month ago
@AthenasConquest
I know Obama's not a Communist. Thanks for clarifying.
What does this mean, Athena, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice"?
HopeForPeaceNow 1 month ago
All those pix make me sick, keep derps away from Photoshop
thework4444 3 months ago
The elites would NOT have been fine without the bailouts which is exactly why they lobbied with near irresistible pressure they did. There was no plan for a bailout at all without them. IT WAS THEIR PLAN! To say otherwise is compete ignorance, denial, or blatant dishonesty. Sure, most of them would have remained wealthy by middle class standards, but their system of wealth accumulation would likely have collapsed and THAT panicked them.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"The elites would NOT have been fine without the bailouts" Omnicronimous
Man, the REST of us would NOT have been fine without bailouts - the freezing of all credit - further loss of pensions - gov shut downs - an $11 trillion loss would likely have been a $44 to $80 trillion loss. The citizenry would have been wiped out. That's when the ELite come in and clean up. They would have been the last man standing. The ONLY people with money - they win either way. That's the beauty of power, right?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
Your claims such as "The elite want the FED ended" are just ridiculous. The FED was founded by and has been run by the elites ever since.
The Elites don't care what their tax rate is. I.E. Gates and Buffet. The only wealthy people after lower taxes are a few idealists and up and comers. The reason the elites don't care? Because higher income tax doesn't effect their accumulated wealth and it insulates them from would-be challengers in the market.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"The Elites don't care what their tax rate is. I.E. Gates and Buffet." Omnicronimous
You're saying what 2 say is what all 20% believe.
Really? They are just as happy paying 39% as they are 25%?
So, it's just conservatives who want to lower their rate and remove the estate tax?
C Koch is just as happy paying 200,000,000 in income tax as he is paying 70,000,000?
Why does he hire Grover Norquist then?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
Thank God we still have free speech!!
I know that the communists HATE free speech!
They have openly stated that they want to shut the conservative media down.
We will NEVER let that happen!
thejihadresistance 5 months ago
"Thank God we still have free speech!!' thejihadresistance
Conservatives have openly stated that they want one party rule!
Cons hope to remain addicted to oil, serve the Elite with more tax cuts, screw the middle class by obliterating their wealth, pollution for profit, war for profit and a smear campaign of lies.
Now the right claims Obama is a Republican! I thought he was a hard core liberal fascist?? I have no doubt you can't see the veil of lies. YOu are trained by it.
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow You are afraid of the Constitution, you must be a government worker and know you can't make it on your own.
thejihadresistance 5 months ago
"You are afraid of the Constitution, you must be a government worker and know you can't make it on your own." thejihadresistance
Is it fun for you to come online and be an asshole? Seems the only way you can make your point because you don;t have one.
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Is that enough or do you need more? I'd rather not have to do your homework for you, but I'll get a few more examples if you need me to.
Personally, I don't think you're interested in the truth though. I think you are either going to deny while being too afraid to confirm or you're going to lie. Either way, I don't care. The truth is plain to see and I've been following the communist rhetoric planning for this since last year.
Have fun comrade.
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
"The truth is plain to see and I've been following the communist rhetoric planning for this since last year." Omnicronimous
I do research for a living. I can provide cites for everything I believe. It would seem that you are claiming communists set up Occupy Wall Street. Please send your cites to my email. I found no trace of what you claim
Now - do you know why you support the move the wealth of the middle class into the coffers of the ELite? I'd be happy to send you MY cites on why I don't.
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Meanwhile everyone that reads this comments section can see how dishonest you are. "I see 2 socialists on that list". "You're claiming Stiglitz (yeah, I corrected your spelling) is a communist?"
You're so freaking obvious ignoring the glaring obvious facts. You didn't even look up 80 Days of Rage did you? You didn't look past the CPUSA website is my guess. I'm sure you didn't check out a single communist student group website. Your position is all wet.
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
@Omnicronimous
Can you help me?
What's the difference between the Tea Party agenda and the Elite agenda?
Curious if you know?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Oh yeah, and I failed to mention that idiot Michael Moore. But enough people already know he was down there pedaling his agenda already that I don't think it really needed to be said. Still, for the record, he's down there trying to turn America into Cuba.
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
@Omnicronimous
Sir - the ELite are 7% away from owning 100% of US wealth.
Is anyone who would like to make sure they don't your enemy? What side does that put you on?
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow What percentage of the population makes up the "elite"? Where did you find a statistic that said the "elite" owned 93% of the U.S. wealth? Why is someone that is wealthy automatically my enemy? Why is giving more power to the government to seize wealth at the point of a gun good for me or anyone else outside of those that hold power in government?
Let me be clear. The only enemies I have are those that would assume the authority to take away my rights or those of my countrymen.
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
"Where did you find a statistic that said the "elite" owned 93% of the U.S. wealth" Omnicronimous
Who rules America. Proff Bill Domhoff. Any search of "wealth distribution" would show you. YOu send me your sites for Commies planning Occupy and I'll sand you tons of cites on WD.
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow He had no valid statistical proof then and I'm sure he has even less to work with now if he's even still maintaining the claim.
What makes the Tea Party different? How about the fact that most of them want the Fed eliminated? How about the fact that they want lower taxes for everyone? How about the fact that they want to end social programs? How about the fact that they are opposed to bail outs of any kind? Remember? They were the ONLY ones out in the street then!
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"He had no valid statistical proof ' Omnicronimous
EXCUSE ME?? DO you know Wolfe's work? Did you follow the cites? Are you claiming the top 20% DON"T own 93% of financial wealth? How silly will you feel when you find you are wrong?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I just hopped on and have enough time to say this: 1 - You don't know my education level or occupation. 2. Domhoff's education and occupation do not make him correct. 3. I don't have to qualify my own opinion vs. Domhoff's to qualify his opinion as fringe. Fringe - peripheral, marginal, or extreme. Even the most of the left considers Domhoff to be fringe. Plenty of his peers both disagree and refute his claims. 4. You've completely redirected the entire discussion.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"You don't know my education level or occupation. " Omnicronimous
I know you don't study economics - you thought wither was a socialist economics theory. You sadly called me ignorant when I pointed that out.
I know you don't know much about the current debate on regulation if you think the Elite don't want Free Markets. Banks have paid over 30 million in lobbyists fees to stop every aspect of Frank-Dodd, from Warren to regs for hedgefunds to derivatives. You are 100% wrong.
