Discuss the US Presidential Election & the Economy 2369
A number of folks have been submitting topics that indicate that they want to have a serious discussion on the issues surrounding this election. Since we're under a week now, I've decided to run a series of discussion stories to give you guys a place to discuss the issue. So here's the first one: The Economy. It's the biggest topic these days, eclipsing even war as the most important issue to most Americans. But how will that affect your choice next week? And why?
Oh, Is there an election going on? (Score:5, Funny)
I hadn't noticed
Re:Oh, Is there an election going on? (Score:5, Funny)
I hadn't noticed
Why do you hate America?
Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm against Obama's plan to give tax rebates to people that do not pay federal income taxes. I'm sorry, but, if you get a rebate for something you didn't pay for, that isn't a rebate, it is welfare and income redistribution.
I don't like how Obama is planning to turn Social Security into a progressive pay system like income taxes. This is a major retooling of the system. He wants lower income people to start paying less of a percentage (possibly down to a zero point?) yet still recieve full benefits. This [aei.org] is an interesting article describing what BHO is planning to do with SS.
On the other hand, with McCain, he's wanting to start taxing heath benefits on employees rather than let them pay those premiums pre-tax. That BLOWS.
Why can't they just cut wasteful, federal spending....and let ALL tax payers keep more of their own money?
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me back when he goes all the way, and does NOT give a rebate to anyone that does not pay payroll taxes. Even if you work, and are below the threshold of paying federal income taxes...you don't pay tax and therefore have nothing to be rebate-ed.
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't they just cut wasteful, federal spending....and let ALL tax payers keep more of their own money?
It's tough to believe but there just isn't enough waste to cut, at least not the easy kind. The federal deficit is projected to be $438 billion this year, and that was before the government started the massive bank bailouts. Combine that with deferred infrastructure maintenance and the baby boom starting to draw on Social Security and Medicare and things are not good.
Even if all pork were cut from House bills, it's still not enough to balance the budget. It's fun to talk about cutting a bridge to nowhere, but these kinds of numbers are going to require both serious spending cuts and higher taxes.
Higher taxes, cuts to major spending areas (military and civilian) as well as cuts to entitlement programs are going to happen, regardless of who gets in office.
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, welfare and income redistribution is doing horrible things in 3rd world countries like Denmark,Norway,Sweden,France,Germany,Belgium etc...
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Informative)
The $5k credit vs. deductibility is roughly revenue neutral, but has a high likelihood of lowering health care costs. There is STILL a reason for employer run plans, because under McCain's plan, it is exempt from payroll taxes, which at 15% combined employer/employee, is pretty substantial.
If you carry a "normal" plan, $12k/year, at the 28% tax bracket, results in a new tax liability of $3,360... so when you fill our your return, you own an extra $3,360 on your extra $12k in taxable earnings, but get a credit of $5000, so you save $1,640 per year.
The way this is "revenue neutral" is that people with expensive plans and higher tax rates would actually lose out (but they do better in other parts of McCain's plan). If you are a low income worked, right now, with a crappy health plan and 15% tax rate, you'd do great with McCain. $6k plan, means $900 in tax liability, less a $5000 credit means a decreased tax liability of $4100, and I believe that the health insurance credit is refundable (because it goes directly to the insurance company as a payment mechanism).
If you are a rich guy with a super-premium plan that covers everything, you have a $24000 plan at the 35% tax rate you owe $8400 in taxes, get a $5000 credit, and owe an extra $3400. The theory is that the rich guy who was paying $24k for an overpriced plan because he did it inside his company to avoid taxes (it cost him less than $16k pre-tax because of his rate), is likely to switch to a $12k plan now, paying more "out of pocket" since there is no longer an incentive to pay everything in premiums.
The McCain effort is poorly explained, probably not understood by the Senator, but focused on controlling medical costs by removing the incentive to over insure.
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Informative)
It's probably more-efficient to let the IRS handle the rebates, rather than to have a separate Welfare department.
You are correct. The "earned-income tax credit" (or socialist, welfare, communism as it is known on the far right) is a "tax rebate" for lower income people who pay most of their "taxes" as Social Security and Welfare contributions rather than as income tax. Dating back to 1975 and updated by Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, it is widely acknowledged as one of the most effective anti-poverty programs ever established (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit#Impact)
But, I'd like to respond to what will, I'm sure, become flood of libertarian posts by people who managed to pick themselves up by their parent's bootstraps. Government hands out billions of dollars of welfare a year and most of it does NOT go to struggling citizens. Most of it is wrapped up in corporate tax credits or in under-valued water, mining, forestry, radio-frequency, grazing and other leases that convert public property into private profits. I'll take the libertarian "The government is not your daddy" position seriously when the libertarians start talking about the real welfare system.
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Interesting)
be forced to make me their equal
You judge equality by how much money someone makes? I'd hate to think like that.
Under Mr. Obama I would get more money and I would have to change nothing. That is not what I want.
So you're happy for rich corporations or individuals to get tax rebates (I don't know much about the US tax system, or any tax system to be fair, so I just have to go by people whining about the rich being made even richer through political corruption), but you don't want poorer people to get any breaks? Nice.
Personally I think it's good to ease up on poorer people, and then perhaps a few of them will be able to afford to send their kids to college. Then everyone benefits through better average levels of education in the country, which can only be a positive thing IMO (though I live in the UK so we have a different tax system, and it seems to be a lot harsher than the US one, but there are all kinds of other taxes that perhaps balance everything out.. then again, perhaps not). A tax rebate isn't about giving more to those worse off, surely? It's just about taking less from them. That's a similar idea but it's not exactly the same thing. Is it possible to actually get more in rebates than you paid in tax?
I used to think that higher taxes for higher levels of pay would really suck, but that was when I wasn't making that much money. Now I'm earning almost twice what I did when I was a student, so I don't feel like I'm struggling to get by anymore. The idea of more tax coming off my wages if I get a payrise doesn't worry me. I'm happy to pay a bit more tax (okay it's a lot more, it jumps from 20% to 40% on all earnings over £35k), and for those taxes to go back into running the country and even looking after those less fortunate than me.
