World Politics

[ravens]

Let's just spend our way out of it.

OK Scott, what's your wish-list of a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts? The military budget is about 700 billion? Cut that eh, then you're at 70% of the target?

But don't soldiers (and any other govt employees) spend money in the private sector? Won't cutting back $1 trillion cause the private sector to lose $1 trillion from govt employees? And then those in the private sector will have less to spend in the private sector, causing even further reductions?

It's easy when you can just print money.

Clyburn: 'We've got to spend our way out of this recession'

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure how blaming Bush helps.

Bush didn't run Fanny and Freddie. Community re-development was Clintons deal.

Bush was not an economic guru. He allowed waayyyy too much spending. But Obama has taken spending to new heights. It's scary.

Um, that was not anywhere close to what caused the problem in the banking industry. Different game, different field. Private investment purchased a great majority of loans in default, and they did it based on their own standards, and for their own reasons. Government under-regulated the banking industry, and allowed this, but there is plenty of crap for everyone in government for that. If you would like to see your side at work, go here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/browse.html and do some searching for the years between 1993 and now. It was a systemic problem, and there are many bills sponsored and signed into law at the hands of Republicans if you are willing to look.

Its funny, every time I hear Rush or some Republican say the words "Fannie" or "Freddie" I chuckle because I know I am listening to someone who doesn't have the slightest clue as to why banks were threatened by insolvency. Lehman and Goldman didn't become insolvent because of Fannie and Freddie loan default. AIG didn't sell CDS's for Fannie and Freddie loans. Yes, we as taxpayers were hit because of Fannie and Freddie default rates (which were much lower compared to the Wall St stuff), but that is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the real issues. The private market for loans, and the Fannie/Freddie market are two completely different things. Most people don't understand it, but having been in the industry, I do. From that, I can tell you that suggesting we are here because of Fannie and Freddie is just plain wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Project much? Nobody is saying that. Typical emotional diversionary tactic.

It's ok to admit this Constitution/Democracy thing is confusing to you. No need to throw outlandish statements out there to divert the topic. We can move on to something else if you like.

Nope. I like this topic. I'm just following the path you advocate and taking it to a conclusion.

BTW, I'm completely un-emotional about KSM sleeping on your couch.

I think these guys at Gitmo likely are, by definition, enemy combatants and I think military tribunals are the correct venue. My opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

Those bolded items are facts, you can call them whatever you want.


If my bike shop was in the condition that our country is in the first thing I would need to do would be to get a loan to pay my staff and get some merchandise. What you are advocating would be akin to laying off all my good workers and sitting there waiting for a customer to come in and buy the one bike I have left in stock and hope that that pays the fixed costs.

Nolimbs may not know satire, but the rest of what he had to say was right on IMO.

No. The first thing you would need to do is cut expenses.

So you are equating a meager national growth rate to having but one bike left in your shop? The way the 2010 budget is structured, for every $58,000 in gross reciepts your shop generated you would spend $100,000. Now if your shop is generating $58,000 in revenue then you have more than one bike for sale.

The way this budget is structured is more like you getting a $42,000 loan and giving it away to your favorite charities without any intention of correcting your business and then doing something similar for the forseeable future. Even if you argue that the govt is the correct venue to provide stimulus there's only $100 billion for the 'jobs bill', whatever the heck that is.

Yet those in control are firmly committed to spending our way out of this.

 

[Anonymous]

Um, that was not anywhere close to what caused the problem in the banking industry. Different game, different field. Private investment purchased a great majority of loans in default, and they did it based on their own standards, and for their own reasons. Government under-regulated the banking industry, and allowed this, but there is plenty of crap for everyone in government for that. If you would like to see your side at work, go here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/browse.html and do some searching for the years between 1993 and now. It was a systemic problem, and there are many bills sponsored and signed into law at the hands of Republicans if you are willing to look.

Its funny, every time I hear Rush or some Republican say the words "Fannie" or "Freddie" I chuckle because I know I am listening to someone who doesn't have the slightest clue as to why banks were threatened by insolvency. Lehman and Goldman didn't become insolvent because of Fannie and Freddie loan default. AIG didn't sell CDS's for Fannie and Freddie loans. Yes, we as taxpayers were hit because of Fannie and Freddie default rates (which were much lower compared to the Wall St stuff), but that is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the real issues. The private market for loans, and the Fannie/Freddie market are two completely different things. Most people don't understand it, but having been in the industry, I do. From that, I can tell you that suggesting we are here because of Fannie and Freddie is just plain wrong.

We have discussed this about 150 pages ago. If memory serves we mostly agree on the villains.

 

[Anonymous]

We have discussed this about 150 pages ago. If memory serves we mostly agree on the villains.

