You know the whole "mortgage crisis" is a repub scam, right?

[catnhatnh]

Not that people aren't being foreclosed and thrown out on the streets-just that the reason why is the economic collapse engineered by the republican wealthy econopaths.

All you need to know to realize this-all of Europe and much of Asia are also scrambling to avoid total collapse BECAUSE they invested heavily in US securities.

BERLIN (Reuters) - European leaders meeting in Berlin on Sunday backed oversight of the world's financial markets and products, including hedge funds, and urged that sanctions be drawn up to punish tax havens.

A copy of the "chair's summary" from a summit hosted by Chancellor Angela Merkel and seen by Reuters describes the situation in financial markets as "fraught" and says structural reforms and a focus on public spending are needed to emerge stronger from the global crisis.

"We have today underscored once again our conviction that all financial markets, products and participants must be subject to appropriate oversight or regulation, without exception and regardless of their country of domicile," the statement says.

"This is especially true for those private pools of capital, including hedge funds, that may present a systemic risk.

From this thread:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3750947

Now in Europe I'm sure unemployment and economic distress is up but home foreclosures play little part in it and there are riots in the streets and Iceland is bankrupt. And while they may hold securities based on mortgage derivatives they do not hold ANY significant US mortgages directly.

And now when our righteous anger should be directed at the deregulation of financial markets and lack of meaningful enforcement of EVEN scams exposed by whistle-blowers over a decade ago, instead of demanding the names of 52,000 wealthy Americans scamming taxes in a Swiss bank, the republican ideal is to have beaten and stressed Democrats turn on each other over who is receiving "bailouts" from bad mortgages.

Trillions are missing already and the defaults of mortgages are only beginning-think about where the rest of the cash went.

I'll give you a hint-It's long gone and much of it to Switzerland. It is time for rule of law, prosecution and conviction and incarceration for rich people who stole. And if we can't have that then revolution is deserved.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. You realize of course that those mortgaged backed securities that they invested in are worthless.

And many of the US stocks that they owned are also in the tank.

David

[catnhatnh]

2. Yep...

But the crash was caused by the multiplying of derivatives, not the underlying size of the mortgage debt. The housing bubble and ridiculous "alternative" financing schemes were bad-leveraging them has brought the world economy to the brink.

[paulsby]

7. the crash was caused

by the totality of the circumstances.

derivatives were part of it. i trade derivatives frequently. they are familiar to me.

but the size of the mortgage debt, people using their houses as ATM's, people getting no doc loans, interest only loans ... etc. were all PART of the perfect storm.

i sold a house 2 yrs ago (fortunately) at the peak of the market. when i had bought it in 90, my realtor was pretty insistent that i could afford much more house.

i told him that i was not going to invest that much in real estate, because i wanted diversity and there was no guarantee real estate would keep going up. he just looked at me like i had 6 heads.

i see middle class guys i worked with buying way more home than they should, and AFTER a raging bull market had been going on.

when people try to single out one factor when it comes to markets, it's just never the case.

bubbles have happened for hundreds of years. this time it was real estate.

yesterday it was tulip bulbs.

[Two Americas]

9. bullshit

You are trying to blame the people. That is the current Republican party propaganda theme.

[paulsby]

11. no, i'm not

i am saying it's multifactorial.

reductionism and blaming "the other" is also a conservative/republican form of propaganda, and it's what you are doing ...

the reality is that there were SEVERAL causes of the bubble and the subsequent crash.

reality is rarely as simple and reductionist as people want it to be.

i am not "trying" to blame anybody.

i have PERSONAL experience with a realtor pushing WAY more home than was financially prudent.

i have personal experience with many coworkers who made fiscally imprudent real estate purchases.

the mania (this is not the first mania. if you study markets, you will see this has been happening for CENTURIES and has happened in many markets. read "the great dutch tulip bulb" books for instance) had a multitude of causes, and many built upon each other, until it cracked. like ALL bubbles do.

i recall CNBC , at the height of the mania, interviewing two former vegas strippers who were talking about how real estate was a "sure thing" and how wealthy they got by flipping houses.

when mania reaches that level - watch out.

the mania had many participants. and like most complex systems, interactions can lead to some wild results (see sagan or feynman for how this works).

there are MANY people to blame. and many factors that contributed.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Thank You For Sharing Your Experience....

