Failure Of Civil Rights Movement To Redistribute Wealth A "traged

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1688262' date='Oct 28 2008, 05:12 PM']C'mon... no one actually thinks the USA is a socialistic country.

Thats just ridiculous.

And I don't think all socialism is bad. I see countries like Sweeden and Denmark of done a good job with it. But to say we're a Sweeden or Denmark is too far out there.[/quote]
If you were to examine aspects of our government and economy, you'd find a lot of socialistic ideas. Income tax, social security, tax incentives to keep companies here in the U.S., etc. They are "socialist" ideas.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1688206' date='Oct 28 2008, 04:35 PM']I don't know about direct praise, but you always seem either mysteriously absent, or on the other side whenever us McCain supporters start a pro-McCain thread. You say we are "delusioned" when we praise McCain, yet you never seem to say the same thing to any of the Obama supporters around here. Hmm, why is that?

I don't know if you are actually going to pull the lever for Obama or not, but what you've made quite clear from your posts is that you would, at the very least, rather have Obama than McCain due to your strong opinions against the war in Iraq, and the economy (yeah, we conservatives have the ability to read in between the lines).[/quote]
I haven't been shy about my assertion that Bush has been a trainwreck and that McCain offers more of the same. Quite frankly, I think it would be a disaster for McCain to be elected from economic, foreign policy and, yes, "life" perspectives.

Now, whatever about my opinion, what I'm amused by is that during the Republican primaries, folks wouldn't touch McCain with a ten foot pole because he wasn't a "real" Republican or Conservative but now that he's the Republican candidate, all kinds of mental gymnastics have to be gone through in order to convince oneself that McCain [i]really[/i] is a Republican or Conservative who is a champion of "life" issues, when that's patently not the case. For example, he's as much a "socialist" as Obama, only it's "Joe the Hedge Fund Manager" - to borrow a pithy phrase from Obama - not "Joe the Plumber" who benefits from McCain's version of wealth redistribution.

[dominicansoul]

Tell us why you think Obama is a socialist...

[MartinLuther22]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1688000' date='Oct 29 2008, 04:27 AM']With respect, this is simply not true. The problem was caused by a) banks making risky loans, e.g. without income verification, to b) folks who couldn't really afford those loans. The banks were able to do so because they could "spread the risk" by selling the mortgages to investment banks such as Bear Stearns who "bundled" the mortgages and sold them as "mortgage backed securities." The investment banks were able to do so because they weren't regulated, a direct consequence of the Let the Markets Decide If It Feels Good Do It Republican ideology. Alan Greenspan had to admit last week that that ideology failed because whereas one would assume that investment banks would act rationally in reducing their risk in not taking on bad loans, they actually preferred the Let the Markets Decide If It Feels Good Do It rah-rah approach.[/quote]

Agreed. This is the first post I have read on this forum that comes anywhere near close to accurately explaining the financial crisis. There is a little more to it though:

The investment banks also sold collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which bundled safe AAA mortgage securities with risky subprime mortgage securities. The investment banks purchased a similar amount of subprime mortgages from smaller banks as did Fannie and Freddie. The investment banks then paid the ratings agencies to rate the CDOs as AAA grade investements. The inv. banks then sold the CDOs as safe AAA investments to other banks and large investors world wide. When people defaulted on mortgages, the CDOs dropped in value, and banks stopped trusting and stopped lending money to other banks that owned lots of CDOs. Loans that are made between banks are now made at higher interest rates - even if the borrowing bank is a foreign bank with less risk than US banks.

Then there is the failure of insurers who insured the value of the CDOs, and then there is also the credit default swaps which brought down AIG which had insured Lehman bonds, and then there are the hedge funds with bought naked credit default swaps on banks like Lehman while executing naked short sales on the same banks. And as far as I can work out, there is nothing in the bailout package to stop these greedy hedge funds claiming part of the $700 billion of your tax dollars if it was AIG that sold them the credit default swaps.

And some of you just want to blame the Democrats.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='MartinLuther22' post='1688582' date='Oct 29 2008, 10:05 AM']Agreed. This is the first post I have read on this forum that comes anywhere near close to accurately explaining the financial crisis. There is a little more to it though:

The investment banks also sold collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which bundled safe AAA mortgage securities with risky subprime mortgage securities. The investment banks purchased a similar amount of subprime mortgages from smaller banks as did Fannie and Freddie. The investment banks then paid the ratings agencies to rate the CDOs as AAA grade investements. The inv. banks then sold the CDOs as safe AAA investments to other banks and large investors world wide. When people defaulted on mortgages, the CDOs dropped in value, and banks stopped trusting and stopped lending money to other banks that owned lots of CDOs. Loans that are made between banks are now made at higher interest rates - even if the borrowing bank is a foreign bank with less risk than US banks.

Then there is the failure of insurers who insured the value of the CDOs, and then there is also the credit default swaps which brought down AIG which had insured Lehman bonds, and then there are the hedge funds with bought naked credit default swaps on banks like Lehman while executing naked short sales on the same banks. And as far as I can work out, there is nothing in the bailout package to stop these greedy hedge funds claiming part of the $700 billion of your tax dollars if it was AIG that sold them the credit default swaps.

