Has the USA become the USSA?

[Snow]

We are quite socialist now.... but a few steps remain to totally slavery.

How come the state/people don't own my business?

How come I buy my own health care?

How come I am free to earn any amount of money I can and spend it any way I want?

How come I bank with a private company?

Home every single thing I own was made by non-governmentally directed companies?

Socialism - in a pig's eye.

Slavery? If you had ever been a slave or had any idea what slavery actually was you couldn't make such an absurd claim.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Snow

[hordak]

Ohh let me see if I can find the article.... Are Minorities to Blame for the Subprime Mess? | Newsweek Voices - Daniel Gross | Newsweek.com This isn't the exact article I wanted..I'll look a bit more.

I noticed a few interesting things about the artical.

First the title. This is obviously aimed at eliciting an emotional response. "How dare you blame those poor minorities ". I don't know anyone who is blaming them. I for one would never blame a person for taking advantage of a policy that is tilted in their favor regardless of how i feel about the policy. In fact just recently our locale police department dropped the academic test required to become an officer to boost the number of minorities on the force. I am addemently against lowering standards(particularly in law enforcement) in the interest of equality but don't fault the person who sees this as their opportunity to become a police officer. I fault the system, not the individual who is using the system.

Second. I noticed a lot of vague terminology in the 1st and 2nd reasons. "..many of the institutions...""...generally not...""...many of the ..." "...very few..."

What do these terms mean. I could say "many of the posters at lds.net are not LDS. or

"Very few have gone on missions" . Could be 95% could be 4%. This term is too vague to mean anything.

Third. The 3rd reason they state is "lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky" which is supported with 1 example of a religious group giving micro loans for cheap homes. I would agree give small loans to people for cheap homes is fine. It's giving big loans to poor people for expensive homes that i disagree with. Or bigger loans to non poor people who can't afford it.

I could post a link to an article that says the opposite of the one you provided but I think we are both missing one important think. Facts, Hard data. It would be interesting to see how many of the foreclosed homes are attached to "bad" loan programs (I.E. non fixed rate) and poor borrowers (I.E. family of 4, 1 income of $7 an hour buying a $150,000 home) or what percentage of the market the are money wise.

That being said i don't think the poor people borrowing money was the problem. I think too many people borrowing too much money for too much house that they can't afford is the problem.

[talisyn]

I could post a link to an article that says the opposite of the one you provided but I think we are both missing one important think. Facts, Hard data. It would be interesting to see how many of the foreclosed homes are attached to "bad" loan programs (I.E. non fixed rate) and poor borrowers (I.E. family of 4, 1 income of $7 an hour buying a $150,000 home) or what percentage of the market the are money wise.

That being said i don't think the poor people borrowing money was the problem. I think too many people borrowing too much money for too much house that they can't afford is the problem.

I love the link thingy in this forum, I didn't have to type anything and 'poof!' instant title of link lol.

I agree, there is a lot of speculation and very few hard facts the either prove or disprove who is to blame. This article came closest to what I was looking for. Once upon a time a few months ago an economic reporter researched and presented a time line of the meltdown. It was very clinical and dry but it showed how things sort of started snowballing sometime in 2001, pre 9-11.

But I think people are not looking back far enough.

I got off work a bit ago so I'm feeling hyperbolic, I apologize in advance. Well...remember the Savings and Loans scandal in the 80's? The dot.com bubble bursting in the 90s? The market has been warning us for decades it needs shoring up but the only response I've seen is artificially inflating the value of homes.

[Hemidakota]

Webster, I can see in the coming decade that many states will begin to reject the federal government and uprising will ensue. I can see soon, as described by Joseph, the constitution will hang by a thread. At that time, if I am alive, I will be the first to hang anyone who allowed this to happen where many of our brethren [including sisters] gave there lives for our day.

