The ear man's "state of the union" speech

Patrick · Jan 24, 2012

Did you hear it? His re-election strategy is clear - class warfare demogogy. Unfortunately, history shows this frequently has worked. Eg, Hitler during the Weimar Republic and the depression: all you Germans are poor because the rich jewish bankers ripped you off.

The anti-rich, anti-corporate rhetoric has worked forever, largely because the GOP has never had the guts to expose it as a fraud, the permanent excuse for failed democrat policies. So then people vote again for the statists who are destroying the country.

David · Jan 24, 2012

Only Pat could Godwin a SotU address.

Patrick · Jan 24, 2012

David said:
Only Pat could Godwin a SotU address.

Explain how the analogy is wrong.

His speech is loaded with blame-the-rich whining. He blames the housing crash, initiated by stupid liberal government policies, on "bankers". Libs like him threatened banks with legal sanctions if they didn't lend to unqualified minority borrowers, and now obama claims it was all a diabolical plot by bankers to rip off poor people by tricking them into home loans.

His "solutions" to the recession in the speech is pure leftwing hokum - lots of little tricks interfering with market forces, the same category of things that caused the economic downturn. He just doesn't get it.

myp · Jan 24, 2012

Patrick said:
Explain how the analogy is wrong.

His speech is loaded with blame-the-rich whining. He blames the housing crash, initiated by stupid liberal government policies, on "bankers". Libs like him threatened banks with legal sanctions if they didn't lend to unqualified minority borrowers, and now obama claims it was all a diabolical plot by bankers to rip off poor people by tricking them into home loans.

His "solutions" to the recession in the speech is pure leftwing hokum - lots of little tricks interfering with market forces, the same category of things that caused the economic downturn. He just doesn't get it.

It is unfortunate that you refuse to accept the wrong that Wall St. also did in this mess. Yes, the government was to blame, but so was Wall St. who has bought out said government. The bankers are laughing all the way to the bank as people like you keep blindly defending them while they keep using us, the taxpayers, to subsidize their losses while they privatize profits.

skeptic-f · Jan 25, 2012

There is undeclared class warfare already, Patrick. If you look at increases in real wealth (net assets less net liabilities, adjusted for inflation) over the past 3 decades, the top 0.5% have gotten quite a bit wealthier, the next 16.5% have gotten a little wealthier and the aggregate of the remaining 83% have seen no change in real wealth. Within the 83% the very poor have gotten slightly wealthier, the high end of the middle-class has gotten slightly wealthier and the middle class (the largest income group in the USA) as a whole has shrunk a bit (and is still shrinking). The bulk of the working class has actually lost a little in real wealth

This all means that since 1979 wealth and income inequality in this country (IN REAL TERMS!) has been growing. President Obama is not declaring class warfare; he is recognizing that class warfare is already under way and the rich are winning handily at the expense of the rest of America. The term "class warfare" calls up visions of Marxism and bloody revolution but what it really means is that the 83% should engage in a reining in of the overprivileged 17% and the political system that panders to them (including, to a lesser degree, the Democrats).

If you don't believe me, try looking up GAA data or Greenspon's remarks before a Congressional committee a few years ago. These are hardly Marxist sources of information.

Patrick · Jan 25, 2012

myp said:
It is unfortunate that you refuse to accept the wrong that Wall St. also did in this mess. Yes, the government was to blame, but so was Wall St. who has bought out said government. The bankers are laughing all the way to the bank as people like you keep blindly defending them while they keep using us, the taxpayers, to subsidize their losses while they privatize profits.

The bankers are laughing all the way to the bank? Are former Lehman Brothers employees whose bank disappeared laughing? Are other banks which were taken over or liquidated laughing? You sound like a typical "99%" dupe, who believes the standard leftwing fairy tale: business bad, government good.

The government CREATED the market with the CRA, and also intimidated banks into joining in. Investment banks saw such as Fanny Mae making money hand over fist, and had to join in or get acquired. When government creates extremely strong market distortions, businesses have to go along with the distortions. Trying to blame the crash on other than government is confusing the proximate "cause" with the REAL cause.

myp · Jan 25, 2012

Patrick said:
The bankers are laughing all the way to the bank? Are former Lehman Brothers employees whose bank disappeared laughing? Are other banks which were taken over or liquidated laughing? You sound like a typical "99%" dupe, who believes the standard leftwing fairy tale: business bad, government good.

You sound like a typical conspiracy nut who is so blinded by his ideology that he doesn't even realize that special interests have bought out government and are often notably responsible for the disasters that both together cause. Have you seen the financial sector's marketshare or record profits? Lehman was let go as a statement, but Wall St. is far from crying about it.

