Anyone else upset by the new housing bill?

[Volant]

I guess we aren't responsible for our own actions after all; not when it comes to fiscal responsibility that is. :no:

[rw229]

OT, but... Yup... Those of us who live within our means don't get handouts. :crap:

[avalonracing]

I'm in the business and I'm not completely thrilled by it. But it is still a better use of tax money than this war.
And why exactly can't we afford a good national health program? Oh yeah...

[Ray]

I guess we aren't responsible for our own actions after all; not when it comes to fiscal responsibility that is. :no:
It seems like kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of thing. I don't like bailing out people who either make (particularly) or take bad loans. But when the situation gets as bad as its gotten this time, NOT acting seems like it would allow it to continue to spiral out of control and take the entire economy the rest of the way down with it. I'm not an economist, but the number of dominoes that seem to be falling in this credit crisis turned housing crisis turned banking crisis turned general economic potential crisis is pretty remarkably bad. So the folks who "live within our means" are likely going down with the ship one way or the other. This way just seems less bad. Zillions of foreclosures don't do anyone any good. Those who can't pay the loans, those left holding the loans (generally NOT the same idiots who made them in the first place), the neighborhoods that turn to blight, and the cities and towns that have to deal with the fallout of all of those homes sitting empty and people out on the street. I don't know how MUCH this will help, but its gotta help some.

-Ray

[Ti Designs]

Yes, people are idiots and need to be protected from themselves. Yeh, I mean you.


Day 2 of I hate everyone, I could learn to like this!

[TimD]

Socialized risk and private profit? Is there a problem?

[Ahneida Ride]

It isn't tax money ... and that is the whole problem.
Wars cannot be fought using normal taxes. They are just too expensive.
Hence the backdoor most pernicions inflation frn tax.

Actually we could not tax ourselves at all and just create all the frns
we need outa thin air. but that would be a bit too obvious.

It is not money either.

It is private corporation shopping coupons created out thin air.
Non redeemable notes. They specify not when then can be redeemed and
what they can can be redeemed in. Notes were not originally like that.
They clearly stipulated when they were redeemable (upon demand) and
what tangible asset they were redeemable in (gold, silver). Otherwise
people would have never accepted them in the first place.

We (the people) get diluted alive as our purchasing power goes down the
drain.

In dollars, gas is 16 cents per gallon. In frns well ... it's too painful to repeat. :eek:

The frn is not money. Real money is not easily counterfeited by definition.
The frn is created by typing #'s into a computer spreadsheet.

Relax, don't worry. I am sure that all Americans will become well off by
trading the Forex and e-mini. Pay no attention to the fact that futures
is a zero sum game. :crap:

The national debt is now approaching 10 Trillion frns. or 1.77 Billion/day
or about 32,000 for every man, woman, child and baby in the US.
Look at every one you meet today and think 32,000.

This bailout will generate even more frns outa thin air and the fed will
continue collecting even more interest on nothing.

No-one bails me out when I make a non performing investment. :no:

end of rant ... I'll shut up again for a spell. I am going out for a ride.

[Ray]

No-one bails me out when I make a non performing investment. :no:

end of rant ... I'll shut up again for a spell. I am going out for a ride.
No, me neither. But if we made enough of them and they were bad enough, they would. Its a volume business, failed loans. We lose money on every deal but make it up on volume!

-Ray

[OtayBW]

Yes, of course we are responsible for our own actions. But then, words like 'predatory lending practices' also come to mind. So do Bear Stearns, and Freddie Mac, and 80's S&L bailout.

Better hope your own actions protect you from bad jalapeno peppers, btw...

[dvs cycles]

Yes, people are idiots and need to be protected from themselves. !
Trouble is whenever you make something IDIOT-PROOF, they just build a better IDIOT! :rolleyes:

[Bill Bove]

Times are bad, some people are hurting, what's so wrong about lending a hand? Didn't some guy named Jesus that all the right wingers claim to love say something about this a long time ago.