[Guest SisterofJared]

How come the state/people don't own my business?[/quote|

Whatever business you own will undoubtedly be regulated and controlled by our government. You will have to files miles of paper work, pay lots of taxes, and follow a heavy oppressive set of rules and regulations. You must apply for tons of permits and pay lots of licensing fees.... in other words, your business exists ONLY at the will of your government. If they're not happy, your business does not exist. Socialism. Our forefathers would roll over in their graves.

How come I buy my own health care?

Ah, one of the few. If it's NOT socialism, why do you buy the health care for thousands of people you've never met, including paying for their abortions and supporting their unwed mothers?

How come I am free to earn any amount of money I can and spend it any way I want?

Oh you are free to earn any amount of money you can, are you are free to spend it any way you want.... after you first spend it to support the socialist agenda: public education, welfare and benefit "entitlement" programs, after you pay to support the arts, put men on the moon, and study why children fall off of tricycles, well, you can spend the rest any way you want. If you're lucky, you can even pay your rent and buy a few groceries. Lucky you! As long as you don't want to eat really wholesome food, that is.

How come I bank with a private company?

Are you sure? I'm not sure there ARE any private banks anymore, seeing as how the government just forced us to fork over billions of our children's and grandchildren's money to them. A friend in the banking industry told me the government REQUIRED all banks to participate. In fact, if you want to see the reason we're in this socialist mess, follow the money trail.

How come every single thing I own was made by non-governmentally directed companies?

Look closely. Everything you own was made by government controlled companies. You are regulated in every direction of your life. You need a license to get married, a license to own a dog, a permit to build a shed in your yard. The pillows on your bed have government regulated tags hanging from them, and the lady who cuts your hair has to be licensed by the government. When you park your car in front of a store, the height of the curb is government regulated, the number of handicapped spaces and the exact width of those spaces are all government regulated. From the minute you wake up until the minute you go to sleep, you will live life like a pin ball trying to fit through the little slots the government has set, bashing against little paddles that bounce you into more regulations. And the sad fact is, you won't even know it. You won't know it because you never lived in a time of true liberty, and because Americans have been steeped, like the frog who is placed in warm water and slowly cooked.

Socialism - in a pig's eye.

Slavery? If you had ever been a slave or had any idea what slavery actually was you couldn't make such an absurd claim.

If you had even known true liberty, you would recognize the decays to it. We are heavily socialist now. Can it get worse? Yes. Unfortunately, it will.

Edited February 23, 2009 by SisterofJared

[LittleWyvern]

If you had even known true liberty, you would recognize the decays to it.

There's a difference between true liberty and anarchy. Your post (at least to me) seems to say regulations = socialism.

Edited February 24, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[Moksha]

I will think socialism only when we finally get a good health care system. Being the only industrialized country in the world without a national heath care system sure does suck.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

How come the state/people don't own my business?[/quote|

Whatever business you own will undoubtedly be regulated and controlled by our government. You will have to files miles of paper work, pay lots of taxes, and follow a heavy oppressive set of rules and regulations. You must apply for tons of permits and pay lots of licensing fees.... in other words, your business exists ONLY at the will of your government. If they're not happy, your business does not exist. Socialism. Our forefathers would roll over in their graves.

I own and operate a business without any such regulations or paperwork.... No permits or licensing fees either.... In fact I'm doing it right under my government's nose and there's nothing they can do about it... Huh....

The same thing generally applies to everything else you said, but it all being so ridiculous I feel no need to reply to each point individually. I'd love to see objective third party research that supports any of your claims.

If you had even known true liberty, you would recognize the decays to it. We are heavily socialist now. Can it get worse? Yes. Unfortunately, it will.

And where have you lived that you know "true liberty"? I lived in Saudi Arabia for a year, if you like I can compare and contrast freedom vs oppression for you on a line item basis.

There's a difference between true liberty and anarchy. Your post (at least to me) seems to say regulations = socialism.

Amen. A true "free market" is pure anarchy and yes, it's been tried before and it's failed. SOME regulation is necessary to maintain a stable economy. The real question is how much regulation is too much?