Patrick said:
The government CREATED the market with the CRA, and also intimidated banks into joining in. Investment banks saw such as Fanny Mae making money hand over fist, and had to join in or get acquired. When government creates extremely strong market distortions, businesses have to go along with the distortions. Trying to blame the crash on other than government is confusing the proximate "cause" with the REAL cause.

And the fraud that was committed? The automatic bailouts? The inside lobbying and buying of politicians? Yes, government accepted all that, but Wall St. did it. They are both responsible.

Let me ask you a question do you think the people who bought homes they could in no way afford hold some of the blame?

DodgeFB · Jan 25, 2012

myp said:
Let me ask you a question do you think the people who bought homes they could in no way afford hold some of the blame?

I think they hold some of the blame. When we bought this house we only looked at homes we felt we could afford. We paid 20% down after closing cost. It was tough, but it is paid for.

myp · Jan 25, 2012

DodgeFB said:
I think they hold some of the blame. When we bought this house we only looked at homes we felt we could afford. We paid 20% down after closing cost. It was tough, but it is paid for.

I agree with you. I just want to see what Patrick says because they too are the private sector. I also am wondering if he will still defend the banks because the banks lent the money (well actually usually primary lenders who then sold the mortgages to Wall St. who sold them again, but the point stands) knowing damn-well the people could not pay it off. And it was not all forced by the government CRA, etc. considering the leverage levels and mortgage participation levels varied a lot between the banks.

In reality, the government, banks, lenders, borrowers, and insurers all hold some blame.

DodgeFB · Jan 25, 2012

myp said:
In reality, the government, banks, lenders, borrowers, and insurers all hold some blame.

I remember people were getting 100%+ loans. Buy a house no money down and leave with extra cash for "things everyone needs in a new home". How did anyone think that could work?

myp · Jan 25, 2012

DodgeFB said:
I remember people were getting 100%+ loans. Buy a house no money down and leave with extra cash for "things everyone needs in a new home". How did anyone think that could work?

Everyone was blinded by what they saw as prosperity. The home seekers were able to buy homes, the primary lenders were able to sell any mortgage to Wall St., Wall St. was able to repackage and sell any mortgages to various investors, politicians were able to brag about a "strong" economy and an American Dream that now included home ownership for all. Everyone got high on their own stock.

Patrick · Jan 25, 2012

myp said:
You sound like a typical conspiracy nut

Ewwwwww - your hallucinations are triggered again - I didn't charge any "conspiracy".

Have you seen the financial sector's marketshare or record profits? Lehman was let go as a statement, but Wall St. is far from crying about it.

NOW they are - I'm talking about the 2008 crash! Remember? Remember??

And the fraud that was committed? The automatic bailouts? The inside lobbying and buying of politicians?

Who? What? What are you talking about??

Let me ask you a question do you think the people who bought homes they could in no way afford hold some of the blame?

Yes, but look who they are - a herd of sheep - a bunch of minorities whom some black politician told at a community meeting that we got "the man" to stop redlining you - now you can get a mortgage - it's your civil right!

myp · Jan 25, 2012

Patrick said:
NOW they are - I'm talking about the 2008 crash! Remember? Remember??

Um their marketshare was tremendous then too. They essentially had auto-bailout mechanisms hence the risk they took. It was a moral hazard for the taxpayer and many of the big banks took the hazard but privatized profits from it while the losses were publicized.

Patrick said:
Who? What? What are you talking about??

Proof that you have VERY LITTLE idea of what actually happened. Go do some reading.

Patrick said:
Yes, but look who they are - a herd of sheep - a bunch of minorities whom some black politician told at a community meeting that we got "the man" to stop redlining you - now you can get a mortgage - it's your civil right!

More racism? Oh brother. There were thousands of white Americans involved in this too. Either way they all hold some of the blame as do the primary lenders that lent to them and Wall St. that bought the mortgages.

As for the "black politician" are you including your "conservative" buddy Newt?

netanyahoo · Jan 25, 2012

Should have asked for W to give a speech ....

Patrick said:
Did you hear it? His re-election strategy is clear - class warfare demogogy. Unfortunately, history shows this frequently has worked. Eg, Hitler during the Weimar Republic and the depression: all you Germans are poor because the rich jewish bankers ripped you off.

The anti-rich, anti-corporate rhetoric has worked forever, largely because the GOP has never had the guts to expose it as a fraud, the permanent excuse for failed democrat policies. So then people vote again for the statists who are destroying the country.

Should have asked for W or Palin to give a speech ....
At least it gives good material for SNL.
If Romney is elected, he will spread wealth in Swiss bank, Luxemburg, and Cayman Islands which should create more jobs and improve US economy.