My parents didn't have that much money when I was growing up either, but mum got money for each of us kids, which must have helped a lot (especially when my dad left the police and went to get an undergraduate degree). I remember my mum saying how she had less money once I turned 16. The downside to welfare like that is of course that some people just take advantage of it. I've heard that people in poorer areas often have kids just to get the benefits - and indeed most parents seem to treat their kids like shit in the housing estate next to where I work, always shouting at them. Once I honestly heard one shout "DON'T YOU FUCKIN' SWEAR!" at her toddler. *sigh*
"even looking after those less fortunate than me" (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever tried giving to charity? Then you can target the specific individuals, groups or unfortunate circumstances you want to positively affect, eliminating the expansive government overhead and waste inherent in such programs. There are even charity ratings sites that tell you how efficiently any charity gets your money to those who need it.
You can give your money away much more intelligently than the government can.
Charity as an alternative to the gov't is a mirage (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever tried giving to charity? Then you can target the specific individuals, groups or unfortunate circumstances you want to positively affect, eliminating the expansive government overhead and waste inherent in such programs. There are even charity ratings sites that tell you how efficiently any charity gets your money to those who need it.
You can give your money away much more intelligently than the government can.
There are three problems with this:
First, you assume that a cause you support *has* a charity that's more efficient than the government. I note that you imply that inherent waste & overhead are a government problem but don't look at whether such problems apply to smaller charities. Nor do you discuss the differences in economies of scale between a small operation and a national operation.
Second, under this system only the most popular causes will receive adequate funds and other groups may slip under the cracks. The Federal government is limited in its actions by the 14th Amendment's requirement to provide equal protection under the law. Private charities are under no such obligation.
Think back to the 1950s, before the Civil Rights movements. Do you believe that poor blacks got as much charity and assistance as poor whites? Under a purely voluntary, charity-based system, unpopular groups may end up getting far less support than they may deserve based on their need.
Today, we see much of the same targeted, exclusionary approach in charities based on religious beliefs that turn away homosexuals or other "undesirables" or who require one to buy into some of their teachings before receiving benefit (or at least take advantage of a person in a vulnerable place). Just look at Scientology and Narconon.
Third, I have never once seen someone able to seriously argue that if you remove $X million dollars in federal taxation that $X million dollars (or more) will flow into charities for the needy. Taking away government social programs will NOT result in an equivalent amount of help coming from the private sector (and now out of the generous, goodness of people's hearts instead of from the filthy, grubbing government). All people are saying when they say, "Let the people choose what charity to give to," is really, "Let the people choose to say, 'Screw you, panhandlers,' and not give to any charity. I can obviously make better use of my money than those people, or they wouldn't be asking for it."
Frankly, the social costs of the alternative are why we have programs like Social Security in the first place. We didn't come up with a government program to give money to old people just because we wanted to get rid of the existing charity system. We did it because the old system was wholly inadequate and the social costs of an impoverished and unable to work segment of society (which we will all one-day join) was considered intolerable.
Same as the social costs of people unable to afford healthcare today. It's a drain on the economy and productivity as well as just being inhumanly callous to let people be sick because they're afraid that they can't afford to be well. We're the only wealthy nation that ignores this problem, and it's shameful. If the private charity system were working as people pretend it will, then we wouldn't even be *having* this discussion. End of story.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Informative)
And it's set too low.
They set it back when $20,000 was a living wage. Now $40,000 is a living wage and $20,000 is massive poverty.
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
(3) I don't consider water under MY ground to be public property. *I* was the one who spent $5000 to drill a well into the ground and tap the reservoir, therefore the well belongs to me.
That works very well until I, who lives upstream from you, decide to dump all my perfectly biodegradable human waste into the water supply which drains down into your well. Or even less dramatic I buy a big chunk of land and cap off your water supply because I decided to open a bottling plant. Now you're both out of water and now you have to pay ME for the privilege of drinking it JUST because I happened to buy the property upstream from you. Basically what I'm saying is that your viewpoint is shortsighted.
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Informative)
At the bottom of this first page of the report is a graph showing what "most" actually is, 70%. So only 30% of US corporations generally pay ANY tax in a given year according to the GAO.
So again, why shouldn't we be clamouring for rich people and corporations to be paying up like the rest of us?
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds about right to me... the top 5% of wage earners earn about 60% of the wages in the country, so it seems fair that they should be paying 60% of the taxes.
Wikipedia says the top 1% control 38% of the wealth while paying 34% of the taxes, so based on that it sounds like the top 1% need a small tax increase (based on IRS numbers, the top 1% looks to be those making more than $388,000 a year for 2006).
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Informative)
I must revise my statistics. According to the IRS, for 2006 (latest year available online) the numbers look about like this:
AGI %returns %income %taxes
1MM and up 0.3 15.1 26.7
500k-1MM 0.4 5.0 9.2
200-500k 2.2 11.1 17.3
100-200k 8.8 20.0 20.4
50-100k 21.6 26.4 18.0
$1 to 50k 66.7 22.4 8.4
So the top 2.9% of returns by AGI earned over $200k, totaling about 31.2% of all wages, and paid 53.2% of all income taxes.
(BTW, man I hate Slashdot's lack of support for the table tag!!!!)
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like getting blood out of a rock.
No, it's more like injecting blood into a rock, and calling it a "blood rebate".
If 95% of people are getting a "tax break", that means a lot of people that don't pay any taxes at all are getting a "tax break". And that's not really a tax break at all.
More taxes for under 100K ? (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Did you use Obama's own calculator [barackobama.com]?
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
NO NO NO NO NO NO!! It is NOT the federal governments job to mold a citizen's legal behavior!!! That is not what the federal govt. is authorized or instantiated to do by the Constitution. It is there for basic things...defense of country, an oversite of interactions by the states....etc.
Taxes should go for nothing more than things like infrastructure and the like. It should not be used to mold human behavior....leave that to the individual how they want to act.
I really had so many 'tax incentives'...they should be banned. Tax everyone the same, and no deductions for this or that. You want a home...buy it, but, don't expect a tax break for it. Want to have kids? Fine...but, pay for it on your own, don't expect people without kids to foot that part of your tax bill. I'm ok with taxes for infrastructure things like schools for kids, but, when you get a deduction just for having a kid, those without are effectively subsidizing you decision...and before you say it is in the best interest to encourage people to have kids, I've yet to hear anyone waffling on having a kid, and then go "Hey, I'll get a tax break...throw out the condom babe..we're gonna make a tax brea....er...baby". People fuck, and will continue to fuck...and have kids. So, let's quit giving them a subsidy.
Anyway, I got off track....but, taxes should not be used to manipulate behavior...that is not the business of govt. That is one way that we have allowed govt. to get too big and intrusive into our personal lives.