Also, we Americans tend to forget that our government is still a government "Of the people" and "by the people". If we have any problem with those regulations and interventions, we can start a petition and put a bill before congress to change it. Or are we those who just want to complain about the world but are too lazy to do anything to change it?

Edited February 24, 2009 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[Snow]

Whatever business you own will undoubtedly be regulated and controlled by our government. You will have to files miles of paper work, pay lots of taxes, and follow a heavy oppressive set of rules and regulations. You must apply for tons of permits and pay lots of licensing fees.... in other words, your business exists ONLY at the will of your government. If they're not happy, your business does not exist. Socialism. Our forefathers would roll over in their graves.

Own a dictionary? You don't understand the word socialism. Look it up.

Ah, one of the few. If it's NOT socialism, why do you buy the health care for thousands of people you've never met, including paying for their abortions and supporting their unwed mothers?

Oh - this is as much about your moral beliefs as it is about socialism. No wonder you are so inaccurate so as to render your points meaningless.

I am happy to help pay for the medical care of the indigent. It's a fundamental Christian principle - to care for the have-nots and those that disagree aren't true Christians.

Oh you are free to earn any amount of money you can, are you are free to spend it any way you want.... after you first spend it to support the socialist agenda: public education, welfare and benefit "entitlement" programs, after you pay to support the arts, put men on the moon, and study why children fall off of tricycles, well, you can spend the rest any way you want. If you're lucky, you can even pay your rent and buy a few groceries. Lucky you! As long as you don't want to eat really wholesome food, that is.

Let it be noted that you are the type of person that thinks that public education equals socialism.

Are you sure? I'm not sure there ARE any private banks anymore, seeing as how the government just forced us to fork over billions of our children's and grandchildren's money to them. A friend in the banking industry told me the government REQUIRED all banks to participate. In fact, if you want to see the reason we're in this socialist mess, follow the money trail.

Yep, I'm sure and you don't know what you are talking about - regardless of what someone's mother's hairdresser's 2nd uncle twice removed who once was a security guard in the banking industry says.

Look closely. Everything you own was made by government controlled companies. You are regulated in every direction of your life. You need a license to get married, a license to own a dog, a permit to build a shed in your yard. The pillows on your bed have government regulated tags hanging from them, and the lady who cuts your hair has to be licensed by the government. When you park your car in front of a store, the height of the curb is government regulated, the number of handicapped spaces and the exact width of those spaces are all government regulated. From the minute you wake up until the minute you go to sleep, you will live life like a pin ball trying to fit through the little slots the government has set, bashing against little paddles that bounce you into more regulations. And the sad fact is, you won't even know it. You won't know it because you never lived in a time of true liberty, and because Americans have been steeped, like the frog who is placed in warm water and slowly cooked.

If you had even known true liberty, you would recognize the decays to it. We are heavily socialist now. Can it get worse? Yes. Unfortunately, it will.

Do you. like live in a cabin, with Trespassers Will be Shot signs out fronts?

Edited February 24, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

I own and operate a business without any such regulations or paperwork.... No permits or licensing fees either.... In fact I'm doing it right under my government's nose and there's nothing they can do about it... Huh....

That's because you live in America - of some similar place I take it.

[a-train]

Call it whatever you want, the United States is over-regulated. When government takes over a certain industry or product in the economy, it can cause other players in the economy to make bad decisions that lead to major misallocations of resources. The worst of all such situations is a government created money monopoly.

People blaming the "unregulated" banking industry for our current economic contraction fail to recognize that the banks are heavily regulated by the FED. The FED set artificially low interest rates which caused the whole fiasco. This did not begin a couple of years ago or even within a decade ago. This situation has been building up for decades.

The monetarist views of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke caused them to move the interest rate in a direction opposite of what the market would have done. A free market would have raised interest rates when demand shifted higher, but they, under the assumption that such rises in the interest rate would lead to unemployment, lowered rates in order to prevent contractions of GDP.

This actually deepened bad investments and caused investors in every sector of the economy (not just in banking) to continue to allocate resources to what would have been demonstrably unprofitable locations.

