[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

Wow. Someone way up ^^^ yonder said that they wanted to hear your response to all of this and here you are making a personal attack instead of attempting a civil and intellectual discussion.

Don't worry about it, ♥ - Tie is so informed about the world around him that he hasn't even sussed out that you're a chick.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

Wow. Someone way up ^^^ yonder said that they wanted to hear your response to all of this and here you are making a personal attack instead of attempting a civil and intellectual discussion.

Sorry, but "conservative" today means big government starting wars while cutting taxes. So you call yourself a conservative and then moan about the economy, but fail to see any cause-and-effect.

Originally Posted by ♥

It makes me sad that our country's crown is now tarnished.

Do you mean the dollar? (That's an unusual viewpoint .)

[♥]

Sorry, but "conservative" today means big government starting wars while cutting taxes. So you call yourself a conservative and then moan about the economy, but fail to see any cause-and-effect.

I never mentioned the war at all, tie. You have no idea what my sentiments are about the war. I didn't bring up war on purpose because that would require a second thread unrelated to this one and frankly, that's a whole other ball of wax.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sorry, but "conservative" today means big government starting wars while cutting taxes.

Which taxes are those then?
And what rate were they before?

Just asking, because last time I looked Uncle Sam would be taking ~50% off me if I moved there. I can assure you that that's not low taxation.

[tie]

Okay, I'm sorry. I don't mean to derail the thread, either. (I don't agree that the topics are unrelated, though.)

But what did you mean by "our country's crown"?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Which taxes are those then?
And what rate were they before?

Just asking, because last time I looked Uncle Sam would be taking ~50% off me if I moved there. I can assure you that that's not low taxation.

Are you arguing that the government didn't cut taxes? Otherwise, I don't see your point.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sorry, but "conservative" today means big government starting wars while cutting taxes.

Yeah, and "liberal" today means you believe in child-rape, terrorism and men marrying gerbils. Because hyperbole from bigots on the opposite side is totally how we should define every member of a philosophical class.

Or, less sarcastically: Can we try to have some respect for other people even if we disagree with some other people who fit into the same general ideological family as them? Or is open-mindedness not something liberals can believe in?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, and "liberal" today means you believe in child-rape, terrorism and men marrying gerbils. Because hyperbole from bigots on the opposite side is totally how we should define every member of a philosophical class.

Are you seriously equating gay marriage to "men marring gerbils"? That's pretty sick. How is "big government starting wars while cutting taxes" hyperbole? It isn't. It is a simple fact, and while it is easy to find statements from the most prominent conservatives supporting big government starting wars while cutting taxes, I'd be surprised if you can find a single quote from any prominent liberal supporting child rape, for example. Or are you and Doofy both claiming that we didn't start a war and didn't cut taxes? (I don't understand either his complaint or yours about this statement.) It isn't my fault that big government zealots have taken over the conservative movement, but from Reagan, Bush and now McCain I can't see that "conservatism" can still mean what some people think it used to mean.

Or is open-mindedness not something liberals can believe in?

I can only speak for myself. I'm only open-minded about things that can reasonably put in doubt. So if you tell me that you don't believe in evolution, or think the latest snowstorm in your town disproves global warming, or that "The [financial] system is *designed* to collapse," then I can't be open-minded.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Are you arguing that the government didn't cut taxes?

No, I'm asking what taxes were cut and from what starting point. I'm pretty sure I typed it in English.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

Are you seriously equating gay marriage to "men marring gerbils"?

Are you seriously equating every person on the conservative side of the political spectrum with George Bush?

[tie]

Yes, you typed it in English, but you also quoted me saying "Sorry, but "conservative" today means big government starting wars while cutting taxes." I assumed that you were arguing against me and didn't realize that we agreed. (Sorry, bad habit!! )

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Yes, you typed it in English, but you also quoted me saying "Sorry, but "conservative" today means big government starting wars while cutting taxes." I assumed that you were arguing against me and didn't realize that we agreed. (Sorry, bad habit!! )

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with you. I'm simply asking a question.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you seriously equating every person on the conservative side of the political spectrum with George Bush?

Yes!! (Just as seriously as you equated gay marriage with men marrying gerbils, anyway.)

Actually, my point was serious, though. I wasn't equating conservatives with George Bush, because I totally agree that there can be exceptions. If GW were the only "conservative" matching my characterization, then I'd agree that arguing only based on his policies would be a huge mistake. But when there is a long sequence of "exceptions," I think that the rule needs to be updated. And again, I don't see any hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with you. I'm simply asking a question.

Well sorry I can't help. Try Google Answers. They're good at answering questions like this.

[Edit: Google Answers doesn't exist any more, it seems. You may be out of luck!]

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

I think that all ARM loans should be frozen at the request of holder(s), even temporarily, which will allow lenders to continue to be paid on current loans so that they are being remunerated, but also allows mortgage holders some breathing time to analyze their finances, stabilize finances, or refinance existing loans. Remember, one of the reasons this entire country is in trouble is because of subprime or ARM mortgages that were offered like candy to babies.

I think Greenspan's 17 consecutive rate hikes are more to blame than anything else, for this contributed to the ARMs becaming too costly for many of the people who got into those notes. Greenspan's premise was that the US economy was growing too fast, and he wanted to reign it in because he feared inflation.

Had Greenspan just chilled the heck out and not quadrupled the lending rate over a 20-month period, I think we'd be in a much better situation.

[D. S. Troyer]

I'm glad I bought into rubles in 2001.

