Housing Crash #2 Under Way?

[Jhhnn]

Here's the quote, one needs to learn how the liberal mind works (think severe mental illness with no basis in reality) to read between their lines.



He's saying "don't blame obama with near super majority democrat house/senate", it's the republicans fault for Obama having to "compromise". That's code for "I'm dissappointed Obama isn't ramming his community organizer communist agenda fast enough, damn those 41 republican senators".

Eitherway, The Obama Economy has been going for well over two years now, all indicators are it's getting worse, unemployment numbers out today = unemployment has RISEN! Home prices still dropping, less jobs, gas prices soaring, cost of living skyrocketing. In case this sounds familiar, think Carter. You're doing a heck of a job "Barry'. Remember, he said he wanted to fundamentally change America, BHO is only doing what he said he would do. May fuck be upon him.

Heh. Just think how much good "austerity" will do for us when enormous deficits only slow the decline.

I've been trying to find just the right words for the condition of the economy that the Bushistas have left us all to deal with. "Raped, pillaged, looted & burned" isn't quite right- "snakebit" is more like it, I'm afraid...

In Spidey's world, it's all Obama's fault, however. Everything. And he thinks the world is falling apart, even as he's looking for his "dream home". Maybe it'll have a 1950's fallout shelter in the backyard, where he can stroke his plastic sheeting & duct tape, count his ammo, jerk off while dreaming of armageddon & shootin' himself a mess of "libruhls".

 

[werepossum]

Your lies are seemingly unlimited. Government's role isn't to directly produce wealth, it's to implement the will of the people, which is does though imperfectly, part of which is to increase wealth through countless things it does to help others directly create it - providing security, providing a currency, providing a marketplace with less fraud and non-productive manipulation (since FDR), and ensuring that productivity isn't in a system of economic slavery of robber barons and a people in total poverty.

Our country is hugely wealthier because of the role government plays; you can't show me a society in human history that has been wealthy without a government.

You lie about 'the best government can do'. When government spends money to establish, say, financial regulations that prevent Savings and Loans from the sorts of fraudulent activities that took place under Reagan, to investigate and prosecute lawbreakers deterring more crime, the country benefits far more from that than "confiscate some money and spend part of it with the private sector to produce some form of wealth, consuming the remainder in the process."

This is why the policies you back are a disaster - you are clueless about their effect.

People without your huge difficulties can understand the history lessons of why the laissez-faire you advocate does not work for a society. Why boarding up the government and handing the keys to Wall Street to do as they will doesn't lead to a thriving society as you claim.

When I defend freedom, I can point to North Korea without it, and our country with it, and discuss the demonstrated benefits.

When you defend that government does nothing good for society, at best only taking its wealth and wasting it, you can't show any society working without government.

If you go back to the most primitive agrarian tribes, you can show societies that didn't need sophisticated financial regulations, but you can bet even they had rules.

So, you are here advocating a policy to remove any role for government, since 'at best all it can do is confiscate and waste money', at a time when the government regulating Wall Street schemes less was a key cause of allowing a few on Wall Street to do things that led to a threat to the global economic system. You are in effect demanding we do more of those harmful things and causing a global depression.

I suspect you will now want to backtrack, change what you said, to try to look for some squiggle room where you didn't mean what you said; you said it.

In so doing, you show there's no point in repeating this response for your edited effort after edited effort - you got it wrong, showing you are an ignorant ideologue.

Um, I never actually said government's role is to directly produce wealth. I am NOT a laissez-faire advocate; I favor limited but smart and strictly enforced regulations, be they environmental, health or business. However, it is undeniably true that (1) government produces no wealth, and (2) the more we grow government, the less private sector is left to support government. I do not advocate removing all government by any means, but half our GDP? Even a fourth of GDP is far too much for the federal government.

In fact, several of my posts in this very thread have been defending government regulation and even advocating additional government regulation, even <gasp> protectionism. You may wish to employ the aid of someone who has at least some rudimentary skills in reading comprehension to explain to you (slowly) the content of each post lest you embarrass yourself further. I recommend contacting your local Catholic Church, as the patience of a saint is surely required for this task. Special ed training wouldn't hurt either. In the mean time, please feel free to point out North Korea as often as possible, since at this time no nation on Earth has a greater government share of GDP. Just as a nation with too little government will inevitably fail, so will a nation with too much government. (My apologies in advance to whomever has to clean up the mess caused by Craig's head exploding when he reads that last phrase. As if there could ever be "too much government"!)

