The top 5 reasons the political right endangers America.

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (231 posts)
  1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image79
    wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years ago

    The top 5 reasons the political right endangers America.

  2. tsadjatko profile image59
    tsadjatkoposted 4 years ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/8883183_f260.jpg

    Well maybe you should define political right because that means different things to different people and in different contexts.

    According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists (and on the far Right, racists and fascists). Hardly a homogenous group. There has been considerable criticism of the reduction of politics to a simple left-right axis.

    In the United States when you say the Right you are talking about anti-statism involving a general mistrust of government, pro individualism, support of equality of opportunity while rejecting equality of outcome, and populism. If that is what you are referring to you basically are referring to the ideologies that founded this nation, that made this nation great and the abandonment of which has set America on a course to self destruction.

    If the goal is to weaken America, ignore the constitution, destroy individualism, make it a welfare state and give the federal government more and more control over it's citizen's lives to insure equality of outcome, social equality per say and practice of fiscal and economic policies that will bankrupt the nation then the top 5 reasons the political right endangers America are that their ideology is the only protection we have against endangering America.

    WBA I know you and I know on what side of this question you come down on. However you have a provocative way to get left wing answers but I doubt you'll get much response from the lefties - they seem conspicuously absent lately since the failed roll out of Obamacare, all the "phoney" scandals plaguing this administration, it's pathetic failure at foreign policy and propensity to lie to the public (lies even liberals have a hard time rationalizing).

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image79
      wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You sound like Glenn Beck, hateful and racist. The right in America is fascism reborn. They've waged war for oil, bankrupted America for the rich and are destroying the environment. Wake up!

    2. profile image59
      retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The never ending hate spewed by those who love to throw around the name racist is disgusting.

  3. maxoxam41 profile image73
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Is it only one party that plagues our so-called democracies? Indeed not. The US, Europe have different governments and they all endanger their countries. Recently, France voted no to the French "socialism". Nobody is dupe, everybody knows that left or right, right or left it is the same. Bush Obama, Obama Bush, you guessed it, they tricked us.
    As a citizen of my country, this time, I won't vote. It is impossible for me to give credibility, power to a party that IGNORES me as a citizen. It is clear that their agenda is not mine. When someone will open his mouth and act upon his words then I will start listening.

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image79
      wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Are you saying that Bush and Obama are both establishment politicians sold out to corporate interests, leaving the political left and right  as the legitimate voice of the people?

  4. profile image53
    PerrySparkposted 4 years ago

    1) They support the Constitution as it is intended.
    2) They demand that truth be distributed.
    3) They accept individual responsibility and demand it of others.
    4) They demand that illegal immigrants EARN citizenship.
    5) They work to restore the USA through Constitutional Law.

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image79
      wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If the government actually followed the Constitution, most of our problems would be solved overnight.

    2. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      tally agree - the political deceit has risen to a very dangerous level.  a new civil war is just around the corner.

    3. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It's not banks role to be a charity. They offer a service. Accept or decline. Just like when you go to work. This is what I mean about your sense of entitlement. Help yourself. Making money is easy once you get past blaming others.

  5. lovemychris profile image68
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    1. Their quest for endless war
    2. Their refusal to expand medicare
    3. Their refusal to consider any kind of gun control
    4. Their demonization of poor people
    5. Their glorification of Robber Barons

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image79
      wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your insights

    2. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      your chatter is typical of the disenchanted who seek to destroy.
      your freedom to speak such chatter was initiated and is protected most vigilantly by those you seem to oppose.
      individual responsibility is demanded of all.
      lies never win over truth

    3. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Right wing is responsible for freedom of speech? Then how come they got me banned from HP forums? Seems to me like they want to shut people up, or intimidate them into silence: bang bang. Lies always win, because people follow their anger. And ego.

    4. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      you must be the best detective in the world if you have been able to prove that the right wing is responsible for your being banned. maybe you should look at your own writing to see where the ban was generated. individuals get what they reap.

    5. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And you must be new here, as you obviously don't know what goes on. I don't personally attack people, tho I get attacked plenty. I was banned because the RW gangs up, reports & complains.They say" We have ways of dealing with liberals". And they

    6. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Bush had you banned !!! Spend a little less time complaining on hubpages with your free time and devote it to doing something more economically productive and maybe you won't be struggling so much financially. Of course then you couldn't play victim.

    7. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nope, im not mcbundy. I actually was victimized. And I dont appreciate it, and refuse to take it like a man. Iwas called mental patient and jew hater andthen banned. You call me stupid any way you can. But you get pass. Nope. Bully behavior gets whip

    8. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I have seen you write the most vile things about members of the Tea party and other conservatives.  That might be a reason.  If you feel everyone is lining up against you, that could be a sign of schizophrenia.  Unless...it really was Bush !!!

    9. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Have you SEEN the things said about Obama and Liberals? Is supposed to be fine, as long as it's not personal. And I never mentioned Bush. I said RW'ers here on HP.Same one that called me lunatic said to one she would go, and next you know--she banned

    10. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I have seen you write plenty of derogatory personal attacks against various political figures and groups that were very personal.  And my guess is I have only seen a small sample.  So if you're getting banned for comments...proof read them first.

    11. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nope..personal attacks against fellow hubbers get you banned. Otherwise, plenty of righty's would be outta here for the things they say about Prez Obama and his wife.I spoke out against Israel...that's why I'm gone. This place is rife with Hasbarats

    12. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Once again...proof read your comments.  That alone just had an antisemitic tint to it. And that is tame compared to some of the other rants I have seen you put forth.

    13. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Speaking out against Israel is anti-Semitic? Wow. And THAT is the problem here on HP and in America. If you are saying I'm not allowed an opinion--you are against free speech. Which just proves my statement. My rants are not personal against a Hubber

    14. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Speaking out on policy is not the problem.  The tone in your statements is the problem.  And you speaking about free speech is quite contradictory considering your penchant for wanting to silence the free speech rights of tea party groups.

    15. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah--I know plenty about Tone. You hear the disrespect and superiority DAILY from the Baggers against the Prez. And? They are free to "tone"and I'm not?Apparently so. I'm not silencing anyone. They are still here, and I'm gone. However, I'm watching

    16. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      There is poor tone that comes from both sides.  You're not silencing anyone because you have no authority of any kind to do so.  But you have vocally supported those who would suppress political speech.

    17. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Correct, I have no authority...but they do. I am silenced, they reign free.This is what I've been trying to tell you! There is gang of RW/X-tian/Zios who get rid of people they want to shut up. And HP lets them. Who do I support that silences speech?