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately the questions for conservatives is whether they believe that people have an inherent right to live, even if at the lowest standards of living, or if people that can work or can find work do have that right. Because if they do have a right to live, then we must be prepared to give those people some amount of charity.
First, charity is something you give of your own free will. Conservatives do a lot of this (in fact, studies have shown they give more to charity than liberals). Taxes and the government programs they fund are not charity, because taxes are taken against your will under penalty of imprisonment.
Second, I think you will find few if any conservatives who oppose helping people get back on their feet. We're generally all for giving temporary assistance to get someone through a tough time, because we realize everyone has bad luck sometimes.
However, I think you will find most conservatives do oppose handouts for folks who are not working but could. There's no reason to support freeloading for those who could work.
So in that sense, I think conservatives would support taxpayer funding for a "right to live" limited to food, clothing, very basic medical care, and shelter; provided that the person is doing their best to improve their own situation. In no way should we be taxing someone to pay someone else's cable TV bills though. A right to live does not equate to a right to live well on the public dole.
The 'social' in social security means 'the people' as in no matter what happens people shouldn't starve to death or freeze out in the cold in their old age. It does NOT mean 'your social status' as in what circles you can afford to hang out in and what diamond jewelry you can afford to wear. That's why a progressive 'social' security system makes a lot of sense.
Preventing starvation in old age was the original intent of the program. However, people now live much longer (thus withdrawing more from Social Security than they used to), but we haven't redefined "old age" to mean the same level of ability to work as it meant back then. So now SS is paying for general retirement of folks for decades of their lives, rather than helping the neediest and very oldest. That's a huge scope creep that presents a much larger bill than intended.
With the graying of the population, we also have many fewer people paying into the system for each person taking money out.
So the question is whether we can even afford to allow SS to continually grow as a welfare program for more and more able-bodied people, or whether we should put it back to its stated purpose of preventing the truly elderly from becoming destitute.
Where your $15K went (Score:5, Informative)
Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? [cbpp.org]
42% of the budget goes to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, but presumably most of that money came from direct contributions not income tax.
Dividing your tax among the remainder:
Re:Ok..how about taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is actually. That's the entire point of a minimum wage, to provide a living wage to low skill workers. Not everyone is smart enough or skilled enough to get a job in engineering. We need janitors, waitresses, cashiers, and bartenders, too. I for one would like my janitor to be able to afford a place to live without having to work 60+ hours a week. If the minimum wage is not enough even for a single, healthy person to make a living, then it is failing its intended purpose.
It amazes me how little most U.S. citizens know... (Score:5, Informative)
Rolling Stone magazine has an article about vote stealing in 2008: Block the Vote: Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president? [rollingstone.com] That article is also available as a PDF file [gregpalast.com].
The Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law has another article: Voter Suppression Incidents 2008 [brennancenter.org]. A PDF [brennancenter.org] is available.
Neither of those articles discuss how votes are stolen using computer fraud. Slashdot has run 17 stories in 2007 and 2008 about computer vote fraud and electronic voting, listed here in reverse order by date:
West Virginia Voters Say Machines Are Switching Votes [slashdot.org].
Black Box Voting 2008 Election Protection Toolkit [slashdot.org]
How To Spot E-Vote Tampering? [slashdot.org]
Hard Evidence of Voting Machine Addition Errors [slashdot.org]
New Jersey E-Voting Problems Worse Than Originally Suspected [slashdot.org]
The Cost of Electronic Voting [slashdot.org]
Sequoia Vote Machine Can't Do Simple Arithmetic? [slashdot.org]
Ohio Investigating Possible Vote Machine Tampering Last Year [slashdot.org]
Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries [slashdot.org]
Ohio's Alternative to Diebold Machines May Be Equally Bad [slashdot.org]
All Fifty States May Face Voting Machine Lawsuit [slashdot.org]
Judge Voids Un-Auditable California Election [slashdot.org]
Re-Vote Likely After E-Vote Data Mishandling [slashdot.org]
A Flawed US Election Reform Bill [slashdot.org]
House To Vote On Paper Trail and OSS Voting Bill [slashdot.org]
U.S. To Certify Labs For Testing E-Voting Machines [slashdot.org]
U.S. Bars Lab From Testing E-Voting Machines [slashdot.org]
Re:It amazes me how little most U.S. citizens know (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, they are required by law to turn in all registrations they receive. They are only allowed to flag registrations that they have reason to believe are fraudulent.
Dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on what kind of dangerous you're talking about. I'm not thinking any kind of violence.
Couple? There are thousands. There were several thousand in just one instance where ACORN employees went to jail.
Let's see... an organization repeatedly violates federal laws and despite assurances leaves in place the exact system that promotes the law breaking (pay per registration) and miserably polices itself. I'd say RICO applies so, yes, criminal.
Re:Thanks for the positioning (Score:5, Insightful)
We did manage to get out of McCarthyism and Prohibition...
No we haven't. They both simply been more finely tuned to specific targets. McCarthyism hit the liberation movements in the sixties and the Muslims today. Alcohol prohibition netted too many good ol' boys, while today's drug laws nail the poor and minorities. And openly so. But make no mistake McCarthyism and Prohibition are as strong today as they ever were. And the civil war(oxymoron, if there ever was one) goes so far beyond the subject of slavery that it was hardly the real issue behind it. It wasn't a "cultural" war. It was as economic as all others are. A speed bump in the building of an empire.
You won't be able to buy or sell marijuana legally anytime in the next four years, but the choice America makes in this election will have a strong influence on legalized marijuana in the next twenty years.
Not so likely as long as we continue to be distracted by false "crises". Every effort is being made to dumb down the internet into TV in the name of "think of the children". We got "terrorism", an economic "emergency", "OMG! Idol's been canceled!"
It's might be easy for some to say "be patient" because they don't feel the effects directly. In the meantime there are innocent people rotting in prison right now. Some will die there. Thousands of families are being broken by gangland violence(Just another form of terrorism), all fomented by prohibition, not drug use. They should just be patient? Maybe if all of society got a taste of what they go through, we just might see the light and put an end to it a hell of a lot quicker. Unfortunately society's reaction is to become more fascist and demand more of the same. Right now the profit margins derived from prohibition are just too high to give it up so easily, so it won't go anywhere very soon. And the prison industry is the new slavery. BUT! I actually do have faith, but it sure does hurt to see it grind on so slowly. As a victim of the process, I did get a taste of what it's like. So...Sorry if I appear to be a bit impatient.
any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone that has a clue how the economy works is smart enough to not be in politics.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Informative)
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Ummmmmm. No, they weren't. I worked for a bank for nearly a decade, and amazingly enough didn't get caught up in the subprime fiasco. I do not know where this lie started. Banks are required to make a certain percentage of their loans in depressed areas, and are required to prove that they are not discriminatory in lending. This does not equate to the massive spate of 125% LTV loans, no proof of income loans, and blindly purchasing portfolios of loans.
