Has socialism already failed in Anerica

Nope. The banking collapse was started when Republican Gramm passed a law in a late-night lame-duck session to change banking laws. It permitted banks to use depositors money and slashed banking reserves to they had almost no money to back up bad loans. Then banks sold investment papers that were backed by mortgages. Bankers were making billions. The banks directed their lenders to drop mortgage requirements because they needed vast amounts of mortgages to fill out more investments. They kept dropping requirements over and over until they were essentially gone. Banks had no liabilities because they chopped up the mortgages and sold them off immediately. It was a crime of capitalism, greed and a lack of regulation. No socialism was involved.
I could point out the rating agencies were bought off by bankers and overpowered to approve anything banks threw at them. Also not socialism. It is the old partners capitalists and corruption showing why we need lots of serious regulation.
Regulation works for the people. When repubs buy that regulation is bad, they are for corporations and bankers doing what they want. They will loot you. They always have and always will.
 
Gonzomin said:
Nope. The banking collapse was started when Republican Gramm passed a law in a late-night lame-duck session to change banking laws. It permitted banks to use depositors money and slashed banking reserves to they had almost no money to back up bad loans. Then banks sold investment papers that were backed by mortgages. Bankers were making billions. The banks directed their lenders to drop mortgage requirements because they needed vast amounts of mortgages to fill out more investments. They kept dropping requirements over and over until they were essentially gone. Banks had no liabilities because they chopped up the mortgages and sold them off immediately. It was a crime of capitalism, greed and a lack of regulation. No socialism was involved.
I could point out the rating agencies were bought off by bankers and overpowered to approve anything banks threw at them. Also not socialism. It is the old partners capitalists and corruption showing why we need lots of serious regulation.
Regulation works for the people. When repubs buy that regulation is bad, they are for corporations and bankers doing what they want. They will loot you. They always have and always will.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside that it is false that this legislation caused the banking collapse why were folks in the Clinton Administration pushing for this legislation and why did Bill Clinton sign this legislation if it was so bad/evil?
 
Gonzomin said:
Nope. The banking collapse was started when Republican Gramm passed a law in a late-night lame-duck session to change banking laws. It permitted banks to use depositors money and slashed banking reserves to they had almost no money to back up bad loans. Then banks sold investment papers that were backed by mortgages. Bankers were making billions. The banks directed their lenders to drop mortgage requirements because they needed vast amounts of mortgages to fill out more investments. They kept dropping requirements over and over until they were essentially gone. Banks had no liabilities because they chopped up the mortgages and sold them off immediately. It was a crime of capitalism, greed and a lack of regulation. No socialism was involved.
I could point out the rating agencies were bought off by bankers and overpowered to approve anything banks threw at them. Also not socialism. It is the old partners capitalists and corruption showing why we need lots of serious regulation.
Regulation works for the people. When repubs buy that regulation is bad, they are for corporations and bankers doing what they want. They will loot you. They always have and always will.
Click to expand...

If bankers were doing all this voluntarily, why did lawyers like Obama sue banks to require them to do it more often?.....
 
cawacko said:
Leaving aside that it is false that this legislation caused the banking collapse why were folks in the Clinton Administration pushing for this legislation and why did Bill Clinton sign this legislation if it was so bad/evil?
Click to expand...

Leaving aside that you are wrong. It was a Republican bill. They had the votes. I remember when it was pushed through Sen, Durbin announced that they fought all night trying to get concessions, but the bill put the American system in jeopardy. There were a couple of other Denms saying the same thing. No Repubs. Your lack of knowledge about the banking crisis is noted. It was signed by Clinton on the way out of office. It was not his bill. It was Gramm and Blileys. Gramms wife was an Enron exec. Phil had tried to get such a bill passed many times.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
If bankers were doing all this voluntarily, why did lawyers like Obama sue banks to require them to do it more often?.....
Click to expand...

Same old ignorance. You never disappoint. Obama had nothing to do with the crash. It started during Bush and the Repubs deregulation. It was crashing before Obama got in office.
 
Gonzomin said:
Same old ignorance. You never disappoint. Obama had nothing to do with the crash. It started during Bush and the Repubs deregulation. It was crashing before Obama got in office.
Click to expand...

In his own words, this was the first successful thing he ever did.
 
How can socialism fail when it's not implemented? If things are failing here it's our non-socialism system.
 
Celticguy said:
Read the article if youre interested.
Click to expand...

