[Big Mac]

From the rhetoric coming from BHO and friends over the past few days, it's clear that he is trying actively to undermine confidence in the American economy. Those are, after all, two of the favorite weapons of Democratic candidates running to reclaim the White House: Undermine confidence in the economy, and agitate class warfare. BHO's forecasts that we're heading for a new Great Depression and that the foreclosure rate is "the highest it's been since the Great Depression" represent devious smears of the economy that must be challenged by anyone concerned for the truth.

Yes, we're seeing the last domino pieces fall over the mortgage crisis (a crisis largely imposed by the Dems pressuring of lenders to lend to those who weren't credit worthy), and yes, low job creation is a problem. This is a market correction, which is painful but ultimately healthy and necessary, especially after the many years of relatively uninterrupted growth. But the truth is, this is not even technically a recession yet according to the classic definition, and it's certainly not anything resembling a depression. And the "critical" foreclosure rate - 2.7% - is actually pretty close in percentage terms to the rate of foreclosures at the height of the dot.com boom in 1999, in comparison to the GD foreclosure rate of 50%.

So BHO, who has been calling McCain a lying scumbag because his campaign cries when another campaign descends to fight at its level, is undeniably gulty of defaming the economy for his own political gain. His cynical, self-serving scheme is based on the notion that if people are sufficiently frightened by talk of a new depression, he will sail right into office with a "New New Deal" that will effectively transform America into a bastardized social(ist)-welfare state like Great Britain. If you support BHO, I ask you to think critically about the economic message he's spreading right now and why he's spreading it. Obama is no more than a demagogue who talks about "hope" in one breathe and doom in gloom in the other in order to suit his aspirations and agenda.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot one ancillary point: While denouncing McCain this week BHO has referred to McCain not being able to take on lobbyists because they are working to get him elected. The fact that BHO conveniently neglects to mention is that he has receveid far more in lobbyist and corporate campaign contributions than McCain.

[spacefreak]

Obama's 2 economic advisors, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, each was CEO and chairman of Fannie Mae with a combined tenure lasting from 1991-2004.

I wonder why the Democrats are refusing to investigate a thing hear. Probably has something to do with their names all over it.

[Chongo]

Fannie Mae was created by the democrats, and have been in control of it since day one (1938). The problems at both Freddie and Fannie began under Clinton's watch while his appointees were running the show, and made millions at the same time. This is why I will be surprised if there is an investigation. It will show that every time there was an attempt to overhaul both institutions, democrats blocked it

[Big Mac]

Unfortunately, those who view politics simplistically will blame Bush because the failure was revealed on his watch.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Unfortunately, those who view politics simplistically will blame Bush because the failure was revealed on his watch.

You can count me as one of those simplistic sorts, perhaps you can shine a little more light on this very complicated subject?

[ort888]

Hssss... you have revealed us Dems ssssecret and sssssinister plan. To take over zee world, and, sssssssss... enslave you all in our sssssocialist and fascist dictatorsssship... ssssss...

Curse you Big Mac, curse you for revealing our massster plan...... ssssssss.....

Now we and our leader. B Hussein O, will have to go and kill more babies and burn more flagssss....

[tie]

Pinch yourself, Big Mac, you're dreaming.

[besson3c]

Where can I buy some duct tape at this hour to protect my family from the economy?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Unfortunately, those who view politics simplistically will blame Bush because the failure was revealed on his watch.

Or because it happened after his term with a friendly Congress during which deregulation and anything-goes capitalism led to an excess of reckless loans which crippled our economy.

One of those two.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

BHO's forecasts that we're heading for a new Great Depression and that the foreclosure rate is "the highest it's been since the Great Depression" represent devious smears of the economy that must be challenged by anyone concerned for the truth.

There hasn't been a single year in decades that Democrats haven't claimed it's the Great Depression. Litterally- EVERY.SINGLE.YEAR, decade in, decade out, Democrats claim it's the Great Depression. It's just what Democrats do- claim that RIGHT NOW, this minute, is the worst economic times ever, it's the Depression all over again, and that it's all (insert current scapegoat here).

If you challenge them on it- then look out for the sob stories about how everyone's "one paycheck away..." from every manner of gloom and doom, and just around the corner from certain death. I've set my watch to the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of it for years.

