Anatomy Of The Tea Party Movement

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Despite your long double talk and charts Baker IS telling the truth and the problem arose well before Fannie and Freddie got involved is right. They bought the bad loans and got stuck at the bottom of the pyramnd, holding the bad loans.

The loans were given because the lender knew they would sell the loans so they didn't care if a person could pay and that's what was the casue of the bad loans in the first place. Trying to blame congress is just shuffling the cards or as Bakers says,"The Flat Earth Theory." This was Wall Street's baby, going back even to the late 1990's under Clinton but was in it's glory under free wheeling Capitalism and Bush.

The TARP bailout covered the private banks the Fed chose to save while it let it's competitors fail.

Freddie and Fannie were the schmucks who bought the majority of the bad mortgages and derivatives, about half the market to be exact. They started well before the 2008. Congress, both parties, encouraged home ownership, at any cost. And, the public got what congress mandated. Take your jon boat over the edge, now, old varmint!

Pogo,

If I agreed with the article you posted, which I don't, it still wouldn't really prove anything. Let's take your comments one at a time.

quote:

The loans were given because the lender knew they would sell the loans so they didn't care if a person could pay and that's what was the casue of the bad loans in the first place.

This is a rudimentary explanation of the secondary mortgage market, which has existed for a lot longer than the housing bubble. Even with Fannie and Freddie's relaxed standards, people could be turned down. Private companies, with even more lax standards, could refuse to buy these securities. You seem to want to blame the originator of the mortgage who, while not blame free in the whole mess, cannot be blamed for the fact that someone was willing to buy these mortgages.

quote:

Trying to blame congress is just shuffling the cards or as Bakers says,"The Flat Earth Theory." This was Wall Street's baby, going back even to the late 1990's under Clinton but was in it's glory under free wheeling Capitalism and Bush.

Look up the phrase "moral hazard." When private companies realize the profits, and government realizes the losses, the incentive is to maximize profit through excessive risks. Who creates this problem, not capitalism - GOVERNMENT!!!

quote:

The TARP bailout covered the private banks the Fed chose to save while it let it's competitors fail.

There are no TARP bailouts in a market economy - something you clearly still don't understand. TARP is a GOVERNMENT product, not a product of capitalism.

Pogo,

Can you please address my last post? How is this anything but a government problem?

Sorry for the late reply. Someone sent me a wicked virus which I somhow let slip in and knocked out my computer for a few days, that and the holidays kept me off line.

I forget what we are even talking about and have no inclinations to go back and look except to say, I understand Capitalism and I understand who's behind the "Tea Baggers" a term I use because it is a phoney movement based on lies and finnanced by the Right wing that wants to be back in power and wealthy elites.

The Government should have let the banks fail then Nationalized them and we the people should own them and use them to help rebuild this nation and help people live the American Dream of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Sorry for the late reply. Someone sent me a wicked virus which I somhow let slip in and knocked out my computer for a few days, that and the holidays kept me off line.

I forget what we are even talking about and have no inclinations to go back and look except to say, I understand Capitalism and I understand who's behind the "Tea Baggers" a term I use because it is a phoney movement based on lies and finnanced by the Right wing that wants to be back in power and wealthy elites.

The Government should have let the banks fail then Nationalized them and we the people should own them and use them to help rebuild this nation and help people live the American Dream of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The term "tea bagger" is derived from a crude sexual term and used as an insult towards people who attended the Tea Party protests last spring and summer. The fact that you use it reflects your own intolerance towards people of different views. It's no different than to use a racial or religious slur, it's an insult aimed and people who are different than yourself. Therefore, anytime you claim someone else is a bigot, it would just be the pot calling the kettle black.

Besides, you haven't provided one scrap of evidence to prove that the protests were financially backed by some big, mysterious force. You've been given ample evidence proving that the millions of people who protested did so on their own simply because they do not want a socialist country.

Nationalizing the banks wouldn't solve the problem. Bush signed the great bank bailout. So if he followed your advice and nationalized them, Bush would have been in charge of the country's banking. Do you trust Bush that much?

If you want an example of how nationalizing private industry works, just look at the USSR. Were those people living the dream of life, liberty, and were they free to pursue happiness?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NashBama

The term "tea bagger" is derived from a crude sexual term and used as an insult towards people who attended the Tea Party protests last spring and summer. The fact that you use it reflects your own intolerance towards people of different views. It's no different than to use a racial or religious slur, it's an insult aimed and people who are different than yourself. Therefore, anytime you claim someone else is a bigot, it would just be the pot calling the kettle black.

