"We tried it" Buzz, no.

This is not a problem with the free market, laissez-faire or not, it's a failure of corruption.

"We're forgetting what our grandfathers learned."


My grandfather paid less than 5% of his income to taxes.

You realize the literal definition of "laissez-faire" means that you can do whatever the hell you want to make money?

It's an economic system that breeds corruption. It is impossible to eliminate *all* corruption in any governmental system, whether democratic, communist, theocracy, monarchy, or dictatorship. It just happens to be that a democratic socialist state based on a moderately regulated capitalist system - if history is any indication - minimizes corruption.

*long


>> ^gwiz665:
"We tried it" Buzz, no.
This is not a problem with the free market, laissez-faire or not, it's a failure of corruption.

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by HaricotVert.

*promote socialism. (Just trying to reel in the O'Reilly demographic.)

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, February 5th, 2009 10:02pm PST - promote requested by kronosposeidon.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
promote socialism. (Just trying to reel in the O'Reilly demographic.)


I love you, Kronos, but you almost made me downvote your comment. You basically said if someone has a dissenting opinion then they're part of the O'Reilly crowd. If you're not with us, then you're against us. That's change we can believe in.

Socialists like Maddow/Krugman are outraged!

The NERVE of these American taxpayers, actually wanting to keep their money! WHY? They're just going to spend it on things THEY want! What about the failed big government programs, semi-competent overpaid bureaucrats and welfare dependents?! Whose going to pay for THEIR needs?

>> ^gwiz665:
"We tried it" Buzz, no.
This is not a problem with the free market, laissez-faire or not, it's a failure of corruption.


Any system that doesn't take corruption into account isn't a very effective system. Humanity switched up their dominant political system because of corruption - we invented democracy. I mean, if corruption weren't an issue, a monarchy would work just fine for us.

So, I'd have to disagree with you. Yes, we did try "it." We need to improve it - figure out how best to curtail the inevitable corruption and integrate those changes.

^ Because we all know government regulators aren't corrupt and don't manipulate laws to benefit specific companies that they want to succeed. We all know that laws are always good and should trust everything that is a law. Wake up sheeple, the government is not full of scruples anymore than the private sector, the only difference is one you can vote directly with your dollars and the other your vote is diluted in Representative government officials; who, more often than not, are concerned with political things and power more than you.

Laissez-faire doesn't necessarily mean 0 liability either. If you are trying to make a system that preserves liberty, then people who dupe and defraud people can be held liable with the failure to live up to their end of the financial deal. Deregulating the housing market in one way (trading securities) and not in the way that it mattered (not being about to ask questions to minorities about employment or income when considering certain loans) was the cause of this. Level the playing field kinda logic usually ends up in the same place, everyone broke. Ask Russia, Poland, Bolivia, Cuba, ect ect ect.

The Repugs are really coming out of the woodwork on the Sift... I don't get the whole 1 Trillion for killing Iraqis is fine, 1 Trillion for corrupt failing banks is fine, but 1 Trillion for rebuilding the infrastructure of the US or helping the National Parks is "Socialism" and stealing from the workers.

are you saying capitalism won't be responsible for what is going to happen between 2009-2029? because if we could get someone to make that a public statement (Obama?), it would really help fight revisionist history when someone posts in 2029, after a twenty year depression, "the end of the capitalistic era is dead!"

Face it: the Republicans and "free market" whores have fucked us.

They've been fucking us for thirty years.

Admit it, cons: you lost.

You're wrong.

And worst of all, you're DANGEROUS.

>> ^rougy:
Face it: the Republicans and "free market" whores have fucked us.
They've been fucking us for thirty years.
Admit it, cons: you lost.
You're wrong.
And worst of all, you're DANGEROUS.


how am I dangerous? I work 9-6 in a cubicle, have never been in a fight, never stole a single thing in my life, advocate a strict philosophy of non-violence and human rights, and pay enough in taxes to feed, shelter, and clothe at least five other humans a year.

You're dangerous because you're arrogant enough to still think that your economic views, embraced to the point of being a religion, are still valid as a way to get us out of this mess.

You are particularly dangerous, Steller, because I have yet to hear you make an original argument or observation.

You sound more like a college kid all starry-eyed over his favorite econ prof.

Other than that, you seem like the decent type, but for heaven's sake open your eyes.

>>I don't get the whole 1 Trillion for killing Iraqis is fine, 1 Trillion for corrupt failing banks is fine, but 1 Trillion for rebuilding the infrastructure of the US or helping the National Parks is "Socialism"

Actually, the $1T for banks was socialism. As in state-run government, etc. Our government is now the biggest shareholder of Citibank, for example.

Don't confuse Bush and Paulson with standard conservative ideology.

The neo- part of neo-con meant they were big-government conservatives. I.e., liberal on expansion of government spending, conservative on things like defense.

In a weird twist of fate, it was the Republicans that tried to increase regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Democrats (including Barney Frank, who was literally in bed with their leadership while chairing the house finance committee) that blocked it.