With free market money, the interest rate would have risen long ago and bad investments would have been made painfully obvious. Now, there is nothing the FED can do any longer. The rate is 0% and nobody even wants the a loan for free. Now the number of people that will be unemployed as the economy finally undergoes a long overdo reallocation of resources will be much greater than it would have been if the corrections were allowed to have taken place long ago.

Add to this a fiscal policy designed to keep prices (especially real estate prices) from falling and the whole painful correction will be sustained longer and will go deeper. Despite the attempts at proping up the real estate market, it will still go as low as the market demands, it will only take longer to do so.

-a-train

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Let it be noted that you are the type of person that thinks that public education equals socialism.

THANK YOU! I was going to say it but I was going to get myself banned the way I had it worded...

That's because you live in America - of some similar place I take it.

Well it IS America we're talking about so I figured it was a good example.

Despite the attempts at proping up the real estate market, it will still go as low as the market demands, it will only take longer to do so.

-a-train

Right. Survival of the fittest is a key principle in a free market, and it is so for a reason.

[a-train]

Quote:

Originally Posted by a-train

Despite the attempts at proping up the real estate market, it will still go as low as the market demands, it will only take longer to do so.

-a-train

Right. Survival of the fittest is a key principle in a free market, and it is so for a reason.

So I am not sure what this statement means when given in response to mine. Let us take for example those families that are living the lowest standard of living in the country right now. Would it help them or would it hurt them for their housing expenses to fall?

What our government's bailout of the financial institutions does is it prevents the much needed relief for these families in order to protect unproductive businesses.

Now we could call the money monopoly of the FED: the socialization of money. We could say that the means of production of money has been completely overtaken by government. But I would admit that this is not actually true, the government has handed this monopoly to a private entity. This entity has never been audited since its creation in 1913. Even Barnie Frank wants it audited.

The same is true of all the U.S. government's control of the means of production. Rather than calling it socialism, it hands the ownership out to a crony and calls it "capitalism". Then, it socializes the losses while allowing the gains to be privatized. This is more of a characteristic of fascism than socialism. I don't care what sort of "ism" it is, I don't like the redistribution of wealth from the masses to a select few through government arrangements, especially that of the FED and I don't know many Americans that do.

-a-train

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

So I am not sure what this statement means when given in response to mine. Let us take for example those families that are living the lowest standard of living in the country right now. Would it help them or would it hurt them for their housing expenses to fall?

What our government's bailout of the financial institutions does is it prevents the much needed relief for these families in order to protect unproductive businesses.

Now we could call the money monopoly of the FED: the socialization of money. We could say that the means of production of money has been completely overtaken by government. But I would admit that this is not actually true, the government has handed this monopoly to a private entity. This entity has never been audited since its creation in 1913. Even Barnie Frank wants it audited.

The same is true of all the U.S. government's control of the means of production. Rather than calling it socialism, it hands the ownership out to a crony and calls it "capitalism". Then, it socializes the losses while allowing the gains to be privatized. This is more of a characteristic of fascism than socialism. I don't care what sort of "ism" it is, I don't like the redistribution of wealth from the masses to a select few through government arrangements, especially that of the FED and I don't know many Americans that do.

-a-train

What I mean by "survival of the fittest" is that in a free market, entities (be they banks, businesses, or people) who mismanage their assets (money) will fail. So banks that give loans to high risk borrowers (who then default on those loans) will go under. Businesses that allow their executives to embezzle funds while ripping off their customers and investors will fail. People who spend more than they make will go bankrupt and be responsible for the money they owe. On the flip side, those who manage their money wisely and make good business decisions will succeed and grow and prosper.

What you say about the Federal Reserve is absolutely correct and frightening, however this too could be changed by popular vote if somebody had the wherewithall to get the petition signatures to put the measure on the ballot (and the money to inform the general public about it) - and this is where I become a hypocrite because, like everyone else, I don't like it, but I'm not going to be the one to change it.