 

[Trianon]

it's got to be comedy hour today:

Alan Greenspan says the only way the U.S. will get its debt and deficit under control is by raising taxes, something he has previously opposed. "The fact that I am in favor of going back to the Clinton tax structure is merely an indicator of how scared I am of this debt problem that has emerged and its order of magnitude," the former Fed chief says.

what's wrong with him, he is afraid of torches and pitchforks?

 

[Zebo]

Clinton's tax structure was about right, shown by almost balance so I'm not sure where you're coming from Trianon. But really what we need is more tax payers & more production less tax liabilities & less consumption to do that requires rethinking our whole off shoring folly.

 

[Trianon]

Clinton's tax structure was about right, shown by almost balance so I'm not sure where you're coming from Trianon. But really what we need is more tax payers & more production less tax liabilities & less consumption to do that requires rethinking our whole off shoring folly.

I am not against raising taxes, I am laughing at the old fool that in good portion enabled the pickle we found ourselves in for 10+ years... so now all of a sudden "maestro" sees the light...

 

[Jhhnn]

I am not against raising taxes, I am laughing at the old fool that in good portion enabled the pickle we found ourselves in for 10+ years... so now all of a sudden "maestro" sees the light...

Greenspan never was stupid, just steeped in the delusions of supply side economics, coddled in an environment of wealth & power.

If anybody should have received an epiphany out of all this, it's him.

 

[Craig234]

Um, I never actually said government's role is to directly produce wealth. I am NOT a laissez-faire advocate; I favor limited but smart and strictly enforced regulations, be they environmental, health or business. However, it is undeniably true that (1) government produces no wealth, and (2) the more we grow government, the less private sector is left to support government. I do not advocate removing all government by any means, but half our GDP? Even a fourth of GDP is far too much for the federal government.

In fact, several of my posts in this very thread have been defending government regulation and even advocating additional government regulation, even <gasp> protectionism. You may wish to employ the aid of someone who has at least some rudimentary skills in reading comprehension to explain to you (slowly) the content of each post lest you embarrass yourself further. I recommend contacting your local Catholic Church, as the patience of a saint is surely required for this task. Special ed training wouldn't hurt either. In the mean time, please feel free to point out North Korea as often as possible, since at this time no nation on Earth has a greater government share of GDP. Just as a nation with too little government will inevitably fail, so will a nation with too much government. (My apologies in advance to whomever has to clean up the mess caused by Craig's head exploding when he reads that last phrase. As if there could ever be "too much government"!)

Typical Werepossum garbage, where you say wrong things, and when called on it, 'I didn't say that!'

You said the following, that THE BEST government can do is to 'confiscate money and waste some of it':

Government produces no wealth; at best, it can confiscate some money and spend part of it with the private sector to produce some form of wealth, consuming the remainder in the process.

I correctly pointed out you are wrong in your statement.

With nowhere to run, I suggested your likely response:

I suspect you will now want to backtrack, change what you said, to try to look for some squiggle room where you didn't mean what you said; you said it.

You proved my post quite correct, doing just that.

There wasn't a word in your post about 'the best government can do' about 'useful regulations important to have', it was a parroted, radical, anti-government screed.

But as predicted, 'you didn't say that!'

You are allowed to change your position - just not to pretend you aren't doing so.

If that were it, that'd be fine, but you then dig your hole deeper with lies attacking, and not only straw men, but a special type.

You repeat my argument as if you are making its point disagreeing with me.

My position has always been that a certain amount of government is useful, and more than far right ideologues say, and less than some who want to much say; you lie about my position, to argue against your lie as if you are refuting my position. When I cite North Korea as a bad example, you call them a bad example as if you are disagreeing with me, as if I'd held them up as a good example and you are attacking that position.

My first sentence was "Your lies are seemingly unlimited." You did not fail to back it up.

 

[Craig234]

it's got to be comedy hour today:

Greenspan: "...this debt problem that has emerged and its order of magnitude"

Notice how he makes it sound like a Tsunami that just 'emerged', not something that policies he supported did anything to cause?

