Joy Behar Coming Unhinged

It bears reminding for some to watch this. This was from Fox News evening news, not an opinion show. Watch it. If not, then one can't draw a logical response to the CRA/FannieMae/Freddie Mac.

4 minutes long. You have time.

And let us not forget this little tidbit...

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest
Friday, October 03, 2008
By Bill Sammon

WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefited from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.

"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."

A top GOP House aide agreed.

"C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?" the aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws."

Frank’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.

"I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover."

The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.

Bill Sammon is FOX News' Washington Deputy Managing Editor

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

The hypocrisy is amazing.

Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, 1989-2008.......


Obama has only been in the senate for three years but he is the second highest receivers or donation from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. See below.

Name	Office	State	Party	Grand Total	Total from PACs	Total from Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J	S	CT	D	$165,400	$48,500	$116,900
Obama, Barack	S	IL	D	$126,349	$6,000	$120,349
Kerry, John	S	MA	D	$111,000	$2,000	$109,000
Bennett, Robert F	S	UT	R	$107,999	$71,499	$36,500
Bachus, Spencer	H	AL	R	$103,300	$70,500	$32,800
Blunt, Roy	H	MO	R	$96,950	$78,500	$18,450
Kanjorski, Paul E	H	PA	D	$96,000	$57,500	$38,500
Bond, Christopher S ‘Kit’	S	MO	R	$95,400	$64,000	$31,400
Shelby, Richard C	S	AL	R	$80,000	$23,000	$57,000
Reed, Jack	S	RI	D	$78,250	$43,500	$34,750
Reid, Harry	S	NV	D	$77,000	$60,500	$16,500
Clinton, Hillary	S	NY	D	$76,050	$8,000	$68,050
Davis, Tom	H	VA	R	$75,499	$13,999	$61,500
Boehner, John	H	OH	R	$67,750	$60,500	$7,250
Conrad, Kent	S	ND	D	$64,491	$22,000	$42,491
Reynolds, Tom	H	NY	R	$62,200	$53,000	$9,200
Johnson, Tim	S	SD	D	$61,000	$20,000	$41,000
Pelosi, Nancy	H	CA	D	$56,250	$47,000	$9,250
Carper, Tom	S	DE	D	$55,889	$31,350	$24,539
Hoyer, Steny H	H	MD	D	$55,500	$51,500	$4,000
Pryce, Deborah	H	OH	R	$55,500	$45,000	$10,500
Emanuel, Rahm	H	IL	D	$51,750	$16,000	$35,750
Isakson, Johnny	S	GA	R	$49,200	$35,500	$13,700
Cantor, Eric	H	VA	R	$48,500	$46,500	$2,000
Crapo, Mike	S	ID	R	$47,250	$40,500	$6,750
Frank, Barney	H	MA	D	$42,350	$30,500	$11,850
Bean, Melissa	H	IL	D	$41,249	$34,999	$6,250
Bayh, Evan	S	IN	D	$41,100	$16,500	$24,600
McConnell, Mitch	S	KY	R	$41,000	$40,000	$1,000
Maloney, Carolyn B	H	NY	D	$39,750	$16,500	$23,250
Dorgan, Byron L	S	ND	D	$38,750	$30,500	$8,250
Miller, Gary	H	CA	R	$38,000	$31,500	$6,500
Rangel, Charles B	H	NY	D	$38,000	$14,750	$23,250
Tiberi, Patrick J	H	OH	R	$35,700	$32,600	$3,100
Bunning, Jim	S	KY	R	$33,802	$29,650	$4,152
Stabenow, Debbie	S	MI	D	$33,450	$32,000	$1,450
Chambliss, Saxby	S	GA	R	$33,250	$22,500	$10,750
Menendez, Robert	S	NJ	D	$31,250	$30,500	$750
Enzi, Mike	S	WY	R	$31,000	$27,500	$3,500
Van Hollen, Chris	H	MD	D	$30,700	$11,000	$19,700
Landrieu, Mary L	S	LA	D	$30,600	$20,000	$10,600
Murray, Patty	S	WA	D	$30,000	$23,000	$7,000
Clyburn, James E	H	SC	D	$29,750	$26,000	$3,750
Crowley, Joseph	H	NY	D	$29,700	$25,500	$4,200
Sessions, Pete	H	TX	R	$29,472	$24,000	$5,472
McCrery, Jim	H	LA	R	$29,000	$26,000	$3,000
Hooley, Darlene	H	OR	D	$28,750	$19,500	$9,250
Royce, Ed	H	CA	R	$28,600	$4,000	$24,600
Renzi, Rick	H	AZ	R	$28,250	$28,000	$250
Lieberman, Joe	S	CT	I	$28,250	$11,500	$16,750
Baucus, Max	S	MT	D	$27,500	$21,000	$6,500
Moore, Dennis	H	KS	D	$26,550	$25,500	$1,050
Coleman, Norm	S	MN	R	$24,690	$12,000	$12,690
Matheson, Jim	H	UT	D	$24,500	$24,000	$500
Schumer, Charles E	S	NY	D	$24,250	$1,500	$22,750
Durbin, Dick	S	IL	D	$23,750	$14,000	$9,750
Rogers, Mike	H	MI	R	$22,750	$21,000	$1,750
Lynch, Stephen F	H	MA	D	$22,500	$13,500	$9,000
Rockefeller, Jay	S	WV	D	$22,250	$5,000	$17,250
Smith, Gordon H	S	OR	R	$22,000	$20,000	$2,000
Mikulski, Barbara A	S	MD	D	$21,750	$16,500	$5,250
McCain, John	S	AZ	R	$21,550	$0	$21,550

TexasBlue wrote:The hypocrisy is amazing.

