Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dr Carson, right or wrong?

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
February 16, 2013 1:00:04 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/15/why-dr-ben-ca...

These are things Ive read for a long time, these responsibilities, and was taught and raised by.
We need to quit kicking our strengths, and start re indorsing them, tho not to leave others behind

More about : carson wrong

February 16, 2013 8:02:50 AM

Dr. Carson is right. However, I disagree with some of Juan Williams' comments.
February 21, 2013 10:54:18 AM

jsc said:
Dr. Carson is right. However, I disagree with some of Juan Williams' comments.


That is the same impression I got. Dr. Carson had the guts to stand up to the president as an individual and tell him his policies are flawed. The last person who did that was Joe the Plumber and the Obama campaign had him harassed afterwards. Furthermore Dr. Carson made some very good suggestions for how to fix the problems and they got publicized to some degree. I didn't particularly care for Juan Williams' race and class comments. I applaud the physician for his guts in standing up to the president; he could be green and from Neptune and it wouldn't matter.
Related resources
February 21, 2013 12:33:30 PM

He's got some balls but the comments about how you have to be conservative to work hard are just ignorant. I pay my student loans and bills just like everyone else. I put in extra time at work to get that promotion over the other person. Worked two jobs when i was just out of college and couldn't get a job. Does that make me conservative? Nope.
February 21, 2013 12:46:51 PM

Dr. Carson is the latest in a long and distinguished line of black conservatives like Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, Shelby Steele, and Angela McGlowan. I have a great respect the black conservative point of view as it brings a level of diversity that makes most liberals and progressives squirm in their seats.

The fact that Juan Williams makes it a point to let the reader know Dr. Carson is black is insulting. It was almost as if to say that Dr. Carson was some great revelation being toted by conservatives because another black man had the audacity to criticize President Obama. But this form of political correctness should be no surprise as liberals and progressives fly into a tail spin when someone who happens to be black goes against their narrative and world view.

I am also not surprised that Juan Williams opposes a flat tax and medical savings accounts. I personally am on the fence about MSA's as I would need to hear the details but I am for a flat national income tax. I just have to laugh at Juan Williams's statement, "His idea for a ten percent “flat tax”...would ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay considerably less in taxes while the poor and working class would pay considerably more in taxes." The idea that the wealthiest would pay less ignores that there would be no tax deductions or legal loopholes under a flat tax plan. With less loopholes and no deductions it stands to reason the wealthiest would end up paying more and have less incentive to hide their wealth in offshore accounts or create failed businesses to offset their income. As far as the lower income families paying more, Juan is right, they would pay more. But when 47% of total tax payers has zero federal tax liability and they are require to start living the President's mantra of "everyone paying their fair share" of course they will pay more than they are now, but the upside will be a less of a tax burden on the middle class and they will finally have "skin in the game". The liberal and progressive opposition to a flat national income tax only reinforces he corruption and punitive nature of out current progressive tax code.
February 21, 2013 1:09:39 PM

Oh the 47% percent again..... You know if Romney were smart enough to drop it maybe you should follow suit.

1/5 of the 47% are elderly, Are in a combat zone, are in college, are a business (They are people too my friend) make an obscene amount of money, and the working poor that still pay payroll taxes (12% or some such) or my favorite part is this little gem:

Quote:
Nearly 5 million taxpayers will be off the rolls as a result of the tax relief this year.


Thats from Bush in 2004, seems like a real dick move to blame the 47% while not even 10 years ago removing 5 million people from that tax obligation.... and bragging about it.
February 21, 2013 1:25:37 PM

Thats from Bush in 2004, seems like a real dick move to blame the 47% while not even 10 years ago removing 5 million people from that tax obligation.... and bragging about it.


Yeah how fair is that?
wait a minute.....
February 21, 2013 1:34:28 PM

wanamingo said:
Oh the 47% percent again..... You know if Romney were smart enough to drop it maybe you should follow suit.

1/5 of the 47% are elderly, Are in a combat zone, are in college, are a business (They are people too my friend) make an obscene amount of money, and the working poor that still pay payroll taxes (12% or some such) or my favorite part is this little gem:

Quote:
Nearly 5 million taxpayers will be off the rolls as a result of the tax relief this year.


Thats from Bush in 2004, seems like a real dick move to blame the 47% while not even 10 years ago removing 5 million people from that tax obligation.... and bragging about it.
Blah, blah, blah...typical response when a conservative brings up how corrupt and punitive the current tax code is.