Some here want/need to have that sinister, easy explanation that fits their theories or whatever. I don't see you blaming others but describing what I've heard and read among other causes.

I saw the first "second mortgages" in the 80's and always thought they were a last resort...borrowing twice on the same money? But, as you say, banks and individuals saw it as a way to turn homes into ATMs...the mantra being that even if you're paying 8 or 10 percent, the home values were rising at a similar or faster rate, thus you'd somehow stay ahead. This led to flipping and other games that overextended people as so many felt the bubble would just keep on going, that housing prices would rise and rise and never fall.

Yes...there are many to blame and while it feels good for some to find a scapegoat, it's not answering the mess we're currently in. The housing and debt bombs must be addressed if this economy is to ever function...then we can start looking to see who is guilty of jobbing the system.

[paulsby]

16. thank you

it was doing something with houses that has been the deathknell of many traders in many markets (futures, stocks, etc.) - overleveraging.

leverage is powerful, and to the greedy all they see is how much money they can make.

it's intoxicating. i've been there myself.

i appreciate your comments, and many people are jumping on me for daring to "blame" the poor guy who overextended and got hosed. many of those poor guys were PARTIALLY to blame for their situation. that isn't callous, it's just true. it doesn't mean i don't have sympathy.

it doesn't mean there aren't numerous institutions, individuals, govt policies etc. that contributed to this mess.

[Two Americas]

26. of course

Of course the people were bamboozled and misled about this, and of course we all know people who made stupid decisions.

Of course there was a mania. But who benefited, who caused this, who drove it?

For every person who jumped in on the mania, there are 100 innocent victims who were dragged along involuntarily.

The pressure to play this game was intense, and even if you resisted it you could not escape it.

There were many of us saying 20 and 30 years ago - don't do this, don't fall for it, don't put your retirement and savings into the stock market, don't speculate in real estate, this is not sustainable. But the pressure from the sales people and the marketers was ferocious and relentless and the propaganda was everywhere - everywhere.

[paulsby]

28. there are plenty of people who benefited from the mania

myself included .

the house i bought in 2000 i sold 2 yrs ago for a 60% profit. that';s not bad for something you can live in, and gives u an interest deduction to return 60% in a little over 6 yrs.

LOTS of people made a lot of money in the real estate bubble, and lots of them were joe average. i work with several. those who bought in 2000 and who sold after a few years did very well. those who held on are still doing excellent.

like i said, it's multifactorial.

there are real estate agents to blame, banks to blame, govt. reps to blame, buyers to blame, mortgage bank to blame, etc.

and don't tell me "you could not escape it".

i give people more credit than that.

[Two Americas]

29. "plenty"

People from relative privilege and who are enjoying some social status have a strange notion of "plenty."

Those nit included in this "plenty" are largely invisible to the upscale activist community. That is a chronic problem.

Glad you made out. I would wish you only the best. Hoping you can reciprocate that some day to the millions who were not as fortunate as you and others in your circle were.

And yes, the easy credit, Wall Street driven, corrupt and out of control economy, and unbelievably destructive and immoral housing speculation craze were just about impossible to escape and have had serious and crushing effects on the vast majority of people in the country.

And yes, blaming the people is inherently reactionary and promotes a right wing theme.

[paulsby]

30. reductionism

you keep doing this.

"blaming the people". I am sorry if it isn't squishy and nice, but many BUYERS are/were PART of the problem.

like i said, it's easy to be reductionist and just blame the corp's and the govt., but reality, even though not as pleasant, still has a dignity all its own.

it was NOT just about impossible to escape. if you abided by some basic time tested financial principles that have been in play for decades, you didn't risk overleveraging.

those that lost their jobs, etc. are one thing. those that chose to overleverage, and to buy based on the ASSUMPTION that their investment HAD to go up were partly to blame.

i don't care if you think it's "reactionary" what "theme" it promotes.

reality is more important than sounding themes or supporting reductionist memes that it's ALL the fault of the other.

[Two Americas]

31. that is always true

There are always a certain number of people who do stupid things. I am not denying that. I am questioning the relevance of that to the current crisis.

