Going gets tough, so Bush tries socialism

america the socialist, what happened why has Bush turned socialist suddenly , I taught hes loves capitalism and fascism only

reply to post by manson_322


Yeah, the Fed bailing out Lehman Brothers is so socialist....oh wait, thats right, they didn't. Thats why on monday we witnessed the largest bankruptcy in US history. So much for your theory.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by manson_322

 

Yeah, the Fed bailing out Lehman Brothers is so socialist....oh wait, thats right, they didn't. Thats why on monday we witnessed the largest bankruptcy in US history. So much for your theory.

remember, Fannie and Freddie

you clearly are drunk in the whisky of socialism , no wonders conservatives like you support socialism , communism

Originally posted by mybigunit
Corporate taxes should be raised however but not mine as an individual.

No, because these taxes aren't paying for corporations, they are paying for your services. You pay for them. I will assume you say "if we are going to bail out AIG we should raise their corporate taxes." Well let me get this straight. You want them to pay back the loan in full, pay 8.5% interest on the loan, AND raise their taxes because they got the loan?

That isn't how it works. They are paying for their loan through interest. We don't smash you with higher taxes because you needed a loan, the interests rates ARE your tax for getting the loan.

Now on topic Ok so I put MY tax money up and trust me I payed a lot this year to bail out AIG and yes this is a bailout because if the loan wasnt given (At interest not to mention) then they would have gone under and the government makes money or IF they make money I dont get a dime.

OK, for starters, you are wrong. You put up money to bail out AIG. They are going to pay back the loan, in full, plus interest. If they don't we take their company and insure our loan through collateral anyway. You dont get a dime because you don't want to pay the taxes necessary to balance the budget, hence our deficit. You and I are in debt, long before AIG ever failed. Its like having a debt of 30,000 dollars, making 1,000 and yelling at the collectors saying "I earned that." You already spent it.

Wow that sounds real capitalistic. Once again two different philosophies you have I have. You believe in socialized losses and privatized gains and I dont. I also dont buy into the trickle down theory which Im sure you probably do. I buy into Fordism and this is you take care of the middle class everyone benefits.

First off, you refuse to view things by situation, and limit your view to theory policy. This is what got us here today. Refusing to look at situations on an individual policy and making generalized policies is not helping us.

Taking care of the little man is not letting AIG go bust 2 days after the largest bankruptcy in history, which would result it massive negative impacts that would lead to EXTREMELY hard economic times for the middle class. You do realize this EXACT same situation played out in 1929 where the federal reserve did EXACTLY what you are calling for?

Replace the automotive industry with the housing market, and its practically the same situation.

reply to post by manson_322


Hey, go ahead and call it socialism. Socialism just avoided another great depression by not allowing the largest insurer in the world tank 2 days after the largest bankruptcy in history.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

No, because these taxes aren't paying for corporations, they are paying for your services. You pay for them. I will assume you say "if we are going to bail out AIG we should raise their corporate taxes." Well let me get this straight. You want them to pay back the loan in full, pay 8.5% interest on the loan, AND raise their taxes because they got the loan?

That isn't how it works. They are paying for their loan through interest. We don't smash you with higher taxes because you needed a loan, the interests rates ARE your tax for getting the loan.

No they arent paying for services of mine my friend. That is state and local taxes. Im not asking for the federal government to run a war on drugs, or to implement the nanny state. Im not asking them to run the police state and the warfare/welfare state. Sorry I dont want this. You might from your federal government I dont so please dont say they are my services. Local schools, roads, and police/firemen are paid with property taxes and other excise taxes.

OK, for starters, you are wrong. You put up money to bail out AIG. They are going to pay back the loan, in full, plus interest. If they don't we take their company and insure our loan through collateral anyway. You dont get a dime because you don't want to pay the taxes necessary to balance the budget, hence our deficit. You and I are in debt, long before AIG ever failed. Its like having a debt of 30,000 dollars, making 1,000 and yelling at the collectors saying "I earned that." You already spent it.

