If we can't laugh at our pain, it will eat us alive until nothing is left.

Oh boy, is the next couple of months going to be funny for a lot of people. :blink:

@JOELGLAINE --

You might want to check with your local pharmacist about the possibility of receiving your medications for free.  The pharmacutical companies have programs in place for people who can't afford necessary medications.  Your pharmacist should be able to give you the information as to forms to fill out, contact phone #'s, etc..  I personally know people who have been able to receive their medications for free for extended periods of time, directly from the pharmacutical manufacturers.  It's certainly worth a try.

I have to admit that I find the "right wing conspiracy" theories in regards to the current economic mess to be quite amusing.  But, unfortunately, the situation that we currently find ourselves in -- world-wide -- isn't amusing at all.

People need to understand that the genesis of this entire mess lies with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at its rotten core.  Along with do-gooder enforced government policies aimed at FORCING banks to make loans which made no business sense whatsoever.  The banks and the lending institutions were told that if they didn't loan mortgage money to people who had no realistic way of repaying those loans: then those same banks and lending institutions faced possible criminal investigations from the Justice Department, along with having their executives hauled up before Congressional committees in front of TV cameras.  Lefty pols absolutely love that kind of thing -- it makes for a great show, and it provides fabulous scapegoats for them to publicly attack.  Thus deflecting the attention, along with the well-deserved heat -- away from where it squarely belongs -- on the lefty pols themselves.

They created this entire mess right from the get-go.  Barney Frank, Chis Dodd, et al.  Review that Youtube video again, please.  And can it with the cough cough.....uh......."oblique" conspiracy theories.  There is no "great right wing plan" to funnel money to religious institutions so as to take over the world -- or whatever the nebulous thinking of perinnial conspriacy buffs can come up with this time.

There was; however, a clear plan of attack in place to buy voting support by giving away free houses to people who couldn't afford them -- and to obtain a personal piggy bank to dip into for the purpose of lining the pockets of certain politicians of a particular political persuasion.

Hint: they weren't "right-wingers".

Quote - I'm sorry Peelo, I didn't mean to upset you, I wasn't very serious. A lot of people in Holland lost their savings on an iceland bank called Icesave, and although the dutch government has promised to pay their lost ( till €100,000.00) there is nothing funny about it. 
So I have to apologise, because it was in fact a funny tagline.

Bopper.

Yep.  This thing has roots which go all over the world.  And now we'll all get to 'enjoy' the fruits of it.

Actually, the entire thing started with Jimmy Carter.  And the rest is history.  A sordid history of regulating businesses by the yardstick of Political Correctness, as opposed to sound business judgments:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_financial_mess_how_we_got.html

Quote - @JOELGLAINE --

You might want to check with your local pharmacist about the possibility of receiving your medications for free.  The pharmacutical companies have programs in place for people who can't afford necessary medications.  Your pharmacist should be able to give you the information as to forms to fill out, contact phone #'s, etc..  I personally know people who have been able to receive their medications for free for extended periods of time, directly from the pharmacutical manufacturers.  It's certainly worth a try.

Nyah-ha-ha! I already picked up the aforementioned paperwork and will submit it next week when I see my new Primary care doctor. It'll take up to six weeks to go through. Hopefully in these tough economic times, they'll continue the program of free give aways.

I've had the paperwork for a month, but didn't have a PCP to renew my perscription, but that is a tale for another time. Damned health care.

The present woes are not a left-wing or right wing problem. It's a problem of both houses and greed and abuse of power on a slippery slope. It corroded their morals and ethics, and our confidence in them to do our job. When Carter mentioned the Middle East to be our number one strategic focus in his maliase speech it put our feet on the path of dismay, Reagan repealed the usury laws and deregulated the banks. Oops, there we go down that slippery slope. The Clintons filled their pockets, and George W has almost finished wrecking the country's financial system.

HOWEVER , they didn't act alone! Congress, Senate, and Lobbyists help push down that slippery slope to get their piece of the action. All in all, a really disgusting set of affairs.

I find myself mad as hell with these bozos. I agree with a previous poster when they mentioned sharpening gulliotine blades. Actions have consquences.

Planned event

Goal= No more Private banking insttutions

NOT a rightwing /religous conspiracy

Not a government "bailout" but government **takeover/elimination of private wealth
**

Take two hours  from your posering
 and learn where"money" really comes from
and all will be clear

Quote - I'm sorry Peelo, I didn't mean to upset you, I wasn't very serious. A lot of people in Holland lost their savings on an iceland bank called Icesave, and although the dutch government has promised to pay their lost ( till €100,000.00) there is nothing funny about it. 
So I have to apologise, because it was in fact a funny tagline.

Bopper.

It's Ok. I guess I made myself upset over my own tagline. It's bizarre that a small country like Iceland  allowed its Banks to take huge risks in global markets. I was listening to Icelands Prime minister Geir Haarde talk about the situation and it seemed like they had no idea what their banks were doing. Like a deck of cards the system came crashing down. I remain fearfull that soon it's our turn. Some of the people I talk to, paint apocalyptic visions of the future. The shift of power and wealth from the western world to the east is also worrying. Troubling times.

I was meaning to post on this again a little sooner, but it suddenly took off and I wanted to think a little before I responded.

Quote - SAMS3D

the government....well that is no longer for the people, by the people...