About 10-15% 09d the people were grabbing for the brass ring. That is a pretty stable number, good times or bad and regardless of the methods people are using to grab for the brass ring. It is not really all that relevant whether people doing that were successful or not - whether they were clever (and lucky) or were stupid (or unlucky.) The ethics and perceptions of that small minority tend to dominate everything, including our thinking and the discussion. Depending upon what circles we travel in, and who we select to talk with, it can seem like that small group is representative of the public since that is all you see or hear. Also, there is a pervasive projection going on, where everyone is presumed to be greedy and grabbing for the brass ring, even if they are not. Hard to go through a day without hearing that expressed. So people "see" it where it doesn't exist.


...

[paulsby]

32. I can live with that

I just can't live with the ... it's 100% the fault of the corps and the govt. and zero the fault of the buyers meme, because that simply ignores reality.

there were SOME brokers, some buyers, some mortgage banks, etc. that were aboveboard and did the right thing. my credit union, for instance (where I am financing a purchase right now) was extremely fiscally responsible, unlike many lenders.

[Two Americas]

35. thanks

It isn't a meme. It is a matter of which side you empathize and identify with. The wealthy and powerful few - even though some of them may be nice - or the working and struggling many - even though some of them are assholes.

People first or profits. Labor first or capital. The producers or the investors. The opposition has chosen up sides - all or nothing - and is waging all-out war against the rest of us. They would love to have us think that we are "partly at fault" and to see the blame spread around.

This thinking has been used to block every struggle for justice and freedom throughout history. In the 1850's people said "not all slave owners are evil" and "not all slaves are saints." The idea there is that "both sides" were at fault and that blaming the slave owners and calling the slaves innocent would be wrong. Abolitionists were then mocked and dismissed as "purists" and "ideologues" and "radicals" and "extremists" who were "seeing the world in simplistic terms" and were "denying reality."

The same arguments were used against organized Labor, the Civil Rights movement, the Universal Suffrage movement and every other public uprising demanding justice and equality and freedom and fighting for the left out and left behind, the persecuted and abused.

One good person in power is used to excuse the actions of the powerful as a class. One example of a bad person among the downtrodden is then used to invalidate the struggle of all of downtrodden people as a class.

We should recognize and reject that double standard whenever it arises.

[paulsby]

38. i don't reflexively take either side

i'm a member of a union, and strongly pro-labor but i don't assume in any given situation that labor is 100% right and management 100% wrong.

same with any issue. i think if one is too quick to side with somebody before looking at the evidence, it predisposes one to be partial when it comes to parsing stuff.

what i do believe is that this society does not do enough for the downtrodden.

[Two Americas]

41. yes you are though

Not "reflexively take either side" is the position of working class people who promote the interests of the rulers. That is all they need - the benefit of the doubt - and for the working class, nothing is more destructive then supposed neutrality.

I used the example of slavery before, There was no ":middle" position, and people taking this imagined middle position were supporting slavery while being able to claim that they were not. That more effectively promoted slavery than out and out advocacy for it ever could.

A position halfway between those with power and those without always supports those with power, because it ensures that nothing can ever change so power remains where it already is. It asks us to start with the assumption that the playing field is already level and that we can assess "both sides" by the same standards and ignore the power imbalance.

It is not a case of "society" - the presumed "we," the use of which betrays a strong unconscious identification with the rulers - not "doing enough for the downtrodden." People are trod down, intentionally, daily, and that means all of us. (I assume that you are not independently wealthy.) Imagining yourself to be outside of this downtrodden group just means that you identify with those who are doing the trodding and pushing people down.

we have a class of people here - about 10% of the population - who in exchange for some status, privilege, security and trinkets work to advance and promote the ideas and assumptions that protect and advance the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few. They talk about this "middle" and "moderate" positions and about how "things go both ways" and how "neither side is perfect, so I am independent and in the middle."

Without the relentless work of that group of people - they come in two flavors, "liberal" and "conservative" - the horrors of economic injustice and social inequality could never persist. They are the most important and critical players for the right wing agenda and the needs of the wealthy and powerful few. They act as a palace guard, and can undermine the people and their struggle to meet their needs from within organizations that are supposedly on the side of the people, and prevent ant working class leadership from developing.

It is not a question of "labor being 100% right and management 100% wrong." If a robber broke into your home, would you care who was "right" - your family or the family of the robber? It is a question of identifying with, standing with labor or with management. It is s question of knowing who you are, and who owns you, and to whom your allegiance and loyalty belong.

