But they're not the same, unless those issues are no more important than the color of a barn.
Except that they are. This claim that they want to "get rid of social security and medicare" is a canard talking point conjured up by Democrats to frighten the populace into voting against the GOP. It's just as bad as the "they're going to take your guns!" argument Republicans use to frighten people against the Dems. In reality, Republicans want reform of those programs. But you don't want to see that because you like the pink barn.
It was the rich who created the crisis, and the poor's only involvement was getting the blame for something they didn't do.
So what you're saying is that the rich people forced those poor people to buy houses they couldn't afford and then foreclose on those houses, thus triggering the derivatives meltdown?
lol, I find it incredibly funny that you label Republicans as wanting to take away all your moral freedoms (since you didn't give them the same "give or take" qualifier you provided the Democrats with respect to economic freedoms). I would level the Democrats want to take away economic freedoms is greater than or equal to the level Republicans want to restrict your social freedoms. So yes, the roles are almost exactly reversed.
Remember that to Republicans, "Freedom" means corporate freedom from regulation - so, no net neutrality.
Increased Republican control would be a Brave New World for us all -- not just for Internet users, but minorities, immigrants, the poor and, especially, women.
To be fair, the Democrats are often incompetent and uncoordinated, but the Republicans are evil and uncaring, unless you're a rich, white, Christian male.
[Rant Off]
[Rant On]
Remember that to Democrats, "Freedom" means freedom from non-government-chosen lifestyle choices - so, no net neutrality.
Increased Democratic control would be a Brave New World for us all -- not just for Internet users, but the religious, legal citizens, the rich and, especially, rich men.
To be fair, the Republicans are often incompetent and uncoordinated, but the Democrats are evil and uncaring, unless you're a poor, black, gay male.
Exactly. What they mean by "internet freedom" is "freedom for corporations," or more precisely, "not restricting corporations' freedom to restrict your freedom."
And what the other side means by "internet freedom" is "freedom for government", or more precisely, "not restricting government's freedom to restrict your freedom". Given those two evils, I'll go with the guy without the massive army, thank you.
There isn't a single candidate running that I think qualified for office. And there are good reasons. Nobody sane would want the job, but would only do it as a duty. So those who are psychotically compelled to seek power are the only choices.
I don't agree with that assessment at all. It's all about believing you can run things better than the last guy. Whether you're doing it for monetary gain, or in some attempt to better the nation, it's not necessarily always a power-seeking motivation. I guarantee most people who started their own business for instance did so moreso for the dollars it provides than the power.
So someone should be watching the hen house, and we should have regulations to make sure it is no the fox.
These programs have made a huge difference to many people and to our nation.
This is precisely why people are calling for reform and not elimination. Means testing, for instance, wouldn't hurt these people at all. So why the opposition? Demographically, the elderly are the richest segment of our society (as well they should be, since they've been accruing assets for decades). There's no reason I can think of to give "all elderly" a money funnel from the much poorer working class. Safety net, sure. Way of life, I don't think so.
Because the banks convinced Congress to repeal the part of Glass-Steagal that kept investment and commercial banking separate.
As it turns out, that was a bad idea because it lead to massive consolidation in the banking industry and the growth of too-big-to-fail banks.
The ire is misdirected. Banks being involved in investment and commercial banking together would be perfectly fine if they were not "too big to fail". The fault is in allowing companies to grow to that point in the first place. When companies grow too large, split them them up into component parts (or prevent them from continuing to swallow up smaller entities). Basic antitrust, basically. Smaller companies with no government backing don't needs gobs of regulation because they're mostly harmless. Large behemoth companies like the ones we allow to exist in this country have the wealth and power to do just about anything, and none of the responsibility (since we need them more than they need us). That's the problem.
So we remove govt regulation. Corps cheers because now they can do whatever they want without paying off congresscritters. smaller players get more abused, customers get more shafted.