I'm starting to agree with that.  When we have one party infighting about letting people's votes count in the primaries and a special interest group with possible ties to not only one of the canidates but also perhaps the sup-prime market being raided for voter fraud in one state and alleged to do the same in 10 others, that's not a good sign.

Going back to the bailout, I think if anything it should have gone to the people who are getting hurt by the market crash and not the banks who made bad business decisions.

Don, there are so many lobbiest in washington now because companies are using the government to kneecap one another.  Microsoft had virtually no lobbiests in DC until they got taken to court for being a monopoly, then they had a ton of lobbiests.  A sad fact in life is the squeaky wheel often gets the grease, since washtington is giving out grease, there are now a ton of squeaky wheels.  You have to have people there to prevent your competitors from running amok.  Trim back on the frivilious lawsuits and keep the federal government restricted in its role and you'll see that decline. 

Klebnor, good post.  I tend to agree with what you said.  The only thing I'd like to say is while the actions for creating this mess were on public display, few people took note of it because certain people in the media weren't doing their job at the time.   However I think that this sudden crash took everyone by surprise.  During the conventions, no one was talking about the economy.  Next thing we know, two banks were bailed out and a third went bankrupt.

Quote - Paganartist

The ideals that gave birth to this nation are gone, the very documents that grant us freedom are under attack daily by proponents from both sides of government.

QFT.  As far as I can tell, only the libertarians really care that much about the constitution as intended these days and no one votes for them.  BTW good post.

Quote - The idea that wanting to clean out your government and change how it operates being "Anti-American" or committing treason  has to stop. The people in D.C. commit treason on a daily basis and this is acceptable???? If you say you love your country wouldn't you want to fight for it?

Treason was a crime invented by winners as an excuse for hanging losers.  :p

I think there are people who would fight for it, but the question is how.  Do you go to court?  Do you try to raise a few million dollars and run for congress?  Do you get the states to conviene a consitutional convention?  Do you get everyone you can peacefully together to march on washington and camp out at the mall until the government takes notice? 

To be honest, I don't think the current federal goverment is working.  I think it needs a more limited or at least a more well defined role and better people running it.  I mean why did the federal reserve let one bank go bankrupt one day and bail out another the next?  There's no rhyme or reason to it.  Why was the bail out filled with pork?  If it was so necessary, the people in congress should have voted for it as is.  Are we going to remain a capitalist economy, become socialist, or hover somewhere in between?  This needs to be spelled out and not done ad hoc by one manufactured crisis or another.  Plus there are a number of other issues aside from the economy that a lot of people are not happy with how they are settled, yet no progress can be made.

Synpainter, I like the quotes.

Sean, I've heard some people on the radio (not coast to coast AM either) saying that the end of the world is around the corner.  I guess the economy takes out america and the middle east decorates with a few mushroom clouds.  Comparitively speaking, WWIII doesn't sound so bad.

Kuroyume, I don't care who holds the wealth just so long as they earn it honestly.  If one guy makes 10 billion dollars without cheating anyone, good for him.  Another thing is that in the US, the poverty level is nearly 10K a year, so even someone who is just at that level is still relatively well off compared to places in africa and asia.

Xenophonz, I'm agreeing with you more than a bit.  Keep up the posting, it's saving me work.

  ;)

wolf, while I personally think that any sort of orchistrated government takeover is conspiracy theory bunk, after reading Goldberg's book, I think that the fascist elements in the US government (using Goldberg's definition) are quiet happy to use this as an excuse to usurp power.  In true capitalism, you'd have to let everything fail so people would learn from the failures and make sure not to repeat them.  Companies who made bad decisions and can't recover would be purged, and the more sound companies would remain.  Plus all those lost jobs would be absorbed into the better companies or new companies in the long run.  However in our semi-socialist state our government is jumping in when it shouldn't and I really don't think they can do any better.  I'll admit capitalism is very painful when there isn't charity, but if left alone it should work not too much unlike nature.  But if I recall what I heard about Smith's original intentions about capitalism, the goal was to create wealth and then the philanthropists would voluntarialy pass on that wealth to those in need. 

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that.  In all of history, any time a few people held all of the wealth while the majority didn't, things were bad for the majority masses (Rome, Enlightenment France, Middle Ages, US/England during the Industrial Revolution, and so on).  The Roman people often had it very good.  They were at times fed and paid on a daily basis by the state (welfare).  On the other hand, their lives were often brutal and short (aside: sometimes the same held for the Emporer ;) ).

True, the US poverty is nothing compared to other places in the world but that isn't the fault of the US (directly or for the most part) - much of it in Africa, for instance, has to do with corrupt governments and tribal/faction in-fighting.  That's certainly not a news flash, now is it?

Kuroyume, I don't care who holds the wealth just so long as they earn it honestly.  If one guy makes 10 billion dollars without cheating anyone, good for him.  Another thing is that in the US, the poverty level is nearly 10K a year, so even someone who is just at that level is still relatively well off compared to places in africa and asia.

In my opinion it's very hard to makes 10 billion dollars without cheating anyone. The only person I know who achievde that, is J.K. Rowling and she has used magic.
It's not fair to compair US salaries with african or asian salaries, because in africa you don't have to pay US prices for food, electric or houses.