Remember a few years ago, when unemployment rates were at an all time low- lower than any year of the Clinton administration? (Which by the way ONLY became good economic times for Democrats in HINDSIGHT- all during the 90's they whined it was the Great Depression also)What did Dems do? They claimed the numbers weren't real, that there was really 'underemployment' or some such term, and, oh yes, of course that it was....*wait for it*.... the Great Depression.

The only real difference in 2008 being Great Depression vs. ANY other given year being the Great Depression- is that this is an election year.

I've said it before (basically since it's come up EVERY SINGLE YEAR of this decade, and the decade before it): I wish whiny class-envy Democrats really could have to survive through a true, 1930's style Great Depression. Toss in a dust bowl to boot. It'd actually be good for them to begin to develop some perspective on the difference between the real deal, and their ANNUAL pretense.

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I wish whiny class-envy Democrats really could have to survive through a true, 1930's style Great Depression. Toss in a dust bowl to boot.

... And the truth comes out. Rove is hoping for another terrorist attack before the election. I hope neither of you gets what you wish for.

[Big Mac]

CRASH, you reminded me about another fantastic Great Depression claim BHO is making - that the personal savings rate is "the lowest it has been since the GD," whereas in truth it's at least a percentage point above where it was under Clinton.

I also heard today that BHO has the distinction of being the Senate's second highest recipient of lobbying dollars from Freddie and Fannie lobbyists ever - despite the fact he hasn't even been in the Senate a full time. I guess he can afford to fight the lobbyists because he's already taken their money, right? Or maybe that's why neither he nor his party were at all critical of these Socialist institutions leading up to their failure, in contrast to McCain who said in 2005 that serious reform was required immediately. I wonder how many people are gullible enough to think BHO is telling the truth or that he is better prepared to reform Washington.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Wait tie, so you're saying that a terrorist attack would be bad for the economy? Heh.

I thought your line was to maintain that terrorist attacks don't actually hurt anything, and in fact, most people just imagine that terrorists even exist. Isn't it Bush behind the attacks anyway? You certainly can't admit any economic slowdown after 9/11 wasn't his fault, can you?

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

CRASH, you reminded me about another ... claim [Senator Obama] is making - that the personal savings rate is "the lowest it has been since the GD," whereas in truth it's a percentage point above where it was under Clinton.

What personal savings rate measure are you using there?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

CRASH, you reminded me about another fantastic Great Depression claim BHO is making - that the personal savings rate is "the lowest it has been since the GD," whereas in truth it's at least a percentage point above where it was under Clinton.

I don't know that that is true- I think it has spiked higher than during the Clinton years at some point in the 2000's, but the personal savings rate has been heading steadily downward since the 80's.

It's directly the result of the fact that most Americans aren't taught a damned thing about finances, and run up crazy amounts of personal debt. The biggest problem I have with class-envy Democrats is not that they point out things like the wretched personal savings rate, but the fact they they in typical class envy terms, try and convince people that don't know dick squat about financial matters to begin with, that the solution doesn't have anything to do with financial education and personal responsibility (ironic to say the least over a measure of personal savings..) but that the government fleecing those eeevil rich people will somehow magically solve everything.

[Big Mac]

Oh, I'm not saying the savings rate is high, but it's higher than it was under Clinton. You're completely right about the class warfare aspect. I was just concentrating on the deceit of BHO.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's directly the result of the fact that most Americans aren't taught a damned thing about finances, and run up crazy amounts of personal debt. The biggest problem I have with class-envy Democrats is not that they point out things like the wretched personal savings rate, but the fact they they in typical class envy terms, try and convince people that don't know dick squat about financial matters to begin with, that the solution doesn't have anything to do with financial education and personal responsibility (ironic to say the least over a measure of personal savings..)

You know what?

You're right.

And I think these class-envy, debt-overloaded Democrats should take some cues from thrifty Republicans. I think they should look to the current Republican administration. I think they should examine how it has displayed an extraordinary knowledge of "financial education and… responsibility." I think they should be impressed with how America's debt has been strategically reduced during its administration.