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
I don't see that you found any difference between the Tea Party agenda and the ELite agenda.
Elite want the FED ended (do you know why?). Elite want lower taxes,down to 25%from 39% in the Ryan plan. The Elite want to end social programs - shrink gov. Elite IN TRUTH - would have been fine without bailouts. It was not their reality that would have crashed and burned.
Elite want no regulations or supervision. No minimum wage. Oil addiction.
Try again and think of one difference.
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Again another of your claims - that elites want no regulation - is totally bogus. They're the ones that lobby for the specific regulations we get and have! Every single time there are more regulations stacked on they have the capital to adjust while smaller companies - the competition - is stiffled, weakened, or wiped out altogether. Name the last time any major regulations were made that were openly opposed by the banking system.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
SO, again, we find no difference between the Elite agenda and the Tea Party agenda.
More wealth and power for the top, less wealth and power for the bottom,
all behind a veil of lies,
preached by republican jesus and wrapped in the flag!
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow My education in relation to Whither Socialism - Umm, perhaps you haven't heard, but the title of the book has been attached to the guys alternative market theories for a while now. You may be informed in certain schools of information, but you're definitely oblivious to much. Especially to presume that I don't have an education in economics.
You have no refutation that Domhoff's position isn't fringe, that Stiglitz isn't socialist, and pretty much everyone else I named.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Back to the elite want to end the fed - You're out. You're simply out of it with that. I named only two elites and that's your response is to repeat yourself and state utter nonsense about elites indoctrinating people with consumerism and economic cycles? For one, Time (left leaning supporters of Occupy Wall Street) has the wealth statistic divvied up as 80% to the top 20%, which is a little closer to the truth than your nonsense.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow There is no Republican Jesus, but the phenomenon of so many Tea Party people being devout Christians has to do with the fact that the Christian faith compels believers to value free will. There is no room for conversion by force. Essential Christian values such as treating others as you would want to be treated and being charitable to the poor as individuals is what makes the synergy happen. It has nothing to do with being Republican or idolizing a flag.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow The veil of lies is the one being cast over the eyes of the impoverished by socialists such as yourself. Socialism is bureaucratic feudalism. In a free market people can be self employed, choose their employer, or not be employed at all and work for a church, own a self-sustained farm, or live off mom and dad. Socialism always pulls toward totalitarianism with governments dictating work conditions, living locations and conditions, healthcare, education, and even diet.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@HopeForPeace Now In finishing up for today - You know what is the most ridiculous thing about your position? On the one hand you would claim that the "elites" have ALL the wealth of the world and control the government (going back beyond the '60s according to Domhoff) and on the other hand you'd like to paint them enemies of the very system that they've constructed.
They oppose institutional minimum wage? Big bankers LOVE minimum wage! It helps drive inflation and kills smaller banker rivals!
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
Elite want the FED ended, do you know why?
Its authority is derived from the U.S. Congress and is subject to congressional oversight..
They are pushing for a pure free market where they are the only power.
They train their believers that consumerism, natural business cycles an d innovation are all that's needed for the 80% with 7% of financial wealth to steer the 20% with 93% of financial wealth.
Is wealth power? Or no?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow You really need me to name more elites that are generally progressives and/or socialists? How about nearly the entire Rockefeller family? The Turners? Heinz? George Soros? Eli Broad? Julian Robertson Jr.? Pat Stryker? The Kennedys? Mark Cuban? Oprah Winfrey?
Do I really need to name more? The fact is that the statistics themselves place most conservative, libertarian, or Republican voters in the middle class to upper middle class category. The top and bottom favor liberal.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Religion intrinsically gives adherents a common moral ground. Socialism and communism always polarize toward atheism (as many Marxists have said, atheism and socialism are always tied together) because the ultimate loyalty of the citizen must be to the state. The state requires relative morality. The communist/socialist state is materialist in philosophy and application. Thus the Christian "right" in America will always clash with socialism.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow The fact that the founding of the U.S. was done largely by Christians with Judeo-Christian morality as the basis for the protected rights given to the citizens of this country is what compels Christians to be patriotic and "wrap" themselves in a flag. The flag represents a common morality, and the patriotism is reflected in brotherly love for countrymen within that morality. It is NOT blind patriotism to a state. Blind patriotism to a state is exactly what communism demands.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"Christians with Judeo-Christian morality" Omnicronimous I LOVE THIS comment! Thank you!
The founders believed only land owning white men could vote. They refused to end slavery, practiced white male supremacy and believed God commanded them to commit the genocide of all native people( 2-6 million).
That is the TRUTH of our "Christian heritage". ALL of the "Christian" men you refer to based their lives on these idea. Except a few - Jefferson cut up his bible with a pair of scissors.
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow 1. Again, instead of admitting that you'd been refuted you went on to take the conversation into another direction... again. You were refuted as to the nature of the organization of this movement. What I find laughable is that you actually turn around and defend socialism. Me - These guys are socialists and communists. You - No. Me - Yes, here's who they are and here is their admitted position. You - No. Socialism isn't bad. You're ignorant.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Look back at my reply to your first spew. YOU FAIL TO ANSWER ONE POINT!
'Cons hope to remain addicted to oil, serve the Elite with more tax cuts, screw the middle class by obliterating their wealth, pollution for profit, war for profit and a smear campaign of lies" MOI
Did you address the Con platform of one party rule? No. Yo are a typical trained whore for the Elite.
FUCK OFF IDIOT!
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” George Washington
Jefferson wrote in freedom of religion because Anglicans had declared their religion the religion of the land. Their preachers were paid by the state and you could not preach without a license - and only Anglican religion. Baptists went to Jefferson to end this - thus "shall make no laws".
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
"in brotherly love for countrymen" Omnicronimous
You man all non-left countrymen.
As a progressive, I feel no brotherly love from the right. I have Coulter saying every liberal is a Godless communist and their mobs should be shot. You label us all as idiot socialists, then back the Elite in their agenda and call that "Godly"! You teach that the poor are lazy, the Elite are venerated and all non-conservatives are America hating, godless idiots!
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
"flag represents a common morality" Omni
Was occupying Iraq moral? Were the Bremer decisions moral?
Is more wealth for the wealthy and rejection of the poor moral?