Besides, you haven't provided one scrap of evidence to prove that the protests were financially backed by some big, mysterious force. You've been given ample evidence proving that the millions of people who protested did so on their own simply because they do not want a socialist country.

Nationalizing the banks wouldn't solve the problem. Bush signed the great bank bailout. So if he followed your advice and nationalized them, Bush would have been in charge of the country's banking. Do you trust Bush that much?

If you want an example of how nationalizing private industry works, just look at the USSR. Were those people living the dream of life, liberty, and were they free to pursue happiness?

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. ”— Thomas Jefferson
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


As I say I use the term "Tea Bagger" to make fun of those who are being manipulated by Right Wing Republican Forces which tried to imitate the American Revolution. It turned out to be a poor marketing move that back fired and was laughed at.

The Right Wing has noooo problem making fun of Liberals but can't take it back. Where you get all this nonsense from is ridiculous.

My orginal post is about the forces behind the Tea Baggers.

If the government nationalized the banks it would have used them to help rebuild communities, stop forclousures and rebuild the country and not for big fat bonuses for crashing the economic boat.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NashBama

The term "tea bagger" is derived from a crude sexual term and used as an insult towards people who attended the Tea Party protests last spring and summer. The fact that you use it reflects your own intolerance towards people of different views. It's no different than to use a racial or religious slur, it's an insult aimed and people who are different than yourself. Therefore, anytime you claim someone else is a bigot, it would just be the pot calling the kettle black.

Besides, you haven't provided one scrap of evidence to prove that the protests were financially backed by some big, mysterious force. You've been given ample evidence proving that the millions of people who protested did so on their own simply because they do not want a socialist country.

Nationalizing the banks wouldn't solve the problem. Bush signed the great bank bailout. So if he followed your advice and nationalized them, Bush would have been in charge of the country's banking. Do you trust Bush that much?

If you want an example of how nationalizing private industry works, just look at the USSR. Were those people living the dream of life, liberty, and were they free to pursue happiness?

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. ”— Thomas Jefferson
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


As I say I use the term "Tea Bagger" to make fun of those who are being manipulated by Right Wing Republican Forces which tried to imitate the American Revolution. It turned out to be a poor marketing move that back fired and was laughed at.

The Right Wing has noooo problem making fun of Liberals but can't take it back. Where you get all this nonsense from is ridiculous.

My orginal post is about the forces behind the Tea Baggers.

If the government nationalized the banks it would have used them to help rebuild communities, stop forclousures and rebuild the country and not for big fat bonuses for crashing the economic boat.

Nationalizing banks will not ensure that help rebuild communities any better than FEMA's done with New Orleans. Stopping foreclosures will only ensure some people hold on to homes they can't afford at the expense of others who are struggling to make ends meet. Allowing banks to fail and be reorganized stops the fat bonuses and ensures those takeover receive a warning the results of failure. Government bureaucrats wouldn't draw fat bonuses, but will ensure the type of humane operation that was the hallmark of the old Soviet Union, but without the gulags.

quote:

As I say I use the term "Tea Bagger" to make fun of those who are being manipulated by Right Wing Republican Forces which tried to imitate the American Revolution. It turned out to be a poor marketing move that back fired and was laughed at.

This statement proves me right. As for poor marketing move, it brought tons of people out to the streets to make their voices heard. I wouldn't call that a failure, no where close.

quote:

The Right Wing has noooo problem making fun of Liberals but can't take it back. Where you get all this nonsense from is ridiculous.

Quote me where I've used an offensive, graphic sexual term when referring to you or anyone. Failure to do so will prove your statement wrong.

quote:

My orginal post is about the forces behind the Tea Baggers.

Your original post has been proved wrong. You've offered no proof to back up your claims, just empty words.

[quoteIf the government nationalized the banks it would have used them to help rebuild communities, stop forclousures and rebuild the country and not for big fat bonuses for crashing the economic boat.[/quote]

Again, you are putting your trust in the government to take care of you. Like I said, Bush signed the bank bailout. If he nationalized the banks instead, then you would be looking to Bush to "rebuild communities, stop foreclosures, and rebuild the country". I'll ask you again, do you really trust Bush that much?

Like I said, we know what happens when a government nationalizes the banks. We have the USSR to look at as an example. It is a complete failure. When the free market is left alone, it works fine. When it is tampered with by the government, we have problems. It's very simple, keep the government away from private enterprises and the economy will run fine.

quote:

The Government should have let the banks fail then Nationalized them and we the people should own them and use them to help rebuild this nation and help people live the American Dream

I respect that you at least admit to wanting socialism instead of making a weak attempt at trying to explain why nationalizing banks is necessary and isn't a hallmark of socialist/communist governments. It wouldn't work either.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NashBama


quote: (Pogo)
As I say I use the term "Tea Bagger" to make fun of those who are being manipulated by Right Wing Republican Forces which tried to imitate the American Revolution. It turned out to be a poor marketing move that back fired and was laughed at.