    18. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes...hubpages was organized by a vast Right Wing/Pro Israel conspiracy to silence lovemychris.   That's plausible. Because if not, you'd be a widely influential person.  It's only a matter of time before they prevent you from commenting on these ?'s

    19. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh it's not only me. I know of 2 other lefties, and one guy who spoke out against HP policies that got banned as well.They just don't give a sh*t. Me, well like the old cartoon dog said,"That makes me mad" You are like most others-you laugh at truth.

    20. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      A laugh at people who make irrational statements in a public forum while claim to be silenced.

    21. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      This is not public forums. This is private question, and the asker can delete me any time he/she feels like it. Same with Hubs. I can comment, but they can delete...as your pals always do. Free speech advocates my aunt fanny. You need to be exposed.

    22. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You're on a website that allows the public to comment, and hubpages can ban your entire profile anytime they wish.  Just curious, of all the complaints about your circumstances...is there anything in your life that you take responsibility for ???

    23. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Why would they delete me? I have done nothing to warrant it. They are offering people a place to write and "join a community". I did not personally attack anyone(unlike you), and I did not warrant a ban. Perhaps HP should take responsibility. badbiz

    24. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They would ban you because it's an unfair conspiracy to silence you based on political pressure...just like you claimed.   Isn't it obvious

    25. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If you don't believe there is gang of Righty's here who report, complain, vote down and target people--that is your perogative. It exists, and it has power. In public life, it's Focus on Family,etc and AFP--which is currently targeting Al Franken.

    26. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Everybody's comments get voted up or down including mine.  That doesn't make you a "target" anymore than I am.  And Al Franken faces opposition just like every person who has run for office in the US since it's founding....moveon.org etc.

    27. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ok then--you tell me why I am permanently banned, when I didn't make personal attack? Why every time certain topic brings certain hubbers and inevitable ban for me? Why some say "I get banned all the time." So why I'm gone at 5?Someone doesn't likeme

    28. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Gee...maybe because you have a habit of making bigoted statements such as condemning entire groups as racist which I have heard you repeat numerous times in earlier posts.

    29. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, you mean the don't re-nig crowd? The food stamp prez crowd? The Obama as voodoo witch doctor crowd? If shoe fits....I have right to my opinion, as do those who say Liberals hate America. Still not a personal attack on fellow hubber. Not Justified

    30. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Look up the definition of a bigot and see if you can understand what you have said that classifies you as such.  Anyone who condemns and entire group based on the actions of one or a few is a prejudiced bigot.  Perhaps hubpages finds it intolerable

    31. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ah--you see, you have demonstrated the difference between you and me. You just called ME a predjudiced bigot. I am called Jew hater and anti-Semite.These are personal attacks.Me saying T baggers are racist idiots on the public dole is not.Yet,ibanned

    32. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You have previously made antisemetic comments as well as comments demonizing all supporters of the Tea party as a bunch of racists.  The difference between you and I, is I don't assume all liberals are as prejudiced as you are.

    33. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You call me anti-Semitic,not me. And how is it ok to call me that, then get offended when I call TP racists? And FYI, there are scads of hubbers here who DO make generalizations about ALL liberals...should they be banned for life? Or is that PC here?

    34. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It's ok to call you a bigot because you make repeated comments condemning entire groups of people.  That is the textbook definition.  If you chose to cite facts such as academic research or some credible source to discuss policy, that would be diff't

    35. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah ok, but that's personal. That not allowed here.I guess bigot is allowed, that's really not an attack. But neither is racist. And you seem to be saying it's ok for you to call me out,but I can't say anything about the baggers.Your kind rule here.

    36. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      All I am doing is repeating back YOUR statements to you. It is not possible for you to repeat back the statements of one or a few and assign them to an entire group unless you're prejudice. That exactly what you are doing in regards to conservatives

    37. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Aaaaand, plenty of people do it about liberals, too! And poor people:lazy, entitled,etc. ONLY... I BANNED. read this: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/77079?page=3. This guy"Live" was 'livelonger'. He had problems w me too. Mason n I both banned. Hmmm

    38. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      There is no ID called "live" or "livelonger" in the link.  And this "Mason" fellow who you say is banned (most likely for the vulgarity) is writing on behalf of Conservatives.  So there goes your whole theory out the window.

    39. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Not at all. He says he was banned for his views. Just as I say. Con or Lib doesn't matter.Livelonger was a hubber--in fact he worked here.He's the one-as mod, say only personal attacks get ban.Yet he call me jew hater,liar. Bans are personal! badbiz!

    40. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It appears he posted vulgarity which is likely why he was banned.  I did not call you a Jew hater.  I said if YOU can condemn all members of the Tea Part based on Nugent than the SAME standard would apply to Obama supporters because of Farrakhan.

    41. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "I have been banned for my views. Like when Live didn't like my assertions that homosexuality is an immoral choice. that got me four months." Live is livelonger. Mason says livelonger got him banned for his views. Live worked here-he had that power

    42. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps it is the way in which you present your arguments.  I would suggest you re-read your comments.  You're easy to debate on issues since you never cite a credible study or source for anything. But I would ban you as well based on tone alone.

    43. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe we need another amendment...the Freedom of Tone amendment. "you never cite a credible study or source for anything". Now that is a load of hogwash. You are new here, aren't you? Good thing you don't work here tho. My speech not free at all huh?

    44. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Hubpages is not a gov't entity. The 1st amendment doesn't require private entities to provide you a forum. They are free to restrict anyone.  And I am still waiting for you to cite an economics textbook or study that defines capitalism as "Money"

    45. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well, sorry but in America--you can't discriminate.Same rules apply for all. In USA-Capital is Money. You deny this? And pls try this;these anti-Obama commenters: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121430.Should they be banned for tone?I can find worse

    46. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Banning people from presenting themselves in an uncivilized way is not discriminatory. And currency is not capital.  In economics capital is "already produced durable goods or any non-financial asset that is used in production of goods or services"

    47. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It certainly is discrimination when certain people can be "uncivil" and others are thrown off the bus. Let's ban anyone who says Obama hates America--deal? and Textbook/Shmextbook....in USA, Capital=Money. Those who have: Rule/Decide/OWN. I Cry FOUL.

    48. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You have pointed to both lib's and con's that have been thrown off. Sounds pretty equal. Capital permits access to money in every economic system ever known to man.Produce more capital and you to will have more money. Create something people want.

