Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why do neo-conservatives who are suffering financially due to eight years of Republican rule complai

13»

Comments

  • declaredemerdeclaredemer Member Posts: 2,698
    Originally posted by Aelfinn

    Originally posted by declaredemer


    1.  Deregulation led to the S&L crisis of the early 1990s because many S&Ls used there newly found freedom to invest in risky commercial ventures.  The mortgage trading business is really caused the crisis we are in.  It is very uncommon for a bank to hold in its portfolio the mortgages it creases.  A bank creates a mortgage, keeps a fee and frees up its capital to make additional loans.  Its mortgages are combined with other mortages and split up and reformed into securities called collateralized debt obligations (or collateralized mortgage obligations).  Honestly, I do not fully understand them; it seems like something fishy to ME, probably because I do not have a full understanding of them.  The purchasers of CDOs are institutional investors that include pension funds and insurance companies and investment banks.  They have immense pools of cash to invest, and the CDOs are good investments because the risk of default is supposed to be low and the return is supposed to be higher than traditional debt.
    The process of this entire system is administered by two QUASI-GOVERNMENT agencies, which are Faderal National MOrtgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).  They buy vast amounts of mortgage loans, combine them into pools, and resell them to institutional investors such as investment banks.  The institutional investors are saved the trouble of examining credit worthiness anof borrowers because the lender is supposed to do that.  
    The homeowner has no idea that their mortgage is resold into this massive secondary market, and it gets annoying when I hear them get blamed for it.



     

    1.) You went off on an entirely meaningless tangent there, the point was that the environment of easy loan money came as a direct result of Democratic decisions.

    2.) More than half of this stimulus plan is going towards private projects and various Liberal agendas, not key segments of the economy. I would definitely say the claim has substance.

    3.) How the hell did you miss this one? They haven't actually given an ultimatum like the one above, but they have publicly objected to many of Obama's actions, both taken and threatened. They have also declared sovereignty, and listed specific cases in which a state can legally secede from the Union. The logical next step is just such an ultimatum. Link The man might stop short of causing the second US civil war, but he is still making great strides to nail a wedge between the states and the Federal government.

    P.S. The ones in question are Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. Just in case you thought this was related to any one party.

    4.) Like I said before, there is a barndoor's width of room for doubt on this point, and if Obama turns out to be the first politician in over a century to not have fooled his followers in something, I will be listening hard for the sound of avian porcines.

     

    1.  Explaining what caused the housing crisis --risky and greedy investments in CDOs-- is an "unnecessary tangent"?  That is absurd, so absurd it does not even require an attack. Some of you REALLY believe that little homeowners like yourselves, or your parents, could crash the economy. Hehe.

    2.  Infrastructure could be the next BUBBLE, especially if public lands are sold-off for pennies on the dollars; it is the same banks that caused the housing crisis that will be at the center of purchasing lands for the infrastructure building projects.  Sure, you could be right.  You could be wrong.

    3.  Huh?

    4.  Obama is trying to help the country and economy.  Of course republicans hate that; they are supply-side economists and believe that what is good for the wealthy is, somehow and ultimately, good for regular folks.

  • AelfinnAelfinn Member Posts: 3,857
    Originally posted by declaredemer

    Originally posted by Aelfinn
    1.) You went off on an entirely meaningless tangent there, the point was that the environment of easy loan money came as a direct result of Democratic decisions.
    2.) More than half of this stimulus plan is going towards private projects and various Liberal agendas, not key segments of the economy. I would definitely say the claim has substance.
    3.) How the hell did you miss this one? They haven't actually given an ultimatum like the one above, but they have publicly objected to many of Obama's actions, both taken and threatened. They have also declared sovereignty, and listed specific cases in which a state can legally secede from the Union. The logical next step is just such an ultimatum. Link The man might stop short of causing the second US civil war, but he is still making great strides to nail a wedge between the states and the Federal government.
    P.S. The ones in question are Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. Just in case you thought this was related to any one party.
    4.) Like I said before, there is a barndoor's width of room for doubt on this point, and if Obama turns out to be the first politician in over a century to not have fooled his followers in something, I will be listening hard for the sound of avian porcines.