Was our war machine unleashed on S America through the Regan era moral? Is pollution for profit moral? Is America on oil moral? Is nuclear proliferation moral? Is removing all regulation from the financial markets the elite built, own and run moral? Is a lie machine created to dupe American into supporting the elite moral?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Me - I just refuted you and instead of acknowledging you're defending socialism. You - You're ignorant. Republican Jesus wrapped in a flag. Me - Another redirection? The very nature of socialism is inherently oppressive. It's the value for free will that sets Christians at odds with Socialism. Christian values founded this country. You - Haha. Ignorant. Christian values didn't found this country. *Atheist favorite overused George Washington quote**Jefferson cut the Bible*
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"you're defending socialism." Omnicronimous
You're a trained monkey for the Elite. They use their power to remove your job, your home and your financial stability - you worship them as jobcreators.
You have no material knowledge of the issues (Where ... said the "elite" owned 93% of the U.S. wealth? ) you regurgitate what they have trained you to parrot.
Any attempt to school you is as fruitless as teaching a chimp to write his name - in fact - I'm sure I would have more luck at that.
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Just stop for a second. You've just redirected again. You just tied me to some imagined loyalty to the elite again.
What don't you get? The fact is, you're the one stuck on the notion of elite vs. non-elite. I don't even see things in those terms! I don't care who the wealthiest man in the country is. You seem determined to bring him down, no matter how legitimate his accumulation of wealth may be. I don't care. I only care about liberty. I'm not consumed with wealth.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"imagined loyalty to the elite again." Omnicronimous
YOU FUCKING MORON!
Elite agenda = tax cuts - removal of all regulation & supervision - removal of all public services
Tea Party agenda = tax cuts - removal of all regulation & supervision - removal of all public services
ASSHOLE! NOW WHY the Christian founders kill off 500 million and enslave 4 million more???"??.
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow That pretty much sums it up now doesn't it? Do you really want me to get into the God-fearing quotes of the Founders? Volumes could be written on the subject. I don't deny that there were a few of the very prominent Founders that were deists. There was even one prominent atheist. That doesn't diminish that the values expressed in the Constitution were Judeo-Christian values and doesn't refute the fact that the overwhelming majority were Christian.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"Do you really want me to get into the God-fearing quotes of the Founders?" Omnicronimous
OK - so let's humiliate you again -
ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION - IF the FOUNDERS were basing America in Christian values, WHY did, they enforce "All men are created equal as long as they are white"? While they venerated equality, they commited genocide against 50 million Native Americans, they drove out Mexicans from their lands and kept 4 million blacks in slavery.
WHO WOULD JESUS GENOCIDE?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Let me know, because the argument that the Founders weren't Christian is really all you have left. We can go person-by-person over the signatures on the founding documents and vet every single one of them for their religion, or at least as much as is known of it. I have access to the information. Would you rather I simply started listing them? Or, would you rather just concede the point, as you have no grounds for denying it. I could start with Washington and Jefferson.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I don't claim that either Washington or Jefferson were fundamentalist Christians. But to assert that either were atheist or even agnostic is either indicative of overwhelming bias coupled with ignorance or that you're just dishonest. Washington's religious devotion called into question? Do you really want to go there? Jefferson was anti-Christian? Want to get into that?
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"assert that either were atheist or even agnostic is either indicative of overwhelming bias " O
I never said that you brainedead ape. CAn you read?
WHERE in the BIble does it say - "Obliterate all whose land you want. Take their possessions, drive them out OR enslave them. Just be sure to obliterate all who stand in the way of your wealth"?
I have no DOUBT you can't answer that or 150,000 other questions I could ask about your politics. YOu only know how to mock - that's how your trained.
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
"The fact that the founding of the U.S. was done largely by Christians with Judeo-Christian morality as the basis for the protected rights given to the citizens of this country is what compels Christians to be patriotic and "wrap" themselves in a flag. " Omnicronimous
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahah
"Christian morality" Yea, the same morality makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. "Blessed are the wealthy" Rj
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Nevermind. Your last couple posts were manic. You've wasted far too much of my time. Enjoy your charade.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
OH NO - don't give up now!!
COME ON -
WHY - if America was founded on Christian principles - did we kill off 500 million to take their land, drive out races and keep blacks in slavery??
Come on moron - why?????
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
Pantywaste.
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I don't wish you ill will. From my perspective you're mixed up and angry. You believe you have things right. That's fine. But I am not going to waste my time when you're spouting nonsense.
Me: The differences in systems are_______.
You: Chickens fly spaceships around jello molds!
Do you use recreational drugs by any chance? (Yes, pot counts).
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous The only reason you call this: "Cons hope to remain addicted to oil, serve the Elite with more tax cuts, screw the middle class by obliterating their wealth, pollution for profit, war for profit and a smear campaign of lies."
"Chickens fly spaceships around jello molds!"
is you can't answer it.They are all fact.
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous I'm sure this" They train their believers that consumerism, natural business cycles an d innovation are all that's needed for the 80% with 7% of financial wealth to steer the 20% with 93% of financial wealth." Sounds like this:"Chickens fly spaceships around jello molds"to you.
Are you familliar with Austrinan Economics? Ayn Rand?
"Do you use recreational drugs by any chance?"
Are you an asshole often?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I know I told you once already that I'm not a Tea Party member. I have an affinity for what they're striving for. They are to the free market what Progressives are to socialism. I'm a bit more extreme. I'm a Ron Paul guy. I believe in cutting entire programs. But you have to end regulations at the same time. Including regulations regarding unions, and most importantly, eliminate litigation restrictions. Read my channel. I say as much.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"you have to end regulations." Omni
How did an unregulated market - TOTAL black box - that sold $60 trillion in contracts leveraged at 30/1 effect us in 2008?
Also, transparency is a key in a free market, without it you have no logic of choice. How do you have transparency in a "black box"?
The private subprime market was virtually unregulated. It's defaults were nearly 3X the GSE default rate. GSE were regulated.
The stated income loan was invented outside regulation in private market?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I just read your response for the first time tonight. I don't have the time to respond right now but THANK YOU for getting to some issues of substance. Some of what you are making an issue of was presented inaccurately and I will point out what I thought was so. I'll get back to you soon. I have family visiting from out to town, but since this is your video I don't imagine that it isn't going anywhere. Last thing - it's good to be able to confirm you aren't a complete kook. ;-)
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
Have fun with your fam... I'm always here.
Let loose - I'm happy to talk with anyone who is interested in leaving the insults out.
Cheers!
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
How was that "fam" time?
HopeForPeaceNow 3 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Not was, is. They're staying with us for a couple of weeks. They're from the opposite side of the country, so it's quite a vacation for them visiting the other coast.