Yes, we did, which is why I am surprised you used that line...the scary thing is that it probably was 150 pages ago...this thread is getting played. I think I might just stop reading. That way, my problem with impulse control will not flare up at least in this.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, we did, which is why I am surprised you used that line...the scary thing is that it probably was 150 pages ago...this thread is getting played. I think I might just stop reading. That way, my problem with impulse control will not flare up at least in this.

Yeah, I said the same thing. Stayed away for a month or so and managed to re-enter the fray. The things we do for entertainment...

 

[ravens]

Yeah, I said the same thing. Stayed away for a month or so and managed to re-enter the fray. The things we do for entertainment...

It gets very circular for everyone involved. I suppose I will take some time off as well. My schedule and workload are about to change and crimp the time I spend here.

I need to get on the trainer instead of sit at a keyboard.

I will pop in and out but I expect my participation to diminish. This is a thread that will heat up, then cool down to molten lava levels, then heat and repeat.

 

[Hugh Januss]

What I find most interesting about this thread is the social dynamic. We can disagree quite strongly as we all present proof that we could not really do any better job of fixing the economy than the people who's job it is. However since we have gotten to "know" each out (in a virtual sense), the discourse never drops to the levels that it has in the past and on other threads.
Except ravens, that guy is a real ****.

 

[ravens]

What I find most interesting about this thread is the social dynamic. We can disagree quite strongly as we all present proof that we could not really do any better job of fixing the economy than the people who's job it is. However since we have gotten to "know" each out (in a virtual sense), the discourse never drops to the levels that it has in the past and on other threads.
Except ravens, that guy is a real ****.

Why, Hugh, I will take that as a compliment. I have managed to distinguish myself among some very esteemed company. But I would fix this economy, and would do so fairly for each citizen, however politics, as Der Fuhrer has been learning lately, is the art of the possible. That's why idealists like me don't run for office. The perfect is the enemy of the good and I don't settle.

You just made my day!

 

[ravens]

Um, that was not anywhere close to what caused the problem in the banking industry. Different game, different field. Private investment purchased a great majority of loans in default, and they did it based on their own standards, and for their own reasons. Government under-regulated the banking industry, and allowed this, but there is plenty of crap for everyone in government for that. If you would like to see your side at work, go here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/browse.html and do some searching for the years between 1993 and now. It was a systemic problem, and there are many bills sponsored and signed into law at the hands of Republicans if you are willing to look.

Its funny, every time I hear Rush or some Republican say the words "Fannie" or "Freddie" I chuckle because I know I am listening to someone who doesn't have the slightest clue as to why banks were threatened by insolvency. Lehman and Goldman didn't become insolvent because of Fannie and Freddie loan default. AIG didn't sell CDS's for Fannie and Freddie loans. Yes, we as taxpayers were hit because of Fannie and Freddie default rates (which were much lower compared to the Wall St stuff), but that is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the real issues. The private market for loans, and the Fannie/Freddie market are two completely different things. Most people don't understand it, but having been in the industry, I do. From that, I can tell you that suggesting we are here because of Fannie and Freddie is just plain wrong.

Yup. Fannie and Freddie and Dodd and Barnie Frank and Clinton AND, yes, Bush and his 4 years of senate and congress had NOTHING to do with the mess. Righhhhttt. The Republicans were co-opted because they saw it easier to be dem-light than try to stand for fiscal responsibility. If you think one party or one group is to blame, you really are nuts. We all are complicit in this mess, but the idea that we can spend our way out as both Obama and now Clyburn have stated is really so stupid it's amazing that anyone can support either of them after that.

If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Instead we are going to dig faster. They know it's suicide. They know it will damage us. My conclusion is that is their intent.

It takes a leader with real courage to say we can't keep spending. Not everyone can have a $500k house. Not everyone can even have a $100k house, if your credit and income can't support it. I know it sucks, and it's selfish and it makes you sad and angry and class warfare will ensue. Clinton, Bush, Obama and 16 years of Congress controlled by both sides. And spending more is just going to mask the fundamental problem of too much debt. Each one of us could probably go buy a brand new car today with credit. It doesn't make us rich. It masks problems under the surface.

Too. Much. Debt. and Too. Easy. To. Get.

From the NYT

Weight of a Bubble


New York Times, By Charles Duhigg

February 2, 2010



The Great Bailout is mostly over for the banks. But for those troubled behemoths of the nation's housing bust, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the lifeline from Washington just keeps getting longer.



Fifteen months after Fannie and Freddie were effectively nationalized, neither the Obama administration nor Congressional leaders see a quick solution to one of the thorniest problems in American finance: how to fix the twin mortgage giants without choking the flow of credit to homeowners and dealing a blow to a still-fragile housing market.