    49. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Too bad theydont stick to want. These greedmongers must make profit on needs! No money--no food, home, etc. Boooo. And no one should be bsnned cause someone doesnt like their opinion. Or tone. Yours is quite demeaning you know. And many haters liveon

    50. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      ??? Everyone makes a profit based on needs.  You can provide a product or a service to people that they don't want and or which is easily attainable elsewhere and expect to be highly compensated. If there was no profit, nothing would ever be produced

    51. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Im talking about basic neccesitys as a human being. Its beyond immoral to put profit above a persons shelter, food, health, etc. Make yor profit ftom those who have $ to burn, not thosr whose life you hurt because basics take more than they can give

    52. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And you see it as some how moral to make people provide you with the labor to produce those necessary items and be forced to do so without being compensated ??? Which makes them your slave.  They either profit by their labor or they lose money.

    53. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Lot of countries have state-owned energy. Lot of countries don't make it impossible to live because it cost so much. Are we too stupid to figure it out? Or too greedy?No owner that I know or work/ed for would ever be considered a slave. Slave-driver!

    54. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      State owned energy or state owned anything doesn't mean that there are no profits.It just means the gov't bureaucrats keep all the profit and wealth for themselves and the people usually have LESS access. Own's would be slaves if they COULDN"T profit

    55. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      All biz is a public service.  That doesn't mean you don't charge for it. Every customer of every biz needs to be profitable or there is no reason to do biz with them. If you generate less revenue, you have to be charged more or they go under.

  6. Ceegen profile image80
    Ceegenposted 4 years ago

    "Right vs Left" is a false paradigm. They both share the same goal of destroying America and remaking it into something else, and to do this they both take one step forward, and then one step back: One step ahead... (Towards a New World Order, that is)!

    Therefore, the top 5 reasons the politicians of any stripe endangers America, is because:

    1. Politicians are disarming the citizens, both literally and intellectually. While one side claims to be for "gun rights", they still compromise on this for the sake of taking one step back, after the "left" has already taken two steps forward. Both sides, however, insist that the other side is the "real enemy" and works hard to silence voices of dissent; by the use of propaganda and hegelian dialectic. Divide (Americans from each other) and conquer.

    2. They have allowed a private banking industry free reign over our economy, by enforcing under the threat of law an unapportioned tax on "income", to pay for the interest-debt that is immediately attached to the money the government borrows from this private entity. This is done in spite of the fact that the congress needs be responsible for the coinage of money, and has made it questionable (illegal, even) for people to use physical gold as a means of payment.

    3. Stifling freedom of speech by overt litigious actions for any and every little thing, whether it be right or wrong, simply to set a precedent for future legal actions against people who (like me) are speaking out against the encroaching government powers. (ie, "free speech zones", and requiring groups to obtain a permit to peaceably assemble). Even going so far as to regulate speech on the internet, trying to make it necessary to obtain a "proper government license" as a credentialed journalist, simply to have a web page or blog. (And if they don't like what you're saying, they can then revoke your license, thereby silencing you).

    4. Subject citizens to unlawful searches and seizures for "probable cause", thereby bypassing the 4th amendment. This slow but steady encroachment upon the right to be free from this type of tyrannical government power, is placated by the Pavlovian conditioning in the saying, "What do you have to hide?" This goes against the idea that we are innocent until proven guilty, and have become guilty until proven innocent.

    5. Eroding and blurring the lines of private property laws, in part with the eminent domain powers, and restricting use of public lands by regulations and fees.

    1. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      left v right is real. No one is making the divide..it exists. guns vs freedom from them. fetus rights vs women rights. owners vs workers...it's a true divide. Banking thing I totally agree. 4th went out w Patriot Act. Should have stopped it then.9/11

    2. Ceegen profile image80
      Ceegenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, it really isn't. It's more like professional wrestling. All you're seeing when it comes to arguments they have when made in public, is what they want you to see. 9-11 was an inside job.

    3. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, 9/11 was the beginning of the end for America.And on that, it is a bi-partisan affair. Because this goes to making Israel the head of the world.But,when Right is in power, womens rights, gay rights, minority rights are threatened. This is fact.

    4. Ceegen profile image80
      Ceegenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Your "rights" are an illusion. You have no rights, and if you believe that you do, you're just a pawn.

    5. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Of course I have rights. And I have right to demand them. But itd be grand if you could tell the gun owners they have no rights....what do you think they would say? Bang bang.

    6. Ceegen profile image80
      Ceegenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Rights" breed the entitlement mentality that we have today, and the violent reaction people have to their rights being taken away, is exactly what the conspirators want. Violence gives them the excuse they need to implement the "necessary measures".

    7. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      lovemychris - 270 million firearms are owned by citizens. you challenge this when 1 in 270 million people use it for evil purposes.  yet, you do not present the truth about the 90 thousand that protect themselves and others yearly.

    8. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Rights is just a name for it. I know I'm entitled to food shelter heat. Education and joy. They put $ on it..it becomes hard to get. $ is the problem, not "rights". $ is control mechanism--nothing more. I have right to be free from guns, too.Theykill

    9. Ceegen profile image80
      Ceegenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Guns are inanimate objects, and without the aid of humans, can't kill anything of their own volition. You can't blame a gun for killing a person, any more than you can blame a pencil for misspelling a word. I don't own one anyway, so...

    10. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You have no such rights.  Nowhere in the constitution and the bill of rights are any such rights you cited enumerated. You have a right only to pursue these things.  It is your responsibility to obtain them.   Hence the phrase "pursuit of happiness"

    11. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      My rights as a Human Being supercede the Constitution. If we listened to that--I'd still be property of a husband, and my kids would be chattel. I don't care where I live-what the gvt is-who owns the world: I have rights as a Human, as does everybody

    12. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You can "feel" what you want. But you live under the US Constitution.  And what are the rights of the person that must provide you with the labor to produce your food if you can't pay him accordingly.  Is he then your slave with no such rights ???

    13. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Everyone has the same rights. Rich are no better, tho Capitalism makes it such: duh--why you think they invent it? No mention of Capitalism in the Constitution, and corporations are not people.They have all the rights w none of the responsibility. BS

    14. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Rich or poor has nothing to do with it. If you are entitled to something that requires the fruits of someone's labor to provide it, then the provider is by definition your slave, as they must provide it even if you don't compensate them at all.

    15. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They give me food--I provide clothing. Some hunt, some clean. Some care for kids, some teach....Its called a SOCIETY. We didn't need money before, and we sure don't need it now. It's a control mechanism, nothing more. "He who controls the money", etc

    16. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You don't need it now either.  There over 500k business across the country that participate in the barter network.  You're free to do so. But that means it is not a "right"  A "right" is something that can't be denied regardless of remuneration.