Please note that I said nothing about payroll taxes, state taxes, or other such taxes; I specified federal taxes. Also note that I said of the "total tax payers" and not the 47% of the total population as is the popular liberal narrative to skew the debate on how corrupt an punitive the tax code is.

Lastly, read this from PolitiFact...51 percent of American households pay no income tax. Be sure to not ignore that PolitiFact gave it a "true" rating.

Actually mingo, I'm rather disappointed that you chose to rant on me about my opinion on Dr. Carson's take on the flat tax rather contribute something constructive and meaningful related to the intent and purpose of this post. So, how about it, got any comments on the Juan Williams article or Dr. Carson's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast?
February 22, 2013 12:47:48 AM

johnsonma said:
He's got some balls but the comments about how you have to be conservative to work hard are just ignorant. I pay my student loans and bills just like everyone else. I put in extra time at work to get that promotion over the other person. Worked two jobs when i was just out of college and couldn't get a job. Does that make me conservative? Nope.
It is not what you know it is who you know today.You deserve a break like everyone out there.Unfortunately it did not come yet.
February 22, 2013 11:21:49 AM

Dr. Carson seems like an interesting fellow but Im with Johnson on this one, there is no need to attach political ideology to work ethic.

There are a lot of negatives to a flat tax plan...let the discussion begin. Im down for a modified flat tax, businesses need to be taxed at a different rate than your average joe (Sorry corporations you arent peoples), there should be a minimum poverty line at which people pay no federal tax is paid. You will undoubtedly shift more of a tax burden to the lower and middle classes which is going to hurt our economy because for some reason conservatives dont understand who is buying all of these American widgets .....

If Romney Mr. Moneybags has 500x the money (Im shooting really low here) as me, does he also have 500x more buying power? Is he going to buy 500x more big screen tvs or cars? Nope.... He will buy slightly more than a handful of families and then send his money off to another country to dodge our taxes. If he wants to make more money he would make sure his employees have as much money as possible to buy American goods.
February 22, 2013 11:57:37 AM

Thats simply not realistic.
As the libs attacked his previous ventures, those ventures were?
Investments.
What exactly do these do?
They keep our monies safe, and dont require the government to pick and choose, and lose.
They buy higher valued product, so, the people building yachts, Titans (same folks building all other nVidia product), cars (same folks building Chrysler/GM/Ford etc), guess this doesnt count?
None of it?
So, it just sits in the banks, overseas, or anywheres else and somehow accumulates monies?
Those monies, even if not used directly for investments create investments for others, including you and I.
So, flat tax, would have to do in depth on, havnt really bothered, as I think it will never happen.
The lowest end folk, they obviously need the breaks we can afford them, we are already strangling business here, as many corporations have moved overseas, as has their HQs, and some who left their original countries have left here and went back as well, proof we arent competitive, even for our own businesses here, where we all work.

The demands of Obamacare are only going up, as Ive been saying they would for over a year now, and which many have just ignored, and they will continue to, as well as our taxes, which also will continue to, yet its all about somehow getting more money instead of spending less, and spending wiser.
We were told that having tons of money thrown at schooling would help us, it hasnt, as weve fallen further world wide, we were also told, after throwing tons of money, that social programs would lift people out of poverty, it hasnt, and this attitude hasnt changed, yet some only give this guy a pass, when hes been there n done that.
He was poor, he wasnt looked at easier because of his color of his skin, yet somehow, hes just OK?
Yet we have similar people/leaders getting all the attention, power, recognition etc, as their children gain elected official status and become even greater, known crooks.

Yet, hes just OK?

Dont care for Al, nor Jesse either, but this man, I would like to know, and bridge the gap with, and not to feel better either, but because I would not only be honored to do so, but because I know I could learn alot from him, as we all could, if he was just more than OK that is
February 22, 2013 3:14:01 PM

Applying the same tax code (Flat tax) to corporations as you would a person doesnt make sense.

Remember there is no such thing as corporate social responsibility. They are designed to make money. Period. Would a corporation make their products cheaper if they had to pay less taxes? Nope their shareholders and management would see the money, not the consumer or hourly employee.
February 22, 2013 3:31:58 PM

Business thrives and survives on competition, nothing else, and is why we have monopoly laws, so they dont do what youre implying mingo.
Now, since at least the government recognizes this, explain why these companies leave here? Yet they still sell their product here?
Isnt this in itself job loss? Revenue loss?

