Liberals posing as freedom fighters.

No, I don't support any program that leaves the insurance companies in business. I am for single pay. Like the civilized countries in the area known as Scandinavia. I also support free education for all. It's sorely needed in this country and the easiest way to tell---is reading posts on the internet.

 

I don't think that anyone is supporting 'free' healthcare. Everyone knows that it is paid through tax dollars, they just also know that having a single-payer system reduces costs significantly. That's why Canada has a total healthcare expenditure of approximately $1800/person on healthcare and has a healthier population than the US, which has a total expenditure of about $4000/person.

 

Well, I think people need to be more independent, and stop relying on a broken system to fix all of our problems, when they caused 99% of them.

 

And we've had medicare for over 40 years. It's brought the price up, quality of care down, and less people are on insurance since the government got involved. The US government doesn't do anything right! I mean, the post office can't even make a profit, and now you got UPS and fed ex, both making money despite the failed government attempt.

 

I think that your understanding of neo-liberalism is incorrect.

Elements of Neoliberalism, as taken from a textbook I happen to have handy:
- free trade
- privatization (full privatization as well as public-private partnerships)
- deregulation
- decline in government benefits (including cuts to health care, education, old-age pensions, various forms of social assistance such as welfare)
- shift from government support to charities
- tax reforms (changes to tax system that primarily benefit the rich and large corporations)
- attack on labour (union busting, weakened legislation protecting minimum wage, employment standards, health and safety)
- decline in democracy and civil rights (expanded power to state, weakening legislation that protects individuals from arbitrary measures on the part of the sate, less accountable police, decreased access to information about government activities)
- decrease in size and scope of the state (any state function that does not further the ability of corporations to secure profits is seen as wasteful. the expansion of police and prison systems would be the exception.)

 

No, bro. some of That's Libertarian. Like going from government to charities. I believe in some of that, and Liberals hate when I say it...

 

That's because neo-liberalism seems to me to basically be libertarianism with an emphasis on the goal of advancing the interests and profits of multi-national corporations and the rich.

 

Those types of liberals exist, but they are the FAR left extremist lefties who I also have a problem with because they let their liberal ideology run like the wind and their arguments fall flat.

TARP, was a desperate move in a desperate situation, nobody liked it, but it was devil's advocate at that point because the clock was ticking. The economic crash could've been much worse in 2008, but TARP funds helped flatline, and the stock market rebounded a little bit.

Another reasons why banks are not lending, is because they're scared about the political gridlock between Democrats and Republicans, because going into default or not going into default affects their shareholders and their bottom line. To banks that's more important, than making a few loans to small businesses so they've restricted lending, and there are other reasons too.

-----

Also sub-prime mortgages were a HORRIBLE idea, because anybody who has common sense knows not to dip into the equity of the home you're purchasing to buy the principle of the home. It's extremely risky and banks should've known better, and where the government is at fault is not recognizing those abuses were going on, and cracking down on banks for developing the sub-prime system, and tweaking the policy so banks don't have to meet this lending quotas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble

^Wikipedia actually does a better job at a more information specific level to show how the housing bubble crash was setup and burst to cause the economic crash we say in 2008.

It also briefly mentions how deregulation on how investments worked set up the financial industry to start working with derivatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_%28finance%29

---

My point is it's wrong to say the housing crisis was caused by government subsidies, it's misleading because it's not information specific enough while acknowledging the perfect storm of other factors that caused the 2008 economic collapse.



http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7406224n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.8

^(this link is about the corruption of Lehman Brothers, which is now bankrupt and gone)


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6298082n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

^(And this link is about a group of investors who realized the sub-prime mortgage system was doomed, and a ticking financial mess waiting to happen)



I post the 2nd link to say that not everyone in the financial, or government is corrupt, there exist good people who work there. The failure is that we don't listen to them in time.

 

Yeah, I did. You deserve it to. You we're saying I'm not listening, and only yelling. Whereas, I'm the ONLY one (other than Monk jr.) actually trying to have a real conversation.

You, and your other Liberal sympathizers, are the one's yelling, name calling and, not trying to have a conversation. The reply I posted before yours, didn't even have exclamation marks at the end. You, like everyone else, try to lower my credibility, based on emotions you THINK you read. You don't hear me speaking, I don't capitalize all my words. Emotions can be misread; you need to look at the whole reply, instead you just assume I'm yelling.

So I got mad and yelled. I still think you deserve it. Give me a neg if you don't like it..

 

That's the biggest lie of the century. If it's SO good for businesses, why don't they lobby Libertarians? They lobby Liberals and MR OBAMA, they don't lobby us. Because we'd actually take their power away. The ultimate power of corporations comes from government, which, Liberals love so much.

Businesses love Liberals: more taxes, more spending, more wars and, less freedom is their goal, and liberals may think they're "different" than republicans. But in the end, you support the same shit. And that's where corporations get their power. They've made 50% of the populace, totally reliant on government. I'm afraid half of you wont realize, until the economy dissipates into flames, like a supernova! Then you might stop and say "Oh, this is why Libertarians said CUT spending."

Libertarianism works better for the small business owner, than the big ones. The big ones today, are entwined in government. We have the only real option of taking care of that problem- Liberals want to shove it back in the box, and pretend they didn't see it (lobbying)

 

How can what I said be a lie, when I'm just stating my opinion? Are you implying that I'm lying about what I think?

Your idea of what neo-liberal means seems to me to be wrong, that's what I was saying. I'll trust a textbook in it's 5th edition over some random person on the internet, unless you can actually provide me with something that contradicts what I've posted.

And the reason they don't lobby you, is because you have no power. Instead, businesses donate to the Tea Party, because they are libertarians who actually have a chance at making some changes that would be beneficial to business.