They'll have a far harder time abusing you without the weight of the US government behind them. Of that I can damn well guarantee. If you want to argue for any government intervention, argue for antitrust. That's the biggest function I believe the free market fails soundly in. "Too big to fail" shouldn't be allowed to happen.
t used to be that Republicans and Democrats were willing to compromise to help get things done. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil would sit down together over a drink and hash out a compromise. On the day that Obama was inaugurated a number of national Republican leaders got together and decided to say no to anything Obama tried to accomplish regardless of whether it was a reasonable idea or not. To me that borders on being treasonous.
Polls show that both sides have grown more hyperpartisan over the years. Obama himself wanted Republicans to "sit in the back" and just follow along with his marching plans. Don't pretend one side is attempting to compromise here. They're both assholes.
I didn't say amortized. This was an interest only loan. 30 year repayment is going to over 3% in principle every year, of course the payment is higher.
But interest only loans are a terrible fiscal idea. For one, they're always variable rate, not fixed. That's especially important since the kinda of people getting interest only loan probably can't afford a rate increase (which is all but certain in the next 5 years). Heck, even from the homeowner's perspective, they'd be better off going bankrupt and saving up for 7 years to buy a new home rather than having that cash drained away by "interest-only" payments that provide no real equity.
We didn't try it. The US housing stock is in the trillions an injection would have been much larger and hit far more homes. The fact that a glass of water doesn't put out a house fire doesn't mean water isn't the right solution.
Now that I agree with. But my point is that we didn't have money to dent the housing market in the first place. Home debt was around 10 trillion during the bubble. The government didn't exactly have trillions and trillions of dollars to throw around. We still don't. And it also doesn't change the fact that it would fix nothing -- it would have just kicked the can down the road. The new infusion of money would give more people the ability to afford downpayments and land themselves homes, and then when the cash infusion ran out (since we don't have multiple trillions to burn every year), we'd be stuck in the same boat we were before (artificially inflated home values with no one able to afford it).
So it helps nobody in the US, and is unrelated to US security. What's the point of a military if their actions are unrelated to the security of the US?
Helping an ally is always in the best interests of the US. Not to mention regional stability alone is in our interests. A destabilized region can be a major drag on the world economy (and consequently our own). The middle east is a picture perfect example of that. Anytime someone over there sneezes the wrong way, oil and gas prices shoot through the roof.
Because people like you always seem more than willing to call for more work and sacrifice from other people. My and my kin are the ones that fight the wars you start, clean up the messes you and your little Wall Street buddies create and generally try to care for the victims your "Screw You, I Got Mine" mentality strews about the countryside.
And my kin are the ones that pay for all of it, including all your social programs you're so fond of. Because if there's anything Dems are great it, it's spending almost nothing in charitable spending and then using everyone else's money to sate their own self-centered sense of moral smugness. Bit of an ironic twist on "Give, and it shall be given unto you", eh? Hint, "Give" does not mean "your neighbor's wealth", and "shall be given unto you" does not mean "your neighbor's wealth". There was a specific line in there about coveting and stealing from your neighbor...some famous religious document...I'm sure you know it.
Well, I do appreciate a cited source, but macroeconomic models are far from "scientific proof". Hell, some of them (like the CBO study) are flat out "made-up multipliers". In reality, it's almost impossible to determine whether or not a recovery was caused because of stimulus spending or in lieu of it. In addition, unknown externalities (such as the impending "fiscal cliff" debt hole, made worse by stimulus spending) which exert negative impact on the economy are not accounted for.
What does "overvalued" even me?
Seems pretty straightforward. It means something is priced above its market worth (what people are willing to pay for it)..
Assuming interest rates were permanently at 1% and that inflation were equal to maintenance costs. Assume that a house has a rent equivalent of $1000 / mo (i.e. a $100-200k house under normal market conditions). Under the conditions of a 1% that house could easily cost over $1m and be "worth" over a million.
I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from. A 200k house in a 30 year amortization at 1% is a monthly payment of ~$650. Tack on mortgage insurance (~$50), PMI ($50), and property taxes ($150) and your monthly payment is around $900. There's no way in hell you could support a million dollar valuation. Hell, even a 250k house would put you over the $1000/month price point. And this once again assumes a _ludicrously_ low rate -- what bank is going to lend at 1%? Hell, the fed rate is practically 0 right now and the lowest you can get is around 3.5% on a 30 year, assuming a 20% downpayment.