But this money DOES NOT GO TO PAY THE DEBT. It pays the interest on the debt and then goes to more wasteful big government spending. Hey if this money was earmarked to specifically go and pay down the debt you wouldnt hear me complain. But it wont and it never does. The debt is there for a reason my friend and that is because with no debt there would be no dollar. That is how our currency system is.

First off, you refuse to view things by situation, and limit your view to theory policy. This is what got us here today. Refusing to look at situations on an individual policy and making generalized policies is not helping us.

Taking care of the little man is not letting AIG go bust 2 days after the largest bankruptcy in history, which would result it massive negative impacts that would lead to EXTREMELY hard economic times for the middle class. You do realize this EXACT same situation played out in 1929 where the federal reserve did EXACTLY what you are calling for?

Replace the automotive industry with the housing market, and its practically the same situation.

I dont look at the situation your right. I look at the big picture and I see what caused this and I see that we are only putting a band aid on the situation and not curing the cancer. The cancer being the FED and our fiat laden fractional reserve system. These "booms" we have are illusions they are not real and not based on real growth. I dont feel like going into economics but trust me on this.

Originally posted by mybigunit
No they arent paying for services of mine my friend. That is state and local taxes. Im not asking for the federal government to run a war on drugs, or to implement the nanny state. Im not asking them to run the police state and the warfare/welfare state. Sorry I dont want this. You might from your federal government I dont so please dont say they are my services. Local schools, roads, and police/firemen are paid with property taxes and other excise taxes.

Unfortunately for you, the majority of your country DOES want it. As long as the majority of people want it, and vote in people that will do it, you will have to pay for it. They still are part of your services, whether you want them or not. I don't want them either. In fact, I would end the war on drugs, the war on terror, and many federal programs ASAP if I could. But I can't. So long as the government keeps spending on them, we have to keep paying for them, you included.

You know nothing about what I want personally, or what I consider ideal, so stop assuming.

But this money DOES NOT GO TO PAY THE DEBT. It pays the interest on the debt and then goes to more wasteful big government spending. Hey if this money was earmarked to specifically go and pay down the debt you wouldnt hear me complain. But it wont and it never does. The debt is there for a reason my friend and that is because with no debt there would be no dollar. That is how our currency system is.

Then it is only because the debt has gotten so high that the interest on it is huge. That is nobody's fault but our own.

I dont look at the situation your right. I look at the big picture and I see what caused this and I see that we are only putting a band aid on the situation and not curing the cancer. The cancer being the FED and our fiat laden fractional reserve system. These "booms" we have are illusions they are not real and not based on real growth. I dont feel like going into economics but trust me on this.

Welcome to the 20th-21st century. You want to go back to the gold standard, you know what will happen? Every other country will out purchase us and leave us in the dust. Fiat currency is the only way to flourish in the world market/globalism. Your system is obsolete and is no longer the way things work. You want to operate on some 19th century/early 20th century system, well you can't.

The purchasing power in the Fiat currency system cannot be matched by a gold standard type system where the dollar is backed. It just doesn't work anymore.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Well I know this we are on the same page on the governments job if what you say is true. I think we are talking on different levels you talking on the level of continuation down the path we are going and me talking about what we need to do to change. My feelings are a crash will wake people up to the corruption of both our government and its collusion with the international bankers. This is why I say let them fail. On top of this it will bring housing prices to a point to where people may not actually have to get loans to get a house. You know how they used to do it before consumerism set it.

I dont think I mentioned the gold standard. Just because I say get rid of the FED and the system doesnt mean you have to go back to gold. You dissolve the FED and put currency issuing power right back where the constitution says and that is in the governments hands. Instead of basing our currency on debt we issue currency on value. Our dollar because we dont print it in mass would be the strongest in the world because its based on actual growth and not on an illusion. See the video below and start at the 4 minute mark you will see what I mean

If anything Obama is the one who is trying to revive socialism, with his healthcare plan. That's a huge mistake for the American people to overlook that.

reply to post by mybigunit


Look, I think our main difference is that you are dealing with many "if this happens, people will do this" and "if we do this, these things will occur as a result" where I don't think it is that simple. You also talk about alot of things that need to happen. The thing is that they haven't happened yet. The Fed isn't gone, so I'm not going to speculate what should be done if they are gone. They are here, there is no indication that they will be leaving anytime soon, so I act accordingly. I make decisions with that in mind.