Thanks for asking. Take care.
Omnicronimous 3 months ago
@Omnicronimous
The standard answer from AE is only the Fed dropping interest rates caused the meltdown. This is clearly debunked by reality.
In 2000 we had a massive foreign capital bubble. The Republicans on the FCIC commission did a decent job covering it. They blame the entire meltdown on it, but they are trained to cover for Wall Street, so grain of salt. By simple supply and demand, interest rates could have been even lower from that cash flood.. is that not perfect AE?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Do you want to get off the "neocon" bashing and actually discuss economics? Let's get into it. We can go point by point on every single political issue if you'd like. I love discussion. I have folks to discuss with off YouTube, but online discussions can be a great diversion. Especially when you have breakthroughs/connections with people.
I'm no propagandist. I've found plenty. I took the time to challenge you in the first place because you seemed to care. Drop the hostility.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
"You: Chickens fly spaceships around jello molds!"
"Drop the hostility."
You get more of what you bring when you drop in here. I never insult until I'm insulted.
Love to yak with ya - What's your theory on why we should remove all regulation and supervision from the financial markets the Elite built, own and run? How are you at defending derivatives? Praxeology vs empirical? What power no NB cycles have in a world where the top 400 corps = 67% of all profit?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
"#12 One flat income tax of 7% for everyone. No sales tax, no inheritance tax, no fees..!" Omni
IN 30 years the middle class has lost 13% of it's wealth. The bottom 80% owned 20% of US financial wealth, they now own 7%. The upward shift correlates with 2 factors - in the '70's, even as production rose - incomes stagnated for workers - moving to a record 275X income top vs bottom. 2nd - Reaganomics, flat tax. Is the bottom owning 4% your goal? 2%? 2 million more fall into poverty for every 1%!!
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
Are you familliar with Austrinan Economics? Ayn Rand? That is a description of what is needed to control greed. You wouldn't know that maybe. Read mush Mises? Rothbard? Hayek? Nah
Tell me what you think will control the Elite under Free Markets. What's your theory?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Well, ignoring the parts that sounded like, "Lay stones on car hoods with horse shoes." - Yeah, now you're starting to speak my language. Yes, I'm very familiar with Austrian Economics, Rand, Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek. That's precisely my territory.
You've been on such a gravy train of "neocon" bashing you haven't discussed much of substance. I've mentioned it plenty elsewhere, but perhaps not here. Are you aware that I describe current American economics as corporate fascism?
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Another distinct difference is that the Tea Party strongly advocates the 2nd Amendment. Lefties like you never take the time to find out what the Tea Party is really about. These are largely the same people that were Ross Perot supporters in the '90s. Most of them are opposed to The Patriot Act, although that is one issue that divides them more than the others.
Last, I'm not a Tea Party member as I don't agree with everything they advocate. I just share most of the same values.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
@thejihadresistance
Do you believe that all liberal protests are a demonic mob and should be shot?
Do you agree that if a progressive wants to get off oil fast they are an "eco-terrorist"?
Does Obama "hang out" with domestic terrorists?
Are liberals plotting armed revolution?
The entire lie is so easy to see through.
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow top 8 domestic terrorists listed at fbi dot gov slash wanted dt
ARE LIBERAL NUTS GO GREEN COMMUNISTS, most are "eco- terrorists" a few are racists (Black Panther types) You are the bad guys and you know it, go LOOK for yourself, NONE are constitutionalists
thejihadresistance 5 months ago
"constitutionalists" thejihadresistance
I believe I asked you once already -
the Constitution protected the South's right to slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional.
Would you like to overturn it?
"top 8 domestic terrorist"
When a liberal blows up a federal building killing children you can claim we are the bad guys.
Until then, right wing nut jobs prove the most dangerous.
Don't come around me mentally unarmed.
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I can claim it now because the proof is in the list, it is in black and white at the link I provided , you are brainwashed and can't think, you have no list of constitutionalists who are on an FBI list, so again no matter what I show you in the way of proof, you are a zombie, you proved it yet again.
thejihadresistance 5 months ago
"no matter what I show you in the way of proof, you are a zombie" thejihadresistance
:) Would it EVER be possible for ME to show YOU evidence to open YOUR mind? Think about that.
The list I see is this : Religion, Education, Media, Culture,
THESE ARE USED TODAY BY CONSERVATIVES to indoctrinate you with rhetoric to:
Pollution for profit, war for profit, removal of all regulation and supervision from the Elite's Corps, less taxes for the Elite who are 7% away from owning 100% of US wealth.
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
"you are brainwashed and can't think," thejihadresistance
The only way to prove YOUR case is to answer WHY YOU SUPPORT:
addiction to oil, war for profit, pollution for profit, health for profit, education for profit and propaganda for profit, the removal of wealth from the middle class, the expansion of wealth for the Elite, the removal of all regulation and supervision for the Elite who built, own and run our financial system (cont)
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow To find the groups involved simply type Communist in the Google search bar. Visit any communist web site for groups based in the U.S. that you find and you'll find forums loaded with messages back and forth about organizing, funding, and maintaining the Occupy Wall Street protest. They call it the October Revolution. One specific group is called 80 Days of Rage after Bill Ayers' group in the '60s. (Oh yeah, forgot Bill Ayers is helping too).
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
"Visit any communist web site" Omnicronimous
Sorry I searched in CPUSA and such and found no referrence.
I would believe, though that Occupy would appear in their blogs the same way the Tea Party appears in Neo-con sites. Does that mean all TPers are NEO-COns?
It seems you are claiming that the Communist party set the entire thing up - is that your feeling?
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@thejihadresistance
(cont) nuclear proliferation, PAx Americana, de-education, removal of the EPA, the DOE and all public services and the lie machine that buys your vote for the Elite through a Goebbels style propaganda campaign?
WHY do YOU support th policies of the "right"?
I KNOW WHY I support regulation, energy independence, non- predatory foreign policy, fair taxes for the Elite, social safety nets, education and mixed markets.
Can you explain why you do not?
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@thejihadresistance
@thejihadresistance
(cont) nuclear proliferation, PAx Americana, de-education, removal of the EPA, the DOE and all public services and the lie machine that buys your vote for the Elite through a Goebbels style propaganda campaign?
WHY do YOU support th policies of the "right"?
I KNOW WHY I support regulation, energy independence, non- predatory foreign policy, fair taxes for the Elite, social safety nets, education and mixed markets.
