Sweetie, You Are Such A Moron

Morris - if I was and am so happy I got out of there, why sould I enjoy the thought of moving in htis direction?

Than - Socialism is Utopia. Utopia is a fantasy world where there is equality, and brotherhood, wich can't be achievedin real life.

That's why we say that this is Utopia.

Real socialism is much more sinister and deadly than just taking the money from one group and giving to the other.

It is a system, which will opress people to achieve their agreement to treat themselves as happy. the only way to do it is by executing those who show that they are unhappy, then those, who might be unhappy, like priests, teachers, intelligentsia (thinking bastards), as the most dangerous think for any socialist regime are those "thinking", and if you want to see it, check the occupation of Baltic states. These were the groups put on the trains and sent to the Arctic North or Siberia to die...

In the Soviet Union we know the case of Mikhoels. He was a great actor, and was a great supporter of the Communist cause.

But he was a jew, and stalin did not like Jews. besides, Mikhoels was getting too popular. So, the powwers arranged his accidental death.

They made sure, though, that the country knew that it was not accidntal, and be afraid to become too popular.

It wasn't the money at stake, it always was life at stake

Steven - it is stunning, how people can set for self destruction and would not believe in it until it is too late

John - so well said, thank you. And yes, it is amazing how easy it is to choose a very dangerous path and not even understand it.

Karl - really? Socialism is not a membership club. It is a system, and we, under the guidance of our President, make some steps in that direction.

Now, historically, you can take a capitalis country and convert it to a socialist country, that has been done.

The opposite has never succeded yet, and is unlikely to succeed.

The reason being is that every socialist country was failing on the economic front. Switching from Capitalist economy to Socialist economy is like getting off the plane and taking a horse ride. you can enjoy, it, but you are not get far, at least not as far as with the plane.

So, when you are done with socialism and want to go back, that "back" is so far ahead, that it is utopia to think you are going to get there in the near future.

If you listen to the president and do not hear it, it is you used to live in the capitalist country, developed, and you do not have that experience of living in the socialist country. Yyou may like the ideas, but you do not want to acknoledge that the ultimate cost is much greater than any imagine or even real short term benefits.

I am afraid, that when you can say that your President is a Socialist, it is usually too late even to jump the ship.

The gates from the Soviet Union were shut in 1922 and the first emigration started after Nixon's visit, I think, in 1972, when the Soviet Union traded Jews for goods and food supply, and it lasted until 1980.

So, all you wonderful choices could be like cockroaches in a tightly closed jar. They may kill themselves or fool themselves, but they have no way out of the jar...

Of course, even this is changing.

Karl - what surprises me is that we look at it as a match between Romney or whoever is there or Obama or whoever is there. The trouble is that no matter who is there, if they are moving in the wrong direction, they are moving in the wrong direction.

Well, let me start with the increased role of Government and more reliance on the government. I can't stress enough how destructive it is not only for economy, but for public morals.

A freebies society is a socialist society, only portions are tiny... but free or inexpensive.

Bailouts are a step in that direction, and if Bush started it, it does not change a thing.

$30K incentives to short sale sellers are what is eroding not only the economy, but the morals.

You expect people in the future sign a contract and expect it to be binding? It is laughable. America is still about achievement, but way less than it used to be.

how many people are only trying to achieve a check from the government? ut they are ssure to vote for the giving hand. Not the hand good for the nation, but for the giving hand.

Look at the election speeches. Promises to minorities, promises to women, promises to older people

What a wonderful country, where we choose the President though the prizm of a condom

Karl - I am very curious. Do you agree with "Sweetie, you are such a moron"?

Karl - we still have short sales, and a lot of those. So, let's assume that we did not have a single one. The banks would have to foreclose, the properties would go back to the market.

What is the idea of throwing billions and billions into sustaining the short sales and loan modification? Just give work to thousands of processors?

That's it?

What is the economic impact? Still sluggish housing market? What would have taken very few years to finish the cycle of foreclosures, is prolonged and prolonged. And the craziness increases with incentives.

What freaking capitalism this is? What sense it makes?

Social aspect. They say they are helping homeowners. Why? Is it about roof over the head? No, and it has never been. It is about keeping a second vacation home with 3,000 sf of living bought with the speculative purpose... That's what I see here all the time.

I overstretched myself, lost money when the development in which I invested, was foreclosed upon, so we short sold our condo and moved to rentals. Why they allowed the short sale? What would have happen if they simply foreclosed on the condo and sell it to someone else?

Did they teach me a valuable lesson? That when I am signing the mortgage and note, it means nothing. When the tough times come, I will scream and beg and there will be a moron, or many morons who would start trying to build political capital on finding (and funding) my bailout?

As for "where EVERYONE has a chance to make the most of thier lives for themselves and thier family", you are talking to the chance. Obama is not about giving a chances, Obama is about creating a system that would give not a fishing rod so that they can fish and feed their family, but to ration giving them fish, so that they guarantee any political vote. The government would catch fish and give it. And it will take my dollar to catch the fish, this is called redistribution, and not a chance.

The idea of correcting the capitalism is not new. It never really worked. Nobody is talking about Wild West here. In this sense you have less freedom here than in many oppressed countries with all the regulation. The problem is that this desire to control is like cancer, and it will not stop by itself. There is no such thing for the government as understanding the boundaries.

It is a war, and with every restriction they impose, it is a plateau to work on the next one. you do not see it simply because it is not happening at once. It is one thing after another, and first we stunned, and then we get used to the fought, and get tired of opposing, and take the position that it is a small thing to be so adamant about it, and this is how we lose.

More control over capitalism means less capitalism. What is goo about it? You want to give everybody a chance? then this country is the best in the world. It GIVES everybody a chance. the problem that the only chance so many want are the handouts, and there departments and departments that are diligently working on handouts. And the only direction is more handouts. And Obama is all about handouts, not about the chance.

Why are we fooling ourselves?

P.S. I am sorry for all the typos. The only consolation that you are making them, too :)

Dale - Karl is one of many great guys, thinking, not indifferent... The fact that we see things differently is just that. And yes, it is unlikely I can affect the way some of my friends are thinking, but at least I voice my concern.

Satar - don't you find it fascinating that we are talking about tightening the belts, reducing Medicare, increasing taxes, and at the same time all we should have done is let whoever was failing to fail.

Not spend anything on bailing out. I guess the government with their interference in banking was liable for coverin in case of failure, so we were set up by ... the government.

I do not think it is corporatism, I think this is the only expected product of big government. I am not afraid of corporations, they can get out of business if their goods or services are not up to par...

i am afraid of big governement. They never go out of business, as we are backing them up, no matter how badly they perform.