You say a crash would wake people up, I think you would just kill them via starvation and homelessness. People didn't wake up after the great depression, they turned to socialist policies. You remember all the power they gave government to get us out of that depression?

I think we a polar opposites when it comes to our view on the world. Your view on business and the market is very pessimistic, and your view about people is very optimistic. I am the opposite. People are sheep. You collapse this market on them and they will give their first born to government just to survive. You would see socialism and central government at a size NEVER seen before. That is why I dont want this market to crash.

Socialism is best applied to a desperate population, and communism to a hopeless one. You do realize the very LARGE possibility people won't "wake up" and will instead give away whatever rights they need to in order for government to "save them"?

This 'bail out' does not resemble socialism in any way. Socialism is public ownership of the 'means of production'. Any financial institution in the free market system which is bailed out by government loans will still not be accountable to the taxpayer, which in my opinion is the main cause of the current economic crisis.

reply to post by Rinorino2


This is not socialism, this was realism...
If AIG went under, repercussions to the world financial system would be unacceptable. All loans and financial arrangements would stop flowing, they are already very hard to get, major companies in financial trouble, such as GM and Ford, just to name the two most relevant, would see their credit cut, and would probably have to close major plants. Loans for small business would also been unobtainable.

If you are ready to accept unemployment rates nearing the 20% mark, if you are ready to accept an economic depression that will make the one from the 20's look like a minor glitch, then you can call it socialism...

As I see it Bush, and the Fed, along with major world banks, and financial institutions, are doing their best to keep the credit flowing, thus avoiding a total economic meltdown...

Long term policies must emerge but, until that happens the economy must be defended, from meltdown. The geopolitical consequences would be far too grate...

Originally posted by grimreaper797


Socialism is best applied to a desperate population, and communism to a hopeless one. You do realize the very LARGE possibility people won't "wake up" and will instead give away whatever rights they need to in order for government to "save them"?

People are doing this anyways. I mean look at the patriot act. Look at the Bush Doctrine. Look at the new wars powers Bush got to go to war with congressional approval. All of this in the name of "homeland security" The fact is people are already giving up all their rights and we are doing the same thing now with all these bailouts. We are doing this in the name of "financial security" which is the same thing as the "homeland security" gig. Little do people know is Ok so an AIG fails or a Freddie or Fannie fails would there be panic? Yup sure would, would there be rioting? Sure would. Would house prices plummet making them back within range so people can actually afford them? Yup sure would. But why would the banks want houses to plummet? They dont because if people can afford to pay for houses in full then there is no need for loans is there? Trust me these people are not looking out for our interests they are looking out for theirs and as long as people need to get loans these bankers will always be in business.

There is a lot to be learned from the depression and I will concede this point to you. People DID give up their rights like mad in things like the new deal and executive order 6102. But once again what do you think is happening now. Where in the constitution does it give the government the right to bail out private companies with our labor? Listen if there was no individual income tax you wouldnt hear me complain one bit but there is so I have a right to complain.

Maybe your right I do give people to much credit sometimes even though me like you deep down knows that most people are sheeple and need to be led. They cant think for themselves and eat up everything they are told. Sad times we live in for sure but this is socialism maybe not in its exact defined form but anytime you take from one group and give to another that is what that is.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by mybigunit


Houses don't drop to affordable levels, they will sit there in abandon. People won't be able to afford housing because they won't have any income, and the income they did have is now worthless. This nation would be crippled if such a thing happened. One you let the system go into full fledged freefall, there is no turning back. It will keep going till it can't go down any further.

People aren't just going to turn around and recover. People will starve in mass amounts, many will go homeless, crime will reach record highs. We are talking about practically going back to square one or two. Honestly, I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is a country like china or russia becoming the new world power. The US government may be corrupt, and it may get ugly sometimes, but it's not nearly as oppressive.

Before you go "our government is oppressive and wants to take away all our rights" you remember, you have NO IDEA what its like to be permanently striped away of your freedom and maybe even your right to live. Make no mistake, you have not seen so much as the slightest hint of oppression yet.