*sigh* Yeah... I know. I've sort of resigned myself to the mainstream media's double-standards and hypocrisy. I rarely watch them any more or read the newspapers. It really has become a waste of time, since I can pretty much predict the positions they will take on any given issue, and what news stories they will ignore.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:The hypocrisy is amazing.

*sigh* Yeah... I know. I've sort of resigned myself to the mainstream media's double-standards and hypocrisy. I rarely watch them any more or read the newspapers. It really has become a waste of time, since I can pretty much predict the positions they will take on any given issue, and what news stories they will ignore.

I watch them specifically to look for bias. More to the point.... things they don't tell you.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:The hypocrisy is amazing.

*sigh* Yeah... I know. I've sort of resigned myself to the mainstream media's double-standards and hypocrisy. I rarely watch them any more or read the newspapers. It really has become a waste of time, since I can pretty much predict the positions they will take on any given issue, and what news stories they will ignore.

I watch them specifically to look for bias. More to the point.... things they don't tell you.

I've worked with these people for 30+ years, I already know they're biased, and I already know what they are not going to tell their audiences. I used to watch and read them daily when I was working in public relations, now, I find no need to look for something I know I will easily find. I only watch the local news now, and that's just to stay up on local affairs.

For the national scene, there are multiple sources I can now turn to to keep abreast of the important issues that matter.

Sometimes a dose of bias is helpful though.

TexasBlue wrote:Sometimes a dose of bias is helpful though.

I do not believe this to be true... inevitable yes... true, no.

Best to know what the other side is saying (or not saying). That's my point.

TexasBlue wrote:Best to know what the other side is saying (or not saying). That's my point.

I understand, but I already know what the "other side" is saying... hell, I could probably write it myself.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Best to know what the other side is saying (or not saying). That's my point.

I understand, but I already know what the "other side" is saying... hell, I could probably write it myself.

And we also know what the "other side" is saying as well. But knowing "what" is only part of it. You also have to know "why".

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Best to know what the other side is saying (or not saying). That's my point.

I understand, but I already know what the "other side" is saying... hell, I could probably write it myself.

And we also know what the "other side" is saying as well. But knowing "what" is only part of it. You also have to know "why".

The "why" is quite obvious to all who would see. One side still supports the concepts of constitutional republicanism and free market capitalism, the other side clearly believes that socialism, to one degree or another, is the way to go. Why? Because that is the way to power for the political class.

dblboggie wrote:FDR was the President during the Great Depression. Of course, it was his policies that actually made the depression a Great Depression...

Did I or anyone else say FDR was good for the American economy or not?

Sorry, but I'm getting real bloody bored arguing over things that are completely besides the point. Even you conceded his policies where ultimately temporary in another board, in case you haven't realised, FDR died before he could complete his term, if many of the components are with us today (no doubt they are) he could hardly be held to blame!

As for “progressive taxation” – this is the second plank from Marx/Engels “Communist Manifesto” – the second of 10 steps necessary to move a free-market capitalist society toward communism/socialism (pick your poison).

So Woodrow Wilson was a Marxist in addition to being a Socialist as well? Progressive taxation isn't "socialism", it is fairness and any right-minded person regardless of ideology should be in-favour of some variant of it. I have good reason to believe Marx and Engels advocated "breathing air" as a means to absorb oxygen into the blood, guess only "Marxists" breath air, right?

Just because a progressive tax system doesn’t entail state ownership of industries

Socialism is EXACTLY that. Progressive taxation pre-dates socialism and Marxism by a great deal.

You seem, apparently, to think that for one to be labeled a socialist, that they must openly declare their support for the nationalization of industry

If it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...

but nothing could be further from the truth. If you watched the Obama video above, you’d realize that in his case, while he wants very much to nationalize the health care industry

No sorry, it exists all your imagination. Nothing in his speeches give that impression, either openly or reading between the lines. Either you have some psychic access to his inner-most thoughts or simply seeing things that aren't there, I would not be surprised if it were the latter - after-all Cordoba house according to you in another wasn't simply a means of getting people from different communities together, it was a demonstration of conquest by Muslims on Americans! Sorry but YOU ARE PARANOID. Seriously.

This all reminds me a little of the "Problem of Grue": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_and_bleen

To everything you see, you claim to pick out things that aren't there and insist they will manifest themselves later in the future. I would suggest that they were never there, and it appears you haven't given me much to go by rather then your insistence that it is. When I compared you to the idiots who use the EXACT same method to "prove" Obama is a secret-Muslim, you were outraged, but I think you know deep down, the comparison was rather apt.