I do not know who is responsible for this problem. People who borrowed more than they can pay back? Banks that loaned out too much money to people who they should have been smarter than to loan money to? Either way it is hurting me and I do not mind my tax money being spent to make my life better and if some other poor slob gets help along the way too, good for him.

By the way, can someone please explain to me why I have to pay taxes to fund a fire dept. in my town? We have never had a forest fire in my town, we don't even have a forest in my town. I am very carefull about fire hazards in my home and have never had a fire in my home so why do I have to pay for a fireman to go to my naighbors house to put out a fire because he is to stupid to turn off his oven? Shouldn't I just let his house burn down, it's his own fault? It's not my house but it is my money.

[ti_boi]

Last week, Richard Fisher, head of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, "speaking solely in [his] own capacity," alerts us that "the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security...comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. " Fisher goes on to warn:

This comes to $1.3 million per family of four - over 25 times the average household's income....No combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, though, will change the total borne by current and future generations....We know from centuries of evidence in countless economies, from ancient Rome to today's Zimbabwe, that running the printing press to pay off today's bills leads to much worse problems later on. The inflation that results from the flood of money into the economy turns out to be far worse than the fiscal pain those countries hoped to avoid.

Source: http://www.greenfaucet.com/the-market/its-always-darkest-before-the-dawn-of-a-depression/49942



Also as someone on another blog said:

No doubt that America is a great country and despite the issues we face, right now I would still not pick any other place to live besides America.

But fast forward five or ten years, when we have to pay the piper or our corporate bailouts and excesses. Our taxes will be about the same as most socialist countries in Europe without the social benefits/health care you get in Europe for the high taxes.

Our high taxes will be used to pay for the war crafted by the Neo-Cons and for the various bailouts to America’s corporations.

[1centaur]

I think we have to define terms. A bailout, IMO, is when those who made mistakes don't have to pay the piper because a third party saves their hide with more money, in general. A home buyer who could not afford his purchase and gambled that rising home prices would save his hide is bailed out if the government tells his lender to extend terms and cut rate, i,e., the bailout money comes from the financial institution upon order of the government, and the people that pay are the owners of the financial institution. If the government steps in and guarantees such mortgages, taxpayers are bailing out the buyer and the financial institution.

A financial institution is also bailed out if dollars are put into it to prop it up without hurting shareholders. Fannie and Freddie are pillars of a social policy to encourage homeownership and have been hurt by the credit crunch. Propping them up is probably wise; bailing out their shareholders may not be, though I have not examined those companies enough to know how much complicity they have in making subprime loans (or buying AAA-rated subprime structured product) versus just being hurt by the fallout.

Bear Stearns was not bailed out - its shareholders were basically wiped out, possibly due to a crisis of confidence caused by manipulative short sellers and not Bear's own actions.

The term "corporate bailout" is frequently tossed about but is rarely observed. I somehow doubt we'll be paying for corporate bailouts for years to come, nor do I think war costs are going to amount to much compared to entitlement programs.

[Louis]

Socialized risk and private profit? Is there a problem?

I don't think this should surprise anyone. Who makes the rules, the little guys or the big guys?

[BumpyintheBurgh]

I guess we aren't responsible for our own actions after all; not when it comes to fiscal responsibility that is. :no:

Are you talking about the fiscal responsibility of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns, Countrywide Financial and the many other financial instiutions whose greed and unsound financial practices of making/acccepting questionable loans helped to dig the hole they are in now or the up to 400,000 individuals who face foreclosure on their homes because of their naivete, gullibility, or lack of knowledge or understanding of the mortgage terms,(no excuse), whose only desire was to have a home of their own.

[Chief]

OT, but... Yup... Those of us who live within our means don't get handouts. :crap:

We don't get handouts, we give them. :crap:

[1happygirl]

Hey this was upsetting me too. I guess I'm just upset that PEOPLE cannot delay gratification. You know you cannot afford everything and anything you see and making $30,000 you are not getting any $250,000 house you look at.

