by Jack Lee
“The median U.S. household lost nearly 39% of its wealth from 2007 to 2010, the Federal Reserve said Monday, emphasizing anew the impact of the financial crisis and the recession on ordinary Americans.
Middle-class families took the biggest hit to their net worth during the crunch because much of their wealth was in their homes, whose values plunged during the recession and in its aftermath, the Fed report said. Wealthier families saw a smaller drop in their incomes, but nowhere near as much impact on their net worth. ”
Even the wealthiest of us lost 5.3%, now that’s a chunk of doe! And when you take their money out of circulation everybody gets hurt, not just the wealthy.
Inflated gasoline prices in CA (49th highest of all states) does not help our strained economic situation either!
Call me pessimistic, but I kinda think Chico should be bracing for another drop in tax revenue!
This makes the comments from “Blind” on the Krugman video look kinda, er, uh….blind?
Thanks, I remember who was President in 2007, and don’t want to return to his type of policies.
Jim…Bush was a fiscal liberal, but not nearly as bad as Obama. If you didn’t like Bush, you can’t possibly think Obama is better. Jim, I think you need to do your own independent research and let the facts determine your vote. I have…the truth will set you free.
As long as we are rehashing Bush in 2007, a man who got plenty of criticism from the right and the left, let us not forget that the House, where budgets and legislation for spending originates, was taken over by committed spenders…the redistribution party of the far left (modern Democrat leaders). Spending shot straight up (the left half of the country was thrilled). Eventually the Obama team won its parties favor and He won. He even asked Bush to leave his post early because the “crisis” was so dire. Under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid super majority spending shot up even more.
We are tired of big government solutions.
Jack your warning to the city of Chico is smart…some are predicting another wave of defaults mostly due to the job/income situation. Hangers on are running out of rope.
Tina…running out of rope and running out of hope! Hope was never a good battle plan, for the economy or in war. Better to have a real plan with real achievable goals.
all bills originate in the house which has been under Repubclican control for the last two years. The fault lies with a lack of leadership in the House.
Government spending is not the problem; even Bush seemed to know that, although he’d probably never say it. Romney doesn’t seem to get it. He believes that the rich have it too hard and the poor have it too easy. He said the other day that we don’t need any more teachers, firemen or policemen–we need to “help the American people.” As if firemen, policemen and teachers don’t so that? He is totally out of touch.
He also does not understand what led up to the housing crisis and the recession. The cause was deregulation, not F&F or the CRA. In fact, the majority of subprime loans came from institutions which were no longer bound by the CRA or other regulations that were imposed on Fannie and Freddie. CRA loans, while not exactly good, fared better than private loans and were more likely to be payed off. BOTH parties were responsible for repealing many of the regulations, such as the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed under Clinton. The only difference is that Democrats seem to have actually learned from this, while Republicans continue to deny it and blame F&F, even though they were responsible for only a small fraction of the crisis when compared to unregulated lenders.
Republicans and Romney also fail to understand that the stimulus helped prevent an even deeper recession. They don’t understand the stimulative effects of food stamps, healthcare or financial aid for college. They don’t understand that tax rates on the rich are lower than they’ve ever been, and that this hasn’t helped anyone but the rich. They don’t understand how to deal with income inequality, which is helping prolong the recession. All of this is important to remember too.
WTF, Bologna!
April 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/156379-house-clears-ryans-2012-budget-plan-conservatives-want-more-cuts
House passes Ryan’s ’12 budget; conservatives want more cuts
(DOA in Senate)
July 29 2011
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/republicans-remind-obama-democrats-are-blocking-house-passed-jobs-bills
Senate rejects House-passed debt bill
September 7, 2011
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/29/news/economy/debt_ceiling_house_vote.cnnw/index.htm
Republicans Remind Obama: Democrats Are Blocking House-Passed Jobs Bill
(ALL DOA in Senate)
November 6, 2011
http://www.speaker.gov/general/house-has-passed-22-bipartisan-jobs-bills-counting
House Has Passed 22 Bipartisan Jobs Bills, & Counting
(Senate couldn’t work in bipartisan fashion with ANY of them?…NUTS!)
December 5, 2011
http://www.speaker.gov/general/25-house-passed-jobs-bills-stuck-democratic-run-senate
25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate
(Senate Democrats continue to be the “NO” contingency)
December 13, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/politics/house-passes-extension-of-payroll-tax-cut.html
House Passes Extension of Cut to Payroll Taxes
WTF you are just wrong about the Republican House.