We are not the UK or Europe, we have widely divergent views on things like this, and that is just how it is.

There is nothing particularly exception with socialism in the US as opposed to the rest of the world. The idea of state ownership is the same in any culture or country.

Conservatism is not a “feeling” sport.

Conservatism is the feeling that you need to keep things as it is, it is NOT an ideology, it is the belief that change (if needed) ought to be slow and incremental. The thread that runs through great American conservatives is a certain political disposition, not so much a collection of ideas and principals. It is organic, arising out of the experience of history and cultural mores. Socialism by contrast is a set of principals. I suggest you start your reading on the matter by selecting text by Michael Oakeshott, Roger Scruton, David Frum and Maurice Cowling. Conservative American ideas aren't so different from British ones, ultimately both owe their genesis in their reaction to the French Revolution and those who covered it, such as Edmund Burke.

You can't be a socialist in one country and not in another, what is a "conservative" on the other-hand, is.

No, he is not “testing the limits of the powers of his office, like almost every one else...” This is nonsense. These are some piddling exercises in Executive Authority he is engaging in. He is IGNORING the constitution on a level not seen since FDR in an attempt to forward an agenda that is decidedly far left, and is socialist in intent. For instance, he knows that the current “health care reform” bill now passed, will lead to the destruction of the private-sector health insurance industry. He has said that it would – watch the video!

And if his bill gets thrown out, he had engaged and tested the Constitution's fortitude, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. The most you can make is that he is feckless or reckless even, in trying too hard to push a bill through. What this has to do with socialism, I don't know.

You clearly know NOTHING about the CRA.

The CRA sponsored loans were far safer then the ones not regulated, no one ever forced the banks to lend far beyond their means and too far little of subprime loans originated from CRA institutions. Sorry but whatever Heath Robinson machine stlye excuse or theory you may have in forcing the blame on the CRA, fact is the clear majority of loans had nothing to do with it and that's that. Like I said, I'm not going to bother arguing black-is-white with you.

The CRA had NOTHING to do with regulating loans that were “deemed safe” and gave a return. I don’t know where you are getting this fiction, but it is just not true.

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

And your point in C) above is just hyperbole, and not a serious argument against a thorough examination of all legislation for potential negative impacts if enacted.

I never argued whether or not "Obamacare" was good or bad (again, you keep jumping to these conclusions), I suggested the form in which you argued in (slippery slope) is a poor argument. Either "Obamacare" IS socialism or not, we cannot predict whether or not it will LEAD to socialism, and that is not a case for economists to argue.

I'm bored now, respond if you will, but you'll still be wrong. Very wrong. In fact, in another dimension where up is down, fish fly and birds swim in the seas - you'd still be so epically wrong.

http://www.frumforum.com/is-obama-a-socialist

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

dblboggie wrote:FDR was the President during the Great Depression. Of course, it was his policies that actually made the depression a Great Depression...

Did I or anyone else say FDR was good for the American economy or not?

Sorry, but I'm getting real bloody bored arguing over things that are completely besides the point. Even you conceded his policies where ultimately temporary in another board, in case you haven't realised, FDR died before he could complete his term, if many of the components are with us today (no doubt they are) he could hardly be held to blame!

This is amazing. You clip my 229 word response on FDR socialist tendencies to the first 2 sentences (and not even the whole second sentence) and then imply I asked a question I did not. I did NOT say or even imply that you thought FDR was good for American economy or not. Where on earth did you get this??? And why did you fail to address my point that you were wrong about FDR’s socialist leanings and programs – only to turn this into the question you ask above, as though I had somehow gone off the beaten path to say I said a thing that I did not?

And I’m sorry you’re getting bored, but there is a solution for that, stop responding.

As for your assertion that I conceded FDR’s policies were “ultimately temporary” next door, I did NOT concede any such thing. I said that FDR intended for Social Security (ONE policy) to be temporary, but that was merely his initial intention – it was not the ultimate bill that HE signed into law – which was a permanent program.

And if you had read any of his many, many “fireside chats” with the American people via radio, you would know that he was very much invested in creating FEDERAL agencies that would exert CENTRAL controls over a variety of industries, controls he knew were unconstitutional (because he acknowledged as much in his talks), but which he attempted to justify based on what the rest of the “world” was doing. And if you had bothered to read his “Second Bill of Rights” (as I suggested in my earlier response) you would find things that would necessitate the scraping of our constitution as they could not be effected without massive new central powers granted the federal government well outside the scope of our constitution.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

As for “progressive taxation” – this is the second plank from Marx/Engels “Communist Manifesto” – the second of 10 steps necessary to move a free-market capitalist society toward communism/socialism (pick your poison).

So Woodrow Wilson was a Marxist in addition to being a Socialist as well? Progressive taxation isn't "socialism", it is fairness and any right-minded person regardless of ideology should be in-favour of some variant of it. I have good reason to believe Marx and Engels advocated "breathing air" as a means to absorb oxygen into the blood, guess only "Marxists" breath air, right?

Did I say Wilson was a Marxist? You are assuming facts not in evidence, yet again!