Please stop letting Rush and Fox news think for you.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I follow what you are saying. However, the "right" is trying to use these types of laws as the reason for the foreclosure crisis we are in now. I can tell you that the bank I worked for obeyed those laws and did not make one subprime loan. If you look at the stock market, a lot of banks are not going through the same crashes as the National City's, Key's and other large banks. These are the ones that did not fall into the trap of "give a loan to anyone who is still breathing, and a few who aren't"
These "good" banks were subject to the same laws as the ones in trouble. So, pointing to fair lending laws as the culprit is bogus.
Another point, the Fair Credit Lending Act requires banks to take into consideration the borrower's ability to pay back loans. Can anyone tell me how that is possible with the "no income verification/no asset verification" loans? It seems to me that the feds are not enforcing the laws they have on the books. Having worked on some of the software systems for the mortgage area of a regional bank, I can tell you that was a requirement. Loans couldn't go through until someone certified that they saw copies of W-2's, 1040's and bank statements. Clearly this is a requirement, but some banks skated right by. There are a group of auditors who should be shot. Right after the CEOs who got their 8 figure payouts.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they were forced to apply the same qualification standards as white people in ritzy neighborhoods about what they could afford to black people in slums. And, since those ritzy neighborhoods have lost more value than the previously redlined areas, it was a positive for the banks.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Funny)
Well, in the case of McCain it seems to be (among others) Kevin Hassett, author of "Dow 36000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market", published in 1999. http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/other-list-mccains-economists.html [blogspot.com]
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
No one knows how to bend the economy in certain directions, they just take stabs in the dark and hope for the best.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
The Canadians seem to know something: during the Great Depression not a single Canadian bank failed. This time around, at least so far, the same thing.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Funny)
I'm so happy I'm going to go get a second sub-prime mortgage!
Short answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works?
Nope. One says "we'll just give people money, that'll fix it!" and the other says "we'll just cut taxes on businesses, that'll fix it!"
I just hope that whichever candidate wins realizes that he does not have a "mandate" from the people to implement every policy idea, and swing far to the extreme positions of his party. This is going to be a very close race, and he will have wound up being elected by just a slight majority of the fraction of the eligible voting population that bothered to actually vote. Almost nobody who votes for a candidate agrees with him on every single point; it's quite possible they disagree on everything but one or two issues.
Point is, winning by a tiny fraction does not mean everyone wants radical "change". 90% might indicate that, but 50.7% doesn't.
Re:Short answer (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. One says "we'll just give people money, that'll fix it!" and the other says "we'll just cut taxes on businesses, that'll fix it!"
If you go to their websites you can download more detailed policy proposals.
For an independent comparison of their plans for the economy in general, and more specifically taxes and spending, you might want to try this article [nytimes.com] and this article [nytimes.com].
Re:Short answer (Score:5, Insightful)
This is going to be a very close race, and he will have wound up being elected by just a slight majority of the fraction of the eligible voting population that bothered to actually vote.
Um, dude, I don't know how to tell this to you, but stop watch the news and start paying attention to the polls.
Obama is probably going to win this by over 100 electoral votes. Right now the polls say Obama 311 McCain 157 with 70 votes in the air. You need 270 to win.
As for popular votes, Obama is leading by 7%-8%, which is pretty decent for polling. 8% is around the winningness of Clinton in 1996 and Bush I in 1988, and all other elections since Bush I have been much closer. Even Reagan's first election was around there, the big conservative blowout election.
You can pretend it's not 'mandate' if you want, whatever that means, but in actuality Obama has managed to shift a lot of very conservatives areas into voting for him. Montana and Georgia are up in the air.
The media is pretending this race is close because the media is a bunch of morons.
Re:Short answer (Score:5, Informative)
The polls are so variable it's hard to know which are accurate. Some show Obama up by 14. Others show him up by just 1. The difference lies in differing assumptions about who is likely to turn out to vote on Election Day. See for example, this explanation [realclearpolitics.com].
If turnout is demographically similar to previous elections, polls show it will be a very close election. If as some pollsters expect, we have larger-than-usual turnout among blacks and the young, then Obama will probably have a large margin of victory.
I agree that the media can often be morons. But it's not stupid to question the accuracy of the polls, given how hugely dependent they are upon what are little more than guesses about voter turnout.
Re:Short answer (Score:5, Insightful)
This American concept of "Them or us" fascinates me. You shouldn't be voting on that. You should be picking who is the best to run the country.
Even if 46% didn't want him to win, you should be voting for the president who is just as likely to look after that 46% as they are for 54%.
I recall the last election on fox news someone said did Bush have the ability to bring the two parties together. The response was "Why should he? He won".
I see the same with "social welfare". People seem to be more focused on someone else getting a hand out then what they get out of it. For example I pay social welfare contributions in my pay check. In the short term yes you can say some of that money goes to people who don't deserve it. But a lot of them do. Also it means I can get more from the government as well. For example my son school is 12 miles away and off the bus route so the government pays for a taxi for him to go to/from school because there is no where else closer he can go to.
People need to stop being selfish and work for the community as a whole.
Re:Short answer-Pelosi-Reid-Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works? All I've seen is platitudes and empty stateents from both of them.
Like most politicians, the leading contenders don't have personal expertise in the field of finance so, no, they don't know a whole lot about how the economy works.
Nor should they need to. It is not necessary that the president has personal expertise in all areas relating to the running of the state. What /is/ important is that he surrounds himself with competent advisors.
What you need to watch out for is a candidate who /presumes/ to know /exactly/ how to resolve the situation and who justifies this with a reference to some ideology or other. Chances are such a candidate is much more interested in carrying through his ideology rather than in actually solving any problems. Candidates that devolve into generalities, however, are much more likely to enlist actual competent aid when it comes down to actually getting something useful done.
In this case, then, the question generally boils down to "does my candidate accept that there is a problem and that action is necessary?" and both top candidates seem to fit the bill.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
What you need to watch out for is a candidate who /presumes/ to know /exactly/ how to resolve the situation and who justifies this with a reference to some ideology or other. Chances are such a candidate is much more interested in carrying through his ideology rather than in actually solving any problems.