Democrats are the party that will not sek common ground and will not work in a bipartisan fashion…hence the people continue to suffer under the policies adopted when Obama/.Reid/Pelosi had a SUPER MAJORITY. Please note, a SUPER MAJORITY means they did not need a single Republican vote to get stuff done!
WTF… ALL bills do not originate in the House of Representatives! Holy cow, this is basic 8th grade civics. How in the world could you even consider yourself an informed voter if you didn’t know that? lol
Helpful hint…. If you are going to be criticizing people for their ignorance you might want to read up on the rules for Congress first. See below.
From the Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives of the United States of America:
XVI. BILL ORIGINATING IN SENATE
The preceding discussion has described the legislative process for bills originating in the House. When a bill originates in the Senate, this process is reversed. When the Senate passes a bill that originated in the Senate, it is sent to the House for consideration unless it is held by unanimous consent to become a vehicle for a similar House bill if and when passed by the House. The Senate bill is referred to the appropriate House committee for consideration or held at the Speaker’s table at the Speaker’s discretion for possible amendment following action on a companion House bill. If the committee reports the bill to the full House and if the bill is passed by the House without amendment, it is ready for enrollment. If the House passes an amended version of the Senate bill, the bill is returned to the Senate for action on the House amendments. The Senate may agree to the amendments or request a conference to resolve the disagreement over the House amendments or may further amend the House amendments. In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate cannot originate revenue measures. By tradition, the House also originates general appropriation bills. If the Senate does originate a revenue measure either as a Senate bill or an amendment to a non-revenue House bill, it can be returned to the Senate by a vote of the House as an infringement of the constitutional prerogative of the House
Source for more information: http://www.4uth.gov.ua/usa/english/politics/lawsmade/lawsmade.htm
Chris: “Romney doesn’t seem to get it. He believes that the rich have it too hard and the poor have it too easy. He said the other day that we don’t need any more teachers, firemen or policemen–we need to “help the American people.” As if firemen, policemen and teachers don’t so that? He is totally out of touch.”
Chris your opinion is based on emotion rather than the cold hard reality of our economic situation. Only prejudice would cause you to draw this ridiculous conclusion from his remarks.
He does not believe the “rich have it too hard and the poor have it too easy” That is absurd!
He knows the President has given money to states to ensure that government employees, teachers, fire, police, did not lose their jobs. This expenditure did not really work and only put off the crisis that states and cities face because people in the private sector need jobs and income to pay taxes. The redistribution of wealth that has been the highlight of the Obama economic policy rewarded green energy companies, GM union members, and did nothing to create overall economic growth. If people in the private sector are inspired to risk, able to find good jobs, and able to keep and pay for their homes and other things there will be sufficient revenue flowing to employ teachers, police, fire.
Democrats who still think government is the answer to everything can’t possibly understand the housing crisis or the insane policies that were forced on banks and investors to cause it. (It’s called regulation, Chris..who sold you on the idea that banks were not regulated?)
More than a few Democrats benefitted personally from the policies (regulation) that forced banks to make bad loans, they aren’t about to admit these policies contributed to the problem and in fact will turn cartwheels to prove they didn’t!
Chris is right that many factors contributed to the financial meltdown but pretending that legislation and lawsuits to force banks to make bad loans (and then to survive bundling them into securities) wasn’t a significant part of the problem is crazy…and…Obama was one of the lawyers that pushed the banks to make those loans during the Clinton era:
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
FOX business reported this morning his fee was $166.00 an hour.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/what-does-a-community-organizer-do-pressure-banks-to-make-bad-loans/
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/25/a-great-example-of-how-we-got-to-the-credit-market-meltdown/
“Republicans and Romney also fail to understand that the stimulus helped prevent an even deeper recession.”
Horsehockey! Spending merely kept people in some groups (unions) from losing their jobs and allowed the government to hire more people so they could claim they were creating or saving jobs. It’s not much more than a shell game.
History tells us the types of policies that would have created strong growth and recovery and they were encated by Democrats and Republicans alike so to use this excuse as some kind of victory dance is nuts.
There is no recovery just a long drawn out period of pain and loss. It is the worst period ever following a recession. Claiming Ro,mney “doesn’t understand” is just progressive arrogance.
“They don’t understand the stimulative effects of food stamps, healthcare or financial aid for college.”
HA! They understand it alright. They understand that this spending becomes a debt placed on future generations. (Something Obama said was irrisponsible and unpatriotic when Bush did it). They understand that spending on these things does not create wealth or spur overall economic growth.
Wealth creation in the private sector is what is needed…this they do understand and President Obama hasn’t a clue!