This statement proves me right. As for poor marketing move, it brought tons of people out to the streets to make their voices heard. I wouldn't call that a failure, no where close.


quote:
The Right Wing has noooo problem making fun of Liberals but can't take it back. Where you get all this nonsense from is ridiculous.


Quote me where I've used an offensive, graphic sexual term when referring to you or anyone. Failure to do so will prove your statement wrong.


quote:
My orginal post is about the forces behind the Tea Baggers.


Your original post has been proved wrong. You've offered no proof to back up your claims, just empty words.

[quoteIf the government nationalized the banks it would have used them to help rebuild communities, stop forclousures and rebuild the country and not for big fat bonuses for crashing the economic boat.[/quote]

Again, you are putting your trust in the government to take care of you. Like I said, Bush signed the bank bailout. If he nationalized the banks instead, then you would be looking to Bush to "rebuild communities, stop foreclosures, and rebuild the country". I'll ask you again, do you really trust Bush that much?

Like I said, we know what happens when a government nationalizes the banks. We have the USSR to look at as an example. It is a complete failure. When the free market is left alone, it works fine. When it is tampered with by the government, we have problems. It's very simple, keep the government away from private enterprises and the economy will run fine.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your definition of the term "Tea Bagger" is yours and is nonsense and you are not the only "Right Winger" around. Liberals have been attacked and blamed by "Wingnuts" continually for 30 years.

If we Nationalized the banks they would serve the people and not the bankers.

We just saw what the "Free Market" can do and our grandchildren will be paying for it.

quote:

Your definition of the term "Tea Bagger" is yours and is nonsense and you are not the only "Right Winger" around. Liberals have been attacked and blamed by "Wingnuts" continually for 30 years.

Just as I said, you failed to provide a quote and therefore proved your own statement wrong. You are free to look down on people with differing views than your own, just don't claim to be tolerant.

quote:

If we Nationalized the banks they would serve the people and not the bankers.

Wrong. If we nationalized the banks, they would serve the politicians. Do you trust politicians that much?

Private banks compete for customers. If a customer is unhappy with one bank, they'll go to the competing bank. That's why I'm no longer with SunTrust. I had a choice to leave for a better deal and so I did. If all the banks were owned by the government, the people would have no choice, they would be stuck with whatever the national banks wanted to do. If someone was rejected for a loan, the would be no competing bank to go to, they would simply be out of luck.

The people are the customers. Eliminate customers and you eliminate the people's power to choose and you also eliminate competition among banks. It's a ridiculous idea. You may trust politicians to take care of you, but I don't.

quote:

We just saw what the "Free Market" can do and our grandchildren will be paying for it.

Our grandchildren are paying for socialist ideas of government interference. When the free market runs on it's own, there is no need for the government to waste tax payer money to support it.

IN 1982, Mitterand nationalized all but two of the French banks. (Two small regional banks that contributed heavy to his campaign were excluded.) Four years later they were denationalized due, in part, to rampant government corruption. The case ensured full employment for investigating magistrates for years.

"U.S. to Lose $400 Billion on Fannie, Freddie, Wallison Says

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Taxpayer losses from supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will top $400 billion, according to Peter Wallison, a former general counsel at the Treasury who is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

“The situation is they are losing gobs of money, up to $400 billion in mortgages,” Wallison said in a Bloomberg Television interview. The Treasury Department recognized last week that losses will be more than $400 billion when it raised its limit on federal support for the two government-sponsored enterprises, he said.

The U.S. seized the two mortgage financiers in 2008 as the government struggled to prevent a meltdown of the financial system. The debt of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks grew an average of $184 billion annually from 1998 to 2008, helping fuel a bubble that drove home prices up by 107 percent between 2000 and mid-2006, according to the S&P/Case- Shiller home-price index.

The Treasury said on Dec. 24 it would provide an unlimited amount of assistance to the companies as needed for the next three years to alleviate market concern that the government lifeline for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest source of money for U.S. home loans, could lapse or be exhausted.

Lax regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led to the mortgage companies taking on too many risky loans, Wallison said.

“It turns out it was impossible to regulate them,” he said. “They were too powerful.” He said no one knows how much will be needed to keep the companies solvent.

From 1990 to 1999, Wallison served on the board of directors of MGIC Investment Corp., the largest U.S. mortgage insurer, including a stint on the audit committee, according to Bloomberg data and company filings.