    17. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That's fine and dandy. I still maintain my rights a s a human being, and they supercede the constitution, or a capitalist system set up so people can rob, steal, and cheat each other. WATCH people die....with glee! It's inhumane, not of my DNA.

    18. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Capitalism is a by product of personal liberty, nothing more. It means nothing more than controlling your own destiny. And you have no RIGHT to anything that requires someone else's labor to provide it to you, unless that person is your slave.

    19. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Capitalism has nothing to do with personal liberty. If so: why does everything cost money? Food, clothes, heat, housing, education...more money, better liberty, eh? It's a control system. And money is the bait. It gives you illusion of power-untildie

    20. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Capitalism can and did exist before the invention of currency. Currency is just a more efficient means of setting interim prices than bartering.  Would you prefer to trade Chickens or Hens as your preferred medium of exchange ???

    21. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Eh, except before capitalism, a great chief was one who did the most for his people...not one who took the most for himself. It's a sickness...the worship of mammon. It's in da bible. And any time $ is considered before a life...ANY life, it scars us

    22. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Anytime two people negotiate an agreement on the exchange of goods or services...it is capitalism. That happened long before currency and long before the bible was written. It has been happening as long as humans have existed.

    23. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That's not capitalism!  Capitalism is money. Period. And the value they put on it makes them think they are above everyone...even if they get it thru violent, immoral means. As long as they have it, they say "I am god". Well, they are not god.theydie

    24. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Please cite an economics textbook in which Capitalism is defined as "money". Currency exists in all forms of Government.  The Soviet Union used currency in a Communist society.  Money has no intrinsic value because it is not Capital...it is a Medium

    25. wba108@yahoo.com profile image79
      wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The term Capitalism was created by Marxists. Capitalism  really means a free market, which the founders knew was essential to freedom.

    26. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Bingo.  Unfortunately, lovemychris seems to have little understanding of what actual economic systems are. Profit and wealth accumulation exists in a Communist centrally planned society as well. It is just kept exclusively in the hands of the gov't.

    27. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Please tell me what's free about working your self to the bone and someone else decides how much you are worth? What was free about slavery? Where is Capitalism in the Constitution? It's not, and it isn't free.We are to form a more perfect union.NEXT

    28. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Limitation of power of the central gov't in the Const and the principals of self governance are by definition a free market.  If the people are free to decide then they live in a free market.  Read the commerce clause.  Your skills decide your pay.

    29. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      People with money to burn are free. Everyone else is enslaved. And, in my observation--a lot of things other than skill determine pay. gender is one. Who you know is 2. What type of person the employer is, 3. Are of country, 4. Age, 5. On and on and

    30. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      right vs left is a political ploy to keep the chaos going.  the politicians intend to continue to ruin the nation. they are claiming a poor vs wealthy and non-white vs white division. but the only division is coming from the politician.

    31. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That because you have no real understanding of economics. Nobody forced you to accept your job.  And you are free to start your own business and market your SKILLS directly to the public as I did. 40% of all new Biz in the US is begun by immigrants.

    32. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I am forced to work because food cost money, housing cost money,clothes cost money, etc etc etc. That is capitalism-based on  money, and the more money you have the better life you get. To me, this is stupid and insane. We need more perfect way.

    33. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Everyone is forced to work and we're all free to choose where we apply those skills we develop.Working for currency exists in every system of governance because there is no other efficient way to set prices. It is simply a universal form of exchange

    34. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Here's a clue for you...most people enjoy working. It's nice when you get something out of it. When you are forced to slave just to live in poverty--it is an imperfect union. We need a better one. Capitalism has GOT TO GO. Buh Bye. Toppled by greed.

    35. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Capitalism has got to go"Can you please name an economic system every devised by man that has lifted more people from poverty. Global poverty has declined by 80% as per the most recent data centered around the nations that have opened up markets.

    36. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Lifted? If uou mean people fight for jobs that pay 3 dollard a week, I hardly call that lifted. I want high stsndard of life for ev3ryone, regardless of income.Scandinavia comes to mind. Or what Chavez was trying to do. Unfortunstely, caring payprice

    37. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Scandinavian nations use a free market economy.  And the reduction on global poverty comes from the national bureau of economic research, and actual research papers.
      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-cont … y-rate.jpg

    38. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I'm Swedish...when someone over there has a baby, first of all: they don't get a bill from the hospital. The country gives them a baby package: food diapers, clothing, etc, and they get paid time off work. Is that free-market? Over here--lose job.

    39. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I guess you haven't been back home in some time.They have been privatizing the system slowly for years due lack of accessibility. I saw it first hand in 2011 when I was there
      http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/22/socia … ate-health

    40. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They are living to regret it, as they also see profits put ahead of all decency and common sense. Any system that allows money to be the motivator and driver is bound to fail. Its not called filthy lucre for nothing.

    41. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like they are regretting the disaster their entitlement state created for them and the endless waiting lists to see a Dr. Which is why they're reversing course.
      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 1221879580

  7. LandmarkWealth profile image79
    LandmarkWealthposted 4 years ago

    There is only one thing that is dangerous about the "political" right.  And that is that too many of the establishment Republicans have long ago lost sight of what true conservative principles are all about.  Too many give a wonderful speech, but when it comes down to protecting personal freedoms and individual liberty...they pay only lip service to their constituents.  There is a very big difference between talking about limiting the scope of gov't and actually trying to do it even when the political polls don't favor your position. 

    The D.C establishment of the right has given us almost as much,if not just as much in the way of unsustainable entitlements, massive regulatory intrusion, social engineering, along with a convoluted/contradictory tax code that does little too stimulate capital investment.  The establishment on the right is no better than the left.  In some ways they are worse.  At least when those on the political left try to sell things like the fairness doctrine to the public to suppress political speech...we know exactly where they are coming from.  I find it far more sickening watching many of the establishment republicans trying to hitch their wagon to conservative grass root political movements just in time for re-election, and then conveniently disappear when the political fight gets tough.  If you're part of the political right that only fights vigorously for the 1st, 2nd and 10th amendment when it's convenient, then you're as dangerous as anyone on the left. 

    The political environment that most endangers America is one in which the people are given pause out of fear of what their gov't might do to them.  When the people give pause to the gov't...we have liberty.

    1. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Fairness doctrine is just that: an attempt to stop big time money bags from buying up the PUBLIC airwaves and presenting only one point of view--which is what we have now. 20 hrs of Right Wing talk. This is PUBLIC air....not conservative air.

