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.

 

To the GOP: Is it about your Religion? Your Rights? Your Money?

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You are correct. From my limited understanding, Jesus would not have "taken" anything from anyone. He would have been rather pleased though at those that would have chosen to give.

The problem with this scenario...and there is no simple resolution...is that people are innately selfish. They are so consumed with clawing their way up a ladder or supporting their "McMansions" that they do not give anymore. A couple of dollars in the Salvation Army bucket at Christmas time does not do the work of Christ. People that think it does are in denial.

The Jewish life of the old testament days was an odd thing in a way. Did you know...if you had a big garden or orchard, you could not get enraged or punish someone if the poor came into it and ate freely. Now if they brought a basket and tried to "stock up" that was stealing. You were expected to let them eat and sustain themselves. The modern equivalent would be if someone goes into 7-11 and scarfs down nachos and hot dogs while in the store and doesn't pay for them. If they try to box up a dinner and leave, that is stealing...if they eat it there, you are supposed to let them. No BS...that was the rules. How far do you think that would go in today's world?

I am for freedom and de-regulation with sanity as a backdrop. I know folks will squawk about environmental issues...blah-blah-blah....that is the common sense thing...you don't dump toxins in playgrounds and you don't poison the wells and groundwater of other people. But we have become so ridiculous on regulations...you know in some places...cow manure...often considered a positive fertilizer...is considered a hazardous waste...wtf?
edit on 11/9/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


Hmmm...
okay, so, for you it is about religion. I see.

But, "God" isn't doing a damned thing about people starving or being homeless and unemployed, as far as I can tell. Not one thing. And it is not Unconstitutional for the people robbed of their homes and livelihoods to need help, nor is it Unconstitutional for the government to pull up the slack when the wealthy turn their backs on the poor.

God is allowing people who are rich to enable each other to rob, cheat, gamble, lose, and then get "bailed out" by the very people they robbed.........

God is allowing people to make their own decisions, and people are deciding not to give a crap about other people. Worse, they are deciding to take advantage of other people's faith in them to do the right thing. Which they aren't doing.

That wasn't a message from "America's God" (the Abrahamic one) as far as I know.


edit on 9-11-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


I'm not much into "God," but you fail in the basic premise that someone must be wealthy because the "robbed" "stole" or "cheat" and don't seem to be able to understand the fact that many people are wealthy through skill, talent, and good luck. How many people has Stephen King robbed? J.K. Rowling? George Lucas? Steve Jobs?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I’m speechless……

What a load!


The most telling part is when you said ”Evolve” as if Obama and liberals are an enlightened bunch.

How sad!



Talk about a load! This post of yours is about the biggest load of B.S., gathered all in one place or on one wheel, that I've seen in a while and it's willful ignorance like that demonstrated in your post that will prove to be the GOP's Waterloo.

Your wheel of misfortune is nothing more than a collection of the lies propagated by the right wing media over the last four years. Propagated and accepted by those who were too lazy to seek the truth and too indoctrinated to accept it, even when it was shoved right in front of their face. Now, here ya'll sit trying to figure out what the hell just happened in this election, all the while never questioning the constant stream of lies fed to you by your right wing news sources, primarily Fox News. Go figure!

And to think that your wheel came from a site called "conservethetruth.com" is mind boggling, to say the least.

F&S to the OP for seeing through the lies and telling it like it is.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


Yeah those cop-outs.

"he hates evil likes to let evil win"
"he has commands but gives you free will, thus everything good is because of him and everything bad is because you abused it with your free will."
"he will send you to hell but he loves you"


He is coming? i think he is late, like 100s and 100s of year late.

"God" is not going to do much, "It" is going to be just what "it" is, just watching, or rather moving on. You can attribute to something that does not exist.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You are correct. From my limited understanding, Jesus would not have "taken" anything from anyone. He would have been rather pleased though at those that would have chosen to give.

The problem with this scenario...and there is no simple resolution...is that people are innately selfish. They are so consumed with clawing their way up a ladder or supporting their "McMansions" that they do not give anymore. A couple of dollars in the Salvation Army bucket at Christmas time does not do the work of Christ. People that think it does are in denial.

