Best quote I heard today. From yer resident troll.

[findingZzero]

"In this country we have socialism for the wealthy, and rugged individualism for the poor." Martin Luther King

Have at it!

 

[pudly]

A great man in many ways, but this proves his words are not infallible. Apparently, he was unaware of all of the transfers of wealth going on via various welfare programs.

 

[EvilElmo]

In all fairness to Dr. King, there was a lot less wealth transfer going on in his day than there is now.

 

[Jludo]

I think when you get up to the extremely wealthy this holds true, if you consider average taxpayers poor. We did just bail out the greedy bankers making terrible loans and not the stupid homeowner who was taking them.

 

[findingZzero]

I'm going to guess that MLK was more aware than most what welfare programs were available. I would further suggest that his rhetoric had more to do with the way these different programs (welfare for the wealthy vs. for the poor) were regarded at the time he made that statement.

 

[IndyGunworks]

I think when you get up to the extremely wealthy this holds true, if you consider average taxpayers poor. We did just bail out the greedy bankers making terrible loans and not the stupid homeowner who was taking them.

No kidding... Imagine if they would have taken all that bailout money and paid off mortgages... the banks still would have gotten their money, but millions of americans would have been better off and the market wouldn't have collapsed anyways.

 

[HoughMade]

So the bailouts were just big gifts of money to the banks, not loans that have to be,and for the most part, have been repaid?

We can talk about whether the bailouts were a good idea (some maybe, most no), but the idea that the banks were given, free and clear, taxpayer money is a falsehood.

So to continue the analogy, we would do what? Give taxpayers more loans? Wait, we kinda did that in a way with the availability of refinancing and the mandate of more stringent workout procedures that require banks to jump through more hoops to foreclose.

But sure we need an enemy to blame for whatever so.......banks! That's the enemy ​du jour.

 

[Birds Away]

So the bailouts were just big gifts of money to the banks, not loans that have to be,and for the most part, have been repaid?

We can talk about whether the bailouts were a good idea (some maybe, most no), but the idea that the banks were given, free and clear, taxpayer money is a falsehood.

So to continue the analogy, we would do what? Give taxpayers more loans? Wait, we kinda did that in a way with the availability of refinancing and the mandate of more stringent workout procedures that require banks to jump through more hoops to foreclose.

But sure we need an enemy to blame for whatever so.......banks! That's the enemy ​du jour.

If you want, we can go back to lawyers.

 

[HoughMade]

If you want, we can go back to lawyers.

Sure, why not?

I'm just saying that the financial debacle of 2008 and thereafter (continuing to today) has many, many parties who can be rightfully blamed. Government, banks, mortgage brokers, brokerage houses, and yes, the individuals who took out the loans....oh, and lawyers, plenty of lawyers.

But not this lawyer.

 

[Leadeye]

I have often wondered what the number would be if we simply added up every thing that was budgeted for any kind of assistance and then divided it by the number of people below the poverty line. Somewhere in that math, you find the real winners of socialism, and it's not the poor folks.

 

[HoughMade]

I have often wondered what the number would be if we simply added up every thing that was budgeted for any kind of assistance and then divided it by the number of people below the poverty line. Somewhere in that math, you find the real winners of socialism, and it's not the poor folks.

Somehow, I'm reminded of this:

[video=youtube;CSid-p0Xlk0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSid-p0Xlk0[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

A great man in many ways, but this proves his words are not infallible. Apparently, he was unaware of all of the transfers of wealth going on via various welfare programs.

In 1968? Not much. His words were 100% correct.

 

[BugI02]

So the bailouts were just big gifts of money to the banks, not loans that have to be,and for the most part, have been repaid?

We can talk about whether the bailouts were a good idea (some maybe, most no), but the idea that the banks were given, free and clear, taxpayer money is a falsehood.

So to continue the analogy, we would do what? Give taxpayers more loans? Wait, we kinda did that in a way with the availability of refinancing and the mandate of more stringent workout procedures that require banks to jump through more hoops to foreclose.

But sure we need an enemy to blame for whatever so.......banks! That's the enemy ​du jour.

Are you truly unaware that the banks were complicit? Really? Simplified narrative (as I understand events): Interest rates on traditional low risk investments are lower than inflation. In a search for a risk-off type of investment with better yields, investors become attracted to mortgages aggregated into investment instruments that pay higher returns using some of the homeowner interest payments as the revenue stream. As demand picks up, banks begin packaging lower and lower quality loans to keep the fees coming. The low quality of some of the loans being packaged presents problems selling the aggregates to entities such as pension funds, which have minimum investment quality requirements. The largest banks, doing the most business with the ratings agencies, strongarm these same agencies into rating the aggregates as high quality investment instruments. Massive amounts of money are made by all wall street parties. The music stops, and worldwide investors don't have a seat. Crimes were certainly committed but no one goes to jail, economy left on its knees.
Community reinvestment act is blamed (moral hazard not cited).