So, lowering taxes still leaves competition in place here, but also gives our local/national businesses an edge, and also attracts other businesses from elsewheres, which brings more commerce, manufacturing, jobs, revenues etc etc.
All Im saying is, we arent very competitive world wide currently with our tax structures the way they are
February 22, 2013 6:06:56 PM

How are we not competitive? Given all the loopholes in our corporate tax code we are below the world wide average. In fact if you compare corporate taxes as a fraction of GDP we are one of the lowest countries on the planet.
February 22, 2013 6:41:51 PM

Better to just look at imports vs exports?
GDP means alot of things, and the corporate situation in this country isnt all business in this country.
Compare our exports to other top tier countries, then lets talk
February 22, 2013 6:44:21 PM

Besides, just look at a liberal talking point, the military.
How much actually goes overseas compared to our R&D, usage of actual product?
That right there I would guess is a large part of GDP and very little exports, which tilts the numbers even further

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


Our exports far exceed our imports here, and yet it is the single largest part of the gdp that actually makes things, period.
And those other countries GDPs?
You can bet theyre buying our military goods, adding again, huge sums to our exports, and adding huge sums to their imports.
February 22, 2013 6:52:47 PM

If people arbitrarily throw numbers around, you can bet they mean something.
Follow the trail, then make sense to what you know.
GE makes alot of military product, yet theyve paid no taxes.
February 22, 2013 7:01:16 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Better to just look at imports vs exports?
GDP means alot of things, and the corporate situation in this country isnt all business in this country.
Compare our exports to other top tier countries, then lets talk


Our total exports are worth more than the entire GDP of Norway and Sweden combined. Our exports have continually grown and are projected to in the near future as well. We had the 2nd most exports of any country in 2012.
February 22, 2013 7:14:07 PM

Our military spending is greater than the top umpteen combined.
Looking at my link, those countries (the top 15 listed) with higher GPD to military spending than us buy from us, or, we export our goods to them.
Many on that list buy from us.

My point here is, if you just throw out a number without breaking it down, then also not even try to understand why we do what we do, as far as taxation goes, and come to a complete political answer without doing the above, you cant have any of the answers to start with.
It takes a long look and understanding of where the monies come from, what they do, and how they fit in order of importance to us, or value to us, tho not always, but mostly so, and this is how many corporations are taxed.
This is a simple way of showing why investments are often tax break scenarios, and should be.
The strength of our military, as well as our allies are of great importance to us.
Look at my link, and notice that many of the "better" Arab countries military spending compared to their GDPs are extremely high, higher than ours, and its us who are selling them their military goods.
February 23, 2013 12:50:27 AM

johnsonma said:
How are we not competitive? Given all the loopholes in our corporate tax code we are below the world wide average. In fact if you compare corporate taxes as a fraction of GDP we are one of the lowest countries on the planet.
So why are we always struggling with our economy?
February 23, 2013 1:05:11 AM

musical marv said:
So why are we always struggling with our economy?


Regulations.
February 25, 2013 1:10:50 PM

^ I would like to add failed stimulus packages, failed economic policy, and failed energy policy.
February 25, 2013 5:06:13 PM

We have a pretty robust energy policy, I'm guessing your still upset about that pipeline.......
February 25, 2013 5:07:29 PM

musical marv said:
So why are we always struggling with our economy?


You mean besides the decrease in regulations that lead to the financial and housing industries collapsing?
February 25, 2013 11:19:56 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Didn't you mean to say increase in regulations?

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-government-cause...

As I've said before, what banker do you know who would lend money to someone they know CAN NOT pay it back unless they were forced to do so?

Ger out of your ideology on this one johnson, because you are weaving a false narrative, and you're wrong.


Like you said, banks won't lend if they believe they will have a loss in doing so. They either won't lend to people who can't pay it back or charge them exorbitant rates on small amounts of principal so that the ones that do pay can make up for all of the losses for those that don't pay. The government can't simply force banks to make loans to people who can't pay them back at regular-ish rates as the banks would lose money and close. (Take a good note of that last sentence as it very much applies to the healthcare debate.) So the government stepped in and created Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac to back these high-risk mortgages and absolve the banks of most of the risk. The banks predictably went bonkers with the lending because anything they made on sketchy loans they got to keep and the government ate most of the losses. That created a vast supply of easy money for buyers. Home values got bid way up because money was so cheap to get and created a situation where housing prices were bid up too high too quickly. All bubbles go pop and so did this one.