“They don’t understand how to deal with income inequality, which is helping prolong the recession.”
Income inequality has gotten much worse under Obama. Blacks have been hit the hardest!!!!!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/growth-of-income-inequality-is-worse-under-obama-than-bush.html
The rich will remain rich no matter what because they have money. If you want the rich’s money to work for everyone you have to let them play with it in the private sector through investment. Middle and low income people don’t have a chance to do better when policies of government cause stagnation, fear, and loathing in the private sector.
Romney changes his opinions more often than I change my shirts. You can never tell what he stands for.
However he has said that he wants to increase military spending, while he enacts more tax cuts. That is a recipe for financial disaster. He is more like Bush Jr, than anything else.
Tina: “Middle and low income people don’t have a chance to do better when policies of government cause stagnation, fear, and loathing in the private sector.”
Thomas Sowell once again hits the nail on the head in his article below.
…”What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people like themselves need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.”
…”What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obamas point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.”
Is Obama a Socialist or a Fascist?
Thomas Sowell explains why president seeks scapegoats for all his failed policies:
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a socialist. He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and he wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obamas point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous something Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the greed of the insurance companies.
The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.
One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely and correctly regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldbergs great book, Liberal Fascism, cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the lefts embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced itself from fascism and its Nazi offshoot and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling opponents with these pariahs.
What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people like themselves need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The lefts vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, We the People
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitutions limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges new interpretations, based on notions of a living Constitution that will take decisions out of the hands of We the People, and transfer those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left and regardless of its disastrous consequences.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
If the private sector was going to create jobs, what with the reduction in federal regulations, and a decade of the Bush Tax Cuts, they would have created them by now. If it is jobs you want, and the private sector will not create them, it is the job of the government to do so.
By not creating jobs, the fascists are destroying the economy–so we will vote for their guy to ‘rescue’ us.
Reduction in federal regulations? You really are a little propagandist aren’t you?
The following hits both parties:
http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Wayne%20Crews%20-%2010,000%20Commandments%202011.pdf
The cost to comply with these regulation (raising cost to consumers for the products and services they purchase) is astounding: “Given 2010s actual government spending or outlays of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory hidden tax stands at an unprecedented 50.7 percent of the level of federal spending itself.
Hitler was a socialist…NAZI…look it up! Your attempt to muddy the waters and confuse the voters is really lame!
Thomas Sowell’s comments are absurd.
“Fascism promotes political violence and war, as forms of direct action that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality”
“Fascism seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Obama is no more a fascist, socialist or marxist, than Bush or Reagan.
Jim: “Fascism promotes political violence and war, as forms of direct action that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality”
Mr. Sowell was talking about national political violence as a means to take over a government, not the US supporting international wars, which Obama is also currently doing.
If the private sector was going to create jobs, what with the reduction in federal regulations, and a decade of the Bush Tax Cuts, they would have created them by now. If it is jobs you want, and the private sector will not create them, it is the job of the government to do so.
By not creating jobs, the fascists are destroying the economy–so we will vote for their guy to ‘rescue’ us.
Jim, since you imply you know… what is Obama’s political philosophy and what forces have shaped his thinking? Waiting for a reply.
Somebody I was reading recently said, “Considering Obama’s mentor when he was a child in Hawaii was a self avowed communist and he himself sought out Marxist professors, and the preacher he listened to was a Black Liberation Theologist (Socialist)… Everyone surrounding him believes in putting together a government that will “redistribute” the wealth” and practice social justice, which basically means, taking from Harry to pay Paul.”
Jim do you deny that this is true? We know so little about this man in the White House. I think we need to look deeper, know the kind of people he associated with. What we do know, he hung with some pretty leftwing characters. We should know who his political sponsors were and where his college money came from. I wonder why its kept a secret? Why are are his college records are sealed? We do know he has a pretty strange past. His mother was a real piece of work. Very dysfunctional just like the father figures in his life, all very strange people either weak character, strange religious beliefs or odd politics. About the only stable force in his life seems to be his grandparents.
Only have time to respond to a few things right now.
Tina: “Chris your opinion is based on emotion rather than the cold hard reality of our economic situation. Only prejudice would cause you to draw this ridiculous conclusion from his remarks.”
No. This is the most rational, straightforward interpretation of his remarks. Romney’s exact words were:
“He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”
The only logical way to interpret that statement is that Romney does not think that we should hire more firemen, more policemen, or more teachers, and that doing so would not significantly help the American people. He is also implying that in order to “cut back on government,” these types of jobs might need to be scaled back. Now what exactly about that interpretation is illogical to you? You frequently accuse me of basing my arguments on “emotion” and “prejudice” without demonstrating what’s illogical about those arguments, and it is a very annoying tactic.