As for the bush doctrine, it surprisingly makes sense, but thats aside the point.

I wish things were different, but they aren't, and we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. A mass economic meltdown simply is not acceptable. It would indefinately destroy this country in the sense it that is is a strong free market. Sometimes, when options are slim, you are forced to make a choice. Neither one is one that you agree with, but you make the choice you think is best, because it is up to you to make such a choice. Now I don't like socialism or socialist ideals, and I certainly hate the idea of corporations not having to take responsibility, but the alternative is not acceptable.

We cannot, as a people, accept the idea that we must fall so that "the market can correct itself." If that is the case, then maybe free market isn't such a good idea after all. I mean, if we can let a private entity run by a small group of greedy individuals destroy this nation, maybe that isn't a system we can allow to run free in our country.

Originally posted by grimreaper797


We cannot, as a people, accept the idea that we must fall so that "the market can correct itself." If that is the case, then maybe free market isn't such a good idea after all. I mean, if we can let a private entity run by a small group of greedy individuals destroy this nation, maybe that isn't a system we can allow to run free in our country.

In a true free market there is always failure but in a true free market the failure would not be systemic like now. The fact that the market is not free and it is being controlled (or attempted anyways) by a collusion of both our government and the international bankers (more so the bankers) Eventually the free market will win no matter how much you try to control it. Thats just how it is. So when you dont let the market correct itself and you keep propping up malinvestment the corrections you will see can be systemic. This is why the FED needs to be eliminated. Let the market set rates. There is no real need for the fed. It was supposed to be the lender of last resort and was supposed to prevent stuff like this which we have seen is not the case. They make things worse and prolong the inevitable.


The government however wants the fed around because they like the idea of just printing money so they dont have to do the unpopular thing and raise taxes. The FED is a Republicans best friend for we have seen that they use the FED to its full extent. The fact is if the government went by the constitution we would also see a lot of mess prevented.

You cant control the market it never works. This correction was supposed to happen a long time ago and was not allowed. Now we are reaping the problems. I didnt make these rules and trust me Im not being hypocritical in anything I say. I own a small business and I have been hammered because of this mess. This is why its frustrating that I cant even get banks to work with me on my existing lines. Sad Sad times.

This thread title only serves to distract from the truth. The FEDERAL RESERVE is supplying this loan and bailed out Fannie and Freddie...the complicity of the president is no more and no less than that of all politicians from both sides of the aisle who support the Fed. Garbage like this thread only serves to perpetuate the problem by laying the blame on a scapegoat instead of all the criminals involved.

reply to post by grimreaper797


You seem to have a good grasp of things and I think you might hold the record for replying to one thread after this is said and done.

I have a couple questions based on my research that I would like cleared up:

1. Is the Federal Reserve a PRIVATE bank or not??

2. If the Government bails out a Corporation or S&L or whatever hot topic bankrupt supper conglomerate at the time, isn't the Tax Payer left holding the Bag???

3. As a expert in the Mortgage industry that you seem to be, I have a theory and something if you haven't researched that you may want to check. Take a look at Ameriquest Mortgage as well as there recently deceased Owner (Who by the way was the Ambassador to the Netherlands, appointed by the Great George Bush...conspiracy theorists will love this connection). In a nut shell, what they were doing is bribing multiple appraisers in all 50 states at one point to increase the value of the appraisal of the home. Once this became the norm all across the US property values sky rocketed because of Appraisers and not because the banks had lessoned there underwriting. There was a perceived safety net to lend to individuals because the value of the house was so high (overinflated by the appraiser) that a Bank could afford to be risky in there lending.

4. When was the last balanced budget of the US and under whose Administration was it under??

You have a wealth of knowledge but I think you also have a desire to think the Federal Reserve system is the best way. It might be, but, when corrupt people run a Great system it is bound to fail..........