"How many nations have already embraced socialism’s promise of paradise but instead experienced the effects of socialism’s disastrous reality?"

Oh, so it's Marxism. No, Marxism did not fail in America because it was never tried here.
 
Gonzomin said:
Same old ignorance. You never disappoint. Obama had nothing to do with the crash. It started during Bush and the Repubs deregulation. It was crashing before Obama got in office.
Click to expand...

were you not aware that before Obama became a senator he sued CitiBank and got a settlement requiring them to issue sub par mortgages.....
 
Hello Celticguy,

Celticguy said:
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/453913-has-socialism-already-failed-in-the-united-states

An interesting read.
Click to expand...

"Isn’t this a clear example in recent memory that affected us all of socialism’s promise of paradise but instead delivered socialism’s disastrous reality?"

No. It is a contrived example of it which does not look at capitalism's roll. Government did not tell Wall Street to create 'credit default swaps' to package these risky loans as ultra low risk investments.

This is just another repackaging of the old myth that Wall Street bears no blame in The Great Recession. It is an attempt to rewrite history.
 
Gonzomin said:
Nope. The banking collapse was started when Republican Gramm passed a law in a late-night lame-duck session to change banking laws. It permitted banks to use depositors money and slashed banking reserves to they had almost no money to back up bad loans. Then banks sold investment papers that were backed by mortgages. Bankers were making billions. The banks directed their lenders to drop mortgage requirements because they needed vast amounts of mortgages to fill out more investments. They kept dropping requirements over and over until they were essentially gone. Banks had no liabilities because they chopped up the mortgages and sold them off immediately. It was a crime of capitalism, greed and a lack of regulation. No socialism was involved.
I could point out the rating agencies were bought off by bankers and overpowered to approve anything banks threw at them. Also not socialism. It is the old partners capitalists and corruption showing why we need lots of serious regulation.
Regulation works for the people. When repubs buy that regulation is bad, they are for corporations and bankers doing what they want. They will loot you. They always have and always will.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, those nations with socialist banking and financial institutions have loads of regulations and have the same kinds of abuses, corruption, and poor financial dealings as the U. S.

Greed is greed whether a person is working for a private or governmental financial institution. Why do people think a person not greedy because he works for a socialist institution?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Celticguy,



"Isn’t this a clear example in recent memory that affected us all of socialism’s promise of paradise but instead delivered socialism’s disastrous reality?"

No. It is a contrived example of it which does not look at capitalism's roll. Government did not tell Wall Street to create 'credit default swaps' to package these risky loans as ultra low risk investments.

This is just another repackaging of the old myth that Wall Street bears no blame in The Great Recession. It is an attempt to rewrite history.
Click to expand...

Yes, it did. You write regulation such that they have choice but to find a means.
 
Gonzomin said:
Leaving aside that you are wrong. It was a Republican bill. They had the votes. I remember when it was pushed through Sen, Durbin announced that they fought all night trying to get concessions, but the bill put the American system in jeopardy. There were a couple of other Denms saying the same thing. No Repubs. Your lack of knowledge about the banking crisis is noted. It was signed by Clinton on the way out of office. It was not his bill. It was Gramm and Blileys. Gramms wife was an Enron exec. Phil had tried to get such a bill passed many times.
Click to expand...

This is some very interesting revisionist history. Someone needs to go back read the votes for when this bill passed. The final bill passed the House 362-57 and the Senate 90-8. Hard to get much more bi-partisan than that.

Bill Clinton signed the bill on Nov 12, 1999. He left office Jan 20, 2001. So basically he signed it over a year before he left office. That isn't signing something on the way out of office.

These are just simple facts.
 
cawacko said:
This is some very interesting revisionist history. Someone needs to go back read the votes for when this bill passed. The final bill passed the House 362-57 and the Senate 90-8. Hard to get much more bi-partisan than that.

Bill Clinton signed the bill on Nov 12, 1999. He left office Jan 20, 2001. So basically he signed it over a year before he left office. That isn't signing something on the way out of office.

These are just simple facts.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Gramm tried to get the bill through many times and the Dems voted it down. This time Gramm had the votes. Many of the Dems gave up their votes, since they were going to lose anyway, to wring concession out. They obviously did not get enough. The final numbers do not tell the story, nor the battles. .The vote finalized at something like 3 in the AM. It was the Dems who talked to reporters afterward talking about what a dangerous bill they just passed. You have no understanding of how politics works.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top