    2. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The fairness doctrine is a political license for speech.  What goes on the radio waves or TV is what people want to watch.If they didn't want it the advertising dollars wouldn't pay for it because nobody would be listening. Simple supply & demand

    3. wba108@yahoo.com profile image79
      wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years agoin reply to this

      LandmarkWealth, I agree, it may be worse to have politicians posing as friends and selling us out behind our backs. What may be worse is knowing better but not having the courage of their conviction.

    4. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No way its supply and demand. I live in "socialist" Mass, and commercial radio is all rw. They buy it to monopolize thought, and deny opposition. Rs are 3% here. No way is this to satisfy demand. It satisfy rw who own everything.

    5. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And MSNBC is on the air in Texas. There is no demand for left wing radio.  That is why Air America crashed.  Their audience plummeted. Advertisers will spend money wherever their is an audience.  Otherwise they don't sell their products & service

    6. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You don't get it....there used to be rw, liberal, libertarian, independent...now it is ALL rw: nothing more. They bought it up, and Russshhhhh is proof of that. in 91, he became all you could hear at 12 noon, on every single talk station.Him, or nada

    7. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      First of all Rep's got 45% of the vote in the last 2 Mass Senate races. That is a sizeable market share.  And there are plenty of Lib radio shows on now. Their rating's just stink like MSNBC's.  Leslie Marshall, Ed Schutlz, Miller, Maddow, Kincaid

    8. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      There is no liberal talk radio on commercial air. If you want to hear it--you have to pay for it, or get it online. Funny--if, as you claim, there is 45% R demographics, how come they get 100% of the airwaves? That doesn't seem fair. Wee need fairdoc

    9. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Almost all are on commercial radio.  Are we back to make up our own set of facts again.   http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_talk_radio
      And I don't "claim" 45%.  That was the voter turnout.  That is sizeable market share.  A far cry from 5%

    10. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I live in mass. The talk radio line up is Con in morning, then rush, glenn beck, Howie carr, savage, don't really know: CAN'T listen. There is 0 liberal talk, except on-line and Sirius, which you must pay for. Come here and find out for yourself.sux

    11. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Get a stronger radio. WHMP  1400am Stephanie Miller from Northhampton Mass every afternoon.  Lib's just don't last on the radio because their rating stink.  (Air America). Can't force people to listen to political talk unless your Joseph Goebbels

    12. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Why do I have to buy yet more, just so I can have the same priviledge as all the cons around here, who get RW talk all day FOR FREE, on the PUBLIC airwaves? I cannot get 1400. I CAN get 680am and 95.1 fm--all R all the time.They have ruined talkradio

    13. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The show is on a station that broadcasts at 1000 watts.  That means you can pick it up in the next state.  So you need to buy a new radio because you apparently don't have a functioning one.  http://ltradio.wikia.com/wiki/WHMP

    14. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not getting thru to you, am I? I don't wan to buy another radio...I have 3! And they all pick up RW talk just fine. No matter where I go....There is a reason that liberal talk is outligned to a weak signal. And it's nothing to do with audience.

    15. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I am not getting thru to you. I can pick up her show in VT and have while driving north. Your Radio doesn't work.  Air America was heavily financed by leftist with BIG money and widely syndicated. They still crashed because not enough would listen.

    16. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Funny--I would have loved air America.....couldn't get that out here either....but any blow-hard righty with a block on his shoulder about women, gays and "colored people"...like Hussein Obama...Why--that signal works jes fine. PUBLIC air-where mine?

    17. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Here is a clue for you...Capitalism is a market system were people negotiate their own terms of trade in products and services.  Any other system is one in which a gov't  official tells you what you can and can't have and nobody prospers.

    18. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Disagree whole heartedly.Watch "The Argentina Collapse"...money-men took wonderful state run energy co, privatized,,,turned it to sh*t.Profit is one thing. Greed at expense of workers,another.You skiing in chalet-those who do the work eating noodleos

    19. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Wonderful state run energy sector where 1 out 3 people who live outside of a city had NO access to electricity. Access and capacity grew by 75% after 1990's reforms.Their entire economy collapsed every few years due to govt' price and currency fixing

    20. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thats not what i got out of that documentary....I could have sworn HW Bush sold Americans as the next cheap labor pool. And look, good jobs gone. Left w service and temp that pay miserly wages. Did study here yrs ago: found need 14$ an hr to survive!

    21. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That's because you havent spent anytime studying emerging market economies and the role of fixed exchange rates.   Chavez...LOL.  Yeah next you'll praise Castro too.  That's why people float on man made rafts through shark infested waters to get out.

    22. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Chavez tried to get the energy directly to the people, without the Robber Barons squeezing the poor for profits. That's why Joe Kennedy jr had to get oil from Chavez to help low income families...American co's do not CARE about poor. It's embarrasing

    23. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Chavez is a military dictator who starved and murdered his own people and made them more poor.  Which is why they have a lot MORE poor people in Venezuela despite an abundance of resources. Because no state run and entity has increased productivity

    24. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So who'se making Americans poor?

    25. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The US is still the wealthiest nation on earth.  And any decline is a result of a growing trend of dependence on gov't entitlements, which has impaired productivity and weakened the purchasing power of our currency, as gov't expansion always does.

    26. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Bulloney. Tax cuts for wealthy and deregulation caused our crisis. Not to mention Bush spending without paying...tax cuts with a war..Credit card economy.Now that Obama has to pay up-you blame him.Rich have prosepered. Everyone else suffers.Oligarchy

    27. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The top earners paid MORE in tax revenue to the treasury after the tax reductions not less.  How exactly does that create a crisis ??? Please explain the economic mechanism here.  Obama doesn't have to pay up anything. This issue is productivity.

    28. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Tax cuts took money out of pot, had to be made up by middle class. Rich richer, middle gone. Obama put cost of iraq war and tax cuts in his budget. Bush never did. You have guy worth 21 billion fighting carried interest loophole Obama wants closed.