You're completely right.

greg

(insert insult here)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Now that I think about it, I'd love to anticipate the reply:

"It was actually the Democrats who caused the Bush administration to run so much debt"

Go ahead, you write your answer and don't look at mine. We'll compare after, okay? But promise not to peek.

greg

[ort888]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There hasn't been a single year in decades that Democrats haven't claimed it's the Great Depression. Litterally- EVERY.SINGLE.YEAR, decade in, decade out, Democrats claim it's the Great Depression. It's just what Democrats do- claim that RIGHT NOW, this minute, is the worst economic times ever, it's the Depression all over again, and that it's all (insert current scapegoat here).

If you challenge them on it- then look out for the sob stories about how everyone's "one paycheck away..." from every manner of gloom and doom, and just around the corner from certain death. I've set my watch to the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of it for years.

Remember a few years ago, when unemployment rates were at an all time low- lower than any year of the Clinton administration? (Which by the way ONLY became good economic times for Democrats in HINDSIGHT- all during the 90's they whined it was the Great Depression also)What did Dems do? They claimed the numbers weren't real, that there was really 'underemployment' or some such term, and, oh yes, of course that it was....*wait for it*.... the Great Depression.

The only real difference in 2008 being Great Depression vs. ANY other given year being the Great Depression- is that this is an election year.

I've said it before (basically since it's come up EVERY SINGLE YEAR of this decade, and the decade before it): I wish whiny class-envy Democrats really could have to survive through a true, 1930's style Great Depression. Toss in a dust bowl to boot. It'd actually be good for them to begin to develop some perspective on the difference between the real deal, and their ANNUAL pretense.

The same way the republicans constantly play on people's fear of terrorism and play up the difference between "small-town Americans" and big city elites in an effort to play their own version of class warfare? Give me a break.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, I'm not saying the savings rate is high, but it's higher than it was under Clinton.

What personal savings rate measure are you using there?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I've said it before (basically since it's come up EVERY SINGLE YEAR of this decade, and the decade before it): I wish whiny class-envy Democrats really could have to survive through a true, 1930's style Great Depression. Toss in a dust bowl to boot. It'd actually be good for them to begin to develop some perspective on the difference between the real deal, and their ANNUAL pretense.

So these huge banks and lending firms...do you figure they're peopled with "whiny" Democrats? Is that why they're not taking government handouts?

Face it, we are right now living through a repudiation of the Republican policies of supposedly-open markets. True laissez faire leads to a regular cycle of contractions and expansions. The sort of government we've had is worse than laissez faire as it allows coprorations not just to deregulate but to actually make government a co-conspirator to drive up profits. See where it has gotten us?

There hasn't been another Great Depression because we decided as a society that we must manage the business cycle through regulation that protects the general populace from the irrational idiocy of the profit-motive run amok.

With a Republican Congress and president for most of the last decade, we can clearly see what happens when we forget the lessons of the Great Depression. So maybe it's you trickle-down Republicans who need to survive through a Great Depression, to know what the consequences of your politics are.

[lpkmckenna]

I agree with Big Mac. Clearly, the fundamentals of the economy are strong...

[Dual Porpoise]

Big Mac - I'll ask again what measure of personal savings you are looking at - as far as I can see what you are saying is simply not true.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Dual P: I'm not saying you're wrong, but Clinton's term isn't even on that graph. Can you find a better graph?

[Dual Porpoise]

Well, with respect, I'm not the one making any claims - I'm asking on what basis Big Mac is making the claim that the current personal savings rate is similar to the Clinton era. The BEA site (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...ewsrelease.htm) which I assume is the one we should be looking at (although Big Mac has not responded to questions about which numbers he is looking at) doesn't seem to confirm his claim.

[Dual Porpoise]

Here's another one.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I agree with Big Mac. Clearly, the fundamentals of the economy are strong...

This is what I'm saying as well… there are a lot of pessimists out there right now, but this mere market correction isn't even a recession, let alone a depression… the liberal media is helping to deviously smear the American economy, but the truth will ultimately prevail.

…hopefully, after I buy aapl at $110

greg

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Here's another one.

I've seen different numbers in the media, and I'm not about to trust the graph of some anon with silly partisan annotations. I know there are some who distort the savings rate for political purposes. Either way, though, increasing the tax burden and ushering in a new era of stifling socialist institutions is no way to promote economic growth and prosperity.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You know what?

You're right.

And I think these class-envy, debt-overloaded Democrats should take some cues from thrifty Republicans. I think they should look to the current Republican administration. I think they should examine how it has displayed an extraordinary knowledge of "financial education and… responsibility." I think they should be impressed with how America's debt has been strategically reduced during its administration.

