The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 197
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,062

    Default

    It is not correct to say that the government forced individuals to buy homes at zero down. But the Community Re-investment Act (particularly the ammendments made under the Clinton administration) forced lenders to offer this type of financing.
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kathy s. View Post
    Bolding mine. What I see is people choosing unemployment instead of getting a second job. I sit in my graduate classes listening to the young people complaining about the cut in hours at their job yet voting for liberals (you know, the ones who support Obamacare).
    Why is it most refuse to get a second job vs complain they aren't being paid enough? IMO, most, not all, would rather sit and bitch than get out there and work. Sign of the times.
    I have worked up to 3 jobs at a time to get by. It never occurred to me to ask for benefits. And I have a friend that is working 5 part time jobs to get by. So, I have no sympathy for those griping they can't find work. It's out there- go get it.
    I hope you appreciate that those collection unemployment are exemplary participants in capitalism. It is absolutely rational to collect unemployment when getting one job or a second does not pay a return high enough to warrant the extra labor.

    And think of programs like unemployment insurance, welfare disability and the like as the price that the rich pay for social stability.

    We could do things your way-- eliminate the social safety nets that keep the poor quiet--- but man, the crime will suck.

    At the end of the day, you cannot justifiably criticize the poor for taking advantage of whatever this there-- the opportunity to rip off your house or food stamps. They are rational actors maximizing their own gain. Pure capitalism does not require that someone is good and virtuous and hardworking.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    3 members found this post helpful.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,062

    Default

    eliminate the social safety nets that keep the poor quiet--- but man, the crime will suck.
    Most liberals suffer from the bigotry of low expectations. There are alternatives to government managed social safety nets. And the method used to share those resources has meaning.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/video...obamacare.html
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nhwr View Post
    It is not correct to say that the government forced individuals to buy homes at zero down. But the Community Re-investment Act (particularly the ammendments made under the Clinton administration) forced lenders to offer this type of financing.
    OK. And so....

    I'm not being sarcastic. I was responding to the idea that we ought to be anti-government because it was those rat bastards who contributed in this way to the real estate collapse.

    FWIW, as I posted before, the loosening up of borrowing rules benefited many disparate participants. And if you could bundle bad mortgages and sell them to off-shore investors, even better!
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jul. 12, 2010
    Posts
    355

    Default

    Not sure I'm clear here, but are you saying that what they did was justified because they are POOR?

    I am not being sarcastic, I am really trying to understand your post.
    About 8 years ago, I met someone who told me:

    they have no intention of ever working - that was for suckers
    they had been faking back injuries for years
    they had successfully established a work until you can get disability/unemployment, etc. pattern
    they get food stamps, now permanent disability
    Recently "retired" and gets social security

    Yup, they spend their days smoking pot, reading, buying pot, and laughing at those who work (their words). and yes this is all true. I happen to know- this is not them just talking.

    Think that person was a victim? Or one of a few?

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/...yers-billions/


    Also long ago, had a friend who was a successful doctor. Came from an inner city fifth - generation welfare family.

    I never knew it until one day they told me. They also said" You know what? It's a choice - I choose not to be the sixth generation on welfare"

    Huge eye opening experiences. Do I think everyone is a fraud? Of course not.

    But does the government need to buy cell phones for people? Not so much.

    And it's funny. Somehow Dick Cheney was corrupt for his previous ties to Haliburton, but Obama to Trakphone CEO? Not so much (TRak phone is the primary provider of government provided cell phones - the CEO close buddy and major contributor to Obama)

    They ALL do this -both parties. Yet it seems the MSM only highlights the conservatives.





    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    I hope you appreciate that those collection unemployment are exemplary participants in capitalism. It is absolutely rational to collect unemployment when getting one job or a second does not pay a return high enough to warrant the extra labor.

    And think of programs like unemployment insurance, welfare disability and the like as the price that the rich pay for social stability.

    We could do things your way-- eliminate the social safety nets that keep the poor quiet--- but man, the crime will suck.

    At the end of the day, you cannot justifiably criticize the poor for taking advantage of whatever this there-- the opportunity to rip off your house or food stamps. They are rational actors maximizing their own gain. Pure capitalism does not require that someone is good and virtuous and hardworking.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    How did the government force anyone to buy a house with no money down?