    29. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      WHAT !!! How exactly do you think we create the "pot"  The larger the deficit the more money in the system.The amount of the Nat'l Debt is precisely the total amount of money EVER created by the US. And there is NO correlation between Rates & Rev

    30. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Obama is taking the nation on the path to destruction by spending more and generating more debt than all 43 other previous presidents combined. Gov is not the answer - it is the problem. The people are the answer - with less gov there is advancement

    31. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      After the Bush tax changes the Wealthiest Americans paid MORE total revenue to the treasury & a higher overall % of the national tax burden. This is an easily verifiable fact. You need to research your statements before you make clearly false one

    32. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      This began w Reagan. Give to the rich, cut from the poor. I will say he did a good thing w the earned income tax credits...but the Baggers want to end them.If you can't SEE that the rich have gotten richer, while the middle class has sunk...no help4u

    33. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The 1980's were one of the most prosperous economic expansions the US has ever seen.  During that time the "Rich" also paid more in taxes...not less.  The aggregate tax revenue the US collects never changes as a share of GDP regardless of tax laws.

    34. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So explain to me the income gap.How it is that rich got richer, and middle class went to lower? Cost of living? Wages not keeping up? CEO's have done jes fine.80's to me was Iran/Contra and crack cocaine epidemic--AIDS, and corruption of Reagan admn.

    35. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The answer is too long with the limited space.  However this is a grossly overstated idea that ignores how income is reported not distributed. Read below

      http://landmarkwealth.hubpages.com/hub/ … he-Numbers

    36. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      How is it that your links get posted, and mine don't? Is it paranoid of me to say this is unfair treatment?You are truly too smart for me LW--my mind shuts off at money and math. To me, it all boils down to greed. Those who have it manipulate gvt.

    37. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know what link you're talking about not getting posted.  All you need to do is take the time to read the data and stop listening to political rhetoric that is designed to pit people against each other.  Success should be admired not demonized

    38. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Any links I try to post here "awaiting modification", then don't get posted.Soon I will only be allowed on my own hubs..and I haven't attacked you once! BIAS. And HONEST success is to be admired. What we have here are Robber Barons. To be despised.

    39. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You listen to too much class warfare.  There aren't too many robber barons, and there really never was to begin with. It's almost impossible to be very successful without creating a lot of wealth for others.  Most wealthy people started at the bottom

    40. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The whole banking system is full of them. So it major part of any gvt in world. I remember Enron employees laughing at the old people they ripped off. It's a systematic implant in our society: money is to be worshipped, and those who have it.FalseGod

    41. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      the level of discrimination against those that work hard and become successful is disgraceful. I did not rob from anyone & yet have become part of the 1% paying 98% of support for others that only want support without working. bad discrimination

    42. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "The banking system is full of them" Another political platitude that is without a shred of factual evidence constantly re-stated by people who don't even understand how the mechanic of how banking system functions...and probably never will.

    43. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sure I do! Try and get your money from a "foreign" bank...Foreign Transaction Fee. Try and take money from your unemployment account...bank takes fee. Make a mistake for as little as 1 cent on a check....$27.00 charge if you go over limit.onlypoorpay

    44. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If you mean they don't provide services for free, that it true. I presume you don't work free either. The fact that you sum up the banking system in such simple terms demonstrates my point of not understanding the credit markets and capital formation

    45. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Work for free? No--I'm pissed that us low incomes are paying the salaries! While my upper income mom pays nothing, nada....ZIP. They also charged fees and made profits by offering sub-prime loans.KNOWING it was bogus. KNOWING they were abusing people

    46. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The entire subprime market was created and dominated by the US Gov't through the GSE's like Fannie & Freddie, NOT the commercial banks. And banks DO NOT generate anywhere near the majority of their revenue to pay salaries from low income workers.

    47. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      gvt banks did not rip people off like private--private is MADE to rip us off. Service and providing for reasonable rates is gone from USA biz. And my mom pays none of it, even tho she can better afford it than me. Rich have their butt kissed.FREEBIES

    48. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What are you talking about ??? GSE's are not banks.  And they are the ONLY buyer of subprime in the secondary market.  Without that demand, subprime wouldn't exist and didn't prior to the GSE's.  And the Federal gov't set's short rates not banks.

    49. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
      By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall McClatchy NewspapersOctober 12, 2008 

      Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5 … rylink=cpy

    50. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I traded them for years. They originate privately, ONLY because the GSE's buy them IMMEDIATELY afterwards creating artificial govt demand to put poor people in homes. As per National Bureau of Economic Research in 2007-70% were held by Gov't agencies

    51. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The Fannie & Freddie disaster was created by the congress when they permitted the activities to purchase all risky loans. This policy created an avenue for institutions to give mortgages to risky folks &the rest is history. The gov did the di

    52. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh please, its always the gvt fault. No, it was greedy banksters who knew they were taking advantage of people, because people trusted them as the experts. Expert thieves! Not to mention derivatives. Did the gvt make the banksters do that too? Greed.

    53. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      This is exactly what I mean about not understanding the banking system. They don't issue securities unless there is a buyer for them.  The GSE's dominated the bid for them, and STILL do. Now they hold about 5 trillion in debt across combined agencies

    54. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Im talking about banksters ripping people off, and people blame the gvt for it! Just like they got bailed out under Bush (TARP), and Tea Party blame Obama for it. Stop looking around at who to blame. Blame those who did it.

    55. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The gov is at fault because the politicians wrote the policy that was used by their political supporters. While others continue to fault the banks, it was the gov that permitted the defaults. Less gov & more personal responsibility is what is nee

    56. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You're talking about something you don't understand. Banks don't issue large #'s of low quality loans when they have to hold them, because of the risk.This was a non issue until the Govt social engineers began buying MBS products to increase issuance

    57. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Banks weren't at risk, people who trusted them were. And quite rightly--our gvt is infiltraited by people who work for Wall Street and corporations. Graham, Leach, Bliley come to mind. All of Tea Party, and Blue Dog Dems. Marshall Law if banksnotpaid

    58. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Whomever HOLDS the note is at risk.That is the bank until the gov't transferred the risk to the GSE's buy buying the loans in the secondary market in order to incent banks to lend more to poor people. Video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A

    59. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The banks risk nothing. It's all other peoples money. And actually, the banks were breaking the law by redlining--ala Donald Trump and Donald Sterling. The gvt was helping discriminated people out by backing affordable home loans. Banks saw target.

    60. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Dear Lord you're lost.  Banks DON'T lend out other peoples money.  Loans create deposits...not the other way around. They create loans from credit that they extend as a multiple of reserves which they borrow from the Fed and pay interest on.

    61. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Isnt that something! Create something out if thin air and charge interest on it. Let me ask you-do you honestly think there is such a thing as 21.5 billion dollars in 3d? Or does it only exist in mind? Its
      all a big game played w numbers. Children.

    62. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Banks create credit based on reserves. The dollar doesn't exist permanently. It is extinguished when a loan is paid off.  Credit is vital to the functioning of an economy. How else would you propose expanding the M2 money supply?  What does 3D mean ?