Not like there was a Democratic Party strongly opposing the policy saying that it would greatly increase our debt.

For an added bonus, here's the right-wing Heritage Foundation on the 2001 bill:

The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.

Here was the vote on the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003"

Final House vote:
Vote by Party Yes No
Republicans 224 99.6% 1 0.4%
Democrats 7 3.4% 198 96.6%

Final Senate vote:
Vote by Party Yea Nay
Republicans 48 3
Democrats 2 46

 

[SparkyJJO]

Well then why don't you move to China or India where you can breathe the thick smoggy air and drink the polluted water?

False dilemma. It isn't an either-or like you're making it out to be. It isn't be a tree hugger or live in smog. There is a happy medium, which is the best place to be - care enough to not abuse but not go off the deep end acting like every breath we take kills something.

 

[Doppel]

The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.

Oops!

 

[Trianon]

Greenspan never was stupid, just steeped in the delusions of supply side economics, coddled in an environment of wealth & power.

If anybody should have received an epiphany out of all this, it's him.

So you consider his orchestrated attack of Brooksley Born an honest mistake? What is this country, test tube for his social experiments? He should just keep quiet, because his squawking is annoying. Where are tar and feathers? I am not in a mood to forgive and forget.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you consider his orchestrated attack of Brooksley Born an honest mistake? What is this country, test tube for his social experiments? He should just keep quiet, because his squawking is annoying. Where are tar and feathers? I am not in a mood to forgive and forget.

Did I put words in your mouth? No?

Then please extend me the same respect. Thanks.

 

[Trianon]

Did I put words in your mouth? No?

Then please extend me the same respect. Thanks.

I am not attacking you, sorry, if it may have sounded that way, just saying that things were done deliberately, it's not a Black Swan to anyone complicit, there were voices of reason with good arguments from the very beginning. What Greenspan is doing now is pure lipservice in hope of public indulgence.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am not attacking you, sorry, if it may have sounded that way, just saying that things were done deliberately, it's not a Black Swan to anyone complicit, there were voices of reason with good arguments from the very beginning. What Greenspan is doing now is pure lipservice in hope of public indulgence.

You may be entirely correct, or Greenspan is just the victim of believing his own bullshit. The phenomenon is quite common on the Right, where ideological blinders prevent recognition of the possibilities of unintended consequences.

 

[Trianon]

You may be entirely correct, or Greenspan is just the victim of believing his own bullshit. The phenomenon is quite common on the Right, where ideological blinders prevent recognition of the possibilities of unintended consequences.

there is an interesting quote related to our situation:

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

 

[LegendKiller]

Oops!

Laugher Curves!!!

Gotta love those conservative think tanks. Funny, that's the same one which advocated Reaganomics, look where that's gotten us in 30 years, debt debt debt.

But if we cut taxes more, more rich people will spend more on Lamborghinis and we will all profit, somehow, by them buying Italian or German luxury cars...somehow.

Laugher Curves!

 

[Zebo]

Pretty good deal though - profit on the front end by "shorting" America and on the back end by tax free interest payments all Americans must pay with IRS as collector you or go to jail. And don't tell me about the 10 saving bonds y'all own own grandma got ya or you bought as a one off. 99&#37; of debt is owned by uber wealthy who will be paid back. Benny the B is making you well aware of that.

 

[Zebo]

Rice, beans, bullets, fresh water supply, GOOD first aid kit and how to use it (eagle scout here). I'm prepped I suggest all others to do the same. Got all kinds of cold weather gear from camping/hiking/fishing so I'm covered there. When it comes, and it is coming, be prepared.

When people's labor can't get the basic needs for survival (off shoring/shuttered factories)....your only mathematical choice is FORCE, absent someone giving you (govt), what you and your family need. Wonderful America we have created...didn't have to be this way...and still doesn't.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pretty good deal though - profit on the front end by "shorting" America and on the back end by tax free interest payments all Americans must pay with IRS as collector you or go to jail. And don't tell me about the 10 saving bonds y'all own own grandma got ya or you bought as a one off. 99% of debt is owned by uber wealthy who will be paid back. Benny the B is making you well aware of that.

