It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moore On Wealthy People's Money: "That's Not Theirs, That's A National Resource, It's Ours"

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


That rant sounds exactly like what I would expect from someone who lives on the Left coast. The sooner Cal. falls into the water, the better.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by 46ACE
 


You are essentially correct, however, if a person say "invents" a sub prime mortgage, sells that in a predatory way to people he KNOWS cannot afford it, over-inflates the actual value of those investments, then, bundles those mortgages and re sells them to other banks, thereby hinging the entire economy on bad investments, BETS against those assets he knows are going to fail. Then when the whole thing comes crashing down, reaps not only the rewards off of his bets that those investments would fail but brings the entire economy crashing down with it. One could say that they did something wrong and probably do owe "us".


REPLY: Surely you've heard of the CRA, started by ex-president Peanut and put on steroids by Clinton. What you are describing is exactly why Socialism never, ever works. Banks were FORCED to ignore 5000 years of economic/banking experience, and were forced to give loans to people who had no income at all (Welfare indicates a LACK of income.) Sub-Prime wasn't the idea of the banks. The term "predatory lending" was a term that was invented simply to describe the type of transaction.

Listen... I'm not a Republican but, instead, a Constitutional Conservative, and this mostly started when Dems, knowing that they could no longer prevent desegregation, instead decided to "befriend" Blacks, and used them as a group, to buy their votes by giving them stuff paid for by others (Marxism.). Black families in the "inner city" were doing just fine until the War on Poverty started by Johnson. Then, the fathers were replaced by government checks, and the Black "family" dissolved, the kids had no male supervision of male authority, and the inner city went to hell. Areas of high crime were red-lined as mostly not having the income for a mortgage, and the high crime rate reduced the value of most all properties, both home and business. Carter said it wasn't "fair," and started the CRA. Local, small-time banks were forced to give loans out to people in the inner city, or the government wouldn't let the (small) banks grow larger of merge with other banks; there was (and is) such a thing as a CRA Rating. In this way, the Left got their votes from those they "helped," and the banks did what they had to do to keep their doors open.

It's the "those who rob Peter to pay Paul will always have the support (votes) of Paul.

The main thing that caused the sub-prime meltdown was Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac bought up and gave out a lot of these loans..... and they controlled LOTS of mortgages. FM and FM put their investments in the large banks, the banks had to figure a way to bundle the good with the bad to cover possible losses, and that started the ball rolling. If any entity was "predatory," it was the Dems, who used low income people to kleep them in power.

I'm no big supporter of McCain, but back in the 2000 decade he testified before Congress like six or seven times that FM and FM had to be investigated about their lending practices. Likewise, Bush Jr. went before congress ten or eleven times trying to do the same thing. There's LOTS of vids on You Tube which show this very thing, and also hearings by the oversight committee, where Dem politicians (Meeks comes to mind) blamed the oversight committee, basically, for doing their job and finding fault with the whole process. I can find the You Tube links of you'd like. FM and FM were by far the ones most responsible, and they were controlled by.... you guessed it, the Dems. Most of all, it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and ACORN execs who should be wearing prison orange. Instead, those who CAUSED the mess are now on the committee(s) that say they know how to fix it.


A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats. Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff. ”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said. The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it. [...] During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation. According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities. And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

And now, the big lie from Barney:
www.youtube.com...

The idea of government getting involved in mortgages is unconstitutional on it's face.

These is somewhat prescient... and true:
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

edit on 9-3-2011 by zappafan1 because: Added links



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

I am speaking from experience as a chief steward in a public sector workplace, one who has also negotiated a contract. You can't talk me out of what I know is right, so we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree. That work for you?


Yeah, well, if you read my other posts you know I've also been a union member and have seen the waste and sweetheart deals in action, too. You can't convince me to give up what I know is right either.

And thank God that the number of people agreeing with you on screwing the system - the government using taxpayer money in this case - for their own personal gain and the hell with the rest of us is sharply decreasing in the U.S

Sigh...accusing me of screwing the system because I support public sector unions is not exactly a graceful exit. Go on blaming your neighbour for your problems...lemme know how it works for you. Better you than me, though.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


That rant sounds exactly like what I would expect from someone who lives on the Left coast. The sooner Cal. falls into the water, the better.