“He does not believe the “rich have it too hard and the poor have it too easy” That is absurd!”
Again, no. This is simply a rational interpretation of Romney’s words and proposals. He wants to lower the tax burden on the top income brackets while also lowering aid to the poor. It is completely rational to conclude based on this that he thinks the rich have it too hard and the poor have it too easy.
Sure, the phrasing I used may make it sound absurd. That’s because the position Romney holds is absurd. Accurate descriptions of absurd positions often sound absurd. The solution to that is to stop holding absurd positions.
“He knows the President has given money to states to ensure that government employees, teachers, fire, police, did not lose their jobs.”
Sadly, I’m not 100% sure he knows this. From HuffPo:
Trying to counter criticism from the White House, Romney argued that it was “completely absurd” to say he would cut the hiring of such civil servants because the federal government plays no part in those decisions.
“That’s a very strange accusation,” Romney said on “Fox & Friends.” “Of course, teachers and firemen and policemen are hired at the local level and also by states. The federal government doesn’t pay for teachers, firefighters or policemen. So obviously that is completely absurd.”
In fact, the federal government spends huge amounts of money to support all those professions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/mitt-romney-federal-spending-police-teachers-firefighters_n_1590872.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Of course, the other possibility is that Romney does know that the federal gov’t pays for these professions, and is lying about it.
“Democrats who still think government is the answer to everything can’t possibly understand the housing crisis or the insane policies that were forced on banks and investors to cause it. (It’s called regulation, Chris..who sold you on the idea that banks were not regulated?)”
This can’t be a serious question. After all this time, you still don’t believe in the existence of banks which were not subject to regulations such as the CRA? Really?
We’ve had this discussion many times, and every time, I have given you a variety of sources which affirm that banks which were not subject to the CRA and other regulations that were imposed on Freddie and Fannie had a much higher number of subprime loans than F&F. And every time, you’ve flat-out ignored these links, and responded by posting more articles about F&F behaving badly. As I’ve pointed out before, your analysis completely ignores the comparison between banks which were subject to these regulations and banks which were not. And as I now know, you only pretended to read the evidence I’ve provided in past discussions, as demonstrated by your lack of awareness of the very EXISTENCE of non-CRA banks. That’s amazing to me. You’ve concluded that certain regulations were primarily responsible for the crisis, but you’ve only been able to make that conclusion because you didn’t know (even though I explained to you, many times, with lots of evidence) that the primary culprits were not subject to those regulations.
I’m not even going to bother linking to all those articles again. You can easily confirm the existence of non-CRA banks by doing a simple Google search. Please do so now, then read on.
…
OK, at this point I assume you have done the necessary five seconds of research and discovered that, yes, banks not subject to the CRA do exist! Now that you have done so, can you see how your earlier analysis of the crisis was fundamentally flawed? You did not have knowledge of all the factors involved (because you ignored my many explanations and my evidence) and so you were only drawing your conclusions based on the limited information you did know. That’s understandable…but next time, you should seek out more information, and make sure you know of all the factors (and that you actually read what other people write in your discussions with them) before asserting that you know more than they do. Failure to do so only results in embarrassment for you.
Tina: “Hitler was a socialist…NAZI…look it up!”
It never ceases to slay me, your combination of arrogance and ignorance.
Hilter rounded up socialists and had them executed. There’s, um, kind of a famous poem about the subject?
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
Sure, Nazis called themselves “National Socialists.” And China calls itself a “People’s Republic.” That doesn’t make it so.
Peggy, quoting Thomas Sowell:
“Is Obama a Socialist or a Fascist?”
I don’t know, but while I mull it over, here’s a similar question: Has Mitt Romney stopped beating his wife yet?
Chris: “This is the most rational, straightforward interpretation of his remarks.”
No, it is a defensive, negative (emotional) interpretation.
Romney was saying that Obama’s answer to our economic problems, more federal government spending for teachers, police and fire, is the wrong way to get the economy going or create surpluses and balanced budgets. Romney was saying that the success in Wisconsin can be a blueprint for turning the overall economy to the positive. (Not a single teacher lost his job in Wisconsin and several school districts now have smaller classrooms and extra money to spend on the kids!) Teachers, police and fire depend on a strong private sector economy for survival. This is logical.
“He wants to lower the tax burden on the top income brackets while also lowering aid to the poor.”