And progressive taxation is not “fairness.” Here is the definition of he word “fair” from Webster’s New World College Dictionary 3rd Edition: fair: just and honest; impartial; unprejudiced; specif., free from discrimination based on race, religion, sex, etc.

In the synonym study it further examines the use of this word:

SYN. – fair, the general word implies the treating of both or all sides alike, without reference to one’s own feelings or interests.

Each human being is born with only so many productive hours of labor to contribute toward securing the wherewithal to survive and live the life of their choosing. The income derived from the expenditure of one’s limited hours of labor is rightfully the property of that person so laboring. Some people spend more of their limited hours of life at labor intended to secure that income they desire. That income is personal property derived at the expense of their expenditure of those limited hours of life in labor.

Now then, is it “fair” to say to those whose choice it was to work harder and/or longer in the pursuit of income, that they must now surrender that hard-earned personal property to those who do not have as much?

Can a tax system that treats more harshly those who work harder, or longer, in the pursuit of income, honestly be said to be “fair.” How is this unequal treatment in any manner “fair?” I do not see that such a tax system treats all sides the same at all. How is it “fair” that the harder you work, the more of your limited life hours you spend in labor, the more the government punishes you by seizing ever greater portions of the work product derived from your labor?

I sorry, but to say that progressive taxation is “fair” is a perversion of that word. It is anything but “fair.” It is state-sanctioned theft. It treats the most productive members of society, those whose labor actually creates opportunities for others in employing them, more harshly than those whose labor is less productive or less in hours expended. It is a system that punishes production and rewards non-production. Does this sound “fair?”

Now one must understand that I am not opposed to charity. I do believe that there are those genuinely need a helping hand in society, and that a civil society will provide a means of helping those truly in need. But this has nothing to do with “fairness” and everything to do with compassion, empathy, charity. These are voluntary things. They are given out of the goodness of one’s heart, not forced at gunpoint by a government tax system that is abused in myriad ways.

Thanks to progressive taxation, we now have a system in place that allows our federal government to use that tax code to punish some while rewarding others without regard to the good or bad that they do, and only with regard to the votes or money they can derive through the manipulation of that tax system.

It is as Jefferson said: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

Just because a progressive tax system doesn’t entail state ownership of industries

Socialism is EXACTLY that. Progressive taxation pre-dates socialism and Marxism by a great deal.

So do Communism and Socialism, and pretty much every other “ism” one can think of. Do you really think Marx and Engels invented the concept of Communism? Do you think the USSR was the first communist society or economy on earth? History would take exception to this assumption, if you indeed hold this to be true.

Just because progressive taxation (a form a taxation that was unconstitutional btw, and required a constitutional amendment to be enacted) predates Marx, doesn’t mean that it is not a very effective tool for moving a nation more closely toward socialism, and was recognized as such by Marx and Engels.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

You seem, apparently, to think that for one to be labeled a socialist, that they must openly declare their support for the nationalization of industry

If it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...

But we are not talking about ducks. Ducks must be what they are, they do not have the power deception. They cannot pretend to be something other than a duck.

People, on the other hand, CAN and often DO seek to deceive others of their true nature and intentions. This is especially true of those in the political class.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

but nothing could be further from the truth. If you watched the Obama video above, you’d realize that in his case, while he wants very much to nationalize the health care industry

No sorry, it exists all your imagination. Nothing in his speeches give that impression, either openly or reading between the lines. Either you have some psychic access to his inner-most thoughts or simply seeing things that aren't there, I would not be surprised if it were the latter - after-all Cordoba house according to you in another wasn't simply a means of getting people from different communities together, it was a demonstration of conquest by Muslims on Americans! Sorry but YOU ARE PARANOID. Seriously.

This all reminds me a little of the "Problem of Grue": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_and_bleen

To everything you see, you claim to pick out things that aren't there and insist they will manifest themselves later in the future. I would suggest that they were never there, and it appears you haven't given me much to go by rather then your insistence that it is. When I compared you to the idiots who use the EXACT same method to "prove" Obama is a secret-Muslim, you were outraged, but I think you know deep down, the comparison was rather apt.

I provided a video in which we see Obama, the man himself, with the words coming from his very lips, say to one group that he did not intend to bring about single-payer health care – a socialist program wherein the government is the only provider of health insurance. And then we see this same Obama tell another group that he fully intends to implement single-payer by the end of his first term in office, and that reaching single-payer will involve various gradient steps to achieve.

And you say that nothing in his speeches give even the impression that Obama leans towards socialism? Have you even listened to this guy for more than a few minutes? Have read his books, have seen some of less publicized interviews, heard some of his less publicized radio interviews? Heard all of his speeches before union audiences such as the one I posted above???

We have a man that has been surrounded all his life by self-declared socialists, who has surrounded himself in the White House with self-declared socialists, and so to infer that Obama might in fact support a socialist agenda, even be a socialist himself, is somehow this enormous stretch of imagination – an opinion requiring “some psychic access to his inner-most thoughts?”

Are you actually being serious? Or are you merely being obtuse because the truth is something you refuse to see.

I would submit that if Obama were transported to any of the European “social democracies” that approved of state ownership of various sectors of their economy, that he would be first in line to push for even further state ownership of even more sectors – that he would side with the far left in any of those countries.