*But if I recall what I heard about Smith's original intentions about capitalism, the goal was to create wealth and then the philanthropists would voluntarialy pass on that wealth to those in need. 

*There is an important human property  that  avoid this miracle to happen, it's called greed. It's the same property that is the primal cause of  this financial crises.
That's why every country needs a controlling government who encourages people to be charitative by paying tax.

Bopper.

Just one thing to point out and remember:

Capitalism  and Democracy AREN'T the same thing. China (for instant) is becoming capitalist ,but remaining Communist in government.  I heard one economist say that the present econic woes is because Capitalism bought out Democracy.

If that refers to America, it's not true. America is a Republic, NOT a Democracy. We elect Electors in the Electoral College to elect the president, Not one man:one vote, but more like one man's vote=.000001 Electoral  Vote, or there abouts. If the Elector follows the will of the people. Electors are Selected from the professional political class of Govenors, ex-Presidents, and Senators.

Democrats are on the left side of the house. Left-wing usually applies to Democrats.
Republicans are on the right side of the house. Right-wing usually applies to the Republicans.
John McCain is moderate Republican who is not representing himself as being a rIght-winger.
Barak Obama is called a Liberal (as is used in common parlance as meaning a left-winger) who appears to be a standard Democrat.
George W Bush is a standard Republican, leaning to the right-wing.

This is NOT an inditement of the American system, just my understanding of it, with my support of any candidates removed for clarity of explaination.  We need to use the terms with clarity in these tough times. Language is the only seperating thing that prevents us from understanding each other. :laugh:

Well, you sure made your point!

Bopper.

(edited: after seeing four of the same posts.)

Mysql Errors made my point! :lol: I deleted the quintuple posts.  To much freedom of speech, I guess when it duplicates one post to an army of clones.

kuroyume, I don't disagree that when there is too much power and wealth concentrated at the top and the masses are subjected to terrible living conditions that things need to change.  However I don't think it is a good thing for the people to become heavily dependant on the state for all aspects of their lives; I see that as a form of slavery.  You see that a little in politics from time to time when someone accuses the other of threatening to take away SSI.  A number of people are completely dependant on that government check every month and they are scared about what will happen if it goes away.

bopper, I can't remember his name but there is one guy who made a billion or two honestly.  It's difficult, but not imposible to pull off.  Yes there is greed and some people won't give back, but if you can find an honest person and let him grow his wealth in a way that lets him stay honest, he will give it back.  Just because there is greed doesn't mean there isn't charity.

Joel, yeah that's pretty much how the american system is supposed to be.  Though I'm not sure how electors are appointed.  I know it has to do something with the short ballot system we use but can't remember much more than that.

Quote - Xenophonz, I'm agreeing with you more than a bit.  Keep up the posting, it's saving me work.

  ;)

Thanks. 

People can say what they like about this situation.  Unless if one attempts to totally re-write recent history (which the Dem pols in Congress are now desperately attempting to do) -- the fact remains that the folks who pushed for; threatened lending institutions over; defended against attempted regulatory actions; and received huge political contributions from the whole sub-prime mortgage industry are all sittin' solidly on the left side of the  isle.

As that Saturday Night Live skit so kindly mentions -- it was the hated GWB himself who made an attempt to reign in the abuses going on at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  And furthermore,  as that Youtube video of old C-SPAN footage shows: it was a series of big-name Dems who loudly insisted to everyone that there "weren't any problems here".......while their opponents (including one man named McCain) made dire predictions of a potential economic disaster in the making.

Tell me -- who was 100% right about the dangers of the sub-prime mortgage situation back during the regulatory debates of 2003 / 2004?  And who was greedy and self-serving at the time?  And who is it that now wants to tar their political opponents with the blame for what THEY, themselves did?

Furthermore -- who are the people like the Sandlers -- whom many people had never even heard of prior to that Saturday Night Live skit?  The Sandlers are a couple of gigantic crooks, who made billions selling worthless sub-prime mortgage accounts as securities to Wachovia Bank -- which has since then brought Wachovia Bank crashing down.  The Sandlers also happen to be gigantic leftist contributors, in the mould of Geroge Soros.  They've given millions to organzations such as Moveon.org, Air America, and other radical left-wing groups and causes.  Heh -- they live in San Francisco -- (appropriate).

For whatever reasons, many people have the idea that Wall Street is a hotbed of political Republicanism and conservatism.  I hate to spoil people's comfortable delusions (actually I don't ) -- but it ain't.  Wall Street happens to be filled with all sorts of political types -- and solid, radicalized left-wingers roost like crows in the Halls Of Power and in the board rooms on Wall Street every bit as much as they do in Washington, D.C..  They aren't all a bunch of conservatives on Wall Street, folks.  The Wall Street Journal is a conservative-leaning newspaper, sure.  But Warren Buffet and others like him aren't exactly political conservatives..........and many of them are solid Democrat operatives & contributors.  So don't define "greedy Wall Street" types as a bunch of Republican conservatives.  They aren't.

Try to blame Ronald Reagan's policies all that you like  - this thing is a Democrat mess from start-to-finish, from top-to-bottom.

My main criticism directed at the Republicans -- as always -- is that too many of them are political wimps: without the courage to stand up for their convictions.  For that, many of them deserve the shame of cowards.  But they were right back in 2003 / 2004.  Too bad they didn't have the spine that they needed at the time to make it stick.