It is a question if loyalty to your own, not who is "right." Being "right" is the consolation prize in politics, anyway. It is useful for idle chatter at social get togethers, and not much else.

If one person is trying to murder another, would you take the "middle" position and wait to decide which "side" was "right?" If you did, the victim would be dead and the murderer would walk. How is that different than outright siding with the murderer? Only in one way - it is not as honest. That lack of honesty does more to promote murder than outright advocacy of murder, because it confuses people and makes it more difficult for anyone to take a stand against murder.


...

[paulsby]

42. i don't buy your analysis at all

i don't buy identity politics.

iow, whether somebody is right or wrong is an issue of - whether they are right or wrong,...

not whether they are labor or management or whatever.

i am very familiar with your pov and appreciate the time you spent to write it out, but i've read it before, and don't find it compelling.

the reality is that many buyers were very irresponsible, just like many mortgage brokers, banks, realtors etc. were.
sorry.

i find your analysis very noncompelling, but i appreciate the effort

[Two Americas]

45. I know

I know you don't. I posted for the benefit of others reading this thread.

[paulsby]

46. let's give em a shout out!

if you are still reading this thread, pop open a cold one and enjoy it!

thanks for reading.

[Two Americas]

47. sure

That is how it works. I appreciate the discussion with you. Others can read it, and may find it of value.

We disagree, but there is no need to burn down the meeting house nor scare the audience.

Thanks again.

[rustydad]

40. I agree

I got my first job in the early 60s as a city fireman. Got married, had a child and got my first home. A fellow fireman sold real estate as a side job. He kept pushing us to go for a house we could not afford by claiming salaries were going up an I could get a second job. We ended up in a tract house for $18,000. My salary at the time was $12,000. My son bought a tract house of the same vintage summer of 2007 for $980,000. His base fireman pay is $80,000. I told him I thought he was over his head but got the standard line that *home prices have always gone up over time*.

The truth is that this bubble was primarily caused by the Fed in concert with the Republicans AND the spineless Democrats. What this historic bubble did was to pump lots of phony money into the economy making the middle class feel like things were good. The old guns and butter argument. In reality the upper rich were making off with all the real money. Now the game is up. All that debt is now coming due. The lack of money to spend, real money, is causing the depression we are in. The wealthy have always lived off the back of the working class, always. When they but too much weight on our backs we cannot move, cannot work, perhaps cannot sustain life. Bob

[paulsby]

43. nice

former firefighter myself.

i agree. there is NO way that buying a house for (lol) over 10X your pay is anything but insane.

i love that standard line too. i got that crap from realtors too. realtors do (generally) NOT understand markets in general.

i tried to explain to my realtor that ALL bubbles pop.

he claimed "it's different".

here's a great piece of financial wisdom. when anybody tells you "it's different this time" run away screaming and holding your wallet.

every single bubble in the history of mankind has been facilitated by the greater fool theory and "it;s different this time"

it is NEVER different.

fwiw, i recall people here when oil was over $130 claiming it was "different".

it wasn't. it was a bubble. im long oil NOW, but it's CHEAP now.

our moronic local paper (the seattle PI) claimed in one of their moronic faux omniscient editorials that oil would never see below 90 again.

lol.

[Jack Sprat]

33. Don't leave out the subprime brokerage

crooks on Wall St itself. They cranked out bogus mortgages that they packaged together with the higher risk subprimes, then grouped them into mortgage bonds, somehow passed them through the SEC for approval as AAA bonds, that were then sold off to unknowing pension funds, state and local governments. I'm just saying, don't overlook the whale while trying to catch baitfish.

[paulsby]

34. most definitely

i am not. all i said was that some buyers were part of the problem and that started the wild rumpus.

i am in no way shape or form saying that there weren't plenty of others as well, such as the subprime brokerage d00ds

[ljm2002]

12. Well bully for you...

...and yeah, tulip bulbs were a bit of a craze 'way back when...

The thing is, though: people need a place to live. And people are encouraged to buy homes. And not everyone looks at it as an investment, much less a way to diversify or not.

Not everyone who is under water used their home as an ATM, nor got an ARM mortgage, nor failed to make a down payment.

Lots of us did all the right things, and are now substantially under water when it comes to how much we own on the mortgage vs. how much the home could actually be sold for.