The continued government support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac makes buying their debt a good investment, Wallison said.

“It was always safe to buy these notes,” he said. The U.S. government was always going to stand behind them. They’re as good as Treasury notes.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...087&sid=a2Z5GnTAPcuo

Recently, they got a blank check to keep lending.

Back to the Flat Earth Theory.

Fannie and Freddie were privately owned until the Government stepped in. The housing bubble was caused by Wall Street Speculation and Banks making loans they were allowed to sell. They didn't care if people could pay because they sold the loan, not to hard to understand. I watched the whole thing happen through the progressive press while the Corporate Press was saying how wonderful it all was and praised these theives as stars.


Though I understand that people on the right are angry the Tea Party Movement is a marketing move by Right Wing forces to manipulate people and misdirect them from the real culprits. They are not much more then a joke which is why I use the term, "Tea Bagger" which I read them refered to in an article I don't know where you get your definition Nash and your indignation is as silly as the movement.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Back to the Flat Earth Theory.

Fannie and Freddie were privately owned until the Government stepped in. The housing bubble was caused by Wall Street Speculation and Banks making loans they were allowed to sell. They didn't care if people could pay because they sold the loan, not to hard to understand. I watched the whole thing happen through the progressive press while the Corporate Press was saying how wonderful it all was and praised these theives as stars.


Though I understand that people on the right are angry the Tea Party Movement is a marketing move by Right Wing forces to manipulate people and misdirect them from the real culprits. They are not much more then a joke which is why I use the term, "Tea Bagger" which I read them refered to in an article I don't know where you get your definition Nash and your indignation is as silly as the movement.

Then you of the left should no problem being referred to as a salad tosser.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Back to the Flat Earth Theory.

Fannie and Freddie were privately owned until the Government stepped in. The housing bubble was caused by Wall Street Speculation and Banks making loans they were allowed to sell. They didn't care if people could pay because they sold the loan, not to hard to understand. I watched the whole thing happen through the progressive press while the Corporate Press was saying how wonderful it all was and praised these theives as stars.


Though I understand that people on the right are angry the Tea Party Movement is a marketing move by Right Wing forces to manipulate people and misdirect them from the real culprits. They are not much more then a joke which is why I use the term, "Tea Bagger" which I read them refered to in an article I don't know where you get your definition Nash and your indignation is as silly as the movement.

In my above posts, I've shown definitively, that Fannie/Freddie participated in the speculation well before your stated times. I've shown how congress facilitated their actions to the tune of 50 percent of the market.

Now, they've been given the license to continue.

Old varmint,

You've shown no true connections of marketing of the tea parties with Fox, as claimed.

quote:

Fannie and Freddie were privately owned until the Government stepped in.

WRONG!

From www.fanniemae.com

quote:

The FHA Administrator chartered Fannie Mae on February 10, 1938.

The FHA (Federal Housing Administration) is a government, not private, agency.

From www.freddiemac.com

quote:

Freddie Mac, one of America's biggest buyers of home mortgages, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1970.

It was chartered by Congress, part of....THE GOVERNMENT!

quote:

The housing bubble was caused by Wall Street Speculation and Banks making loans they were allowed to sell.

This is fundamentally incorrect. I explained it in an earlier post, but will re-cap.

You are blaming the secondary mortgage market's existance for the housing bubble. Considering that the secondary mortgage market is far older than the housing bubble, that cannot be correct. The problem is not free enterprise; it is government subsidization of loses in free enterprise. Study the concept of a "moral hazard." Alan Greenspan caused the housing bubble, and he even admits it now. In case you haven't been following, Greenspan worked for the government, not private free enterprise businesses.

Teabaggers or nutbaggers are all sponsored by Fox News,It is worse than watching fake preachers beg for money and send you a prayer cloth.They are so one sided it is unreal.

quote:

Though I understand that people on the right are angry the Tea Party Movement is a marketing move by Right Wing forces to manipulate people and misdirect them from the real culprits. They are not much more then a joke which is why I use the term, "Tea Bagger" which I read them refered to in an article I don't know where you get your definition Nash and your indignation is as silly as the movement.

Dolemite disproved the first part of your statement, so there is no need to address that.

You've provided absolutely no proof that the Tea Party protests was created by some giant "right wing force". You've been given plenty of evidence that shows otherwise. April 15th saw a lot of Americans protesting all over the country, they're all going to vote along with the millions of others who wanted to be there, but couldn't. That's hardly a joke. Americans made it very clear that we're fed up with the over expansion of the federal government and the waste of taxpayer's money.