Regarding who is responsible, what happened to personal resposibility. Does McDonald's make you fat or do you make you fat? While the lenders may have made some shady moves, who is really in control of your finances--YOU.

In the same way I don't feel sorry for these people who send money to these scammers thinking they will double their money over night (think greed), I have little sympathy for the people who are being foreclosed on. We had this discussion at work the other night. Even though I'm young, I'm in the minority. By and large the other young people thought we should bail them out. The lady on ABC News the other night they profiled said she had her car break down and it threw her behind on her mortgage. What happened to thinking ahead? There are no consequences to actions any more.

[rwsaunders]

When someone loses their job and they need some help with feeding the family and making the house payments?....I'm for it.

When you overpay for a home, count on the theoretical equity to finance your SUV, big screen tv, pool and outdoor fireplace, and then get stuck by an ARM which you should have avoided in the first place....I have a hard time feeling sympathetic and even an harder time paying for it.

To paraphrase George Carlin....The average person is stupid, and it's scary to realize that half as many people are dumber than that.

[Louis]

Oh, and by the way, I've decide that I'm no longer going to pay property taxes. A huge proportion of that goes to the school system, but I'm single, and have no kids, and never have had any. From my perspective, it's just a big rip-off. I'm tired of supporting you free-loaders who've been busy pumping out children. No more free schooling courtesy of my tax money.

Louis

[hokoman]

Speaking of homes, this just made me laugh....
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16980412/detail.html

[97CSI]

Yep........another bail-out of the rich. Bought and paid for by donations to those who are supposed to represent us all. :rolleyes: That's a joke.

[El Chaba]

Yes, of course we are responsible for our own actions. But then, words like 'predatory lending practices' also come to mind. So do Bear Stearns, and Freddie Mac, and 80's S&L bailout.

Better hope your own actions protect you from bad jalapeno peppers, btw...


"predatory lending practices" is a code phrase for banks being forced- by government regulations- to loan money to people who could not afford the homes they were buying.

[97CSI]

"predatory lending practices" is a code phrase for banks being forced- by government regulations- to loan money to people who could not afford the homes they were buying.Total crock. No lender was 'forced' to make any of these loans. No lender or borrower was 'forced' to lie. All a matter of the usual human greed.

[El Chaba]

Total crock. No lender was 'forced' to make any of these loans. No lender or borrower was 'forced' to lie. All a matter of the usual human greed.
....

Actually it is quite true....so you are not familiar with the process of redlining?...and the regulations that resulted..


Calling Pete...Are you going to allow this guy to call me a liar....or is that permissable because I expressed a conservative view?.....

[Ray]

Most of the people on both sides of this mess (bother lenders and lendees) got in over their heads because of greed and an amazing disbelief in the laws of gravity. And deserve no sympathy or bailout. Some folks (also on both sides) are actually innocent victims of the whole thing and probably do deserve some sort of help. But the bottom line is the problem got big enough to make this sort of philosophical discussion sort of meaningless. If no "bailout / prop-up / helping hand" (call it whatever you want) was enacted, the entire credit and banking industry could have collapsed, taking the economy with it. Still could, but at least they're trying. At a certain point, like it or not, we're all in it together and lots of innocent folks have to pay for the mistakes and greed of less innocent folks to keep us ALL afloat.

As others have pointed out, its sort of like insurance and taxes for emergency services and stuff. Although I live a healthy lifestyle and am much less likely than lots of people to burn my house down, my health-care costs go up (partly) because of people who don't live as healthy a lifestyle and my taxes go up to pay for the fire department because of people who smoke and heat their houses with their gas stoves when times are tough, etc, etc, etc. In my perfect world, smokers would pay ALL of the costs of their actions, the obese would have to pay for all of the costs of eating like crap, etc, etc, etc. Everyone would pay for all of the costs of their own actions so I wouldn't have to. There would also be world peace, we would all ride bicycles for everything, energy costs would not be an issue, the air and water would be clean, and everyone would be named Chip or Billy or Susie or Cindy and would look like movie stars. In a perfect world.

