Fox business GOP debate

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,959
27,639
136
Hell yes!

real-median-household-income.png

You do realize that drop happened because of the financial collapse of 07-08?

BTW - you want to go back to us losing 800K jobs a month too?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
So (THE ENDLESS DISCUSSION...) you still think it's more important that the gvt goes after Jose and Ramirez who might work the odd job somewhere in a factory for likely less than min. wage, under the table - but have companies/corporates continue to move production to China, hire Indian freelancers, have your clothes stitched in Pakistan and hire H1Bs from India and China - LEGALLY.

You realize that going after Jose and Ramirez is a fricking joke as long as this much more pressing issue is not addressed?

As already pointed out thousand times, go and deport ALL illegals right now (not that this even remotely practicable/doable, costs not even taken into account...SOMEONE has to pay for tripling enforcing agents, detention centers etc.), the impact on our economy is very likely negligible as long as the rest, what companies can legally do is not addressed.

But this is what you get with a full-blown IDIOT as political candidate. His (Trump's) "proposals" are as stupid and in-practical as basically EVERYTHING he ever said up to date. A full blown moron. The result of his "policies" would be a ton of time/money spent for absolute nonsense which will DO NOTHING. Sometimes I actually wish Trump becoming prez just so that it can become obvious how idiotic and non-workable his "ideas" really are.

Have you noticed that we are where we are because we have elected sound and sensible establishment politicians and the American people are going down the toilet? If the government elites won't fix it and they won't fix it, it is up to the people to break it one way or another. We need a black swan event in our politics and for my money only Sanders or Trump can provide it. If we can't have socialism than lets have Shiva.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
If the government elites won't fix it and they won't fix it, it is up to the people to break it one way or another. We need a black swan event in our politics and for my money only Sanders or Trump can provide it. If we can't have socialism than lets have Shiva.

If Sanders wins somehow then it is time to quit working and join the majority of people who have concluded that we will never run out of other people's money. Once we are all dependent on government, and disarmed, our troubles will soon be over.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
If Sanders wins somehow then it is time to quit working and join the majority of people who have concluded that we will never run out of other people's money. Once we are all dependent on government, and disarmed, our troubles will soon be over.

My apologies, but I believe that your post is the result of the fact that you have been programmed to be full of shit. When Jimmy Carter was president working people were doing fairly well. All we've done since then is tilt further and further to the right. You have been programmed by the rich and are only a mechanical parrot to be used to keep them that way in my opinion.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
If Sanders wins somehow then it is time to quit working and join the majority of people who have concluded that we will never run out of other people's money. Once we are all dependent on government, and disarmed, our troubles will soon be over.

That age-old, age-old argument. "Other people's money" is being spent already and ANYWAY. We're already living in "socialism", whether you believe it or not. And whether you believe it or not, not ALL of your money is spent wisely. (Do I really have to point this out?)

There won't ever be a society where each individual lives autonomic without any government, laws, taxes etc. It's time that money is spent WISELY for the benefit of the society, not those who are already well off.

** Many other modern Western societies have things such as "free" healthcare, free education, better social nets etc...and NONE of those societies does poorly because of that. It's YOU guys who are doing poorly seeing how some folks need to work three jobs just "to get by" and to pay off their CC debt. Those 1% at the top don't count (for me), they're just good for nice statistics and numbers.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,875
136
If Sanders wins somehow then it is time to quit working and join the majority of people who have concluded that we will never run out of other people's money. Once we are all dependent on government, and disarmed, our troubles will soon be over.

You should totally stop working! Then you may be able to finally see just how fucking stupid you and your views are.

BTW suicides and drug overdoses are up among white middle aged men, that's got to totally suck for you as well. I suggest to hide your gun, we don't need another notch on that statistic, do we?
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,066
1,550
126
GOP will lose the debate. By that I mean, all candidates will make fools of themselves, spread lies and misinformation, and generally, will be less popular after the debate than before it.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
So (THE ENDLESS DISCUSSION...) you still think it's more important that the gvt goes after Jose and Ramirez who might work the odd job somewhere in a factory for likely less than min. wage, under the table - but have companies/corporates continue to move production to China, hire Indian freelancers, have your clothes stitched in Pakistan and hire H1Bs from India and China - LEGALLY.

You realize that going after Jose and Ramirez is a fricking joke as long as this much more pressing issue is not addressed?

As already pointed out thousand times, go and deport ALL illegals right now (not that this even remotely practicable/doable, costs not even taken into account...SOMEONE has to pay for tripling enforcing agents, detention centers etc.), the impact on our economy is very likely negligible as long as the rest, what companies can legally do is not addressed.