For whatever it's worth, they can now take morbid satisfaction in having been proven right.  Although the mainstream press isn't reporting those facts too well............and it's the type of subject that it's not all that fun to have been proven right about..............like predicting that the Titanic was going to sink.

The hope (sigh) which one can derive from this current state of affairs being that perhaps -- just maybe -- the American public will see enough of the truth of this situation as it stands to.....uh......vote for the people that were right about it this time around..........?

It could happen.  But with the way that things are going now: people might be interested in nothing but continuing to dig this hole ever deeper.  If they are: then they'll vote accordingly.

Who was it that defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result each time? :glare:

I just hope and pray that the right people get some spine this time around.  Being right about something is always a good start:  but it's utterly meaningless unless if you are willing to fight for it.  And that calls for a type of toughness that's largely gone out of today's world.

Otherwise, we face a future where the government owns and runs everything.

Democrat VS Republican.....
Sheesh.....

the "two party" Distraction technique has worked brilliantly

while the one true party in power ( Federal Reserve)  finally consolidates its control over All private banking institutions

I'm a small "r" Republican, and a capital "C" Conservative.  I'm a Conservative first, and a Republican second -- with some Libertarianism mixed in for good measure.

Like it or not, the two-party system is what we've got.  Barring a political revolution (which requires far more more energy than most people have nowadays) -- we are stuck with the two parties as the major players & power brokers in America's political power structure.

By no means whatsoever do I agree with everything that the Republican party does......in fact, they often disappoint me greatly.  But the beast is what it is.  Outside of the pre-existing two-party structure: one will find oneself extremely limited to fringe status, in political terms.  So the choice -- if one actually wants to matter politically, and not just be making some sort of self-serving "statement" based upon political purism -- is to work within the two-party system as it exists.

It's not an ideal world that we live in.  As it's been said: "politics is the Art of the Possible".  Much as some of us might wish that it were true -- politics is not the "Art of the Perfect"; because Man himself is not perfectible.  And that's another point over which "right-wingers" and "left-wingers" tend to part company, philosophically.  That's why one side thinks that brutal dictators can be negotiated with and talked out of their innate brutality and their driven lust for conquest & power -- while the other side realizes that such thinking is nothing more than a dangerous pipe dream: and that this is a dangerous world......so that you need to keep your powder dry and the edge of your sword always sharp.  If you want to remain free, that is.

Quote - Hint: they weren't "right-wingers".

Quote - People can say what they like about this situation.  Unless if one attempts to totally re-write recent history (which the Dem pols in Congress are now desperately attempting to do) -- the fact remains that the folks who pushed for; threatened lending institutions over; defended against attempted regulatory actions; and received huge political contributions from the whole sub-prime mortgage industry are all sittin' solidly on the left side of the  isle.

As that Saturday Night Live skit so kindly mentions -- it was the hated GWB himself who made an attempt to reign in the abuses going on at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  And furthermore,  as that Youtube video of old C-SPAN footage shows: it was a series of big-name Dems who loudly insisted to everyone that there "weren't any problems here".......while their opponents (including one man named McCain) made dire predictions of a potential economic disaster in the making.

Er, ah, actually, concerning Freddie and Fannie, McCain was mostly concerned about oversight of accounting practices, not lending practices, and is on record for having said he did not expect any problem with the latter.

As for it being the fault of everyone on the so-called left (i.e., Democrats), as I have already admitted, many Democrats have been as corrupted by the system in recent decades as the Republicans. Further, there is video footage of Bush back in about 2005 extolling the virtues of sub-prime loans, talking about how great it is that folks who could otherwise not afford it could now own homes just as nice as anybody's ... oh yeah, and it has been mostly his guys running the show lately ...

As for blaming Reagan, the facts speak for themselves. Supply-side, by-for-and-of-the-corporation-type government has been tried at least 3 times now in this country. Every time it has led to huge abuses, imbalances, and huge economic woes.

Yes, Reaganomics created jobs and it maximized wealth, but for whom?

Asians, and many others, and perhaps even some among the American investment class, might have much to thank Reaganomics for, but the average working and middle-class American -- with a brief Clinton interlude -- has seen their standard of living and quality of life do nothing but decline.

I can say this until I am blue in the face, and I know it will make no impression whatsoever on Xeno, but if just some of all these massive tax cuts for the wealthy had been, instead, invested in improving the infrastructure, and in investing in the future production capacity of this country, more than likely we would be in a different situation.

Quote - Otherwise, we face a future where the government owns and runs everything.

Has it never occurred to the right that some of the reason for FDR's New Deal, whom, and which, many on the right despise, was that the economic system had been thrown thoroughly out of balance by a government geared toward allowing the investment class unbridled license?

If indeed we face a future where the government owns and runs everything, you might just want to consider that old scripture, i.e., that which you sow, ye shall also reap.

Excesses on one side almost always lead to the opposite. The pendulum swings. Any time someone looks for a cause, one can look short-term, or one can look long-term. It's all about context and perspective. So like I said before, there's enough blame to go around ... and, yes, Democrats are to blame too, but it has been the predominance of economic theories that originated on the right that have been running the show for decades now. Face up. The truth can set you free.