NO! He wants to unleash the investment energy of the wealthy into the private sector to create jobs, grow the economy, and create a stronger tax base. He would eliminate aid to the poor that is fraudulent and excessive so that the truly needy are truly served and the rest find work instead. Obamas lousy policies have created a situation where more is spent on aid that would not be necessary IF the economy had recovered.
Absurdity, Chris, is believing you can kill the private sector with high taxes and regulation and continue to have lots of money to spend on the poor…or anything else! Where exactly do you and the President think the money to fund government (teachers, fire, police) is generated? Why would you be against a thriving private sector economy with plenty of jobs for everyone when that is what makes government possible?
Romney believes, as most conservatives do, that the federal government should not be involved in funding for education, fire and police. These should be obligations for state and local governments. Federal government involvement means money is wasted on layers of bureaucracy that could be spent by individuals and local governments…more bang for the buck.
Your problem with Romney…all of your problem with Romney…stem from the fact that you do not understand, any more than the President does, how the economy works or the incredibly big ways that the federal government has grown, much to our detriment. You hear what you think he is saying not what he is saying.
“We’ve had this discussion many times, and every time, I have given you a variety of sources which affirm that banks which were not subject to the CRA and other regulations that were imposed on Freddie and Fannie had a much higher number of subprime loans than F&F.”
I have shown you a variety of sources, including court documents, that show your information is limited and incomplete.
“You’ve concluded that certain regulations were primarily responsible for the crisis…”
I’ve concluded that the law was written so as to intimidate banks into lending money to people that were high risk and that ultimately that caused a housing bubble and crash. I have posted a court document that shows Barack Obama was one of the lawyers involved in this intimidation. I have posted information (and video) that shows Jamie Gorelick announcing that Fannie was eager to buy the bundled loans (see my comments on an article by Jack:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2011/12/3-guys-that-made-millions.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Tina, that’s correct, only the House proposes revenue bills, however the Senate can also propose bills and refer them to the House.
HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
EPITOME: Hitler was a fairly mainstream Leftist of his day. It must be remembered that he gained power by way of a democratic election, not by way of a revolution or a military coup. If any of that seems wrong to you, you need to keep reading. . .
Chris read this…. http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
“”Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!” was a slogan of the Nazi Party. It is also the heart’s desire of every Leftist since Karl Marx. Nazism was a deeply revolutionary creed, a fact that is always denied by the Left; but it’s true. Hitler and his criminal gang hated the rich, the capitalists, the Jews, the Christian Churches, and “the System”.
Hitler referred to himself as a socialist.
[First published August 22, 2005] What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which based on a scientific theory of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship (of the proletariat) to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.
Mussolinis fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitlers National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him see What? Hitler Was Not Elected?) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
Thanks guys for the history lesson and clarification on the different types of socialisms. Any way we can get college credits for being PS readers? You all should look into on-line credit courses. I do enjoy reading what you contribute!
I just wanted to add my two cents worth on Tinas response to Chris on funds coming from the Feds to pay for local firefighters, police and teachers.
Hopefully, hell finally see that ALL monies given through the Stimulus programs come out of our personal wallets and business revenues, resulting in less to do as we want and need. How can anyone not understand this money does not magically appear as a gift from the heavens? If one listens to Romneys whole speech and not just the limited section presented this is what his point was.
The High Speed Rail system is a perfect example of the Feds giving us some of our own money to help get the project started, but the future cost and continued staffing and maintenance will be born by the state through increased taxes to the people. At least the people and some legislators realized that we couldnt afford this gift from the Feds and have/are deciding to discontinue the project.
The same goes for the Stimulus money that went to pay for the firefighters, etc. Its gone, and with unemployment at its current levels there is not enough local tax revenues coming in to maintain the needed level of jobs. Kicking the can down the road with the Stimulus only delayed the inevitable.
We desperately need more jobs to generate the taxes. We do not need bigger more intrusive government telling us what we need and want, and then making those lucky enough to still have jobs pay for it.
Thanks Peggy, we sure do need jobs and CA seems to be doing things to hurt rather than help. CARB is coming out with another new tax that will hit businesses and they will be forced to pass that cost along to consumers. The poor and middle class will be hurt the most.
Tina: “No, it is a defensive, negative (emotional) interpretation.
Romney was saying that Obama’s answer to our economic problems, more federal government spending for teachers, police and fire, is the wrong way to get the economy going or create surpluses and balanced budgets….”
