truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Money in the private sector is driven by market forces. Supply and demand dictate where it goes. Productivity drives the bottom line. Profit is the motive.
Your statement is too simplistic and extremely myopic. So what was driving the banks and mortgage companies to give no down payment loans to those with no or shaky credit? Profit, of course...short term profit.

Of course it was driven by profit. You just repeated what I said. The consumer has responsibility also. They sought the refinancing, multiple loans ect. They were driven by greed. They borrowed on the equity they had plus betting on increasing equity by an increasing market demand. It all came tumbling down. So what happens now? The market readjusts based on supply and demand. The demand is down because of this collapse and the supply is up because of the inability of buyers to afford the price. Guess what? Prices are falling drastically. This will open up opportunity for buyers that didn't have sufficient income before. And here we go again. This time there will be a tightening of terms because those banks, etc can not afford to make the same mistake.

truthhurts wrote:
[ What drives speculators in the now deregulated oil markets to drive up the cost of oil? Profit.

Capital flows to where the profit is. Always has, always will. It's not just the "rich". It's pensions, 401k's. IRA's, individual investors. They ALL go where the profit is. Are you going to keep your investments where they lose money? Or are you going to go where you can gain more?


truthhurts wrote:
[And what drives business to destroy the environment? Profit. If you own a steel mill or a coal fired power plant, and there are no government regulations against pollution, what drives you to install pollution equipment, equipment that costs money and makes no profit?

This is where the compassionate conservative comes in. (That's me.) Remember it was the Republicans, NOT the Democrats that started the Environmental Protection Agency. Name anything the Democrats have done that even remotely compares to the positive effect this has has on the environment.

truthhurts wrote:
[As you watch the olympics from China in a few weeks, look at the air, and listen to the commentators talk about how bad it is. What will cause Chinese businesses, new to capitalism, to install pollution control equipment if not the government? The profit motive? Surely you jest.

Come on truth, name one communist country that ever gave a damn about the environment.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
You are right, insufficient funding in government is THE problem. You have three choices; none of them are driven by market forces. Decrease spending, increase funding, or borrow. My vote is for the first choice. More money left in the private sector is used more efficiently and provides greater opportunity.
What you have espoused is, of course, the typical conservative line. And you left out what costs you would cut. First up on the list would be social programs, no doubt. You would never want to cut defense, would you? On a more local level, what would you prefer to cut to make your property taxes go down? Public schools? Fire protection? Police protection? Road construction? Which one?

You forgot already. I'm a compassionate conservative. Start with earmarks. And every other pork barrel project. But obviously you like pork.

truthhurts wrote:
I loved one of the comments made by Obama yesterday on his trip. He said General Patraeus is correct to worry specifically about Iraq and what troop withdrawls might do, because that is his mission. Iraq. He said if he was in the Generals shoes, he'd do the same thing. The President, however, needs to worry about that and other things as well, not the least of which is the U.S. economy, as well as the situation in Afghanistan.

You act like nobody's doing anything about Afghanistan. Did you forget NATO. All this talk about Afghanistan is fluff. We already are increasing troop strength there. You belly ache about Iraq and how useless it is do anything there. What makes you think Afghanistan is the Holy Grail? Don't tell, all you have to do is sit down with the War Lords without preconditions and everyone will be happy.

truthhurts wrote:
[I've never once heard McCain mention the cost of the Iraq war, money and lives, as a factor in our getting out sooner rather than later. Have you?

I haven't heard Obama mention that about Afghanistan either.


truthhurts wrote:
[Bottom Line: Congress is never realistically going to control spending. Democratic or Republican, makes no difference. The Republicans have spent every bit as much as drunken sailors in the Bush era as the Democrats ever did.

I agree.


truthhurts wrote:
[So, in order to avoid financial disaster, revenue must increase. Trickle down, supply side economics doesn't do it. You did not answer my question from above, and it is a simple question...don't be scared of it. It won't bite...too much. In the chart, what color do you see in the Regan-Bush1 area and in the current Bush era. Black or red?

You're simplistic little chart is just that. It proves nothing. There's more to it than your simpleton explanation.

You leave out the most important element, business cycles. They happen, always have, always will. If you think you can continually increase taxes and ignore spending, no matter what is happening in the economy you're really naive. And if you think your model of spend tax, spend tax, will help the economy flourish, that's just plain stupid.