February 26, 2013 12:51:16 AM

johnsonma said:
You mean besides the decrease in regulations that lead to the financial and housing industries collapsing?
It's funny you say that because somehow Bill Clinton seems to get a pass from the Democrats and media even though he was the one that pushed banks to sell mortgages to low-income families as well as signing the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act into law. For some reason, the popular narrative is that it was all Bush's fault...

Try reading this instead...there's plenty of blame to go around!

25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis
February 26, 2013 1:59:34 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Didn't you mean to say increase in regulations?

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-government-cause...

As I've said before, what banker do you know who would lend money to someone they know CAN NOT pay it back unless they were forced to do so?

Ger out of your ideology on this one johnson, because you are weaving a false narrative, and you're wrong.



The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (allowing similar banks to merge and set any interest rate).

The Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (allowing Adjustable-rate mortgages).

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (allowing commercial and investment banks to merge).

You read one article and base your entire argument on it. Tisk tisk.....

Like Chunky said though, there were lots of reasons for the situation we find ourselves in.
February 26, 2013 5:23:04 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Interesting. Who passed those "Acts" johnson? The banks, or Congress?


Does it matter now?
February 26, 2013 7:18:01 PM

johnsonma said:
Does it matter now?


It does as we are talking about policy to try to prevent this in the future. Refusing to look at what caused past problems is a recipe for having that same problem recur again and again.
February 26, 2013 7:32:40 PM

MU_Engineer said:
It does as we are talking about policy to try to prevent this in the future. Refusing to look at what caused past problems is a recipe for having that same problem recur again and again.


I agree completely, but looking at who caused the problem is different than the cause of the problem. Obviously the government messed up in the case of the deregulation of the banking industry. Both republicans and democrats are to blame, does saying this serve any real purpose when trying to prevent this from happening again?
February 26, 2013 7:43:46 PM

johnsonma said:
I agree completely, but looking at who caused the problem is different than the cause of the problem. Obviously the government messed up in the case of the deregulation of the banking industry. Both republicans and democrats are to blame, does saying this serve any real purpose when trying to prevent this from happening again?


It does, especially with the whole "accountability" schtick the government is pushing. For example, I can get in enormous trouble and so can my employer if we accidentally and unintentionally submit any paperwork to the government with any errors in it. We are held "accountable." Why not apply the same to the people ruling over us? Hold them accountable- if they screwed up, call vote them out on it.
February 26, 2013 8:40:51 PM

If trying to blame a group of a certain political party is the point, its surely a standard and POOR way to do so.
What would be better is to embrace the way many want it, as in, government, KEEP OUT
February 27, 2013 1:45:55 PM

I would rather look at the entire situation than just look at who is responsible and how to punish them. The whole reason the deregulation took place was to try and get more American's to own home's and live the American dream. Turns out this noble cause lead to a runaway greed train. You can learn from your mistakes if you look at the causation and consequent results. I think this would be more productive than trying to find someone to blame.

On a side note, a lot of the people responsible for this were not elected officials. How can you vote them out?
February 27, 2013 4:43:09 PM

Problem is, rebundling is greed, and helped drive part of it as well.
Now, you could point to this and blame the banks, its just funny it didnt happen until the government became involved.
To me, its like the public unions, and why they shouldnt exist.
February 27, 2013 5:17:57 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:

If the banks were regulating themselves, they never would have made those risky loans, and then try to bundle the worthless paper up sell it to each other.


You continue to amaze me OMG.
February 27, 2013 5:22:32 PM

Yeah... OMG I think that 85% of sub prime mortgages were privately held, and what Johnson posted about de-regulation led directly to ARM's.
February 27, 2013 5:57:26 PM

In this instance, deregulating loans, the governments "Rules" applies here.
The banks did regulate a standard amongst themselves that was overturned by the government, so OMG has a point here.
Depends on how you look at it
February 27, 2013 7:26:40 PM

Nothing like mandated deregulation heheh
February 28, 2013 1:41:34 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I know, sometimes I amaze even myself.

Seriously, you still haven't answered my original question. I'll try one more time.

What evil, greedy, *** banker that you k now, would lend money to someone they know will never pay it back, unless they were forced to make that loan?

Please tell me, i'm dying for the answer. I've never heard of a money lender that would do this. Unless forced to through various "Acts of Congress".