    63. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      third dimension...real, flesh and blood so to speak. All this money biz is just a conceptual game of control. And we all follow it just because it was here when we came."I have more, so I'm better" "You don't have enough, so you can't eat" It's Dumb.

    64. profile image53
      PerrySparkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The gov helps no one. It simply makes policy that is then abused by a few who then make it necessary for the gov to make more ridiculous policy. Freddy&Fanny is such a debacle. The politicians saw a way to grow rich & created a failure avenue

    65. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Not my view. The gvt saw way to help people, banks saw way to rip off and get rich. Which they did. Granted,gvt let them: due to policy. So guess what? Gvt can make them give it back. 30+ yrs of trickle up.....Payback time.

    66. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You're the only one talking about people being better or worse.  Sound like you have some financial inferiority complex.  Yes the gov't tried to help people by forcing bad loans out to people who can't pay them back...Brilliant...Worked Wonderfully

    67. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Gvt loans worked fine.Banksters saw an opportunity to make a profit, and ruined everything. AS USUAL. And don't pretend you don't know. More money gets you a better life.Status in this country.That's why scumbags are admired. Just cause they're rich.

    68. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The only one who is pretending, is you who clearly has no idea how the banking system functions.Explain why there was no such market dislocation before the gov't began to social engineer the system. Because banks loaned based on creditworthiness

    69. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Banks were loaning based on color! They were refusing black working families, even tho those families kept THEIR money in said banks. It's called red-lining, and it is the reason the CRA was created.Sub-prime bad when put in with derivatives-gvtnotdo

    70. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Banks cared about one thing only.Whether or not you can pay back the money. If Blacks had a lower poverty rate, that's why they didn't get approved. Not because of their color. Forcing out loans to people who can't repay resulted in economic DISASTER

    71. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "It is against the law to discriminate against borrowers based on race or income level, among other factors."--and they were good enough for the banks to take their money...charge fees and fines etc. Gvt did loans jes fine, cause NO DERIVATIVES! scam

    72. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It is NOT against the law to deny someone a loan based on income level. Where do you get this stuff ??? That is actually the single most important factor in underwriting. GSE's held 70% of subprime paper.  So you're saying subprime loans were fine ?

    73. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      " Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, "--they don't do derivatives. Bundling loans w derive gambling w peoples lives. Ka-Ching$$$

    74. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      GSE's operated outside of CRA reg's and bought up 70% of the supply of subprime paper.  Since you mention CRA...try reading some ACTUAL academic research on just how bad an impact it had.
      http://www.nber.org/digest/may13/w18609.html

    75. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "As Wall Street started to buy and securitize mortgages based on risk based pricing models, credit underwriting standards and criteria deteriorated."--gvt fault by fail reigning in Wall Street,NOT in helping Americans buy home.Bail out peoplenotbanks

    76. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Why do you think they were securitized to begin with...because gov't created the demand to buy them in order to increase liquidity and issuance.  That's how 70% of subprime paper ended up on the books of a gov't agency.Gov't induced artificial demand

    77. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Bush's congress? You don't say...I personally think there is more demand to own a home. it's only when quest to make more profit that it goes haywire. Greed kills everything good, as we have seen these past 30 or so yrs. So,gvt forced derivatives,eh?

    78. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes it was congress during the Bush adm that tried to reform the illegal activities of the GSE's. Let's go back to the video tape...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzCG80Wz4mg  And HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWOPDN5Va0

    79. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Illegal? Was the gvt doing it, or the money-men? Or was the gvt letting the money men do it, by taking away the regulations that stopped them from doing it? Either way--banks won.TARP came: Obama was blamed. Bush off scott free,and now R want impeach

    80. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The Gov't...GSE's are controlled by political appointee's.  They lied via accounting to manipulate their loan portfolio and increase issuance. You don't really understand what the GSE's are and what they actually do from your comments. Or derivatives

    81. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ok splain it to me. They lied, it was illegal. Who appointed them, and why werent they chargef? Derivatives are parasites. No value on their own. Fake, like all money. Something for Wall Street to play with to pretend they have biz savvy. Theyre bums

    82. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Gorelick & Raines were appointed by Clinton.  And Raines was charged and sued in civil court and eventually settled with OFHEO in 2008.  And derivatives have absolutely nothing to do with a borrower getting a loan or missing a mortgage payment.

    83. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, but according to business insider, the real cause of the crisis was OTC derivatives. Illegal until the CFMA Act of 2000. So you see, it was not hard working families, or the CRA that collapsed the economy, it was greed. Little boys playing w fire

    84. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      When did business insider qualify as academic research ???  And if that is true, why is the same thing not happening now considering the derivatives market is much larger than in 2008 ??? Every derivative has a counter party.

    85. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Because derivatives arent academic. Theyre a gimmick the bizpeopl play. And ive been reading about them since the blowup in 08. Very knowledgable people saying when derivative bubble pop, it make last one look like preschool. NO ONE uberich honorably

    86. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Derivates aren't acadmeic" LOL...No financial product is "academic".  Academic studies are done on cause and effects. And Business Insider is just a blog which is edited by someone who was banned by the SEC for securities fraud. Real credible source

    87. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ok, take Forbes. Article there says trading in derivatives has reached 700  trillion.What is backing that up?And its done by big banks-who just got done raking us over the coals! Its like Romney.He goes on all these shows,
      and no 1 asks racketeering

    88. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The counter party backs it up. The same as any  transaction. Those are only notional values. The real size of the market and credit risk is nowhere near that big.  Pub by NYU in 2008 http://math.nyu.edu/faculty/avellane/gl … market.pdf

    89. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      the 9 largest banks hold a total of $228.72 trillion in Derivatives - Approximately 3 times the entire world economy. No government in world has money for this bailout. http://demonocracy.info/infographics/us … osure.html

    90. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      NOTIONAL Values. If you write a call option and buy a call option simultaneously the NOTIONAL Value is the aggregate of the two contracts.  The ACTUAL CREDIT RISK is the difference in strike price. MUCH lower.  I thought you studied this ???

    91. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I don't care if it's 200 dollars...since that 200 dollars DOESN'T EXIST! It's a bet: Gambling, and it's ballooned out of this world. They say gas prices are down on the weekends cause speculators take weekends off: Well, Wall Street never sleeps.DOOM

    92. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Once again proving that you have no understanding of how economic systems function.  If we had no derivatives market, you would have no ability to hedge...meaning MORE volatility...NOT less. And the cost of capital investment would skyrocket.