You're completely right.

greg

(insert insult here)

You completely missed the point, but I'm hardly surprised. We're talking about personal debt.

It's not up to either Democrats or Republicans to dig you or anyone else out of a financial crisis caused by too much personal debt. It's simply your responsibility. If you're waiting around for some politician to pay off your Visa account for you, it's never gonna happen.

[Big Mac]

You know that some woefully ignorant voters think electing BHO means he will institute minimum incomes from the government for them?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The same way the Democrats constantly play on people's fear of the world coming to an end and play up the difference between "black/white male/female straight/gay rich/poor us/them" and big city elites in an effort to play their own version of class warfare? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Helmling

With a Republican Congress and president for most of the last decade, we can clearly see what happens when we forget the lessons of the Great Depression.

The trend of personal debt began in the 80's with a Democratic Congress, and continues under a Democratic Congress. Once more, your whole focus is on everything being either the fault of, or to be fixed by politicians. Your ilk not only hasn't learned anything about the Great Depression, you don't even know what it is.

So maybe it's you trickle-down Republicans who need to survive through a Great Depression, to know what the consequences of your politics are.

Misery loves company for you whiners, but no thanks. As I've done EVERY.SINGLE.YEAR you've whined about it being the Great Depression, I'll sit this one out too, and let you wallow in it. Be sure to reply after you're done at the bread line.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You completely missed the point, but I'm hardly surprised. We're talking about personal debt.

It's not up to either Democrats or Republicans to dig you or anyone else out of a financial crisis caused by too much personal debt. It's simply your responsibility. If you're waiting around for some politician to pay off your Visa account for you, it's never gonna happen.

But in an unregulated market where these firms are free to prey on consumers with these gotcha loans, who wins? The consumers' have ruined credit and the companies are belly-up?

Yes, personal debt is a huge part of why we have this crisis, but you need to look a little deeper. Why have our personal debt levels risen so high? Because we have marketing-addicted mega-corps that NEED us to be in debt to fuel their appetites for unlimited growth.

The answer? Some sane controls on the market.

[besson3c]

It's not just lack of regulation in how business is conducted with the general public, but with insurance policies to big companies too... That was a big part of AIG's business.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The trend of personal debt began in the 80's with a Democratic Congress, and continues under a Democratic Congress. Once more, your whole focus is on everything being either the fault of, or to be fixed by politicians. Your ilk not only hasn't learned anything about the Great Depression, you don't even know what it is.


Misery loves company for you whiners, but no thanks. As I've done EVERY.SINGLE.YEAR you've whined about it being the Great Depression, I'll sit this one out too, and let you wallow in it. Be sure to reply after you're done at the bread line.

I'm not naive enough to believe that politicians' acions don't affect what happens out in the economy. It's all interconnected. Consumers who have been using credit to live beyond their means. Corporations that have been encouraging them to through marketing. Corporations that have made billions exploiting a credit-based economy. Politicians who have catered to the corporations by creating a government tailor made for this sort of exploitation.

This is precisely why we have government--to create a consensus on where the boundaries are. Those boundaries can be the lines that dictate when our actions begin to intrude on the rights of others, or they can place limits on the way money flows in our economy to protect its stability for us all.

[Doofy]

The US economy?

I just had my "baton down the hatches, now" warning this morning. Next couple of weeks are make or break.

[besson3c]

Credit default swaps are unregulated, which is a part of the problem

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I've seen different numbers in the media, and I'm not about to trust the graph of some anon with silly partisan annotations. I know there are some who distort the savings rate for political purposes. Either way, though, increasing the tax burden and ushering in a new era of stifling socialist institutions is no way to promote economic growth and prosperity.

Big Mac, I'm asking what I think is a reasonable question - you've made a claim about savings rates, and I wan to know which numbers you're using, because I can't find anything that supports your claim. Rants about socialism are not helpful. BTW, both the graphs I posted are US Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You know that some woefully ignorant voters think electing BHO means he will institute minimum incomes from the government for them?