Obama sued banks to get them to increase subprime loans.

But something tells me all this will be cleverly rebutted by liberals by having them stuff their fingers in their ears and yelling loudly...

she is the one thing i miss about having tv at my house

Note to Blankdick:

Open market capitalism is not the hand of God.

Our economy is a set of rules that most of us have agreed to live by.

19 million houses are now sitting empty, and 19 million families are either living on the street or shacking up with kind relatives.

Not that you would give a shit.

Your Navy training has obfuscated your humanity.

Where's the profit in that?

Just an observation: Apparently you're either a Republican or a Democrat. There can be no middle ground if I were to believe some of the posts here.

My feeling is that people need to be responsible for their actions. If you purchased a house you can't afford, why should I bail you out? I hate the sense of entitlement I see going on. People aren't entitled to a damn thing other than what the constitution spells out. You aren't entitled to a $20+/hr job. You aren't entitled to a house. These are things that must be earned via providing a service that someone needs and is willing to pay for. You might classify that as Republican thinking.

Yet, I also think the tax cuts aren't the way out of this mess. I agree with the notion that if we are going to spend hundreds of billions on a stimulus, we should have something to show for it, like new roads, an updated power grid that doesn't knock out a third of the country's power when someone flips the wrong switch, and maybe some alternate energy to boot. Woah, now I'm a bleeding heart liberal Democrat! How'd that happen?

The war in Iraq is a catastrofuck by any reasonable measure. I thought it was a bad idea from day one (you know, back when opposition to that war made you anti-American or pro-terrorist), and I stand vindicated today (though this is a point I would have been glad to be wrong on given the human losses).

So my point is you can't just bin people into the extremes of the two camps. Being a Democrat doesn't automagically make you a hardcore socialist, and believing in personal and financial responsibility doesn't make you a money grubbing warmonger.

In any case, I'm glad to see Obama found his voice. Being bipartisan is great, but when the other side is proven wrong, it's time to press on without them.

>> ^Hanns:
Just an observation: Apparently you're either a Republican or a Democrat. There can be no middle ground if I were to believe some of the posts here.

The Republican vs. Democrat false dichotomy gives the American people the illusion of choice. Most Americans are indoctrinated into choosing a side. Not belonging strictly to a side makes you a weirdo, and confuses the hell out of the typical voter.

Our current regulations aren't being enforced, so obviously we need new regulations...

We are living in a wonderful time. There are no frontiers for people to run to. They must conform to the way of life deemed acceptable by society. Those who lack the appropriate amount of financial savvy will lose their homes, after already paying substantial amounts towards them.

The banks never intended for you to keep your home, many mortgages are not simple and linear for a reason. If they can get you to pay off a substantial amount of the mortgage and then take it back, they win. The lower and middle classes now rent their existence. If they lack financial savvy (an unforgivable sin) they are rightfully doomed to spend their lives paying off possessions they can not afford and will not keep.

The only problem is that all the cattle have been slaughtered at ounce. Even the calves have been cut down with credit-card debt and cell phone bills. Who will the debt farmers turn to now?

It's easy to place all the blame on those at the top (and they are in no way innocent), but if someone is making $30k a year then maybe they don't need a 300k home. You see it in all sections of life... people deep in debt going in further because they feel like they "need" a 60" plasma TV.

I don't currently make a lot of money, but I'm happy without a lot of "things" as well. The only debt I have is student loans, and the military is going to pay off 90% of that. I'm quite happy not having cable TV, or even a TV at all (other than my $150 computer monitor). I drive an older car and I don't live in a large house, but a lot of people wouldn't be happy with that.

I don't know how to fix that either. We can strictly regulate businesses and try to prevent fraud (rather than just prosecuting it), but people will still run up dept for things they can't afford. That is a social issue, and you can't regulate it other than taking away people's ability to borrow money. Perhaps education is the key, but politicians don't get elected by saying "stop buying things you can't afford".

People will continue to overestimate the happiness they will gain from expensive things and underestimate the problems caused by the incurred debt.

>> ^Hominid:
The banks never intended for you to keep your home, many mortgages are not simple and linear for a reason. If they can get you to pay off a substantial amount of the mortgage and then take it back, they win.

If having people default on their mortgages was so profitable then the banks would never have been in trouble to begin with. The bank certainly wants to get the most money they can out of a mortgage, but it is far less work for them to get it from one person.

They are in trouble because they need new people to try to buy those homes. We have run out of eager, (overly)confident consumers. A balancing act is required.

I'm not saying all the blame lays at the top. I'm just saying that putting all the blame on those who have bitten off more than they can chew is blaming the victim.

People have been behaving the way that they are wired to. People with poor impulse control and a lack of financial savvy have gone into debt. Ambitious people with questionable moral fiber have been more than happy to help them.

Both parties are to blame. I feel more inclined to blame those who have wound up comfortably at the top of failing businesses than those who have lost their homes.

*length=10:50

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 10:50 - length declared by ReverendTed.