Absolutely. That's where a subsidy in equity would be needed even in a low interest rate economy.
We tried that with the housing credit (which effectively became a house downpayment) -- it didn't exactly stimulate much, at least not in the long term.
Until we start saying no to the rich, and things equalize a bit I'm saying yes to the poor
Meh, two wrongs don't make a right. You never go forward by taking two steps back. Pick your idiom.
Can you tell me how US presence in South Korea protects anyone other than big business?
For one, it keeps North Korea from walking over and saying "this is mine". I'd say that helps the South Koreans out at least somewhat.
So your response to "there are no threats against us" is "we have no threats against us, but must upgrade in case someone develops one."
Even if I were saying that, it would be valid. But I also listed an example of a threat we could not handle, namely the IED. So we're not "superior in all ways" as you claim. Warfare is always evolving.
We wouldn't need to worry about such improvised guerrilla tactics if we didn't invade countries.
Straw man. Please. I guess after 9/11, we should have not invaded Afghanistan "just because"?
Socialized cost, privatized profit. That is conservatism.
You do realize the Dems bailed out the banks and let the CEOs get away scot free with massive payouts? And you blame the Republicans for corporatism? TARP only passed because of a Democratic majority in Congress. Not to mentioned the bills to follow (including the auto industry bailout)...
Except not really. The top 20% pay for 80% of taxes. So technically the vast majority of infrastructure is paid for by the rich generation preceding the current one. And it continues to be paid for by those people.
A task achieved by on intelligence community, supported by the bloated defense budget Obama is trying to cut. Attribute Osama's death to Obama simply because he said "sure, go ahead" when presented with actionable intelligence is stupid.
General Motors and Chrysler, and the industrial heartland of the country, were saved from a catastrophe that would make the dust bowl look like nothing.
Failures of companies deserve to fail. Fuck corporatism.
An end has come to the era of people being condemned to death by for-profit insurance companies using the excuse of "pre-existing conditions" to deny people their basic human right to health care coverage.
Fixing that loophole without the additional 999 pages of expensive budget-breaking cruft would have been far preferable.
Colonel Gadaffi was ousted from power without a single American soldier being deployed on the ground, and without adding countless billions to the deficit.
Not exactly attributable to actions of the US...
That god-awful war in Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder since Napoleon invaded Russia, has ended.
We still have people on the ground over there, and it was already winding down at the end of Bush's term.
Since Obama took office, oil imports have dropped by an average of 1.1 million barrels per day and in 2010 domestic crude oil production reached its highest level since 2003.
Global commodities dynamics are not a function of government. Or do you believe the resurgence of natural gas (and shift away from coal power) is also because of the government? (rather than regular market forces...)
Republicans had the Presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2003 to 2007
The Dems won the Congress in 2006. It's part of the reason Bush's last two years were effectively "lame duck". It's also the only reason TARP ever saw the light of day.
Dems only had a supermajority in the senate for four months, most of which were in recess.
Only four months? Do your realize how much you can pass in four months? Do you remember the first four months of Obama's presidency? A great deal of legislation got passed, including one gigantic stimulus bill. If they wasted the supermajority period, it's their own fault for doing so.
Federal spending rose at anywhere between 3.2-5%, a rate below average, and if you start measuring the rate from October 2009, spending has been the slowest in 60 years
Conveniently skipping the drunken orgy of spending that went on in the first half of 2009?
If your actions have a consequence that impacts minorities unfairly then maybe the racist label is one you should look at very carefully. There are acts of commission and acts of omission.
This is a slippery slope. One could very easily see affirmative action programs as racist -- one could also see calls for their removal as racist. Similarly, the fact that a large percentage of white people vote Republican could be seen as racist -- in the same way, the fact a large percentage of black people vote Democrat could be seen as racist. If you go looking for a pattern, you will find one.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that they are. This claim that they want to "get rid of social security and medicare" is a canard talking point conjured up by Democrats to frighten the populace into voting against the GOP. It's just as bad as the "they're going to take your guns!" argument Republicans use to frighten people against the Dems. In reality, Republicans want reform of those programs. But you don't want to see that because you like the pink barn.