Federal dividend taxes apply to earnings from US govt securities, while state & local taxes do not. The opposite is generally true as well, iirc...

 

[werepossum]

Typical Werepossum garbage, where you say wrong things, and when called on it, 'I didn't say that!'

You said the following, that THE BEST government can do is to 'confiscate money and waste some of it':



I correctly pointed out you are wrong in your statement.

With nowhere to run, I suggested your likely response:



You proved my post quite correct, doing just that.

There wasn't a word in your post about 'the best government can do' about 'useful regulations important to have', it was a parroted, radical, anti-government screed.

But as predicted, 'you didn't say that!'

You are allowed to change your position - just not to pretend you aren't doing so.

If that were it, that'd be fine, but you then dig your hole deeper with lies attacking, and not only straw men, but a special type.

You repeat my argument as if you are making its point disagreeing with me.

My position has always been that a certain amount of government is useful, and more than far right ideologues say, and less than some who want to much say; you lie about my position, to argue against your lie as if you are refuting my position. When I cite North Korea as a bad example, you call them a bad example as if you are disagreeing with me, as if I'd held them up as a good example and you are attacking that position.

My first sentence was "Your lies are seemingly unlimited." You did not fail to back it up.

Again, I can only suggest that you acquire some qualified assistance in reading threads before you post further idiocy. The closest government can come to creating wealth IS to confiscate some wealth and return some portion of that wealth to the private sector. This is how roads, bridges, ports, and airports are created, by the way. Teams of government workers don't descend, cement mixers in tow; they subcontract the actual work to the private sector. (Army corps of engineers admittedly provides a small exception to this; they do a lot of their own dredging and levee construction.) Government does not create wealth through regulation; regulation reduces a society's total wealth. Regulation is intended to shape the total wealth created to be of more use to society and to prevent undesirable side affects.

As an example, flattening a mountaintop and digging out every bit of coal produces the absolute greatest wealth increase in a society. Government regulation limits this wealth by not allowing such behavior because of the disastrous side effects, i.e. stream destruction, loss of habitat, increased erosion, destruction of public and of others' private property. Really, even you could understand this, if you'd get past this concept you hold so dear that government = G-d and must therefore never be criticized nor its growth in power ever threatened.

 

[werepossum]

Clinton's tax structure was about right, shown by almost balance so I'm not sure where you're coming from Trianon. But really what we need is more tax payers & more production less tax liabilities & less consumption to do that requires rethinking our whole off shoring folly.

Clinton's tax structure in conjunction with the Republican Congress' spending. Clinton's tax structure with the last democrat Congress, the current mixed Congress, and the largely identical Republican Congress under Bush II would still be disastrous. I agree completely with the rest though.

 

[blackangst1]

When people's labor can't get the basic needs for survival (off shoring/shuttered factories)....your only mathematical choice is FORCE, absent someone giving you (govt), what you and your family need. Wonderful America we have created...didn't have to be this way...and still doesn't.

Honest question...could minimum wage EVER have been thought of as a living wage?

Nevermind. The answer is no.

 

[LegendKiller]

Honest question...could minimum wage EVER have been thought of as a living wage?

Nevermind. The answer is no.

Depends on how many hours are worked. Nobody advocated it being a 40-hour living-wage solution. I think that many people have forgotten how to work multiple jobs. My dad had 4 at one time before I was born and my brother and sister needed to be supported. He often pulled 80+ hour weeks so my mom would only have to work one job.

 

[Zebo]

Honest question...could minimum wage EVER have been thought of as a living wage?

Nevermind. The answer is no.

Depends what you mean by living.

You can eat beans and rice for $40 a month.
bunk up with another minimum wager in a $600 apartment = $300.

Yeah it can be done and you could save money after you read millionaire next door. Will you be having $150 cable bills, watching a 50" plasma, iphone, driving a new car? hell no.

If you're older health insurance will kill you though.

 

[Engineer]

Laugher Curves!!!

Gotta love those conservative think tanks. Funny, that's the same one which advocated Reaganomics, look where that's gotten us in 30 years, debt debt debt.

But if we cut taxes more, more rich people will spend more on Lamborghinis and we will all profit, somehow, by them buying Italian or German luxury cars...somehow.

Laugher Curves!

Always reminds me of this...