10 Sep 10
Originally posted by whodeyVanguardism. The workers never controlled the means of production. The Bolsheviks came to power under the slogan 'All power to the Soviets.' The first thing they did was to strip the Soviets of any power and vest it instead in the vanguard party. That is the model Castro adopted.
What are the short comings of Marxist-Leninism?
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonand much like many other politicians, he openly admitted his mistake and said he meant capitalism instead (as it goes from crisis to crisis... which is only to be expected when you llet greedy morons betting dictate the situation).
Are you trying to say a communist economic model does not work?! IMPLYING capitalism is better?!
I gotta get this thread removed!!!!😵
11 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOutright lies? I assume you are speaking of Freddie Mac being the one that was not government run. Shall we then study Freddie's roots? This is from Wiki.
[b]Those are just outright lies as has been pointed out to you numerous times. One was NEVER part of the government at all.
From 1938 to 1968, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was the sole institution that bought mortgages from depository institutions, principally savings and loans associations, which encouraged more mortgage lending and effectively insured the value of mortgages by the US government. In 1968, Fannie Mae split into a private corporation and a publicly financed institution. The private corporation was still called Fannie Mae and its charter continued to support the purchase of mortgages from savings and loan associations and other depository institutions, but without an explicit insurance policy that guaranteed the value of the mortgages. The publicly financed institution was named Ginnie Mae and it explicitly guaranteed the repayments of securities backed by mortgages made to government employees or veterans (the mortgages themselves were also guaranteed by other government organizations). To provide competition for the newly privatized Fannie Mae and to further increase the availability of funds to finance mortgages and home ownership, Congress then established Freddie Mac as a private corporation through the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970. The charter of Freddie Mac was essentially the same as Fannie Mae's newly private charter: to expand the secondary market for mortgages and mortgage backed securities by buying mortgages made by savings and loan associations and other depository institutions.
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 revised and stsandardized the regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Prior to this act, Freddie Mac was owned by the Federal Home Loan Bank System and governed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which was reorganized into the Office of Thrift Supervision by the Act. The Act severed Freddie Mac's ties to the Federal Home Loan Bank, created an 18 member board of directors, and subjected it to oversight by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
In 1995, Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities, and by 2004, HUD suggested the company was lagging behind and should "do more".
Freddie Mac was put under a conservatorship of the US federal government on Sunday, September 7, 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So here we have a "private" corporation that was created by Congress that was made in the same image as Fannie Mae had been created as a guise of private competition between the two. In fact, had it not been for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac would never have been created by Congress. You then had a government agency, HUD, oversee Freddie Mac and even encouraged them to buy more subprime mortgages and even sang their praises till insolvency? Of course, in statistville, where marauder lives, the government should not be to blame because they did not directly own the corporation. The reality of the situation is, however, that the blame for the failure of the two giants have its roots in FDR's New Deal.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://hnn.us/articles/1849.html
[The other wasn't running a deficit when it was privatized. You know all this. Why do you insist on continually lying about it?[/b]
For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a varitable monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. In 1968, due to fiscal pressures created by the Vietnam War, LBJ privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing. In order to prevent any further monoplization of the market, a second GSE known as Freddie Mac was created in 1970. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90% of the nation's secondary mortgage market.
GSE's such as Freddie and Frannie, with their combination of private enterprise and public backing have experienced a period of unprecendented financial growth over the past few decades. The current assets of these two companies combine for a total that is 45% greater than that of the nation's largest bank.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it. Fannie was privatized to cook the books as I have said. In addition, the federal government created a monopoly that grew and grew before it went bust, all courtesy of the federal government. In short, the "too big to fail" syndrome was at its height with the creation of these two monsters. But then, as you say, they were not directly owned by the government so its all good.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by rwingettBut without a Bolshevik type of authoritarian central government, how can one impose communism? If communism is voluntary, it will fail as those who oppose it will refuse to participate. Granted, it can work in a voluntary type of setting where those involved agree to its terms, but only in a small group setting. To make an entire country comply, you need a strong man in the White House to place its boot on the necks of corporate America until they "do the right thing". 😛
Vanguardism. The workers never controlled the means of production. The Bolsheviks came to power under the slogan 'All power to the Soviets.' The first thing they did was to strip the Soviets of any power and vest it instead in the vanguard party. That is the model Castro adopted.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by whodeyThe morbidity rates of cancer sufferers in the US who can afford treatment? Or the morbidity rates of all cancer sufferers in the US including those who cannot afford treatment?
Try comparing the mortality/morbitidy rates of cancer patients in the US compared to those in socialized medicine.
11 Sep 10
Originally posted by FMFNaturally, those who don't or can't seek treatement for whatever reason would not be in the numbers. The reason for the difference is simply time. It takes far longer to treat cancer patients in socialized medicine than it does in privatized medicine. In addition, American treatement is far more aggressive with greater innovations. The great majority of Americans have access to health care, so would it be better to force them all to wait and cover a few who don't have the same benefits? In short, how many more people would you be saving verses how many more are going to die between the two systems? Considering that 1 in 3 people get cancer, I think it is a legitimate concern.
The morbidity rates of cancer sufferers in the US who can afford treatment? Or the morbidity rates of all cancer sufferers in the US including those who cannot afford treatment?
11 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou are dodging the question. This came up before whodey months ago and it ended with you conceding that your source may have deceived you with sleight-of-word. And yet here you are trotting it out again. Why aren't you comparing the U.S. health system to the private health services in countries like the U.K.? Is American treatement "far more aggressive with greater innovations" for the people who cannot afford treatment for cancer? What is the morbidity rate in the U.S. for people who contract cancer and cannot afford the treatment?
Naturally, those who don't or can't seek treatement for whatever reason would not be in the numbers. The reason for the difference is simply time. It takes far longer to treat cancer patients in socialized medicine than it does in privatized medicine. In addition, American treatement is far more aggressive with greater innovations. The great majority of two systems? Considering that 1 in 3 people get cancer, I think it is a legitimate concern.