Read the definition of "teabagging" here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging

Several left wing journalists starting using the term as a crude and gross joke. The use of such a term when describing people who protest against government overspending proves that the "progressives" aren't a tolerant as they claim to be. It's a pretty disgusting term and if the articles you read use it, then maybe you should find new sources for information.

Fannie and Freddie were created by the government but privatized. They were re-taken control of when they were beginning to fail.

I never heard the term "Tea baggers" in a sexual reference

I will think about it's use but the right wing chose the term tea parties and I use it as a mock on the concept. Trying to recreate a movement out of history, pretty corny and that's how I use the term.

My original post lists the right wing think tanks behind the movement.

Where were these movements when Bush was running up the debt?

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
Fannie and Freddie were created by the government but privatized. They were re-taken control of when they were beginning to fail.

I never heard the term "Tea baggers" in a sexual reference

I will think about it's use but the right wing chose the term tea parties and I use it as a mock on the concept. Trying to recreate a movement out of history, pretty corny and that's how I use the term.

My original post lists the right wing think tanks behind the movement.

Where were these movements when Bush was running up the debt?

Not so fast!

"Editor's Note: This article was published in 2003.

In recent months, the nation's two largest mortgage finance lenders have come under increasing scrutiny at the hands of Congress, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac, have operated since 1968 as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This means that, although the two companies are privately owned and operated by shareholders, they are protected financially by the support of the Federal Government. These government protections include access to a line of credit through the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes and exemption from SEC oversight. A recent accounting scandal at Freddie Mac that resulted in the replacement of three of the company's top executives has led to mounting concerns over the privileged status these GSEs enjoy in the marketplace."

http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html


As to the two think tanks mentioned, one did not exist then!

"The American Solutions movement was officially launched with an opening presentation on September 27, 2007 before a standing-room only crowd at the Cobb Galleria Center in Atlanta, Georgia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...r_Winning_the_Future

Fannie and Freddie were privatized but oversight was weak. It was a Republican congress and a housing bubble which was spurring on the nation o speculation and the Free Market. The majority of bad debts were purchased lby Fannie and Freddie late in the game. They bought the repackaged bad loans.

The crash was not cause by the government as your Flat Earth Theory tries to say but by Wall Street speculation and what amounted to a Ponzi Scheme, they gave bad laons then sold them. Simple to understand.


The orginal post says nothing about one organzid force but and number of individual think tanks and allainces.

quote:

I never heard the term "Tea baggers" in a sexual reference

I will think about it's use but the right wing chose the term tea parties and I use it as a mock on the concept. Trying to recreate a movement out of history, pretty corny and that's how I use the term.

My original post lists the right wing think tanks behind the movement.

Where were these movements when Bush was running up the debt?

Yes you have, I told you repeatedly that it was a crude sexual reference. Go back and look how many times I told you that.

The term "Tea Party" comes from the Boston Tea Party, where a group threw a shipment of tea into Boston Harbor to protest the tea tax among other forms of government interference. In the same way, Americans gathered last year to protest wasteful government spending and interference.

Leftists use the crude sexual term as a way to demean and insult those protesters who were simply exercising their rights to free speech and freedom of expression. That's the textbook definition of intolerance. They only want freedom of speech if they agree with it.

If you actually looked at the links and other evidence that has been repeatedly provided to you, you would have saw that the Tea Party protests included criticisms of Bush. He signed the bank bailouts, so if we're moving towards socialism, he's the one who helped put us in that direction.

Your original post only cites the Huffington Post. That's one step below checkout line tabloids. Provide legitimate, unbiased evidence that proves your claims or retract them.

"Fannie and Freddie were privatized but oversight was weak."
One more time, as your reading comprehension is weak!

"Editor's Note: This article was published in 2003.

In recent months, the nation's two largest mortgage finance lenders have come under increasing scrutiny at the hands of Congress, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac, have operated since 1968 as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This means that, although the two companies are privately owned and operated by shareholders, they are protected financially by the support of the Federal Government. These government protections include access to a line of credit through the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes and exemption from SEC oversight. A recent accounting scandal at Freddie Mac that resulted in the replacement of three of the company's top executives has led to mounting concerns over the privileged status these GSEs enjoy in the marketplace."

http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

"It was a Republican congress and a housing bubble which was spurring on the nation o speculation and the Free Market. The majority of bad debts were purchased lby Fannie and Freddie late in the game. They bought the repackaged bad loans."

The problem started at the behest of Clinton. Frank and Dodd ensured no regulations were passed to stop Frannie/Freddie from buying the bad loans. Frank stated that there was no problem, even with an audit report staring him in the face. That's on youtube. Frannie and Freddie bought half of all the mortgages and derivatives, period. If they hadn't, the problem wouldn't be as bad.