[TravisReynolds]

we basically are like "X" # of trillions in debt

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by tie 

I see your outrage, but I'm totally missing what you think the crime here is, or why you think anyone should go to jail. Is "lending inflated amounts to a lot of people that would do nothing but go bust" a crime? (It doesn't sound like a good long-term business model, but I don't necessarily see any crimes. I am not a lawyer, of course.)

Granted, there is probably no legal statute that applies.

File the 'crimes' of shady mortgage industry folks in the same category as tax-and-waste politicians that should be found guilty of (at the very least) mismanagement of public funds, betrayal of the public trust, abuse of power and (at most) fraud, corruption, racketeering and theft.

Sure, it won't actually happen. Just saying it would be nice if for once there was some way it could.

[ebuddy]

How concerned can the government be?

- Americans having spent over $41 billion dollars on their pets in 2007 are projected to spend $43.4 billion in 2008.

- Over $3,000/person on entertainment alone.

So... Healthcare? Financial stability? Pets? Movies? Eating out? We choose pets, movies, and eating out. Then we look to the government to take care of the less important things like healthcare and financial stability. The only financial crisis we have is the one we cause by skewing priorities. As long as people are spending over $41 billion on their pets, I'm not convinced of any financial crisis.

*Although, I did just pay off a $1700 bill to have tumors removed from my dog.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

I feel vindicated that Doofy agrees with me about this stuff.

Four years ago I paid off every single credit card that I had and it was painful.

But today I'm thankful every single day that I don't have credit card bill dread when I get my mail.

Right. And why should the Gov't be responsible to help people pay off debt they shouldn't have gotten into in the first place? Why is it Big Brother's job to keep people from doing so? So basically, if the economy is screwed, it's NOT the Govt's fault -- it's We The People.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How concerned can the government be?

- Americans having spent over $41 billion dollars on their pets in 2007 are projected to spend $43.4 billion in 2008.

- Over $3,000/person on entertainment alone.

Well, the good news is, this leaves plenty of room to save.

Instead of spending money on pets, dining out and entertainment, we'll have a party at home, BBQing our pets.

-t

[Sherman Homan]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Instead of spending money on pets, dining out and entertainment, we'll have a party at home, BBQing our pets.

-t

Well groomed and healthy, exercised regularly, mesquite and A-1 sauce!

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Granted, there is probably no legal statute that applies.

File the 'crimes' of shady mortgage industry folks in the same category as tax-and-waste politicians that should be found guilty of (at the very least) mismanagement of public funds, betrayal of the public trust, abuse of power and (at most) fraud, corruption, racketeering and theft.

Sure, it won't actually happen. Just saying it would be nice if for once there was some way it could.

But these companies aren't supposed to be public servants. The public servants are the politicians who are bailing out the rich using taxpayer dollars. That is the only "crime" here. (However, compared to general corruption in the Bush administration, it isn't much. And have you ever called for impeaching Bush?)

[smacintush]

It always amuses me how election years affect economic news.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*Although, I did just pay off a $1700 bill to have tumors removed from my dog.

Now that that's done, poochie would like dinner out and a movie, please.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

BTW, Office Depot employees 47,000 employees.

That's a lot of families without a paycheck.

This just reminded me of how Obama is going to fix everything and increase jobs by raising taxes on companies like that.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, and "liberal" today means you believe in child-rape, terrorism and men marrying gerbils. Because hyperbole from bigots on the opposite side is totally how we should define every member of a philosophical class.

Well done.

[glideslope]

Americans deserve this. Living too high on the Hog for too long. It's all the Boomers fault. They created this "culture of consumption."
The , me, me, me mentality.

Let's not forget the effect of Bankruptcy not being a viable option for many these days. Can't simply continue to dig the hole with a second shovel.

I also think Bush and the Iraq thing is a major issue. Bin Laden, IMO, never had another planned attack other than 9/11. His real plan was to draw us into the mess we see, and bankrupt us. Because, without money/power we are nothing.

He has succeeded brilliantly. The government would be in a much better position to deal with things without the war. (not taking a position.)

How many Americans know their "Stimulus" checks are from borrowed money? It's not any American asset being sent. 90% will put it on their credit cards, and then charge again.

So, the first thing Obama should do is cut off all SS payments to the "Boomers" retroactive to Jan 1 2008.

[peeb]

The first thing Obama should do is cut off all govt payments to Republicans, and instead put that money into paying for the war and paying down the debt. People must take responsibility for their actions.

[tie]

The Bush administration is arguing against new regulation of the financial industry (NY Times story). Certainly from their perspective (i.e., the perspective of their campaign contributors), it makes sense. Why do we need regulations to restrict risk-taking when the government will step in to bail out anyone who makes a mistake?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by tie 

Why do we need regulations to restrict risk-taking when the government will step in to bail out anyone who makes a mistake?

That should read more like this: Why do we need regulations to restrict risk-taking when the government will step in to bail out large corporations whose executives make a mistake, while telling Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe that they're up the creek without a paddle if they make any?

[peeb]

The important question is "How much did Mr and Mrs Joe make in campaign contributions?" Not a lot, I'm thinking.

[tie]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That should read more like this: Why do we need regulations to restrict risk-taking when the government will step in to bail out large corporations whose executives make a mistake, while telling Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe that they're up the creek without a paddle if they make any?

Maybe so. However, two wrongs don't make a right. The corporations shouldn't be bailed out, and neither should the Average Joes.

[Kerrigan]

I didn't realize we had so many econ PhDs in here!!