let a little socialism into your life!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I've always been intrigued by Americans' fear of government. Perhaps I can find out here where it comes from.

Ignorance and greed.
The main driving forces in the USA.

Also the reason for the credit crunch.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You have to have a mode of currency in order for there to be such a thing as "financial equality." Dolphins don't have a currency.

So, you're saying that if we get rid of money there will be financial equality?

Originally posted by Wheely

It is true that the GDP of the US is second only to the EU as a whole but it's expenses dwarf those of Norway too.[/b]

That's just it. The US government ignores expenses and just spends, spends, spends!!!

Originally posted by no1marauder
So the answer is "no", you don't know what socialism means.

In socialism the means of production are owned by the State. The examples of "socialism" you gave are just plain wrong; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privately owned entities and social security is, essentially, a pension plan having nothing to do with ownership of the means of p ...[text shortened]... Florida, for example, saying that Social Security is "socialism" and should be abolished.

To be more accurate, Fannie Mae was a government agency that became privatized in 1968. So essentially, the government created it and then walked away. Then one day Fannie yells, "Surprise!!". "Now bail us out!!"

As far as your comment about social security, you are correct, there would be very little support in trying to reform it. As it stands now, the politicians are making money off of it and the populace is making money off it, so who is going to be the poor sap who blows the whistle on the whole affair? It is much like what happened with the mortgage problem. People were getting houses that they could not really afford and people on Wall Street were making money off these mortgages so who was going to be the whistle blower on them? So I guess what happened with Fannie Mae and company will simply have to happen with Social Security. One day we will have another day of reckoning.

Originally posted by no1marauder
🙄🙄

I will see your

🙄🙄

and raise you three more

🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I've always been intrigued by Americans' fear of government. Perhaps I can find out here where it comes from.

It comes from those damned brits.

Originally posted by whodey
Finally, someone proud of socialism. It just begs the question as to why the Democrats continually dodge the "S" word even though their policies lean towards it. For example, when Obama met Joe the Plumber he was quoted as saying that the wealth needs to be spread around. This subsequently hit the news and he was dinged in the polls. The next thing you kn ...[text shortened]... d nut and categorically denied this charge. These are conflicting messages to say the least.

Democrat policies have very little to do with socialism. From a European point of view, Democrats would be regarded as right-wing conservatives.

Originally posted by whodey
To be more accurate, Fannie Mae was a government agency that became privatized in 1968. So essentially, the government created it and then walked away. Then one day Fannie yells, "Surprise!!". "Now bail us out!!"

As far as your comment about social security, you are correct, there would be very little support in trying to reform it. As it stands now, ...[text shortened]... simply have to happen with Social Security. One day we will have another day of reckoning.

Fannie Mae worked fine as a government agency and should have been left that way. It failed as a private agency because of gross mismanagement.

You can keeping repeating ridiculous untruths about Social Security until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that the vast majority of voters support Social Security because they think it is extremely desirable public policy to ensure that the elderly have some base level of income. I know you don't care and would be content to have many people who have worked almost all their lives, (and perhaps served in wars to defend this country), die in abject poverty but most people aren't as callous as you are. Go figure.

Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]Fannie Mae worked fine as a government agency and should have been left that way. It failed as a private agency because of gross mismanagement.

So there is no accountability for government creating them in the first place? There is no government accountability for pressuring banks to lend to high risk individuals that Fannie and company later suffered for as a result? There is no government accountability for regulating Fannie and company effectively? I am sure you at least have a problem with the later. Of course, I am sure you blame only the Republicans for not regulating them and probably lay the majority of the blame at their feet. In fact, we are about due for Scriabin to chime in about how Republicans are to blame for the troubles of all of humanity. Perhaps he would even throw in a tune from Bob Dillon or two.

Originally posted by no1marauder

I know you don't care and would be content to have many people who have worked almost all their lives, (and perhaps served in wars to defend this country), die in abject poverty but most people aren't as callous as you are. Go figure.[/b]

It is not enough for me to see them die in abject poverty. In fact, I prefer them to be tortured before hand. Perhaps a good tar and feathering followed by propping their eyes open with tooth picks forcing them to watch re-runs of dancing with the stars with their wives would do.

To answer your question, a retirement is only as good as the economy in which the currency of your income is based. As we see with the current credit crisis, retirement will be a problem for pretty much everyone if we continue to bungle government responsibilities and subsequently drive the economy into the ground. Therefore, we need legislation that first protects the government economic welfare and then one that tries to reach out to retirees. Not vice versa.