But this is what you get with a full-blown IDIOT as political candidate. His (Trump's) "proposals" are as stupid and in-practical as basically EVERYTHING he ever said up to date. A full blown moron. The result of his "policies" would be a ton of time/money spent for absolute nonsense which will DO NOTHING. Sometimes I actually wish Trump becoming prez just so that it can become obvious how idiotic and non-workable his "ideas" really are.

Have you not heard that he would overhaul H1Bs?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Please. Repubs have occupied a blocking position in Congress since Ted Kennedy died in 2009 & have used it relentlessly.

Republicans intend to address the problem in what way, exactly, other than more of the same, harder & deeper?

We've created a system where the market advantages enjoyed by the financial elite have allowed for runaway inequality. That inequality compounds on itself. It's the very nature of financialized Capitalism for that to happen. It will continue to accelerate unless some means are employed to change it.

After following their leadership & ideology to get where we are today, what do Republicans propose?

"I think that we ought to look where income inequality seems to be the worst. It seems to be worst in cities run by Democrats, states run by Democrats and countries currently run by Democrats. .. . The bottom line is: If you want less income inequality, move to a city with a Republican mayor or a state with a Republican governor." - Rand Paul

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-economically-unequal-states-are-democratic/
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,497
15,729
136
"I think that we ought to look where income inequality seems to be the worst. It seems to be worst in cities run by Democrats, states run by Democrats and countries currently run by Democrats. .. . The bottom line is: If you want less income inequality, move to a city with a Republican mayor or a state with a Republican governor." - Rand Paul

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-economically-unequal-states-are-democratic/

While I don't have numbers to back this claim up it seems like everyone makes less money in those states. Not sure if its a trade I'd want to make
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,403
136
Negotiating fair trade deals that address currency manipulation, encouraging Americans to save more for their retirement, and reducing the government deficit would be a hell of a good start. And the last thing we need to do is raise interest rates.

Good news for you then, Obama just signed such a deal meant to discourage currency manipulation.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...n-pact-promising-to-end-currency-manipulation

I have no idea how encouraging retirement savings or reducing the budget deficit would improve wage growth (or other growth for that matter) What is the economic mechanism for this?

I mean the only part of your series of suggestions for growth that seems rationally related to growth is something Obama already did. I guess you will now be very pleased with his economic leadership, right? Time to keep the democrats in?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,403
136
"I think that we ought to look where income inequality seems to be the worst. It seems to be worst in cities run by Democrats, states run by Democrats and countries currently run by Democrats. .. . The bottom line is: If you want less income inequality, move to a city with a Republican mayor or a state with a Republican governor." - Rand Paul

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-economically-unequal-states-are-democratic/

It seems odd to link an article after quoting Rand Paul that basically says he's technically right but that his point is kind of meaningless bullshit.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Good news for you then, Obama just signed such a deal meant to discourage currency manipulation.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...n-pact-promising-to-end-currency-manipulation

I have no idea how encouraging retirement savings or reducing the budget deficit would improve wage growth (or other growth for that matter) What is the economic mechanism for this?

I mean the only part of your series of suggestions for growth that seems rationally related to growth is something Obama already did. I guess you will now be very pleased with his economic leadership, right? Time to keep the democrats in?

So when are they going to label China a currency manipulator? They haven't done so for almost 20 years. Might as well name anybody who maintains a currency peg where the dollar is a significant portion of the currency bucket.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
"I think that we ought to look where income inequality seems to be the worst. It seems to be worst in cities run by Democrats, states run by Democrats and countries currently run by Democrats. .. . The bottom line is: If you want less income inequality, move to a city with a Republican mayor or a state with a Republican governor." - Rand Paul

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-economically-unequal-states-are-democratic/

Rand Paul's opinion? What did you expect him to say?

It's not really true-

economix-20ginimap-blog480.jpg


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/new-york-state-leads-in-income-inequality/?_r=0

The truth is that the advent of Reaganomics benefited the top 1% & particularly the top .1% in a cumulative way no matter where they live.

The top 1% of income earners received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[22] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3-4% between 1951-1981.[22][25] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[26] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of $388,900 was required to be in the top 1% in 2011.[27]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[28] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Much of which is a consequence of private debt & securitization. The debt of the 99.9% is the wealth of the .1% & they're squeezing out every nickel, squeezing it hard enough to break it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-or-restructure-debt-us-citizens-hold/260155/
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Rand Paul's opinion? What did you expect him to say?

It's not really true-

economix-20ginimap-blog480.jpg


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/new-york-state-leads-in-income-inequality/?_r=0

The truth is that the advent of Reaganomics benefited the top 1% & particularly the top .1% in a cumulative way no matter where they live.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Much of which is a consequence of private debt & securitization. The debt of the 99.9% is the wealth of the .1% & they're squeezing out every nickel, squeezing it hard enough to break it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-or-restructure-debt-us-citizens-hold/260155/

Securitization is to blame for wealth concentration?