The reason for this meltdown is fraud, and it runs deep. In fact the contracts that are offered to everyday citizens are fraudulent in general, because they are not offered in good faith. Good faith is part of what is expected as part of a valid contract. We are subjected to contracts that can be and are changed at whim by the corporate greed heads who offer credit cards and mortgages and phone plans and on and on and on it goes.

It is long past time to blame the people, and time to rebuild a system that actually serves the people.

I'm sick to death of those who blame regular people for a debacle that was set up by the rich and the super-rich, and that got away from them because they could not control their overweening greed.

[paulsby]

14. but it's "different this time"

every bubble has that mantra.

"The thing is, though: people need a place to live. And people are encouraged to buy homes."

and people who couldn't afford a home, or afford superbighomeX(tm) were encouraged to buy that home.

people were encouraged to buy homes with no money down and insufficient income.

realtors were part of this, mortgage brokers were part of this, home buyers were part of this. it was one big mania.

"Not everyone who is under water used their home as an ATM, nor got an ARM mortgage, nor failed to make a down payment."

of course not. i certainly never claimed that.

"Lots of us did all the right things, and are now substantially under water when it comes to how much we own on the mortgage vs. how much the home could actually be sold for."

correct. and many people when they bought the home made the ASSUMPTION (that factored into how they financed it) that the value would go up, or at least remain stable.

i recall having a rather vociferous discussion with a coworker of mine 3 yrs ago who emphatically claimed that there is NO way that home prices in seattle could go down.

seriously.

that's MANIA.

"The reason for this meltdown is fraud, and it runs deep. In fact the contracts that are offered to everyday citizens are fraudulent in general, because they are not offered in good faith. Good faith is part of what is expected as part of a valid contract. We are subjected to contracts that can be and are changed at whim by the corporate greed heads who offer credit cards and mortgages and phone plans and on and on and on it goes.
"

again, that's reductionist, and thus incorrect.

there are MANY reasons. market dynamics are almost always multifactorial, and the housing market is no obsession.

you are "blaming the other" (the rich and the super rich) because that's facile, and absolves any of your in group from being examined.

i'm not going to do that. i'm going to look at ALL the causes.

and there were MANY.

one of the reasons why , for instance, one should put (at least) 20% down on a house is that IF one does, and the house price DROPS 20%, you are still at or above water.

one should not make ANY investment with the assumption that it must go up.

that is true in stocks, in commodities, or in houses.

again, there is this natural inclination not to "blame" the everyman (tm) for this because he is a sympathetic person, and it's easier to blame the other.

the reality is that MANY people (and institutions, to include govt.) contributed to this problem.

i have personally witnessed WAY too much irresponsible home buying, speculation, and overleverage amongst friends and coworkers to ever discount that this was A factor. not THE factor/reason.

there is no ONE reason, despite your (and some other) claims.

[conscious evolution]

19. One point I disagree with

It is fraud.
There may be plenty of blame to spread around but at the root of it all is fraud and theft.
When the BFEE commits a crime they go all out to do it.No penny-ante grifter shit one finds on the street.
They do so for good reasons too.
The first reason is simple.The bigger the scam the more money they can make off it. They rob the banks because that is where the money is.
Another reason they go so big with their crimes is because the larger and more hienous it is the more people are going to sink into denial over whether or nor a crime has even been committed.With their control of the media it is easy to use phsycological manipulations to create a false illusions that cast the blame elsewhere instead.

[CTyankee]

22. Another factor here: home ownership was considered a social "good."

The house flippers and your middle class acquaintances aside, the poorer people who got into the risky mortgage schemes were also acting on a widely held belief that home ownership was key to stabilizing the family, the neighborhood and thus the larger community. You may argue with that now, in hindsight, but at the time it offered a compelling "moral" reason to invest in a house. Many of them had looked around and saw people retiring and selling their houses for way more than they paid for it, thus giving them the added comfort of a retirement "nest egg," even if they did not make enough money to save substantially for their retirement.

What is now considered individual "irresponsibility" was at the time the "right thing to do" on many levels. We can take them out and beat them if we like, but we need to understand ALL of the influences on their taking the opportunity to have better lives.