     

    1.  Explaining what caused the housing crisis --risky and greedy investments in CDOs-- is an "unnecessary tangent"?  That is absurd, so absurd it does not even require an attack. Some of you REALLY believe that little homeowners like yourselves, or your parents, could crash the economy. Hehe.

    2.  Infrastructure could be the next BUBBLE, especially if public lands are sold-off for pennies on the dollars; it is the same banks that caused the housing crisis that will be at the center of purchasing lands for the infrastructure building projects.  Sure, you could be right.  You could be wrong.

    3.  Huh?

    4.  Obama is trying to help the country and economy.  Of course republicans hate that; they are supply-side economists and believe that what is good for the wealthy is, somehow and ultimately, good for regular folks.



     

    1.) I said it was meaningless because it failed to adress the original point. The described investments are a risky problem, and certainly one that should be addressed, but it causes significant issues ONLY if the number of people who fail to meet payments does not remain low. As pointed out by Enigma and myself, the increased number of defaulted loans that triggered the problem came from the decisions made during the Clinton administration that made obtaining loans easy for those with poor credit. Frankly though, nearly every American that has been an adult for more than the past 5-10 years shares some of the blame.

    2.) Point conceded for now, the meaning of these efforts are largely a matter of opinion, and only time will tell which of us is right on what effect they will have.

    3.) Just follow the embedded link, the trump line is that the Obama administration has overstepped the limits of authority the Federal government is allowed to hold and several states are pissing vinegar over it, as they certainly should be. Allowing the new prez to violate the Constitution in such a matter in his first month on the job is hardly a good way to avoid problems later down the road.

    4.) If we believed that such were his principle goals, and if we believed that his proposed methods had any chance of working in the long run much less the short, I think you would find that the majority of Republicans are much more than willing to support him. We are not, and never would be willing to intentionally harm the US in favor of such rediculous ideals. The schism occurs because we have seen no indication that this man is any different from the hundreds of sleazebag politicians we have been forced to deal with over the years in a variety of positions. He's more charismatic than most true, that was probably Bush's one greatest weakness, he failed to make himself or his intentions understood.

    No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
    Hemingway

  • qazymanqazyman Member Posts: 1,785
    Originally posted by Aelfinn

    Originally posted by declaredemer

    Originally posted by Aelfinn
    1.) You went off on an entirely meaningless tangent there, the point was that the environment of easy loan money came as a direct result of Democratic decisions.
    2.) More than half of this stimulus plan is going towards private projects and various Liberal agendas, not key segments of the economy. I would definitely say the claim has substance.
    3.) How the hell did you miss this one? They haven't actually given an ultimatum like the one above, but they have publicly objected to many of Obama's actions, both taken and threatened. They have also declared sovereignty, and listed specific cases in which a state can legally secede from the Union. The logical next step is just such an ultimatum. Link The man might stop short of causing the second US civil war, but he is still making great strides to nail a wedge between the states and the Federal government.
    P.S. The ones in question are Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. Just in case you thought this was related to any one party.
    4.) Like I said before, there is a barndoor's width of room for doubt on this point, and if Obama turns out to be the first politician in over a century to not have fooled his followers in something, I will be listening hard for the sound of avian porcines.

     

    1.  Explaining what caused the housing crisis --risky and greedy investments in CDOs-- is an "unnecessary tangent"?  That is absurd, so absurd it does not even require an attack. Some of you REALLY believe that little homeowners like yourselves, or your parents, could crash the economy. Hehe.

    2.  Infrastructure could be the next BUBBLE, especially if public lands are sold-off for pennies on the dollars; it is the same banks that caused the housing crisis that will be at the center of purchasing lands for the infrastructure building projects.  Sure, you could be right.  You could be wrong.

    3.  Huh?

    4.  Obama is trying to help the country and economy.  Of course republicans hate that; they are supply-side economists and believe that what is good for the wealthy is, somehow and ultimately, good for regular folks.



     

    1.) I said it was meaningless because it failed to adress the original point. The described investments are a risky problem, and certainly one that should be addressed, but it causes significant issues ONLY if the number of people who fail to meet payments does not remain low. As pointed out by Enigma and myself, the increased number of defaulted loans that triggered the problem came from the decisions made during the Clinton administration that made obtaining loans easy for those with poor credit. Frankly though, nearly every American that has been an adult for more than the past 5-10 years shares some of the blame.