Let me know when you find that world. In the meantime, we muddle along helping each other pay for our mistakes. Maybe someday I'll really screw up and need help. And hopefully, it'll be there then too.

-Ray

[Pete Serotta]

I also disagree with you. While understanding what redlining is - the banks went after $$ for themselves via fees. The government if anything was LAX on oversight as were the auditors. That is just my view and with it an a FRNC you will get a COLA.

All that was said was it was a CROC not that you were a liar :cool: :cool:

But for such a hot topic we are staying pretty civil Lets see if we can share opinions without the personal attacks;

(AND Amenida has still not been heard from :D

....

Actually it is quite true....so you are not familiar with the process of redlining?...and the regulations that resulted..


Calling Pete...Are you going to allow this guy to call me a liar....or is that permissable because I expressed a conservative view?.....

[39cross]

Hmmm...I wonder who was the head of the Fed while all this was happening? Oops. Another legacy tarnished. Unfortunately, the punch bowl wasn't taken away before the party got out of hand, and now everyone is paying for it, whether they were at the party or not.

[Pete Serotta]

:beer: :beer: hangover time is here and then some


Hmmm...I wonder who was the head of the Fed while all this was happening? Oops. Another legacy tarnished. Unfortunately, the punch bowl wasn't taken away before the party got out of hand, and now everyone is paying for it, whether they were at the party or not.

[Ray]

Hmmm...I wonder who was the head of the Fed while all this was happening? Oops. Another legacy tarnished. Unfortunately, the punch bowl wasn't taken away before the party got out of hand, and now everyone is paying for it, whether they were at the party or not.
One hint. It wasn't Volker. What's he up to these days? Oh, yeah.

-Ray

[Tobias]

So the folks who "live within our means" are likely going down with the ship one way or the other. This way just seems less bad. Zillions of foreclosures don't do anyone any good.
-RayShort term I agree. Long term we are promoting some in society to take unwarranted risks at our expense, and with each cycle the risks will become greater.

I'd let the ship sink to break the cycle knowing most who used good judgment and lived within their means have life preservers.

[Tobias]

I'm in the business and I'm not completely thrilled by it. But it is still a better use of tax money than this war.
And why exactly can't we afford a good national health program? Oh yeah...Compare the numbers to place in perspective (I'm not defending the war here).

The latest number on the war is just over $560 billion. Entitlements assoicated with Medicare health care are about $86 trillion -- more or less.

I'm not sure how we are going to afford that either. It's far greater than the $13 trillion for Social Security.

[Ray]

Short term I agree. Long term we are promoting some in society to take unwarranted risks at our expense, and with each cycle the risks will become greater.

I'd let the ship sink to break the cycle knowing most who used good judgment and lived within their means have life preservers.
I absolutely agree with the first part of your analysis. But differ on the prescription. Which probably is a perfect summary of our differences as conservatives and liberals. I mean no criticism or offense - I think both are legitimate views arrived at for legitimate reasons and based on sound analysis. We just come down on different sides. My feeling is that all ships eventually sink - the goal is to put that off as long as possible!

BTW, having just seen your more recent post on entitlements, I agree with you here too. We've screwed ourselves on SS and Medicare in ways we will never be able to live up to. The solution is gonna suck and whoever presides when reality finally hits is gonna have a hell of a clean up.

Peace out,

-Ray

[Tobias]

Which probably is a perfect summary of our differences as conservatives and liberals. I mean no criticism or offense -I resent being called a liberal. :crap:

[johnnymossville]

It's the same as people building in flood plains, hurricane paths on the shoreline, etc,... there's risk involved. I'm all for Govt. supporting people taking risks since it's how we move forward, by learning from mistakes. Practice makes perfect. If you sit and do nothing worried about making mistakes, you'll end up with exactly that, nothing.

It's when we continue to bail people out OVER and OVER and OVER again for the same mistakes all the while not rewarding (actually punishing) those who play by the rules. That's when I get a bit peeved.