[a-train]

What I mean by "survival of the fittest" is that in a free market, entities (be they banks, businesses, or people) who mismanage their assets (money) will fail. So banks that give loans to high risk borrowers (who then default on those loans) will go under. Businesses that allow their executives to embezzle funds while ripping off their customers and investors will fail. People who spend more than they make will go bankrupt and be responsible for the money they owe. On the flip side, those who manage their money wisely and make good business decisions will succeed and grow and prosper.

Concur.

What you say about the Federal Reserve is absolutely correct and frightening, however this too could be changed by popular vote if somebody had the wherewithall to get the petition signatures to put the measure on the ballot (and the money to inform the general public about it) - and this is where I become a hypocrite because, like everyone else, I don't like it, but I'm not going to be the one to change it.

The bill is HR 833, introduced Feb 3, 2009 by Texas Congressman Ron Paul who has been trying to blow the horn on the FED since the late 1970s.

H.R. 833: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (GovTrack.us)

It says: "Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished."

It also provides for the management during the dissolution period and the liquidation of its assets by transferring after meeting all obligations any remaining to the U.S. Treasury.

Congressman Paul has introduced bills of this nature many times before in the face of harsh criticism and ridicule. HR 833 is currently in the Financial Services Committee chaired by Congressman Barney Frank. Congressman Paul reports that Frank has said he wants the FED audited, a move that has Paul positive about the way this is going.

Economists have studied for a long time how to denationalize money in America. Take a look at Hayek's thoughts:

http://mises.org/books/denationalisation.pdf

-a-train

[blusun7]

i agree with Marshac.

The goverment is laying blame on what they where to prevent.

This is all part of the scheme to change things in america.

Look at all the new laws coming to act. Especially the ones that violate our freedom.

Joseph smith prophesy is starting to come true.. the one about the constitution..

[Snow]

i agree with Marshac.

The goverment is laying blame on what they where to prevent.

This is all part of the scheme to change things in america.

Look at all the new laws coming to act. Especially the ones that violate our freedom.

Joseph smith prophesy is starting to come true.. the one about the constitution..

You mean the one that the Church now repudiates?

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

The bill is HR 833, introduced Feb 3, 2009 by Texas Congressman Ron Paul who has been trying to blow the horn on the FED since the late 1970s.

H.R. 833: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (GovTrack.us)

It says: "Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished."

It also provides for the management during the dissolution period and the liquidation of its assets by transferring after meeting all obligations any remaining to the U.S. Treasury.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, it doesn't include sufficient language to apply proper oversight to the dissolution of the Federal Reserve. But it's better than nothing. Also unfortunately, since many of our legislators get kickbacks from the system the way it is, it is unlikely to ever get passed. - On a side note, if the reserve were audited, I'd find it interesting to learn how many of our legislators are silent investors in its banks -. I believe to be successfull, such a bill would have to be put to a direct election to the people, and it's been so long since I've read the US constitution that I'm not even sure such action is even possible (I'm in the process of going over it but with many distractions).

[Hemidakota]

i agree with Marshac.

This is all part of the scheme to change things in america.

Look at all the new laws coming to act. Especially the ones that violate our freedom.

Joseph smith prophesy is starting to come true.. the one about the constitution..

I do believe that is the case....

[Hemidakota]

When one conservative Republican President bails out the Savings and Loans with government money and runs the debt up 4 trillion and the next conservative Republican President bails out the banks and runs the debt up 6 or 8 trillion, socialism is alive and well -- at least for the rich.

:lol::lol:or that democrats keep creating a numerous amount of failing social programs. Or a governor that becomes president, raking the Social Security coffers and tells the nation, "look at what I have done for you in bringing down the debt."

[a-train]

:lol::lol:or that democrats keep creating a numerous amount of failing social programs. Or a governor that becomes president, raking the Social Security coffers and tells the nation, "look at what I have done for you in bringing down the debt."

then another bonehead spends billions supporting 700 military bases throughout the world and a couple of wars. Don't forget bailing out foreign governments like Mexico and the Soviets (which didn't help anyway).

-a-train