Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence

dear, you may be the only person on earth who believes that! Ask 1000 economists and not one will pick that. See why we have to doubt the intelligence of liberals?

You mean AEI/Koch funded 'economists';?


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence

dear, you may be the only person on earth who believes that! Ask 1000 economists and not one will pick that. See why we have to doubt the intelligence of liberals?

Oh no...

There are millions of these retards!!!

That's why as deplorable and barbaric as abortion is, I encourage bed wetters to get them.

BTW, Paul Krugman regurgitates insipid shit like that.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaED2ErdIv8]Krugman calls for space aliens to fix U S economy - YouTube[/ame]


They REALLY ARE that stupid.

False premises, distortions and LIES. I'm shocked


Parrots repeat what they hear. The RW media doesn't profit from educating their listeners. They know the money is in saying outrageous things that fit their listeners ideology. The listeners want to be outraged. The RW media produces the outrageous material. Truth not required. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

[Dad2three]

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence

dear, you may be the only person on earth who believes that! Ask 1000 economists and not one will pick that. See why we have to doubt the intelligence of liberals?

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35+-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, you may be the only person on earth who believes that! Ask 1000 economists and not one will pick that. See why we have to doubt the intelligence of liberals?

so dad 3 agrees???you agree??

 

[Uncensored2008]

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?

Once it is a mistake. Repeated after correction, it is a lie.

In all fairness, dumb2three doesn't grasp the shit he posts. He is a feral baboon, flinging shit from the hate sites. He has no actual grasp of the idiotic nonsense he posts, and he cannot debate or discuss them. He cuts & pastes from the leftist whackadoodle sites - period.

 

[Pete7469]

top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?

Once it is a mistake. Repeated after correction, it is a lie.

In all fairness, dumb2three doesn't grasp the shit he posts. He is a feral baboon, flinging shit from the hate sites. He has no actual grasp of the idiotic nonsense he posts, and he cannot debate or discuss them. He cuts & pastes from the leftist whackadoodle sites - period.

You're being way too nice...

and at the same time insulting primates in general.

 

[bendog]

The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist

Cool and?

Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?The big event that drove the monetary bubble
ry

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

Liberal intervention in housing market was massive!!

"The big event that drove the drove the monetary bubble being created by the Fed into the housing market was a decision made by the Clnton Administration in Sept of 1999, Bill Clinton put teeth into and his political power behind the goal of Fred/ Fan having at least 50% of their loan portfolios in affordable housing( sub prime) loans." John Allison


In addition to the Federal Reserve System you had Fanny and Freddie which bought and guaranteed many of the mortgages so no one had to worry about them failing. Then you had CRA, FHA, Federal Home Loan Bank Board( 3% down payment loans) SEC, Govt ratings agencies, and several others that were designed to get everybody in their own home.

When the states tried to move against predatory lending by national banks they were blocked by the bank's federal regulator, the office of the comptroller of the currency. That empowered money lenders said Lynn Turner.

Just as significantly you had very badly conceived govt accounting rules that hid the problems from everyone until it was too late. Accounting rules are supposed to do the opposite, not move billions in potential liabilities off the balance sheet onto tiny footnote on the bottom of a page as happened at Citibank, or onto on sentence at the end of a 10-Q report as happened at AIG, or as generally happened with SIVs (structured investment vehicles). Then you had gov't rules from the last crisis, the Enron Crisis, the created mark-to- market accounting rules for this crisis that many believe greatly exacerbated this crisis.

Then you had the problem with the government backed ratings agencies that simply failed to rate the mortgage backed and related securities, properly. Sorry, it had little to do with the private market, but had everything to do with inane attempts by the liberal to regulate the free market!

You got that right. Overregulation caused the credit meltdown. No one disputes this!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure, IF you don't use reason and logic I am

Carter INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS
Reagan 14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

WOW, IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHY DID CARTER CREATE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN RONNIE, WHO TRIPLED THE DEBT?

Monkey boi, isn't it true that in 1978, the Department of Labor amended labor reporting to include part-time workers under 32 hours a week in reporting? Isn't it true that this instantly and artificially added 6 million people to the employed category?

Oh, your handlers at the hate sites didn't tell you this? Well, why would they?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your own link makes you look like a farkin' tard, fella.

He doesn't read his links or even the nonsense he posts. He is like a lower version of Franco, cut and pasting massive amounts of spam from the leftist hate sites. But this one doesn't even bother to read the crap he posts.

He can't defend the ideas he posts, because he has no grasp of the ideas he posts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This was an interesting thread

Not really, libertarian bullshit was all



technical horse manure.

Sorry, I understand ANYTHING not small enough for a bumper sticker is wasted on conservatives!

Dude, we've LONG ago established that you don't grasp a fucking thing that you post. You cut & paste from the hate sites, with no idea what the shit you post even means.

You're just a feral baboon.

 

[HenryBHough]

Don't sweat Obama's Great Recession.

It'll be over and we'll have full employment when he starts World War III by executive order. Hey, He don't need Congress - He got a phone and He got a pen.

Why He's twice the knave Roosevelt was so why act surprised when it happens?

 

[Pete7469]

This was an interesting thread

Not really, libertarian bullshit was all



technical horse manure.

Sorry, I understand ANYTHING not small enough for a bumper sticker is wasted on conservatives!

Dude, we've LONG ago established that you don't grasp a fucking thing that you post. You cut & paste from the hate sites, with no idea what the shit you post even means.