    I do think the no-down and "liar loan" made available make a lot of people happy-- the buyers with no hope in hell of having 20% down, sellers who could enjoy market prices uncapped by the need for a big downpayment, whoever was selling private mortgage insurance....

    But *no one* was forced to commit to a huge-a$$ debt and investment bet because someone merely made it possible for them to be able to get in.
    NHRW clarified my statement. No one was forced to buy more house than they could afford. The lenders were "FORCED" to loan the money by various tactics.

    Exactly because no one was "forced" to buy... I have no sympathy toward anyone foreclosed because they bought more house than they could afford. That was their greed manifested.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2012
    Posts
    4,097

    Default

    Some simple truths:

    Whatever you subsidize, you're going to get more of.

    (Dependency, single motherhood, long-term unemployment, growing lousy pesticide-laced food, over-reliance on the medical system, etc.)

    The free-market system is great, as long as there's a grownup in the room.

    (Bankers and Corporations need some oversight or they WILL cause train-wrecks as we've recently had a front-row seat for).

    You can NOT claim to be a civilized nation without SOME social safety nets.

    (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are good things--abuse of them by people who don't NEED them is not. Ditto every welfare program in the country.)

    If a person goes on the dole, or accepts other G'ment help, it should be for the shortest possible period of time until they can change their situation. The incentive needs to be, you surrender some "rights" while you're accepting help. You need WIC, food stamps, head start? OK--get on birth control, NOW. The G'ment will pay for it. Have another kid while you can't feed the ones you have, and risk losing your benefits! By the same token, there should be some kind of work/study program involved--not just lying on the couch all day banging down Eskimo Pies and watching Honey Boo-Boo! And elderly people of MEANS (over $1M in net worth, or yearly income of $75K+, do NOT need to collect ANYthing.

    (I could run for President, but I'd get shot quick).


    4 members found this post helpful.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redalter View Post
    Not sure I'm clear here, but are you saying that what they did was justified because they are POOR?
    No, reread the post of mine you quoted.

    The point is that within pure capitalism, there is no room for moral judgment. So my point was that you don't get to be mad at the poor for trying to get the most for the least. They do that; the rich do that. Everyone gets to sell his labor at the highest price the market will allow.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    NHRW clarified my statement. No one was forced to buy more house than they could afford. The lenders were "FORCED" to loan the money by various tactics.

    Exactly because no one was "forced" to buy... I have no sympathy toward anyone foreclosed because they bought more house than they could afford. That was their greed manifested.
    I have no sympathy for the foreclosed-upon, either. Oh, and add to that "I don't want to pay because the house is worth less than I owe. Meh, it's an investment. You have a 50/50 shot at losing money, too.

    That's the capitalist way, folks: no bail outs. Businesses or people that cannot survive in current market conditions categorically do not.

    But! We have not treated the home owners, bankers and the Wall Street traders with the same kindness. We either need to let them all fail to the extent they will (the capitalist's solution) or if we are going to bail folks out (arguably leaning toward socialism), then we need to spread that option around evenly. To date, we have not.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  10. #110
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,460

    Default

    You are assuming that Medicare and Social Security which are financed by special contributions by both employers and workers are not the pre-funded annuities they were created to be. It's really a very simple concept: You pay in throughout your working life and then collect when you no longer work. Those of means pay in just as regularly as other workers and deserve to collect their annuities just as regularly.

    When one conflates those two programs with government largess, one is making a huge mistake.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,062

    Default

    The point is that within pure capitalism, there is no room for moral judgment.
    That is BS. Moral judgement is an exercise of free will. Capitalism is the result of economic free will and the market it creates.

    You are assuming that Medicare and Social Security which are financed by special contributions by both employers and workers are not the pre-funded annuities they were created to be.
    This is a common misconception about SSI and Medicare. They are not pre-funded annuities, more like a pyramid scheme actually.
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.



  12. #112
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redalter View Post
    Not sure I'm clear here, but are you saying that what they did was justified because they are POOR?
    No.

    The poor are no more or less justified than the rich if they behave badly.

    And!

    In pure capitalism, there is no way to behave in an immoral sense unless you are irrational, that is, not trying to maximize your own gains and sell your labor the greatest possible price. I think the original advocates for this political philosophy would have thought that the Crazy Altruist (as in potlatch economies) was F-ing things up. Same for the person who would go bankrupt just to bring another person down as well.