Thank you, goodnight! I'll be here all week, try the veal.


Its almost like your just making stuff up at this point. Look at the facts OMG, they made the loans then packaged them up and sold them to investment banks and so on.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act - deregulation made this possible.

Its not that hard to understand, not sure why i have to explain it to you.
February 28, 2013 1:52:34 PM

Its common knowledge this deregulation was aimed at certain peoples, using skewed information/facts for justification, and forced on the banks, as there is a plethora of threats aimed at them, and again, like public unions, as they too shouldnt exist, backing the loans here by thw government is just as ludicous, and essentually, since it hadnt occured prior to government intervention, it can only be laid at the feet of the government, and also for those that ignored the warnings at the time
February 28, 2013 3:56:31 PM

Yes, Congress and Bill Clinton passing an act to deregulate the financial sector helped lead to the financial collapse. Your welcome, sorry if that doesn't register in your reality.
February 28, 2013 4:16:42 PM

If that was all that was done to procure such a deregulation, then yes, lay it at the banks feet.
But, this isnt what happened, and wasnt the only incentive for the banks to do so.
I give OMG more credit here, as the government backed the loans, procuring more power of the economy, using bad legislation, and threatening the banks thru racism as well as little guy vs big guy rhetoric, which is going full steam today.
So, it appears some havnt let up on these attitudes and approaches, threatening the media along the way, if they get in the way by writing anything to the contrary.

The people there arent worthy of the people in general, have harmed this country in a mad power grab, ignored warnings at the time and mandating a new deregulation is and can only be perceived as nothing more than more regulation
February 28, 2013 4:30:56 PM

So why didnt all banks fail? Why did some banks remain perfectly solvent if the government were forcing them to make bad loans?

Could it be because some banks were making responsible decisions and some banks were looking to make as much money as feasibly possible?

Isnt it also that many banks (AIG) placed a lot of bets of credit default swaps? The government never forced anyone into these investments, they made a very large mistake (And got 200 million for it). When Gramm-Leach-Bliley was repealed in 1999 (As Johnson pointed out), they could finally merge with investment banks and make more risky loans. Did all banks make these bets? No, and they remained solvent.

Here OMG:


Why didn't all the banks fail?

How did government make them trade risky derivatives?

Why did the banks move into subprime loans without any push from the government?

Why have the banks spent so much time lobbying to deregulate the market so they could make more risky bets?
February 28, 2013 6:19:02 PM

Alright, lets use your logic. If the blame for a situation can be given to the government for not having ENOUGH regulation then there are many changes that need to be made. First of all, we need to regulate all guns. People are only shooting each other because the government has created an environment that causes this. Also, all diets must be regulated. People are draining our healthcare system because they are able to eat anything they want. This again was created by an environment of freedom that was created by our damn republic government.

Who do you think lobbied for the regulations to be lifted?????


The banks.

By the way, just to help you out. getting rid of regulations is not regulating. Somehow you have it set in your mind that removing regulations somehow equates creating them. Also, I said Clinton and congress helped lead to the financial collapse, I didn't say they were solely responsible. Its amazing the hoops you will jump through to satisfy your need for the government to be the cause of all the problems in this country.
February 28, 2013 6:47:43 PM

wanamingo said:
Why didn't all the banks fail?

How did government make them trade risky derivatives?

Why did the banks move into subprime loans without any push from the government?

Why have the banks spent so much time lobbying to deregulate the market so they could make more risky bets?


Oldmangamer_73 said:
1. Many many did. Many got bailed out by you and me.

2. The government didn't force them. The banks tried to recoup as much money as possible after being forced to make bad loans. They bundled all that worthless paper together and said to another bank, "hey pal, I got all these mortgages for sale, worth billions, but since I like you I'll give it to you cheap." This happened over and over again until there was no one left to buy the worthless paper. Pop goes the bubble.

3. Wrong, the banks moved into sub-prime loans BECAUSE the government forced/pushed them to through threat of racism, big vs. little guy, etc. Janet Reno employed strong arm tactics to achieve this. Threats of investigation, etc. She was the Eric Holder of the time remember.

4. They haven't. That's a media false narrative they would love for you to believe. Again, what money lender wants to give money away, I ask you?? It doesn't make logical sense to make a loan that you lose money on, does it?


If everyone remembers, there was a period there the summer of 2010 where hundreds of privately owned small banks were closing doors like mosquitoes flying into a bug zapper. Also, if you remember, there was talk about is all being intentional as part of a forced consolidation by the world banks to continue to control and manage the world money in an effort to shore up the European Union.