Sort of like a pre-bate? Which voters are you talking about? What makes you think they believe this?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Big Mac, I'm asking what I think is a reasonable question - you've made a claim about savings rates, and I wan to know which numbers you're using, because I can't find anything that supports your claim. Rants about socialism are not helpful. BTW, both the graphs I posted are US Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

The savings rate shown at the BEA is a bit less than 3%, much more than the doctored leftist partisan graph you displayed:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/saving.htm

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You completely missed the point, but I'm hardly surprised. We're talking about personal debt.

It's not up to either Democrats or Republicans to dig you or anyone else out of a financial crisis caused by too much personal debt. It's simply your responsibility. If you're waiting around for some politician to pay off your Visa account for you, it's never gonna happen.

You missed the point, as well.

This really isn't a "Democrat or Republican" problem.

greg

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The savings rate shown at the BEA is a bit less than 3%, much more than the doctored leftist partisan graph you displayed:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/saving.htm

OK - thanks! So you are using the BEA data - the same 'leftist partisans' I was looking at. I see what you've done now - you've taken the average PSR from the Clinton era, and then compared it with ONLY the 2008 Q2 rate. That's not something any serious analyst would do, and every commentator I've seen has attributed this to a temporary rise as people pocket their stimulus checks. If you're looking to make partisan rhetoric, your claim is more or less technically true (although you should really restrict yourself to saying that the Q2 rate was this, not that the 'current one is). This will only be effective for people who don't know what you're talking about though, since no one who was interested in the real trend would look at it this way.

[olePigeon]

Big Mac got econo-served.

[Chongo]

looks like Obama forgot that the CEO of Fannie Mae was at his swearing in ceremony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

[ort888]

B Hussein O and people like him are the problem. I read that he took out four 125% adjustable rate balloon loans on the house that he bought from the crook Rezko. He needed to refinance his house in order to buy more basketballs and lighter fluid for burning bibles.

John "War Hero" McCain has all of his houses paid off in full.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by ort888 

John "War Hero" McCain has all of his houses paid off in full.

How many houses is that again?

[ort888]

Johnny "War Hero" McCain doesn't want to own all those houses. He did it to help the economy and house his ever growing number of adoptive Bangedeshi children... he just cares that much.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I'm not naive enough to believe that politicians' acions don't affect what happens out in the economy. It's all interconnected. Consumers who have been using credit to live beyond their means. Corporations that have been encouraging them to through marketing. Corporations that have made billions exploiting a credit-based economy. Politicians who have catered to the corporations by creating a government tailor made for this sort of exploitation.

I don't disagree with you on any of this.

The problem I have, as I originally stated, is that Democrats (I'm talking about those in power, not necessarily the rank and file) never want to address the second thing on your list- consumers living beyond their means. That goes back to consumers who haven't been educated about financial matters- they are and will remain ripe for plunder by the aforementioned corporations and corrupt government.

The ludicrous idea that we should trust the same body (government) to end something its very much a co-perpetrator of, is what I find so schitzo about liberal Democrats. People need to finally figure out that the closest thing they'll ever get any sort of financial independence is NOT going to come from some snakeoil salesman who promises it by confiscating prosperity from someone else. Not now, not ever.

I'm sick and tired of liars who stand up and first off, lie about it being The Great Depression, and second and say it'll all be just peachy so long as we let them steal from someone else to create endless new bottomless pit boondoggles, and that all the financial ills people may face are all Bush's fault. It's a crock of bullshit.

If you look at the first chart posted, people managed to save money even DURING the Great Depression, and in the years before WWII. Long before one can just ascribe it all to war bonds and having no consumer goods. Only an idiot would try and pretend those were better financial times than what we currently have. The difference was in the mindset of people, compared to now when too many people have been fed a line of bull that everything is owed to them off the back of someone else, and that no matter what they do, they can just scapegoat Bush or whoever and count on the next snakeoil salesman that comes along to make it all better.

I've even started threads about how all the mortgage industry and wallstreet crooks who were responsible for that whole mess should be in jail for the crap they pulled that we're now seeing the result of. Anyone with ANY shred of sense saw it coming, and said so, years before the bottom caved in.

But the difference is, I recognize that as corrupt and shady as all these people were, they couldn't have gotten away with it without the complicity and financial ignorance of far too many consumers. The blame doesn't just end with businesses and politicians- at some point people need to take responsibility for their own role.