But Obama was born in America, and he is holding an American political office, and he is not so stupid as to know that he cannot possibly do the things he really, really wants to do because the American people would never stand for it. So he has to do what he can by smaller stages. He has to take what he clearly sees as baby steps, as in the “health care reform” bill. A bill that IN HIS OWN WORDS he says is an intended step toward single-payer!

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

Conservatism is not a “feeling” sport.

Conservatism is the feeling that you need to keep things as it is, it is NOT an ideology, it is the belief that change (if needed) ought to be slow and incremental. The thread that runs through great American conservatives is a certain political disposition, not so much a collection of ideas and principals. It is organic, arising out of the experience of history and cultural mores. Socialism by contrast is a set of principals. I suggest you start your reading on the matter by selecting text by Michael Oakeshott, Roger Scruton, David Frum and Maurice Cowling. Conservative American ideas aren't so different from British ones, ultimately both owe their genesis in their reaction to the French Revolution and those who covered it, such as Edmund Burke.

You can't be a socialist in one country and not in another, what is a "conservative" on the other-hand, is.

I’ll tell you what, I pass on the reading assignment if you don’t mind. I don’t need to read what someone else thinks Conservative American ideas are. I am well enough informed on this from my own readings, research, and experience. I have worked in politics long enough to know what I know and know what I don’t know on these matters, thank you.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

No, he is not “testing the limits of the powers of his office, like almost every one else...” This is nonsense. These are some piddling exercises in Executive Authority he is engaging in. He is IGNORING the constitution on a level not seen since FDR in an attempt to forward an agenda that is decidedly far left, and is socialist in intent. For instance, he knows that the current “health care reform” bill now passed, will lead to the destruction of the private-sector health insurance industry. He has said that it would – watch the video!

And if his bill gets thrown out, he had engaged and tested the Constitution's fortitude, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. The most you can make is that he is feckless or reckless even, in trying too hard to push a bill through. What this has to do with socialism, I don't know.

Okay, so at this point, you are now boring me. I have pointed you to the video. In the video Obama lays out his socialist agenda for health care (single-payer – the total government ownership of health insurance). If you can’t see what this has to do with socialism, you simply do not want to. Whether it is because it is coming from me personally, or a “conservative” generally, or both.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

You clearly know NOTHING about the CRA.

The CRA sponsored loans were far safer then the ones not regulated, no one ever forced the banks to lend far beyond their means and too far little of subprime loans originated from CRA institutions. Sorry but whatever Heath Robinson machine stlye excuse or theory you may have in forcing the blame on the CRA, fact is the clear majority of loans had nothing to do with it and that's that. Like I said, I'm not going to bother arguing black-is-white with you.

You aren’t going to bother arguing because you have read the propaganda and clearly have no clue what you are talking about. The CRA was a piece of legislation! There was no “CRA sponsored loans” because there was no “CRA” organization to sponsor ANYTHING! IT WAS A LAW, NOT AN ORGANIZATION! The CRA didn’t “sponsor” anything, it was a law that DEMANDED that banks make loans they would never have otherwise made!

What on earth is going on here??? It’s like I’ve entered a parallel universe. Every damn thing a bank does is regulated by the federal government. Banks make NO loans that are covered by some federal government regulation or another (or many for that matter). There’s no such thing as an unregulated anything in the banking world. Financial institutions are the most HEAVILY regulated industries in America, and have been for decades!!!

And I NEVER said that banks were forced to loan beyond their means. THEY WERE FORCED TO MAKE STUPID LOANS within their means. But it was only “within their means” if the people paid the loans off, or they got rid of the questionable paper by selling it to Fannie and Freddie!!!

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

The CRA had NOTHING to do with regulating loans that were “deemed safe” and gave a return. I don’t know where you are getting this fiction, but it is just not true.

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

And I can produce just as many studies that show that the CRA was at the very heart of the housing and financial markets meltdown, and they won’t be prepared by a bunch of shylock lawyers!

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

And your point in C) above is just hyperbole, and not a serious argument against a thorough examination of all legislation for potential negative impacts if enacted.

I never argued whether or not "Obamacare" was good or bad (again, you keep jumping to these conclusions), I suggested the form in which you argued in (slippery slope) is a poor argument. Either "Obamacare" IS socialism or not, we cannot predict whether or not it will LEAD to socialism, and that is not a case for economists to argue.

I'm bored now, respond if you will, but you'll still be wrong. Very wrong. In fact, in another dimension where up is down, fish fly and birds swim in the seas - you'd still be so epically wrong.

http://www.frumforum.com/is-obama-a-socialist

I was bored before I even embarked on this response, but as I have an aversion to unanswered fiction, I soldiered on.

First of all, where the fuck do you see me assigning you an opinion of the merits or lack thereof of Obamacare?

Why do you keep throwing up these ridiculous “I never said...” statements, when I have NEVER SAID YOU SAID what you are saying you didn’t say???