As far as this housing crisis. There isn't a crisis as far as I'm concerned. People bit off more than they could chew, home prices in turn got so high I'll never be able to afford one, and now the govt. will bail them out and the banks that made the loans, keeping home prices higher than they should be.

Ahhhh election year fun.

[Ray]

I resent being called a liberal. :crap:
I've gotten used to it - you can too :cool:

[39cross]

I resent being called a liberal. :crap:
Faced with the delightful prospect of enhancing thread drift, I offer this snippet liberally borrowed from here (http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/11/a_badge_of_hono.html). Just to make you feel better. ;)

A Badge of Honor

Why can't we hear more of this from actual Democratic candidates, not just fictional ones. But this exchange between Matthew Santos, a Democrat, and Arnold Vinnick, a Republican, stood out on live debate from "The West Wing":

Santos: I know you like to use that word "liberal" as if it were a crime.

Vinnick: No, I'm sorry. I know I shouldn't have used that word. I know Democrats think "liberal" is a bad word. So bad you had to change it, didn't you? What do you call yourselves now? Progressives? Is that it?

Santos: It's true. Republicans have tried to turn "liberal" into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.

Vinnick: A Republican president ended slavery.

Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party?

I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.

What did conservatives do? They opposed every single one of those things. Every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet – "liberal" – as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work Senator. Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

[Ray]

Faced with the delightful prospect of enhancing thread drift, I offer this snippet liberally borrowed from here (http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/11/a_badge_of_hono.html). Just to make you feel better. ;)

Uh-Oh. Gotta go now...

-Ray

[Tobias]

I've gotten used to it - you can too :cool:Funny thing is that compared to most of my neighbors, I am a liberal. No joke.

Ray, I don't like labels, don't even like to think I'm in the middle. For me each issue must stand on its own merit, although I almost always evaluate them on a long-term basis rather than as a short-term solution.

[Pete Serotta]

A 'label" did not do it.

Faced with the delightful prospect of enhancing thread drift, I offer this snippet liberally borrowed from here (http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/11/a_badge_of_hono.html). Just to make you feel better. ;)

A Badge of Honor

Why can't we hear more of this from actual Democratic candidates, not just fictional ones. But this exchange between Matthew Santos, a Democrat, and Arnold Vinnick, a Republican, stood out on live debate from "The West Wing":

Santos: I know you like to use that word "liberal" as if it were a crime.

Vinnick: No, I'm sorry. I know I shouldn't have used that word. I know Democrats think "liberal" is a bad word. So bad you had to change it, didn't you? What do you call yourselves now? Progressives? Is that it?

Santos: It's true. Republicans have tried to turn "liberal" into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.

Vinnick: A Republican president ended slavery.

Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party?

I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.

What did conservatives do? They opposed every single one of those things. Every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet – "liberal" – as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work Senator. Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

[Ray]

Funny thing is that compared to most of my neighbors, I am a liberal. No joke.

Ray, I don't like labels, don't even like to think I'm in the middle. For me each issue must stand on its own merit, although I almost always evaluate them on a long-term basis rather than as a short-term solution.
I'm actually more conservative than most of my friends and family. So I should stay out of your neighborhood and perhaps you should stay away from my family. :cool:

I feel the same way about looking at things issue by issue, although I sometimes go for avoiding the short term crisis if it looks bad enough. We do tend to fall into patterns though. I, for example, have voted for any number of Republicans for all sorts of state and local offices and even for US Senate. But I have yet to vote for one for president and, unless the national Republican party changes some very basic positions, I probably won't anytime soon either. So I'm generally willing to cop to "liberal" despite my distaste for labels.

-Ray

[Climb01742]

both parties, and perhaps all politicians, have a fatal flaw: they use programs to win elections (and get campaign donations) instead of using programs to solve problems. both parties suffer from an honesty deficit. i've often wondered how a politician would fare if he or she actually told the truth, in particular to their own base. i even have a slogan: hey, let's give honesty a shot.

i feel cheated, or perhaps ill-served, by both sides in this regard. as americans, we are going to need to make some very hard choices soon to deal with so many issues. yet what politician is treating us like adults and laying out the cold hard truth? i think at least 51% of americans would appreciate this.