Quote - That's why one side thinks that brutal dictators can be negotiated with and talked out of their innate brutality and their driven lust for conquest & power -- while the other side realizes that such thinking is nothing more than a dangerous pipe dream:

More nonsense. Both right and left have always negotiated with brutal dictators. Even Dubya, who insists he will not, has done, and is doing, so.

Show me any modern administration that has not negotiated with brutal dictators, and I will show you an administration that never was.

Let Freedom Ring! 

And, no -- it hasn't been the right that's "been running the show for decades now".  It's been the philosophies and the directives of the left, with occasional tepid forays into conservative thinking timidly tried here and there.  The Clintons weren't exactly a couple of right-wing fanatics.  And the Republicans, even when they were technically in charge, haven't been all that.....uh....."Republican" in their behavior.  Which goes back to my earlier statements about political cowardice.

But then again: I'd better go check in with my Regional Director prior to posting anything else in here.  The High Council of Thirteen needs to approve my statements first.  It's dangerous to go against them, you know.  :ohmy:

BTW - FDR did nothing to get us out of the Depression.  In fact, his policies likely prolonged it and made it worse than it otherwise would have been.  WWII got us out.  But that's another debate for another time, and I don't have the personal time to deal with it at the moment.

Quote - > Quote - That's why one side thinks that brutal dictators can be negotiated with and talked out of their innate brutality and their driven lust for conquest & power -- while the other side realizes that such thinking is nothing more than a dangerous pipe dream:

More nonsense. Both right and left have always negotiated with brutal dictators. Even Dubya, who insists he will not, has done, and is doing, so.

Show me any modern administration that has not negotiated with brutal dictators, and I will show you an administration that never was.

If I'd said that conservative (leaning) administrations didn't negotiate with brutal dictators, then you might have a point.  But as I didn't say that -- you have no point whatsoever.  I was referring to underlying philosophies & world views: not to outwardly pragmatic political necessities.

I did however, indicate that this isn't a perfect world -- and that politics is the "Art of the Possible".  I also said a few things about having to deal with political power structures as you find them.  So -- the realities are what they are.  Keeping your powder dry is a great idea.  But thinking that you can talk Ahmadinejad into turning over a new leaf & becoming a peace-lover by merely talking to him is not only stupid: it's downright dangerous.

Quote - And, no -- it hasn't been the right that's "been running the show for decades now".  It's been the philosophies and the directives of the left, with occasional tepid forays into conservative thinking timidly tried here and there.  The Clintons weren't exactly a couple of right-wing fanatics.

Hmm. Let's see. Reagan came into power in 1980, started right away implementing deregulation, cutting funding for various social programs, implemented tax cuts and massive increases in military spending ... oh, so I guess it was Bush the elder that implemented all those philosophies and directives of the left ... er, no, not exactly.

So along came Clinton and ... er, I wonder why the Republicans kept complaining about Clinton stealing their ideas ...

And, of course Bush the Lessor, yeah, he did lots of that left-wing economic ... er, yeah.

Okay. You win.

Quote - But thinking that you can talk Ahmadinejad into turning over a new leaf & becoming a peace-lover by merely talking to him is not only stupid: it's downright dangerous.

If we are going to talk about reality, no one (other than right-wing spinners) has ever suggested such a thing, or even anything close.

So I agree. It is stupid. You win again.

As for not negotiating with brutal dictators, I've never been much interested in philosophical or ideological distinctions in argumentation. If it can't deal with reality, it can't deal. Period.

Find me any right-winger anywhere who will swear that he would not be willing to so negotiate if he believed that the price of armed conflict was unacceptable and that the national security interest (or even massive amounts of wealth) were at stake.

In other words, any ideological point in argumentation is pointless rhetoric if even its most fervent adherents, in certain contexts, would be more than eager to make massive exceptions.

Attempts to associate Reagan's policies -- such conservative policies as he actually implemented -- with the current mess are about as valid as implying that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina to strike New Orleans.  Or about like saying that washing your car will cause it to rain.  The two things have no connection with one another.

So along came the Clintons and their Justice Department threatened lenders with awful consequences if they didn't loan money to people with whom there was no reasonable expectation that they'd be able to pay the money back.

This current mess has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with tax policy, or with Reagan's deregulation.  It has to do with an agenda being pushed from Washington -- an agenda that forced banks to loan money to people who had no money, and no reasonable expectation of getting money to pay.  This isn't rocket science.

Why not go back to citing conspiracy theories about funding religious institutions for purposes of taking over the world?  They're more believable -- and more interesting.

As for "no one" suggesting that it's possible to convert men bent upon evil over to the side of sweetness 'n light by saying the right words to them in the right way: that's a central tenant of the entire world-view of the political left these days.  It didn't used to be that way -- back in the days of JFK and Scoop Jackson.  But it is now.

Quote - As for not negotiating with brutal dictators, I've never been much interested in philosophical or ideological distinctions in argumentation. If it can't deal with reality, it can't deal. Period.

Yeah -- that's all true......like the 'reality' of a 'grand right-wing conspiracy' to take over the world via religious institutions.  Now that's what I call "dealing with reality".

Quote - Find me any right-winger anywhere who will swear that he would not be willing to so negotiate if he believed that the price of armed conflict was unacceptable and that the national security interest (or even massive amounts of wealth) were at stake.

In other words, any ideological point in argumentation is pointless rhetoric if even its most fervent adherents, in certain contexts, would be more than eager to make massive exceptions.