 

[Jludo]

So the bailouts were just big gifts of money to the banks, not loans that have to be,and for the most part, have been repaid?

We can talk about whether the bailouts were a good idea (some maybe, most no), but the idea that the banks were given, free and clear, taxpayer money is a falsehood.

So to continue the analogy, we would do what? Give taxpayers more loans? Wait, we kinda did that in a way with the availability of refinancing and the mandate of more stringent workout procedures that require banks to jump through more hoops to foreclose.

But sure we need an enemy to blame for whatever so.......banks! That's the enemy ​du jour.

No one claimed bailouts were big gifts of money. They were however government money lent in absence of fair market liquidity. When no one else is willing to give you a loan yet the government steps in and, not only bails you out but buys your bad assets you're going to try to argue that isn't corporate welfare on the greatest and grandest scale?
The deck is stacked against the average investor and towards wall street/big business.
Yes the banks and the government and the person who got a loan they couldn't afford are to blame but it looks to me like only one of those got the shaft when the house of cards came tumbling down.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No one claimed bailouts were big gifts of money. They were however government money lent in absence of fair market liquidity. When no one else is willing to give you a loan yet the government steps in and, not only bails you out but buys your bad assets you're going to try to argue that isn't corporate welfare on the greatest and grandest scale?
The deck is stacked against the average investor and towards wall street/big business.
Yes the banks and the government and the person who got a loan they couldn't afford are to blame but it looks to me like only one of those got the shaft when the house of cards came tumbling down.

That sentence sums it up.

 

[jamil]

So the bailouts were just big gifts of money to the banks, not loans that have to be,and for the most part, have been repaid?

We can talk about whether the bailouts were a good idea (some maybe, most no), but the idea that the banks were given, free and clear, taxpayer money is a falsehood.

So to continue the analogy, we would do what? Give taxpayers more loans? Wait, we kinda did that in a way with the availability of refinancing and the mandate of more stringent workout procedures that require banks to jump through more hoops to foreclose.

But sure we need an enemy to blame for whatever so.......banks! That's the enemy ​du jour.

If we're going to assess whether King's statement is true or not, don't we need to establish if the rich avoided consequences while the poor were allowed to feel mostly the full brunt? So did they? Or not?

Sure, why not?

I'm just saying that the financial debacle of 2008 and thereafter (continuing to today) has many, many parties who can be rightfully blamed. Government, banks, mortgage brokers, brokerage houses, and yes, the individuals who took out the loans....oh, and lawyers, plenty of lawyers.

But not this lawyer.

But we're not talking about who caused it. We're talking about who had to feel the consequences of their actions and who didn't.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

A great man in many ways, but this proves his words are not infallible. Apparently, he was unaware of all of the transfers of wealth going on via various welfare programs.

Those transfers likely post-dated his death.

 

[pudly]

At least the following welfare programs were in place before MLK died:
-Medicaid
-Aid to Families with Dependent Children (classic welfare, started in 1935)
-Food Stamps

 

[Twangbanger]

I suspect MLK's quote - if indeed it even is his - describes a lot more societies than just America. It may just seem especially trenchant to us, because it was directed inward.

Although character is important in all people, in my opinion the character of the poor and middle class defines a society to a much greater degree than that of the rich. I suspect there's hardly ever been a society that didn't have self-serving muckety mucks jockeying for position at its version of the public trough. Some would say what's the whole point of having a public trough, if not for people to haggle over? Every society which achieved greatness found a way to do so in spite of graft at high levels. In fact, I'd almost be willing to proceed under the premise that the character of the super-wealthy is presumed to be suspect until shown otherwise.

But show me a society where the mass majority of regular people are unable or unwilling to care for themselves, and I'll show you a country that is not worth a crap.

In light of subsequent events, it would be interesting to travel back in time, and ask MLK:

1) Does he believe a decent society should spend more taking care of the poor, than it does on War?

2) If somebody told him that America has not only done precisely that since 1965, but moreover, has transferred more wealth since 1965 than it has spent in all our wars, combined - would he be surprised to learn this?

3) And given the above, would he also be surprised to learn that not only has Poverty _not_ been alleviated by this massive wealth transfer, but in fact has gotten worse by some measures? Or would it even matter to him? After all, by some accounts...what's the point of having a public trough, if you can't "have some fun" (read: "buy some votes") spending it ?

 

[Kutnupe14]

At least the following welfare programs were in place before MLK died:
-Medicaid
-Aid to Families with Dependent Children (classic welfare, started in 1935)
-Food Stamps

Yeah, but the numbers were ridiculously low.