[Pete Serotta]

+ 1 Zillion

Well said!!!

both parties, and perhaps all politicians, have a fatal flaw: they use programs to win elections (and get campaign donations) instead of using programs to solve problems. both parties suffer from an honesty deficit. i've often wondered how a politician would fare if he or she actually told the truth, in particular to their own base. i even have a slogan: hey, let's give honesty a shot.

i feel cheated, or perhaps ill-served, by both sides in this regard. as americans, we are going to need to make some very hard choices soon to deal with so many issues. yet what politician is treating us like adults and laying out the cold hard truth? i think at least 51% of americans would appreciate this.

[johnnymossville]

Every single time a politician tries to make a difference by even mentioning hard choices, like Bush did with Social Security a few years ago. He had a plan, (maybe you didn't agree with it but he opened it up for debate), but was shut down even before it started. The Partisan ranting begins and nothing ever gets done. The sooner people get off their front porch waiting around for something to happen and realize govt. isn't the answer, but the problem on most issues, the better off they'll be.

We do indeed have some hard choices coming up. Politicians don't have the spine for it and never will. We're gonna have to do it on our own one way or another. Exactly the way it SHOULD be.

[rnhood]

Every single time a politician tries to make a difference by even mentioning hard choices, like Bush did with Social Security a few years ago. He had a plan, (maybe you didn't agree with it but he opened it up for debate), but was shut down even before it started. The Partisan ranting begins and nothing ever gets done. The sooner people get off their front porch waiting around for something to happen and realize govt. isn't the answer, but the problem on most issues, the better off they'll be.

We do indeed have some hard choices coming up. Politicians don't have the spine for it and never will. We're gonna have to do it on our own one way or another. Exactly the way it SHOULD be.

Very good post and, very true.

[goonster]

we are going to need to make some very hard choices soon to deal with so many issues. yet what politician is treating us like adults and laying out the cold hard truth?

That is the current populist pitch, and I see a bunch of people gesticulating Howard Beale-like, but where do you see it going from there*, exactly?

It will go the way it always goes, i.e. the hard choices get made when they are painfully obvious, there aren't any other choices left and it is borderline too late.

An example: High energy costs. All the squawking about speculators, drilling and gas mileage mandates aside, there is only one painful solution: reduce use, which can't be easily legislated, and will result in curbing key economic sectors. The politician's aren't saying it because we don't want to hear it.

So there you have it: "we" aren't ready for the cold, hard truth.

(* = serious campaign finance reform might be a good start, atmo.)

[Pete Serotta]

Tell them what they want to hear and also that it is someone else's problem :banana:

[Kirk Pacenti]

Tell them what they want to hear and also that it is someone else's problem :banana:


For the time will come when people will not tolerate healthy doctrine, but with itching ears will surround themselves with teachers who cater to their people's own desires. - 2 Timothy 4:3

[TAW]

For the time will come when people will not tolerate healthy doctrine, but with itching ears will surround themselves with teachers who cater to their people's own desires. - 2 Timothy 4:3

Good quote. :) As a minister, I've found that this is true of people in the church as well as outside in society. There will always be plenty of false "preachers" who will tell people what they want to hear to build their own empire.

[mef]

We elected W. to two terms. We deserve everything we are about to get.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" HLM

[RPS]

So there you have it: "we" aren't ready for the cold, hard truth.Absolutely correct.

How can any politician tell the American people that Medicare costs alone represent over one million dollars per family of four and get elected?

As I get older and closer to retirement I'd like to have Social Security and Medicare, but these programs can not continue in their present form. Still, I don't see politicians talking about drastic cutbacks, which in my opinion is what it’s going to take.