The Jewish life of the old testament days was an odd thing in a way. Did you know...if you had a big garden or orchard, you could not get enraged or punish someone if the poor came into it and ate freely. Now if they brought a basket and tried to "stock up" that was stealing. You were expected to let them eat and sustain themselves. The modern equivalent would be if someone goes into 7-11 and scarfs down nachos and hot dogs while in the store and doesn't pay for them. If they try to box up a dinner and leave, that is stealing...if they eat it there, you are supposed to let them. No BS...that was the rules. How far do you think that would go in today's world?

I am for freedom and de-regulation with sanity as a backdrop. I know folks will squawk about environmental issues...blah-blah-blah....that is the common sense thing...you don't dump toxins in playgrounds and you don't poison the wells and groundwater of other people. But we have become so ridiculous on regulations...you know in some places...cow manure...often considered a positive fertilizer...is considered a hazardous waste...wtf?
edit on 11/9/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)


I'd think that the 7-11's would all close if people were consuming the products without paying for them. Then you would have no more 7-11's and more people would go hungry.

I'm a very charitable person, both in time and money (see operation smile). However, coercive charity is not charity, it's theft.
edit on 9-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


You do know that conservatives give more?
dailycaller.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
SO the premise of this thread and so many others as well as plenty of talking heads on TV and radio is that there was some sort of sound rejection of a set of ideals, right?

Last I checked one ideal was chosen over the over by 2%.

How is that in any way a popular referendum?

Seems to me the voting plebes are equally divided in their ideological intoxication.

Unless of course we discard the opinion of the individual (it doesnt matter what you or I think anyway, right?) and only focus on the mob then we can use the electoral difference as evidence of some popular referendum though it wouldnt be popular any longer but a collection of groups and organizations.

People are funny in how quickly they oppose mob rule when it runs contrary to their individual beliefs but will wholeheartedly embrace mob rule when the mob matches their individual beliefs.

Further backs my position that you all want to be slave drivers. You all want to hold the whip. Why? Im not sure. I dont personally share that desire. But plenty of you voting plebes just love the crack of leather and bloody gash across your opponents back and will readily sell out your individuality for a chance to hurt others.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Once again -- it seems like the actual stake-holders already have ownership of this problem. The spoilers in the under-performing red states, notwithstanding.

Is it any wonder that 52% of us didn't trust Romney's business experience? He never even tried to teach his people fundamentals with regard to the "national debt."

Okay, this Red state/Blue state nonsense is getting entirely out of hand. Since Obama was re-elected, essentially nothing has changed. Nothing has gotten immediately better and nothing has gotten immediately worse. It's literally unchanged for good and bad, all around. Obama absolutely got an advantage in the Electoral College System and I cannot and will not complain about the fact it happened how it did. I swore I wouldn't before the election because there is no workable alternative to the E.C. In this case, it heavily favored Obama's re-election while carrying what looks like a couple % split on popular vote.

Now how that general vote is distributed is something that should illustrate the need to drop all the false divisions. It's not productive and can really be looked at more than one way.

Source and Additional Data

That's the county by county map for Romney vs. Obama. Obama pulled the major metropolitan areas and key population centers. Literally. In states like Pennsylvania, that becomes clear at a glance actually. Although no state with the exception of just a few Red and a few Blue are absolutely clear either way to claim an overwhelming mandate or some sea change in philosophy. It simply isn't supported by the way this happened.

What I think it shows is how badly both sides need to find a way to work together and find common ground, not continue with the divisions until it's far too late to do anything. The split isn't enough to really FORCE anything, either direction. Simple as that. It IS enough however, to gridlock everything....which would be terminal right now, IMO.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Sore winners.
Who knew?

Not only did they win, they still aren't happy.



I am, I am ecstatic, they own it now, instead of criticizing the right, why don't they FIX something.
edit on 093030p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 103030p://bFriday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


2% of the popular vote.

66.99% of the money, represented by share of total GDP.

Things that make you go, "hrmmm."