[paulsby]

36. it's not hindsight

people (including me) been saying this for years.

and yes, owning a home is a social good - assuming you buy within your means, etc.

just because something is a social good doesn't mean person X should engage in version Y of it.

marriage is a social good. doesn't mean you should marry on a whim, or stay in a marriage where you are being abused daily.

buying a house is a social good. buying a house costing 10 times your yearly income with no money down - isn't.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Almost Nothing Is X Therefore Y

I agree with your assessment. The reasons are so much more varied and multiple. And, the interactions between many of them add even more factors, because two causes independently may not have a huge influence on the effect, but in conjunction with one another have a huge influence.

In this financial failure, the reasons are myriad and interconnected.
GAC

[catnhatnh]

5. I should also mention that the stock collapse is a direct result

of the crash of financials that are needed to create operating capital for businesses and also consumer credit to allow the purchase of their goods.No company is going to look good when it can neither produce or sell product.

[Still Sensible]

3. Ridiculous

"Trillions are missing" Say what? The trillions you speak of were just on paper, inflated paper. In the end, those trillions didn't really exist, the were inflated valuations of mortgages. The ones holding those derivatives as the market crashed took it up the ass. Some folks did make a lot of money with the whole derivatives folly before the crash, but only those that got off the train in time didn't suffer incredible losses.

They fucked up. Absolutely. Their greed prevented them from seeing that there were going to be more and more defaults--many more than their greedy actuarials indicated when they came up with their models. I promise you the bankers and hedge fund managers did not want to lose trillions upon trillions in wealth just to fuck over everybody else. They really wanted that gravy train to keep going--they had invented a new way to make money.

A republican fuck up? You bet, the result of republican dogma gone wild--no question. A scam to run off with trillions of dollars and hide it--no.

Should people that have sheltered millions from the IRS in Swiss Banks (that has been going on for 75 years) pay up and perhaps face prosecution--absolutely.

[catnhatnh]

4. Mostly agree....

but the current bailouts to the banks are about covering booked loses on inflated paper...so the investors lost real money and the banks lost "air" money-but the banks are getting some of it bailed back. The lost trillions are the investors (past) and the bailouts (current and future) and include the commissions (the skim) from the phonied up derivatives. If you can pass a FAKE $100 billion thru the books and commission yourself 5% you've done well.

[Still Sensible]

6. No doubt.

That's why the biggest scandal of all as I am concerned is the switcheroo Paulson pulled with the first half of the TARP funds. They were approved under a plan that would have had the treasury taking admittedly toxic debt, but they would have had the assets and could have recovered something down the road (as they did in the S & L scandal). But no! Now they can't even tell us where most of the money went.

[MattSh]

8. Oooh, the big bad Swiss again...

The fact is, the worlds biggest tax haven is the USA, by a wide margin. Followed closely by the UK.

[bobthedrummer]

10. It's bipartisan, yet the Replicants are much more leveraged...

[dysfunctional press]

13. the "cash" didn't go anywhere except into the ether...

most of it never existed, except on paper or in electronic data files.

[bottomtheweaver]

39. Oh it went some where all right.

Off shore somewhere. All that capital didn't disappear, it just got transferred up and out. That's the Bushler way.

[dysfunctional press]

44. ...

:eyes:

[SpiralHawk]

17. "Smirk." - Republicon Homelander cabal o' cronies

eom

[conscious evolution]

18. Absolutely

Everything they touch or show interest in is a scam or crime of one sort or another.
Its their stock in trade.

[GeorgeGist]

20. You know the whole capitalism thing ...

is a Ponzi scheme, right?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. ROFLMAO!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ozu]

24. lol at anyone blaming a single party

Every political, social, and socioeconomic group owns part of the blame. And the culture of easy debt has corrupted nearly every single developed country.

Republican scam? Please. As if the hands of Democratic leaders are clean.

[glowing]

25. No, it goes past republicans.. this goes to the top families who love ruling the world.

The one's you have never met or see little about.. This is about control. This is about a world of elite and servants. Otherwise, they have to share... or everyone gets a clue and realizes the system is bogus.. and its all a myth.

[Raskolnik]

27. This is far, far from a simple Democrat/Republican issue, and it will not be fixed

by viewing it as such.

[slackmaster]

37. Mmmmmmmmmmmkay

...Trillions are missing already and the defaults of mortgages are only beginning-think about where the rest of the cash went.

I'll give you a hint-It's long gone and much of it to Switzerland....