Quote:

---

I guess walls, fences, and checkpoints, are in order between the states during a pandemic.

---

If I travel to visit my family in Texas ,Fla S Carolina and return to NY it is the liberal governor who begged the President for a lifetime supply of PPE and a bailout from Congress who would prevent me from going about my business freely in the state I live . You know ;the one who hates Federalism except when he doesn't . The one who made the worse mistakes during the virus crises and now points the finger accused at all the other governors . Y'all better hope he never becomes President because his is a record of failure that dates back to his time at HUD when he set in motion the financial crisis of 2008 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If I travel to visit my family in Texas ,Fla S Carolina and return to NY it is the liberal governor who begged the President for a lifetime supply of PPE and a bailout from Congress who would prevent me from going about my business freely in the state I live . You know ;the one who hates Federalism except when he doesn't . The one who made the worse mistakes during the virus crises and now points the finger accused at all the other governors . Y'all better hope he never becomes President because his is a record of failure that dates back to his time at HUD when he set in motion the financial crisis of 2008 .

---

Different crisis Tom different responses needed and just maybe people learn

same testa di merda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

same testa di merda

---

Trump, yes, I agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Y'all better hope he never becomes President because his is a record of failure that dates back to his time at HUD when he set in motion the financial crisis of 2008 .

---

I was hoping bizarre statements were a thing of the past on this site. Apparently not. Didn't Cuomo also set in motion the Great Depression?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I was hoping bizarre statements were a thing of the past on this site. Apparently not. Didn't Cuomo also set in motion the Great Depression?

---

Which great depression are you speaking of; 80 years ago or the one to come due to Kung Flu set in motion by China

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I was hoping bizarre statements were a thing of the past on this site. Apparently not. Didn't Cuomo also set in motion the Great Depression?

---

Leave it to conservatives to blame liberals for rich guys greed. They have been trying to shift the blame for the housing market collapse since it started. The flaw in the plan has always been in the banks policy of over pricing and over charging and trying to falsify the paperwork, and other deceptive and exploitive practices. Hud never made those terms mandatory, but banks sure did when they were selling them to other parties, mostly other banks foreign and domestic.

What did the conservatives and banks care about affordable housing, or people sinking all their money into home ownership? NOTHING as long as they got paid, and they certainly did. What do you think happened to all those people caught up in the scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

As with most of my links it's important to also review the articles EMBEDDED links for clarity and understanding.

Quote:

---

Didn't Cuomo also set in motion the Great Depression?

---

NO it was the Great Recession and even ultra -lib Village Voice knows it was his fault . Quote: Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded “kickbacks” to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Quote:

---

---

There is no denying that it was his and Bubba's policies that created the melt down .

https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/08...e-and-freddie/

If you want someone to share then it was also the emperor as a community organizer who muscled banks into making bad loans .

Quote:

---

Before the crisis, Obama pushed thousands of credit-poor blacks into homes they couldn't afford. As a civil-rights attorney, he sued banks to rubberstamp mortgages for urban residents.

---

https://cei.org/blog/how-acorn-destroyed-housing-market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is no denying that it was his and Bubba's policies that created the melt down

---

What a complete load of hogwash, including the two links.

There is one reason, and one reason only, that the crisis occurred. Pay attention.

The Wall Street investment banks packaged toxic loans as securities, paid the credit rating agencies BIG bucks to rate them Triple AAA, and then sold them worldwide as highest rated bonds. When the loans went into default (as the Street knew they would) and stopped paying off, they tainted the entire market, even good securities, and the crisis was on.

AG Eric Holder dropped the ball by fines that were a fraction of the profits earned by the banks. When the credit rating agencies said their ratings were an "opinion" and therefore came under the First Amendment as protected speech, Holder accepted this nonsense and bailed when he should have prosecuted the criminal banks and agencies to the fullest extent.

If you want names to blame, start with Alan Greenspan, a protege of the infamous Ayn Rand, and Lloyd Blankfein, the crooked CEO of Goldman Sachs at the time who gave a bizarre testimony before Congress justifying his firm's criminal actions.

Here's a tip: When you see the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) noted as a contributor to the crisis, that tells you that the article lacks any credibility. The CRA had NOTHING to do with the crisis, but it became a scapegoat accused by the monied forces to move culpability away from Wall Street.

You are disputing the yeoman investigative research of the Village Voice ? wow . that is a lib bible . And who permitted the banks to package the loans they were compelled to extend ?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—led the way by loosening their underwriting standards for mortgages purchased from private lenders. Regulators also began seriously using the CRA as leverage to spur mortgage lenders to lower their lending standards. Investors funneled trillions of dollars to Fannie and Freddie enabling trillions of dollars of credit to flow to those with lower credit scores, minimal income documentation, less stable employment scores, and scant down payments. Investors understood that the federal government would ultimately guarantee their investments Fannie and Freddie backed securities in the event borrowers failed to repay.