That is why I will walk to the somberly walk to the polls with head bowed and pull the lever for McCain. My head and heart are with Bob Barr, but there is reality to contend with.
Both houses of Congress are controlled by a Democratic majority. Obama has voted 97% of the time with the Democratic leadership, and nothing I have heard about or from him has led me to believe that he is anything other than a warmed over 60's style activist acting as a mouthpiece for a socialist agenda. History has shown that when one party has control of the entire legislative and executive branches of our government, the economy suffers. A president that will walk lockstep with a Congressional leadership that has shown it has an axe to grind (re: Nancy Pelossi's partisan speech right before the Bailout Bill was to pass the first time) is not what this country needs...now or ever.
An Obama presidency with a rubberstamp Congress, or a Democratic Congress with a rubberstamp Obama presidency, either way you want to look at it, will be disastrous.
Historical graphs [Re:any evidence] (Score:5, Interesting)
The historical data shows that government spending goes up with Republican administrations, and stays constant or goes down with Democrats. Don't look at what they say-- look at the graphs.
It's not often mentioned, but a huge part of the current crisis is runaway government spending, which spiked to record levels under the Bush administration (much of it due to the war, of course-- "this war will pay for itself," they told us).
The Republicans criticize the Democrats for "tax and spend" policies, but the Republican policy, going by what they do (instead of what they say) is "spend spend spend spend spend." They don't bother to tell us, but spending money isn't a "tax cut"-- what it is is a tax on the future.
Anybody remember the surplus under Clinton?
Re:Historical graphs [Re:any evidence] (Score:5, Informative)
Minus the last 8 years, spending has always gone up when Democrats were in Congress, and down when Republicans were. Congress spends the money, not the President.
That said, however, it is true that the Republicans since 2000 have totally failed to live up to almost everything they have purportedly stood for in the past 50 years. The Democrats have done a good job of standing up for their ideas, or at least the stupid ones.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Funny)
Saw this on a bumper sticker:
We're screwed: 2008.
I couldn't summarize my feelings any better.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Our CEO cannot program for shit. But he makes a great product happen. I would worry less about how much the President knows about the inner working of the Economy and more about whether that person has the skills to make decisions based on intelligence taken from the advisers they employ. Fingers crossed.
As far as the empty statements go. Well, that's politicking. Yes it sucks. But each of the two main candidates in this election have clearly polarized strategies for our Economy. Promisises aside, we can assume that each will pursue the general direction of their part. Let's hope whoever wins will follow their strategy in earnest (i mean assuming it's the person we voted for :) ) with their sights on straightening out this mess.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks pretty similar, numerically, to the poll Scott Adams commissioned [slashdot.org].
For my money, I'd rather have the guy from the party that doesn't disdain education as "elitist"; economists may not be right all the time, but they're more right than the average Joe the Plumber. I'd rather someone who was more fiscally conservative, but since there is no (electable) fiscal conservative in the race, that doesn't matter.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
The constitution is flawed and even the original writers were aware of that which is the reason that there exist a process to amend it.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
They were wrong. part of the problem is Government intrusion into the market. The market should be allowed to determine what lives and what dies
What the hell do you think Greenspan did? Jesus fucking christ, that was his *entire policy*! And now what does he say? "Oh, sorry, I assumed self-interest would be enough for businesses to protect shareholders, but... I guess not." Translation: people are douchebags, and leaving the market to regulate itself is a recipe for disaster.
Mark my words, this disaster will see the end of popular support for libertarian economic ideals, for at least the next decade. And rightly so, IMHO.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 has encouraged lenders to give credit to surrounding communities, particularly low and moderate income neighborhoods.
The CRA had virtually nothing to do with subprime. This has been debunked repeatedly, by others as well as myself. If you still can't understand that, there's no hope for you.
The outpooring of federal money into companies such as AIG is anything but a hands-off policy
And this has to do with the economic collapse, which happened before the bailout, how?
On that same note, the money from the $700b bailout ...
And this has to do with the economic collapse, which happened before the bailout, how?
Libertarians were harping on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003
Given that Freddie and Fannie were barely exposed to subprime prior to 2k7, I'm not sure what your point is. F&F had little do with the subprime, and it's a conservative fantasy to suggest otherwise.
Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed solve the most pressing problem at the time: accounting fraud. The SEC had its budget doubled, new laws imposed stiff fines and lengthy prison times were threatened. However, legislators were behind the curve and new problems emerged precisely because of our regulating authority's encouragement of unsound banking practices.
Bullshit. It's because they didn't regulate them in the first place. Let me introduce you to the unregulated, multi-trillion-dollar, collapsing CDS market. Or the repeal of the Glass-Steagal.
And then there's the Fed, which, with its low interest rates and steady supply of new credit, encouraged the housing boom.
Yup, can't deny that. OTOH, all that did was create the hunger for high-yield investment vehicles. The government then left the market to invent ways to magically get 30% return on investments based on subprime mortgages. ie, they left the market alone to invest how they saw fit, and they ran us off a cliff.
Or, to put it another way: unregulated financial markets *don't work*, which is what Alan Greenspan, cheerleader of laissez-faire economics, was forced to admit.
Re:any evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
And then the socialists chime in...
It's one of those sitiuations where both sides have their good points. The free market system is by far the most efficient system. This has been proven over and over again by economic performance after free market reforms. On the down side, the free market is a boom and bust market. It has extreme highs, and it has extreme lows, and it's not fun to live on a rollercoaster.
On the other hand you have the socialist/protectionist model, where the market is severely constrained to fit a social/ideological agenda. This results in high prices, low productivity, high unemployment, and stagnation. On the other hand, it's stable, and there is less fear of living in a cardboard box.
Put them together and you get a more productive economy with milder cycles, more jobs, but with social programs to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.
The only real question is how much free market and how much protected market? Everyone has different views. I think we recently bounced a bit too free (in a few areas) in America, though then we made a massive socialist rebound with the bailout, so how the hell that balances I have no idea.
On the other hand, a lot of countries (cough in europe cough) have such high protective tariffs and such restrictive labor laws that their economic growth is weak, stagnant, or negative, and their unemployment is high. It doesn't really benefit anyone if 80% of the country has guaranteed (overpaid) work, but loses 60% of their income to pay for the 20% who can't get jobs.
In short, just because you like your religion, it doesn't mean other people can't like theirs too. And the real answer, as always, lies in between.
... and I feel fine. (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of money moving around. If you're quick you can catch some of it - or lose everything.