You're just a feral baboon.

Do you have to be so mean? What have baboons ever done to you?

 

[Pete7469]

Don't sweat Obama's Great Recession.

It'll be over and we'll have full employment when he starts World War III by executive order. Hey, He don't need Congress - He got a phone and He got a pen.

Why He's twice the knave Roosevelt was so why act surprised when it happens?

I don't think the moonbat messiah could start a cat fight in a whore house with a bottle of Wild Turkey.

If there is a serious conflict it will be in spite of that dipshit's efforts.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This was an interesting thread

Not really, libertarian bullshit was all



technical horse manure.

Sorry, I understand ANYTHING not small enough for a bumper sticker is wasted on conservatives!

Dude, we've LONG ago established that you don't grasp a fucking thing that you post. You cut & paste from the hate sites, with no idea what the shit you post even means.

You're just a feral baboon.

Do you have to be so mean? What have baboons ever done to you?

This is true, 3dad cuts and pastes as if he's the only one who can cut and paste. UMB is for debate, not cut and paste. I guess he has no choice given that he cant debate. Oh well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

 

[Freewill]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

Moral decisions are made by a person not a government. What a person uses for their decision regarding morality is unique to the person. Some religious beliefs, some use what they would call naturalism, and some apparently will use "anti" anything.

So we all live in society. A society that needs roads. Roads that the private sector is more or not likely going to build. So as a people we decide we need roads. Why we decide such is not really that important. In other words a person of religion might think it good because we can transport charity works better, someone else might think it good because they want to get to the beach faster. Whatever the reason people decide to build roads and that cost money. So how those roads are financed is the next question. But all the people put money up to pay for that which they use.

Now someone will say, why should the government, the same government we give money to build roads, give my money to someone on welfare. The discussion is the same as with building roads. Although the majority may think that we need to build roads then the money is worth spending, but those who don't drive may think it a waste of time and dirt roads are just fine. So society decides that welfare is something beneficial to society as a whole.

So we as a society decide how to spend money. I don't want to spend money on abortion but society has decided that is OK. One problem that enters in is if society chooses to display a Manger set at Christmas, no longer is the decision by the majority it is the minority that decides. In lies the problem. The majority are pissed because they are forced by the minority to do what they don't want done.

Same with abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other issues that get shoved down the throats of the majority by the minority. And when the issue doesn't go the way of the minority they simply get a court to rule otherwise. And damn be the court that doesn't rule in the favor of the minority.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

Yep. What we have here is an endless stream of argumentum ad nauseam of the zero-sum-game mentality.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

I think the left's explaination would ultimately depend on their compassion for those who absolutely cant support themselves. As a conservative I don't mind supporting those folks as long as its done in a way that doesn't produce more and more of them.

The utter destruction of the black family and black culture is a case in point wherein liberal compassion turns into near-genocide.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

Moral decisions are made by a person not a government.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, right. So the German invasion of Poland wasn't a moral decision? How about the decision to shove Jews into gas ovens? How about Israel's decision to bomb Gaza? According to you there's no reason for anyone to complain about that?

That has to be on the Top Ten List of dumbest claims ever posted in this forum.

I love the way you turds neatly step over the issue of morality and then immediate proceed to the the technical aspects of how you're going use the proceeds from looting the citizens of this country.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, let's face it. There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is. So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?

Moral decisions are made by a person not a government. What a person uses for their decision regarding morality is unique to the person. Some religious beliefs, some use what they would call naturalism, and some apparently will use "anti" anything.

So we all live in society. A society that needs roads. Roads that the private sector is more or not likely going to build. So as a people we decide we need roads. Why we decide such is not really that important. In other words a person of religion might think it good because we can transport charity works better, someone else might think it good because they want to get to the beach faster. Whatever the reason people decide to build roads and that cost money. So how those roads are financed is the next question. But all the people put money up to pay for that which they use.

Now someone will say, why should the government, the same government we give money to build roads, give my money to someone on welfare. The discussion is the same as with building roads. Although the majority may think that we need to build roads then the money is worth spending, but those who don't drive may think it a waste of time and dirt roads are just fine. So society decides that welfare is something beneficial to society as a whole.

So we as a society decide how to spend money. I don't want to spend money on abortion but society has decided that is OK. One problem that enters in is if society chooses to display a Manger set at Christmas, no longer is the decision by the majority it is the minority that decides. In lies the problem. The majority are pissed because they are forced by the minority to do what they don't want done.

Same with abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other issues that get shoved down the throats of the majority by the minority. And when the issue doesn't go the way of the minority they simply get a court to rule otherwise. And damn be the court that doesn't rule in the favor of the minority.

But the question is not what society has decided is 'okay'. Society once decided that slavery was okay. That limiting women's rights was okay. That putting people in stocks or burning witches at the stake or public hangings was okay. But when analyzed within the cold, brutally honest light of morality, such things could not be justified and society ended these things.

Likewise, those things we agree to via social contract--voting bonds to build schools and fund fire departments or police departments or build roads or water systems or sewer systems or street lighting--all these are in the interest of the GENERAL welfare shared by rich and poor, famous and infamous, powerful and less powerful alike without regard to class, race, gender, or sociopolitical standing.

That is a very different thing that you claiming what I have earned because I have more than you do. I am asking on what basis of morality can you claim what I have earned when you contributed nothing to the earning of what I have earned? And what is the proper portion of what I earn that you are entitled?