If it is any consolation to you ,the Bush Administration took the baton from Bubba and began bragging about increased homeownership by the poor ,and doubled down on the program .

And I'll extend the Fed their fair share of the blame . They purchased trillions of dollars of government debt along with mortgage backed securities (MBSs). This $$$ ended up deposited at banks. To prevent the banks from investing this new capital in securities or issuing new loans, the Fed instituted a new policy: interest payments on excess banking reserves were to be deposited with the Federal Reserve. This policy diverted capital from business expansion to the housing sector.

We still have this cancer in the system because the emperor and the Dems blame it on lack of regulation. That is why we have Dodd Frank( named after the 2 legislators who were also complicit in this tragedy ). Frank even admitted to Kudlow it was a mistake .

Quote:

---

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie ... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

---

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ts_106844.html

And we also still have these government housing policies, implemented by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac . Mortgage standards are still too lax and house prices have again inflated since 2012

Both entities should be disbanded . But if anything, Fannie and Freddie have only gotten bigger . They are the ultimate too big to fail entities that we are stuck with because politicians of both parties are afraid to let the market work .

Quote:

---

AG Eric Holder dropped the ball by fines that were a fraction of the profits earned by the banks. When the credit rating agencies said their ratings were an "opinion" and therefore came under the First Amendment as protected speech, Holder accepted this nonsense and bailed when he should have prosecuted the criminal banks and agencies to the fullest extent.

---

NY AG il duce tried his hardest to nail the investment banks ...but not really . He was after the money . He hired Howard Glaser ,who was his right hand man at HUD and then assisted il Duce in the investigation while he was at the same time a lobbyist and consultant for the banking industry . At least two of the investigations involved firms that Glaser acknowledge were his clients .Il duce gave immunity to some pretty big players ....no doubt in exchange for contributions to his campaign for Governor war chest . One of them ,Clayton Holdings clients included JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch . They also were a client of Glaser .

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/b...pagewanted=all

How convenient ! The people most responsible for the mess became the investigators of the mess. il duce won his bid for the governor's office partly by claiming a tough record of going after Wall Street and corporate greed ;and Glazer worked on his staff during the campaign. Then he went on the hold the powerful state position of Director of state operations.
Il duce takes care of his gumbas .

Did you ever hear of the Moreland Commission ? It was the committee that was formed after il duce ran on an anti-corruption campaign. The commission started to get too close to the truth about il duce and his gumbas . So the commission was disbanded by il duce the cabeza de pinga.

https://time.com/2969865/citigroup-m...is-settlement/

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...budget-lawsuit

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/b...-mortgage.html

And just to clarify,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...nd_Freddie_Mac

We're ready for Cuomo in Texas when you are Tom.

you give me links to settlements Athos already referred to

None of them came from il Duce's investigative efforts .

And so what if Fanny and Freddie were taken over by the government . The mistakes made in the 2000,s are being made today . Except now the government profits . They still back the vast majority of new home loans. Investors continued to buy the mortgage backed securities from Fannie and Freddie, because they are backed by the government.They are still too big to fail .
So when the housing bubble bursts again ,it will be up to the taxpayer to foot the bill......again. The CBO says that eliminating Fanny and Freddie would save money because it would rid the government of its risk.

The fact that they have slipped back to the same bad policies that they had before the crash should concern everyone ,

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fannie-...bt-11557739801

comments cancelled duplicate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The fact that they have slipped back to the same bad policies that they had before the crash should concern everyone ,

---

That is the sorry truth. But not for the reasons you think. The person capable of effectively reeling in the investment banks is Elizabeth Warren. Too-big-to-fail is a destructive idea and I would think Repubs would be against that idea.

Secretary of the Treasury Warren would clean up the bad actors in Wall Street by bringing back Glass-Steagal (as originally framed) and rewriting Dodd-Frank.

Quote:

---

Too-big-to-fail is a destructive idea and I would think Repubs would be against that idea.

---

I don't know about Repubs . Conservative capitalists sure hate the idea.

Quote:

---

Glass-Steagal

---

absolutely reinstate it . The idea of bank profits private but losses socialized is grotesque. Investment banking should be decoupled from savings and loans. Why should investment banks get FDIC protection ? Bottom line I oppose government subsidies and especially in the banking industry . It is not the government responsibility or business deciding which banks live or die. The combining of investment and S&L made banks too big and unfairly stifled competition as the industry consolidated .