Me, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing - go to work and pay my bills and tough it out.
The election? I'll be glad when it's over and everybody can shut up about it. Whoever wins is in for a lot of stress.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
They're both going to spend the hell out of our money. The only difference might be whether it comes from us or gets put on our nation's maxed out credit card.
Neither of them are going to solve the economic problem. This economic downturn is too deep and complicated for it to be put down as Bush's fault or for either of them to solve. So it's not going to affect my vote, what's done is done. How they propose to handle it sounds fairly similar--more preventative regulation. And I'm pretty much all for that. Who's the dumbshit that was allowing institutions to hand out loans to people without even checking their income level? Yeah, laissez faire is great and all but in its purest form idiots will ruin things. Need a happy middle ground.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget [wikipedia.org]
The President writes & submits the budget, Congress votes on it, amends it, votes some more, etc., then sends it back. Then the President signs it into law.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
"Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction since George W. Bush entered office"
I notice that the radical change in direction started while Clinton was still in office.
Should we also mention that Congress, not the President, makes the budget.
From TFA: "In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years, with a cooperative Democratic Congress, he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. Contrary to the myth fostered by our right-wing friends, under a Democrat, revenue increased and spending decreased."
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
And the poor Republicans have been helpless victims for the last 8 years...They only controlled the legislature for the insignificant period between 1994 and 2006, so they clearly had no power to resist Clinton's evil ways.
Ah Clinton! Is there nothing we can't blame you for?
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
Adjust it for inflation and see what it looks like.
It is adjusted for inflation. Also check this graph with a lot more variables blah [slate.com]
is obama a marxist? (Score:5, Funny)
Small Government (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Small Government (Score:5, Informative)
Aside from President Bush's actions, the Republican party generally favors far less government than the Democrats. I think your philosophical reservation against Democrats is still pretty much intact.
yes, but no, not actually, not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard this statement many, many times. I have seen zero evidence that it's an accurate assessment. I can flush these people out with two words: medical marijuana. Add in prostitution, pornography, gay marriage, stem cell research, and you have a handful of areas in which their preferred government is far from small or non-intrusive. The "conservative" approach to habeas corpus, torture, and secret prisons is the opposite of small government--it's flat-out totalitarian. So my problem, in a nutshell, with conservatives is not that they are conservative, but that they are liars.
Re:Small Government (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a small government person.
I don't see how your size matters here.
Only one question to ask yourself (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only one question to ask yourself (Score:5, Funny)
The real issue: voter suppression (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care a whole lot who wins, if it is a fair election. That said, from what I have been reading, the republicans have pulled out all the stops in suppressing voters in groups that are polling strongly pro-Obama (e.g., active duty military, students, minorities.)
Who ever does win will not be able to keep election promises since the economy is probably going to keep getting worse.
Speaking of the economy, I think that the only real money that the government should spend is on critical infrastructure (education, roads, defend our borders in the least expensive way possible, support local agriculture and in general push local sustainable business and infrastructure,...) Notice that I did not include government sponsored health care (would be nice if we could afford it though.)
I think that it is obvious that the "being an empire" thing is not worth the money that it costs.
flint knapping (Score:5, Funny)
I'm learning to flint knap so that I will have the skills I need to make it in the new economy. I am also working on learning how to build an atlatl.
National Debt!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:National Debt!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
Re:National Debt!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither major party candidate has mentioned addressing the crushing national debt or deficit spending. If I'm going to listen to platitudes, I want to hear about reducing spending and paying down the debt, not battles over who gets tax cuts.
I STILL have no idea why tax cuts are such a hot issue, right up there with abortion and gay marriage. There are so many freakin "Yes on 102" banners/bumper stickers/signs it makes me wanna puke. THAT is what gets you fired up about voting? You want to vote to take away someone else's rights based on YOUR religious beliefs? It's pathetic.
People want a tax cut, but they'll vote for the guy who sent us into a war that we never should have been in, one that is costing us MILLIONS of dollars a DAY, and that your grandkids will still be paying for... But oh, give me $300 in tax cuts next year. The sooner we get OUT of Iraq and stop throwing money away that we don't have, THEN we can start to discuss how to fix our debt. No matter what programs you cut, or how you shift the money, the war is the elephant shitting in the living room.
We, as Americans, are so very extremely short sighted.
Economy: a no brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
The real story is the media (Score:5, Interesting)
The media have been at best negligent in reporting on the economic issues at hand. At worst, they have been complicit.
The causes of the housing bubble and meltdown aren't a secret. The identities of the people that have been calling for investigation and oversight aren't secret. The names of the people that have blocked every attempt to address the problem for the last 5 or 6 years aren't secret.
Why does the news media consistently accept the bald lies of the people responsible? Why don't they bother telling people the truth?
Does anyone really believe that if the roles of the parties were reversed there wouldn't be serious investigation?
Why do you hate America? (Score:5, Funny)
Your favorite candidate is absolutely terrible and will completely destroy our country. If they are elected we'll all end up subsistence farming and living in tent cities. I can't believe you would vote for them. Why do you hate America?
Socalist (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it somewhere between hilarious and deeply disturbing that People can get up there and call Obama a socialist for wanting to tax rich people, while at the same time supporting the buying of banks by the federal government, which actually is socialist.
How is taxing rich people any more socialist than taxing the middle class? Were trillions of dollars in debt, this money is going to come from somewhere.
Also can anyone actually explain why we should be bailing out these banks in the first place? If we want to pretend to be capitalists we have to let businesses fail from time to time, especially when they bring it upon themselves with poor business practices like risky lending, and aggressive mortgages. Now GM is looking for a handout because they can't make a car that anyone wants and somehow thats the tax payers fault. (Meanwhile there's more Honda and Toyota manufacturing in the US than there is US manufacturing.)
It seems our whole economic system is unsound. Its all based on retail sales of mostly useless crap that is designed to fail or has planned obsolesence so you have to buy more. We hardly manufacture anything stateside anymore.
I suggest that we actually start focusing on high tech manufacturing. The stuff that can't be done on the cheap by unskilled labor.
republicans are trying to loose (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems obvious to me. They've got this 80 year old cancer survivor, and a very inexperienced (in politics) governor from a state that has it's own rules about most things that are very different then other states.
Why would they try to loose? The economy is in the toilet, the US owes trillions, the US has a very poor foreign image. The Republicans have just decided to let the Democrats deal with the mess. Then for 4 years everyone is getting good and pissed at the Democrats for the lack of jobs, money, government safety nets of any sort (because there is no money for it).