“NO! He wants to unleash the investment energy of the wealthy into the private sector to create jobs, grow the economy, and create a stronger tax base. He would eliminate aid to the poor that is fraudulent and excessive so that the truly needy are truly served and the rest find work instead…”
Tina, notice how none of these are points against the ACCURACY of my characterizations of Romney’s statements. You’re merely rephrasing those characterizations in ways that sound more palatable. But the meaning is the same.
You are the one reacting based on emotion; you responded with an angry “NO!” and then didn’t notice that you were actually confirming that my characterizations were correct.
Here’s your actual argument: “Yes, Romney does want lower taxes on the rich and less aid for the poor. He also does not believe we need more teachers, firemen, or policemen, and hiring more of them won’t help the American people. We may even have to cut some of those jobs. But he’s right to take these positions, because enacting those policies will have the following positive effects: X, Y, Z…” and so on.
Can you see how that would be a more honest and logical argument than the one you’ve presented so far? Right now, this argument is buried under an emotional denial that Romney has even taken the positions that you claim he’s right about. You can’t have it both ways, denying that he ever said something, and then explaining why he was right to say it. And yet you seem to do this a lot.
“Absurdity, Chris, is believing you can kill the private sector with high taxes”
Absurdity is believing that the private sector is experiencing high taxes in 2012, when in fact, taxes are at a historic low. You have never been able to explain how it was that the private sector wasn’t killed at other times in the past century when taxes on the rich were over twice as high. If your theory is correct, then we should have seen those results.
“Romney believes, as most conservatives do, that the federal government should not be involved in funding for education, fire and police.”
Based on the statement I quoted in my previous comment, he seems to believe that the federal government currently doesn’t do this.
But I would say that the notion that these professions should get no federal funding is quite a radical one in this day and age.
“I have shown you a variety of sources, including court documents, that show your information is limited and incomplete.”
How so? Most of the links you’ve posted talk about problems with the CRA or wrongdoing by F&F or Democratic politicians. I am aware of these problems and have acknowledged them several times.
However, none of the articles–including the one you just posted–seem to address the existence of non-CRA loans, even though non-CRA loans were more than twice as likely to default. Your sources conclude that the CRA is responsible, but make no attempt to compare CRA with non-CRA loans, nor do they even acknowledge the existence of non-CRA loans. So if anything, it is your sources that have limited and incomplete information.
“I’ve concluded that the law was written so as to intimidate banks into lending money to people that were high risk and that ultimately that caused a housing bubble and crash. I have posted a court document that shows Barack Obama was one of the lawyers involved in this intimidation. I have posted information (and video) that shows Jamie Gorelick announcing that Fannie was eager to buy the bundled loans (see my comments on an article by Jack:”
Again, this is all useful information. But it does not give the whole picture because you are not taking into account lenders which were not subject to the CRA and other such regulations.
Even the link you post in your last comment focuses entirely on the CRA! Am I typing in Urdu or something? What part of “You have to look at the non-CRA banks as well” is so unclear? Why won’t you even attempt to examine this information? Are you afraid of learning something that might contradict your belief system?
“You will NEVER convince me that the government intrusion (CRA regulation) into the practices of banking didn’t have anything to do with the number (does anyone even know how many?) of bad loans that ultimately poisoned the pool and caused the bubble and crash.”
That’s because you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of banks which were not subject to the CRA. As I have explained now multiple times, those banks had a much higher rate of subprime loans than CRA banks. If you took that information into account, the only logical conclusion you would be able to draw is that non-CRA loans had a much greater impact on the crash than CRA loans did.
Tina, I’m going to resort to begging: Please, please address the existence of non-CRA loans in your very next comment on this article. (You might want to Google “non-CRA loans” first; there you’ll find a lot of information which confirms what I have been saying all along.)
Also, here’s a “yes” or “no” question: Do you believe that Nazis rounded up and executed socialists? (Again, Google is your friend.)
Chris: ” You’re merely rephrasing those characterizations in ways that sound more palatable. But the meaning is the same.”
Oh bologna. Your characterization is crap. Your characturization takes what is a sensible alternative plan for economic recovery (A plan that has been used and has worked under both Democrats and Republicans in the past) and reduced it to a bummper sticker smear that Romney policies would harm the poor. It’s a typical Democrat ploy.
“Can you see how that would be a more honest and logical argument than the one you’ve presented so far?”
Can you see that your characterization was a lie and probably didn’t deserve the time I have given it thus far?
“Absurdity is believing that the private sector is experiencing high taxes in 2012, when in fact, taxes are at a historic low.”