What the fuck is up with that??? I read one of these I say to myself, what bloody hell is this guy going on about??? Where did I say you said Obamacare was good or bad??? How do you even get there from the paragraph you quoted from me above??? I say “your point in C) above is just hyperbole” and you come back with “I never argued whether “Obamacare” was good or bad...” Well bloody good for you! But what the HELL does that have to do with my statement about hyperbole???

Honestly man, I don’t what the game is here, but you need to get a grip or change up your strategy. I said no such thing.

And we can damn well predict that Obamacare will have a socialist outcome (government ownership of health insurance) BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS DESIGNED TO DO!!! Watch the damn video! And then read the damn bill, and then get a clue!

You talk as though we must take all things at face value and never impute any motive or outcome to those things proffered and I just have no fucking clue how anyone could possibly lead a life like that! Tell ya what, I have this great bridge for sale, CHEAP! Are you interested?

dblboggie wrote:I sorry, but to say that progressive taxation is “fair” is a perversion of that word. It is anything but “fair.” It is state-sanctioned theft. It treats the most productive members of society, those whose labor actually creates opportunities for others in employing them, more harshly than those whose labor is less productive or less in hours expended. It is a system that punishes production and rewards non-production. Does this sound “fair?”

To make this clear, I worked at this job back in the early 80's. You could get as many hours as you could possibly work. Overtime included. Sunday thru Sunday if you wanted.

Well, one week, I decided to go for 80 hours. I normally grabbed around 70 hrs in a week (in 6 days). So, after working that 80 hrs (in 7 days), I received my paycheck. That was the last time I did that. Why? For an extra 10 hours of work, I made $150 more than I did in a 70 hour week. But after taxes, I got back only #30-something dollars.

Point being.... it was a waste of my sweat to work that extra time. The gov't made more off of me than I made. Fair? Fuck no.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I sorry, but to say that progressive taxation is “fair” is a perversion of that word. It is anything but “fair.” It is state-sanctioned theft. It treats the most productive members of society, those whose labor actually creates opportunities for others in employing them, more harshly than those whose labor is less productive or less in hours expended. It is a system that punishes production and rewards non-production. Does this sound “fair?”

To make this clear, I worked at this job back in the early 80's. You could get as many hours as you could possibly work. Overtime included. Sunday thru Sunday if you wanted.

Well, one week, I decided to go for 80 hours. I normally grabbed around 70 hrs in a week (in 6 days). So, after working that 80 hrs (in 7 days), I received my paycheck. That was the last time I did that. Why? For an extra 10 hours of work, I made $150 more than I did in a 70 hour week. But after taxes, I got back only #30-something dollars.

Point being.... it was a waste of my sweat to work that extra time. The gov't made more off of me than I made. Fair? Fuck no.

That's all I'm saying. To call progressive taxation, where some people are treated better than others based solely on their productivity, or lack thereof, can hardly be called "fair."

I worked damn hard for my income. As a self-employed person, I worked just as hard if not harder (from the crack of dawn to late and night many, many times) than someone who just punches in at 8am, and punches out at 5pm, and spends the rest of their day in the activities of their choosing, usually a cold-one and some TV (after some home chores possibly). And yet many of these 8-5 workers pay nothing in taxes thanks to tax credits and refunds and other programs designed to make them dependent on government.

We seriously need to scrap our current tax system and move to something radically different and inherently more "fair."

It drives home the point (and fact) that the more you tax, the less the worker (or entrepreneur) will work. I saw what was lost in take home pay and swore off working like that again. Of course, I wasn't a "rich" guy either. But the same applies. My dad owns his own business and says that excess taxation (and over-regulation) literally makes it hard to be in business.

For years, people have spoke about the rich "paying their fair share." That theory has been blown out of the water now in recent years.

You and I both know, from the IRS's own records, that the "rich" pay much more than their "fair share" and then some. I have never understood this demonization of the "rich" - especially in this day and age. And yet some liberals talk about the "rich" and private-sector businesses as though we were still living in the 19th century.

dblboggie wrote:You and I both know, from the IRS's own records, that the "rich" pay much more than their "fair share" and then some. I have never understood this demonization of the "rich" - especially in this day and age. And yet some liberals talk about the "rich" and private-sector businesses as though we were still living in the 19th century.

What gets me is one can provide IRS data (from 30 years ago to 2006) till you're blue in the face.... and they still don't "pay their fair share."

The problem I see here is that the terms 'Communism', 'Socialism', 'Marxism', etc. are all put into the same drawer and are assumed to mean the same thing when they really don't. 'Communism' and 'Socialism' are very different from one another, and even 'Marxism' and 'Communism' (in it's "modern form") are very different from one another.

BubbleBliss wrote:
The problem I see here is that the terms 'Communism', 'Socialism', 'Marxism', etc. are all put into the same drawer and are assumed to mean the same thing when they really don't. 'Communism' and 'Socialism' are very different from one another, and even 'Marxism' and 'Communism' (in it's "modern form") are very different from one another.

And there are even different strains of Communism and Socialism.

This is the major problem with the American right, they lump all of them in together and use the terms interchangably.

TexasBlue wrote:Best to know what the other side is saying (or not saying). That's my point.