After 4 years, the Republicans can come swooping back in to "save the day" from those socialist Democrats who obviously can't run a country.
He ran a historic campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
He devised, organized and ran perhaps one of the most brilliant campaigns in history. He took down the Clintons and the DLC in the primary election. He has managed what will be over half a billion dollars in donations. He hired some very smart advisers too. Good managers (which a president essentially is) know that it is important to hire smart people and trust them; Obama seems to understand this.
Early on in this election season, when asked "how would you act as president", Obama answered "look at how I run my campaign".
Works for me.
Some thoughts on the crisis... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll prefix my comments on the economy by saying I'm an American living and working abroad in the financial sector. So I work with some of the issues haunting the global crisis every day.
Direct blame for the mess lies first and foremost with credit ratings agencies (Standard & Poor's, Moody's, Fitch, et al) and credit insurers (like AIG). They continued to provide strong ratings to mortgage-backed securities without considering the ripple effect a housing-market slump would have. Secondly, blame should fall on US regulating agencies (like the SEC), which failed to place adequate restrictions on mortgage brokers. And lastly, blame should fall on politicians for failing to address the problem of excessive consumer and corporate debt. For years the world has known that America's debt-fueled economic growth was unsustainable. And yet for the past six years, few regulative measures were introduced to increase banks' capitalization ratios. Republicans seem more to blame here, as the six years of deregulation were largely Republican sponsored, but Democrats haven't been much better on this issue.
The Bush administration is not directly responsible for the current financial crisis. Note, however, that the Bush administration's spending spree of the past 7 years has put the government in a decidedly weaker position to now deal with the financial crisis. The government is now much more leveraged than it was when Clinton left office, meaning the Treasury has less flexibility to control markets. The USD is in real danger, and the only reason it hasn't collaped is that there's no alternative currency that investors can run to (Europe is hurting just as bad right now as the USA). The War in Iraq was never worth bankrupting our country.
Let me repeat that...
The War in Iraq was never worth bankrupting our country.
The US national debt has increased in excess of USD 500 bn per year since 2003 and broke through USD 10 tn on September 30, 2008. That means USD 33 000 of debt per resident of the USA, or some 70% of GDP!!!!
In 2000 it was just USD 5.7 bn (58% of GDP) and was on its way down.
I don't credit Clinton with producing the strong economy of the time, and am neutral on the net effect of his tax increases, but I do believe one of his administration's best moves was to use the budget surplus to pay down the national debt.
Make no mistake, the USA is in a very difficult position right now, and its global power is diminishing measurably by the hour.
Economic and foreign policy should be THE deciding factors in the coming election. Completely forget about welfare, abortion, gay marriage, global warming, immigration, job outsourcing, socialized healthcare, agricultural subsidies, AIDS, the war on drugs, executive pay, intellectual property, and religion in the classroom. If the American population realized how dire the situation is right now, these would be non-issues in this election. Real issues like the war on terror, dependence on foreign hydrocarbons, education spending, political reform, antitrust regulation, and social security are important, but should take backseat to the two most pressing issues today: foreign policy and the economy (i.e. eliminating the credit crunch).
Issues like interrogation techniques, warrantless wiretapping, and incarceration of enemy combatants without trial should never have been issues in the first place. Suspected terrorists, both at home and abroad, should receive the same protections that any American citizen receives. Period. I'm still terrified that some Americans think otherwise, and absolutely horrified that some politicians agree with them. Warrantless wiretapping is absolutely disgusting, especially considering the FISA already allowed for a court order to be obtained up to three days after wiretapping had commenced. When voting, choose the smartest candidate you can based on the two most important criteria: foreign policay and the credit crunch. For any intelligent politician, the issues of interrogatio
Actually, the war is still the #1 issue for me (Score:5, Insightful)
The economy WILL bounce back. What we're going through is big and scary, but for every person (or company) that made big, crappy decisions in the last decade, there is another person (or company) that was smart, saved money, and will swoop in to buy whatever Person/Company A can no longer afford to maintain, be it a house or a bank. So overall, we'll be fine.
But the war... I really don't see why we should be spending billions of dollars to make the whole world hate us even more, no sense mentioning all the lives lost on both sides.
Q1: why are we fighting this war?
A1: Because of 9/11.
Q2: THEN WHAT THE FUCK DID WE DO TO PISS THEM OFF SO MUCH THEY FELT COMPELLED TO FLY PLANES INTO FOUR MAJOR BUILDINGS? I don't think we're making it any better.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge (Score:5, Insightful)
Economists need to learn the lesson structural engineers learned in 1940, when the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed [youtube.com].
Structural engineers used to pride themselves on designing funicular structures - maximizing utility with the minimum amount of material. The Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse changed everything. Ever since, structural engineers have recognized that safety, not maximizing utility, is paramount. Building codes now universally require that structures be overengineered.
Now, where is the politician or economist who will publicly state that we should design our economy to be safe, rather than maximally productive? Even in the face of potential economic collapse, all we hear about are bandaids and growth, growth, growth. Anyone who would propose limiting growth in order to provide greater resilience would be tarred, feathered, and flogged.
Why is it so anathema to talk about safety nets? Why, for example, is it so evil to consider that the reason we need universal health care isn't because it's the most productive way to run our economy, but because we should all feel comfortable that basic humans needs will be met, no matter what the goddamn economy is doing? Perhaps economies of scale point to the need for uber-banks; but maybe instead of creating institutions that are too big to fail, we should consider that efficient or not, too big to fail is simply too goddamn big. On and on. Everything in the name of efficiency and productivity; nothing in the name of resilience and safety.
Every politician I've seen to date has been too chicken shit to state obvious truths. I think that's not really their fault, because the system they live in demands it if they hope to ever be elected. I'm voting for Barack, because reading between the lines, I think he gets it. At least more than McCain. McCain has some good local perspective on a few things, but he's just not a big-picture meaning-of-life kind of guy. He might know how to help businesses, but he just doesn't get the point of it all. Try to imagine McCain sitting poolside at a resort sipping a margarita, for example. I can't. To me, that's a fatal flaw.
WSJ on Obama tax plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Just throwing out fuel for the fire: The Obama Tax Plan [wsj.com]
- The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today.
- The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.
- The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.
- The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000.
:
Re:Thank you, Taco (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Taco (Score:5, Funny)
I'll do it, I have mod points today!
Oh wait ... crap.