    2.) Point conceded for now, the meaning of these efforts are largely a matter of opinion, and only time will tell which of us is right on what effect they will have.

    3.) Just follow the embedded link, the trump line is that the Obama administration has overstepped the limits of authority the Federal government is allowed to hold and several states are pissing vinegar over it, as they certainly should be. Allowing the new prez to violate the Constitution in such a matter in his first month on the job is hardly a good way to avoid problems later down the road.

    4.) If we believed that such were his principle goals, and if we believed that his proposed methods had any chance of working in the long run much less the short, I think you would find that the majority of Republicans are much more than willing to support him. We are not, and never would be willing to intentionally harm the US in favor of such rediculous ideals. The schism occurs because we have seen no indication that this man is any different from the hundreds of sleazebag politicians we have been forced to deal with over the years in a variety of positions. He's more charismatic than most true, that was probably Bush's one greatest weakness, he failed to make himself or his intentions understood.

    There is nothing wrong with making housing more affordable. The problem came with the failure to regulate. This is an issue where both sides are at fault. 



    But lets step back and look at this. Since the 80's our Government has been predominately run by those calling themselves Reagan conservatives. Both in the Congress and at the Executive level. The main result of this has been increases in spending and decreases in taxes. ( this is not responsible) 



    After 20+ years of this the middle class is in shambles and conservatives have no credibility. What will be the end result, it's hard to say. Either Democrats will again clean this up, or we will see a dramatic increase in 3rd party affiliation.

    Lets not forget, some of Obama's biggest gains came by taking Independents from Republicans and 3rd party candidates. The man deserves a chance, and calling him Socialist and the like only further diminishes Conservative credibility.





     

  • PyrichPyrich Member Posts: 1,040

    The site is claiming infringment of the 10th amendment,  but The Supremecy Clause has more or less made the 10th amendment a hollow one.   **hollow is kind of a strong word for this scenerio,  extremely weakened one,  would probabley be more accurate.

     

    Shouldn't they be agrueing some other point?  That one was lost waaaay back.

  • OpticaleyeOpticaleye Member Posts: 498
    Originally posted by Litigator_AB


    I don't get it. 
    It is obvious that the world is at risk of an extended recession.
    Obama is doing his best to moderate the recession by boosting government spending.  Time again, countries in a downturn that have not increased government expenditures have remained in tailspins.
    Yet I see Obama getting slammed on these forums for doing precisely what he has to do. 
    Are some people just mad that a free-thinking liberal won?
     

     

    Your right you dont get it.

    Neither do republicans.Our new president is just another politician out to make a buck.He is on track to spend more money than our last president.

    He is what i refer to as a Republicrat.There is no difference between the 2 parties anymore.You know those 3.5 million jobs we have all heard about?

    Those will be govt jobs.Not private sector.

    With all the money he wants to spend have you given any thought as to where all this money comes  from?I mean we are in a recession right?

    Ill put it like this:If he can wage class warfare on the rich and tax the hell out of them what makes you think he wont tax the middle class?

    Dont beleive ANYTHING a politician PROMISES especially if they came from the most corrupt political city in the country Chicago.Hell the governor of the state may even go to jail.

    Tell ya what since it looks like yyou voted for the guy when it comes to paying the taxes after they go up we will let you go to the front of the line 1st.

    What is your physical limit?

  • PyrichPyrich Member Posts: 1,040
    Originally posted by Opticaleye


     
    Your right you dont get it.
    Neither do republicans.Our new president is just another politician out to make a buck.He is on track to spend more money than our last president.
    He is what i refer to as a Republicrat.There is no difference between the 2 parties anymore.You know those 3.5 million jobs we have all heard about?
    Those will be govt jobs.Not private sector.
    With all the money he wants to spend have you given any thought as to where all this money comes  from?I mean we are in a recession right?
    Ill put it like this:If he can wage class warfare on the rich and tax the hell out of them what makes you think he wont tax the middle class?
    Dont beleive ANYTHING a politician PROMISES especially if they came from the most corrupt political city in the country Chicago.Hell the governor of the state may even go to jail.
    Tell ya what since it looks like yyou voted for the guy when it comes to paying the taxes after they go up we will let you go to the front of the line 1st.