Yet again -- miss the point totally.  There are political necessities, and there is the underlying awareness of the fact that a tiger can't change his stripes.  The current left believes that tigers can be dressed up in sheep's wool.  And that is isn't in the nature of the tiger to eat them.

Quote - As for "no one" suggesting that it's possible to convert men bent upon evil over to the side of sweetness 'n light by saying the right words to them in the right way: that's a central tenant of the entire world-view of the political left these days.  It didn't used to be that way -- back in the days of JFK and Scoop Jackson.  But it is now.

Interesting claim. So give me some quotes of leading leftists who say we can convert evil men to sweetness and light simply by words alone. How about just one quote?

Quote - Why not go back to citing conspiracy theories about funding religious institutions for purposes of taking over the world?  They're more believable -- and more interesting.

Okay, many folks on the right, religious and otherwise, have made various statements about drowning the federal government in the bathtub, about how the American middle class has become spoiled, that Americans need to be taught a lesson, that life in the US needs to be harsh again to help create the hard, ruthless, tough-guy kind of Americans they so admire, that the good ol' days were back in the McKinley era before "socialism" got its hold on America, that there should be, essentially, no social net, and that folks should just depend on religious institutions (and great, wealthy philanthropists) when they need help, that there should be essentially no taxes or limits on private wealth, that all public assets, including drinking water and public lands should be in private hands, that religion should not only play a bigger role in government, but become financially linked to its largesse, that various government services, social security, war-making, and even firefighting, should all be outsourced and privatized, enriching the coffers of the wealthiest at the expense of average taxpayers ...

-- but, y'know, nobody actually intended ...

Oh to hell with it.

If you post last, you win, right?

I have RW (Real World) matters to deal with at the moment -- so if you want to claim the last post (for now) -- it's all yours.    But I might pop back in again in few / many hour's time -- just for fun.

Perhaps the market will take another 800 point dive on Monday.  Good thing that I'm not invested heavily in the market.  But not to worry, anyway -- Sheriff Barney Frank & Police Chief Chris Dodd are on the job, and they will fix it all for us!  Who knows?  Get the right man in the White House (the guy who was the #2 recipient of sub-prime mortgage money in Congress) ; let him raise taxes through the roof, plus institute a few hundred billion of new spending (when we're already broke) -- and something's bound to happen ! :woot:

I win! LOLOLOL 
Ronald Reagan was behind removing the usury laws over the banking industry, The BANKING industry took advantage of that and ran with it. To blame one person or class for the present disaster is short sighted.

The politicos set up the situation, but the banking industry is behind many lobbyist for left-wing AND right-wing politicians (Presidents, Congress,Senators,and Govenors) who set the laws up, and the banks take advantage of the situation.

I do not believe for an instant that this is left-wing or right-wing conspiracy. This whole thing is a conspiracy of greed and stupidity that has almost wrecked the world. A lack of ethical and moral fiber in the philosophical diet caused a build up of all this crap. At least in my opinion.

There is PLENTY of blame to go around.

I'm going to agree with JOELGLAINE. It's not a conspiracy but an ideology that caused this mess. Unregulated capitalism is an ideology that both the so called left and the right have embraced unconditionally. I read an article recently that blamed the Clinton administration for this mess and then I read an article that blamed the republican party and Bush. Both of these articles made a lot of sense to me. But I think the whole western world embraced this ideology blindly (save maybe for France). It's an ideology that says that unregulated capitalism will somehow, magically make everything OK. A system based on  Greed will somehow benefit everyone? In my country we have a  plethora of political parties and they All tried to sell us this insanity.  Some of them still believe in it. It's insane.  The political discource is the same everywhere in the western worlds. That's my impression. Hopefully once the dust settles in America, the rest of the world will think hard about what to do next. Maybe it's time not to follow a suicidal idelogy to the bitter end.

JOELGLAINE,   you hold the line buddy.  That's an order.   Have you talked with your township trustee about emergency assistance?  How about local chuches, mosques, synagogues and red cross?

In the meantime PM me here and we'll talk further or you can catch me here http://www.youtube.com/user/patorak3d and here http://community.marketwatch.com/Patorak

*So give me some quotes of leading leftists who say we can convert evil men to sweetness and light simply by words alone.

*Two interesting things happened this week, for those who weren't blinded by the economic news:

The nobel peaceprice was given to the former finnish president: Martti Ahtisaari. He proved in many cases that talking is the solution to peace, in Northern Ireland, Namibië, Kosovo and many other conflicts.

North Korea announced they were going to restart their nucleair plant, because they were still on the list of roque countries. Some days later the US took them of that list, almost if it was forgotten, because they had promised to that when North Korea would stop its nucleair activities.North Korea has never been nuked or bombed to convince them to stop, so there must have been some serious negotiating with them.

Another remarkable newsfact: The american general Petreaus wants to talk with the Taliban in Afghanistan to find a solution for the endless conflict.

In an interview I saw two weeks a singapore (ian?) professor and former ambassador said that talking with Iran is the best way to convince them in giving up their nucleair ambitions.

I think the slogan "we don't talk with terrorists" is only for the public and that there are a lot of secret meetings with Hamas, Iran, Syria etc. just to find  a solution for all the conflicts.

Talking is the only solution when shooting doesn't help.

B.