How about TARP. That was direct government intervention to bail the banks out on our dime because of previous Administration's and Congressional efforts to ensure that all American could live the american dream and own a home. Reality is bailing out the banks because they were going to default on the sub-prime mortgages (because home owners could not afford payment once the principle came due) was a direct result of previous government policy to sell people houses.

It's not in the banks best financial interest to lobby to regulate or de-regulate. The banks and government are two sides of the same coin. The banks re-sell bonds given to them by the Treasury to foreign and domestic investors. If he government is giving a bank (with stock holders to answer to) the means in which to make a profit through re-selling bonds (ironically, bonds can be bought directly from the Treasure itself) and it is the same business who also makes huge sums of money off loaning said government the dollars it needs to function, why would banks lobby the government to change the playing field? They wouldn't!


johnsonma said:
Alright, lets use your logic. If the blame for a situation can be given to the government for not having ENOUGH regulation then there are many changes that need to be made. First of all, we need to regulate all guns. People are only shooting each other because the government has created an environment that causes this. Also, all diets must be regulated. People are draining our healthcare system because they are able to eat anything they want. This again was created by an environment of freedom that was created by our damn republic government.
Now your just being superfluous and disingenuous.
johnsonma said:
Who do you think lobbied for the regulations to be lifted?????

The banks.

By the way, just to help you out. getting rid of regulations is not regulating. Somehow you have it set in your mind that removing regulations somehow equates creating them. Also, I said Clinton and congress helped lead to the financial collapse, I didn't say they were solely responsible. Its amazing the hoops you will jump through to satisfy your need for the government to be the cause of all the problems in this country.
Not sure what you are referring to, possibly Dodd-Frank. If you are referring to Dodd-Frank as the reason for banks lobbying to "deregulate", then understand that the banks are not lobbying to deregulate in the literal sense as much as it is that Dodd-Frank is an abortion of financial legislation that many rules have not been finalized. Many new departments like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are still writing their rules. So, as is due process, the industry that is to be directly impacted by these rules is given a chance to have input on what rules and regulations are put in place. I work in the Energy Industry, and State and Federal government is always calling on our company to give input on proposed rules and regulations. It may not be the "gaming of the system" that you think it is.
February 28, 2013 8:05:26 PM

You mean, by going to the ones with the skin in the game, and not just someone whos taught economics at some institution has a better POV as to its needs in possible future regulation?
Now, why would the government then turn around and feed the lies to the people and let them believe it was the banks fault?
Like Ive been saying, either throw em out because they dont know better, or, throw em out because theyre not worthy of the people.
Lets just say, if this were not true, and it really was the banks fault only, and mainly, why isnt portions of our government not pounding home what really happened?
Could it be that possibly theres just too many names to place the responsibility on?

The way I see it is, some pols are greedy, backed by greed in the market, and sure theyd embrace bad legislation.
On the other hand, some pols also would love to see their constituents doing better by their faulty legislation as well.

Neither is good for us, and to allow it to happen, replace the blame, its time for better leaders
March 1, 2013 1:13:59 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Wow, that made even more less sense than usual.

Banks were forced to make loans losing billions. Banks lobby Congress to change the law so they can recoup some of their losses. How they went about it was corrupt as hell, but no one forced Congress to change the regulations. Just because you are lobbied doesn't mean you have to do what they lobbyist wants. Unless that is if your a corrupt politician that really doesn't give a crap about anyone else accept yourself.

And you want to continue to give these corrupt ***holes more power? :pt1cable: 


You have a very short memory OMG. Previously in this thread I told you that the main goal was to get everyone to own a house so that everyone could live the American dream. Obviously this NOBLE goal turned south quickly due to greed, stupidity and a lack of oversight(regulation).

You're naive if you think lobbyists don't have incredible pull in the political process.
March 1, 2013 1:14:50 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Wow, that made even more less sense than usual.



That's why I usually abstain from using your logic.
March 1, 2013 2:35:27 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Owning a house is NOT the American dream. If you think it is, it speaks volumes..........


There you go arguing semantics again.....it's apparently time to move on from this thread...
March 1, 2013 5:13:25 PM

I dont want a house, I want a successful business, with millions of government dollars invested.
Now, why cant we all have this?
If people argue that people cant afford health care, yet they also believe they can afford a house......
!