Heartland

The Republican party looks insane from a rational standpoint.

As do most religious-based ideals.

nowayjose wrote:

markfiend wrote:The Republican party looks insane from a rational standpoint.

They're sane and logical considering the motivation for their politics is the continued fleecing of a controlled majority by a minority. If you can tell people how they should have sex (and if), you have them by the balls, literally. Religion provides the wider framework for that. And the rest is just about making sustainable profit off of those you control.

Heh true.

markfiend wrote:Just because Fox News wants to paint Obama as vague, you'll swallow it hook, line and sinker?

Not quite - I would consider myself a Democrat (although not being able to vote it doesn't make a lot of difference), but also a liberal, which puts me in a difficult position. On the one hand I would like to see the Republicans pwned in November, on the other I'm not entirely OK with idea of having to pay for Mr. Obama's policies which is what will happen if he wins.
It is a sad truism that as the years pass the waistline expands while the mind narrows - 20 years ago I'd have said, "tax the rich up the wazoo and put all these social programs in place." But then 20 years ago I wasn't a tax payer. Now I'm uncomfortable with the idea (for example) that Mr. Obama would like to make companies adopt what he refers to as a "socially-responsible attitude". As a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the supremacy of the Free Market, I believe that companies answer only to their shareholders, and do the things to increase shareholder value (although I will make an exception for SSV). While the Republicans are not saying that they'll do away with subsidies for companies that can't compete on a global scale, that they'll tear down tariff barriers, and that they'll do right by the WTO, neither are the Democrats. However, the Democrats are proposing things for which the funding (having listened closely to Mr. Obama) will hit me squarely in the wallet without reducing the existing burden.

But for the record I don't watch Fox News - not having cable means that Bill O'Reilly's ranting is unavailable to me. What I've seen of him leads me to believe that he's a colossal prick, and with Murdoch at the helm I figure they don't need my money either.

The Fox News thing was a cheap jibe, I apologise.

I guess you get to choose between higher taxes under Obama (which I wouldn't really expect to hit you too hard unless you're in McCain's "middle class" earning over $5million a year) or the economy tanking (even further) under McCain.

The "Free Market" is a con by the way. The economics under which free market theories were developed have as their central assumption that all economic actors make the perfect decisions in terms of their own self-interest. This is quite simply laughable on its face. In fact research suggests that people don't behave much differently from random decisions when analysed statistically.

or the economy tanking (even further) under McCain.

Why would that happen?

Fact is, economic cycles come and go and have very little to do with the political climate, and I wish people would stop making this out to be the case.

We've had one of the largest cycles of economic growth in history since 2001, but it has nothing much to do with Bush. It has more to do with the Fed keeping rates low.

The current "bust" has more to do with people getting themselves into suicide mortgages, spending home equity they shouldn't have, and an increasing demand for global resources.

nodubmanshouts wrote:The current "bust" has more to do with people getting themselves into suicide mortgages, spending home equity they shouldn't have, and an increasing demand for global resources.

That's the free market for you.

Yes, that's what it does. It goes up and down. Better alternative?

Regulation so that banks can't sell people mortgages that they can't pay back?

Regulation so that banks can't sell people mortgages that they can't pay back?

And how would you define "can't pay back?".

If some dweeb wants to lie and over-declare his income, I don't see that as the bank's fault.

markfiend wrote:The Fox News thing was a cheap jibe, I apologise.

No need - I'd like to think that we've known each other long enough (are you feeling warm n'fuzzy yet? ) that we can take the occasional shot at each other without it turning into a drama-fest .

For all the free-market may be a con, I'd far rather that commerce made decisions in the interests of capital than politicians did. Governments are very bad at doing anything other than spending other peoples' money unwisely, while businesses have to account for every dime, penny and shekel. The only businesses that relish state intervention are the ones that can't compete on a global scale, and the sooner these go to the wall (with the concomitant social costs, naturally) the better off we'll be as a world. Why should people in Syria be denied access to PhotoShop, or Cuba not be allowed to sell sugar to the US? By building trading links with other countries, as opposed to restricting trade with countries that the government doesn't like (that's the government's problem, not mine) we might be able to fix some of the inequalities. Witness Israel's restriction of trade in the occupied territories - without the ability to trade with its neighbours, a Palestinian state will never be a viable proposition, and the grim cycle of the last 60 years will be repeated, yea unto the 7th generation.

I'd doubt that anyone can pay back a loan where their monthly repayments are more than their readily available income.

When "some dweeb" is being told by his mortgage lender to lie on the forms, it is the bank's (or at least the salesman's) fault, and that should be regulated.

It's not as if it's hard to check anyway, do you not need to produce evidence of your claimed income?

markfiend wrote:

nodubmanshouts wrote:The current "bust" has more to do with people getting themselves into suicide mortgages, spending home equity they shouldn't have, and an increasing demand for global resources.

That's the free market for you.

Don't you just love it? The free market made it possible for these people to f*ck themselves, and now the government (and by extension, you) have to bail these bozos out. Better a few years of economic pain than a lifetime of having to carry people who lack the fiscal discipline to wait for jam tomorrow. Caveat emptor, caveat venditor.

markfiend wrote:When "some dweeb" is being told by his mortgage lender to lie on the forms, it is the bank's (or at least the salesman's) fault, and that should be regulated.

If your mortgage lender told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it? So why is it the lender's problem when you get yourself into debt that you can't service? What really irks me is that there are politicians who act as if the banks wanted these people to default, that they wanted to get into the property management business and have a portfolio of vacant homes on their books that they can't shift. Those same banks will answer to their shareholders - the shareholders will bring the pain, the bad banks will fold while the good ones reap the rewards. So Sayeth The Market. Government regulation is one of the reasons that the US financial markets are no longer as attractive to foreign investors as once they were. Even The Economist (that bastion of socialist thinking ) believes that Sarbanes Oxley goes too far - maybe it's time the govt took heed.

