chevron_leftchevron_leftchevron_left
    of     2   

son54
#16103244Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:34 PM GMT

That is your opinion.
Thorae
#16103279Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:35 PM GMT

Democratic congress *COUGH* Democ*COUGH*ratic congress.
iplay
#16103342Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:37 PM GMT

Smart nutcase = Oxymoron, right? Why do socialist supporters say to every socialism de-supporter that they don't know what socialism is just because they don't support it?
patsfan07
#16103620Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:45 PM GMT

You like the massive job loss, a useless war, the federal government's horrible allocation of resources etc.? There's a reason we didn't vote McCain/Palin in. That's because they were staunch advocates of something that would destroy the U.S. ______________________________ The stock market was the best it has ever been and unemployment was low before 2006 when a Democratic Congress came to power.
GRIMincorperated
#16103685Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:47 PM GMT

The stock market was the best it has ever been and unemployment was low before 2006 when a Democratic Congress came to power. ---------------------------------------------------------- I'm a Communist, not a Democrat. Secondly, that is what it was like before Obama came in. The market was failing due to deregulation caused before the Dems took over, so your argument is flawed.
patsfan07
#16103719Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:48 PM GMT

Actually the market failed because of legislation that forced banks to loan to riskier clients.
GRIMincorperated
#16103797Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:50 PM GMT

Again, by a Democrat. Not a Communist. I do believe that was also under Clinton, not as soon as the Dems took over congress.
patsfan07
#16103835Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:51 PM GMT

However, your blaming of Republicans is misplaced, and this actually started when Carter was in office.
GRIMincorperated
#16103849Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:52 PM GMT

If we had an economy wherein that people actually owned their houses, and didn't belong to banks, so many foreclosures wouldn't have happened. If we had an economy where we weren't pushed on to gamble with our mortgages and loans, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
GRIMincorperated
#16103870Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:53 PM GMT

However, your blaming of Republicans is misplaced, and this actually started when Carter was in office. -------------------------------------------- Wouldn't doubt it. It was advanced with Reagan though. Even more advanced with Clinton, and pushed to it's limits with Bush.
patsfan07
#16103898Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:54 PM GMT

If you are smart with your money it is not a gamble. There is no way you could pay $300,000 without taking out a loan. You would have to give out free houses. Which would be communism which would not work for other reasons.
GRIMincorperated
#16103954Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:56 PM GMT

Why would the government giving houses to the working class not work?
GRIMincorperated
#16103974Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:57 PM GMT

You're also implying that people are smart with their money. Which they aren't. The average person doesn't have much in mind about basic economics. They just want what's best for them.
patsfan07
#16104061Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:00 PM GMT

Why would the government giving houses to the working class not work? ______________________________________ HOuse cost in construction $150,000 100,000,000 houses in US 15,000,000,000,000 Total cost to government.
GRIMincorperated
#16104101Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:01 PM GMT

Get rid of the monetary system, or use the resources wisely. (Wood, concrete, etc.) In a Communist system, you have no need for the monetary system, other than for the working class to buy goods with.
patsfan07
#16104140Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:03 PM GMT

If the government gave the people the houses the government would own them instead of the banks.
GRIMincorperated
#16104223Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:05 PM GMT

I'd rather a government who relies on me and that I can legally take down (elections) own my house, then a bank who has to make profit off of me.
OrcSlayer9
#16118261Sunday, November 01, 2009 4:48 AM GMT

My God, Patsfan Got Owned! *Gasps*
Hihibob
#16132126Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:21 PM GMT

Here we go again... -_-
eevee400
#16133631Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:51 PM GMT

^I was going to say that...
Thorae
#16133845Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:56 PM GMT

The government is corrupt and their people only look out for their self interests.. Therefore I'd rather a bank own my house, so they can make profit and provide thousands of jobs for other people. PWNED
patsfan07
#16134754Sunday, November 01, 2009 4:14 PM GMT

I'd rather a government who relies on me and that I can legally take down (elections) own my house, then a bank who has to make profit off of me. ________________________ If the government owns your house, and essence your life if in communism they feed you they don't have to listen to you. They can just kill you or make it so you won't be fed. If a democratic government controls everything than what stops them from becoming a dictatorship.
patsfan07
#16171967Monday, November 02, 2009 2:19 AM GMT

bump
eevee400
#16179350Monday, November 02, 2009 6:16 AM GMT

Who's owning what?

chevron_leftchevron_leftchevron_left
    of     2