More financially-prepared people wouldn't have taken some insane loan they couldn't really afford, on grossly overpriced property, at temporary teaser rates. A lot of people could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by merely learning to use a friggen CALCULATOR, to say nothing of a healthy dose of common sense. Collectively, the willingness of consumers to be duped, is what enabled the mortgage industry to dupe them. The blame goes both ways. What these people need to hear, is the hard truth- you don't deserve to be bailed out, you deserve to learn a lesson that you should have known in the first place, and take whatever fall is coming. No, no one is going to get in office and wave their magic wand and make someone else pay for your mistakes.

And another big part of that lesson? The corrupt mortgage and insurance rackets are the ones who'll get bailed out, if anyone, not Joe Consumer. I'm not shocked or surprised in the least that goverment takes care of its cronies, and cares less about the common slob. Exactly why I know better than to trust them with my health, wealth, or too much of anything else.

The VERY government too many people have been conned into believing will somehow magically become thier savior IS more beholden to take care of big business, corrupt or otherwise, than they are with any of their pie in the sky "we'll give you health/wealth and everything else!" nonsense. It's true of both Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats love to pretend they're pure as the wind driven snow, and for the little guy, but it's a crock- ALL of your most wished for boondoggles will have to be paid for by the fruit of the nation's businesses. Democrats are in bed with big money every bit as much as the Republicans you blame for everything.

Newsflash: You're not getting any of your pretend 'universal' this or that or your "free stuff and bailouts for everyone!" bullcrap, without a hell of a lot of politicians going to bed with every potential source of big money they can, corrupt, crooked, dirty, or otherwise. And for all that sleeping around, the parties putting up the money for all the boondoggles will at some point want their backs scratched when they need it. It's a symbiotic relationship that will never be severed, because it makes no sense for it to be, and the politicians running around pretending to be clean are probably the most crooked.

What also makes no sense, is anyone that's relying on one half of the crook contingent to solve the very problems they're actually obligated to create and perpetuate! Joe and Jane consumer need to be taught early on- you're on your own. Big Daddy government isn't going to float your ass, any more than Big Daddy Business is, and in fact, either or both will gladly fleece you any chance they get if you're dumb enough to fall for their schemes.

[Dual Porpoise]

Crash, I think you are correct that it looks like we have one party with two flavors. Both Democrats and Republicans are corporately owned, but one is the Pro-Gun Pro Life Corporate Party, while the other is the Anti-Gun Pro-Choice Corporate Party. The only way to fix this is with campaign finance reform - as long as massive corporations can give huge amounts of money to both parties simultaneously, democracy is fundamentally flawed.

[besson3c]

Yeah, but only one candidate is going to turn us all into cat food.

Make your choice, son.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I don't disagree with you on any of this.

The problem I have, as I originally stated, is that Democrats (I'm talking about those in power, not necessarily the rank and file) never want to address the second thing on your list- consumers living beyond their means. That goes back to consumers who haven't been educated about financial matters- they are and will remain ripe for plunder by the aforementioned corporations and corrupt government.

The ludicrous idea that we should trust the same body (government) to end something its very much a co-perpetrator of, is what I find so schitzo about liberal Democrats. People need to finally figure out that the closest thing they'll ever get any sort of financial independence is NOT going to come from some snakeoil salesman who promises it by confiscating prosperity from someone else. Not now, not ever.

I'm sick and tired of liars who stand up and first off, lie about it being The Great Depression, and second and say it'll all be just peachy so long as we let them steal from someone else to create endless new bottomless pit boondoggles, and that all the financial ills people may face are all Bush's fault. It's a crock of bullshit.

If you look at the first chart posted, people managed to save money even DURING the Great Depression, and in the years before WWII. Long before one can just ascribe it all to war bonds and having no consumer goods. Only an idiot would try and pretend those were better financial times than what we currently have. The difference was in the mindset of people, compared to now when too many people have been fed a line of bull that everything is owed to them off the back of someone else, and that no matter what they do, they can just scapegoat Bush or whoever and count on the next snakeoil salesman that comes along to make it all better.

I've even started threads about how all the mortgage industry and wallstreet crooks who were responsible for that whole mess should be in jail for the crap they pulled that we're now seeing the result of. Anyone with ANY shred of sense saw it coming, and said so, years before the bottom caved in.