Originally posted by whodey
So there is no accountability for government creating them in the first place? There is no government accountability for pressuring banks to lend to high risk individuals that Fannie and company later suffered for as a result? There is no government accountability for regulating Fannie and company effectively? I am sure you at least have a problem with the ...[text shortened]... the troubles of all of humanity. Perhaps he would even throw in a tune from Bob Dillon or two.

No matter how many times you claim that the financial crisis was caused by lower and middle income homeowners, it remains a lie. The agencies were created to expand homeownership to lower and middle income families and it successfully did so. I know that you think such a goal is "socialism" but there are millions of Americans who now own homes because of the existence of this agency. Most non-Republican shills would say that was a good thing.

As a government agency, it did its job admirably. Even when it was privatized (unwisely in my view), for many years it conducted its business wisely. Unfortunately, like most of corporate America, it got greedy and started selling securities in vast amounts having nothing to do with the value of its main assets. When the economy went south and foreclosures rose (a common, foreseeable product of an economic downturn), these private corporations had insufficient reserves to back their now almost worthless securities. Ergo, they crashed. That's poor corporate management but such is what can be expected when government policies encourage money to chase money rather than to grow the economy.

Originally posted by whodey
It is not enough for me to see them die in abject poverty. In fact, I prefer them to be tortured before hand. Perhaps a good tar and feathering followed by propping their eyes open with tooth picks forcing them to watch re-runs of dancing with the stars with their wives would do.

To answer your question, a retirement is only as good as the economy in whi ...[text shortened]... e government economic welfare and then one that tries to reach out to retirees. Not vice versa.

That's exactly what FDR did, first legislating expansionary measures in a depression and then assuring that retirees would have some base level of income. Wise policies both.

So B is already solved and now the government can get around to reversing the types of policies that have contributed to the present economic downturn. Social Security ain't one of them.

Originally posted by whodey
It is not enough for me to see them die in abject poverty. In fact, I prefer them to be tortured before hand. Perhaps a good tar and feathering followed by propping their eyes open with tooth picks forcing them to watch re-runs of dancing with the stars with their wives would do.

To answer your question, a retirement is only as good as the economy in whi ...[text shortened]... e government economic welfare and then one that tries to reach out to retirees. Not vice versa.

Here's an indication of what's wrong with the economy:

Therefore, in the economic expansion of 2002-2006, the top 1 percent captured almost three- quarters of income growth.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pdf

Look on page two for other rather shocking figures.

EDIT: Go to Figure 1 on page 5. Only once since 1917 has the share of income going to the top 10% reached the level it did in 2006. Guess what year that was?

1928, the year before the Great Depression started.

Some coincidence, huh?

Originally posted by no1marauder

As a government agency, it did its job admirably. Even when it was privatized (unwisely in my view), for many years it conducted its business wisely. Unfortunately, like most of corporate America, it got greedy and started selling securities in vast amounts having nothing to do with the value of its main assets. When the economy went south and f ...[text shortened]... pected when government policies encourage money to chase money rather than to grow the economy.[/b]

The bottom line is that the forceful lowering of mortgage standards created a large number of mortgages. The higher the number of high risk mortgages the worse the problem. In addition, the economy did not go south until interest rates began to climb and mortgages began to go into foreclosure. Of course, you may argue that the economy was going south to which I would say perhaps somewhat. In fact, ALL economies do go south at some point, however, this simply crashed the house of cards created by high risk mortgages.

So I guess in your mind had they not sold their securities all would be well today? In addition, had these mortgages not been based in high risk mortgages would they have even been a problem?

Originally posted by whodey
The bottom line is that the forceful lowering of mortgage standards created a large number of mortgages. The higher the number of high risk mortgages the worse the problem. In addition, the economy did not go south until interest rates began to climb and mortgages began to go into foreclosure. Of course, you may argue that the economy was going south to wh ...[text shortened]... , had these mortgages not been based in high risk mortgages would they have even been a problem?

I'm still unclear when banks were forced to make "high risk" mortgages. This is a common right wing claim with no data to support it.

At any rate, there have been economic downturns with reasonably high rates of foreclosure before and no financial crisis. However, the financial industry never cranked out 64 TRILLION dollars of securities based on mortgages before.