Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Shortline Bus

Is the Economic System in the US a Failure?

Recommended Posts

Guys feel free to continue this topic that was started in the Hurricane Sandy thread.

 

Here Joe aka Phantom's take on it.

 

martin luther king was not a socialist, he was a republican, dubois was a socialist, and rosa parks may have attended some communist meetings didnt make her a communist even though she worked for years with liberal john conyers who has helped keep detroit and michigan down

 

explain to me how conservatives keep minorities down, when you look and see how the unemployment numbers in states with republicans in power are lower than ones with democrats in power

 

capitalism has given everyone in this country a better standard of living that 95% of the other 7 billion people on this planet. Explain why people risk life and limb trying to get here, legally and illegally, i dont see people jumping over the borders or trying to immigrate into cuba, north korea, venezuela etc etc etc.

 

wall streeters dont have physically demanding jobs, but neither do your liberal\socialist professors who fill your brain with a socialist utopia, or the liberal racists like al sharpton, toure, and reverend wright just to name a few dont have physically demanding jobs either, yet they reap the benefits of capitalism as they rail against it. but you liberals never protest against them.

 

the only way to true economic equality is for everyone to have a good job, companies are afraid to hire because of all the regulations (80,000 pages under obama alone) and the 21 new taxes coming the next 2 years. Yes some people get uber rich, thats the dream of everyone, yet all you libs want more and more from everyone who works and pays taxes, but its never enough for you. Liberalism\socialism kills jobs, capitalism , when its allowed to work creates jobs, thats the history of economics, its not perfect, but its the only one that gives everyone a good standard of living compared to the rest of the world

 

joe

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it is indeed a total and complete failure.

 

 

OK. Someone like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Oprah may disagree lol. Can you explain it why please Mr. Charger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or Jay-Z for that matter, that guy came with nothing.

 

As I said before in the other theard, I think both Capitalism and Socialism have it's good and bad but they work great together in trying to give opportunities to businesses and poor so the can become greater but at the same time give good working condition and better pay by regulation and government subsidy for small business and people that want a roof over there head, so for those who say the want smaller government there being ignorant since most senor citizen and people with disability rely on social security and most buildings in this city were built by government subsidys

Edited by MTARegional Bus
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is this. Our economic system will never be able to satisify the entire population of the United States. When (not if) changes are made, there will always be a percentage of the population saying how they're being screwed over.

 

Anyway, in my opinion, the current system is fair, and in favor of the majority to both sides of the disscussion.

 

Lastly, I will say to the purists out there, we are not anywhere near 100% socialist. Likewise, we are not anywhere near 100% capitalist. In fact, I would say that capitalism is leading the economy in roughly a 70/20 split.

Edited by Turbo19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as ive said many times before, capitalism, though not perfect because no system that humans can create is imperfect, has given everybody in this country a better standard of living than 95 pct of every other person on the planet. thats indisputable. the ones who push for socialism or any other big government controlled economy cannot cite one example of success that can measure up to the wealth and standard of living that capitalism has created here. if socialism, communism, fascism or the other myriad of isms out there worked, why arent people trying to emigrate there?

 

joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you prefer a economy unregulated?

 

 

not totally unregulated some regulations are necessary, but a lot arent. everybody has blamed wall street practices for the financial crisis, but how come nobody has ever been arrested? Simple reason is they broke NO laws. the banking system is already highly regulated, the 2 biggest mistakes that were the cause of the meltdown was the 1999 repeal of the 1933 glass-steagall act, and the 1977 community re-investment act. when the federal government gets involved in forcing commerce, thats when things get out of control

 

joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not totally unregulated some regulations are necessary, but a lot arent. everybody has blamed wall street practices for the financial crisis, but how come nobody has ever been arrested? Simple reason is they broke NO laws. the banking system is already highly regulated, the 2 biggest mistakes that were the cause of the meltdown was the 1999 repeal of the 1933 glass-steagall act, and the 1977 community re-investment act. when the federal government gets involved in forcing commerce, thats when things get out of control

 

joe

 

 

While not directly to Wall St no major "CEOS" have been arrestred did we not forgot *cough cough* Mr. Madoff and others for maybe the biggest ponzi scheme in world history. And several others for insider trading as well. They been some majot white collar criminals Joe since the mega recession started in '07.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it highly regulated then how come banks get out loans to people that couldn't afford it?.