Can you explain why you do not?
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Let's get started with some of the folks that have spoken at the Occupy Wall Street advocating socialism or open communism:
Roseanne Barr, Frances Fox Piven, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeff Madrick, Russell Simmons, Alec Baldwin, Matthew Broderick, Olympia Dukakis, Cornel West, Harrison Shultz, Naif Littles, Christ Hedges, and on the sidelines (I am not aware if they've visited on site or not) Stephen Lerner and Van Jones.
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
@Omnicronimous
I see 2 socialists that I am aware of in that list.
Are you claiming all are communist?
You're claiming Stieglitz is a communist?
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Joseph Stiglitz only founded Wither Socialism. That's all.
Michael Moore is openly socialist and Marxist (quotes Marx consistently but denies labels).
F.F. Piven has openly advocated "socialist revolution" since the '60s
Bill Ayers is openly a anarchist-communist
Van Jones is a communist
Cornel West is openly socialist
Chris Hedges is openly socialist
David Paterson is "Progressive" but has advocated socialism openly.
Susan Sarandon is openly socialist.
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
"Joseph Stiglitz only founded Wither Socialism" Omnicronimous
Umm, sorry to burst your bubble, but do you know what "whither" means?
Have you read the book? That's why I asked. There is NO "Whither socialism" to be founded. You are wrong there.
Van Jones is no longer affiliated. Hedges called himself a socialist in a column, I think, but I've never read any pro-socialist work from him since. I don't know him too well, though.
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Van Jones is no longer officially affiliated but he advocates the exact same things he did when he was. He wrote what is for the most part the freaking American version of the Communist Manifesto. He can call himself a Martian for all I care. He walks the walk and talks the talk - same schtick as ever.
You seem to be largely ignorant of what exactly Wither Socialism is, so don't attempt to refute it. Hedges has repeatedly called himself a socialist.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"You seem to be largely ignorant of what exactly Wither Socialism is, so don't attempt to refute it." Omnicronimous
" so don't attempt to refute it" That was a vain and ignorant statement. In this case you are in error. YOu have obviously not read the book.
The book is "wHither Socialism?" it compares market strategies from an economics level. I asked you if you've read it. It is NOT A THEORY - it is a question. "Whither Socialism?" If you've read it can you share a few of the ideas?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Why do you even make a pretense of having any grounds for dismissing the evidence I've presented? You asked who was there that was socialist/communist. I named what I would think is an adequate number, and there are a couple dozen more I could name. You have nothing to deny it. My point has been made.
Prof. Domhoff's opinion is a fringe opinion in the far left. He's not even an economist. He was considered a kook when his book came out in the '60s.
Omnicronimous 4 months ago
"Prof. Domhoff's opinion is a fringe opinion in the far left." Omnicronimous
I'll share that with him. He's a friend.
Maybe you'd like to webcam with him on it. I live in Santa Cruz. Do you know Wolff or where he gets his numbers? The top 20% owns 93% of US wealth is based on gov and fed #s. How much have you studied this area?
"Domhoff's opinion is a fringe opinion in the far left' Funny. It's just a number - wealth distribution is a simple #. Are you claiming all who use it are lying?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@Omnicronimous
The telling thing there is last night you asked me where I got my numbers, by this morning you think you know more than a peer reviewed UC proffessor.
When I feed the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor are poor they call me a communist.
When was the last time you heard any progressive call for the relinquishment of all property rights? Is that not the foundation of both communism and socialism?
HopeForPeaceNow 4 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I didn't say the CPUSA exclusively organized it. You didn't search at all if you couldn't find anything. But that's pretty much what I figured. I'll vet every single person I mentioned as socialist or communist in their own words and add more if you'd like. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the list of people I named were socialist/communist makes it glaringly obvious that you're disingenuous.
I don't have time to dig up URLs all night, so I'll be back Sat or Sun.
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Besides independent communist groups there are student communist groups represented there and many have had professors go with them there. Some of the professors stay there while others have gone back to their jobs. They're a little more difficult to look up. Look up Columbia U. communist student groups, or any number of other high profile schools in the Northeast combined with communist student groups. Or, you can just look for them on video. They hold appropriate signs.
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Oh, I almost forgot that former N.Y. governor David Patterson spoke down there too.
As for union groups, again, just Google: Unions New York communist socialist. They're mixed in with a bunch of other hits you'll get for opinion and news websites. They're there too though.
And no, I don't think all union members are communist. I know most aren't. However, many union leaders are either communist or socialist. It doesn't reflect the will of their membership.
Omnicronimous 5 months ago
you go girl
olyolsson 5 months ago
:)
It is our future!
The end
or the beginning
it's up to you
HopeForPeaceNow 5 months ago
This video supports the right left paradime. Obama has pick up George W's policies and moved them forward. Obama is doing what he is being paid to do. He is a closer. He will be tarred and feathered like Bush, Clinton and so on.
The droths will run to there NEW HERO Dick Perry and Sara Palin, more Globalists controlled by the real power brokers. It's a race to the bottom. Look past these political pawns. Harvard, Prinston, Yale, Bullets, Bombs, and Banks. FOX is not tea party or Glenn Beck.
EndPKD 6 months ago
"This video supports the right left paradime." EndPKD
This video supports all of us understanding the power of corporate media to purchase votes and create artificial worldviews.
"FOX is not tea party or Glenn Beck. "
Sorry - lost there. What did you mean?
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks Tea Party for reminding Americans to never doubt that a insignificant small group of reactionary, xenophobic and corporately-manipulated citizens can change the world!
barbtube01 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I never said that. I referring to the Democrat's declaration of pay-go's sacredness, then forgetting about it. What does regulation have to do with curing cultural problems? You still haven't answered: Where are there children "starving in the streets" in America? Complete silence on your 'experience' with the things you pontificate on. You come across with this condescending, holier than thou attitude, I'm curious what DEEDS you have to validate your credibility?
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
"I referring to the Democrat's declaration of pay-go's sacredness, then forgetting about it."
When the Democrats took over in 2008 we were in the middle of economic catastrophe. As I said. Not a time to enact Pay-Go. As I said.
I answered that twice. Did you want the parents of the 1 in 3 children to come out and show them to you? IF you saw them would it change your mind about poverty in America? I doubt it.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
"""you're a conservative and brainwashed, so you're stupid and your opinion doesn't count"."