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Hi Doc,


The econnomic mess derived form the idea of pushing for loans on those who could not afford them due to leftist ideals of "social jsutice." Like any leftist wealth redistribution scheme, when the bill finally comes due for all of the handouts used to buy votes, the results are bad.


Whoa whoa there...
the leftist ideas of "social justice" were that banks should be required to lend money to a certain percentage of their depositors in every zip code in which they had branches. That was a good idea; it stymied the "red-lining" of the past where skin color denoted where you could and could not "buy property."

What happened was the banks did so; here's a personal story. In 1999, I was a graduate student doing coursework in social policy. I was going to buy a house, as a divorced parent, with a Bachelor's degree and two jobs besides going to school for a Masters.

I had been given approval for a loan that was high points, high interest, and had huge closing costs. Then, one day I saw a days-old newspaper lying in the teacher's breakroom at the school where I worked as a paraeducator. It just happened to be open to a back page, tiny little article about the fact that Banks had been told they must do this.

So, I looked into it. And lo and behold, I found a bank that did exactly that! Gave me a loan on favorable terms so that I could buy a house. I am still living in that house, and have never missed a mortgage payment. It was people like me, who showed every indication of being able to pay what was borrowed, that were the "targeted" market.

For a few years it was great. But then, the banks said, "Wait. How can we seem to do this and still not have to do it?" Scheme...scheme... "Oh! I have it!! We'll just load up on these loans, package them, and sell them! Not our problem anymore! Ha HA!!" Stop actually doing credit checks and helping only the people who were reasonable risks. Give 'em to everybody!!!! We won't need to hold people accountable, so what do we care if they THINK they know what they're signing, they'll be out of our hair by the time they realize they signed a financial death warrant. We'll sell the paper, make our money, scram, and sit and watch as they get booted out of loans NO ONE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM."

When banks started "pushing" those loans on people who they knew could not pay them back, which the Banks knew they could bundle and sell, earning an immediate profit and washing their hands of it -- THAT is when it went from being a "socially just" effort to being a SCHEME of intended default, instant profit, and laughing all the way to the....vault.

It was the Banks who corrupted the idea, NOT THE LEFTISTS.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


You do know that conservatives give more?
dailycaller.com...



If you get a tax deduction for it, it's not really charity.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You're right. I was making a point of how the actual doctrine...be it Christian or Judaic...is not followed anymore...it is twisted to meet the goals of the individual. Community and goodness have left the building. (not considering that most 7-11's are owned by folks that do not recognize the Torah or the New Testament...OMG!...did I just say that?)

I can live with that. I personally have the tools and skills to survive. It might not be dripping with opulence, but me and mine will do ok. As a Libertarian/psuedo-anarchist...I have a potential to say "screw all of you...I got mine"...but I also have a soul and a conscience. I have volunteered at soup kitchens. I have collected food for the poor. Not because I want to make a statement to others, but because I think it matters. I think we are all called to a point of humility where we put the good of others before our own. If we can do that, we can do anything.

What I find to be most dismaying is the need for over regulation. I find the "everyone wins" idea to be a false idealism. Everyone does not win...everyone does not get a trophy. The truth is and always will be...you have winners and you have losers...it's sad, but it is how this world is set up to operate. Can it ever be different? Maybe. I hate to use this as an example...it shows my nerdiness....but yes, greed could be overcome in a special place and special time. Let's just say we learn how to make "replicators" like in that TV show...we won't say it's name. If someone could bring a lump of matter to a machine and have it's atomic code re-written to create something else...win-win.

Science will one day defeat greed....science will one day overcome poverty and want. There are some damn clever people out there working on this problem as we speak...and God's speed to them...they need all the help they can get.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


That is incorrect. The "social justice" crowd are the ones who started this whole house of cards.




The story is laid out in detail in The Great American Bank Robbery by Paul Sperry and The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell. Here it is in a nutshell.

Back in the early Clinton years, the big public debate was over Hillary Clinton's controversial plan to overhaul the healthcare system. But the Clintons had another major agenda item that was hardly noticed at the time: to aggressively promote homeownership for racial minorities.

