|
|
Rank: Sports Guru
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 330
|
__Raf__ wrote:
Agree with you for once.
I agree I'm a **** too. 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/24/2008
Posts: 141
|
football fever wrote:
The government is because it is not the banks money. By your logic they (i.e.banks/mngt) should be able to ask for their money back whenever they stuff up or make a loss. They got greedy and took the risks, they stuffed up by not having adequate audit, treasury and risk management processes and practices, and hence they should face the consequences imo.
Does the average taxpayer get bailed out when they cannot meet their mortgage repayments? No.
And how is socialism to blame? By my thinking socialism policy is saving capitalism's butt on this occassion.
All this bailout proves is that when Wall Street says jump, the politicians say how high.
Where does the government get its money from? The average tax payer is the wealthy. 70% of all tax is payed by the top 10% of earners. (thanks Lord) Socialism is to blame due to them putting pressure on banks to loan to people who couldnt afford it. Give to the Poor bullsh it
|
|
Rank: Sports Guru
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 330
|
Was a Warrior wrote:
Where does the government get its money from?
The average tax payer is the wealthy. 70% of all tax is payed by the top 10% of earners. (thanks Lord)
Socialism is to blame due to them putting pressure on banks to loan to people who couldnt afford it.
Give to the Poor bullshit
It is stiil not their money just because they pay more tax, it does not give them more right to it imo. It is the price they pay to ac*****ulate wealth. And where does this so called 'top 10%' get their wealth from? The average joe blow that buys or uses their products or services. It is simply a transferring of wealth, but do they get their money back or bailed out when they make a bad investment? No. They cop it sweet and so should the banks. Socialism is not to blame, greed and the opportunity for banks to make more profit is. It is up to the banks who they loan money to ultimately. They want 'free market' capitalism when the market is going up but cry like a baby for socialist intervention through a bailout when they get themselves in trouble. Hypocritical.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/24/2008
Posts: 141
|
football fever wrote:
It is stiil not their money just because they pay more tax, it does not give them more right to it imo. It is the price they pay to ac*****ulate wealth.
And where does this so called 'top 10%' get their wealth from?
The average joe blow that buys or uses their products or services. It is simply a transferring of wealth, but do they get their money back or bailed out when they make a bad investment? No. They cop it sweet and so should the banks.
Socialism is not to blame, greed and the opportunity for banks to make more profit is. It is up to the banks who they loan money to ultimately. They want 'free market' capitalism when the market is going up but cry like a baby for socialist intervention through a bailout when they get themselves in trouble. Hypocritical.
So they dont have more rights to their money then the government? Fu ck you socialists make me sick. It isnt the price they pay, its their money that is stolen off them by greedy fu cks like you who think they deserve it more then they guy who earnt it. Are you saying to me that the Socialists didnt put pressure on the banks to loan to people who couldnt afford it? Government intervention is what caused this. Not free market capitalism.
|
|
Rank: Sports Guru
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/24/2005
Posts: 330
|
Was a Warrior wrote:
So they dont have more rights to their money then the government? Fuck you socialists make me sick. It isnt the price they pay, its their money that is stolen off them by greedy fucks like you who think they deserve it more then they guy who earnt it.
Are you saying to me that the Socialists didnt put pressure on the banks to loan to people who couldnt afford it? Government intervention is what caused this. Not free market capitalism.
Lol, it is not their money once it goes into the taxation system. Stolen? Cry me a river sector.  :badgrin The banks got greedy, they wanted more profit, they lent more than they should and now their paying the price. Capitalism gone mad isn't caused by socialism. P.S. I'm not a socialist, it is an observation.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/24/2008
Posts: 141
|
football fever wrote:Lol, it is not their money once it goes into the taxation system. Stolen? Cry me a river sector. :badgrin The banks got greedy, they wanted more profit, they lent more than they should and now their paying the price. Capitalism gone mad isn't caused by socialism. P.S. I'm not a socialist, it is an observation. Its stolen from them before they even see it. If everyone had to pay a check at the end of the year for their tax, more people would be up in arms about it. But because they steal it before we see it, people dont take notice. It was caused by socialist intervention. You are a socialist. If you think tax isnt the peoples money but it is the governments...then im sorry, but you are a socialist.
|
|
Rank: Sports Guru
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/10/2007
Posts: 2,079
Location: Melbourne Australia
|
Hey Sector, serious question here, do you thing everything left of hardline conservatism is socialism or communism?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/24/2008
Posts: 141
|
smashedmirror704 wrote:Hey Sector, serious question here, do you thing everything left of hardline conservatism is socialism or communism? A serious question for you. Do you think everything right of socialism is hardline conservatism?
|
|
Rank: Sports Guru
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/10/2006
Posts: 884
Location: Adelaide, Australia
|
I don't really see the conundrum here. The bailout is only accidentally a tacit endorsement of irresponsible financial practices. What much of the American population, and, it seems, a fair amount of Republicans, fail to realise is that to not bail out these institutions wouldn't 'teach those greedy fat cats a lesson' (sorry for the hyperbole), but rather would cost the average low-to-middle income taxpayer far, far more in the long run.
The bailout is no great solution. It's $700bn worth of quick fix. But it at least means that the global economy won't turn to jelly before Americans get to decide who they want to clean this mess up.
|
|
Rank: Sports Guru
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/22/2008
Posts: 251
Location: Toorak
|
Was a Warrior wrote:
A serious question for you. Do you think everything right of socialism is hardline conservatism?
I do
|
|
Rank: Sports Guru
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/11/2007
Posts: 2,241
Location: Melbourne
|
Shelling out $700b that the Treasury simply doesn't have (more "fake money" as Ron Paul calls it) to bail out a failed system - no dice. Insuring the loans so people don't lose their homes would come at a fraction of the monetary cost, and it would avoid propping up cretins that have brought about their own undoing by speculating & failing. Right now - despite having a house minority - the conservatives are running the show, so hopefully they get this right.
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/3/2006
Posts: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
hahahahahahaahahahaha
Love the commentary lads on this one. However, listen very carefully to asteemed Congressman and place his views in context of his party, his ideals and the fact that he is up for relection on November 4th.
First and foremost. This is indeed a massive problem for the world economy but it is far from a great depression scaled event. How can we tell this? Look at the Super funds and companies. They are not the ones going to the wall. In fact Goldman Sachs just bought up some major shares in many of the tettering financial organisations as they are bargain buys at the moment and will prove highly valuable even in the medium term.
The root cause of the problem is sub prime mortgages. The banks of America essentially lended to people who couldnt afford them. These loans were created and sold like rubbers in *****house when times were good. As soon as times started to get a little bad and interest rates shifted and loans had to be called in or ramped up, middle america couldnt afford it. What the bail out package is ultimately designed to do is to keep middle america in their homes. At the same time the lending system is being regulated in way it should have long before now. If this had not been done considerable numbers of Americans would have been out on the street and the economy plundged deep into recession. The flow on effects for the world I dont need to go into.
Is it right? Is it wrong? depends on which side of the economic fence you sit as o whether your A Keynesian or a classical. If nothing was done the market would have corrected the issue but I guess in election year and with it being only a month away, having voters lose their homes and being on the street isnt a good thing when on the campaign trail.
|
|
|
Guest |