Well said Tex. If you don't listen to what the other side are saying, and just assume you think you know what they are saying, you leave it open to parody and exaggeration and at the extreme, sinister demonisation. That is when we start to burn people for saying that the Earth goes around the sun for example.

dblboggie wrote:And you listen to Rush Limbaugh so you are the expert on how he defines a socialist? You listen so much to the man that you can identify the similarities between my rhetoric and his?

I have heard enough from the guy to see that he is a small minded bigot. I have heard enough to know he is not a climate scientist yet the subject is his favourite rant.

dblboggie wrote:Where have I said all liberals are socialists and hate America?

Many a time. You've even said in here that Obama hates America. Next door, you used the terms "liberal" and "socialist" interchangably on many occasions.

dblboggie wrote:No, rather I object to it because it IS the 49%parody, 49% fantasy and 2% strawman concoction that liberals in this country rely on when attempting to characterize those of us on the right.

WTF? What are you saying here "they do it to us so we do it to them"?

Or are you indeed saying that you are fully aware that the right's perception of "liberals" is 49% parody, 49% fantasy and 2% reality and you accept it and stick to it despite being aware that how liberals are portrayed is, effectively, 98% bullshit?

dblboggie wrote:But of course if you hadn’t ignored my response to that definition, you would have known that. Here’s the part where I address what is wrong with the “definition”:

Didn't ignore anything. Your definition is completely beside the point of whether you fully understand what a "liberal" is. By "liberal" I would assume the meaning to be "social liberal", something you have avoided thus far.

dblboggie wrote:And attempt to parody the right as heartless beasts that care only about money.

No offence dbl, but you more than anybody else have done NOTHING to dispel that. Your main objection to climate science is because doing something to prevent/halt the damage we are doing will (apparently) destroy the mighty dollar. Your insistence that it is a global conspiracy designed by the UN to destroy your country's market system and/or constitution would be hilarious if it wasn't so damned tragic. And you treat me and others like idiots when we argue the case as though we have been duped by some grand conspiracy and have no capability of making our own minds up... even if we have read hundreds of papers on the subject and have qualifications in related subjects.

dblboggie wrote:Perhaps, but we own them nonetheless.

Then it is not socialism because that is the systematic buying up of key industries and utilities for the long term. A few years is not long term.

dblboggie wrote:Well now you have video evidence, side by side, of Obama telling one audience he is not pushing for single payer, and another that he is. You may shrug this off as inconsequential, I do not see it that way.

I fail to see what it has to do with your blatant misrepresentation of what socialism is.

dblboggie wrote:Cap-and-trade has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. It is an excuse to seize massive new powers over the means of production in this country and nothing more.

And your denial of climate science has nothing to do with the science, but because it is inconvenient to your political and market style ideology.

dblboggie wrote:A 98% reduction is STILL too much CO2. What is someone supposed to do with something like that?

Lets just sit on our hands. After all, there is a currency to protect!

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And you listen to Rush Limbaugh so you are the expert on how he defines a socialist? You listen so much to the man that you can identify the similarities between my rhetoric and his?

I have heard enough from the guy to see that he is a small minded bigot. I have heard enough to know he is not a climate scientist yet the subject is his favourite rant.

He is neither small-minded, nor a bigot. But you are right about one thing, he is certainly not a climate (or any other kind of) scientist.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Where have I said all liberals are socialists and hate America?

Many a time. You've even said in here that Obama hates America. Next door, you used the terms "liberal" and "socialist" interchangably on many occasions.

I would like to see one occasion where I have said “all” liberals are socialists and hate America. There is no question that I have said that Obama is a socialist and hates America – and I stand by those words. I could probably elucidate on the “hates America” bit, but it is accurate nonetheless. Now, I will admit that I have used the term “liberal” and “socialist” interchangeably.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:No, rather I object to it because it IS the 49%parody, 49% fantasy and 2% strawman concoction that liberals in this country rely on when attempting to characterize those of us on the right.

WTF? What are you saying here "they do it to us so we do it to them"?

Or are you indeed saying that you are fully aware that the right's perception of "liberals" is 49% parody, 49% fantasy and 2% reality and you accept it and stick to it despite being aware that how liberals are portrayed is, effectively, 98% bullshit?

Actually, I am saying neither. I AM saying that in schools, universities, newspapers, news broadcasts, cable news, entertainment television shows and movies, conservatives are routinely lied about, slandered, parodied and portrayed in ways that are complete fiction. There is a literal tsunami of this propaganda that washes over the body politic every day in this nation, one scarcely escape it. Then one turns to something like the Wiki to get an honest definition, but lo-and-behold! There is the very same propaganda dressed up as “objective” truth.

As for the right’s perception of liberal politicians, well, I would not expect you to know all the intricacies and ins-and-outs of American politics, but I can tell you that a majority of liberal politicians on the federal level cannot openly and honestly say exactly what it is that they wish to accomplish. This is because what they actually wish to accomplish would be immediately objected to by a majority of Americans. Just like that Obama video on single-payer health care – there is no way that he could go before the American people and speak honestly about wanting a complete government takeover of health insurance. He can only say what he really wants when he is before an audience already in his camp on his agenda.