Based on a flawed study by the Boston Fed in 1992 (coauthored by an economist friend of Hillary), the Democrats claimed that minority homeownership rates were being held back by "racist" banking practices. The study found that minorities had a higher rejection rate for home loan applications than the general public. Without providing any direct evidence, the authors simply assumed that the underlying cause must be institutional racism in the banking industry.

Common sense tells us, however, that racist lending practices would backfire and harm no one except the very banks, if any, that engaged in such practices. If some banks were willing to pass up good business opportunities in order to deny loans to minorities, other banks would certainly be more than happy to step in and take the business. And if all white-owned banks were racist, a golden opportunity would exist for wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) to open banks in under-served areas and do a booming business with little effort. Any wealthy entertainer or athlete, such as Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, or any of hundreds of other wealthy athletes, could easily sponsor such a bank, for example. To believe that racist banks can stop qualified minorities from getting loans in this day and age, one must believe that (1) all white-owned banks are racist, and (2) no wealthy minorities (or non-racist whites) are willing to fill the void and make lots of easy money while providing badly needed services to minority communities.

But the Clintons and many other Democrats apparently believed such economic nonsense. To remedy the alleged racism at banks, they strengthened the "anti-redlining" regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had originally been passed during the Carter years, and they instituted an aggressive campaign that forced lenders to abandon their established underwriting criteria and drastically lower their standards to accommodate minorities who would not otherwise qualify for a home loan.

Key figures in the matter were Attorney General Janet Reno and her Deputy, none other than Eric Holder. They aggressively intimidated banks with threats of prosecution, lawsuits, stiff fines, and regulatory roadblocks to expansion and mergers. They paid little attention to actual lending practices and underwriting criteria, focusing instead on the end results in terms of percentages of minority loans approved. It mattered not whether the lenders were actually discriminating on the basis of race or whether minorities in general simply had worse credit histories (statistics show that they do). It was classic "affirmative action" for home loans.

Reno aggressively prosecuted several banks for "racist" lending practices, and she also encouraged private lawsuits against banks. One such lawsuit was filed against Citibank by a little-known community organizer and civil-rights lawyer named Barack Obama. Other government agencies also embarked on witch-hunts, including the Comptroller of Currency, the President's Fair Housing Council, and the Inter-agency Task Force on Fair Lending, the latter two having been set up by the Clinton administration specifically to harass banks. They even pressured some banks to open offices in dangerous neighborhoods.

With the US Attorney General and several other government agencies pressuring them to give more loans to minorities, banks and other lenders had no choice but to figure out ways to lower their underwriting standards. They drastically reduced or eliminated minimum down payments, increased limits on debt-to-income ratio, and started counting unemployment checks and food stamps as "income"! Then there were the infamous "NINJA" loans (no income, no job, no assets -- no problem). It was financial insanity run amok -- forced on lenders by the authority of the US government.

Not surprisingly, the reckless lending standards created the largest housing bubble in history. The bubble masked the underlying problem for several years. As long as housing prices were appreciating at a sufficient rate, the problem was not apparent and did not seem particularly urgent, certainly not to the general public. The unqualified buyers who got in early enough did reasonably well. As long as their property value had appreciated sufficiently they could always sell at a profit, or refinance, and not face default and foreclosure. But the unqualified buyers who got in later lost their homes and ended up much worse off than they would have been had traditional, uncoerced banking practices been permitted. It was a classic case of the unintended consequences of bad economic policy -- ultimately harming the very minorities it was intended to help.

In 1995, HUD (The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) authorized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage-backed securities that included subprime and other risky CRA home loans. Since Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), this unprecedented move was widely interpreted by banks and Wall Street as implied government backing of subprime mortgages. Though hardly noticed at the time, this development effectively shifted the liability for loan defaults from lenders to taxpayers. By relieving lenders of financial risk for loan defaults, it strongly encouraged them to give more loans to unqualified applicants. As if all that weren't bad enough, it also started the whole secondary market for subprime mortgages, which ended with the massive failures and subsequent bailouts of financial giants such as AIG and Citigroup. Had Clinton not started this bogus "investment" policy back in 1995, the massive TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailouts in 2008 would have been completely unnecessary.