Overregulation is as bad as underregulation, however, I think the financial markets are severely underregulated. They're also stuffed with idiots who are nothing more than professional gamblers.

markfiend wrote:I'd doubt that anyone can pay back a loan where their monthly repayments are more than their readily available income.

When "some dweeb" is being told by his mortgage lender to lie on the forms, it is the bank's (or at least the salesman's) fault, and that should be regulated.

It's not as if it's hard to check anyway, do you not need to produce evidence of your claimed income?

I guess I'm a heartless bastard. If you (generic "you," everyone!) structure your mortgage so that you are broke at the end of the month, you deserve what's coming to you. These guys--in the US--got screwed because they met minimum requirements and took out maximum loans (one of my students calls them "$30,000 millionaires"). That's all well and good, I guess, if prices are stable and you make enough to cover all your debts and living expenses, but the moment inflation hits the market (say, because of rising energy prices), you are, as my sainted grandmother used to say, "scunthy."

Now, to put on my grumpy old man hat, this is the fault less of government than of parents who never said "no" to their children. I see it today in my students, and I have seen it for years in my contemporaries. People get used to instant gratification, and they don't learn how to do things like save money and plan for the proverbial rainy day. To be honest--again, heartless bastard time--I think the best thing that could happen in this circumstances is to let these people lose their houses and suffer the consequences. To do otherwise is a moral hazard, in effect rewarding stupid or risky behavior, and thereby encouraging it.


Oh, and someone mentioned Obama and socialism. I don't think he has said anything explicit, but a couple of prominent Democrats in Congress have called for nationalizing the oil industry in the United States.

sultan2075 wrote:I guess I'm a heartless bastard. If you (generic "you," everyone!) structure your mortgage so that you are broke at the end of the month, you deserve what's coming to you....
This is the fault less of government than of parents who never said "no" to their children. I see it today in my students, and I have seen it for years in my contemporaries. People get used to instant gratification, and they don't learn how to do things like save money and plan for the proverbial rainy day. To be honest--again, heartless bastard time--I think the best thing that could happen in this circumstances is to let these people lose their houses and suffer the consequences. To do otherwise is a moral hazard, in effect rewarding stupid or risky behavior, and thereby encouraging it.

No chance, I suppose, that you're female, cute, and available, because I want to marry you

Say you'll be mine - please?

EvilBastard wrote:

No chance, I suppose, that you're female, cute, and available, because I want to marry you

Say you'll be mine - please?

Alas, no... male, staggeringly handsome in a mountain-man kind of way, and married to a gorgeous gal from Vilnius. You lose on all counts Sorry to break your heart!

EvilBastard wrote:If your mortgage lender told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it? So why is it the lender's problem when you get yourself into debt that you can't service? What really irks me is that there are politicians who act as if the banks wanted these people to default, that they wanted to get into the property management business and have a portfolio of vacant homes on their books that they can't shift.

I can't understand how they didn't see it coming. Of course it's the lender's problem if people are defaulting on loans -- they won't get their money back. The banks have been irresponsible enough to loan money to people who can't pay it back. I'd rather some regulation to prevent irresponsible lending (and borrowing) in the first place to bailing out banks at the taxpayer's expense. You say it yourself:

EvilBastard wrote:The free market made it possible for these people to f*ck themselves, and now the government (and by extension, you) have to bail these bozos out. Better a few years of economic pain than a lifetime of having to carry people who lack the fiscal discipline to wait for jam tomorrow.

Well, there already is that kind of regulation.

The problem is, people took advantage of a lending loop hole designed for people with irregular incomes who can't produce definite income statements for every year. If you tighten that loop hole, you protect the suicide-mortgage holders, but leave those with unstable income without an avenue to get a loan.

Unfortunately, the government owns the mortgage security companies, so will have to bail them out.

@nodubman...as to why I am no longer "proud to be an American", it's more because of the way the country is run and the way other nations perceive us. 90% of Americans (that I know) are good people. That isn't my complaint. The fact that our government continues to support countries whose human rights records are atrocious is a problem. Continued support of Israel is another. Trampling of civil rights of its own citizens ranks high. Denying equal rights to ALL citizens pisses me off. Fighting needless/sensless wars makes me sick. The arrogance of the government and the rich people who run it makes alot of others hate the average US citizen who is just stuggling to keep a roof over their heads and make it through another day. I could go on & on. However, I think had it right when he said he was only surprised that it took so long for somebody to do a 9/11. Sad that so many innocents died because of our government policies. Oh and one more thing I find embarrassing is how our president could go about his pesonal life while people were dying and suffering in New Orleans after Katina.

I'd love to hear from people in other countries what their homeless, murder, crime, illiteracy, unemployment , etc.. rates are? Just to compare.

The great thing about being an American is you can disagree with the polices and practices of the government.... isn't THAT something to be proud of?

I'm finding a lot of your complaints fairly vague and without substance, but I'll agree with you on some of them.

If you're genuinely embarrassed, why not move to another country and see how the other half lives? Then you won't have to worry about the hipocracy of reaping the benefits of those policies.

I'll concede defeat on the mortgage regulation issue.

So, Hurricane Gustav then? Will it have any effect on the outcome of the election?

nodubmanshouts wrote:The great thing about being an American is you can disagree with the polices and practices of the government.... isn't THAT something to be proud of?

That isn't an exclusively American thing.

Is America too racist to elect Obama? Clicky.