[edit on 18-9-2008 by hoochymama]

Originally posted by mybigunit
In a true free market there is always failure but in a true free market the failure would not be systemic like now. The fact that the market is not free and it is being controlled (or attempted anyways) by a collusion of both our government and the international bankers (more so the bankers) Eventually the free market will win no matter how much you try to control it. Thats just how it is. So when you dont let the market correct itself and you keep propping up malinvestment the corrections you will see can be systemic. This is why the FED needs to be eliminated.

You are preaching to the choir on this one. I know the fed is a major factor in this, and I know we need to get rid of them. That does not mean we should immediately get rid of them on the spot, even if it means destroying ourselves in the process. Yes they are a factor in many of todays problems in the market. Yes, I also agree I want them gone.

BUT, with that said, now is not the time. To me, on a basis of logical sense, you don't do something so dramatic as getting rid of the fed during a volatile point in the market. This is NOT the time to be making such choices. We should have done it when we could minimize the damage of such a choice.

With that said, we had to choose from the limited options we had, and none of them good. Do I like how this turned out? Not particularly, on a level of principle. Would I go back and change it? Not a chance. The alternative to bailing out AIG was letting it crash. The market would not have corrected itself but gone into freefall. You saw what happen during the great depression, the market didn't correct itself. Speculation tore it to shreads.

I want to avoid that scenario. I believe we can, in time, get rid of the Fed and fix the market without having to engage in such dramatic scenarios. It will cost us, but in my opinion, it is better for us to figure out a plan where we can accomplish what we need to accomplish in a timely and reasonable manner. Having the market crash does not benefit the average middle american.

We need a plan to change where we are going. That isn't the debate at hand though. The debate at hand is "was the fed bailing out AIG the right move?" and I say yes. I say that because it bought us, the people who want to correct the market over a period of time within reason, the extra time needed to possibly correct this.

Let me put it to you this way. If AIG goes under, WaMu sinks, etc. It won't matter that you, the tax payer, footed the bill, because the government will be forced to deafault anyway and the money you owe will disappear. That is what it really comes down to, we will either see AIG pay back what it owes, or we will see our entire system collapse with these huge companies. In which case, it won't matter what the tax payer owes. It really won't.

Let the market set rates. There is no real need for the fed. It was supposed to be the lender of last resort and was supposed to prevent stuff like this which we have seen is not the case. They make things worse and prolong the inevitable.

To me, prolong is the key word. That is exactly what I want them to do, prolong. As it stands, this market is bound to fail without policy change and new direction. What I am hoping the fed can do is buy enough time for something constructive to be done, and just maybe we can avoid this mess. Regardless, when it does fall, it can't fall much harder than it would right now. I see it as we have nothing to lose.

The only difference between it crashing now and 5 years from now, is the fact it gives us 5 years to attempt to change the market, its direction, and its policy. Is it likely to happen? Depends on who you ask, I say not likely, but there is a chance. The fact is though, there really isn't anything to lose on this. Nothing that you wouldn't lose if the stock market crashed tomorrow that is.

The government however wants the fed around because they like the idea of just printing money so they dont have to do the unpopular thing and raise taxes. The FED is a Republicans best friend for we have seen that they use the FED to its full extent. The fact is if the government went by the constitution we would also see a lot of mess prevented.

Thats all talking in the past. None of that deals with the present. We can play blame game all day, and Im sure we would find some real common ground there, but that isn't what is important now. What is important is what can we do to prevent things from going into free fall and giving our market a shot at returning to policies that are feesible.

The Fed may have caused many problems, but Im hoping we can take one good use out of it and use them to prolong the collapse long enough to avoid it through smart policy and new direction. Its unlikely, but still possible, and there is nothing to lose when you look at it.

You cant control the market it never works. This correction was supposed to happen a long time ago and was not allowed. Now we are reaping the problems. I didnt make these rules and trust me Im not being hypocritical in anything I say. I own a small business and I have been hammered because of this mess. This is why its frustrating that I cant even get banks to work with me on my existing lines. Sad Sad times.

I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't change the situation we face. What happened, happened. Now is the time we must figure out how to act next to minimize the damage, not just say "screw it" and let it fall to pieces. I don't believe its so late that there is no chance to save the market. Its not likely of course, but that doesn't mean there isn't a chance.