Hey are you just as upset about the bailouts? I looked at your past posts and you don't seem to have a problem with using tax dollars - as long as those tax dollars go to the rich.

You ok with a big government - when those things support the rich. Like have politicians try to arrest people for not voting.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Moore talks total and obvious sense. Distribute wealth fairly. Duh. It's not rocket science.

And yet so many people on this thread attack him. Many Americans have been mis-educated into supporting the people who are reducing their standard of living.
edit on 9-3-2011 by rizla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I correct my figure for the public union pension debt of page 9; it is currently $100 Billion, not the $300 Billion figure mentioned. It is, however, still an amount that can never be paid considering the revenues generated by taxes.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
Moore talks total and obvious sense. Distribute wealth fairly. Duh. It's not rocket science.

And yet so many people on this thread attack him. Many Americans have been mis-educated into supporting the people who are reducing their standard of living.
edit on 9-3-2011 by rizla because: (no reason given)


That would fly in the face of a little thing called freedom.

It would also be unconstitutional.

Either of those things hold any significance to you?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
I correct my figure for the public union pension debt of page 9; it is currently $100 Billion, not the $300 Billion figure mentioned. It is, however, still an amount that can never be paid considering the revenues generated by taxes.

The employer portion of the pension is wages deferred..."We won't pay you this much now but we'll pay you that much later".
So workers will have held off on their saving knowing that at the end of their careers, they have a pension. Remove that, and what kind of other social conditions are you creating? How much is an aging population thrown into poverty going to cost the state? Never mind the fact that it's dishonest, and if it isn't illegal, it oughta be.

One more thing...keep screwing the public service, and instead of skimming the cream at the top for talented people, you'll be scraping the bottom because nobody but the desperate would go into the field. I know I sure as hell wouldn't, and I was in the public sector for 25 years.
edit on 10-3-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: of repairs



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Whose fault is it the public sector employees chose to put all their eggs in one basket and not prepare for their own retirement instead of relying on a governmental entity to do it for them?

Relying on anyone or anything other than yourself for your future is an exercise in stupidity.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Who here has played Monopoly before? Remember how it feels when you are down, but not quite out? Remember how you just quit, wanted to quit or you stuck it out and got driven into bankruptcy? Well, that is how it feels to many of us in this country (that is also the reality for those that have their head in the sand on the issue...it's called denial...bordering on delusional). It's only a matter of time before he rich elite bankrupt the nation (the poor and middle class). Most of those elite have more money than they can spend in 100 lifetimes, yet they sit on it for no other reason than "winning" the game. Funny thing, I thought capitalism was suppose to be sustainable. I didn't think capitalism was some game with the end result mirroring that of a board game.

While I may not agree with Moore's take on this issue, I do believe that something must be done to get those horded fortunes piped back into the economy. If the rich elite won't spend it, then I say we tax it out of them. Otherwise, everyone else will eventually get to the point where we "do not pass go, do not collect $200".

On the path we are on, eventually the game will end. When it ends, and if we choose to play again, then we will all start on an even playing field and the rich elite may not be so fortunate next time. I would say that it is in their best interest to start spending the superfluous fortunes so that they maintain some degree of financial superiority.

My 2-cents



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Why not create your own wealth instead of worrying who has what?

The opportunities are only limited by your own intelligence.

People have the right to use their property (in this case their money) in any way they see fit, whether it be saving every penny of it, or blowing it like its going out of style.

Yet you want to take it away under threat of force through taxation????? Not much for property rights are you?
edit on 10-3-2011 by HaveAnotherOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Why not create your own wealth instead of worrying who has what?


The same could be said for those born with a silver spoon in their mouth. What did they do to earn or create their own wealth; other than who birthed them? Estate taxes seem fair and appropriate to me.

Insofar as creating our own wealth. What an original idea. Millions of people attempt and fail at this every year. Some fail because their plan is flawed; however more are out competed by the rich, who can afford to beat the prices of the start-ups. I say that your notion of "creating my own wealth" is just as idealistic as my notion of "equality for all".
edit on 10-3-2011 by Aggie Man because: spelling



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Wealth redistribution is not a function of government.

In case you havent read it, here is a link to the United States Constitution.

Life is not fair. Some people are born lucky (into a wealthy family) and some are born unlucky (into poverty). Some people are born good looking, and others are just plain ugly.