Quote:

---

Secretary of the Treasury Warren

---

....would continue the trend of nationalizing banks . In fact she proposed to nationalize EVERY major business in the United States. aka her “Accountable Capitalism Act.” No business with more than $1 billion in revenue would be permitted to legally operate without permission from the federal government. They would have to sign a federal charter of 'corporate citizenship' .A corporation being chartered isn't new . States have the power now ,not the Feds . This would be just one more nail in our federalism (yeah i get it the Dems hate federalism until it suits their purpose .)
The federal government would decide the composition of their boards, the details of internal corporate governance, compensation practices, personnel policies. Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors.

In short , ACA is based on the Marxist idea of placing the control of all business and industry in the hands of the state. It of course is completely antithetical to what I argued against when I agreed that Glass -Steagal should be reinstated . I DON'T want the government deciding winners and losers in the economy . Warren's ACA would do just that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

In short , ACA is based on the Marxist idea of placing the control of all business and industry in the hands of the state. It of course is completely antithetical to what I argued against when I agreed that Glass -Steagal should be reinstated . I DON'T want the government deciding winners and losers in the economy . Warren's ACA would do just that .

---

You just can't keep a good communist down, not even in the USA

Takes a real capitalist/conservative to spin regulations on capitalism and think its communism, or socialism. The whole notion of capitalism is to big too big to fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Takes a real capitalist/conservative to spin regulations on capitalism and think its communism, or socialism. The whole notion of capitalism is to big too big to fail.

---

You do remember the GFC how many of those do you have in you right now?

We've done it many times, before so why would you doubt we won't do it again? And AGAIN? OR AGAIN?

yes forever failing upwards

It gets more complicated when you triple your population in a century, more so when you add many different cultures and societies into that mix. You'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

ACA (Warren's economic plan) is based on the Marxist idea of placing the control of all business and industry in the hands of the state.

---

Warren does NOT place all business in the hands of the state.

Here are some of her points:

1. Corporations should have more than just profits driving them. Corporate boards should be made up of 40% worker participation. Goals should include profits, AND other worthy goals to further the public interest, NOT just the shareholders and top executives.

2. Repeal Citizens United - Corporations are NOT persons!

3. Tax the ultra-rich an added 2% recognizing their wealth depends on the wider society. This would raise an additional $2.75 TRILLION over 10 years for supporting existing programs and creating new ones on a bipartisan basis.

4. Break up big-tech monopolistic companies - Amazon, Google, Facebook , etc.

5. Consolidate existing business-oriented federal agencies into a single Department of Economic Opportunity to ensure jobs and training for federal employees and for non-federal workers to compete in the global marketplace.

6. Medicare for all.

7. Closely regulate the financial industry to avoid the crisis of 2007-8. REGULATE, NOT OWN!


These are some of her proposals, not all of them. It's hardly "Marxism".

The US economic system is presently Capitalism modified by Socialism. The two work well together with Capitalism dominating and neither one eliminating the other.

Warren's ideas are excellent food for thought.

The Green New Deal is another program worthy of discussion - for a later day.

Quote:

---

Warren does NOT place all business in the hands of the state.

---

yeah just those billion dollar businesses .Quite a big camel nose in the tent . How long before every American business is compelled to follow suit ?

Corporations should have more than just profits driving them. Corporate boards should be made up of 40% worker participation. Goals should include profits, AND other worthy goals

Quote:

---

to further the public interest, NOT just the shareholders and top executives.

---

Big difference between SHOULD and MUST . The later is a dictate .

Quote:

---

. Repeal Citizens United - Corporations are NOT persons!

---

WE will always disagree on this point . People have the right of association and to collectively petition Congress on their own behalf . Corporations are a group of people acting collectively with the goal of making money . They still have that right to petition Congress for their mutual benefit . I'll say it again . You want to start restricting corporations from making contributions in return for favors ?Start with the public service unions

Quote:

---

Tax the ultra-rich an added 2% recognizing their wealth depends on the wider society. This would raise an additional $2.75 TRILLION over 10 years for supporting existing programs and creating new ones on a bipartisan basis.

---

we will never agree on this either . A fair tax is one where everyone is taxed at the same rate . By definition the rich would pay more .

Quote:

---

Break up big-tech monopolistic companies - Amazon, Google, Facebook , etc.

---

on that I agree with her . But all that is needed is enforcement of existing law. Trust me I have no love lost for those rent seeking pirates . There is nothing free enterprise on how they became behemoths .

Quote:

---

Consolidate existing business-oriented federal agencies into a single Department of Economic Opportunity to ensure jobs and training for federal employees and for non-federal workers to compete in the global marketplace.