     

    Hehe,   with Ronald Reagan and his 28% wealthy tax,  Clinton with his 20% Bush with his 15% and Obama with his 40%-50%(?) i see what your saying.  For the most part the d or r put next to the canidates name means nothing,  as they are finacialy supported generaly by the same interest.

     

    And yea,  politians are beings of government,   and government is a necessary evil we must accept but also must challenge at all times.   Even the ones you may think are "good" guys shouldn't never be taken at face value,  if you don't challenge your government even when you agree with them,   they will eventualy force you to take a seat when you do want to stand.

  • declaredemerdeclaredemer Member Posts: 2,698
    Originally posted by Pyrich




    And yea,  politians are beings of government,   and government is a necessary evil we must accept but also must challenge at all times.   Even the ones you may think are "good" guys shouldn't never be taken at face value,  if you don't challenge your government even when you agree with them,   they will eventualy force you to take a seat when you do want to stand.



    Our government is a brilliant creation.  THREE EQUAL branches of government.

     

     

    The government is supposed to be us, We, the People.  We are supposed to provide guidance for the government on how to legislate.  The legislature is supposed to be a representative body of the electorate.  If you do not participate in your own government, then you will not have any representation, and slowly but surely you might find yourself without a (1) home, (2) job, or (3) rights.  And you will still be responsible for paying for EVERYTHING.

     

     

    Respect for the Constitution and participation in the institutions of society is what is needed. 

  • NarugNarug Member UncommonPosts: 756
    Originally posted by declaredemer


     1.  Explaining what caused the housing crisis --risky and greedy investments in CDOs-- is an "unnecessary tangent"?  That is absurd, so absurd it does not even require an attack. Some of you REALLY believe that little homeowners like yourselves, or your parents, could crash the economy. Hehe.


    2.  Infrastructure could be the next BUBBLE, especially if public lands are sold-off for pennies on the dollars; it is the same banks that caused the housing crisis that will be at the center of purchasing lands for the infrastructure building projects.  Sure, you could be right.  You could be wrong.
    3.  Huh?
    4.  Obama is trying to help the country and economy.  Of course republicans hate that; they are supply-side economists and believe that what is good for the wealthy is, somehow and ultimately, good for regular folks.



     

    A mix of 1 & 2 being addressed:

    Precursor's post in the stimulus thread

    Precursor has a nice post explaining how the current Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae was being set up for failure even in the 90's.

    Enigma's Breakdown of Stimulus Post

    Let me know how helpful that is rebuilding America.

    Finally even if such things as stimuli do work why not follow McCain's suggestion? Halting spending when evidence of recovery sounds responsible to me.

    The bank bailout is still current evidence of "bailing out" not working.

    4) That's what the other side wants to believe. What I see is being able to adapt/learn/find strength within and for me that creates opportunity. Opportunity is one of the bases of America.

    Edit: Replaced "your side" with other side in hopes of less aggressiveness oriented post

    AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017

    Refugee of Auberean

    Refugee of Dereth

  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918
    Originally posted by Wolfenpride

    Originally posted by Litigator_AB
    Are some people just mad that a free-thinking liberal won?
     



     

    I think partly because their are republican's who are still upset they lost the election, so they're doing everything they can to give obama a bad image.



     

    So if the republicans are anything like the democrats, can we expect childish bitching about how unfair the system is for the next eight years?

    People are upset because Obama is proposing yet more regulation, more government spending...things that fly in the face of how our government and economy are supposed to work.  The stock market doesn't crash like this because companies are optomistic about what the government is going to do to them...

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • abentwookieabentwookie Member UncommonPosts: 114

    Obama does not agree with his party 100% of the time. I'm assuming you haven't been paying attention to the disagreements between Obama and most of his party over issues such as his plan for withdrawing our military (not quickly enough according to many people) from Iraq, allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire instead of repealing them now, his desire to end earmarks, they even disagreed with part of his tax cut proposal in the stimulus package. You're not being objective, you're seeing what you want to see. :)

     

    I don't agree with some things he has done so far and I don't like the idea of continuing the insane spending of the former administration, but I believe it may actually be neccessary right now. I honestly don't see many options to deal with the economic crisis. The stimulus addresses many important issues such as the infrastructure, healthcare, education (the root of many of the problems facing our country), the housing crunch, helping small businesses, and alternative energy R&D. Yes, the pricetag on the stimulus is a bit excessive but I think it will benefit the country from both an immediate and long-term perspective. And if it doesn't, we'll have bigger things to worry about than the deficit...