Eventually the housing bubble burst, but not until around 2006 or 2007. By 2008 it brought the entire financial system to its knees, and since the Republicans had the White House at that time, the Democrats and the "mainstream" media were able to pin the brunt of the political blame on them. The general public was hardly aware of the historical roots of the problem, and the party in power was assumed to be responsible, as usual. The general public tends to naively assume that the party in power has full control of the economy and is completely unencumbered by existing laws, regulations, and policies that were in place before they were elected. In the case of the subprime mortgage crisis, that was a very bad assumption.

The Republicans were not completely innocent in the matter, but they were certainly not the driving force behind the subprime mortgage meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis. President Bush promoted legitimate homeownership, but he also caved in to the Democrats' racial demagoguery and "went along" with their program to some extent. However, when Bush and the Republican Congress tried to actually head off the subprime mortgage crisis before it was too late, the Democrats opposed them fiercely.

When the Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005, for example, the Democrats called them racists, as usual, and thwarted their efforts by filibustering with only 45 votes in the Senate. (A filibuster allows the minority party to block legislation in the US Senate with only 40 of 100 votes.) Hence, the Democrats prevailed even though the Republicans had the Presidency and controlled both house of Congress. But the general public simply assumes that the party in power must be responsible, and the Democrats managed to perpetrate the blatant lie that Republican opposition to stronger regulation was at the root of the problem.

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, along with nearly all other Democrats in Congress, opposed the Republicans initiatives to reform Fannie and Freddie, insisting repeatedly that those government sponsored enterprises were in sound financial condition and functioning as intended. Many Democrats claimed that Republicans simply wanted to suppress minority homeownership. It's all on record, both written and video. Dodd and Frank later became the primary architects of the massive Dodd-Frank banking reform Act that was signed into law by Obama. Yeah, those are the two guys who should be rewriting banking regulations! (Not surprisingly, their reform bill does nothing to reform Fannie and Freddie.)

Leftists talk about "greedy" banks and "predatory" lending practices, but it was the Democrats who had actually forced banks against their will to recklessly provide home loans to unqualified applicants, many of whom later lost their homes to foreclosure. Before the housing bubble burst, Bill Clinton's website proudly touted his accomplishments in promoting minority homeownership. After the bubble burst, that material was scrubbed and replaced with material blaming Republicans and banks for the financial crisis and the ensuing major recession. As a community organizer, Barack Obama sued banks to force them to give risky loans to unqualified minorities. Later, as a US Senator, he joined in the Democrats' filibuster of the Republican attempts to reform the subprime mortgage industry. Yet he has the gall to routinely claim with a straight face that Republicans "drove the economy into a ditch." That sort of mendacity is perhaps to be expected from politicians, but we certainly don't have to fall for it.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You're right. I was making a point of how the actual doctrine...be it Christian or Judaic...is not followed anymore...it is twisted to meet the goals of the individual. Community and goodness have left the building. (not considering that most 7-11's are owned by folks that do not recognize the Torah or the New Testament...OMG!...did I just say that?)

I can live with that. I personally have the tools and skills to survive. It might not be dripping with opulence, but me and mine will do ok. As a Libertarian/psuedo-anarchist...I have a potential to say "screw all of you...I got mine"...but I also have a soul and a conscience. I have volunteered at soup kitchens. I have collected food for the poor. Not because I want to make a statement to others, but because I think it matters. I think we are all called to a point of humility where we put the good of others before our own. If we can do that, we can do anything.

What I find to be most dismaying is the need for over regulation. I find the "everyone wins" idea to be a false idealism. Everyone does not win...everyone does not get a trophy. The truth is and always will be...you have winners and you have losers...it's sad, but it is how this world is set up to operate. Can it ever be different? Maybe. I hate to use this as an example...it shows my nerdiness....but yes, greed could be overcome in a special place and special time. Let's just say we learn how to make "replicators" like in that TV show...we won't say it's name. If someone could bring a lump of matter to a machine and have it's atomic code re-written to create something else...win-win.