And some of you just want to blame the Democrats.[/quote]
Right, and by bundling the risky securities with "good" securities, the investment banks hoped to "spread the risk." Only it didn't work out that way.

Unfortunately, this explanation won't fit on a bumper sticker and it's so much easier to blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bill Clinton and, of all people, Jimmy Carter, that scoundrel.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1688563' date='Oct 29 2008, 08:16 AM']Tell us why you think Obama is a socialist...[/quote]

[kamiller42]

[quote name='MartinLuther22' post='1688582' date='Oct 29 2008, 10:05 AM']And some of you just want to blame the Democrats.[/quote]
The democrats deserve a huge portion of the blame for setting the table for the "greed feast" you describe. They set the stage which allowed the drama to unfold. There are those who called for a stop to the party. One is in the White House. One is running for president.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4"]Here is a good review of how we got here[/url] with references. It goes fast in parts, so be ready to hit the pause button. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-3C0v8eVfw"]It's pretty easy to find this stuff[/url].

[kamiller42]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1688355' date='Oct 28 2008, 10:39 PM']If you were to examine aspects of our government and economy, you'd find a lot of socialistic ideas. Income tax, social security, tax incentives to keep companies here in the U.S., etc. They are "socialist" ideas.[/quote]
If we go with the following definition of socialism, I think you have thrown too many policies in the socialism bucket.

[quote]Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society[/quote]
Simply taxing the people to keep the lights on at government offices is not socialism. Social insurance in the form of social security as originally envisioned is not socialism. If by tax incentives you are talking about businesses receiving incentives to develop, do not forget businesses are collectively the largest tax payers in America, which really means you and me.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1688654' date='Oct 29 2008, 10:02 AM']If we go with the following definition of socialism, I think you have thrown too many policies in the socialism bucket.


Simply taxing the people to keep the lights on at government offices is not socialism. Social insurance in the form of social security as originally envisioned is not socialism. If by tax incentives you are talking about businesses receiving incentives to develop, do not forget businesses are collectively the largest tax payers in America, which really means you and me.[/quote]
However, if we look at what some are suggesting, unfettered capitalism, we are failing in that category.

[rkwright]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1688656' date='Oct 29 2008, 11:03 AM']However, if we look at what some are suggesting, unfettered capitalism, we are failing in that category.[/quote]

Sure... we're somewhat of a blend... but to say we're already socialist would be incorrect

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1688658' date='Oct 29 2008, 10:08 AM']Sure... we're somewhat of a blend... but to say we're already socialist would be incorrect[/quote]
Bingo. That's my point. It's not "either-or," we're both, and rightfully so. It's unfair to call Obama a socialist because there is no evidence that he wants to transform us into a pure socialist state. He has some ideas that are common of socialist ideas, but American History shows our consistent pattern of going between extreme individualism and extreme collective-ness. We just happen to be moving back towards collective-ness.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1688656' date='Oct 29 2008, 12:03 PM']However, if we look at what some are suggesting, unfettered capitalism, we are failing in that category.[/quote]
Who is suggesting that? Not conservatives or republicans. Maybe you are thinking of libertarians.

The fact is we don't need the other extreme, a nanny state. This is what Obama wants. Rationalizing increased socialism via Obama because a tiny portion of the U.S. appears socialized makes as much sense as saying "We're stuck in a hole. We'll just dig our way out."

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1688185' date='Oct 28 2008, 05:53 PM']Please provide a link to any post of mine in which I have praised Obama.

As for whom I'm voting for, you are correct, I'm struggling to know what's right since neither major party candidate passes the "Five Non-negotiables" test.[/quote]
The first non-nogotiable is abortion, so you fail that test you are down on the first count and the discussion is over. THe other 4 don't compare with the slicing and dicing of human beings. Lsten to Cardinal Egan on the subject: [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14170"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14170[/url]

This is from a past election but addresses the point as well.:
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.


The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).

+Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1688715' date='Oct 29 2008, 11:14 AM']The first non-nogotiable is abortion, so you fail that test you are down on the first count and the discussion is over. THe other 4 don't compare with the slicing and dicing of human beings. Lsten to Cardinal Egan on the subject: [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14170"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14170[/url]

This is from a past election but addresses the point as well.:
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.


The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).

+Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi[/quote]
Key words - "may result." Unfortunately, we can't predict the future.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1688715' date='Oct 29 2008, 12:14 PM']The first non-nogotiable is abortion, so you fail that test you are down on the first count and the discussion is over. THe other 4 don't compare with the slicing and dicing of human beings. Lsten to Cardinal Egan on the subject: [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14170"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14170[/url]

This is from a past election but addresses the point as well.:
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.


The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).

+Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi[/quote]
In 2008, where is McCain in the mix? Where does torture fit in? Where does war fit in?

From my perspective, it's not as much of a slam dunk as some here want to make it out to be.