---

No problem with that either . There should be more consolidating and eliminating of federal bureaucracies . The problem is that Warren would grow them into super agencies instead of efficiently eliminating duplication .

Quote:

---

6. Medicare for all.

---

barf alert . Medicare is almost insolvent now . Workers pay into it their whole working lives to become eligible . But she would turn it into a cradle to death welfare system where people are eligible without putting a dime into it . At least call it accurately . What she really wants is national Medicaid .

Quote:

---

Closely regulate the financial industry to avoid the crisis of 2007-8. REGULATE, NOT OWN!

---

Dictating how a board is composed of is ownership . Dictating that a certain business model ;the "benefit corporation" model, which prizes a set of values above just profits, must be a corporate business model is government ownership by other means .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah just those billion dollar businesses .Quite a big camel nose in the tent . How long before every American business is compelled to follow suit ?

---

You're putting words in Warren's plan that she never proposed. She does not say billion dollar businesses are to be owned by the state. Even less, "every" American business.

Quote:

---

I'll say it again . You want to start restricting corporations from making contributions in return for favors ?Start with the public service unions

---

Excellent idea! I agree. Better each start at the same time. Just to be fair.

Quote:

---

A fair tax is one where everyone is taxed at the same rate.

---

You mean a "Flat" tax. Nothing could be less fair than your idea of a "fair" tax. Changing the name doesn't change the unfairness. For the billionaire to pay the same rate as the $25,000 worker is absurd! The super rich would make huge fortunes if the so-called "flat tax" were law. Forbes stood to gain hundreds of millions if his "Flat" tax were enacted. It was a joke. Let's let this bad idea die a permanent death.

Quote:

---

By definition the rich would pay more .

---

Now, Tom, are you being sneaky here? Of course the rich would pay more - MORE THAN EVERYBODY ELSE AT THE SAME RATE! But you seem to be implying the rich would pay more than they do NOW! Not in a million years.

Quote:

---

Medicare is almost insolvent now . Workers pay into it their whole working lives to become eligible . But she would turn it into a cradle to death welfare system where people are eligible without putting a dime into it . At least call it accurately

---

Ok, how about National Health Care.

Quote:

---

Dictating how a board is composed of is ownership

---

Corporations are required to have Boards now. Nobody calls it ownership.

Quote:

---

Dictating that a certain business model ;the "benefit corporation" model, which prizes a set of values above just profits, must be a corporate business model is government ownership by other means .

---

Not above profits, but equal, or even a little below, if that makes you happy. The "Benefit" corporation, if that means benefiting the wider society, is a good name. Again, a regulation is not the same as ownership.

See? We have some agreement.

https://www.nationalmemo.com/ppp-loan

Quote:

---

But you seem to be implying the rich would pay more than they do NOW! Not in a million years.

---

simplify the tax code it definitely would Yes I mean a flat tax with no account tricks called deductions and exemptions and credits.

Quote:

---

Corporations are required to have Boards now. Nobody calls it ownership.

---

When you dictate who must be on the board then it is the equivalent of state ownership .That was the Mussolini model .....

Quote:

---

Economic fascism is a variety of socialism . individual rights may be routinely suppressed in the name of “social justice,” “national greatness” or some other utopian ideal. Politicians know better than private citizens what should be done. “Government alone,” Mussolini insisted, “is in the right position to see things from the point of view of the general welfare.” The government’s responsibility is to determine how much money is invested, how and where it should be invested and how the results will be judged. In Italy after 1925, all this was done through government-controlled cartels, such as the National Fascist Confederation of Industry, the National Fascist Confederation of Agriculture, the National Fascist Confederation of Commerce and the National Fascist Confederation of Banking.

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowe.../#417fadff68e6

I might go along with a flat tax, if everybody made the same money, had the same value, and was as the founding documents said was as equal as the Creator made us, with equal protection under the law. Until we fulfil that responsibility, forget that flat tax nonsense! Geez Tom some rich guys already pay less than a poor man, who can pay nothing.

A flat tax is NOTHING but conservative capitalists propaganda. The joke is on anyone who believes it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

It gets more complicated when you triple your population in a century, more so when you add many different cultures and societies into that mix. You'll see.

---

I think that has happened here with very few of those consequences you speak of but then we arnt obsessed with our rights but im sure large populations bring their own problems, but our history is very different, we didnt need a rebellion to be a free nation and we didnt need to tear the nation apart or conquer the first nations peoples, greed just wasnt factored into our thinking

So you say Clete, but let me know when you outnumber the roos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

So you say Clete, but let me know when you outnumber the roos.

---

probably do already we have had the emu wars and won maybe we should have the roo war.

We will probably have a first nations war they breed like rabbits and dont surcome to mixomytosis