So what you're saying is that the rich people forced those poor people to buy houses they couldn't afford and then foreclose on those houses, thus triggering the derivatives meltdown?
lol, I find it incredibly funny that you label Republicans as wanting to take away all your moral freedoms (since you didn't give them the same "give or take" qualifier you provided the Democrats with respect to economic freedoms). I would level the Democrats want to take away economic freedoms is greater than or equal to the level Republicans want to restrict your social freedoms. So yes, the roles are almost exactly reversed.
[Rant On]
Remember that to Democrats, "Freedom" means freedom from non-government-chosen lifestyle choices - so, no net neutrality. Increased Democratic control would be a Brave New World for us all -- not just for Internet users, but the religious, legal citizens, the rich and, especially, rich men.
To be fair, the Republicans are often incompetent and uncoordinated, but the Democrats are evil and uncaring, unless you're a poor, black, gay male.
[Rant Off]
See what I did there?
And what the other side means by "internet freedom" is "freedom for government", or more precisely, "not restricting government's freedom to restrict your freedom". Given those two evils, I'll go with the guy without the massive army, thank you.
I don't agree with that assessment at all. It's all about believing you can run things better than the last guy. Whether you're doing it for monetary gain, or in some attempt to better the nation, it's not necessarily always a power-seeking motivation. I guarantee most people who started their own business for instance did so moreso for the dollars it provides than the power.
This is precisely why people are calling for reform and not elimination. Means testing, for instance, wouldn't hurt these people at all. So why the opposition? Demographically, the elderly are the richest segment of our society (as well they should be, since they've been accruing assets for decades). There's no reason I can think of to give "all elderly" a money funnel from the much poorer working class. Safety net, sure. Way of life, I don't think so.
The ire is misdirected. Banks being involved in investment and commercial banking together would be perfectly fine if they were not "too big to fail". The fault is in allowing companies to grow to that point in the first place. When companies grow too large, split them them up into component parts (or prevent them from continuing to swallow up smaller entities). Basic antitrust, basically. Smaller companies with no government backing don't needs gobs of regulation because they're mostly harmless. Large behemoth companies like the ones we allow to exist in this country have the wealth and power to do just about anything, and none of the responsibility (since we need them more than they need us). That's the problem.
They'll have a far harder time abusing you without the weight of the US government behind them. Of that I can damn well guarantee. If you want to argue for any government intervention, argue for antitrust. That's the biggest function I believe the free market fails soundly in. "Too big to fail" shouldn't be allowed to happen.
The rectangular phone monopoly, apparently.
Polls show that both sides have grown more hyperpartisan over the years. Obama himself wanted Republicans to "sit in the back" and just follow along with his marching plans. Don't pretend one side is attempting to compromise here. They're both assholes.
Ya, I hear he might be a racist or something. To hell with his sensible ideas!
Hooah.
But interest only loans are a terrible fiscal idea. For one, they're always variable rate, not fixed. That's especially important since the kinda of people getting interest only loan probably can't afford a rate increase (which is all but certain in the next 5 years). Heck, even from the homeowner's perspective, they'd be better off going bankrupt and saving up for 7 years to buy a new home rather than having that cash drained away by "interest-only" payments that provide no real equity.
Now that I agree with. But my point is that we didn't have money to dent the housing market in the first place. Home debt was around 10 trillion during the bubble. The government didn't exactly have trillions and trillions of dollars to throw around. We still don't. And it also doesn't change the fact that it would fix nothing -- it would have just kicked the can down the road. The new infusion of money would give more people the ability to afford downpayments and land themselves homes, and then when the cash infusion ran out (since we don't have multiple trillions to burn every year), we'd be stuck in the same boat we were before (artificially inflated home values with no one able to afford it).
Helping an ally is always in the best interests of the US. Not to mention regional stability alone is in our interests. A destabilized region can be a major drag on the world economy (and consequently our own). The middle east is a picture perfect example of that. Anytime someone over there sneezes the wrong way, oil and gas prices shoot through the roof.
Ugh, I just can't get into unpainted minis. Hell of a deal otherwise. Great quality.