 

I agree. Let me say Monk also, that I appreciate that you can have a real conversation, weather or not we agree.

Well, we really just delayed the blow. Our economy is still on the verge of collapse. Many economists hold that view also. But also, none of that money got back to the people. If the people got that bailout, it'd be 20K each. That would've got the economy rolling again; Instead, we gave it to the richest 1%, who probably deserved to fail.

It's still bull. We gave them billions of dollars, and they cut out any kind of help for the people, and stockpiled their accounts.

I agree. But I think banks have too much power generally. You know they only have 1/2 of the money they pretend to have. The whole system is based off the idea, that not everyone is going to come back for their money all at once- if we did, they wouldn't have it, we'd probably have to bail them out again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble

My basic point was, the government overspends, and we don't really get that money back. Plus, prices always go up with government subsidize. From college tuition, roads, medicare- Private companies do EVERYTHING better, than one-size-fits-all government programs.

Of course not everyone is corrupt, but most of them are. We're built up around the 1%, the military industrial complex and, crony capitalism. The government runs mainly to support corperate interest. That's why drugs are still illegal and, that's why they get special benefits and bailouts, but the people don't. That's why I contest the liberal ideology. I don't see a fix to the biggest problem in the world, in their ideology. They believe this government works for the people, and that's not been the case for about 100 years!

 

The textbook didn't say Libertarianism is "good for the 1%ers." Plus, look around you. Companies already control America. They support war, taking our freedoms, spending/printing more, bailouts and special government benefits. Libertarians don't support ANY of that, and therefore directly opposing big business.

Here's a basic overview

Here my proof that libertarians DO care for the poor.

We support freedom for all, including companies. They still don't have the freedom to hurt anyone, or destroy their property. And in that way, they'd be more liable to us, than they are to government now.

Also, without government bribery, most of the 1% could be arrested for fraud, coersion, bribery etc. If anything, Liberals are working toward the will of corporations, not us!

 

Seriously**

I can't take you seriously, because all you do is diss on me. You don't take me seriously, because you're a liberal, and you guys are in the imaginary world, where the government cares about us.

I also don't take you seriously, cause you're Canadian. Don't you have some cows to milk or something? Seriously, man!

I took two college English classes and, had a poem published in a book. I noticed the typos, but decided you weren't worth my time.

 

I yelled on your neg rep, because that was rude. You stomped in here with you pre-perception of me, the topic and, what was being said then, you ignorantly insulted me, because like most Liberals, you have nothing better to do than insult people who think you're wrong.

It still bugs the fuck out of me that we're like 3 pages in, and I only got 1 real response from a Liberal, and that was Monk Jr., and I greatly respect the fact we are able to converse. Liberals like you, I don't even want to converse with. It's all name calling and finger-pointing, and that's immature.

Idk what I did to make so many Liberals hate me, but maybe if you actually read what I say, you'd realize I have valid arguments against it, which none of you liberals can defend...

 

I think maybe the name calling, the wild assertions and generalizations would do the trick.

 

We were talking about neo-liberalism, not libertarianism, weren't we? Of course a textbook didn't say 'Libertarianism is "good for the 1%ers."' in a section listing the elements of neo-liberalism.

 

And I acknowledged it was bull, it sucked for the average person, everyone is in agreement on that.

What should've happened while we were in 'bailout mode', is that the government should've stepped in immediately to stem the tide of foreclosures, bailed the people out while simultaneously shore up the banks as part of a String-condition to the aid from TARP for the banks.

The reason why the Occupy movement had such gravity, was that the average person didn't feel the government was helping them, but rather was only helping the rich banksters (and we agree on this that this probably happened).

But still the benefit of TARP for the middle class was that it did flatline the economy and that stopped IRA investment losses for the middle class and we've seen a slight rebound.

But what is threatening to undo that rebound, is this the gridlock in Congress over even the mention of threatening not to raise the debt ceiling. (This is observable fact, watch how the stock market reacts when we don't raise it)

And here I find a contradiction with the last line of this post about how private sector companies do everything better.

Banks are private > Yet they're messing up, and neither of us like that.

BP Oil was a private industry > Mess in the gulf, all due to incompetence from BP Oil, Trans Ocean, and Halliburton who all had some degree of involvement with that Oil Rig gone haywire.

 

Whatever, man! I don't start with anyone who doesn't start with me.
Actually, to state fact is not making a "wild assertion." The truth is, you don't like what I say, so you automatically call it a "wild assertion."

And "Generalizing" is categorizing for no reasons. I am not attacking who any of you are personally, (like you do to me,) i am attacking your beliefs.

If you can't handle that, obviously you have no way of defending your views. That's fine- Get out of my topic. But no, Liberals get offended by the word Liberal, and offended by me stating facts about them supporting spending and the status quo.

If Liberalism is so embarrassing to you, evidently you need to re examine your world-view. You paint me as the enemy, for believing in the founding principles of America. When in reality, it is Liberals who are enemies of freedom, and desire vast expansion of the government, which can only cause pure tyranny or anarchy. Evidently Liberals don't care, so wait and see. I'll be laughing when Liberals take away guns from themselves, and get killed/raped by government guns.

Liberals desire total government control, and don't worry- it's in the making. But it wont last very long, anyway you look at it.

Our government will either:

1:Have an economic crash

2:Get attacked by a foreign country, due to our meddling

3:Have pure anarchy and revolt (which many media heads predict)

4: Devalue currency too far, and Outspend itself. (which contributed to the fall of Rome, as well.)

Or, all of the above. These are the pieces, to many Great Country's collapse. I'm contesting your views so people ask these questions, and don't just assume the government is always truthful. But it's all good. Seriously, Liberals, go back to sleep.

 

Here's a Kleenex.