    My only point in the post of mine you quoted is that it makes no sense to chastise the poor (especially), or anyone for being a jerk if you want to defend rugged capitalism.

    ETA: Oops! Posting F-up. I think this is a repost of the same response I made earlier. Sorry. Pick the one you like.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  13. #113
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,460

    Default

    nhwr, you're wrong. You need to read the contemporaneous debates and discussions in the Congressional Record.

    The revenue that comes in from them is invested in the United States government, but it's still invested.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nhwr View Post
    That is BS. Moral judgement is an exercise of free will. Capitalism is the result of economic free will and the market it creates.
    Have you read any of the foundational texts that launched capitalism? Honest to God, your point about free will and that being the source of moral judgement utterly misses the point. And more to the point, these 18th century guys knew that and addressed it.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  15. #115
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,460

    Default

    David Ricardo, anyone?
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  16. #116
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,062

    Default

    mvp, you are simply misinformed. You are referring to market forces, not individual choices.
    In a capitalist system, compulsion of the individual does not exist. One is free to depose of one's capital as one sees fit. There is no prohibition to selling an asset or your own labor below market value or even giving money away, if that is your choice.
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.



  17. #117
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Eboshi View Post
    The free-market system is great, as long as there's a grownup in the room.

    (Bankers and Corporations need some oversight or they WILL cause train-wrecks as we've recently had a front-row seat for).
    Actually, this was the instigating question behind the theorizing that produced capitalism.

    That question was: Who, exactly, was the grown-up in the room? Was that God? Meh, He became a really unsatisfying answer since so many Western European empires through of royalty is between God and everyone else in the scala naturae... and folks got really, really tired of their f-ups and greed.

    So all this "invisible hand" stuff was about how you could get reliable order from the apparent chaos of everyone trying to maximize their own gain.

    The question was serious and metaphysical: If you found the God-authored natural law that governed economies, you could exploit those (for your country, presumably) and triumph. No need to look to inbred, or STD-ridden kings to figure it out for you. But the goal was to figure out how nature worked and work with it.

    Back to modern times: There is no philosophical reason, therefore, to assign any person or class of them that "grown up" status. In fact, you'd be an idiot to do that since those "rational actors" must also be deeply self-interested.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  18. #118
    Join Date
    May. 23, 2006
    Posts
    5,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    You know, you really have to ask, when and why did socialism become a dirty word. Many of us equate socialism with communism. It's not the same thing.



    THANK YOU!!!!



  19. #119
    Join Date
    Jul. 12, 2010
    Posts
    355

    Default

    Ok, got it.

    However.

    I know a number of people who have worked their way up and never by milking the system.

    Once many years ago, we lost everything we had, family issues.

    We went on food stamps.

    We worked out of it - it took awhile. And yes we were at ROCK BOTTTOM in a lot of ways. It happens.

    During that time, I had to go down to the city to apply in person.
    Then every month, I had to go get them, in person. (there was no car, and the money for the city bus MATTERED in the budget. I would hit the grocery store,
    then get on the bus with what groceries I could carry.

    The things I witnessed and heard, and experienced, helped me to form the opinion, that many many of those on government assistance? It's a way of life, good economy, bad economy, doesn't matter. They will always have an excuse.

    And many people will have low expectations - justifiying if you will, bad behaviour, because they are underprivilgeded, etc.

    Not fighting your post per se, just making an observation from an up close, unpleasant personal experience.


    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    No, reread the post of mine you quoted.

    The point is that within pure capitalism, there is no room for moral judgment. So my point was that you don't get to be mad at the poor for trying to get the most for the least. They do that; the rich do that. Everyone gets to sell his labor at the highest price the market will allow.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    May. 23, 2006
    Posts
    5,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nhwr View Post
    This is a common misconception about SSI and Medicare. They are not pre-funded annuities, more like a pyramid scheme actually.

    Quite Correct!!!


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Listen Up You Liberal Dems!!
    By twotrudoc in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Nov. 22, 2012, 12:56 PM
  2. The liberal media cover up of Benghazi?
    By jetsmom in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 354
    Last Post: Nov. 8, 2012, 11:47 PM
  3. Fun naming thread.. liberal use of the word Puck
    By horse-loverz in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: Nov. 18, 2011, 11:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •