Address to Congress

[Not Pink]

First off, I wanna say that I'm no McCainian, or even an Obamanite, I'm not democratic or republican, as my views range from topic to topic, and I respect my president, whoever that might be at the time, whole-heartedly, I respect the position, I respect the tough choices, the President is in my top 10 of most respected positions at all times, no matter who it is. but that's not what I want to talk about.

What I want to talk about is that I'm sitting here whatching the AtC from President Obama, and he's claiming all these wonderful things: more money to alternative fuels, get out of the recession, lower here, higher here, etc., etc.,...

But I want to know, the one thing he has yet to say on any of the topics he has talked about, is how he's going to do it. not once has he said "im doing this and here's how" he keeps saying "I'm doing this and this and that and this and that." all of them perfect goals, hell I hope he CAN do all of those things... but he has yet to tell us how he's going to. Anyone else notice this? how about did anyone catch that he is sending in MORE troops, even though one of the points during the election was to get out?

[Ryuartyi]

He's a politician, of course he's not going to come up with solutions and break campaign promises.

Fantastic system the United States has.

[Nam]

how he's going to do it.

With magic.


I agree with you OP and I'm glad you snapped out of the nationwide communal lull most are in and asked how all of these promises are going to materialize, rather than just going into a step 1: Address economy/other issue, step 3: profit mindset. I'm still waiting for people to stop with the fucking fevered fawning over Obama and his over-emotive "change" meme. He's just another politician. Sorry, hate to dissapoint all the apostles. Time to stop getting misty eyed every time he articulates and time to start looking at his actions and his results rather than his skin color (yea, I said it, he gets too much leeway for it.). The troop surge isn't any surprise either, I knew this guy was just another shill who wouldn't pull out of this atrocious war.

So... not much of an anti war vote was there? We truly are the most free nation. We the people really seem to steer the course.

[Meloncov]

He's a politician, of course he's not going to come up with solutions and break campaign promises.

Fantastic system the United States has.

As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worse system of government, except for all the other ones."

[Grief]

a political thread.... in the lounge?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ninjau1/Grief.gif

[Not Pink]

a political thread.... in the lounge?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ninjau1/Grief.gif

yeah I know, you'd think being about a political system 3000 years in the making, it would be in the finally finished section... hungh. :shrug:

[TASmith]

Obama pledged to end the war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Right now he wants to switch from one to the other. Whether he can depends on whether Iraq is really stable enough to be left on its own (debatable). The other hard question is whether Afghanistan is "winnable" and what that would mean. Just now, Pakistan has signed peacefire agreements with the Taliban in their borders, who I assume can still operate in Afghanistan against us. Sending the US into Pakistan would be a major SNAFU, not least because they have nukes. It seems in Afghanistan's best interest to sign a similar peace agreement with the Taliban and consolidate power, since they have none.

Obama's promised to fix these problems, send out a stimulus, and halve our national debt in just four years. God bless him, but it seems impossible. He wants to halve our debt through three means: ending the war in Iraq, reducing healthcare costs, and streamlining government.

Again, god bless him, but it's going to be very difficult. I say, if everyone on capital hill gives his ideas a try, they may just work. But already there's opposition...

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

Obama's promised to fix these problems, send out a stimulus, and halve our national debt in just four years. God bless him, but it seems impossible. He wants to halve our debt through three means: ending the war in Iraq, reducing healthcare costs, and streamlining government.

Again, god bless him, but it's going to be very difficult. I say, if everyone on capital hill gives his ideas a try, they may just work. But already there's opposition...

How he plans to reduce healthcare costs is beyond me- trying things like socialized healthcare in MA sent costs skyrocketing and still left millions without coverage.

As for streamlining government, he's saying one thing and doing another. Whatever his intentions are, he and Geithner seem determined to spend our way out of this recession, an idea that has never worked in any situation anywhere in the world. All his talk about halving the deficit is either delusional or outright lying. He wants to create government-run jobs, while claiming it's all in the private sector- they claim to believe in the market, while continuing to bail out Geithner's bank buddies, dumping taxpayer money into a black hole and preventing the competition from succeeding. In essence, he talks about streamlining government in one sentence, and in the next talks about stimuli, government jobs, saving badly managed companies... frankly, it stinks of everything the Bush administration did, except when this guy lies, it's eloquent and people buy it. You cannot spend trillions of taxpayer dollars, keep up all the social programs, and halve the debt in 4 years. If Obama had no opposition at all, his plan would still be a fantasy.

[Grief]

602758

[Aphotic Phoenix]

People who expect the government to fix everything are no better than adults who still expect mom to do their laundry. Yes we pay taxes...policemen, teachers, soldiers, etc need to eat too, but sometimes people really expect way to much. Environment going to shit? Plant some trees. Your school system sucks? Volunteer. There are a million and one ways to help your society, and make our world a better place. People have done some amazing things, and continue to do so...but those people aren't sitting on their ass waiting for congress, or the president, or anyone else to do it for them. There are some things that may very well be above us to fix, but all of what I've said applies to our biggest problem... too many of us want to rationalize that it's "all to much for me to make a difference".

How many people actually write their congressman? What have you done to give politicians a piece of your mind lately? Really, unless people get out of the "sit back and watch" mindset I don't have a lot of hope.

[James Kei]

To the OP...How will he do it? He already did. About $800 billion worth, give or take. If you want to keep track of it, go here. http://www.recovery.gov/. If you mean how is he going to do it physically? With an expensive pen, and lots of printed paper.

I'm amazed at the amount of pessimism and cynicism in this thread. Yes, he's a helluva salesman, but I would expect a thread full of artists to place some value in vision and inspiration. There was even a few gems of wisdom thrown in there for good measure. Did you guys watch the same speech that I did?
Do you guys hate government that much?

Chagan, let me know if you are more informed that Obama and his team. OK?
Unfortunately, we have to buy our way out of this mess, there is simply no other way to do it. Unless of course, you have another suggestion.
What people don't realize is how much debt he can erase when he mega-taxes the mega-rich. Clinton used this method to climb out of a deficit and into a surplus. Obamas economic goals are lofty, but certainly not impossible. Especially when he has both house and congress in his pocket.

[Ilaekae]

Well, he's been in a month already, and he's already proved he's an incompetent prick. Let's do what the Loyal Opposition wants, but one step further. Eliminate all OSHA rules to improve industrial productivity. You can't make an omelet without crackin ' a few heads.

Eliminate all taxes of any kind on any one making more than $500,000 a year because we all know that worked really well before, and just get rid of all that fuckin' oversight bullshit that restrains business from makin' a decent 2000% profit and paying everybody a really decent wage (except for the bottom scum, which have to be kept around but shouldn't get more than their organs are worth). Medical care and Social Security solve themselves. You can't stay alive on what you got, fuckin' die already. Problem solved.

As for foreign policy, how easy can it be. We're real Amerikans and we know what's needed--nuke Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, and all those other weird fuckin' useless pieces of shit suckin' us dry, invade the oil countries and wipe out the toga-wearin' freaks that wont let us look at their babes bodies, and suck the oil out ourselves. Anybody don't like it, nuke them, too.

Make cocaine legal, but publicly execute every asshole using meth, crack, and weed. Drug AND prison system solved. Outlawing abortion, all non-heterosexual sex, all so-called equal rights shit with violators given the death penalty eliminates a lot of our social money-pits, and gets us back to a cheaper and more docile employee base, as it should be.

Hell, how fuckin' easy is this. Just shoot the fuckin' assholes in congress and the senate that are all Democrats or Socialists and the place would be perfect, but that would probably require a constitutional amendment to allow only certain approved "moral" states to vote on anything. Piece o' cake...

[Ilaekae]

Damn! I forgot to mention the most obvious...

What is it with this shit of everybody that's on the lower rungs goin' after all the guys makin' $10,000,000+ a year? Don't you motherfuckers understand that without somebody smart enough to make that kind of money tellin' us what to do, we're really fucked? Haven't you learned anything in the last three or four months?

[birdsatemyface]

Well, he's been in a month already, and he's already proved he's an incompetent prick. Let's do what the Loyal Opposition wants, but one step further. Eliminate all OSHA rules to improve industrial productivity. You can't make an omelet without crackin ' a few heads.

Eliminate all taxes of any kind on any one making more than $500,000 a year because we all know that worked really well before, and just get rid of all that fuckin' oversight bullshit that restrains business from makin' a decent 2000% profit and paying everybody a really decent wage (except for the bottom scum, which have to be kept around but shouldn't get more than their organs are worth). Medical care and Social Security solve themselves. You can't stay alive on what you got, fuckin' die already. Problem solved.

As for foreign policy, how easy can it be. We're real Amerikans and we know what's needed--nuke Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, and all those other weird fuckin' useless pieces of shit suckin' us dry, invade the oil countries and wipe out the toga-wearin' freaks that wont let us look at their babes bodies, and suck the oil out ourselves. Anybody don't like it, nuke them, too.

Make cocaine legal, but publicly execute every asshole using meth, crack, and weed. Drug AND prison system solved. Outlawing abortion, all non-heterosexual sex, all so-called equal rights shit with violators given the death penalty eliminates a lot of our social money-pits, and gets us back to a cheaper and more docile employee base, as it should be.

Hell, how fuckin' easy is this. Just shoot the fuckin' assholes in congress and the senate that are all Democrats or Socialists and the place would be perfect, but that would probably require a constitutional amendment to allow only certain approved "moral" states to vote on anything. Piece o' cake...

I can't tell whether some of this is satirical or sarcastic or not.

[l33t fl33t]

I love politics. Especially the "oh no, we're not doing it because it's in our interest, we're doing it because we believe in it" talk. Yeah, right. The poor support welfare because it's "fair", not because it fills their pockets - that'd be hypocritical and might *gasp* put them in the same boat as the people lobbying Congress to get an unfair advantage on the market.

I don't know about you, but I've grown skeptical to the whole thing. Democrats, Republicans, same crap. They each have their voter base, they each have their moral reasoning to cover their BS and they both wouldn't think twice about anally raping everybody else as long as it's in their interest.

[James Kei]

Yeah, we should abandon the whole system. Everyone is lying to you. They don't know shit. We are all doomed. It's impossible. It can't be done. We can't trust anybody. Education is worthless. Merit is overrated. Fuck the world. I hate you, Mom.

http://screamoo.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/emo-rule1.jpg

[l33t fl33t]

Yeah, we should abandon the whole system. Everyone is lying to you. They don't know shit. We are all doomed. It's impossible. It can't be done. We can't trust anybody. Education is worthless. Merit is overrated. Fuck the world. I hate you, Mom.


Pessimism? No thank you.

Common sense realism without the misguided and misplaced idealism? Yes, please.

[Not Pink]

I'm not being cynical or pessimistic, I'm just asking "How?"

I mean, yeah, I see some changes that he's doing and I could hug the man, but some of these "promises" just seem too good to be true, and It'd be hard for me to see the day it's fixed until it already happened. A used car salesman can promise you all sorts of deals, but it isn't until you come to do the paperwork to figure out if he could've pulled off what he said.

not saying that he can't, I'm just saying that without a little more info, in my head I don't see it working as well as he claims. he's been doing it little by little so far, more power to him, but honestly, if he could get done 3/4th of what he talks about, I'd walk right up and kiss 'em.

[deepbluehue]

Do you want a president who acts first and thinks about the consequences later or one who thinks first, gains some insight and then acts with wisdom? I don't think he will solve all of our problems his first month in office. I do believe he will systematically and thoughtfully try to resolve some of our problems in a way that will have long term benefits. He will do this very carefully, over time, with lots of advisers from all areas.

[Rist]

Lets just shut our mouths and watch what the messiah can do. Jesus could walk on water, lets see what Obama can do.

[Kaffinated]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j113/tinkerbelle1121/political-pictures-george-stop-call.jpg

[deepbluehue]

Lets just shut our mouths and watch what the messiah can do. Jesus could walk on water, lets see what Obama can do.

Any person elected into the job would have to make some kind of effort to deal with the problems we are facing now. Perhaps they would handle it differently than Obama. Obama can't turn water into wine but he can hire the best and the brightest advisors from various fields to help him make educated decisions. Anybody else would have to do the same thing and have the knowledge that everyone in the country was watching him and waiting for him to mess it up. Even the messiah messes up sometimes.

[McKertis]

Obama can't turn water into wine but he can hire the best and the brightest advisors from various fields
He can hire the best, but he wont. Many people already have said that his team of advisors is pretty...controversial.

[Arshes Nei]

On the other hand, traffic has been FANTASTIC with State workers taking furloughs in California.... I can sacrifice DMV being closed on certain days if it means I don't have to deal with traffic ;) (oh...sorry forgot should just focus on Obama, and forget that the messes are also caused on local and state levels too)

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

Chagan, let me know if you are more informed that Obama and his team. OK?
Unfortunately, we have to buy our way out of this mess, there is simply no other way to do it. Unless of course, you have another suggestion.
What people don't realize is how much debt he can erase when he mega-taxes the mega-rich. Clinton used this method to climb out of a deficit and into a surplus. Obamas economic goals are lofty, but certainly not impossible. Especially when he has both house and congress in his pocket.

James, my problem with Obama right now is the continued bailing out of the banks, in this case particularly Citigroup and Bank of America. Both of insolvent and no amount of money is going to change that. My issue is that it's a huge waste of taxpayer money. It's exactly the same kind of nonsense that went on under Henry Paulson, and I don't see why it's excusable when Geithner does it.

As for his job creation program, I'm enthusiastic about his plans to stimulate alternative fuel research. What concerns me are all the construction plans- what's going to happen to those jobs when they're done rebuilding all those roads?

My suggestion? Create jobs, sure. But stop bailing out the companies that mismanaged themselves into this mess. If they really must give companies a leg-up, give it to the ones that didn't give themselves negative balance sheets.

[Stacybean]

Unfortunately, we have to buy our way out of this mess, there is simply no other way to do it. Unless of course, you have another suggestion.

Since when does more spending ever decrease debt? If you're talking about the economy, FDR's way may be a viable solution, but part of the OP's question was how is he going to do that AND cut the national debt in half at the same time?

What people don't realize is how much debt he can erase when he mega-taxes the mega-rich. Clinton used this method to climb out of a deficit and into a surplus. Obamas economic goals are lofty, but certainly not impossible. Especially when he has both house and congress in his pocket.

Clinton did raise taxes. Clinton also put major cuts and reforms on welfare programs. He also put huge cuts on the defense department (which doesn't seem like something Obama can do since he is escalating the war in Afghanistan). He also inherited a thriving and .com economy, not a recession. He also didn't have an 800 billion dollar spending plan.
Taxes from rich people are not the answer to all your problems. It's not how Clinton created a surplus and it's not even close to the answer to how Obama will do all he says he will.

But I agree with everyone, one month is certainly not enough time to judge, especially for a young uneducated person like me. I dunno what's gonna happen, but I'm hopeful it will be better times than the last 8 years :D

[Arshes Nei]

My suggestion? Create jobs, sure. But stop bailing out the companies that mismanaged themselves into this mess. If they really must give companies a leg-up, give it to the ones that didn't give themselves negative balance sheets.

It's interesting we never learned from what happened with Japan: http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/japanese-asset-bubble-lessons-from-the-economic-asset-bubble-of-japan-the-heisei-boom-what-parallels-exist-between-the-japanese-asset-bubble-and-our-current-financial-environment/

As long as we don't try to nationalize the banks I suppose. History will repeat itself.

[James Kei]

Chagan, let me put things in perspective for you. If they didn't bail out Citibank, I would have lost my house, my sister would not have been able to get a loan to buy her first house after having her first baby, and my mom would have gone bankrupt because she works in the real estate industry. Government actions can be abstract if they don't directly affect you. Yes, the banks made a mistake, but if they didn't bail out these institutions the results could have been devastating, and I would have been an innocent casualty. People like myself rely on banks giving out loans for their well being and survival. Loans give people the motivation and the opportunity to buy a house, Unless you can save up $400,000 and buy one for cash. But who can do that? If you eliminate the path to the American dream, what's the point of living here?

Regarding job creation....When a construction worker builds bridge, he makes money. He may then buy a house, which requires more construction workers to build more houses. Then he may buy a new car, which would require someone to assemble it. If he starts a family, then his kids will grow and begin another economic cycle. Makes sense to me. Pump money into the system, and close the circle.


Stacy, I didn't claim that it was the only answer, it's one of many. Also Obama is implementing many ideas that Clinton didn't. Tax the rich + Job creation + Ending the war + Producing products in America + Eliminating wasteful spending= Pathway to a surplus.

[Arshes Nei]

One thing that has always bothered me, is that it's easier to get a loan for a home over loan for a good education. I always felt it should be the reverse so the result of having a good education would give you the ability to fight to get a home loan. Not that I don't understand circumstances happen, but why is it easier for one way over the other?

I just felt the American dream was to be well educated to contribute to society and it reaps rewards for you.

[l33t fl33t]

Loans give people the motivation and the opportunity to buy a house,

That's missing the entire point of loans. You take a loan to make a profit off of it, not to fulfill your needs/wants. Taking a loan to pay for your need/want is the surest way to auction off your independence.

Unless you can save up $400,000 and buy one for cash. But who can do that?

Ask your grandparents, they managed to do it just fine. As a side note, I can't help but laugh when people start talking about their modern day woes when their "problems" sound like a walk in the park compared to what our grandparents had to go through.


If you eliminate the path to the American dream, what's the point of living here?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the American dream all about moving above your current position in society and not about a welfare state?

EDIT: Just so that we're all talking about the same thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream

@Arshes Nei

You're right, it doesn't make sense. Well, actually, it does, if you're a banker. It's apparently a lot more profitable to milk the "I want it now" people than loan money to entrepreneurs. Probably a lot safer, too.

[James Kei]

One thing that has always bothered me, is that it's easier to get a loan for a home over loan for a good education. I always felt it should be the reverse so the result of having a good education would give you the ability to fight to get a home loan. Not that I don't understand circumstances happen, but why is it easier for one way over the other?

I just felt the American dream was to be well educated to contribute to society and it reaps rewards for you.

Is it really that hard? I'm a high school dropout, and I got a student loan pretty easily.

[Arshes Nei]

Is it really that hard? I'm a high school dropout, and I got a student loan pretty easily.

Well yes and no. I noticed that you can't get competitive loans as you would with home loans. Think about the kind of loans that were given out for the housing market. Pretty bad loans. On top of that home loans you have more leniency than a school loan. So people want bailouts. But many students have been screwed with the way loans have been written for much longer...I guess a poor college student story isn't as heartbreaking as "Look where they're gonna live, they're gonna lose their home! What about the kids?!?!?!"

It's backwards, it should be easier to get a reasonable loan that doesn't lock you into an interest rate for life. You can refinance the home loan, at this time you can't refinance a school loan. So it's not the difficulty so much as special interests like Sallie Mae giving kickbacks to schools so they can send in loan officers to sign up students. It's the fact the conditions of the loan are HARDER than home loans.

[James Kei]

That's missing the entire point of loans. You take a loan to make a profit off of it, not to fulfill your needs/wants. Taking a loan to pay for your need/want is the surest way to auction off your independence.


Leet Fleet, Do you own a house? You must be confusing me with someone who flips houses for a living. I'll be living in this house for quite some time.
The alternative is paying rent to fatten a landlords wallet. I want to own my own house, thank you. And I recommend that everyone do the same.
The notion that loans are solely used to make profit is absurd. You need a loan to buy a car, which is a need/want.
If you can save enough money to buy a house with cash, than kudos to you. That is simply not the reality for most people.
Interpret the American Dream however you wish.

[James Kei]

I agree Arshes. I wish we had socialized education like in many parts of the world in which everyone goes to a university for free. Oh, but than that would raise taxes! The horror!

[Cthogua]

My suggestion? Create jobs

Legalize marijuana. It's an entire industry waiting to be legitimized through which BILLIONS of dollars already flow despite marijuana's contraband status. Seriously, this would create jobs, tax revenue, foster a new industry, and tourism, all while removing the costs of enforcing laws that even many police officers, and judges know are ridiculous. On top of that you kill the black market for it. All this nonsense about "Oh the drug cartels arn't gonna just disappear"..right...of course they're not but their customer base disappears and thus the profitability of what they're moving disappears, so they move on to something else. These guys aren't trafficking weed because they really really like it. They traffic it because there's a demand that's not met through other sources. These guys are like the ULTIMATE free marketeers.

A California Assemblyman has already introduced a bill that would effectively legalize recreational marijuana, and apply the same taxing and regulatory structure applied to alcohol.

An Assemblyman from San Francisco argues that it's time to tax and regulate the state's biggest cash crop in the same manner as alcohol. Opponents say it would create new costs for society. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pottax24-2009feb24,0,7534269.story)

As far as the opposing argument presented in the article goes...I would argue that jailing marijuana users and growers has created an ENORMOUS cost on society. I seriously doubt usage would increase significantly...the availability is already there, albeit via black market sources (aka "a dude") and the people who want to do it already do. It was easier for me to get pot my freshman year in college than to get liquor. With no other serious arguement left they go for their trump card.

"If we think the drug cartels are going to tuck their tails between their legs and go home, I think we're badly mistaken," Fay said.

"They're going to heavily target our children."
THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN. If there's anything that will irrationally galvanize people into action on something they know little to nothing about, it's a threat to their children. The argument is absurd anyway. Like I said the profitability of moving it would disappear if you could just go to Potty McPotshop to buy it. There's no Liquor Cartels (anymore...since....OH YEAH since PROHIBITION WAS LIFTED) If a kid wants some weed they'll just get an older friend to buy it, or steal it from their parents, or pay a homeless person to go to the store and buy it...exactly the same way kids who want alcohol get it.

[l33t fl33t]

The alternative is paying rent to fatten a landlords wallet. I want to own my own house, thank you. And I recommend that everyone do the same.

If buying a house is something you do because it's cheaper than rent, ultimately reduces your expenses and most importantly, you're ready to take the risk, then go for it. However, if you're taking a house loan just because you want to live in your own house then you're doing a very stupid thing.

The notion that loans are solely used to make profit is absurd. You need a loan to buy a car, which is a need/want.

And where did I say that buying a car is smart? If it cuts expenses, sure. If it's another bid in "keeping up with the Joneses" then it's obviously missing the point.


If you can save enough money to buy a house with cash, than kudos to you. That is simply not the reality for most people.
Interpret the American Dream however you wish.

It was a reality for our grandparents. But it wasn't a reality of entitlement and easy living - I still remember the toe curling stories my elders told me about their youth and what the term "hard work" really means.

I agree Arshes. I wish we had socialized education like in many parts of the world in which everyone goes to a university for free. Oh, but than that would raise taxes! The horror!

What are you so scared about? It's not like you'll be paying the lion's share of it anyway. Oh, but that's the basis of welfare systems - somebody else paying for me. Hence the public support - who wouldn't want a free lunch?

[Aphotic Phoenix]

Think about the kind of loans that were given out for the housing market. Pretty bad loans. On top of that home loans you have more leniency than a school loan. So people want bailouts.
I predicted the collapse of the housing market after living in NoVA near DC, and watching house prices climb rapidly in a matter of a few years. Teachers couldn't afford to live near the schools they worked for (tiny houses were going for $600,000+), you couldn't afford to rent/pay a mortgage in the county I lived in without a job with a good salary, and even crappy two bedroom roach infested apartments an hour from DC (by car in low traffic) cost $1,500 a month.

I feel bad for those who were suckered into adjustable rate mortgages for small homes that quickly devalued after the housing collapse in areas like NoVA, because I can understand why it was hard to find anything affordable. Yes, there are people who bought larger/nicer houses than they should have ever attempted to get, and I don't feel sorry for them...but how do you help one without helping the other?

[Arshes Nei]

It was a reality for our grandparents. But it wasn't a reality of entitlement and easy living - I still remember the toe curling stories my elders told me about their youth and what the term "hard work" really means.

Sorry for the derailment but it reminds me how Eastwood brought that point home in Gran Torino.

[Cthogua]

If buying a house is something you do because it's cheaper than rent, ultimately reduces your expenses and most importantly, you're ready to take the risk, then go for it. However, if you're taking a house loan just because you want to live in your own house then you're doing a very stupid thing.



And where did I say that buying a car is smart? If it cuts expenses, sure. If it's another bid in "keeping up with the Joneses" then it's obviously missing the point.



It was a reality for our grandparents. But it wasn't a reality of entitlement and easy living - I still remember the toe curling stories my elders told me about their youth and what the term "hard work" really means.



What are you so scared about? It's not like you'll be paying the lion's share of it anyway. Oh, but that's the basis of welfare systems - somebody else paying for me. Hence the public support - who wouldn't want a free lunch?

Whats funny is before all this went down, like when I was a teenager I remember tons of advice that was essentially, "You're a sucker if you rent, because all the money's going out the window and no equity is built" And of course there's all the "You gotta spend money to make money" kind of pseudo-wisdoms that floated around. Now, because some guys gets angry on TV and rant, everyone who's ever needed a loan for anything is a bad guy. How quickly the wolves turn on each other.

Regarding the car thing...working in America, especially rural, or suburban America pretty much REQUIRES a car. I wrecked my car while living in FL. and shared my girlfriend/now wife's car for 2 years, while we both worked jobs with different schedules, and I can tell you it fucking sucked. There's a lot more benefit from owning a vehicle than simply "Keeping up with the Jones's" Since any sort of public support like transportation is "paying your neighbors mortgage" I guess everyone that doesn't live next door to their workplace is pretty much fucked eh?

Also any comparisons to how hard your Grandparents worked and scraped and saved is totally without relevance. The value of the dollar has gone nothing but down since then, wages have stagnated, and housing prices have skyrocketed. The idea that I just need to "scrape and save" at a 7 dollar an hour job until I have enough cash stuffed under my bed to buy a house is ridiculous. On top of that, are you really advocating a return to a depression era, share cropping, Ma and Pa Joad lifestyle? People did alot more than just work hard when times got that tough. Organized crime flourished, corruption was rampant, property crime exploded...not everyone just buckled down and worked hard to get through it. I DO agree that the concept of hard work as a virtue has totally fled American society, but I don't see how an affluent society, who bases their identity and dominance of the world on this affluence can prevent this from happening. You work hard, scrape your way up from the bottom, buy a house with money you saved from all your hard workin' and then you have kids...and 90% of the time the kids get to ride your success. Anyone that I know that has children WANTS this, they WANT their kid to have it easier. However, the effect of the lack of suffering in the childs life leads them to feel entitled to the lifestyle they've grown up with...and thus as society becomes more affluent, it's children become more entitled. I'm not saying everyone everywhere is like this, but it seems to be how things play out with everyone I know.

[r.mccabe]

All I want is opportunity. If government works towards giving people opportunity I think its doing the right thing. All kinds of world changing solutions can be presented, and everyone has one, everyone. As long as I have the opportunity to live a good life and so do my neighbors, the government can pick whichever of the infinite ways of going about running things it chooses. If I was terribly worried about it I'd run for office.

About the original post; I think two things stop high officials from spouting their plans. First, as in this post, everyone has their own ideas on the right way to go and if you stop saying "this is where we are going" and start saying "this is they way we are going" a lot of people will say your wrong. People agree on the end but not the means. Second, glossing over the game plan in front of everyone would lead to more questions than answers. The hows and whys and disagreeing wouldn't end. If he says I'm fixing this everyone likes, if he says I'm putting bill 333 and 334 into action and legislating this and that, most will say What?

My optimistic view.

[l33t fl33t]

Regarding the car thing...working in America, especially rural, or suburban America pretty much REQUIRES a car. I wrecked my car while living in FL. and shared my girlfriend/now wife's car for 2 years, while we both worked jobs with different schedules, and I can tell you it fucking sucked. There's a lot more benefit from owning a vehicle than simply "Keeping up with the Jones's" Since any sort of public support like transportation is "paying your neighbors mortgage" I guess everyone that doesn't live next door to their workplace is pretty much fucked eh?

Hence why I wrote "If it cuts expenses, sure". There are perfectly legitimate reasons to get a car, but convenience or social status is not one of them.


Also any comparisons to how hard your Grandparents worked and scraped and saved is totally without relevance. The value of the dollar has gone nothing but down since then, wages have stagnated, and housing prices have skyrocketed. The idea that I just need to "scrape and save" at a 7 dollar an hour job until I have enough cash stuffed under my bed to buy a house is ridiculous. On top of that, are you really advocating a return to a depression era, share cropping, Ma and Pa Joad lifestyle? People did alot more than just work hard when times got that tough. Organized crime flourished, corruption was rampant, property crime exploded...not everyone just buckled down and worked hard to get through it. I DO agree that the concept of hard work as a virtue has totally fled American society, but I don't see how an affluent society, who bases their identity and dominance of the world on this affluence can prevent this from happening. You work hard, scrape your way up from the bottom, buy a house with money you saved from all your hard workin' and then you have kids...and 90% of the time the kids get to ride your success. Anyone that I know that has children WANTS this, they WANT their kid to have it easier. However, the effect of the lack of suffering in the childs life leads them to feel entitled to the lifestyle they've grown up with...and thus as society becomes more affluent, it's children become more entitled. I'm not saying everyone everywhere is like this, but it seems to be how things play out with everyone I know.

I'm not advocating that we return to a Depression Era - I'm saying that any complaints about how "unfair" life become ridiculous when you start making comparisons with previous generations. I can bitch all I want about how it's unfair that I have to pay ever increasing monthly installments for my own house and car but when I compare it with how my parents and grandparents lived, I can only do one thing - shut up. The problems I face today appear like a walk in the park compared to what they had to face.

In any case, I agree with a lot of what you said about raising children - the problem, as I see it, is that kids today don't appreciate anything anymore. I know I sure haven't until I came to a turning point in my life and learned what it means to earn your keep.

Now if I ever wanted for my children to have it easier, I'd have them learn that lesson a much earlier point in life than I did, because it'd cost them a whole lot less than it cost me. And mind you, even before my epiphany I considered myself a more frugal and common-sense person than my peers, and that should be saying something.

EDIT:
All I want is opportunity. If government works towards giving people opportunity I think its doing the right thing. All kinds of world changing solutions can be presented, and everyone has one, everyone. As long as I have the opportunity to live a good life and so do my neighbors, the government can pick whichever of the infinite ways of going about running things it chooses. If I was terribly worried about it I'd run for office.

A question: What should be done with the people who were given this opportunity and blew it?

Also, the second part of your post shows a very prevalent mindset - "I don't give a fuck as long as it doesn't concern me" and is basically the root of the problem - we want others to care about our problems but we don't really care how they plan on solving their own.

[Jason Snair]

I liked the speach a lot. I liked how he forced the Republicans to finally clap and stand up after what seemed like they were going to sit out the entire thing. (yay, we've insured millions of children, let's stand up and cheer. Republicans; Nah, no thanks.) I think that about 1/4 of the way thru, they realized that this was probably hitting home very well, and they'd better take notice soon.

I loved how he redefined patriotism too. An issue he was attacked on during the campaign. For years Patriotism meant loving your country as well the military kind. I liked how he turned Education and staying in school into serving your country. I feel that there's going to be an aweful lot of young children who are going to live up to the request. Call me hopeful.

And I'm also hopeful that he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. It does sound like a lot, especially given the nature of the economy, the 2 wars, the stimulas bill, etc. But to me, Obama seems like exactly the kind of person who would go thru the budget line by line, take out unneccessary programs...ones that serve no use anymore.

I thought the Jindal response speech was rather horrible and clearly written before Obama gave his. After Obama just clearly stated that 95% of the country is going to get a tax cut, Jindal's attack is that the Republicans insist on .... um, er, tax cuts. For who, the other 5% instead? Also mentioning Katrina was probably not a good idea. And he really sounded like he was talking to us like we were 6 year olds. When watching him, my roommate and I turned to each other and said at the same time...is this Sesame Street?
He offered up the old tired Republican ideals. Taxes, bad. Government, bad. So please, vote for us, so that we can govern over a bad government.

[J Wilson]

You can't compare our current lives to anything your grandparents went through. Your grandparents still had thriving local economies where people owned mom and pop grocery stores, hardware stores, barbershops, and restuarants. They could afford to see a doctor, because there wasn't health insurance and HMOs jacking up prices (drug companys and hospitals jack up the prices because they know the insurance has to pay, suddenly no one can afford to NOT have insurance because it's priced beyond what many people can afford otherwise). The CEOs of grandpa's company wasn't pulling in multi million dollar bonuses.

In todays climate of corporate greed, more and more money is pumped into fewer and fewer people. Remember that shrinking middle class people keep bringing up? Think of the last ten places you spent money, and I bet at least 8 of them were chain stores or restuarants.

My point is, times have CHANGED.

Repubs complain about "wasteful" spending and the debt we're going in to. What they don't want to admit is that money needs to be spent anyways! We have a crumbling infrastructure. Any civil engineer will tell you this. Our national roads are a mess, most of our bridges have various degrees of problems (some of them severe), and we rely on infrastructure put in place generations ago. Repubs complain that we'll be saddling our childrens children with debt. Will our children's children be any more grateful if we don't spend the money and they are left not with a crumbling infrastructure, but one that has completely collapsed? Will they say "Hey, why didn't they take care of this 50 years ago when they knew it was falling apart? Why didn't they invest in new fuel sources before there was a crisis?"

People complain about a "welfare state" any time democrats say that government needs to take an active part in taking care of it's people. Who else is going to do it? Corporations? They clearly aren't capable of caring about anything other than their profits, even if it's leading them to ruin in the long run. The housing industry knew for YEARS that the bubble would burst. Ideally people would take care of themselves right? I agree, but people need a fair shot at doing that, and currently it just isn't there for many Americans. It's shameful that we don't have guaranteed healthcare for everyone. Republicans would say that private healthcare is there, and if the government steps in then we're shutting them out. Well, if they hadn't been so ruthless maybe that would have worked out, but we can't expect an entity that exists to make money to have any form of compassion. Compassion isn't it's goal, profits are. Healthy people isn't it's goal. Healthy citizens is a government's goal though because that keeps us productive and competitive.

Anyway, I ramble. I think Obama has bitten off a lot, and I wonder how he'll get there, but for once we have a president that I don't doubt his sincerity in wanting to do the things he says. If he fails, it won't be for lack of trying. As a nation I don't care how much debt we go into, if we come out of this stronger and better able to compete. The USA has been coddling the corporations for too long, as they suck the life out of us (and out of other countries- which is a big reason why many countries dislike us). I don't want the government to take care of me, but I do want it to give me the tools to compete with the big businesses that just see me as a work resource and consumer. Give me fewer things to worry about so I can take care of myself.

[Arshes Nei]

Repubs complain about "wasteful" spending and the debt we're going in to. What they don't want to admit is that money needs to be spent anyways! We have a crumbling infrastructure. Any civil engineer will tell you this. Our national roads are a mess, most of our bridges have various degrees of problems (some of them severe), and we rely on infrastructure put in place generations ago.

Yes, and they didn't help us when in power and spent just as badly, which is why I like it when the parties get into bickering and killing half of their pet projects by pointing "NO U" As it seems whenever someone is in control their special interests arise, which is why reform is just as important.

That being said, yes the money needs to be sent but the problem is that often times taxes are supposed to be allocated for those projects but because well politicians are lawyers, they do some legal maneuvering and get that money pushed elsewhere. Don't believe me, look at the mess California is in. It's a prime example. We had taxes that were for road improvement, but then they were able to snag money from the transportation department and use it elsewhere.

That Rob Reiner bill those damn smokers let's get those tobacco companies? Went into the general fund instead of actual health care.

Funds for education are going to overpaid administrator salaries, interior decorators for schools, over books? WTF?

It's not that I don't believe in Obama's ideologies per say for wanting government to provide where it hasn't, problem is when we do give money, there's so much special interests that good intentions fall flat. That means that many of us have become cynical towards any government intervention because we feel like money has been pissed away, and you wonder "ok why give you guys more, you already blew what we had".

[l33t fl33t]

You can't compare our current lives to anything your grandparents went through. Your grandparents still had thriving local economies where people owned mom and pop grocery stores, hardware stores, barbershops, and restuarants. They could afford to see a doctor, because there wasn't health insurance and HMOs jacking up prices drug companys and hospitals jack up the prices because they know the insurance has to pay, suddenly no one can afford to NOT have insurance because it's priced beyond what many people can afford otherwise). The CEOs of grandpa's company wasn't pulling in multi million dollar bonuses.

Ah, the good old times. As a child, my grandmother kept her feet warm in cow dung because they were too poor to buy shoes. My old man paid for his vocational education by serving 15 years in the Navy. Really, those were the days.


People complain about a "welfare state" any time democrats say that government needs to take an active part in taking care of it's people. Who else is going to do it? Corporations? They clearly aren't capable of caring about anything other than their profits, even if it's leading them to ruin in the long run. The housing industry knew for YEARS that the bubble would burst. Ideally people would take care of themselves right? I agree, but people need a fair shot at doing that, and currently it just isn't there for many Americans. It's shameful that we don't have guaranteed healthcare for everyone. Republicans would say that private healthcare is there, and if the government steps in then we're shutting them out. Well, if they hadn't been so ruthless maybe that would have worked out, but we can't expect an entity that exists to make money to have any form of compassion. Compassion isn't it's goal, profits are. Healthy people isn't it's goal. Healthy citizens is a government's goal though because that keeps us productive and competitive.

Once you've left your parent's nest, the only person that genuinely cares about your wellbeing is - (surprise, surprise!) you. Governments (or, to put it more correctly) politicians care about votes, not people. A living voter dependent on social support is a lot better than a dead voter or *gasp* a voter that doesn't need the government to wipe his nose every time he sneezes. An independent voter base you can't screw over is not good for politics and makes running a country a whole lot harder because the voters want more than just a regular handout - they want accountability. That word, unfortunately, is not in the dictionary of most politicians.

In the end, it boils down to what you think a government is and what it's supposed to do. I don't think a government is there to take from one side and give to the other unless it can justify the action - by solving the problem. Heck, I wouldn't have a problem with "redistribution of wealth" if it actually worked and made those poor people independent.

You've mentioned "fair shots" - try living in a country where progress is dependent on your class, social position, ethnicity, connections, not to mention burdened with exorbitantly high taxes. At least when it comes to opportunities, you don't have the right to complain as a US citizen.

However, I will generally agree with you that more can be done to offer people a better chance at life. What I can't understand is why is everyone looking up to the government to do it, when the only thing they've shown is that they are incapable of doing anything?

[Aphotic Phoenix]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OHw29q2L67g/SI6IrKOarOI/AAAAAAAAA9M/999ZuJwnb0Q/s1600/government%2Bdemotivator.bmp

[Dimension]

Ah, the good old times. As a child, my grandmother kept her feet warm in cow dung because they were too poor to buy shoes. My old man paid for his vocational education by serving 15 years in the Navy. Really, those were the days.

Mine have those kinds of stories from their childhoods as well. But when they bought their first house it cost 6000 dollars. Now it's worth half a million. That's half a million dollars they never had to earn. That's the only reason now that they can afford to retire and go on cruises. This is simple, basic economics. It's called inflation. Look it up.

We live in a different world now.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

Touchee, James. I do see where you're coming from. Once again, my problem largely amounts to the fact that the bailouts are not nearly enough to save these companies (thus constituting a waste of money), considering just how huge their debts are, but I suppose only time will tell what happens to them. I will concede that actually passing the bailouts, especially the first one, probably did stave off panic in the market. I guess a lot of my skepticism stems from seeing how the bailout of the auto industry worked- GM in particular was given money to avoid bankruptcy, which would have led to huge layoffs, but even after that it looks like the government itself is going to force them to declare bankruptcy anyway.

Once again though, time will tell what happens to Citi and BofA. I'll take your advice and not write the whole thing off entirely.

On job creation, I'm still not convinced about the construction work as a long term solution. As Arshes Nei pointed out, there are way too many parallels with what happened in Japan.

By the way, Ilaekae... I don't hold a single one of the positions that you satirized in your post, and I don't dislike everything Obama's doing. There's a lot to like about what his Presidency is bringing in, and a lot of it's already been accomplished in the first month.

-Sid

[erinel]

I agree that legalizing marajuana would help. Just think of all the money they could make taxing that. Plus it would mean we could grow hemp here, and hemp is, correct me if I'm wrong, cheaper to produce than cotton and grows faster and all sorts of good stuff.

And I also think people are being overly critical of obama. That's not being realistic. People need to give him a chance. He's got enough momentum and public support that I feel like he can actually go through with a lot of what he says he's going to do. I really think people should give him a chance because from what I've heard from him, I think he's going to be really good for our country.

[Arshes Nei]

And I also think people are being overly critical of obama.

Obama has over a 60-70% approval rating (depending on which poll you're looking at. The highest I think a president got was Bush for 9/11 at 80%

Just putting it into perspective, it's not as bad as you think with the criticism. There's just very few naysayers out there.

[Line]

I'm probably gonna get bashed for posting but what the hell...

I am wondering about two points concerning your discussion people...

One is, this is supposed to be capitalism right? You have the capital, you make the right moves, you win...else...you lose. Now when did the term 'bail out of multibillion dollar corporations' enter this game? Was is good when these mega corps were raping the world blind and making billions for decades? And now, these guys (who essentially are part of the problem) want a handout? What the hell kinda capitalism is that? Where was the govenrment to bail you and me out when we had to close our little local business and pay for our debt to compete with McDonalds down the street (who also get alot of unfair 'legal' help)? Someone said something along the lines of "The banks made a mistake". How blind are you man? Are you serious? The banks made a mistake? Do you see any of those bank CEO's in wellfair? They are taking showers with $100 bills!

The second. It seems weird that no one seems to see that if all of us are losing, should't someone be winning? Who is it? The anti-christ? God? Oprah? It's the banks...and not the ones you see, try the 'Federal Reserve' or those huge international ones like the World Bank.

As for the OP. How is he gonna do it? Simple, he'll sell your great-great grandson's life to the Federal Reserve, it gives him money, he gives it to the banks, the banks give it to the corporations (for profit via interest bless their souls), they sell you and the government worthless crap like weapons, private buildings that dumb and fascist wall along the US-Mexico border (for their profit plus the bank interest) and we all end up owing money to the Federal Reserve for the next 200 years which it, in turn, manages to turn into eternity via inflation.

I love this stuff!

And in case you were wondering, the Federal Reserve is not Federal at all.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

Do you see any of those bank CEO's in wellfair? They are taking showers with $100 bills!

I agree with you in part, but it's already been pointed out that there are a lot of innocent livelihoods at stake with the banks, so it isn't quite that simple. But yes, there are a lot of problems attached to the whole bailout deal.

I'm pretty sure a large factor in the rest of the bailouts involves limiting executive compensation. I'm not clear on whether that's just a salary cap or whether it also limits stock options and whatnot. I will say though... given that they're bailing these places out, I wish they'd at least throw out the management that presided over everything.

[Kek]

Welcome to the USSA

[l33t fl33t]

Mine have those kinds of stories from their childhoods as well. But when they bought their first house it cost 6000 dollars. Now it's worth half a million. That's half a million dollars they never had to earn. That's the only reason now that they can afford to retire and go on cruises. This is simple, basic economics. It's called inflation. Look it up.

We live in a different world now.

With the slight difference that it took - what - 80 years for them to reach that price.

The average pay also increased quite a bit as well? Also, unless I'm being deceived by the media, the prices of real estate are falling in the US, right?

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

With the slight difference that it took - what - 80 years for them to reach that price.

The average pay also increased quite a bit as well? Also, unless I'm being deceived by the media, the prices of real estate are falling in the US, right?

Yes, real estate prices are crashing and probably wont bottom out for several more months. However, it's really unlikely that the lowest price is going to be low enough for someone to save cash for it even then. Loans will remain the primary means of buying. A large part of the reason for those falling prices is the fact that people can't get the loans or are defaulting on them, so there are too many empty houses on the market. Once the price bottoms out and credit destruction's returned us to an economy that's somewhat based on real money instead of over-leveraged credit... well, the cycle will start all over again and loans will go out freely. We'll probably be here again in 80-100 years. That's fractional reserve lending for you.

And I went off on a tangent. Point being, as low as house prices get, they'll remain way too expensive to buy without loans. Average pay has NOT increased in tandem with price of everything, least of all houses.

[l33t fl33t]

And I went off on a tangent. Point being, as low as house prices get, they'll remain way too expensive to buy without loans. Average pay has NOT increased in tandem with price of everything, least of all houses.

Wait, wait, wait...

How do you plan on paying for a house with a loan if you can't pay for it via savings?

I mean, as I look at it, the only difference a is getting it now instead of later.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

Wait, wait, wait...

How do you plan on paying for a house with a loan if you can't pay for it via savings?

I mean, as I look at it, the only difference a is getting it now instead of later.

The idea is that you can spend your entire life saving for a house and maybe buy it when you're ready to retire, if you're very very lucky. Or you can take out a loan and pay it off with the money you would've saved to buy it in a few decades. Most people don't want to wait that long and I can't blame them.

[~Faust~]

fucking go on the streets and protest the shit out of them already- I think Obama would approve that, too, it would swipe the opposition in your parlaments and in the corporations. Imagine 100.000s of Citizens protesting, striking, _that_ would bring change.

But yeah, the world has changed and yours isn't the generation of your fathers and grandfathers. Different world, everyone thinks for himself- at least there were mass-protests in their time. Now all the _big_ protest I hear coming from the states is about abortion, religion, racism, homophobia and petty shit like that.

[l33t fl33t]

The idea is that you can spend your entire life saving for a house and maybe buy it when you're ready to retire, if you're very very lucky. Or you can take out a loan and pay it off with the money you would've saved to buy it in a few decades. Most people don't want to wait that long and I can't blame them.

Indeed, but then you've got to roll with it, not whine when you lose your house because you couldn't pay for it. There are risks involved and people should be aware of them.

Also, you don't need to save up your entire life - the very reason I'm suggesting against loans to finance needs/wants is because that ties your money down and prevents your from using it to make even more money.

There's also the issues of interest - ie, if you're buying a house on loan that costs $100,000 you'll probably pay $200,000 due to interest. Sure, you might end up with a valuable property by then, but considering the current crisis, I wouldn't bet my money on a house.

[J Wilson]

Wait, wait, wait...

How do you plan on paying for a house with a loan if you can't pay for it via savings?

I mean, as I look at it, the only difference a is getting it now instead of later.

They plan to pay for it over time. How many people want to save 30 years for a house for when they are fifty? Maybe they want that house so they have the room for a family. "Later" isn't the difference between this year or next, it's decades. If you know a lot of people who can just "save" for a house that costs a hundred thousand (which is among the cheaper houses in my area), then I can see why you are having such a hard time understanding simple concepts.

You are coming off very... inexperienced, or intentionally obtuse.

[l33t fl33t]

They plan to pay for it over time. How many people want to save 30 years for a house for when they are fifty? Maybe they want that house so they have the room for a family. "Later" isn't the difference between this year or next, it's decades. If you know a lot of people who can just "save" for a house that costs a hundred thousand (which is among the cheaper houses in my area), then I can see why you are having such a hard time understanding simple concepts.

You are coming off very... inexperienced, or intentionally obtuse.

I'm also coming off as misunderstood, by the looks of it. What I'm saying is that if you want a house on credit and it makes sense number wise - ie, it's a better choice than renting, then I say go for it.

The point I'm trying to make is that you need to rationalize - you obviously can't have everything right now just because you want it. People need to think about their long term interests and that quite often means sacrificing short term gains.

[r.mccabe]

Hold on, to my understanding, people were able to manage the loans they had, then the prices for their loans went through the roof and here we are. They gave people bad loans, thinking the loan was affordable people bought in, markets changed and the loans became unfordable. That and some who shouldn't have had the loans got them, so when markets shifted there was no chance of the home owners surviving it.

Edit: Also if you don't get a house on loan you pay rent. If you pay rent your paying someone else's mortgage with the money that would go to your own. Renting is the alternative to "short term gain" and isn't a good decision, its money down the drain.

[l33t fl33t]

Edit: Also if you don't get a house on loan you pay rent. If you pay rent your paying someone else's mortgage with the money that would go to your own. Renting is the alternative to "short term gain" and isn't a good decision, its money down the drain.

Yes, but then you have considerable freedom - ie, you're not bound by a home loan. As I've already said at least three times, if it makes sense numbers wise, go for it. But from what I know, most people don't go into such deep calculations when it comes to buying homes. Their math stops at "can I afford it?"

[Arshes Nei]

Hold on, to my understanding, people were able to manage the loans they had, then the prices for their loans went through the roof and here we are. They gave people bad loans, thinking the loan was affordable people bought in, markets changed and the loans became unfordable. That and some who shouldn't have had the loans got them, so when markets shifted there was no chance of the home owners surviving it.

Edit: Also if you don't get a house on loan you pay rent. If you pay rent your paying someone else's mortgage with the money that would go to your own. Renting is the alternative to "short term gain" and isn't a good decision, its money down the drain.

No. There are not as many cases of this. There are however a number of cases of Alt A loans, and Adjustable Rate Mortgages. The writing for the Adjustable rates were there. They gave you the lowest intro rate, but also put in the highest rate it would kick in. That's when it was up to the person to do the math to see if they can afford it at the highest rate, not bank on the lowest.

There were some bait and switch loans that did occur, but a lot of it were that people were getting excited over the low adjustable rates and liked the idea of "well just refinance" in a few years, with the assumption it was possible.

I was offered those kind of loans and laughed. I knew I couldn't afford it then, and certainly not now. I warned others not to do it too, but they were too caught up in in the idea of actually owning a home. So *shrugs*...

[spaztastic]

This will bring forth a hail storm of shit but frankly I deem it necessary to mention, while we are talking about liberties and all.
protest I hear coming from the states is about abortion, religion, racism, homophobia and petty shit like that. "faust"


How can the protection of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death be deemed a petty protest?
If one does not respect life from the beginning one does not respect anything. The Declaration of Independence states that Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are an inherent right to all Peoples in America.
Life being the foundation for the other two.

If you do not respect life, you do not respect any ones beliefs, nor the orientation, choices, etc. If life is not respected no other law can be upheld. for it all depends on the Life of the persons!

[~Faust~]

This will bring forth a hail storm of shit but frankly I deem it necessary to mention, while we are talking about liberties and all.


How can the protection of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death be deemed a petty protest?
If one does not respect life from the beginning one does not respect anything. The Declaration of Independence states that Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are an inherent right to all Peoples in America.
Life being the foundation for the other two.

If you do not respect life, you do not respect any ones beliefs, nor the orientation, choices, etc. If life is not respected no other law can be upheld. for it all depends on the Life of the persons!

Hmmm I'm not one to say those things aren't worth fighting for, but frankly, if you feel your government doesn't work for you and your well-being, fixing that has the top priority. Until everyone's stomach is filled, the dept zero and the healthcare universal ideologies are hindrances. First comes food, then morale.

[l33t fl33t]

This will bring forth a hail storm of shit but frankly I deem it necessary to mention, while we are talking about liberties and all.

How can the protection of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death be deemed a petty protest?


Simple - we can afford to not give a damn. Economy, on the other thing, is something we can't afford to not give a damn about.

[Ilaekae]

ChristianShane...

"I can't tell whether some of this is satirical or sarcastic or not."



Trust me. I'm so innocent and just totally naive that I don't have the first clue about all that satire and sarcasm stuff...ask anybody...

:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

[J Wilson]

I'm also coming off as misunderstood, by the looks of it. What I'm saying is that if you want a house on credit and it makes sense number wise - ie, it's a better choice than renting, then I say go for it.

The point I'm trying to make is that you need to rationalize - you obviously can't have everything right now just because you want it. People need to think about their long term interests and that quite often means sacrificing short term gains.

I did misunderstand your point then.

I agree, people need to be responsible enough to not get things on credit just because they want them, even if they know they can't afford them. However, there were, and still are, some very predatory business practices out there. These people were told they COULD afford them by their banks, and not everyone is smart enough to look at the numbers themselves. Some people just blindly believed what they were told. It's not right, but neither was the practice of the people who DID know they couldn't afford those loans telling them that they could. In many cases I think it was ignorance on the part of the lenders that got them into trouble, not greed for things they shouldn't have.

The greed came from the bankers who wrote bad loans, talked people into houses more expensive than they could afford, and investers who drove up property prices. The houses were only going for as much as they were because they were artificially driven up. I think many of these borrowers would have been happy with more affordable homes, especially at prices that weren't based on speculation.

[l33t fl33t]

The greed came from the bankers who wrote bad loans, talked people into houses more expensive than they could afford, and investers who drove up property prices. The houses were only going for as much as they were because they were artificially driven up. I think many of these borrowers would have been happy with more affordable homes, especially at prices that weren't based on speculation.

Actually, it wasn't just bankers - part of the blame rests on the government for pressuring banks into giving loans to people who realistically couldn't afford them.

[James Kei]

There seems to a be lot of confusion here on how the mortgage crisis went down. Here is a nice, simple to follow diagram of what happened.

http://www.vimeo.com/3261363

[Ilaekae]

OMIGAWD! I'm going to stand up for Spaz'... The world's coming to an end...:P

From general discussions throughout the forum, I get the feeling that Spaz' and I probably don't agree on a lot things in a political/social/religious sense, but this time I have to put two cents in supporting at least partially what she said about abortion and life...

The "health" of any nation long-term is based on how it treats its citizens, even those struggling at the bottom of the pile. The situation we have now is due in large part to false economic premises/promises, shady market manipulations, and plain and simple greed by those who have plenty and wanted more, damn everyone else.

To state in any way that life/abortion, racism, homophobia, and other "petty shit" (like free speech, religious rights, etc.) should be excluded from any discussion on the state of ANY country's overall health is somewhat like saying, "I left more than enough chitlins, spoiled fruit, lousy meat and cardboard boxes behind for everybody to eat and stay out of the rain, so what the fuck are they complainin' about?" Ignore the beliefs and rights of those different from you when you plan long-range, and you're committing suicide, socially, politically and personally.

The problem comes in when ANY ONE particular item off that list becomes the BE-ALL guide/limit to every thing everyone else tries to do to solve a problem.

"I'm NOT supporting a food bank/orphanage/free clinic unless they agree to never hire gays/blacks/Chinese/non-Christians."

"I'm not supporting this proven educational reform process because it doesn't exclude all the lies that are not in MY holy book, or there are no 'black/brown/yellow/white faces' on the first 20 pages of a SINGLE proposed textbook."

"I'm not allowing this scientist to explain how to solve the oil crises because he works at an institution that allows abortions to be covered in its employee benefits package."

This is idiocy. It's a major part of the reason why we just went through eight years of one of the least socially responsible and inept political administrations ever, and why we have some of the problems we have now. Some of us with narrow minds voted a few years back based on OUR OWN personal narrow religious and social ideologies rather than with an honest attempt at perception of the universal good.

We might be different. We might have different beliefs. We might come in different shapes, sizes and packaging. BUT we all have to survive with a modicum of peace and security in the same FUCKING HOUSE! I absolutely hate "One-Issue" voters/politicians/organizations that can't see the world at least for a few seconds without their special tinted filter glasses on. BUT saying that the issues these people hold important are "petty shit" or not important enough to recognize is just blatant stupidity.

There are three paths through the woods. When you look up and realize that the one on the right is a blazing forest fire, and the one on the left is starting to slide into the ocean, you'd have to be a complete fuckin' asshole not to go down the middle one. All it takes is a bit of tolerance for all those other people who made the same decision you may not normally walk with to get safely to the other side.

How much can it hurt? And you might even get laid...



:P

[James Kei]

By the way, I took one of those shitty loans. But I'm one of the lucky ones and realized what was going on and quickly refinanced into a 30 year fixed.
What I am grateful for is that it made it easy for me to get my foot in the door. So it kinda worked out for the better, because it allowed me the opportunity to build my career and not have to pay somebody rent, then refinance to a better loan when I could afford it.
But like I said, most aren't so lucky. The way, the way they packaged those shitty loans made it sound like you would be stupid not to take it. So don't be so quick to place blame on the borrowers.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[~Faust~]

I apologize for using the term "petty shit", that was rude and not justified.

[Arshes Nei]

By the way, I took one of those shitty loans. But I'm one of the lucky ones and realized what was going on and quickly refinanced into a 30 year fixed.
What I am grateful for is that it made it easy for me to get my foot in the door. So it kinda worked out for the better, because it allowed me the opportunity to build my career and not have to pay somebody rent, then refinance to a better loan when I could afford it.
But like I said, most aren't so lucky. The way, the way they packaged those shitty loans made it sound like you would be stupid not to take it. So don't be so quick to place blame on the borrowers.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Well the problem was systemic. There were honest people working out there giving loans, and declined loans letting the borrower know that they couldn't afford it. Then borrowers would complain to a supervisor, until the bad loan was approved. Other people who enjoyed the commission/perks selling loans had of course preyed upon that. Then of course perceptions of "getting a home" kicked in, with everyone buying one, will one have time to get one before it was too late?

That being said, it's not that I don't understand people make mistakes or foolish choices...why do you think I harp upon the school loan thing? ( I learned the hard way) Nor when I disagree with other artists, be it if they're a professional or beginner on CA do I sit there and grind my teeth all day thinking "Damn that James Kei guy...he won't 1up me!" (no villainous twirls of mustaches since I'm a girl ;) ) there's nothing personal in differences in philosophies of which government should run or other issues for that matter. Most of the times both sides have a point actually.

[Elam]

Yes, the banks made a mistake, but if they didn't bail out these institutions the results could have been devastating, and I would have been an innocent casualty. People like myself rely on banks giving out loans for their well being and survival. Loans give people the motivation and the opportunity to buy a house, Unless you can save up $400,000 and buy one for cash. But who can do that? If you eliminate the path to the American dream, what's the point of living here?

This is rich.

You choose to live in the most inflated housing market in the US. You took out an ARM, because you couldn't save up the standard 20% down payment for a 30 year fixed. And when the system you choose to participate in collapses, you whine. And apparently, if you can't own a $400,000 dollar house, America sucks. At least that's what I'm hearing.

James, you ARE the problem. But to be fair, it's a cultural problem as a whole. People buying houses, cars, educations they can't afford and then whine because they feel they are entitled to what they can't afford.

I bought my first house a couple of years ago. With 20% down, 30 year fixed, in a house and market that's reasonable. The current 'crisis' is what made this possible. Housing values are absurd, but thankfully, they are coming down to reasonable levels. At least they were, until every dipshit under the age of 30 and need-to-be-put-out-to-pasture baby boomers voted in Obama, who is now in the process of bankrupting America.

News flash. We can't possibly afford all that's he's promising. Either suck it up or prepare for something worse.

[TASmith]

I'm about to build a home, and I'm taking out a loan now - in Slovakia. The costs are lower than the US, and the rules are different too. Hopefully we'll pick something that won't screw us over, later. I've got about 25% of the total cost now. The mortgage plan we're looking at is a 30 year deal, but hopefully, if the economy ever bounces back, we can pay it off sooner.

[arttorney]

To be fair, it is Congress who has the spending power under the Constitution, and therefore it is Congress who is in the process of bankrupting the U.S.
President Obama is enabling and encouraging them, though.

[Arshes Nei]

Well I will say this: Any, and I mean any politician (or anyone for that matter) that says they know the answer into solving the economical crisis is full of shit.

The real answer is we don't know where the bottom will fall, that's why there's a damned if we do and possibly damned if we don't situation going on.

[l33t fl33t]

Well I will say this: Any, and I mean any politician (or anyone for that matter) that says they know the answer into solving the economical crisis is full of shit.

The real answer is we don't know where the bottom will fall, that's why there's a damned if we do and possibly damned if we don't situation going on.

Actually, now that you've mentioned it, I do remember reading about a solution from the time of the Great Depression that worked until the state bank terminated the experiment. I think it was called "interest-free money".

[spaztastic]

hmm what about Mom and Pop stores, Our economy was thriving when we had small businesses and business owners to deal with. We didn't start having all these money problems until big business came into the picture, running the mom and pops out of well business. now here is just a thought of course, what if we went back to the small businesses, that would increase jobs, help to lower costs of production and keep a strong economy.

[deepbluehue]

Quit blaming the new president for this mess, he inherited it. Sometimes it's best not to overreact to a situation because decisions made by the fearful can lead to far worse problems (such as using the tragedy of 9/11 as an excuse to start a war with Iraq which had no involvement in the attack). Sometimes if you don't react to a situation you create a catastrophe (such as the devastation of Katrina and the lack of aid afterwards). No one knows how this situation will turn out. There is no perfect solution that pleases everyone and Obama isn't Superman. I hope that his team of advisers have Americas best interests in mind and I hope that Obama has the maturity and wisdom to weigh in and make the right decisions.

I believe that his spending plan involves trying to create jobs that improve the infrastructure of our country and improve the quality of life for people that live here. Everyone needs to drive and making our roads, freeways and bridges safer really does improve the quality of life for people that have to travel them everyday. Why shouldn't we create an alternative fuel when all the signs are saying that oil is going to run out one day. Why engage in war to avoid creating an alternative fuel? There is no doubt that corporations that take the work overseas deprive the American workforce of jobs. We must find a way to create more jobs or people will become homeless and without a means to take care of themselves. We are going to wind up with sick, diseased homeless people all over the place and we might find ourselves one of them if we don't do something.

[XanaChama]

I'm happy living in an apartment for now and probably for a while. Sure, the market rent is kinda high for a typical one bedroom (all because of the area), but I can always move. And if I bought a house, I don't think I could ever afford to fill it with things. My first house was old, built in the 1930s and wasn't worth much, but if it weren't for the area kinda going down hill in general, I'd move back there. As long as I could still fix it up...

This isn't to say that some people don't work really hard and deserve more. Some people have big families and I can understand needing a lot of space, or maybe they just have the money to spend. I will probably move from this area, because to me, $400,000, much less $200,000 for a home is ridiculous. And with all the changes I go through in life, the last thing I need is a mortgage that should something happen and probably will, I could not simply afford.

And as for the speech, I caught up with it in the AM on the web trying to figure out what the deal was, and I didn't understand the point (And seriously, they clapped for like 6 minutes straight in the beginning, WTH). He was repeating basically everything he said during the campaign, and I mean everything. The only thing is, some numbers changed here and there, some stuff he made even more vague and when clarified in some areas, it seemed somewhat shady because it didn't sound like what people thought he meant... but he didn't let on too much and he was being political about it.

I'm not sure if that's just because he has to (because bipartonship has gone to hell) or just because he is not capable of being specific as a person... all I know is I am tired of hearing his campaign slogans. I voted for him and I liked his message. I'm not all keen on paying for irresponsible debts by other people, but if we have to pull together to prevent a disaster, then I would rather do something then nothing. So I'm luke warm about the stimulus. I did read it, and I don't understand why so much money is going the places it is. And that's what I want to hear, a real run down about how these people are spending our money and how it's supposed to help us... not simply stating "If we give money to the broadband people, it will create more jobs". Why not other parts of the economy? Why do I need a website telling me places that don't have broadband for example?

What I think they really should do is, companies, governments, everybody... go into your books and cut all the fat. Every bit of it. If we lived with what we just needed in this society and controlled costs, I feel we wouldn't be sitting in this mess. I am absolutely blown out of my mind everytime I see a company spend stupid amounts of money putting a plasma TV on some wall to project an ad or a stock quote, or make ATM's talk to you, or some stupid retarded useless stuff like that. Yes, some stuff here and there... but I hate seeing people laid off and lose their job because companies, governments, or just people in general don't cut their costs. I'm not saying it would prevent everything, but it would probably help a lot.

[James Kei]

This is rich.

You choose to live in the most inflated housing market in the US. You took out an ARM, because you couldn't save up the standard 20% down payment for a 30 year fixed. And when the system you choose to participate in collapses, you whine. And apparently, if you can't own a $400,000 dollar house, America sucks. At least that's what I'm hearing.

James, you ARE the problem. But to be fair, it's a cultural problem as a whole. People buying houses, cars, educations they can't afford and then whine because they feel they are entitled to what they can't afford.

I bought my first house a couple of years ago. With 20% down, 30 year fixed, in a house and market that's reasonable. The current 'crisis' is what made this possible. Housing values are absurd, but thankfully, they are coming down to reasonable levels. At least they were, until every dipshit under the age of 30 and need-to-be-put-out-to-pasture baby boomers voted in Obama, who is now in the process of bankrupting America.

News flash. We can't possibly afford all that's he's promising. Either suck it up or prepare for something worse.

I put 20% down, in a house in San Francisco, a market that doesn't and didn't fluctuate.
I took the ARM loan because I didn't meet the silly requirements that a 30 year demanded.(same job for 2 years, etc...) So the idea was to get my foot in and then refinanced when I qualified. So like I said, it worked out well for me. And I saved money that would have been spent on rent.

I will agree that the American culture up to now is to spend. Regardless, it's a great place to live whether you own a house or not.

Seems that as a result of everyone's mistake you were able to buy your first house. Congrats! So I guess some good came out this fiasco, right? Housing prices won't rise again for some time, probably not until the end of Obamas first term.

By the way, Obama isn't bankrupting America, Bush already did. Where were the complaints then? Obama is saving your ass, even if you disagree with him. Now isn't that nice?

[l33t fl33t]

@deepbluehue

It takes two for anal rape. If people are so adamantly against job outsourcing, why do we still use services and products from companies that practice it?

Oh, wait. It's because all the stuff we buy is several times cheaper than it used to be.

Hmm...

@James Kei

What makes you so sure that Obama is saving your ass? And by "saving our ass", I don't mean "trying to". Isn't it a little too early to tell?

[spaztastic]

By the way, Obama isn't bankrupting America, Bush already did. Where were the complaints then? Obama is saving your ass, even if you disagree with him. Now isn't that nice?

sorry had to say something on this....
when have the complaints about Bush stopped. All I hear is how horrible Bush did, the man had to deal with a lot of shit, granted I don't like him I didn't vote for him... well I was too young but still. More people think that all the worlds problems are Bushes fault, Katrina for ex, had he voted for such and such it wouldn't have happened, oh yeah global warming bushes fault, I stubbed my toe bush must be the culprit, I mean come on, that isn't even sane.
How is spending ONE TRILLION in our money *ahem* that we don't have saving our asses? In fact what he is doing is pushing our economy further down the path to depression, he is lowering the value of our money that is already at an all time low since the depression. He is forcing our taxes to go up, thus the cost of everything else goes up hmmm well everything except our paychecks. And how does it make sense to spend loads of money in order to save money. This has never worked long term, in fact it teaches a horrible lesson, that you need to spend spend spend, In order to live. I agree with Xana we need to cut back on the all the fat our government uses, for what. Not for us. Not to help. No it all goes to big business that use it to run small businesses out of town. How is that helping?

I am so sick and tired of people thinking that this Man is going to save our nation. He has no experience to speak of, he didn't manage to keep any of the promises that he made as a senator (big surprise) and now he is running our country. How do you think this will be any different than when he was a senator pray tell? Here is a man telling us vague Ideas, that will somehow save our country, how, I want to know the numbers, not just take his word for it. His word that he didn't even keep in a low position as a senator. Socializing everything isn't going to work, taking away our rights is only going to piss us off. so tell me how is he supposed to do it.

Frankly I think it should be WE THE PEOPLE that make THE CHANGE and HOPE of our Great Nation a reality, not some bureaucrat that has no care for the common man, that all he sees in us is a vote and a rating approval.
So please for the love of all that is great stop putting this MAN on a pedestal and take back the power of the people so WE THE PEOPLE can make a difference.
now please feel free to tear this apart, I just felt it necessary to say that.

[Elam]

I put 20% down, in a house in San Francisco, a market that doesn't and didn't fluctuate.
I took the ARM loan because I didn't meet the silly requirements that a 30 year demanded.(same job for 2 years, etc...) So the idea was to get my foot in and then refinanced when I qualified. So like I said, it worked out well for me. And I saved money that would have been spent on rent.

I will agree that the American culture up to now is to spend. Regardless, it's a great place to live whether you own a house or not.

Seems that as a result of everyone's mistake you were able to buy your first house. Congrats! So I guess some good came out this fiasco, right? Housing prices won't rise again for some time, probably not until the end of Obamas first term.