Like it or not, liberals in America have a very definite agenda. That agenda is an ever expanded role of the federal government in all aspects of our lives. About the only things that Democrats on the Hill have ever expressed an interest in cutting are defense and intelligence related programs/agencies. The only thing they wish to do with taxes is increase them on the so-called “rich” – a body of people that keep getting bigger and bigger as the definition of what income constitutes being “rich” moves ever southward to lower and lower income brackets. Our country is already very near the point where almost half of the American people have no tax burden whatsoever. But you will hear none of these things from the mainstream media, rather, what you will hear is Republican portrayed in ever vile way imaginable.

So, I say liberals are in favor of those things like granting government extra-constitutional powers (they’ve been doing that for decades – as have far too many RINO’s) that serve to progressively attack free-market capitalism and interfere in free markets in ways that put the government more in control of those markets through massive regulations that serve no other purpose than to increase that control, expand entitlement programs that make an ever increasing number of American’s dependent on the federal government (as I said, almost half of Americans pay no taxes due to government breaks and handouts), and somehow when I characterize this as “socialist” in nature (if not intent) I am guilty of forwarding nothing but “bullshit?” Perhaps we need to come up with a word that is left of liberal, and barely right of socialist. But in lieu of the invention of that word, I’ll probably still tend to use liberal/socialist interchangeably – though I suppose I could hold it down to a low roar – say, reserve that for politicians like Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Though for those members of Obama’s cabinet who are self-professed socialists, I think I’d be on safe ground to take them at their word on that and that term for them as well.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But of course if you hadn’t ignored my response to that definition, you would have known that. Here’s the part where I address what is wrong with the “definition”:

Didn't ignore anything. Your definition is completely beside the point of whether you fully understand what a "liberal" is. By "liberal" I would assume the meaning to be "social liberal", something you have avoided thus far.

No, not really. A social liberal says only where a person stands on social issues. Unless you are using the

dblboggie wrote:And attempt to parody the right as heartless beasts that care only about money.

No offence dbl, but you more than anybody else have done NOTHING to dispel that. Your main objection to climate science is because doing something to prevent/halt the damage we are doing will (apparently) destroy the mighty dollar. Your insistence that it is a global conspiracy designed by the UN to destroy your country's market system and/or constitution would be hilarious if it wasn't so damned tragic. And you treat me and others like idiots when we argue the case as though we have been duped by some grand conspiracy and have no capability of making our own minds up... even if we have read hundreds of papers on the subject and have qualifications in related subjects.[/quote]

Speaking of parody... the mischaracterization of my feelings about the UN and AGW (or ACC or whatever is the flavor of the day) as related above pretty much fill that bill. It can hardly be called a secret that the UN is not a fan of America, or capitalism.

And I do not treat you as an idiot, that I have been characterized as such (and much worse) by you and others because, like many other people, even climate scientists, I remain unconvinced on this issue. I have said many times before that I have no doubt that you have studied the issue closely and are convinced yourself. And that is perfectly fine with me. I think my very last post on this issue to you was more than gracious.

But that said, every single proposal to date to thwart AGW or ACC or whatever, does nothing to actually solve the perceived problem, and only works to cripple industries while giving local governments incredible controls over the private sector. The human suffering that such measures would create is every bit as real and every bit as tragic and deadly as the perceived suffering we are told is coming at some undetermined time down the road; but this suffering will be immediate and worldwide. I know it must seem coarse and unenlightened to speak of businesses, the private sector, world economies, making money and such, when speaking of something like AGW, but ignoring the very serious damage that AGW fixes would entail does not make them go away. People are starving and dying because of the lack of stable and productive economies all over the world. These are tragic, unnecessary deaths. They would only be multiplied by what AGW proponents propose – and these would be deaths occurring in the present, not at as yet unnamed date in the future.

If, and it is a very big if on my part, what AGW proponents say is true, how do they propose to deal with the very real damage and death that would result by a dramatic reduction in anthropogenic CO2 production?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Perhaps, but we own them nonetheless.

Then it is not socialism because that is the systematic buying up of key industries and utilities for the long term. A few years is not long term.

We have yet to see how long term it will be.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Well now you have video evidence, side by side, of Obama telling one audience he is not pushing for single payer, and another that he is. You may shrug this off as inconsequential, I do not see it that way.

I fail to see what it has to do with your blatant misrepresentation of what socialism is.

It doesn’t, but it does expose Obama’s socialist agenda for our health care system.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Cap-and-trade has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. It is an excuse to seize massive new powers over the means of production in this country and nothing more.

And your denial of climate science has nothing to do with the science, but because it is inconvenient to your political and market style ideology.

As I said above, the world runs on money. Whether we like it or not, money, trade, industry, all these make it possible for us to live indoors and eat. Of what good is it to say, we will save countless lives in the future by addressing AGW now, when the means of addressing it would kill countless lives through the destruction of world economies (or at least those world economies that get on board).

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:A 98% reduction is STILL too much CO2. What is someone supposed to do with something like that?

Lets just sit on our hands. After all, there is a currency to protect!

A 98% reduction! Can you imagine the untold millions that would die if we even attempted such a reduction? And this on something that is not yet a proven certainty (which even the author admits)?