Again, before I continue to try and help you - WHERE did I say this - or did you make it up as if I said it?
"You come across with this condescending, holier than thou attitude, I'm curious what DEEDS you have to validate your credibility?"
I live in full time service to Christ. I have laid down my material life to feed the poor and tend the least of these. I'm in full time ministry.
You asked.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@justfactsallowed
""you're a conservative and brainwashed, so you're stupid and your opinion doesn't count".
I looked over the past pages, I can't find that quote from me. Although the right's policies are threatening humanity, I try and keep my patience.
Please tell me where you got it before I continue.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I was paraphrasing you it was an indirect quotation. Look it up. I see you sure were quick to label it a lie and claim high ground.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
"Nothing about housing demand is phony. People want to own their homes." Yes but not everyone can afford it. The Fed loans banks money at low rates which enables banks to give more loans more frequently. When that capital floods the housing market it creates the allusion that there is real demand because prices are rising. The demand was created from low rates. Once rates increase people can no longer afford to overpay for houses so their values drop and malinvestment is exposed.
RealHarrySeaward 6 months ago 6
In reality, the GSE's always had regulated lending standards. The phrase "conforming loan" also means conforming to GSE standards. Even under HUD. The right won't tell you that.
After deregulation the private market was able to create the toxic types of loans that flooded the market and artificially raised home ownership and prices. It was the unregulated private market that blew up the bubble, with swaps as insurance.
Hud had been around for years with no bubble before that. CRA was 6%.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow GSE's set the standard - but it wasn't absolute. Who signed the 'deregulation' you reference into law? I believe we do agree on some things here. The bottom line is, most of the problem would have not existed without government meddling. Had the home mortgage market been truly free to operate in it's own best interest, less loans would have been made, few risky loans made and the solvency of the lenders unquestioned. It all began with 'redlining'.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
"standard - but it wasn't absolute"
I beg to differ. The word standard means an absolute. Are you meaning it was easy for GSE's to disregard regulation? I've never read that.
"Who signed the 'deregulation' you reference into law?"
Who wrote it?
"The bottom line is, most of the problem would have not existed without government meddling."
No, gov meddling had not blown up any bubble for 25 years. The safely lent. It was the private market. When they came online, the thing blew up in 3 years.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow No, I'm talking about private lending. Good comeback, but the signer and many of his party were right in there. Government meddling exacerbated the problem and IMHO tipped the scales. I am and was a big opponent of Bush's (and others of both parties) 'ownership society'. It all goes back to Carters CRA and forward to Greenspans screw ups.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
@justfactsallowed
"signer and many of his party were right in there"
Fun to blame Democrats for Republican legislation? The fundamental argument is that Republicans oppose regulation altogether. Pretty well known.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@justfactsallowed
I run a meta media group and we are studying the effect of erroneous narratives. Their who, where, how and why. No matter how clear and relevant the facts, people will cling to the paradigm they identify with. You have been told that gov making banks loan to poor people caused the meltdown. CRA, F&F. Regardless of empirical evidence, you will stick to that. I said CRA was 6%, even Republican dissent 1 discredits it as a cause. Greenspans screw up was deregulatiuon!??
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
This is the point of the video. A narrative can be so erroneous it makes those who are outside of it sick to look at it, but the adherents will embrace it. That is the depth of our situation today.
Georgetown and Harvard have done great work on the meltdown. I started by putting "private mortgage market" in my search. Maybe read Ed Pinto's work that Wallison bases his dissent on. The word wall street doesn't exist.
If HUD was dangerous, it would have blown up.
P Market blew up in 3 years!
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
"Had the home mortgage market been truly free to operate in it's own best interest, less loans would have been made,"
Sorry to be disagreeable, but your are wrong.
The private market WAS "truly free to operate in it's own best interest".
It was UNregulated.
THUS the stated income and interest only loan. In the 25 year HUD history no such toxic crap emerged.
Gov meddling was there for years quite safely. Not until 2000+ did it blow up.
I have said that already, though. Is it hard to understand?
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow That's your opinion. No it was 'biased' by government. The issues began decades before the pop. I think we're debating two facets of government involvement. Yes, a 25 year history, however there are much longer historical periods with an absence of HUD and much of the government meddling that make a different case. Spare me the condescension.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
@justfactsallowed
'a 25 year history"
A safe 25 years, no killer bubbles. 3 years after they get their hands on the market, the Private market blows it up. Remember IBGYBG? I'll be gone, you'll be gone. They wrote that in their emails to each other. "I'll be on the beach when the thing blows up! No responsibility.
The real issue I have with "government did it alone", is it takes wall street off the hook. An action that must be taken if you want to push for further deregulation. Which you do.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow One last time. WS and greed are huge in the guilt, that greed was fueled by government issues. A 'true' correction would hammer everyone (with assets) myself included, that's what puts the teeth in the lesson. A market free to succeed or fail, is reality, it's self preservation is the regulator. At this point I'm more concerned with the debt, deficit and trajectory of spending - things many are in denial of or believe we can tax out of. Our economy doesn't have the steam.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
@justfactsallowed
"WS and greed are huge in the guilt, that greed was fueled by government issues."
All the more reason it proves Republicans as liars when they try to remove the words wall street from the causes. (FCIC)
The only way - once again, the gov fueled the IBGYBG mentality was to get out of it's way. That level of greed needed no help from gov. They sold the WORLD GDP, $60 trillion in swaps! HUD had zero to do with that regardless of the onslaught of lies the right teaches everyday.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow The IBMIBG applies to a tiny minority of citizens and doesn't represent a significant segment of those you demonize as 'the rich'. Stop stereotyping. I don't disagree that there were greedy individuals in the financial markets who were bad actors. However, it wasn't everyone on Wall St. and it's a disservice to honest people in the industry who weren't involved. I also maintain that the government fueled the opportunity and removed the risk with bailouts. Both were wrong.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
"IBMIBG"
IBGYBG
You're rationalizing. It was the acronym used by the actual players. Free Market theology holds that Corps work oi their own best interest. Obviously, from empirical evidence, that is untrue. We gave our economy to people whose outlook was when the everyone else gets screwed, I'll be gone!
You wanna rationalize that?
PUKE!
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow It was a typo. You don't need to insult me. That's a major turn off and childish. Play nice or IBG.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
"doesn't represent a significant segment of those you demonize as 'the rich'. "
I never implied all rich people feel that way. I said it was use don wall street. I was right.