The administration had said for months that it would begin charting a new course for Fannie and Freddie when it released its budget proposal on Monday. The companies, crucial pillars of American housing, already have consumed over $112 billion of taxpayer dollars.

 

[rhubroma]

Not this argument again. The US Constitution does not protect terrorists; it protects US citizens. Terrorists aren't even protected by the Geneva Conventions.

And who protects the world from America?

 

[ravens]

And who protects the world from America?

Osama Bin Laden

 

[rhubroma]

Osama Bin Laden

Actually, and this is the funniest thing, it is America that is protecting him.

 

[ravens]

Actually, and this is the funniest thing, it is America that is protecting him.

They are now!

 

[Anonymous]

And who protects the world from America?

The American Liberal.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

The American Liberal.

Precisely.

 

[scribe]

No. The first thing you would need to do is cut expenses.

So you are equating a meager national growth rate to having but one bike left in your shop? The way the 2010 budget is structured, for every $58,000 in gross reciepts your shop generated you would spend $100,000. Now if your shop is generating $58,000 in revenue then you have more than one bike for sale.

The way this budget is structured is more like you getting a $42,000 loan and giving it away to your favorite charities without any intention of correcting your business and then doing something similar for the forseeable future. Even if you argue that the govt is the correct venue to provide stimulus there's only $100 billion for the 'jobs bill', whatever the heck that is.

Yet those in control are firmly committed to spending our way out of this.

No. You do both, cut expenses and bridge loan. Successful business ALWAYS borrow money to cover gaps during shortfalls. If you cut expenses, you limit your ability to fill orders during the short term recovery. You cannot efficiently retool to fill orders and maintain quality.

You also have to look for ways to cut expenses. For example, the previous bike shop owner had a staff of 3 night watchman, 3 different alarm systems wired to trip, someone in a dark office in the basement eavesdropping on the store clerk's conversations, and a team of grenade launchers ready to thwart chinese attacks (chinatown is nearby). Of course, you can eliminate all that paranoid bullcrap.

 

[Anonymous]

No. You do both, cut expenses and bridge loan. Successful business ALWAYS borrow money to cover gaps during shortfalls. If you cut expenses, you limit your ability to fill orders during the short term recovery. You cannot efficiently retool to fill orders and maintain quality.

You also have to look for ways to cut expenses. For example, the previous bike shop owner had a staff of 3 night watchman, 3 different alarm systems wired to trip, someone in a dark office in the basement eavesdropping on the store clerk's conversations, and a team of grenade launchers ready to thwart chinese attacks (chinatown is nearby). Of course, you can eliminate all that paranoid bullcrap.

Bad analogy.

Of the last 30 annual budgets (Federal) how many have been run at a loss?

To say we are borrowing money for a short term inability to meet cash demands makes me laugh. Hard.

No, business run like our govt went under decades ago.

 

[scribe]

Bad analogy.

Of the last 30 annual budgets (Federal) how many have been run at a loss?

To say we are borrowing money for a short term inability to meet cash demands makes me laugh. Hard.

No, business run like our govt went under decades ago.

You got one type of administration looking to bridge gaps in loss of revenue (my side), and another looking to feed special interest such as independent defense contractors (your side). Both run at a deficit.

There is nothing funny about that.

 

[ravens]

You got one type of administration looking to bridge gaps in loss of revenue (my side), and another looking to feed special interest such as independent defense contractors (your side). Both run at a deficit.

There is nothing funny about that.

Your delusions about how perfect or evil either side is not funny at all. It's just sad.

 

[scribe]

Your delusions about how perfect or evil either side is not funny at all. It's just sad.

One guy is laughing and the other is sad. Sybil/Palin for 2012???

 

[ravens]

One guy is laughing and the other is sad. Sybil/Palin for 2012???

as a complete stranger, you are funny, as a potentially intelligent human being, you are sad. either way it sux to be you

 

[Anonymous]

You got one type of administration looking to bridge gaps in loss of revenue (my side), and another looking to feed special interest such as independent defense contractors (your side). Both run at a deficit.

There is nothing funny about that.

Oh yeah, your side is pure as the wind-driven snow. Except, of course, the service employee union (and other collective bargaining groups) who won't have to declare their employer provided health insurance premiums as income when the non-union workers do. Then there is the State's of Nebraska and Louisiana. Or the AlGoreification of the Green Energy Industry as a special interest... or the Acorn-type community organizers... Oh, and there are the trial lawyers, can't forget about those guys.

That's what you meant, right?

 

[Anonymous]

One guy is laughing and the other is sad. Sybil/Palin for 2012???

Let me be the first to categorically deny any and all political aspirations. I will not, repeat, will not be on a ticket with Palin or Sybil.

I hope this is clear.