Even sex could be banned -do you want that?

[Josetta]

If all the wealth in the world was divided by all the billions of people in the world, it works out at $3,000,000 per man, woman and child.

So the average wealth of humans (including third-world) is that we are all triple-millionaires, which is another example of how statistics can be so wrong.

It has been estimated that the entire world is controlled by only 500-1,000 families. The control all governments, all the banks and financial institutions and influence all laws to their advantage. The current economic crisis in America is deliberate manipulation.

There is enough food to feed every one in the world three times over. The distribution of food is faulty. No child should die of hunger. The rich families could end poverty if they chose, but they don't care if kids die.

I think the agenda is for the super rich to own everything eventually, and us to be the slaves dancing to their every command like puppets having their strings pulled by the Puppet Masters.

Even sex might be banned? The may having a breeding plan (like Hitler)?

 

[SaltandPepper98]

Without checking out your facts Josetta, I would have to ask you which particular brand of wealth destroying communism combined with personnel rights destroying government is your answer?

Norm

 

[toni]

If all the wealth in the world was divided by all the billions of people in the world, it works out at $3,000,000 per man, woman and child.

So the average wealth of humans (including third-world) is that we are all triple-millionaires, which is another example of how statistics can be so wrong.

It has been estimated that the entire world is controlled by only 500-1,000 families. The control all governments, all the banks and financial institutions and influence all laws to their advantage. The current economic crisis in America is deliberate manipulation.

There is enough food to feed every one in the world three times over. The distribution of food is faulty. No child should die of hunger. The rich families could end poverty if they chose, but they don't care if kids die.

I think the agenda is for the super rich to own everything eventually, and us to be the slaves dancing to their every command like puppets having their strings pulled by the Puppet Masters.

Even sex might be banned? The may having a breeding plan (like Hitler)?

Perhaps the administrators could start a tin foil hat thread for this type of drivel.

 

[missouri_hubby]

I have no special love for the snooty super-rich, but if not for them I wouldn't have a job. And I feel I must point out that the reason they seem to be concentrated in a few Western democracies is that these countries are the only ones that allow the freedom for prosperity to flourish. The poor have-not nations are generally run by dictators, warlords and religious zealots that impose their rule on the masses. In a few cases through ignorance people impose poverty on themselves. A prime example of this are the countries where people die of starvation while cattle roam unmolested because they're believed to contain the "spirits of the ancestors," or some such drivel.

If you're rich and feel the need to share your wealth, by all means start a charity. But the system we have set up, at least in the US, is among the best the world has to offer. What you describe, generally known as "Communism," has been tried and has failed. People who live under it are universally poor and universally oppressed while their leaders join the ranks of the super-rich. I guess the point is there will always be "haves" and "have-nots." But a free society has a hell of a lot more "haves."

 

[stevemcknj]

Not so black and white here, more grey

You bring up a good point. The distribution of wealth in this country is greater than at any time in our nation's history. The last time it was nearly this bad was the Great Depression. Lack of governmental regulation has allowed the wealthy to get even wealthier since the Reagan administration. CEO's salaries have increased at a rate which far exceeds the average worker. That is rate, not amount. The average salary has gone down in the last 8 years when adjusted for inflation. Those who support this, like to drop the "C" word when the lower classes complain for more of a fair share. It kind of demonizes the idea, kind of like opposing the war in Iraq and being called unpatriotic.

 

[handigrl]

If all the wealth in the world was divided by all the billions of people in the world, it works out at $3,000,000 per man, woman and child.

So the average wealth of humans (including third-world) is that we are all triple-millionaires, which is another example of how statistics can be so wrong.

It has been estimated that the entire world is controlled by only 500-1,000 families. The control all governments, all the banks and financial institutions and influence all laws to their advantage. The current economic crisis in America is deliberate manipulation.

There is enough food to feed every one in the world three times over. The distribution of food is faulty. No child should die of hunger. The rich families could end poverty if they chose, but they don't care if kids die.

I think the agenda is for the super rich to own everything eventually, and us to be the slaves dancing to their every command like puppets having their strings pulled by the Puppet Masters.

Even sex might be banned? The may having a breeding plan (like Hitler)?

Watch out Josetta.

Remember what they did to Jesus Christ for throwing out the money changers, and talking about the poor. Don't expect any less when in the country that prides it self on "freedom of speech" when you really dare to express yourself.

If you dare say anything remotely challenging the way things have been conditioned and indoctrinated into peoples minds from birth to the present they will attack and demean you.

Doesn't mean you are wrong or right. Just that you are being a "true" American.

People have been brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is the one and only way.

All too often capitalism is confused with greed. Remember what Gordon Gecko said?
"Greed is good!"

I will take capitalism over socialism or communism any day. However, there is a risk contained in capitalism the same as in communism or socialism and that is the ideology
that believes that one or the other is perfect and that there is never anyroom to change or improve it by possibly taking the best parts of other ideoligies and combining them.




The very reason the US economy today is in the shape its in is capitalism.

 

[handigrl]

Freedom

YouTube - Easy Rider on Freedom

 

[handigrl]

Are you really going to take seriously the post of a person who thinks sex might be banned?

Not that part of the post but everything up to that point. lol

You have to admit that this country does show a history of the religious right getting legislation enacted to ban or prohibit certain types of sexual activity (consenual or not).

 

[IndyHubby]

You are so wrong.

The very reason the US economy today is in the shape its in is capitalism.

Below is the truth. It's not slanted, biased, or jaded. It's simply the truth. The reason the economy is in this state is because of a socialist government program designed to put people into houses even though they could not afford them.

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett



Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist.