*The nobel peaceprice was given to the former finnish president: Martti Ahtisaari. He proved in many cases that talking is the solution to peace, in Northern Ireland, Namibië, Kosovo and many other conflicts.

*As a Finn, I'm really happy about Martti Ahtisaari's win. He is an inspirational figure and I think we all here in Finland respect and admire him very much indeed. We are very gratefull for his efforts in making the world a more peacefull place. 

Quote - I'm going to agree with JOELGLAINE. It's not a conspiracy but an ideology that caused this mess. Unregulated capitalism is an ideology that both the so called left and the right have embraced unconditionally.

I suppose it depends on how you define left and right. Many Democrats "endorsed" unregulated capitalism essentially because those who bucked the trend were being voted out of office, i.e., they moved to the right, but to say the left endorsed it is just silly.

Quote - I think the slogan "we don't talk with terrorists" is only for the public and that there are a lot of secret meetings with Hamas, Iran, Syria etc. just to find  a solution for all the conflicts.

Talking is the only solution when shooting doesn't help.

There's no question about it. That we won't talk with our enemies is just another right-wing talking point. Kruschev said he would bury us, and we talked to him. We talk to everyone.

My point was that Xeno was arguing or at least implying that some on the left (or Obama in particular?) are advocating nothing but words will magically turn every evil brutal dictator in the world into goodness and light -- just another right-wing talking point with no connection whatsoever to what Obama or others have actually said.

I try in vain to get folks like Xeno to drop all the hyperbole and empty rhetoric, but it's simply hopeless ... and if anyone, like me, actually pays attention to what right-wingers have been saying publicly for years and years, and starts to think they really meant it, well, we're just conspiracy nuts, I guess.

*I suppose it depends on how you define left and right. Many Democrats "endorsed" unregulated capitalism essentially because those who bucked the trend were being voted out of office, i.e., they moved to the right, but to say the left endorsed it is just silly.

My remark was spawned out of frustration mainly.  The social democratic party in my country tends to say one thing and then do another . My casual observation of Americas democratic party left me with the same conclusion. Perhaps I was being hasty. I am the first person to admit that my observations of Americas political parties and customs are superficial at best.  But I dare say  that America lacks a proper leftist party. Or alternatives to 2 party politics.  That's how it seems to an outsider anyway.  Then again there is very good chance that I am 100% wrong. I usually am.

*But I dare say  that America lacks a proper leftist party.

*I totally agree, even the democrats would be called right-wing here in Holland. In our country we have a very populair socialist party, Mao would be proud of. But we have parties in every flavor: liberal democrats, liberal conservatives, religious socialists, religious conservatives, extreme religious, moderated socialists (my favourites), extreme socialists, green socialists, we even have a party for animals (serious!) It's always a miracle how we can make a government. But we also are a King(Queen)dom, so that's a stabile factor in our politics.
But inspite of this somewhat archaic institution, that's what I call a democracy!

Bopper.

Attached Link: http://www.loonyparty.info/

"Vote National Raving Loony!"

Given the state of the nation, isn't that new political party a little redundant?

forming in 1961 is new?

Good point bopperthijs
The US financial crisis may partly lie in the fact that the US stuck in a two party political system. Both parties with very little difference between them and both beholden to big business for campaign funds.
When each Presidential candidate needs at least $100 million to campaign, there are lots of favours to pay off, to you know who.

" forming in 1961 is new?"

Sorry, didn't actually click and assumed it was new. I should have known it had already come to power. 

Aren't they guys that ran Bullwinkle for president and advocated the succession of Mooselvania in 1963? LOLOL :lol:

Quote - Both parties with very little difference between them and both beholden to big business for campaign funds.

When each Presidential candidate needs at least $100 million to campaign, there are lots of favours to pay off, to you know who.

It's a whole lot more than $100 million if you are talking presidential campaigns. All told, the combined total was actually in the billions in 2004.

In any case, you have definitely hit upon the crux of the problem.

The real left in the US -- to the limited extent that it exists -- is almost powerless, and almost unanimously supports public financing of political campaigns for that reason.

Capitalism is just as evil as Socialism, in practice, becausew while both on paper, are good ideas, in practice, folk ALWAYS take them to extremes, and thus cause catastrophy.

And Xeno, don't talk rubbish on that point, please, or I'll show you the legacy of unrestrained greed and what it does to people. Go have a look at the 1800s and the indtrial city slums as an example.
Capitalismisonly meant ot be a econmic system, not a governmental style, Big Business bought the heart and soul of America out form the turn of the last century, go see how the Spanish-American War actually started.
America ha sbeen fed the "Mushroom Treatment" ford ecades, people can accept the Soviets did that, but won't admit we in the West were ALSO fed crap.
Go see how many billlions big business and ultra-right wingers poured into think tanks, PR and advertizing...we are constanlty bombared with lies.
Go compare Global Warming skeptics, to the smoking causes cancer skeptics of 50s to early 70s (and still try to say passive smoking isn't harmful)....follow the money. FYI, the Sierra CLub doesn't make $114 billion a year, like Exxon does ;)

And all functional Western Democracies are Republics to some degree. Parliamentary systems though have proven far more robust and less likely to have extremism than classic Republics.
ie, with parties electing a leader, rather than a seperate office folk fight over.