"it's a disservice to honest people in the industry who weren't involved."
No, mentioning a relevant fact doesn't demean anyone.
The best way to serve honest people is to give them a safe place to out their money. Today the right has constructed a lie to ensure the market never is safe. $ over safety, claims Wallison.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I wonder, have you ever been in business? Employed a significant number of people? Do you have many investments? You pontificate on the matters, makes me wonder if you have any actual experience or is it all academic and/or hypothetical? Do you understand risk/reward? Fundamentals of equities? When you demonize 'wall street' because of a few bad apples, you stereotype and demean. If you don't grasp that fact you aren't as intelligent as I gave you credit.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
"I also maintain that the government fueled the opportunity and removed the risk with bailouts."
The risk never would have been there is we had not allowed too big to fail by lack of regulation.
You damn the American people between choosing death or poverty!
WHERE did the gov fuel? It only got out of their way. But, I have given you many examples, you will never be able to see because you are a trained conservative. No amount of truth can ever sway you.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow By imposing regulations, removing them, encouraging artificial market activity.
Spare me the stale, condescension and personal put-downs. "you're a conservative and brainwashed, so you're stupid and your opinion doesn't count". I'll put my position in life against yours any day and let's just see who really has it together. I started with nothing and worked my way through college and business. What's your story?
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
""you're a conservative and brainwashed, so you're stupid and your opinion doesn't count".
I looked over the past pages, I can't find that quote from me. Although the right's policies are threatening humanity, I try and keep my patience.
Please tell me where you got it?
"Just because the acronym was used on a couple emails doesn't make it a plague."
It was prevalent.
You havn't read the report.
And now you're lying about my quotes.
No thanks, I've made my point.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I was paraphrasing you. Read your posts it's true. Prevalent - can you validate that? What report?
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
@justfactsallowed
"I also maintain that the government fueled the opportunity and removed the risk with bailouts."
? Are you saying the gov fueled the bubble with bailouts?
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow No. They removed the pain that is a necessary part of the equation of the free market. (you know the RISK part) And what's worse, they did it with money borrowed in the name of the taxpayer.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
@justfacts
"A 'true' correction would hammer everyone (with assets) "
The base of this is issue is not letting Corps get so big they drag us all down in their folly. That would take regulation the right vehemently opposes.
The TRUE chaos that would have been wrought by letting the Bush Recession go includes Gov shutting down with in 3-4 weeks. No police, no pensions, no jobs, no banks, America would have shut down, along with the world. Dead bodies.THAT is the choice deregulation/Bush left us.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I would posit that it's "not let government get so big". Make bad actors operate without safety nets and suffer the consequences of their behavior. "Bush Recession"? Spare me. You paint illogical, unlikely worst case arguments to justify government bureaucracy and central control. What deregulation did BUSH leave us?
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
@justfactsallowed
"Make bad actors operate without safety nets and suffer the consequences of their behavior."
No friend, I'm so sorry. You are wrong.
They make YOU and I and the rest of the world suffer the consequences.
Europe may not recover. That's the effect of IBGYBG. We'll write all these bad contracts and fill the economies of the world with them, then reap our rewards! That is literally what happened.
I see you posit lots of opinions. I see no evidence offered.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Just because the acronym was used on a couple emails doesn't make it a plague. It was bad behavior on the part of a few bad actors. I don't deny what happened. Everything will recover, snap out of your depression and finish you glass half empty of the Kool Aid. You can make your case for big brother all day, I don't agree. You're banging your head against a brick wall. Evidence of what?
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
"less loans would have been made, few risky loans made"
THEY INVENTED RISKY LOANS.???
No, not FEW risky loans, a bubble that blew up the global economy!
You just watched the opposite of what you are saying. that called "empirical" evidence. You lived through it. The private market owned the majority of Sps 2000-2005.
I know this is not what they teach you. But, again, they are lying.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Again, we're debating two facets. Let me put it in simple terms: I disagree with all the bailouts, stimuless, government 'fixes' and incentives. If the market makes risky loans they should suffer the consequences, at some point the fear of risk was absolved, that was a false belief and the bad actors needed some pain to return to reality. It wouldn't have been pretty but it would be real. I'm getting scrambled letters that say I've said enough here.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
"they should suffer the consequences,'justfactsallowed
Are you aware what the consequences to the American people would have been had we let the economy tailspin? YOU would suffer the consequences. All the more reason to never let them lose in the candy store without supervision - a mission the right is on today. Greed regulated itself, although we just found out painfully that it doesn't.
Too big to fail - lack of all regulation on size is the problem. The right supports it!
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
'I'm getting scrambled letters that say I've said enough here."
best of luck in all things.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@justfactsallowed Exactly! Bailouts just ensure that systemic risk will exist in the future.
RealHarrySeaward 6 months ago 6
The right points only at gov so as to demonize it away. They oppose regulation, and always have. That's why they got rid of B Born and passed a law to ensure derivatives could not be regulated. $60 trillion (the world GDP) were sold of Swap derivatives alone, leveraged at 20/1 - they were the main anchor that sank the top 5. Swaps were sold as insurance for the toxic subprime securities of wall street. They change the story to win more deregulation.
As if greed regulates itself. We tried that.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@RealHarrySeaward YES! Add to that 'balloon notes', ARM's and lowered (or 'fixed') lending standards (thanks Carter). Democrat pushed FNMA/FMAC (thanks Roosevelt) bad lending with government securitizing. The problem with the 'ownership' society was, many should have never been owners and didn't really qualify - it was a well intended time bomb. Roll all those bad loans into a derivative package, insure it with AIG and sell them abroad and to pension funds - KABOOM!
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
" (thanks Carter).Democrat pushed FNMA/FMAC (thanks Roosevelt) bad lending with government securitizing."
You can easily see that no housing bubble leading to global economic chaos happened under ANY of the programs you mention. Empirical.
It was the private market and wall street that exploded that market.
"Roll all those bad loans into a derivative package, insure it with AIG and sell them abroad and to pension funds - KABOOM!"
Exactly. No derivatives for the GSEs. You make my point.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow Private market prodded by a meddling government. Wall street took it from there, it was a product. I agree with SOME of your points, absolutely. However we're still 'eating the cooking' from GSE's, different segment holding the bag. GSE's DID have derivatives (are you confusing them with CDS's?) FNM held $900b on their sheets in 2009, that's what the takeover/bailouts were about. It's complicated and I don't pretend to understand all the nuances.
justfactsallowed 6 months ago
"Private market prodded by a meddling government."