Yes…for you its all about numbers on a page. High or low with respect to what? In the world our corporate tax rate is among, if not THE, highest. Our companies need to compete in the real world market. (BESIDES IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY!!!!!!! – ( see socialism comments below)
“You have never been able to explain how it was that the private sector wasn’t killed at other times in the past century when taxes on the rich were over twice as high.”
How LONG was the great depression?
How long did people sit in gas lines in the 1970’s so they could go to the super market and watch the prices rise on the shelves as they walked through the aisles?
Companies have been killed in such atmospheres and the companies that managed to hang on were not doing well. TEACHERS (You in the near future) are hired and paid depending on a working and thriving private business sector….are you willing to be constantly facing layoffs, cuts, not enough revenue for the classroom or would you rather work when abundance is the order of the day? That is your personal choice.
“But I would say that the notion that these professions should get no federal funding is quite a radical one in this day and age.”
You bet your bippy it is! That teaching position you hope to have would be a lot more secure and you and the kids would see a lot more money in the classroom if we were’t paying for a huge bureaucracy in DC. The same principle needs to be applied within the state. The bureaucracy needs to go. More for the kids and teachers and less for administrators…in fact fewer administrators period! It’s called efficiency…smart use of our tax dollars. Dollaers spent where an actual result…a good product…can be relaized and measured…bang for our buck…back to number one in education around the world!
“However, none of the articles–including the one you just posted–seem to address the existence of non-CRA loans, even though non-CRA loans were more than twice as likely to default.”
This study is from 2000 and shows the loss trend was already happening:
http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/commentary/2000/1100.htm
These articles might also be of interest:
http://city-journal.org/2009/19_4_snd-cra.html
The following is from a former defender of CRA who addresses a number of CRA defenders arguments. It’s long but you might find it interesting:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates
“But it does not give the whole picture because you are not taking into account lenders which were not subject to the CRA and other such regulations.”
If anyone has offered a narrow picture of what happened it is you. Where does this notion come from that CRA loans were only a small fraction of the toxic loans? According to one article above: “…the feds, again, havent collected figures for CRA loans performance as a whole…”
“That’s because you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of banks which were not subject to the CRA. ”
So they exist! So What? What does it prove? Were those loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie (backed by the full faith and credit of the US taxpayer) or did the credit union just go bust (Ultimately paid for by the US taxpayer or depositors)?
The point is it is dangerous and stupid to create banking laws like CRA.
“…those banks had a much higher rate of subprime loans than CRA banks.”
From the City Journal article above:
Democrats LOVE to use words in deceptive ways to cover their asses. It would seem they were well aware of what they were doing in this case as well….and didn’t/don’t care.
“You might want to Google “non-CRA loans” first; there you’ll find a lot of information which confirms what I have been saying all along”
I suggest you try googling, “cra loans more than half of defaults”. That produced the CJ article above.
“Also, here’s a “yes” or “no” question….(Again, Google is your friend.)”
Take your googling suggestions and broaden your own search. If you want to be more than a smart ass all your life you will have to open up a bit.
The Nazi’s (fascist socialists) rounded up communists (Marxist socialists). The violent argument they had was about which of their socialist methods would have a better result. The fight was bitter and mean. It doesn’t change the fact that both are socialist constructs.
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html
Freedom, private property rights, and capitalism…the thing that makes America “exceptional”…and it will again if we take an important first step and vote the American socialist idiots OUT next November!
Tina: “Can you see that your characterization was a lie…”
No, because you haven’t demonstrated that anything I said was false.
Here are my original words:
“Romney…believes that the rich have it too hard and the poor have it too easy. He said the other day that we don’t need any more teachers, firemen or policemen–we need to “help the American people.””
These are statements of fact. Romney does think that the tax burden placed on the rich is too hard for them and that if it were lessened they would be able to invest and spend more. He also believes that the current state of welfare makes life too easy for some people below the poverty line, making them lazy and unmotivated. He also said that we don’t need to hire more teachers, firemen, or policemen.
Again, you might agree with his positions. And you might argue that my initial summaries of those positions were incomplete and lacking in context. But that doesn’t make them false.
“How LONG was the great depression?”
Are you suggesting that raising tax rates on the rich extended the Depression? Then how could the Depression end long before taxes on the rich were reduced? The rich continued paying more in taxes all through WWII, and our economy improved because America was INVESTING. Job creation was happening, and that certainly wasn’t because government was getting out of the way.
I also have to remind you that the Depression began shortly after tax rates on the rich were rapidly reduced. Income inequality was also very high at this time.
Thank you for finally acknowledging the existence of non-CRA loans.