     

     

    image

  • ChieftanChieftan Member UncommonPosts: 1,188
    Originally posted by Litigator_AB


    I don't get it. 
    It is obvious that the world is at risk of an extended recession.
    Obama is doing his best to moderate the recession by boosting government spending.  Time again, countries in a downturn that have not increased government expenditures have remained in tailspins.
    Yet I see Obama getting slammed on these forums for doing precisely what he has to do. 
    Are some people just mad that a free-thinking liberal won?
     

    No.  Three of the biggest problems in the economy can be traced back to the Clinton Administration.  I don't think the republicans really wanted this election either.

    My youtube MMO gaming channel



  • abentwookieabentwookie Member UncommonPosts: 114
    Originally posted by Chieftan

    Originally posted by Litigator_AB


    I don't get it. 
    It is obvious that the world is at risk of an extended recession.
    Obama is doing his best to moderate the recession by boosting government spending.  Time again, countries in a downturn that have not increased government expenditures have remained in tailspins.
    Yet I see Obama getting slammed on these forums for doing precisely what he has to do. 
    Are some people just mad that a free-thinking liberal won?
     

    No.  Three of the biggest problems in the economy can be traced back to the Clinton Administration.  I don't think the republicans really wanted this election either.



     

    You won't find me rushing to the defense of Clinton (I like him about as much as our last president) but I do need to point out that, in my opinion, Bush's policies (or lack of in some cases) made things worse. And he managed to rack up more debt than any president in history, so it puzzles me when people complain about Obama's stimulus. Seems a bit hypocritical from my point of view.  

    image

  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356
    Originally posted by Aelfinn

    Originally posted by declaredemer

    Originally posted by Enigma


    3. He's not just getting slammed on these forums. 11 States has signed a resolution to succeed from the United States if this dumbass continues to do the shit he's doing. He's  getting slammed from all sides of the fence (including democrates....read the liberal newspapers; they are critical of his bills).

     3.  Huh?  Ya, right.

    3.) How the hell did you miss this one? They haven't actually given an ultimatum like the one above, but they have publicly objected to many of Obama's actions, both taken and threatened. They have also declared sovereignty, and listed specific cases in which a state can legally secede from the Union. The logical next step is just such an ultimatum. Link The man might stop short of causing the second US civil war, but he is still making great strides to nail a wedge between the states and the Federal government.

    P.S. The ones in question are Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. Just in case you thought this was related to any one party.

    Please remove Michigan from your list. I live in Michigan, there is absolutely no intent to secede from the United States by the majority of residents.

  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356
    Originally posted by bhug


    09.02.28
    Ascribing the HUGE increase of the national debt to Pres Clinton is a disney fantasy




     

    The important thing to take away from this chart is that public debt as a percent of gross domestic product is slightly higher than what it was in 1980. To say Obama has spent more than George Washington and Abraham Lincoln just plain ignores the fact that the gross domestic product in the US increased substantially since then.

    If you note the symmetry between public and private debt up until the 1990s, you see the problem. In the 1980s tax laws were changed to remove itemized deductions for personal interest expense (car loans, etc), however home equity loan interest was allowed as a deduction. Prior to then people were more conservative financially, taking out 30 year fixed rate mortages, and working on paying off those mortgages. After that the theory was that people would never own their home, they'd just keep borrowing against their equity and continue to make payments and live in it. The home equity appreciation was to subsidize their lifestyle.

    People bought cars, paid for vacations, and just generally consumed, financing it all on home equity loans. This was fine as long as home prices continued to climb, but, if home prices dropped was a recipe for economic disaster.

    Basically, as home prices drop consumers can no longer tap those home mortgage lines of credit and continue on consuming, creating a retraction in the economy.

    The United States is a consumption based, debt based, economy. Alot different than the savings based economy of the depression generation, who bought when they could afford it.