"The orginal post says nothing about one organzid force but and number of individual think tanks and allainces."

From my original post:

As to the two think tanks mentioned, one did not exist then!

"The American Solutions movement was officially launched with an opening presentation on September 27, 2007 before a standing-room only crowd at the Cobb Galleria Center in Atlanta, Georgia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...r_Winning_the_Future

The exact words from your original post:

"The Tea Party Patriots is a coalition of tea party groups from across the nation. The major organizations behind the Tea Party Patriots are Newt Gingrich's (pictured) American Solutions for Winning the Future and Dick Armey's FreedomWorks. "

http://forums.timesdaily.com/e...27316/m/66610364/p/1

Old varmint,

Learn to review before you post. Its less embarassing for you. For your last post alone, I should sic beternu on you for the lousy grammar!

quote:

The crash was not cause by the government as your Flat Earth Theory tries to say but by Wall Street speculation and what amounted to a Ponzi Scheme, they gave bad laons then sold them. Simple to understand.

I have already disproven this in my previous posts, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel better.

To begin with I have said I fall behind in many of these posts because of friends and family and other interests so I didn't see dolemitejb's post. I have been reading Krugman for a number of years and have never seen him defend sweatshop labor so I would like to see what article these excerpts came from.

It is also a classic technique of Colonialism to support a small oligarchy to help suppress the majority of the people by repression. People still eat off garbage dumps in these countries and more countries to where Corporate Globalization has spread.

By quoting Krugman does this now mean you accept what he says? He was constantly criticizing Greenspan for claiming there was no housing Bubble and the Market would "self regulate itself." It "self regulated all right, CRASH.

And this you call this system a success.

And the poverty level was only raised a small percentage in these countries and only for a small elite, we can do better then that and do you think it is right that the American worker has to compete with sweatshop labor?

Your post is too long Nash, declining prices at the cost of jobs and sweatshop labor again is not the right way to go about things. I am sure if they reintroduce slavery prices will decline even more. Purchasing power can increase with better wages.

Only about half the population is employed by small businesses or slightly more. Corporate Globalization has been wiping out small businessess.

PS, I haven't read interventors post yet and doubt I will get to it to it tonight but will try, otherwise I will get to it tomorrow.

I have already shown dolomitejb that you are wrong.

quote:

Your post is too long Nash, declining prices at the cost of jobs and sweatshop labor again is not the right way to go about things. I am sure if they reintroduce slavery prices will decline even more. Purchasing power can increase with better wages.

Only about half the population is employed by small businesses or slightly more. Corporate Globalization has been wiping out small businessess.

PS, I haven't read interventors post yet and doubt I will get to it to it tonight but will try, otherwise I will get to it tomorrow.

Too long? You wrote more than I did. I only quoted the part addressed to me.

So, I'll keep this shorter for you. One more time, please provide real, unbiased evidence to prove your claims or retract them.

If small businesses were being eliminated by "corporate globalization", then I would be out of a job. I see new businesses start up all the time by people who used to work for larger companies. That scenario is exactly what happens in a free country and is impossible with international unions.

Besides, you constantly bring up "corporate globalization", yet you want a global union. What's the difference? Both eliminate jobs, small business, and are prone to corruption.

In your own words, "Only about half the population is employed by small businesses or slightly more." Slightly more than half would be a majority. You realize that you just agreed with my statement, right?

If you haven't read interventor's responses, then you should do that right away before posting another word. He's provided quite a bit of solid information for you.

"I didn't see dolemitejb's post. I have been reading Krugman for a number of years and have never seen him defend sweatshop labor so I would like to see what article these excerpts came from."

Here you go

"By quoting Krugman does this now mean you accept what he says?"

He's a smart guy. He gets a lot of things right. That doesn't mean he gets everything right.

Yes, and he gets somethings wrong too. THis article is from 1997 and has shown not to be true and there is a globala anti sweatshop movement that grew out of the abuse and failure.

And peoople are back living off scavanging off the garbage dumps.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nashbama

Too long? You wrote more than I did. I only quoted the part addressed to me.

So, I'll keep this shorter for you. One more time, please provide real, unbiased evidence to prove your claims or retract them.

If small businesses were being eliminated by "corporate globalization", then I would be out of a job. I see new businesses start up all the time by people who used to work for larger companies. That scenario is exactly what happens in a free country and is impossible with international unions.

Besides, you constantly bring up "corporate globalization", yet you want a global union. What's the difference? Both eliminate jobs, small business, and are prone to corruption.