James · Jan 25, 2012

I agree with Patrick. Obama knows he can't run on his record, so he is changing the subject by portraying Congress as "do nothing" the way Truman did. Democrats are also borrowing OWS's income disparity scenario, and they have changed the national focus from deficits to hardships of the 98%. Its an effective strategy in part because the Republican candidates are helping.

Patrick · Jan 25, 2012

myp said:
Um their marketshare was tremendous then too. They essentially had auto-bailout mechanisms hence the risk they took. It was a moral hazard for the taxpayer and many of the big banks took the hazard but privatized profits from it while the losses were publicized.

The ignorati STILL don't grasp that short of a bailout, the economy would have come to an utter grinding halt - a super-depression.

Proof that you have VERY LITTLE idea of what actually happened. Go do some reading.

Just what I thought - you have no facts, no arguments - just blowing leftwing rhetoric.

More racism? Oh brother.

Ah yes, the race card - the usual last refuge of the uniformed liberal dupe.

There were thousands of white Americans involved in this too.

The whole motivation of the engine of destruction, the CRA, was a sop to the democrat party's minority clients.

As for the "black politician" are you including your "conservative" buddy Newt?

Anyone have any idea what he's hallucinating NOW??

myp · Jan 25, 2012

Patrick said:
The ignorati STILL don't grasp that short of a bailout, the economy would have come to an utter grinding halt - a super-depression.

We aren't talking about whether the bailout should have happened. We are talking about a moral hazard that essentially guaranteed a bailout from start and allowed those firms to privatize profits and publicize losses. How the hell do you not understand that? And I find it tremendously ironic that Mr. "I'm a good Republican conservative" is here defending the very opposite of a free market with the bailouts.

Patrick said:
Just what I thought - you have no facts, no arguments - just blowing leftwing rhetoric.

Silly Patrick, just because you didn't know about the lobbying and fraud does not mean I made them up.

Patrick said:
Ah yes, the race card - the usual last refuge of the uniformed liberal dupe.

Race was completely irrelevant here and you brought it up. You also completely made up things considering every politician that supported the CRA and GSEs were not black (your boy Newt included) and the vast majority of foreclosures in the past 6 years has actually been white people, not minorities. But race really doesn't matter here- YOU are the one that brings up race card every time.

Patrick · Jan 25, 2012

myp said:
We aren't talking about whether the bailout should have happened. We are talking about a moral hazard that essentially guaranteed a bailout from start and allowed those firms to privatize profits and publicize losses. How the hell do you not understand that? And I find it tremendously ironic that Mr. "I'm a good Republican conservative" is here defending the very opposite of a free market with the bailouts.

I defend the bailouts because (second time, hope it registers

) without them, there would have occured a DEPRESSION - and just imagine obama and his leftwing hacks dealing with THAT. I OPPOSE the crony capitalist system and liberal/left market meddling that made it all come to that. You want to pretend that the final act was the whole play.

Silly Patrick, just because you didn't know about the lobbying and fraud does not mean I made them up.

He's got nothing, folks.

Race was completely irrelevant here and you brought it up.

Race was at dead center of the cause, the CRA, from the very beginning. Sorry, no more free tutoring for history class dunces.

You also completely made up things considering every politician that supported the CRA and GSEs were not black

I said they were >>>DEMOCRATS<<<. Hokayyyyyy - enough of this dunceologue.

myp · Jan 25, 2012

You can't even remember what you said 2 posts ago. Go re-read. (and in the case of the black politician, even if you had said Democrat [which you didn't], Newt is not a Dem. In fact, by your past posts he is a conservative

)

Wall St. holds some of the blame, as do the people who took the loans and the government. Not thinking so is living in a fantasy world. But I guess that goes along with the rest of your belief system.

Oh and on a complete side note you know that Santorum has continually campaigned against the TARP bailouts and insists he would never have signed right? Just thought you should know.

Patrick · Jan 26, 2012

myp said:
You can't even remember what you said 2 posts ago. Go re-read.

I said lib back in the beginning - lib,democrat - what's the difference.

(and in the case of the black politician, even if you had said Democrat [which you didn't], Newt is not a Dem.

Why are you suddenly talking about Newt????

Wall St. holds some of the blame, as do the people who took the loans and the government. Not thinking so is living in a fantasy world. But I guess that goes along with the rest of your belief system.

As I pointed out to you but you are intellectually incapable of grasping, the business world operates in the legal framework created by the government. The government has control. If the government establishes a framework that sets in motion the dynamics that cause a disaster, it's STUPID to blame those who operated in that framework. That's analogous to if a driver causes a fatal accident, you blame the car for it.

The ear man's "state of the union" speech

Similar threads