    93. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nope-I just use my intuition. And I'll stand with the guys who are calling it a Ponzi scheme bubble that will make 2008 look mild. After all, people who laugh at others mis-fortune, brought on by them: They have 0 understanding of life. $ is not life

    94. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What you have is a lot of  pent up envy and are easily influenced by political class warfare.  Word of advice, I have never met a successful person with as many excuses and as poor an attitude as you. Spend more time being productive less complaining

    95. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Hahahahaha. Told you you people have a superiority complex. I havent complained once.I say rich bankers are scamming us, and destroyed America.That is nothing to envy.Selfishness and greed have nothing to do with monetary class. Its lack of integrity

    96. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You've whined countless times about not having enough, can barely make ends meat, you're mother has more than you.  Stop worrying about what other people have, focus on yourself. And stop attacking a system you don't even really comprehend.

    97. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Stating facts is not whining.Obstructing gvt when you don't get 100% your way is. My mom didn't make that $, my dad did. My gramma never worked, yet she was on social security. As Elizabeth Warren says, no one who works full time should live poverty.

    98. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Stating facts like when you claimed banks cant use your income to deny a loan.You are so far from facts or even the slightest understanding of economics its scary.And you should be paid by what you produce not hours. Some produce nothing for hours

    99. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That was a quote I took from Elizabeth Weintraub. Which is why I put quotation marks around it.Banks should realize it's OUR money,not theirs. They live off it:charge us fees! I get it more than you do.You think it's some holy endeavor. It's thievery

    100. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Banks don't use OUR money. They create their own credit. Loans create deposits. Another mis-stated fact. We already covered this.  Neither you or Elizabeth Weintraub understand the most basic functions of the banking system, yet talk like you do.

    101. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Of course they use our money.It backs up their shenanigans.When Argentina collapsed, and people couldn't get THEIR money out of those banks,,,why?Credit is invisible make believe wealth. It's a scam.And they collect interest on money that isn't there

    102. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      NO THEY DON'T !!!  It is ILLEGAL for banks to lend out reserves.  Try and educate yourself just a little before you speak about something you know so little about. http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/upl … _14_13.pdf

    103. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They only have to hold 3% in reserves...10 for larger banks. They use it abuse it and bamboozle it! That s why Lord Redshield said: "I care not who makes the laws, if I hold the money".(paraphrase)Banks fund all sides of all wars.They decide who wins

    104. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The fact that they hold limited reserves (Which is more than 3%) demonstrates that the loan creates the deposit and that they are NOT lending YOUR money. What is your incoherent point ??? You want to do away with credit. No more home or biz loans ???

    105. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No more usury. If I borrow 5 dollars--i'll pay you back 5 dollars! No more gambling casino-style with our deposits. No more fees, fines charges, when i have put my hard-earned dollars in your hands. If I take $ from another ATM--what's it to them? $$

    106. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They CAN'T and DON'T gamble with deposits. So you want a financial institution to loan money and earn nothing in return for the credit they create. And how exactly are they to stay in business without a profit ? Perhaps the most ridiculous idea ever

    107. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps the business of banks shouldn't be profit. Perhaps they, as guardians of OUR hard work and trust, should stick to taking care of their customers, not their personal fortunes. I see how it works. EVERYTHING gets tainted with greed.Sickness USA

    108. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes,that makes sense. They should create credit, take risks by lending you money in the hopes that you will pay it back for free. Then have NO revenue to pay employees, the electric bill and other overhead like the guy who repairs the ATM. Brilliant

    109. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They dont loan me anything. They wouldnt lend me a lousy 500 for a wood stove. Im working near 40 yrs now, and they act like I thief. They make WAY more than pay employees. And maybe we do without banks anyway. If you rich, you get freebies. Poorupay

    110. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      But you said they shouldn't charge interest or transaction fee's at all.  So how would they generate ANY revenue whatsoever to pay anyone anything ??? How do you pay a salary with no free cash flow. You don't really think these ideas out do you.

    111. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Charge those who can afford it! They do just the opposite. My mother has plenty money: ergo--she has free checking, free everything. Never any late fees, overdraft charges, etc. Me, who barely gets by has fees, fines, charges...it on MY back!Backward

    112. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Define afford it. A Totally arbitrary statement.Not to mention how the hell are you supposed to stay in business by giving less benefits to the people that give you the most business.Try to run any business that way and let me know how it works

    113. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Banks are supposed to be a public service..not for profit ponzischeme.
      http://abcnews.go.com/Business/banks-re … d=19373572

    114. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well that's the point we disagree, in'it? I say they make too much. I say their focus is profit, not service, and they are penalizing people, not helping them. Oh sure...rich get it all on a silver platter. But who are the ones really need it? not1%!

    115. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You really don't know what's going on in this evil world,do you?You should--goes back to Babylon.Debt=Enslavement.Who controls it?Takeit/leave it? Where do we get cash?Red Shield.http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/08aug/redshield.html

    116. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I dont know what I am doing.Thats how I lifted myself from living 4 people in a 1 room studio sharing a bathroom with my neighbors to owning a multimillion dollar advisory firm. I can assure you it doesn't happen by reading conspiracies all day

    117. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Whats that got to do with the Rothschilds? I work 10 hrs 5 days a week, and 6 hrs the other 2. I know u try to paint me as a 47% mooch eating bon bons, but that has never been the case.I'll bet I work physically harder than you, but it's not rewarded

    118. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Working hard has nothing to do with it. Its about producing something with a skill set people want. Success is determined by you.You have already conceded what cant be done by blaming Rothchilds and other  wild conspiracies.You're your own obstacle

    119. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Oh brother. Dense fog. Look--I am an example of working full time and struggling. Been working 40+ years.The cost of living in this country is too high.Is it because overblown profits? 03 was start of my downfall.Tax cuts for rich? Something is wrong

    120. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Cost of living is too high cause entitlements dominate the Fed budget and are destroying purchasing power. New Dollars...No new productivity=equal inflation.  Working hard means nothing. Work Smart and produce something rare that people want.

    121. lovemychris profile image68
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I thought it was military that dominated budget? And my guess would be that you and I differ on who gets entitlements and what is waste. However--that is good advice you give.Too late for me, but I can pass it on to my kids. And grandkids.Makeyourown

    122. LandmarkWealth profile image79
      LandmarkWealthposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Military spending makes up less than 20% and entitlements are more than 1/2.  50 years ago it was the reverse.  Military spending contributes to inflation in energy.  The US military is the largest consumer of petroleum in the world. Never too late

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)