    To those of you old enough, remember "cash on delivery" terms, "layaway", and other non-credit methods of consumption. All gone out the window with the easy credit generations that followed.

    Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with it, it was just a matter of a decade to build up home equity to borrow against. The boom years of the Clinton administration were fueled by debt consumption.

  • abentwookieabentwookie Member UncommonPosts: 114

    There isn't going to be another civil-war. People were threatening the same thing during the Bush years but we made it through 8 years without it happening. People will make some noise during the the next several years but nothing will happen.

    image

  • EkibiogamiEkibiogami Member UncommonPosts: 2,154
    Originally posted by abentwookie


    There isn't going to be another civil-war. People were threatening the same thing during the Bush years but we made it through 8 years without it happening. People will make some noise during the the next several years but nothing will happen.



     

    The diffrance is the Liberals Dont have the balls to do it

    Were Itching for a second chance at it in Texas

    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
    —Samuel Adams

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562

    Who are these neo-conservatives of which you speak, and what makes them "neo?"

    Names, please.

  • aleosaleos Member UncommonPosts: 1,942
    Originally posted by Litigator_AB


    I don't get it. 
    It is obvious that the world is at risk of an extended recession.
    Obama is doing his best to moderate the recession by boosting government spending.  Time again, countries in a downturn that have not increased government expenditures have remained in tailspins.
    Yet I see Obama getting slammed on these forums for doing precisely what he has to do. 
    Are some people just mad that a free-thinking liberal won?
     



     

    The World is not at risk, America is so wtf are you talking about.

    Why the hell would i want the government to boost its spending The government does not make money it takes money from people like you and me and calls it free healthcare free jobs and free bullshit so wtf are you talking about?

    Taxing mega corporations because they make to much money is like throwing rocks at a land mine so whatever these companys do that are getting taxed will have to raise the price on what they sell produce or whatever. lay off more workers and create fewer jobs etc.

    once that shit happens more bills get passed to fix the problems the previous bill didnt. What the fuck happened to all that money from the last bill? eh? i got an idea lets pass a bill for a couple billion dollars and if it doesnt work we will just quadroople the next bill  to like a trillion dollars yeah that sounds good. its not that hard to fix the economy but if we took the easy way then the rich wouldnt get richer the poor wouldnt stay poorer and if the poor got rich and the rich stayed rich then there would be no reason for people like obama

    Obama is a moron and we arent even sure if hes a US born citizen. This goes to show how us as americans are becoming less intelligent more ignorant and waiting for the government to do everything for us. Ok he is black so what...Cool? Im sorry for the black race that he was the first president of color to be put into the history books.

    For anything i have said that isnt politically correct, or offencive. pull your head out of your ass, we are all people.

  • abentwookieabentwookie Member UncommonPosts: 114
    Originally posted by Ekibiogami

    Originally posted by abentwookie


    There isn't going to be another civil-war. People were threatening the same thing during the Bush years but we made it through 8 years without it happening. People will make some noise during the the next several years but nothing will happen.



     

    The diffrance is the Liberals Dont have the balls to do it

    Were Itching for a second chance at it in Texas



     

    Talking and doing are entirely different matters. People that are serious about civil war are generally on the fringe of the conservative and liberal groups. Their numbers are too small for anything significant. Most people are realistic about it. Its like when people talk about the second ammendment (i'm not stating an opinion in either direction on that issue so don't jump to conclusions) and being able to protect ourselves if the government gets out of control. No offense, but that isn't realistic. The common people would be slaughtered by a trained military in that type of situation. And that is also why the possibiliy of civil war isn't realistic anymore. Its just not going to happen.

    image

  • AxumAxum Member Posts: 891
    Originally posted by abentwookie

    Originally posted by Ekibiogami

    Originally posted by abentwookie


    There isn't going to be another civil-war. People were threatening the same thing during the Bush years but we made it through 8 years without it happening. People will make some noise during the the next several years but nothing will happen.