Science will one day defeat greed....science will one day overcome poverty and want. There are some damn clever people out there working on this problem as we speak...and God's speed to them...they need all the help they can get.


Star for that. The problem is that utopia is, by definition, unachievable.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



I'm not much into "God," but you fail in the basic premise that someone must be wealthy because the "robbed" "stole" or "cheat" and don't seem to be able to understand the fact that many people are wealthy through skill, talent, and good luck. How many people has Stephen King robbed? J.K. Rowling? George Lucas? Steve Jobs?

Interesting choice of "specimens". Two authors, a brilliant movie-maker, and...and...a tech guy.

Writing is hard work (from experience I vouch for that). Those people aren't being accused of anything, are they? Nope, they aren't. They earned their wealth by using their talents, NOT BY EXPLOITING WORKERS to do it for them in other countries.

I have NO PROBLEM with people who have amassed fortunes deservedly, and King and Rowling and Lucas are heroes of mine (a creative type). Jobs is a different venue altogether, and we certainly all have better technological access than we did before Jobs et al made computers personally friendly and affordable. Kudos to them.

I am talking ONLY about the rich who got rich by exploiting others, and I think I've made that clear. There are very good people who ARE wealthy, and who DO contribute to the betterment of society of their own accord. Oprah, Gates, and others who actually earned their wealth and DO share it with others. Kudos to them, too!

But Madoffs and Romneys and Dimons and all those people who DID make conscious decisions to TAKE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and gamble with it, and then yank jobs away from them to earn even more chips on the table, are a completely different parasitic type.

How many people has King or Rowling laid off? How many jobs did they give to Chinese slaves instead? Um, none that I know of, except perhaps Jobs.

It reminds me a bit of Lance Armstrong at the moment. Won all those awards, on a lie. Now stripped of those rewards, because he was exposed. He was not bailed out by the taxpayers.

Please tell me you see the glaring difference. No, not everyone who is wealthy cheated. But the ones who DID cheat, and they (and some of us) know who they are....are not being held accountable to return the favor they were done.
edit on 9-11-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Dude, really? You tell me I'm wrong and then provide evidence that backs up my premise perfectly. I just told you, I was studying for a Masters in Social Welfare, and taking a class in policy that covered all of the history of "leftist agendas". Yes, the social-justice folks started the IDEA. The BANKERS corrupted it.

They didn't want to do what is kind of like "legal aid" and "pro bono" service that lawyers and doctors do, without full-value compensation. No, they didn't want their profits compromised. So they bundled and sold "bad paper" willfully, fully knowing those debts were going to NEVER be repaid, and sold them to trusting (or stupid) investors who saw $$$.

The banks were not FORCED to do the NINJA thing, that was their idea. They were only expected to give a certain percentage of loans to people, not to GIVE AWAY HOUSES to the indigent. That is preposterous, and in no way happened. And tell me, what bank can NOT financially afford to have a bit of hand in giving a leg-up to people normally ignored and disenfranchised?? It was GREED that caused the problem, not social justice activists.


The idea was to stimulate the localities for home-ownership. No one forced them to give misleading loans to people who had no way of paying it back and no way of ever getting to that point.




edit on 9-11-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


And progress -- by definition -- is inevitable. The only people talking about "utopia" are the spoilers. Progressives just want "progress." Again -- by literal definition.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Really?

Want to try again?


1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.


They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose

Pay attention:

They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose

Thomas Jefferson.

fearistyranny.wordpress.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Hey OP, it sounds like you're looking to learn more and openly discuss things so I thought i would share something else I have in my bookmarks.

Forbes List of Billionaires

The Forbes list has 1,153 people with a Net worth of a Billion or more. The range of names is actually quite interesting to go over. It ranges from well known people like the Koch brothers to others like George Soros and the Mayor of NYC who are both in the top pages of the list, as it happens. It really isn't that heavily weighted politically though as I recognize names from both sides. I'd say when anyone asks what 1% actually means, that list there puts names to the number in a real way. It's certainly hard to miss how well represented everyone is not only by politics but nation as well. Almost like...TPTB might look.

edit on 9-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: fixed link to page



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join