In my opinion.

ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Your statement is too simplistic and extremely myopic. So what was driving the banks and mortgage companies to give no down payment loans to those with no or shaky credit? Profit, of course...short term profit.
Of course it was driven by profit. You just repeated what I said. The consumer has responsibility also. They sought the refinancing, multiple loans ect. They were driven by greed. They borrowed on the equity they had plus betting on increasing equity by an increasing market demand. It all came tumbling down. So what happens now? The market readjusts based on supply and demand. The demand is down because of this collapse and the supply is up because of the inability of buyers to afford the price. Guess what? Prices are falling drastically. This will open up opportunity for buyers that didn't have sufficient income before. And here we go again. This time there will be a tightening of terms because those banks, etc can not afford to make the same mistake.
So you think the consumer has a responsibility in the mortgage mess? OK, they do share the blame...about 1% How's that? People will take what is given them...it is human nature. Business, on the other hand is supposed to be a little more intelligent. If a mortgage company is stupid enough to offer no down payment loans for people with shaky credit, people will take them up on it.

Here's your buddy George Bush, the guy you voted for twice, explaining the mortgage mess as only he could. Please be so kind as to tell me who he blames, business (wall street) or the consumer for these shady financial instruments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgEuuypvzpY

Hint: It involves the word "drunk." BTW, it's just like Bush to pass all of the blame for the mess on to Wall Street. True, they did it, but only because they were able to because of a lack of regulatory oversight by an administration, and Republican party, who believe that government needs to leave business alone to it's own devices. Trust them, they are capitalists, they care about profit...what else matters? And that's how we get "fancy financial instruments", as he called them....and how we also get a mortgage and banking nightmare that touched off a recession that is still growing. But it's just a "mental recession" according to McCain's chief economic adviser, Phil Gramm, isn't it Thomas?

You belly ache about Iraq and how useless it is do anything there. What makes you think Afghanistan is the Holy Grail?
Because that is al Qaeda's home base, perhaps?And the area bin Laden (who was never in Iraq) is, perhaps? You remember him...the guy who masterminded 9/11....they guy we are after?

ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
And what drives business to destroy the environment? Profit. If you own a steel mill or a coal fired power plant, and there are no government regulations against pollution, what drives you to install pollution equipment, equipment that costs money and makes no profit?
This is where the compassionate conservative comes in. (That's me.) Remember it was the Republicans, NOT the Democrats that started the Environmental Protection Agency. Name anything the Democrats have done that even remotely compares to the positive effect this has has on the environment.

First, you ignore my question. You can't argue to let Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of capitalism cure all, then say the EPA is great and you Republicans created it. The need for the EPA was the abuses of business. Remember the Love Canal? The "profit motive" did not help the environment there, did it?

Second, regarding the creation of the EPA, I'd say you were full of compassionate conservative crap, Thomas. You need a BM. It started with Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring", and was fed with a healthy dose of anti-Vietnam protest spirit. One thing led to another, and the agency was created by a Republican President (Nixon) and a Democratic majority Congress (House and Senate). Doubtful it would have happened with a Republican Congress, given the fact they have been trying to neuter it ever since. For example, here's what the EPA has been doing during the Bush Administration.

It scarcely raises an eyebrow nowadays when the Bush administration's environmental record is characterized, yet again, as a relentless attack on decades of protections for air, water, and wildlife. But the latest such charges come from a loyal soldier of the GOP, appointed by the Bushies to head up the enforcement office of the U.S. EPA, so they carry more weight than most.

Bush's EPA 1

and here's another one.

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator Whitman.

Bush's EPA 2

Nice of you to give all the credit to Nixon, though. It helps make up, a little, for Watergate.

ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
As you watch the olympics from China in a few weeks, look at the air, and listen to the commentators talk about how bad it is. What will cause Chinese businesses, new to capitalism, to install pollution control equipment if not the government? The profit motive? Surely you jest.
Come on truth, name one communist country that ever gave a damn about the environment.
Who said anything about communism? I said capitalism. Even though China is socialist, they are trying to move to a more capitalistic economy. They have a stock market and everything. Guess you didn't hear. You need to get out more.

ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
So, in order to avoid financial disaster, revenue must increase. Trickle down, supply side economics doesn't do it. You did not answer my question from above, and it is a simple question...don't be scared of it. It won't bite...too much. In the chart, what color do you see in the Regan-Bush1 area and in the current Bush era. Black or red?

You're simplistic little chart is just that. It proves nothing. There's more to it than your simpleton explanation.

You leave out the most important element, business cycles. They happen, always have, always will. If you think you can continually increase taxes and ignore spending, no matter what is happening in the economy you're really naive. And if you think your model of spend tax, spend tax, will help the economy flourish, that's just plain stupid.
Ah, so your explanation for the national debt rising during Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 is that they just had bad business cycles whereas Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford,Carter, and Clinton did not. Is that your story? Fairy tale is more like it.

Sorry, but they had bad business cycles (recessions), too and still managed to reduce the debt, or at least not allow it to grow. But they did not give massive tax breaks to the wealthy, thus really driving down tax revenues, did they?

utocoman wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: GUEST OPINION: Republicans need to start learning quickly

These writers can not see that deregulation I.E. "less govt." has led to the worst financial crisis since the 30s in the mortgage arena.

Fewer taxes during a war means that the citizens do not feel the need to sacrifice the least and therefore why not continue the wars! Of course the loaned money for the wars from foreign countries will need to be repaid in the future plus interest. But what the heck, let our grandkids suffer not us.

Strong defense would be nice but Bush has decided a strong offense is the way to succeed. No money or troops left for defensive measures.

Immigration issues have long been swept under the table by the old majority. Drilling will not ease the energy crisis, renewables will but of course the old majority is run by oil companies so the propaganda continues.

No mention of global warming but that is not a surprise. Try outliving mother nature, won't happen.

Don't talk to countries we disagree with? Makes no sense, again!

I guess they have made the best case for the new Democratic majority that can be made!!

Fewer taxes during a war?

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Beardsley Ruml admitted that, because of the Fed's ability to tax via inflation, Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete - the title of an essay Ruml published in the January 1946 issue of American Affairs. As Ruml wrote, "given control of a central banking system and an incontrovertible currency [that is, a fiat currency not backed by gold], a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences."(Emphasis added.)

Weren't you paying attention to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke last week, during his congressional testimony?

"Inflation is a tax," Rep. Ron Paul observed during his questioning of Bernanke. "And if the Federal Reserve, and you as chairman, have this authority to increase the money supply arbitrarily, you're probably the biggest taxer in the country."

"I couldn't agree with you more that inflation is a tax," admitted Bernanke, quickly seeking to evade responsibility by saying that "inflation currently is too high."

The Federal reserve exports that inflation world-wide, thanks to the fact that the instrument of debt the Fed calls the "dollar" is the world's reserve currency. This means that nearly everyone who uses the dollar to conduct business is paying the tax called inflation. This is a unique form of withholding, in that the Fed steals an increment of value from each dollar before it ends up in the hands or accounts of private actors in the economy.

Where Washington is concerned, taxation exists purely for the purpose of social manipulation through redistribution of wealth, not to pay the operating costs of government.

Why does the federal government bother with taxes at all? Why not just operate on monetized debt? The answer is twofold. First, if it did, people would begin to wonder where the money is coming from, and that might cause them to wake up to the reality that inflation is a tax. Thus, open taxes, at some level at least, serve to perpetuate public ignorance regarding the reality of deficit spending. But the second reason is more to the point. It is that taxes, particularly progressive taxes, are weapons by which social planners can wage war on one class of citizens for the benefit of another. And no political party loves taxing people as much as the socialist, eugenics, gun control Democratic Party social planners.

truthhurts wrote:
So you think the consumer has a responsibility in the mortgage mess? OK, they do share the blame...about 1% How's that? People will take what is given them...it is human nature. Business, on the other hand is supposed to be a little more intelligent. If a mortgage company is stupid enough to offer no down payment loans for people with shaky credit, people will take them up on it.

I never said it was all the consumers fault. But good grief, only 1%! Who was holding a gun to their head to go into debt up to their eyeballs? But then you don't believe in personal responsibility. So I understand. Our financial system fed this frenzy. They are just as responsible. No down payment, interest only, and unresonable home lines of credit.

In the end, "humans" have personal responsibility. But you just want to say, poor them, they just didn't know better. Duh, they didn't. Neither did the financial institutions.