By the way, Obama isn't bankrupting America, Bush already did. Where were the complaints then? Obama is saving your ass, even if you disagree with him. Now isn't that nice?
Yeah. Those silly rules. You chose to disregard them, take a quick path, instead of something tested and mature, because you lacked the patience(you couldn't keep a job for 2 years?). Well, guess what? So did millions of others, hence the situation we're in. And if everything worked out for you, why did keeping your house depend on whether or not Citibank got a bailout? You keep your house as long as you make payment, not whether the institution that holds your mortgage stays in business.

And as I clearly stated, yes, falling house prices have made homes affordable again. But your missing the point. Obama and Bush's disaster of a bailout didn't make that happen. The free market did. The bailout will reverse this, artificially, thus putting us back into the situation that got us here.

Obama hasn't saved anything yet. Typical talk of a true believer..

[James Kei]

God, I miss Kev. At least his arguments were well researched and logical.

Spaz, the answers to your paranoia are out there if you choose to look them up.

Elam, do you honestly think that the free market would bring the economy back on track? Seriously? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it was the free market that got us in this mess. Greed is an ugly thing.



I guess this put the conservatives/Republicans in an awkward and dangerous position. They are gambling with fate.
Basically, if Obama succeeds, they will look like a bunch of fools because they didn't support it and didn't come up with any of their own solutions.
They will lose whatever credibility they had left and the conservative party will become extinct in 20 years time.
They didn't board the train, and will get left behind. Sad really. Only time will tell.

[Ilaekae]

There's only one thing we can agree on, apparently...it's all those bastard Clintons' fault. :P

[TASmith]

Clinton repealed Glass Steagall. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but part of me wonders if the republicans who pushed to repeal that, knew this would happen.

[spaztastic]

James seriously, please tell me your not drinking the koolaide the MSM is serving, and it's not paranoia it's logic. I have done plenty of research, just because I don't use the "obama approved" sites doesn't mean mine isn't factual in fact I am pretty sure it's more factual than anything the obamanots are spouting about their messiah. I give Obama 2 1/2 years before he makes a total F up of this country the man couldn't keep his promises as a senator, so given that, there's no way in hell he'll be able to do it as the POTUS, in fact he's already taking back some of his campaign promises that got him the majority of his votes. so we shall see who is the extinct party in 20 years. not that most conservatives are any different than most dems now a days anyway. i take no claim to either party as they have both shown themselves to be incompetent, selfish, greed motivated, and faulty, baisically two different sides of the same rusty, corroding, ill gotten, worthless coin.
Now don't get me wrong, I would love to see Obama get our Country back on track, I would love to see him Uphold life as the most important issue, cause let's face it, without life there are no other issues. cause you actually need to be alive to have an issue. I would love to see him unite this nation.... now is he going to do it, not while he treads the path he is on. The path he is choosing is going to tear this nation apart from the inside out!

[Arshes Nei]

hmm what about Mom and Pop stores, Our economy was thriving when we had small businesses and business owners to deal with. We didn't start having all these money problems until big business came into the picture, running the mom and pops out of well business. now here is just a thought of course, what if we went back to the small businesses, that would increase jobs, help to lower costs of production and keep a strong economy.

That's a problem with our consumer greed. We're looking for the best bang for our buck. The larger you're able to order a number of products the cost goes down. So of course big business has the advantage to some degree.

Online stores have also killed the need to go to stores as much, I'm frequently finding deals on Amazon, Newegg, Deepdiscount.com etc versus these brick and mortar stores. Even the big chains.

Can you blame the consumer? I mean the only thing that stops them from getting a cheaper deal is quality, or now the green movement.

[Arshes Nei]

I think California is a good model to see how bad government can get. It's now considered the worst in places to do business in, because of over regulation and taxes and other shit that's "For the good of the people". It's chased off filming in the entertainment industry, and other states are now placing ads to people getting fed up with the state to move to another.

Unemployment is at is a bit over 10% now. So 1 in 10 people living in the state lost their job.

The new state budget passed making California one of the highest taxed states. The tax burden is even higher. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/443.html
What's worse is that California contributes to a lot of the Federal taxes but gets little of it back so that "bailout" for the state is nothing. The lobbyists haven't done jack to make sure we're properly paid back for Fed contributions, so it leaves the state down to city and county level to tax the hell out of its citizens.

The census data shows more people are moving out of California than in, yet there's a population increase. Something's f'd up.

California is heavily democratic. So it shows if you have too much of one party in charge in either spectrum be it the Republicans or Democrats, without much needed checks and balances areas can go bankrupt pretty quick.

[spaztastic]

understandable, arshes. But it's because of the Big business in the first place that the mom and pop stores started shutting down, due to cost. these mega consumer conglomerates, sending their factories over seas, forcing thousands of Americans out of jobs, some who had been working at the same job for decades. all to lower the cost of production to gain more money for the business men not the worker or consumer. lowering the quality so we would be forced to buy multiple backups of any given item. which kept and keeps lining their ever fattening pockets.
Frankly I would rather pay for quality than quantity, to know something I invest my money in will actually last longer than 3 mo of normal wear. to know that I am helping Americans feed their family's, versus paying the Chinese Government to cheat their workers. granted I look online for deals too, only because there are no more mom and pop stores where I live that sell quality items. When I can I support the little guy, I don't care if costs me a few bucks extra, it's the satisfaction of knowing I am helping my neighbor survive these trying times.

[XanaChama]

God, I miss Kev. At least his arguments were well researched and logical.

Spaz, the answers to your paranoia are out there if you choose to look them up.

Elam, do you honestly think that the free market would bring the economy back on track? Seriously? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it was the free market that got us in this mess. Greed is an ugly thing.

I agree with what you said, but maybe it was not a free market that was such a bad thing, but rather the protections that were normally there to prevent this kind of thing were removed. And yes, greed being the culprit.

To dig a little deeper into what spaz was saying, there's a significant portion of the population that has (and has had) the same issues with Obama's vague claims. I have yet to see how he's "saving our ass" as well. He is at least giving a better effort than Bush, and he's energized the nation for a bit there. But it may ultimately come down to a cultural problem. All we know how to do is spend and consume, spend and consume and just because we've tightened up our purse strings doesn't mean we've learned our lesson. It's obvious there are people who feel they need some kind of help or support from the government, but the question is, just when do you start to draw the line?

And if you want paranoid, then I can take you into the more "red neck" portions of Maryland and have you meet some of the more extreme portion of what's left of Bush's 30% approval rating. Believe me, there is much more paranoia and it veers more towards the direction of conspiracy theorists than actual propaganda or people just being "whiney" about a democrat president.

I personally don't believe anything until I see it either. In the meantime, we're still weening our society off the addiction of credit. What I'm personally afraid of, is that government assistance will just become a replacement for it until we're able to put ourselves in place to make this mistake again. A lot of the programs we take from the New Deal today helped pull us out of this mess the first time. But I don't think any of those programs or any of the new ones we create can truly stomach the economy we face today. It's just way too big. We haven't even had anything really happen yet and supposedly the FDIC program is already swamped... which means there's a good chance our accounts won't be reimbursed anyway.

Can any government handle any of these things happening with money it doesn't even have? Eventually these other countries and other sources of income are going to get tired of pumping money into a problem (but ultimately have to for now). I understand spending money to keep things going, but we haven't even begun to stop and check the tire to see how bad the leak is. What we really need to do for the long term is bring companies home and start doing things on our own again.

I'm no expert, but the way I see it, we're less able to compete than ever globally, and we keep feeding the problem by doing what got us here the last time and now this time... which is putting everything on credit.

[James Kei]

The good thing about the rescue plan is that a significant portion of it still relies on the people to deliver on their half of the deal. Obama is set up as the messenger to instruct us on how to do it. Such as business needing to think long term. (something that America has fallen short of for quite some time.) Among many other common sense rules and ideologies that have long been ignored. I should retract that Obama will save our ass. It's more like he delivered a device on which we can save ourselves.
Time will tell if the American people will prevail. But I'm going to go ahead and be optimistic about it, because I believe in the new system. It's very innovative. Open source government is the way of the future.

Folks, the alternative here is to do nothing, which has been widely researched as the path to a catastrophic breakdown of the economic system as we know it. So it's either we die, or die trying.
Conservative opposition has come up with no tangible ideas other than a modification of the rescue plan itself, which would make little to no difference to the outcome.

[arttorney]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-4.pdf seems pretty tangible, and is even more open source than government. These guys have been presenting this same message for years. When they say "people should take responsibility for their own lives" they are just a bunch of Libertarian think tank wackos. When Obama says "people should take responsibility for their own lives" it is suddenly a cool new message. lol.

I think "open source goverment" is as much of an oxymoron as "free market."

[Arshes Nei]

I became cynical towards government a long time ago when I went to find out how to get temporary aid, and they gave me a snide reply of "I spoke too well and shouldn't receive the help"

Ok because educated people can't have mishaps in their lives. Thanks.

Also it felt insulting, like...anyone who has "Black" can't be well spoken. wtf.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

James, blaming the free market as the sole cause of this mess is as ill-informed as only blaming the government. There are all manner of things that poorly thought out regulation played a hand in. One of the primary ones was Alan Greenspan's holding interest rates down at 1%, which, if you're looking for one, can easily be blamed as the ultimate cause of money being so recklessly lent out in the past decade. It's as strong an argument as any against direct government regulation of the money supply. Other examples include the SEC's required stamp of approval for a credit rating agency- this was a well-intentioned idea that only led to the creation of the 3 credit rating agency cartel, since you obviously can't be approved unless you're already a practicing agency. Then there's the dropping of various anti-trust laws. There are all manner of things that make the federal government- not just under Bush- as much to blame for this as the big corporations. Regulation is good, but not if it's stupid regulation that only caters to special interests.

I still hold that you can't buy your way out of a recession- you can't fix a problem that was caused by too much spending and credit with more spending and credit. Taxing the rich will not pay off the debt like you think it will- it's already been pointed out that the surplus under Clinton was due to a combination of favorable factors, and it's going to be decades until we see a credit boom like that again. Once again, I'm reserving judgment on BofA and Citi though.

Disclaimer: None of this is an argument absolving the market of blame or saying taxes are evil, so don't anyone jump on me about that :P.

-Sid

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

Quoted from Yahoo-

"Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy.""

I enjoy every sentence of that. If he can get any of that done, we'll all be a lot better off.

[Fuish]

You know what I notice? That the government is "bailing out" these corporations. Why do they use the term bail out, when it seems to me more like a buy out?

It feels very dangerous to me that the government is getting away with basically buying all of the corporations and banks in the country. You don't take money from a loan shark without strings attached.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

You know what I notice? That the government is "bailing out" these corporations. Why do they use the term bail out, when it seems to me more like a buy out?

It feels very dangerous to me that the government is getting away with basically buying all of the corporations and banks in the country. You don't take money from a loan shark without strings attached.

At present both the Fed and government are trying very hard not to buy anyone out- it means taking on roughly $3 trillion of foreign debt. So far, the only company that seems to be getting close to nationalization is Citi, and they're still trying their level best to keep taxpayer stake under 40%. Nationalization is not in anyone's best interest, except maybe foreigners.

[James Kei]

You know what I notice? That the government is "bailing out" these corporations. Why do they use the term bail out, when it seems to me more like a buy out?

It feels very dangerous to me that the government is getting away with basically buying all of the corporations and banks in the country. You don't take money from a loan shark without strings attached.