In your own words, "Only about half the population is employed by small businesses or slightly more." Slightly more than half would be a majority. You realize that you just agreed with my statement, right?

If you haven't read interventor's responses, then you should do that right away before posting another word. He's provided quite a bit of solid information for you.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

I said about half or slightly more, not much of a majority like you made it sound.

Right now I am tired of going over your "Flat Earth Theory." Too many other issues right now but we can return at another time

I have been following this since they repealed the Glass-Seagal Act and allowed banks to sell off their mortgages. Clinton signed the bill, a Corporate Democrat but it was was lobbied by Phil Ghramn and passed by a Republican and Corporate Democratic Congress.

I watched a housing bubble arise through Wall Street Speculation as they gave out bad loan and packaged them and sold them, all the while Greenspan denying any housing bubble and saying the market will correct it self, well, it did, it CRASHED!!.

The Left Press was following it and said this would happen and it did.

Your double talk is like stepping on chewing gum. Very tiresome.

quote:

I said about half or slightly more, not much of a majority like you made it sound.

I simply said "majority". More than half of something is a majority. Basic math there.

quote:

Right now I am tired of going over your "Flat Earth Theory." Too many other issues right now but we can return at another time

No, I would rather you address the issue directly by providing real evidence to back your claims. If you are unable to do this, please retract them.

quote:

I have been following this since they repealed the Glass-Seagal Act and allowed banks to sell off their mortgages. Clinton signed the bill, a Corporate Democrat but it was was lobbied by Phil Ghramn and passed by a Republican and Corporate Democratic Congress.

I watched a housing bubble arise through Wall Street Speculation as they gave out bad loan and packaged them and sold them, all the while Greenspan denying any housing bubble and saying the market will correct it self, well, it did, it CRASHED!!.

The Left Press was following it and said this would happen and it did.

Your double talk is like stepping on chewing gum. Very tiresome.

You've changed the subject. I'm talking about small businesses, now you've tried to switch it to the housing crisis, which is about over.

Did you read all the evidence that Interventor provided that proves your claims wrong?

Pogo,

Here's more.

Thomas DiLorenzo Article

quote:

That the anti-factory movement has always been motivated by either the socialists’ desire to destroy industrial civilization, or by the inherently non-competitive nature of organized labor, is further evidenced by the fact that there was never an "anti-sweat-farm movement." Farm labor is still as rigorous as any physical labor, as it was 150 years ago. Indeed, in the early days of the industrial revolution – and in Third World countries today – one reason why families had so many more children than they do in wealthier countries today is that they were viewed as potential farm hands.

Abraham Lincoln had less than one year of formal education because his parents, like most others on the early nineteenth-century American frontier, needed him as a farm hand. But since agriculture was not considered to be a form of capitalism, and did not pose any real threat to unionized labor, there was never any significant social protest over it.

quote:

In a forthcoming article in the Journal of Labor Research Ben Powell and David Skarbek present the results of a survey of "sweatshops" in eleven Third World countries. In nine of the eleven countries, "sweatshop" wages in foreign factories located there were higher than the average. In Honduras, where almost half the working population lives on $2/day, "sweatshops" pay $13.10/day.

How dare they increase wages more than 6 times the national average - those evil multi-nationalists.

quote:

Capital investment in poor countries will cause wages to rise over time by increasing the marginal productivity of labor. This is what has occurred since the dawn of the industrial revolution and it is occurring today all around the world. Discouraging such investment, which is the objective of the anti-sweatshop movement, will do the opposite and cause wages to stagnate.

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
Huff'n Puff Post is a news aggregation site. They have a couple of journalists, plus a crew that cut'n pastes articles from various news website. About par for a social climbing golddigger.

You mean, like some of the conservative news websites do? Could it be that if it isn't from fox news service, its not true news?

quote:

Originally posted by Nobluedog:

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
Huff'n Puff Post is a news aggregation site. They have a couple of journalists, plus a crew that cut'n pastes articles from various news website. About par for a social climbing golddigger.

You mean, like some of the conservative news websites do? Could it be that if it isn't from fox news service, its not true news?

Fox is a full service news organization, like CNN and MSNBC, but with an actual audience. National Review is conservative and uses a full staff. Others, like Malkin use few people, but don't try to hide it.

The Greek gold digger, OTOH, pretends to be a full service cybermag.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Nashbama

You've changed the subject. I'm talking about small businesses, now you've tried to switch it to the housing crisis, which is about over.

Did you read all the evidence that Interventor provided that proves your claims wrong?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Actually we were talking about the Tea Party Protests but we always wind up off subject.