Originally posted by hoochymama
I have a couple questions based on my research that I would like cleared up:

1. Is the Federal Reserve a PRIVATE bank or not??

It is a central banking system. A central banking system is designed for quite a few purposes. One of them being to moniter the banking sector. Great job on that account lol. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned central bank, so it is private. The main reasoning behind that is so that politics cannot interfere with the functions of the central banking system. The last thing they want is a bunch of politician who have limited knowledge about the market dictating the market.

So yes, it is private.

2. If the Government bails out a Corporation or S&L or whatever hot topic bankrupt supper conglomerate at the time, isn't the Tax Payer left holding the Bag???

The only reason AIG got bailed out, not being a bank, is their direct ties to the bank via insurance. Now, as for your question about the tax payers, I would say no. I say no because what you have is not a buyout of the company.

Basically, AIG was like "we has over 1 trillion in assets, but we can't sell them in time, we need a loan to buy the time necessary to sell these assets at a reasonable price and raise capital." Nobody wanted to give them a loan, and the reasoning for that may vary. Anyway, when nobody would give them a loan the situation gave few options, none of which were good.

The problem is, should AIG fail to raise the capital and sell assets, the government will take over, then it becomes the governments burden. THAT is when we are left holding the bag, and that could be ugly.

Hence the reason it is a risk. It is a risk not without benefit though. Not only does it stop the market from going into possible freefall as a result of fear speculation, but we could also turn a nice profit.

As I said earlier, the company has over 1 trillion in assets. We are charging them 8.5% interest on the loan. 85 billion/1+trillion...you do the math. They are a solvent company and have the ability to raise the necessary capital. If they raise the captial fast, the loan gets paid off fast, we don't make much of anything off it, but we also hold no more risk with the company. If they raise capital over time, we hold the risk longer, but make more money off the interest we would be charging them.

The only way it could get ugly is if the government is forced to act on the warrants for 79.9% of AIG stock and cannot sell the assets.

3. As a expert in the Mortgage industry that you seem to be, I have a theory and something if you haven't researched that you may want to check. Take a look at Ameriquest Mortgage as well as there recently deceased Owner (Who by the way was the Ambassador to the Netherlands, appointed by the Great George Bush...conspiracy theorists will love this connection). In a nut shell, what they were doing is bribing multiple appraisers in all 50 states at one point to increase the value of the appraisal of the home. Once this became the norm all across the US property values sky rocketed because of Appraisers and not because the banks had lessoned there underwriting. There was a perceived safety net to lend to individuals because the value of the house was so high (overinflated by the appraiser) that a Bank could afford to be risky in there lending.

I'm no expert, I've just done my fair share of reading and studying at school to have an idea of what is going on here.

As for your theory, I will have to look it over again at a later time since I have literally been talking about this AIG/stock market all day, its 11pm, and I just got stuck up on the word "been" because I thought it looked weird. (I'm pretty tired lol)

So to be fair, I will come back and read this one tomorrow so I don't misinterpret what you are saying.

4. When was the last balanced budget of the US and under whose Administration was it under??

Clinton had the budget balanced out for a bit I believe. For a short time I believe it to be the Clinton administration. I could be wrong though. Im at the end of a long day here.

You have a wealth of knowledge but I think you also have a desire to think the Federal Reserve system is the best way. It might be, but, when corrupt people run a Great system it is bound to fail..........

Please don't misinterpret my opinion on the situation to be my blanket rule or principles. The options that were avalible here were very slim and I did not "like" any of them on a principle basis. That doesn't mean I don't think the best choice, out of the few given, was made. I believe it was the best choice avalible. Doesn't say much about the choices avalible, but I believe that to be the truth.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Get some sleep as I am interested to what your thoughts are on some of my questions.

Especially the Ameriquest one.

Other than that, I understand that with a system that has been in use for some 70+ years now it would be a Shock (more of a shock) if we actually just got rid of the Federal Reserve.

Now, considering this, what would be the best alternative???

Your answer about when the last Balanced budget, which is actually very important, was IS the Clinton Administration. They actually had a surplus. I believe this was the intent from the get go. I will go on with this thought once Grimreaper answers the questions I had in the earlier response.