The strings attached is what will hold them together. A watchful eye to make sure that they play by the rules.
"Less government" can only work if everyone looks out for one another. But as things turn out, that is simply not the case. Greed sets in, and we all end up in the shitter.
Unfortunately, financial giants could care less about improving society. They only think about short term gain.

Yes, Greenspan lit the torch, and the banks took it and ran wild. No one person is at fault. The flaw here is that there was no babysitter to make sure that the house doesn't burn down. An that's exactly what happened.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

The flaw here is that there was no babysitter to make sure that the house doesn't burn down. An that's exactly what happened.

Pretty much sums it up. The trouble wasn't regulation, just bad regulation. Hopefully we'll see less of the special interest-geared nonsense under Obama.

[spaztastic]

I agree with you Fuish, it is a buy out, not bail out. All these banks are going to be under one head bank, thus making it into a one world banking system. I don't know about you, but that is some scary shit to me.

[spaztastic]

Pretty much sums it up. The trouble wasn't regulation, just bad regulation. Hopefully we'll see less of the special interest-geared nonsense under Obama.

Problem with that though, is that he is setting out a babysitter for everyone, not just the financial systems.
I don't know about you but, I can take care of myself, I don't need his ever watchful eye to protect me thank you very much. More government and bigger government is never the answer, People need to get their acts together and start taking their rights and freedoms back from the ever watchful guard dog that wishes to see us a ruled nation.
don't get me wrong I don't want revolution, unless it's a velvet revolution.
I don't want the government any more involved in my life than it is already. I have seen what that does, I don't want it for me or for my children.

[Aphotic Phoenix]

I don't really understand people fears of "big government". Yes, government offices can be very wasteful in terms of spending (was once asked if "there were any [expensive] software programs I wanted", by a friends mom because their department had extra money leftover for the year -_- ) My old university, and several others that I know of have warehouses overloaded with stuff, some of which was bought simply to max out their government funding so it wouldn't be cut next year. Instead of selling computers by the pallet load for minimal sums, they could be donated to schools, or children of poor families, but so far this is not the case. There are also a lot of underfunded government offices, and programs out there that really need more attention, and they aren't getting it because other institutions don't want to risk getting a slimmer piece of the pie. People in this country are disgustingly wasteful, and that just doesn't apply to people in the government. I'll admit, I was tempted to buy a new monitor after I received some used computer equipment from friends, but then I asked myself...do I really NEED this? The answer is no.

People should demand that the programs we NEED are being taken care of... roads, making sure people can eat....and ditching programs and policies that aren't helping, such as "abstinence only sex education", and as much as I hate to say it...some of the really ridiculous scientific "experiments" that get government grants.

[r.mccabe]

Yall too critical,

bcuXV99asO8&feature=dir

[Meloncov]

How can the protection of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death be deemed a petty protest?
If one does not respect life from the beginning one does not respect anything. The Declaration of Independence states that Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are an inherent right to all Peoples in America.
Life being the foundation for the other two.

Everyone agrees that we should preserve peoples lives, so get off your moral high horse. The argument is when it become reasonable to call a clump of cells a person. A fertilized egg isn't dramatically more human than a serperate egg and sperm, and only differs from a random skin cell in potential, not actuality.

Now yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Their isn't a perfect place to put it; no matter where you define humanity it has some uncomfortable implications. Drawing the line at conception is just as reasonable as, say, viability (the current point of distinction in the U.S.), but implying that people who disagree with you about where the line should be are murderers is uncalled for.

[Meloncov]

One thing that has always bothered me, is that it's easier to get a loan for a home over loan for a good education. I always felt it should be the reverse so the result of having a good education would give you the ability to fight to get a home loan. Not that I don't understand circumstances happen, but why is it easier for one way over the other?

I just felt the American dream was to be well educated to contribute to society and it reaps rewards for you.

It's far easier for a bank to foreclose on a home than an education should it prove necessary.

[DeeLock]

Jesus Christ, some of you people need to take a world economics class.

At least James knows what he's talking about.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

Jesus Christ, some of you people need to take a world economics class.

At least James knows what he's talking about.

You're aware that there are at least 3 major schools of economics, all with wildly different ideas about how the whole thing functions, yes? I hope they taught you that in your classes.

Or did you think everyone you disagree with is pulling conclusions out of their asses?

[spaztastic]

Everyone agrees that we should preserve peoples lives, so get off your moral high horse. The argument is when it become reasonable to call a clump of cells a person. A fertilized egg isn't dramatically more human than a serperate egg and sperm, and only differs from a random skin cell in potential, not actuality.

Now yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Their isn't a perfect place to put it; no matter where you define humanity it has some uncomfortable implications. Drawing the line at conception is just as reasonable as, say, viability (the current point of distinction in the U.S.), but implying that people who disagree with you about where the line should be are murderers is uncalled for.

Where did I call them murderers pray tell? I am saying that human life from the moment of conception... biologically when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, should be protected, upheld with dignity and cherished. Or are you forgetting that you to were at one point a so called "lump of cells" ?

Now if you want me to call them murderers then well I would have stated it like this.

So am I gonna call the doctor that rips the 6 mo/4mo/2 mo preborn child out of it's mothers womb a murderer of course not. I can't call some one who, uses a scalpel to go in and rip apart a defenseless human being a murderer, I can't say that injecting burning saline into the womb to burn the baby alive is murder, I can't say that when the doctor partially delivers the baby, feet first leaving the head inside the womb, then while the new, almost born, baby is kicking and moving the doctor jams a pair of surgical shears into the back of it's skull, suctions out the brains and throws the baby out murder. Of course not that would be hypocritical of me.
so did I call them murderers no, but are they yes. Am I talking about the women who are conned into getting them murders no, they need to be counseled, Am I calling the doctors who refuse to let the woman change her mind about an abortion (after she decides she doesn't want one) murderers yes. Just as you would call it murder for one man to blatantly stab, tear apart, burn, ect another adult/child (baisically human being that you can see) murder. I am calling the horrendous atrocities that those doctors preform murder.

Now for your statement on conception.
Except that if a sperm and egg never meet there is no chance for a child, so to say the fertilized egg is not that different from the separate sperm and egg is foolish, that single cell that separates and divides at such a fast rate is a human being, all the cells are they to form a human being. A fully functioning HUMAN BEING!

Now my biggest and pretty much one of my only problems with Obama is his stance on human life, the man doesn't respect it, (it's above his pay grade remember) how can I respect someone who would never be able to respect me? my children? my preborn children? on the basest level we have, which is our lives.
the economy is another thing entirely.
Now if you want to say get off your moral high horse, at least NOW I have given you a reason to.

EDIT: I won't go any more in-depth on this as I do not want to derail the thread.

[spaztastic]

I don't really understand people fears of "big government".
When I say big government I mean big government like communist china or socialist England, where pretty much all your freedoms are stripped from you, and you are subservient to the government. Our government imp has gotten to big, but not that drastically. Yes we need some one to help govern us but not to rule us. that's probably what I should have said in the first place, I apologize for not clarifying that earlier.

Edit: I could be very wrong about England's rights, but the Idea of a monarchy makes me queezy.

[r.mccabe]

Snip A fully functioning HUMAN BEING! snip



I know you said you didn't want get into this, feel free to not reply. I would like to point out that there are many cases where a pregnant mother knows the baby will not become "fully functioning". There are a lot of human beings who are not fully functioning. Also pro-life arguments have a way of focusing on negatives. If you had cancer in your womb would you have given birth if say at 2 weeks you could have had an abortion? How about aids? I've seen protest and adds all over for "pro-life" the one thing they all have in common is a religious we are right you are evil sentiment.

I feel sorry for all the crack babies and aids babies and neglected dumpster babies. I don't like late term abortions but things like the morning after pill are moral grounded IMO. Also why conception, lets go further to outlawing birth control too? how about condoms?

When a baby has a neural net to beat its heart its alive until then its a part of its mother thus not a distinct life. Its not murder to cut off your hand, but you better have a damn good reason. And pulling a baby half out a birth only to stab it is infanticide not abortion I would think so it is murder by law. Unless the law has some twisted while in womb clause.

Before this gets out of control I would like to add most great ethical theories (or the theorists) have a stance on this. There is no need for anything remotely rude there are valid points on both sides.

I probably wrote this because of the protesters at city hall / the courthouse that were walking around with signs that did say murder. Those arguments don't convince anyone.

[spaztastic]

I would like to point out that there are many cases where a pregnant mother knows the baby will not become "fully functioning". There are a lot of human beings who are not fully functioning. Also pro-life arguments have a way of focusing on negatives. If you had cancer in your womb would you have given birth if say at 2 weeks you could have had an abortion? How about aids? I've seen protest and adds all over for "pro-life" the one thing they all have in common is a religious we are right you are evil sentiment.

Just because some one is born with an impairment does not make their life worth less than any of ours. It would be the same as walking up to a person with downs, paraplegic, insert disability, and saying you life is not worth living so I am going to end it for you, or you should kill your self because I THINK YOUR LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING.

the Problem with that mind set is that there are a lot of Doctors who would simply rather terminate a pregnancy than seek alternatives to helping both survive,simply because it's easier on the doctors and they don't have to loose a patient (which equals loosing lots of money for the doctors) to a specialist who would be more willing to seek out every means possible of saving both.

I feel sorry for all the crack babies and aids babies and neglected dumpster babies. I don't like late term abortions but things like the morning after pill are moral grounded IMO. Also why conception, lets go further to outlawing birth control too? how about condoms?

Just because some one has an addiction do you end there life? no you help them over come there addiction, yes the odds for these little babies is much lower than a normal fully healthy baby, but that doesn't mean they can't survive and live full lives. And just because it pains you to see them suffer doesn't mean you end their life it would be the same as with the homeless for example, just because it pains you to see them suffer you don't kill them you help them.

When a baby has a neural net to beat its heart its alive until then its a part of its mother thus not a distinct life. Its not murder to cut off your hand, but you better have a damn good reason. And pulling a baby half out a birth only to stab it is infanticide not abortion I would think so it is murder by law. Unless the law has some twisted while in womb clause.

Medically incorrect, there have been many instances where infants as young as 4 mo gestation have survived outside the womb, one case was in FL not too long ago. Now yes that child is using the mother to live, but it's not her body it's an entirely different human being dwelling with in her. A gift a man will never understand, the power to create life and sustain it. Yet it is men that often times pressure the woman into abortions, for their own reasons not the woman's and not the child's.
And yes in America we have taken away the born alive act. If a baby survives the initial abortion they can kill it outside the womb.

now condoms birth control and those issues are another issue entirely, and like I said already I won't derail this thread any more.

Before this gets out of control I would like to add most great ethical theories (or the theorists) have a stance on this. There is no need for anything remotely rude there are valid points on both sides.

I agree completely.

I probably wrote this because of the protesters at city hall / the courthouse that were walking around with signs that did say murder. Those arguments don't convince anyone.
__________________

I agree that they let too much emotion run there arguments. They are not always empathetic towards the woman or her situation. But I am, I am still and always will be pro-life. No matter the circumstance*, the preborn child deserves the same chance you and I got from our parents.

* in the cases of rape and incests the worst thing you could do to an already traumatized woman is suggest abortion, which will inflict even more trauma (physically, emotionally and psychologically) not to mention the guilt, depression and self hate they go through after rape and incest. Why add the trauma of killing. These women need our love, they need to be cared for, they need support, to let them know it's not their fault. They can give that baby up for adoption, but to put them through an abortion would only compound the trauma they are in.

now I am posting this not knowing if any else has replied so pardons please.

[James Kei]

Oh lordy. I think its a good time to close this thread, yes?