“So they exist! So What? What does it prove? Were those loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie (backed by the full faith and credit of the US taxpayer)…”
According to McClatchy, most of those loans were not purchased by Freddie and Fannie.
“Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks not Fannie and Freddie dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.”
It’s strange that the City-Data article claims that the feds have not examined CRA data. According to the same McClatchy article, the data comparing CRA to non-CRA loans comes straight from the Federal Reserve:
“Federal Reserve Board data show that:
–More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
–Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
–Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/v-print/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Chris Romneys comment was made in the context of what it would take to get the economy rolling. If you think hiring a few teachers for a year or two based on a single infusion of cash from government (taken from the wealthy taxpayer) will accomplish a thriving economy then Barack Obama is your man.
I happen to think that the problem of too few teachers, in districts that have such a problem, would take care of itself and in a more permanent fashion if the OVERALL economy was strong…therefore my vote goes to Romney because he KNOWS that a temporary fix for the teachers is not a solution, not for teachers and not for anyone else.
“Romney does think that the tax burden placed on the rich is too hard for them…”
You are projecting what you believe into what was said. You are ignoring the reality that a great many people who are able bodied would rather live off the government than work because we have made not working a “living wage” for them…they get healthcare, they get housing, they get food stamps, they get a “paycheck” (yes, a few years back one of them actually said that on Barbara Walters or Sixty Minutes or some such show).
It isn’t that the tax is too big a burden for them (they suffer…oh boo hoo)…it IS that the tax rate is uncompetitive in the market.
Do you care about people getting back to work or don’t you? If you cared about the people who want and need a job as much as you seem to care about teachers you would quit making the rich seem like our enemy and see that they want to be productive and to put their money to work building things and producing products and services…and they want to hire people. This president is tying their hands every way he can. Our corp. tax rate is the highest in the world, his policies are forcing the cost of energy up, healthcare is a big uncertainty with new taxes and fees set to kick in fully by 2014, he has added pages and pages of regulation that cost a lot of money to understand and enact and there is the promise that four more years of Obama will only bring more expense and less income for business. Companies can’t survive in that atmosphere forever and they certainly can’t thrive.
“But that doesn’t make them false.”
It makes them petty, and snivelling, and partisan. It demonstrates to the world that you don’t give a rats butt whether the economy works for everyone as long as the teachers (you) are secure in thjeir little habitats and as long as the money keeps rolling in for the so-called poor, at least half of which are perfectly capable of working but are poor and “needy” by choice.
Gotta go…back later with more.
Chris: “Are you suggesting that raising tax rates on the rich extended the Depression”
I’m suggesting that policies then are similar to policies that Obama is using today. They didn’t work then and they will not work today…and yes, they extended the Depression just as the recovery, and I use the term with great humor, has been extended today. Give Obama four more years and he will just about match the record, that is, if the entire world doesn’t fall completely into darkness first.
“The rich continued paying more in taxes all through WWII, and our economy improved because America was INVESTING.”
Are you interested in a permanent state of WWII style war to fix the economy? In particular a war that destroys infrastructure around the world as the only hope for recovery because that’s the kind of investment we made when the rich paid what you think is a “fair share”?. The rich businessmen transformed their factories to build weapons, planes and boats to support the country and the war effort and then after the war they produced in order to rebuild Europe and recover from that war. It isn’t exactly a recommended solution in most circles. You should also know that government investment (spending) in this way is not wealth building. In one case it is killing and breaking things (destruction) and in the other fixing what has been shattered and destroyed. Democrats use the word investment to muddy the water. No business would survive if it were run this way and the only reason the government gets away with the illusion is because they can print money (and that only makes your dollar, and therefore your buying power, worth less). It also creates a lot of debt for future generations for which we pay the high price of interest costs. By the end of 2011 interest on our debt was about 6% of the budget or about $230 billion. We can’t keep printing money so Obama can do his presidency as Santa. Even if he took all of the wealth from the rich it wouldn’t make a dent. The jig is up, Chris. Our government has promised what it cannot do and they have been kicking the can down the road and lying to the people for decades. Your future is s#*t if you and others like you don’t begin to appreciate the miracle and the exceptional quality of our system as it was given us. Freedom, private property, the rule of law, government as protector of our rights created the most prosperous and innovative country in the world. Socialism is destroying that dream and turning the USA into Greece.
I have nothing more to say about the housing crisis except to remind you of the City Journal article reporting:
People who are well schooled in underhanded ways always cover their butts so the lie they tell looks like truth. Sub-prime loans were not labeled sub-prime so the data as collected HID the truth!
Beware of liars covering their butts and the willing media that defends them…your “data” is meaningless.