Yeah, Vote Mosnter Raving Loony!! you know it makes sense! :D

Want to clean up democracy? easy: 
-Ban political parties, as they cause stagnation, corruption and pervert the very idealogy they are meant to support;  Think I'm kidding? examine them. None of them are "liberal" or "conservative", they're all corrupt as hell.
-only ONE term in ANY area of governent: local, town/city, state/region, national, prime minister/president. Because when they get entrenched, they become corrupt.
Time those SOBs learned what it means to not have a "job for life"
-Ban politicians forever, from serving in ANY company or paying position afterwards, to prevent corruption (but give them a good pension). They are supposed ot serve the public NOT themselves.
-ANy leader who calls for a war is executed. This will make damned sure that only wars of absolute self defence/need are fought..or that psychos are eliminated, hehe. If you have the will to demand a war, where your people die, you better be willing to die, too.
-Make bribery and corruption in office classed as treason, which is what they are

Quote - Yes, greed and accumulation of wealth are the culprits here.  That's why I'm grinding and sharpening the guillotine here.  I mean, Luld took away 483 million dollars in seven years.  My god, we could give every person in this country (300 million) a dollar of this salary given to ONE individual.  And he's small fish compared to Warren Buffet and their ilk with their multi-Billion dollar assets. 

At least Warren Buffet made his money through buying and selling investments. The problem with executive pay is, as it pretty much always has been, up to the executive and his cronies themselves. There is a small circle of people who sit awarding themselves money.

Quote - Elected office should be a public service, as originally intended.  There was no plan for a permanent political class who would remain in office for decades.  It should be a penurious experience, with term limits, and one should be forbidden from profiting from the job before, during or after.  This would eliminate the showboats (you all know who they are and they infest both parties) from spending their entire lives directing the general populous who are obviously too ignorant or lazy to get about their own business.

It would also return us to the early days of the republic, when only the wealthy could afford to run for public office. You would end up with politicians who either inhertied wealth, married into wealth, or had day jobs lucrative day jobs. There was a reason why the early congress was made up mostly of lawyers, prosperous merchants, and plantation owners.

Quote - > Quote - Elected office should be a public service, as originally intended.  There was no plan for a permanent political class who would remain in office for decades.  It should be a penurious experience, with term limits, and one should be forbidden from profiting from the job before, during or after.  This would eliminate the showboats (you all know who they are and they infest both parties) from spending their entire lives directing the general populous who are obviously too ignorant or lazy to get about their own business.

It would also return us to the early days of the republic, when only the wealthy could afford to run for public office. You would end up with politicians who either inhertied wealth, married into wealth, or had day jobs lucrative day jobs. There was a reason why the early congress was made up mostly of lawyers, prosperous merchants, and plantation owners.

Wow! That sounds just like today! :lol: That was a short trip! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

The so-called European "Rescue" plan makes me sick to the stomach. Media sure loves it though. Let's see: The Banks took huge risks, gambled with money, lost money and acted irresponsibly. So what do we do? Give them more money! In what kind of bizarro world do we live in? Even Homer Simpson could come up with a better plan. Even after 20 beers and lobotomy Mr Simpson would be smart enough not do what the Europe is doing.  I wouldn't give a pickpocket more money just because he no longer even wants to make the effort of stealing it. "I can't be arsed to trick you anymore, so just gimme your money anyway." Ok. You got it buddy. This is the great European rescue plan!?! The usually Un united European leaders stand united when they "have to" give more money to the gamblers.  Brilliant. I'm beginning to think we deserve another great depression. Stupidity should be punished.

What's really odd that we can't hire enough doctors or nurses but for some reason there's this magic money we can give to the banks.

From some point of view I could agree with you: This whole plan sounds crazy, and it's you and me who are going to pay for this in someway. But I'm afraid this modern world can't survive without banks. If it wasn't possible to lend money from the bank, the whole housemarket would collapse, and with it the whole building industry. This whole system is so damn complicated that we are overwhelmed by it. You have to be a professor in economics to understand he whole figure.
In that view I think it's ironic that an american got this year nobel-price for economics.
I agree that bankers can be gamblers, but those "gamblers" also have my money and savings so if they go bankrupt I'm afraid I wouldn't see one eurocent of it again. So I´m glad the governments take action, from what I understand the mayor part of the money is meant to garantee the savingsaccounts of the common men and to support the healthy and "correct" banks. So at the moment we'll have to wait and see what happens.

just my €0.02 for what it's worth at the moment.

Bopper.
 

Peelo, that's pretty much what the US rescue plan was as well.  Except in the US plan, we are letting the congressmen who were supposed to keep this from happening lead the committees to find out what happened.  Somehow I think they are going to dump the blame on Bush and pat themselves on the back before calling for more subprime loans.

 This whole mess is just the latest chapter in the systematic looting that began with the Savings and Loan debacle in the 80s. The Objectivist posers tout the 'free market' and denounce the evils of regulation. When the shields come down, they bribe their way into a full sanction of their Ponzi schemes until the costs of failure reach the stratosphere. Finally their worthlessness is revealed, and they come running to the government for a bailout before retiring to their plush mansions. It’s capitalism for the profits and socialism for the losses.

Any institution that is backed by Federal insurance or receives a bailout from the Federal government has forfeited its right to the ‘free market.’ These institutions are a public menace and need to be regulated and watched if not nationalized.