 

 

because the community re-investment act was enacted as a result of carter making a visit to charlotte street in the south bronx in 1977. that block at the time was basically burned out, abandoned buildings, and empty lots. carter vowed to rebuild the neighborhood, banks were reluctant to give risky loans to people who might not be able to pay them back. carter put pressure on the banks by not allowing banks to open new branches, so banks took the risks because the losses would be offset by profits from newer branches,

 

under reagen and bush 41 those tactics were not used.

 

under clinton in 1995 clinton with the urging of his HUD secretary henry cisneros, made a goal of having 8 million new homeowners by 2000, so he used janet reno his attorney general to use the same tactics that carter did. banks were worried about the amount of risky loans they were carrying, they were complaining that they couldnt take on anymore. clinton`s second HUD secretary, andrew cuomo (present day NY governor) glass-steagall was repealed and replaced by the gramm-leach-bliley act of 1999 which allowed investment banks and insurance companies to buy these toxic sub-prime mortgages to lessen the risks of the banks.

 

bush 43 also wanted to add to this fiasco by wanting to add 5.5 million more home owners, in 2005 john mccain went to congress and warned hat these practices were dangerous but was rejected by the house and senate banking committees.

 

sub-prime mortgages work great as long as the value of your home keeps increasing, you just re-finance every couple of years, but in 2007 with more houses on the market that were being sold, the value of houses dropped nationwide. when the holders of these sub-prime mortgages balloon payments were to kick in, when they went to re finance, they found that the value of their homes werent enough to get a new mortgage to pay off the one they had. they foreclosed and thats how the financial crisis happened

 

the point i made before, the federal government forced banks and citizens into commerce that was against, basic economic protocols. thats why as much as obama said that obamacare was constitutional under the commerce clause of the constitution, he was 1000% wrong and the supreme court ruled that way, remember it was ruled constitutional as a tax , which obama still says its not a tax, but ive discussed that beore

 

 

 

While not directly to Wall St no major "CEOS" have been arrestred did we not forgot *cough cough* Mr. Madoff and others for maybe the biggest ponzi scheme in world history. And several others for insider trading as well. They been some majot white collar criminals Joe since the mega recession started in '07.

 

 

madoff`s ponzi scheme did not cause the financial collapse, it was a casualty of it

 

joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ, now we're officially sanctioning these nonsense posts and giving them their own topics?

 

De-regulation doesn't work, it never has, it never will, and we're crawling out a recession as a result of it. Socialism is not by any definition of the word "evil." Liberal ideologies do not "kill jobs." Martin Luther King was not a Republican -- this has been proven time and time again. These are what we call facts, they're helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Luther King was not a Republican -- this has been proven time and time again. These are what we call facts, they're helpful.

 

 

Keep in the mind being a republican at that time in the 50s was like being a democrat today, democrats rejected the civil right act and rejected freeing black slaves,Ronald Reagan himself was once a Democrat believe it or not, his catchphrase was''I did not leave the democratic party the party left me''this was before the political shift change in the 60s and 70s.

Edited by MTARegional Bus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just as important to note the regions that voted for it. Basically most Northern politicians of any party were heavily in favor, while most Southern politicians were not. Ans then, of course as I've said before in other threads, the Southern Democrats joined what is today now the Republican party.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Vote totals

 

Totals are in "YeaNay" format:

  • The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
  • Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
  • The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
  • The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).

 

[edit]By party

 

The original House version:[16]

  • Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
  • Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

 

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

  • Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
  • Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

 

The Senate version:[16]

  • Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
  • Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

 

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

  • Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
  • Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

 

By party and region

 

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

  • Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

 

  • Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

 

The Senate version:

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was definitely a shift of the teams and you're right, southern Democrats back then weren't in line with the Democrats of today nor were the Republicans in line with today. But saying MLK was a Republican is blatantly wrong: he never supported the Republican party back then in the first place, and his own family (along with anybody who knows anything about him) finds it "outrageous" to say that he'd support the Republicans of today. That claim is just plain wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.