How can I say this more clearly?
The government got out of the way - they deregulated the market - they opened the floodgates of an administration with a fundamental aversion to regulation - but the private market needed no prodding or help from gov. Their rules were far lower then GSEs. I don't know how you mean they were meddled with? Gov turned a blind eye to their bubble and hushed any who called for regulation.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@justfactsallowed
'GSE's DID have derivatives "
The Swaps that were the big issue were sold by wall street as insurance. As GSE's had an implied insurance, they had to make these b paper loans look lucrative and safe. Thus Swaps. They were a measly $60 trillion though.
The total worth of derivatives today is over $700 trillion - 10x the world GDP. 10x all the world's income! That's the power - that's the fallacy.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow No it was the Federal Reserve who "exploded that market." The Fed inflated the bubble by using low interest rates to expand the money supply which is the boom part of the biz cycle. Once inflation gets out of hand they raise interest rates which brings about the bust part of the biz cycle. If you look at a graph showing the economic booms and busts of the past 4-5 decades you'll see that the Fed interest rates line up almost perfectly with it.
RealHarrySeaward 6 months ago
"The Fed inflated the bubble by using low interest rates to expand the money supply"
Yup. I know that's what they teach you. In fact, without the risky instruments invented in the unregulated private market, that $ could have been invested safely. Liquid cash could have meant growth, if it had been done safely. It was not the GSes that invented the loans that blew up the bubble. Sorry.
Also, there was an influx of foreign capital that would have lowered rates naturally, Did you read dissent 1?
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow I agree it wasn't the GSEs that invented the loans. It was the Fed that created the money from thin air but the GSEs did take advantage of their unique ability to barrow that money at lower rates than the private sector. Either way Fannie/Freddie were only 1 of many contributing factors but I place the most blame on the Federal Reserve. The Fed caused recessions before Fannie/Freddie were born, before "risky instruments" were popular and regardless of market regulations.
RealHarrySeaward 6 months ago
"I agree it wasn't the GSEs that invented the loans"
If wall street invented the most toxic loans that were the fundamental structural issue, HOW/WHY would you remove them and the word deregulation from the FCIC report??
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
"but the GSEs did take advantage of their unique ability to barrow that money at lower rates than the private sector."
If that was the cause, why did F&F have less than 45% market share 2001-2004?
"Either way Fannie/Freddie were only 1 of many contributing factors"
So you support regulation, then?
"The Fed caused recessions before Fannie/Freddie"
The Ron Paul agenda of blame only the Fed is no less erroneous or dangerous. It leads to the removal of all rules and supervision.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@RealHarrySeaward
'The Fed caused recessions"
Did it cause the Depression?
Did it cause global economic meltdown, the Bush Recession?
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow "Did it cause the Depression? Did it cause global economic meltdown, the Bush Recession?"
Actually there's evidence that the Great Depression was orchestrated in order to create another central bank which at the time the citizens didn't want. Yes the Federal Reserve was the driving force that created the recession of 08 just like it caused the boom that led up to it. It also created the boom of the 90's which led to the recession of 2000-2001. There's an obvious pattern.
RealHarrySeaward 6 months ago
I was making the point that HUD and CRA had been around for 25 years with no blow ups. Simple fact.
The private market had their hands on subprimes for 3 years and blew it up in global fashion.
No fact there is debatable. Thus blaming the crisis on them, as the right clearly does, is fallacious.
"orchestrated in order to create another central bank"
There's also evidence that the Great Depression was orchestrated by the Elite just like 2008. Not much evidence, so I never mention it.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@RealHarrySeaward
'Yes the Federal Reserve was the driving force that created the recession of 08"
This is where I find this dynamic of propaganda so interesting. You are clearly a bright person. Have you researched that claim for yourself? The spike in $ printing happened after 2008. Interest rate would have fallen on their own from the influx of foreign capital we experienced in 2000, supply and demand. How exactly do you mean the Fed was the "driving force"?
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow
(cont'd) ...cycle like in 08'. That "influx of foreign capital" is why it became a global recession. The influx was due to what appeared to be a thriving US housing market and a safe investment. Once the housing bubble burst that "influx of foreign capital" was the reason our recession spread around the world. Derivatives and other risky tools only compounded an existing problem.
RealHarrySeaward 6 months ago 3
"The influx was due to what appeared to be a thriving US housing market and a safe investment."
Except it started in 1999.
The "end the Fed" guys are also the Pure Free Market guys.
Their goal is to remove all rules and supervision from the financial market that the ELite built, own run and blew up in front of our faces, making them much richer and us much poorer.
Shciff and Paul and Co build their case, like Wallison, on lies. Their goal is what just blew us up - mass deregulation
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@HopeForPeaceNow "The "end the Fed" guys are also the Pure Free Market guys. Their goal is to remove all rules and supervision from the financial market "
Are you high? That's not true at all. First of all the Fed has nothing to due with regulations, it's not even regulated itself. Secondly, there is something called fraud in a free market and it IS ILLEGAL. People like Ron Paul do not tolerate fraud. It's a misconception that a free market is a free for all. Please do some research.
RealHarrySeaward 6 months ago
@RealHarrySeaward ""The "end the Fed" guys are also the Pure Free Market guys. Their goal is to remove all rules and supervision from the financial market "" me
You're right, I phrased that poorly. Many of the same players, Ron Paul, etc, who demonize the Fed as the only cause for the meltdown are the same that call for pure Free Markets - markets with zero regulation and zero supervision.
Greed regulated itself is the Austrian economics viewpoint. (Or greed can't be regulated, don;t try)
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
@RealHarrySeaward
"It's a misconception that a free market is a free for all. Please do some research."
Did YOU know how many fraud cases were brought before the meltdown?
Is it not clear to you by the way I answer every question with fact that I have researched? You, in my opinion, have not. Yet I would not display the lack of class of putting it to you in such a condescending and erroneous fashion.
You send me your sites, I'll send you mine and we shall see who has researched.
HopeForPeaceNow 6 months ago
Harry, Thanks for the great debate. No worries if you tire.
I absolutely give you that the Fed played a role. We should address it, no doubt.
May I respectfully say, not the main role. The difference is important in that many who point to the Fed alone, couple it with further deregulation. The discourse we are having around that subject is crucial, in my opinion. The right basing theirs in untruth, demonizing regulation as a pillar of their platform..