 

[RoSquirts]

HIstory did not begin in 2005. Trying to pin the blame on one party at this time is just plain stupid.

In addition, that is COMMENTARY, which doesn't necessarily make it the "truth". As a matter of fact, it doesn't begin to tell half the story.

As for it being "not slanted, biased, or jaded" - let's consider this about the author of that commentary. This is from Kevin Hassert's biography on AEI's website -
"He was an economic adviser to the George W. Bush campaign in the 2004 presidential election and the chief economic adviser to Senator McCain during the 2000 presidential primaries. He currently serves as a senior economic adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign. "

AEI, incidentally, is one of the oldest extreme right wing , pro-business think tanks in the US, hardly a bastion of non-partisan economic thinking,lol.

It's amazing to me how people will struggle to put partisan blame on something that is so widespread that no political party, financial institution, nor greedy home buyer/owner isn't at fault. And so eager to believe it that they don't check sources or do any of their own research.

When you want to present a study of how the last 10 years of pushing home ownership to hide an anemic economy and irresponsible deficit spending have resulted in the worst economic crisis since the depression then naybe we can talk about "not slanted, biased, or jaded". Until then you really shouldn't mindlessly copy and paste a commentary from a biased source that wants to make believe that history started 2 years ago.

I'm not even going to bother digging into the 'facts' of an article from a source like that.

P.S. Just the very idea that in 2005, the Democrats were able to stop ANYTHING from going thru congress that the Republicans wanted is ludicrous to begin with. And to claim they prevented a vote is even more so.

 

[Josetta]

I am not promoting any particular money system, accept to say that the present one has suddenly gone haywire in a very short time. This means that it isn't perfect.

There are snooty-rich in every country, but guys like Bill Gates are amongst the good guys. Its the guys with the hidden agendas, who are under the radar, who are pulling the strings.

The war in Iraq is about oil, but it has backfired on Bush because the cost has disabled the USA economy. The best ecomomists are struggling to fix the banking system even though they have university education.

The Roman Catholic church has been controlling sex for centuries. The Pope does not allow condoms for protection against AIDS and STDs.

 

[IndyHubby]

HIstory did not begin in 2005. Trying to pin the blame on one party at this time is just plain stupid.

In addition, that is COMMENTARY, which doesn't necessarily make it the "truth". As a matter of fact, it doesn't begin to tell half the story.

As for it being "not slanted, biased, or jaded" - let's consider this about the author of that commentary. This is from Kevin Hassert's biography on AEI's website -
"He was an economic adviser to the George W. Bush campaign in the 2004 presidential election and the chief economic adviser to Senator McCain during the 2000 presidential primaries. He currently serves as a senior economic adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign. "

AEI, incidentally, is one of the oldest extreme right wing , pro-business think tanks in the US, hardly a bastion of non-partisan economic thinking,lol.

It's amazing to me how people will struggle to put partisan blame on something that is so widespread that no political party, financial institution, nor greedy home buyer/owner isn't at fault. And so eager to believe it that they don't check sources or do any of their own research.

When you want to present a study of how the last 10 years of pushing home ownership to hide an anemic economy and irresponsible deficit spending have resulted in the worst economic crisis since the depression then naybe we can talk about "not slanted, biased, or jaded". Until then you really shouldn't mindlessly copy and paste a commentary from a biased source that wants to make believe that history started 2 years ago.

I'm not even going to bother digging into the 'facts' of an article from a source like that.

P.S. Just the very idea that in 2005, the Democrats were able to stop ANYTHING from going thru congress that the Republicans wanted is ludicrous to begin with. And to claim they prevented a vote is even more so.

For rosquirts

1. You took what I posted off on a tangent misrepresenting the facts and ignoring the point of the post.

2. You are not worth a debate because you are so extreme left wing, that the truth is only a tool you bend to match your agenda.

3. The point I wished to make stands. The mortgage crisis we are experiencing was born of a socialist not a capitalist program.

4. The government sponsored low income mortgage programs were developed as a result of "community action group" activities in the early 80s.

5. Finally the times and speed with which you post your replies and comments lead me to believe you probably are not what you profess to be. I now believe you must be working with the Obama misinformation team.

PS I'll ignore your reply because it's totally predictable. Also, I won't waste my time debating someone who obviously disagrees with the fundamental principles of our constitution.

 

[SaltandPepper98]

That' better Josetta. You didn't come off as such a dingy leftist on that one.

I agree with almost all of that post. You are certainly right that capitalism is not perfect. But you must agree that as a system, it allows the greatest number of people a better life and the opportunities to a better life than any other system. Anyone not agreeing with that can try to explain why the "poor huddled masses" flock here.

Norman

 

[RoSquirts]

For rosquirts

1. You took what I posted off on a tangent misrepresenting the facts and ignoring the point of the post.

2. You are not worth a debate because you are so extreme left wing, that the truth is only a tool you bend to match your agenda.

3. The point I wished to make stands. The mortgage crisis we are experiencing was born of a socialist not a capitalist program.

4. The government sponsored low income mortgage programs were developed as a result of "community action group" activities in the early 80s.

5. Finally the times and speed with which you post your replies and comments lead me to believe you probably are not what you profess to be. I now believe you must be working with the Obama misinformation team.

PS I'll ignore your reply because it's totally predictable. Also, I won't waste my time debating someone who obviously disagrees with the fundamental principles of our constitution.

LOL, what you posted still wasn't the 'truth' nor was it 'not slanted, biased, or jaded'

My point stands.

When you have to resort to labeling someone that disagrees with you as a leftist or as someone who doesn't believe in the constitution, it's a good sign you lost the debate.

Sorry I'm fast in spotting bogus posts, I must work for Obama,lol.