     

    The diffrance is the Liberals Dont have the balls to do it

    Were Itching for a second chance at it in Texas



     

    Talking and doing are entirely different matters. People that are serious about civil war are generally on the fringe of the conservative and liberal groups. Their numbers are too small for anything significant. Most people are realistic about it. Its like when people talk about the second ammendment (i'm not stating an opinion in either direction on that issue so don't jump to conclusions) and being able to protect ourselves if the government gets out of control. No offense, but that isn't realistic. The common people would be slaughtered by a trained military in that type of situation. And that is also why the possibiliy of civil war isn't realistic anymore. Its just not going to happen.

     

    But you also have to consider that a great majority of the trained military would side with the state from which they come. So combined with that experience, any civilian help helps.

    image

  • abentwookieabentwookie Member UncommonPosts: 114
    Originally posted by BRYANBARTLEY

    Originally posted by abentwookie

    Originally posted by Ekibiogami

    Originally posted by abentwookie


    There isn't going to be another civil-war. People were threatening the same thing during the Bush years but we made it through 8 years without it happening. People will make some noise during the the next several years but nothing will happen.



     

    The diffrance is the Liberals Dont have the balls to do it

    Were Itching for a second chance at it in Texas



     

    Talking and doing are entirely different matters. People that are serious about civil war are generally on the fringe of the conservative and liberal groups. Their numbers are too small for anything significant. Most people are realistic about it. Its like when people talk about the second ammendment (i'm not stating an opinion in either direction on that issue so don't jump to conclusions) and being able to protect ourselves if the government gets out of control. No offense, but that isn't realistic. The common people would be slaughtered by a trained military in that type of situation. And that is also why the possibiliy of civil war isn't realistic anymore. Its just not going to happen.

     

    But you also have to consider that a great majority of the trained military would side with the state from which they come. So combined with that experience, any civilian help helps.



     

    Would they? I wouldn't be so certain. I wouldn't be certain about anything when people are involved. ;)

    image

  • gtomlinsongtomlinson Member Posts: 5
    Originally posted by olddaddy


    If you note the symmetry between public and private debt up until the 1990s, you see the problem. In the 1980s tax laws were changed to remove itemized deductions for personal interest expense (car loans, etc), however home equity loan interest was allowed as a deduction. Prior to then people were more conservative financially, taking out 30 year fixed rate mortages, and working on paying off those mortgages. After that the theory was that people would never own their home, they'd just keep borrowing against their equity and continue to make payments and live in it. The home equity appreciation was to subsidize their lifestyle.
    People bought cars, paid for vacations, and just generally consumed, financing it all on home equity loans. This was fine as long as home prices continued to climb, but, if home prices dropped was a recipe for economic disaster.
    Basically, as home prices drop consumers can no longer tap those home mortgage lines of credit and continue on consuming, creating a retraction in the economy.
    The United States is a consumption based, debt based, economy. Alot different than the savings based economy of the depression generation, who bought when they could afford it.
    To those of you old enough, remember "cash on delivery" terms, "layaway", and other non-credit methods of consumption. All gone out the window with the easy credit generations that followed.
    Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with it, it was just a matter of a decade to build up home equity to borrow against. The boom years of the Clinton administration were fueled by debt consumption.



     

    I love this post!  I would agree that Clinton carries very little of the blame for this situation.  IMO, you can almost wholly blame this economic crisis on the past 16 years of congressional economic practices.  That covers both Democrats and Republicans.  You can look at projects like the Center For Urban Development and similar groups that have been putting years of legal pressure on bank organizations to extend credit to those that were high risk, under penalty of discrimination accusations.

    That, tied with extending the credit of pseudo-corporate government groups like Fannie May and Freddie Mac well beyond the bounds that they were ever intended to grow, creates a market of investment that should never have existed.  Barnie Frank in particular, with his own personal stake in Fannie and Freddie, championing their growth over the past several years on the floor of congress, I consider unethical and even criminal.

    When someone tells you, "you give me $50,000 and I'll loan it to some poor people at 15%APR, they'll late pay and we'll make a ton of money off the interest and fees, and if they default, don't worry, the US government is backing it, so worse case scenario you'll just get all your money back."  Who in their right mind wouldn't feed more money into that?!

    Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the Clinton presidency, but other than the minimal tax cuts, I didn't much like the Bush presidency either.  I'd give up quite a bit to get another Regan that would pull the treasury out of this mess of government investment and control of big business and let the companies that were managed poorly fail, so their competition could come in with a better product.

Sign In or Register to comment.