Re:Thank you, Taco (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank you, Taco (Score:5, Funny)
CmdrTaco: "have a serious discussion on the issues surrounding this election"
You must be new here.
Re:None of this is important. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody's vote counts, and as soon as we realize that we can start actually fixing problems.
So your purposed method of fixing the problems is to allow the same asshats to keep getting re-elected year after year because you don't bother to vote or get involved?
It takes courage and conviction to resist the "vote or die" crowd, but it MUST BE DONE.
Yeah, it takes a lot of courage and conviction to sit on your ass watching American Idol instead of taking 15 minutes to go to the polling place and vote.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
The last thing this country needs is having the top 3 spots in the hands of Obama, Reed, and Pelosi, I have trouble imagining anything worse.
How about George W. Bush, Hastert and Lott?
I do find it amusing that the Republicans are resorting to the "divided Government" card and warning us all about the dangers of a single party controlling Congress and the White House. If they were being just a little bit more intellectually honest they'd end the argument with "Look how badly we fucked it up when we had that much power!"
Re:One-party system (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, it was mainly Democrats in the late 90s who pushed for banks to give more risky loans, which is one of the major causes of the economic turmoil today (it's certainly not the only cause).
I'm not sure precisely what you're referring to here, but the claim that the Community Reinvestment Act caused this mess has been thoroughly debunked, largely because most of the subprime mortgages were made by relatively unregulated mortgage brokers not regulated by the CRA, rather than banks. Also, the rate of subprime lending for loans made to satisfy the CRA was comparable to the rate for loans in other locations.
If you are instead referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, that was created and pushed through Congress by Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton, so both parties would be guilty there.
Re:One-party system (Score:5, Insightful)
Debunked you say?
Legislative changes 1992
Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[7]
In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating.[18][19] The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit.[20]
In October 2000, in order to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans.[21][22] In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (âoeHUDâ) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion.[19] In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.[23]
It looks like the CRA actually had quite a lot to do with large numbers of sub prime mortgage securities being improperly rated and sold. Which is the basis of the current financial crisis after the people who obtained those loans began to default on them devaluing those securities.
The bottom line is that legislating that banks take on increased risk in order to provide loans to people who are unlikely to be able to pay them back was a bad idea. The banks tried to offload that risk onto other investors and because of the misrating of the mortgages they succeeded.
Re:One-party system (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like the CRA actually had quite a lot to do with large numbers of sub prime mortgage securities being improperly rated and sold. Which is the basis of the current financial crisis after the people who obtained those loans began to default on them devaluing those securities.
The bottom line is that legislating that banks take on increased risk in order to provide loans to people who are unlikely to be able to pay them back was a bad idea. The banks tried to offload that risk onto other investors and because of the misrating of the mortgages they succeeded.
That's only one part of the puzzle here. Yes, the CRA encouraged more risky loans, but that alone wouldn't have caused the problems. The banks aren't stupid and they don't plan to lose money on their loans. Nobody forced them to make the loans. They'll only make those risky loans when they think they are covered by insurance. That's what AIG was doing with credit default swaps [wikipedia.org].
The problem [npr.org] there was that those were deregulated back in late 2000 by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act [wikipedia.org], which allowed AIG and others to insure these securities without any disclosure or even a capital reserve requirement, things that are standard for insurance companies.
So, thinking they're covered, the banks start throwing money at everyone, and raking in huge profits on these securitized loan packages that nobody seems to really understand even now. They did it for the same reason that they always do things. Profit. Unfortunately, when the housing market went south, AIG had no way to cover those securities, and thus the banks were screwed.
Compound that with the problems with the ratings agencies and their symbiotic relationship with the financial institutions, the problems with trading software, the rampant speculation even by large institutions, bizarre assumptions about the housing market, and other issues that we probably haven't figured out yet, and you can see that it's not nearly as simple as pointing at the CRA as the source of the problems.
Re: The reason for the disdain of Conservatism (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in the US, the reason we have the right to bear arms is because the founders of the Constitution essentially said "If we fuck up, take us out." - point being, the government should act in your benefit only, as that is the way it was intended when it was founded.
Conservatives have proven time and time again they don't think about consequences, and they assume what is good for them is what is good for everyone. I don't know about you, but when I vote, my vote is supposed to count for ME and what benefits me, but also what benefits everyone else around me and everyone else in my country. (Side note: A healthy economy and NOT pissing off the rest of the world with military occupancy is good for my country)
After hearing all this neocon rhetoric over and over and being disgusted (Ann Coulter especially comes to mind), I can't say with any kind of conviction I can morally support anyone with opinions like that.
They've made irrational choices, they've been WRONG plenty of times, and they've outright LIED to us to further their own agendas. Not that liberals don't have some folks who are downright nuts, but by and large the conservative movement has proven itself to be untrustworthy on several fronts and, quite frankly, un-American.
(Disclaimer: Discussion thread. The preceding is my humble opinion.)
Re:hahaha (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is *bloody broken* after 8 years of "conservative" rule, including six years of absolute power, something the "liberals" haven't had for 30 years or so.
Whether liberals are better or not i don't really know. What I do know is of course the average person is going to be pissed at "conservatives". They've sent the US spiraling downwards in a way not seen since...well the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire.
In any case I spend a lot of time on this site and am rabidly moderate and in reality it's about 50-50 liberal/conservative these days. 8 years ago it was a little more slanted, though then it seemed to be wide eyed radical libertarianism that dominated here.
The funny thing is, and I keep noticing it every single time a "conservative" posts, they always whine on about how they'll be modded down by the "liberal whatever", etc etc. But get modded up at about the same rate as anyone else! You lot really seem to a have a *major* persecution complex which is bloody BIZARRE given that it's your party that's been running the US and setting the political discourse for nearly a decade.
You really are all starting to sound like a bunch of bloody whingers.
Man up.
P.S Current US "conservatives" seem more like ultra radical idealists than anything related to conservatism but whatever.
Re:what would it take for you to change your mind? (Score:5, Insightful)
That he was a little more American
Oh, blow it out your fucking ass. His life story isn't sufficiently "American" for you? I thought being an American was all about overcoming obstacles/adversity and being successful?
not half-Americans or whatever.
I wasn't aware of a blood requirement to attain American citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
Hmm. Born in Honolulu. Seems like he's an American to me......
Re:Troll Wars Begun This Has (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, I love how the moderators mod according to their Operating System bias, which is an obvious abuse of power. That's why discussions of Operating Systems don't belong here.