Making life fair is NOT a function of government. Wanting the government to redistribute peoples wealth is just as stupid and ill thought idea as taxpayer funded cosmetic surgery to make ugly people good looking.

Countless people create their own wealth. That is a simple fact.

Do you have any factual data showing "more are out competed by the rich"? No, you don't, because that is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact.

You would be best served to stop worrying what other people have and how they got it and spend more time wondering how you will be successful in whatever field you choose.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Whose fault is it the public sector employees chose to put all their eggs in one basket and not prepare for their own retirement instead of relying on a governmental entity to do it for them?
Relying on anyone or anything other than yourself for your future is an exercise in stupidity.

It's called a contract. Your response is lame, and so is blaming the victim.

Funny, though...there's always enough money in the basket to kill brown people.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Whose fault is it the public sector employees chose to put all their eggs in one basket and not prepare for their own retirement instead of relying on a governmental entity to do it for them?
Relying on anyone or anything other than yourself for your future is an exercise in stupidity.

It's called a contract. Your response is lame, and so is blaming the victim.

Funny, though...there's always enough money in the basket to kill brown people.


Actually the wars have cost way too much and our debt is suffering because of it. You're touching on each and every leftist talking point, its pretty amusing.

Whats next climate change?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 





I thought capitalism was suppose to be sustainable. I didn't think capitalism was some game with the end result mirroring that of a board game.



Capitalism is sustainable, as long as the liberal interventionists stay out of the system, and avoid putting the " spin " on it, claiming nationalization is in the best interest of the people.

It is not the job of the Government to create jobs. As well, its not the role of government to take from others, and give to others. Government is not suppose to intervene just because banks are failing, businesses are going under. These businesses, rationalize their actions, by accepting the fact that markets fall, and a little assistance from the government is legitimate. They accept this " bridge loan " to tide them over. That in itself is intervention. Though Fascism isn't on their mind, they openly embrace being a " junior partner" with the government. Instead of standing up and accepting the cold hard truths of the free market, they would rather align themselves with those who wish to " spin " ( see above ) and embrace nationalization.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Capitalism is sustainable, as long as the liberal interventionists stay out of the system, and avoid putting the " spin " on it, claiming nationalization is in the best interest of the people.


Yet, the ever widening income gap between the rich and poor would seem to suggest otherwise.


It is not the job of the Government to create jobs. As well, its not the role of government to take from others, and give to others. Government is not suppose to intervene just because banks are failing, businesses are going under. These businesses, rationalize their actions, by accepting the fact that markets fall, and a little assistance from the government is legitimate. They accept this " bridge loan " to tide them over. That in itself is intervention. Though Fascism isn't on their mind, they openly embrace being a " junior partner" with the government. Instead of standing up and accepting the cold hard truths of the free market, they would rather align themselves with those who wish to " spin " ( see above ) and embrace nationalization.


No, it's not suppose to be the governments job. However, I imagine the government would intervene in the event of a class war. Not a metaphorical war, but a real one. Government intervention would stop needless blood shed. At some point, the masses will be so desperate that a class war will result.

Taxation and creation of government jobs isn't my ideal situation. Ideally, the rich would spend those superfluous fortunes, create jobs and narrow the pay gap. But why should they? They have no incentive to do so; and, because of that, there will only be two realistic outcomes; class war or taxation.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Me personally? If I had an idea for a world changing invention, but knew that that I was going to be taxed up my behind on the profits on it, I would throw the plans for that invention in the trash.

I would rather make less and be taxed less, then to make more and have my income taxed down to making less, invention be damned.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Me personally? If I had an idea for a world changing invention, but knew that that I was going to be taxed up my behind on the profits on it, I would throw the plans for that invention in the trash.

I would rather make less and be taxed less, then to make more and have my income taxed down to making less, invention be damned.


My BS detector is going off the charts.

You want to sit here and tell us that you would rather work a $50k/year job and have a take home pay of $40K rather than implement a great $1-million idea, get taxed 50% and have a take home pay of $500K?

BS, BS.....and more BS!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 





Government intervention would stop needless blood shed.


And the government intervention has done so well for the citizenry of this country thus far hasn't it? You honestly believe that the USG intervention would prevent blood shed? laughable at best~



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join