And my kin are the ones that pay for all of it, including all your social programs you're so fond of. Because if there's anything Dems are great it, it's spending almost nothing in charitable spending and then using everyone else's money to sate their own self-centered sense of moral smugness. Bit of an ironic twist on "Give, and it shall be given unto you", eh? Hint, "Give" does not mean "your neighbor's wealth", and "shall be given unto you" does not mean "your neighbor's wealth". There was a specific line in there about coveting and stealing from your neighbor...some famous religious document...I'm sure you know it.
Well, I do appreciate a cited source, but macroeconomic models are far from "scientific proof". Hell, some of them (like the CBO study) are flat out "made-up multipliers". In reality, it's almost impossible to determine whether or not a recovery was caused because of stimulus spending or in lieu of it. In addition, unknown externalities (such as the impending "fiscal cliff" debt hole, made worse by stimulus spending) which exert negative impact on the economy are not accounted for.
Seems pretty straightforward. It means something is priced above its market worth (what people are willing to pay for it)..
I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from. A 200k house in a 30 year amortization at 1% is a monthly payment of ~$650. Tack on mortgage insurance (~$50), PMI ($50), and property taxes ($150) and your monthly payment is around $900. There's no way in hell you could support a million dollar valuation. Hell, even a 250k house would put you over the $1000/month price point. And this once again assumes a _ludicrously_ low rate -- what bank is going to lend at 1%? Hell, the fed rate is practically 0 right now and the lowest you can get is around 3.5% on a 30 year, assuming a 20% downpayment.
We tried that with the housing credit (which effectively became a house downpayment) -- it didn't exactly stimulate much, at least not in the long term.
Meh, two wrongs don't make a right. You never go forward by taking two steps back. Pick your idiom.
For one, it keeps North Korea from walking over and saying "this is mine". I'd say that helps the South Koreans out at least somewhat.
Even if I were saying that, it would be valid. But I also listed an example of a threat we could not handle, namely the IED. So we're not "superior in all ways" as you claim. Warfare is always evolving.
Straw man. Please. I guess after 9/11, we should have not invaded Afghanistan "just because"?
You do realize the Dems bailed out the banks and let the CEOs get away scot free with massive payouts? And you blame the Republicans for corporatism? TARP only passed because of a Democratic majority in Congress. Not to mentioned the bills to follow (including the auto industry bailout)...
Except not really. The top 20% pay for 80% of taxes. So technically the vast majority of infrastructure is paid for by the rich generation preceding the current one. And it continues to be paid for by those people.
A task achieved by on intelligence community, supported by the bloated defense budget Obama is trying to cut. Attribute Osama's death to Obama simply because he said "sure, go ahead" when presented with actionable intelligence is stupid.
Which technically started and ended on Obama's watch (2008): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession
The first quarter of negative GDP was Q1 2008: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Particularly damning is that the sharpest downturn was in September of 2008 after the spending of ungodly amounts of stimulus money.
Failures of companies deserve to fail. Fuck corporatism.
Fixing that loophole without the additional 999 pages of expensive budget-breaking cruft would have been far preferable.
Not exactly attributable to actions of the US...
We still have people on the ground over there, and it was already winding down at the end of Bush's term.
Global commodities dynamics are not a function of government. Or do you believe the resurgence of natural gas (and shift away from coal power) is also because of the government? (rather than regular market forces...)
The Dems won the Congress in 2006. It's part of the reason Bush's last two years were effectively "lame duck". It's also the only reason TARP ever saw the light of day.
Only four months? Do your realize how much you can pass in four months? Do you remember the first four months of Obama's presidency? A great deal of legislation got passed, including one gigantic stimulus bill. If they wasted the supermajority period, it's their own fault for doing so.
Conveniently skipping the drunken orgy of spending that went on in the first half of 2009?
This is a slippery slope. One could very easily see affirmative action programs as racist -- one could also see calls for their removal as racist. Similarly, the fact that a large percentage of white people vote Republican could be seen as racist -- in the same way, the fact a large percentage of black people vote Democrat could be seen as racist. If you go looking for a pattern, you will find one.