But the difference is, I recognize that as corrupt and shady as all these people were, they couldn't have gotten away with it without the complicity and financial ignorance of far too many consumers. The blame doesn't just end with businesses and politicians- at some point people need to take responsibility for their own role.

More financially-prepared people wouldn't have taken some insane loan they couldn't really afford, on grossly overpriced property, at temporary teaser rates. A lot of people could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by merely learning to use a friggen CALCULATOR, to say nothing of a healthy dose of common sense. Collectively, the willingness of consumers to be duped, is what enabled the mortgage industry to dupe them. The blame goes both ways. What these people need to hear, is the hard truth- you don't deserve to be bailed out, you deserve to learn a lesson that you should have known in the first place, and take whatever fall is coming. No, no one is going to get in office and wave their magic wand and make someone else pay for your mistakes.

And another big part of that lesson? The corrupt mortgage and insurance rackets are the ones who'll get bailed out, if anyone, not Joe Consumer. I'm not shocked or surprised in the least that goverment takes care of its cronies, and cares less about the common slob. Exactly why I know better than to trust them with my health, wealth, or too much of anything else.

The VERY government too many people have been conned into believing will somehow magically become thier savior IS more beholden to take care of big business, corrupt or otherwise, than they are with any of their pie in the sky "we'll give you health/wealth and everything else!" nonsense. It's true of both Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats love to pretend they're pure as the wind driven snow, and for the little guy, but it's a crock- ALL of your most wished for boondoggles will have to be paid for by the fruit of the nation's businesses. Democrats are in bed with big money every bit as much as the Republicans you blame for everything.

Newsflash: You're not getting any of your pretend 'universal' this or that or your "free stuff and bailouts for everyone!" bullcrap, without a hell of a lot of politicians going to bed with every potential source of big money they can, corrupt, crooked, dirty, or otherwise. And for all that sleeping around, the parties putting up the money for all the boondoggles will at some point want their backs scratched when they need it. It's a symbiotic relationship that will never be severed, because it makes no sense for it to be, and the politicians running around pretending to be clean are probably the most crooked.

What also makes no sense, is anyone that's relying on one half of the crook contingent to solve the very problems they're actually obligated to create and perpetuate! Joe and Jane consumer need to be taught early on- you're on your own. Big Daddy government isn't going to float your ass, any more than Big Daddy Business is, and in fact, either or both will gladly fleece you any chance they get if you're dumb enough to fall for their schemes.

I think we've been down this road before. I agree on most counts about what's behind all this. You have said in the past that you would favor a completely "natural" business cycle and complete laissez faire economics. If we did that now, then it really could lead to a Great Depression. If we had been doing it all along, then we'd probably have the normal cycle of expansion and contraction we saw throughout the 19th and early 20th century.

I simply can't stomach that. As I told you once before, I choose to have faith that we can come to a consensus and implement through government means by which we can ameliorate that natural or normal cycle for the betterment of society by and large.

We had the Great Depression because capitalist society worldwide reached a sort of critical mass. Since then, we've played this game of trying to regulate and control those cycles because the mass in question had enough kinetic energy to draw down whole nations. I believe an unregulated economy could be even more precarious today, given the extent of interconnectedness in global capital.

Do people need to learn their lessons? Yes, I think so. But I don't want the world to suffer through a depression in order to do so. Is there a middle path? I have to--I choose to--believe there is.

As I've admitted before, this is faith on my part.

The only other thing I think is worth noting in what you say is the implicit celebration of capitalism itself. You say that social programs and such, "will have to be paid for by the fruit of the nation's businesses," implying that holding back those businesses is criminal.

Look, though, at those businesses. The irresponsibility of the populace is their bidding. This is the economy business wanted. Consumers as debt-slaves is the ultimate realization of their need for limitless growth.

This is what they wanted. We can blame people for being pawns in the game, to be sure, but don't neglect the players.

Their form of capitalism doesn't work if we are all little stake holders. If we are all middle class with savings that distribute economic power throughout the population. This form of capitalism requires concentrated wealth. If everyone owned more of the pie, then the drive would be diluted by middle class ambitions and values. Money would actually be diverted to quality jobs, to community--it would blunt the profit motive. It would slow the "progress" of this ravenous economy.

Have you considered the possibility that by being enterprise's cheerleader, you're just as much a pawn as the debt-slaves?