Really?

You do know that before there was securitization the loans were just owned by banks or the GSEs, which issued bonds (and equity), which were bought by mutual funds and pensions, and the .1%?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Securitization is to blame for wealth concentration?

Really?

You do know that before there was securitization the loans were just owned by banks or the GSEs, which issued bonds (and equity), which were bought by mutual funds and pensions, and the .1%?

Please. Securitization allows for money making conflicts of interest not available otherwise. Lenders who hold debt themselves want good debt while securitizers only want debt they can sell. They've been free to bet against their own creations in the synthetic derivatives market.

Witness Magnetar.

It's why working people's pensions & mutuals got hammered in the aftermath of the Ownership Society looting spree. They were sold bonds that were built to fail.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Please. Securitization allows for money making conflicts of interest not available otherwise. Lenders who hold debt themselves want good debt while securitizers only want debt they can sell. They've been free to bet against their own creations in the synthetic derivatives market.

Witness Magnetar.

It's why working people's pensions & mutuals got hammered in the aftermath of the Ownership Society looting spree. They were sold bonds that were built to fail.
If you had to guess, what % of securitized aasets, since the first rbms bond was sold in the late 70s, have gone bad? Hint - as a % of total issuance, not much at all.

To follow that up, if you had to guess, how many CLO BBB bonds lost money in the crisis? Hint - not a single CLO BBB or above bond has ever lost money.

How many subprime auto bonds lost money, from any part of the capital stack? Hint - as far as I know there wasn't a single major issuer, which I would term as anybody who routinely issues abs, ever lost money even down to bb bonds.

How many credit card bonds have ever lost money? Hint - only one credit card trust has ever folded and AAA investors were fully repaid.

You take one egregious example and vilify everything and blame it for wealth inequality yet fail to consider some simple facts.

I do know some cases that were bad for abs investors, but many were outright fraud that has happened since the beginning of time.

Securitization is a tool that has massively reduced borrowing costs. That some misuse the tool, in a very small amount, is not reason to ban the tool.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If you had to guess, what % of securitized aasets, since the first rbms bond was sold in the late 70s, have gone bad? Hint - as a % of total issuance, not much at all.

To follow that up, if you had to guess, how many CLO BBB bonds lost money in the crisis? Hint - not a single CLO BBB or above bond has ever lost money.

How many subprime auto bonds lost money, from any part of the capital stack? Hint - as far as I know there wasn't a single major issuer, which I would term as anybody who routinely issues abs, ever lost money even down to bb bonds.

How many credit card bonds have ever lost money? Hint - only one credit card trust has ever folded and AAA investors were fully repaid.

You take one egregious example and vilify everything and blame it for wealth inequality yet fail to consider some simple facts.

I do know some cases that were bad for abs investors, but many were outright fraud that has happened since the beginning of time.

Securitization is a tool that has massively reduced borrowing costs. That some misuse the tool, in a very small amount, is not reason to ban the tool.

I never suggested that securitization should be banned.

Your offer that "the tool" has only been misused in a small amount is ludicrous. Exploitation of it was the root cause of the housing bubble.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I never suggested that securitization should be banned.

Your offer that "the tool" has only been misused in a small amount is ludicrous. Exploitation of it was the root cause of the housing bubble.
Exploitation of a small part in history was a root cause of it, sure.

A lot of the worst abuse was caused by gain on sale accounting, which has been eliminated.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Exploitation of a small part in history was a root cause of it, sure.

A lot of the worst abuse was caused by gain on sale accounting, which has been eliminated.

A small part of history... so was the Great Depression along with the panics of 1893 & 1873, not to mention what happened in 1980 or so, with the S&L crisis & with the tech bust.

When we create a market structure in which such things can occur, they will occur, simply due to greed at the top. Repubs obviously see boom/bust cycles as a good thing, otherwise they wouldn't promote market structures enabling them.

Every cycle since 1980 has succeeded in beating down the middle class a little more & a little more. That's what their ideology has yielded, plain & simple.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
A small part of history... so was the Great Depression along with the panics of 1893 & 1873, not to mention what happened in 1980 or so, with the S&L crisis & with the tech bust.

When we create a market structure in which such things can occur, they will occur, simply due to greed at the top. Repubs obviously see boom/bust cycles as a good thing, otherwise they wouldn't promote market structures enabling them.

Every cycle since 1980 has succeeded in beating down the middle class a little more & a little more. That's what their ideology has yielded, plain & simple.

So there was securitization in 1893?

That somebody owns a loan is not crushing the middle class. That we have "free markets" when nobody else plays by those rules internationally is what is crushing the middle class.

Germany has securitization too, but they are doing much better for the middle class.