I have begun to ignore most of interventor's stuff because it's generally long winded nonsense loaded with stupid buzz words aimed at getting us off the subject. As I say I have been following this for a number of years as the left said this would happen with the repeal of the Glass - Segal Act under Clinton. I watched Wall Street cook the books with off shore accounts and help drive up the housing bubble through speculation while just shuffling money around on specualtions and banks gave out risky loans, repackage them and sell them. The crash was inevitable.

Meanwhile Bush, Greenspan, the Corporate Media and Conservatives praised the whole thing as the "wonderfulness" (Borrowing a phrase from Bill Cosby) of Capitalism.

Then of course came the CRASH!!! and now we have long winded excuses on how it didn't really happen. It's all the democrats fault.

Socialists always led the way to protect peoples labor and civil rights as well as small businesses.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

inteventor


Fox is a full service news organization, like CNN and MSNBC, but with an actual audience. National Review is conservative and uses a full staff. Others, like Malkin use few people, but don't try to hide it.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


All TV news outlets have lost viewers because people are turning to the net for more accurate and a greater range and quality of information. Except of course FOX who's views who have a hard time reading big words. As a frined of mind says, "Simple answers for simple minds." We are talking only about a few million people who now rely on TV news for information.

quote:

I have begun to ignore most of interventor's stuff because it's generally long winded nonsense loaded with stupid buzz words aimed at getting us off the subject. As I say I have been following this for a number of years as the left said this would happen with the repeal of the Glass - Segal Act under Clinton. I watched Wall Street cook the books with off shore accounts and help drive up the housing bubble through speculation while just shuffling money around on specualtions and banks gave out risky loans, repackage them and sell them. The crash was inevitable.

His posts are usually shorter than yours and contains links to authentic sources.

In other words, he disproves your claims with evidence but you don't want to see any of it. I encourage you to start looking at what he gives you. If you disagree with it, prove him wrong with real evidence. So far all I've seen you do is repeat yourself, that's not proof.

quote:

Socialists always led the way to protect peoples labor and civil rights as well as small businesses.

A propaganda slogan if I ever heard one.

Socialism doesn't work. Just look the history of socialist countries. Almost all of them are gone. You're going to say that it works in Europe, but you've never been there. You've been given tons of actual evidence by Interventor, who has lived in Europe, that proves it's not working there either.

Open your eyes man, you're not seeing the real world.

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

inteventor


Fox is a full service news organization, like CNN and MSNBC, but with an actual audience. National Review is conservative and uses a full staff. Others, like Malkin use few people, but don't try to hide it.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


All TV news outlets have lost viewers because people are turning to the net for more accurate and a greater range and quality of information. Except of course FOX who's views who have a hard time reading big words. As a frined of mind says, "Simple answers for simple minds." We are talking only about a few million people who now rely on TV news for information.

You didn't address my accusations concerning Huffinton Post, nor provide examples for your statements on conservative websites. Just, more obfuscation. Were you alone when the friend made the statement?

quote:

Originally posted by Pogo142:
_______________________________________________________________________________

inteventor


Fox is a full service news organization, like CNN and MSNBC, but with an actual audience. National Review is conservative and uses a full staff. Others, like Malkin use few people, but don't try to hide it.

___________________________________________________________________________________


All TV news outlets have lost viewers because people are turning to the net for more accurate and a greater range and quality of information. Except of course FOX who's views who have a hard time reading big words. As a frined of mind says, "Simple answers for simple minds." We are talking only about a few million people who now rely on TV news for information.

You didn't address my accusations concerning Huffinton Post, nor provide examples for your statements on conservative websites. Just, more obfuscation. Were you alone when the friend made the statement?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Pogo)
Socialists always led the way to protect peoples labor and civil rights as well as small businesses.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A propaganda slogan if I ever heard one.

Socialism doesn't work. Just look the history of socialist countries. Almost all of them are gone. You're going to say that it works in Europe, but you've never been there. You've been given tons of actual evidence by Interventor, who has lived in Europe, that proves it's not working there either.

Open your eyes man, you're not seeing the real world.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOL A Brianwashed reply if I ever heard one. You don't know the history of the Socialist Party, only what the Corporate Media want you to know. Do some independent reading and learn for youself.

As I say, I work in a small business and we deal in importing. I have met people from around the world, including Europe. We have employes go to Europe. I hear great reports, your dire reports are laughed at by those in the know.

I am all for international trade but not at the expense of sweatshop labor and the American worker. Unlike dolemitejb I care about the American worker as well as workers around the world. I enjoy meeting and becoming friends with people from Europe, India, China, Pakestan, Egypt and other countries.

Wake up Nash, there is a world out there!