[Climb01742]

That is the current populist pitch, and I see a bunch of people gesticulating Howard Beale-like, but where do you see it going from there*, exactly?

It will go the way it always goes, i.e. the hard choices get made when they are painfully obvious, there aren't any other choices left and it is borderline too late.

An example: High energy costs. All the squawking about speculators, drilling and gas mileage mandates aside, there is only one painful solution: reduce use, which can't be easily legislated, and will result in curbing key economic sectors. The politician's aren't saying it because we don't want to hear it.

So there you have it: "we" aren't ready for the cold, hard truth.

(* = serious campaign finance reform might be a good start, atmo.)

goonster, you may be right, but i'm not quite ready to throw in the towel.

if someone -- a politician, businessperson, religious leader, heck even t. boone pickens! -- just simply and honestly laid out the problems and a set of possible solutions, where both pain and gain were shared... (and this is key) if folks saw that their sacrifices would actually lead somewhere and the system wasn't gamed, i truly (perhaps naively) believe at least 51% of folks would buy that. i don't care who the messenger is, and yes, the genuine answer will be personal action, not laws, but things like tax incentives could encourage folks to act.

[Birddog]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Birddog

[93legendti]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Birddog
Worthy of being repeated:

"...The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack ????? says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half..."

I agree, EVERYONE should pay their "fair share". I know what I paid in taxes last year and it was more than my "fair share".

[Ray]

goonster, you may be right, but i'm not quite ready to throw in the towel.

if someone -- a politician, businessperson, religious leader, heck even t. boone pickens! -- just simply and honestly laid out the problems and a set of possible solutions, where both pain and gain were shared... (and this is key) if folks saw that their sacrifices would actually lead somewhere and the system wasn't gamed, i truly (perhaps naively) believe at least 51% of folks would buy that. i don't care who the messenger is, and yes, the genuine answer will be personal action, not laws, but things like tax incentives could encourage folks to act.
I think Goon had it nailed. People TRY what you're suggesting Climb. They tend to get clobbered. Ross Perot kind of did it - didn't help that he was a wack job or was at least successfully portrayed that way. This year Dennis Kucinich did it on the left and Tom Tancredo did it on the right. They obviously had very different priorities and identified the problems differently, but they were both brutally honest. And got laughed off the stage. Occasionally someone comes along and does it and wins a couple of primaries. Tsongas in '92, McCane in 2000, Babbit in '88. Clobbered, clobbered, and clobbered. The press always loves these folks and says nice things about them, but they never win. Because you have to tell people at least a lot of what they want to hear to get them to vote for you. And a lot of different people want to hear very different things, even in the primaries, so there's an art to making them all think you're at least nominally on their side. I actually think that of the "major candidates" in both parties, the two candidates who managed to mix in the most honesty with all of the necessary pandering were the ones who are actually the nominees. So I consider this relatively good news. No, I take it back. Actually Edwards probably did more of it than Barack, and Huckabee more than Mac but look what happened to them.

When the problems get bad enough that they reach crisis levels or are close enough to seem like it, sitting politicians can sometimes get honest. See Roosevelt during the depression and WWII. But I don't think he got elected the first time that way - I'm not sure but I'd bet he didn't. Bush looked like he might do it in the first few weeks after 9/11, but then he took a right turn and decided to use it for partisan advantage, which obviously worked for him for a while, as much as it pissed off those of us on the left. There are just too many "interests" (and I don't mean that pejoratively-we're all part of 'em) with different priorities for any one candidate to be brutally honest and get enough of them to vote for him or her. Someone who tells the unvarnished version of MY truth is gonna lose a LOT of votes from people who think I'm more or less from Mars. The problem is we're from a LOT of different planets and nobody is the sun here, to butcher an analogy.

The idealist in me would love to see it work like you suggest. But that supposes there's something like a consensus about what's wrong and how to fix it. There's nothing even close to that and never will be (except for brief moments in the midst of crisis).

Call me a cynic. I won't argue.

-Ray

[fiamme red]

Worthy of being repeated:

"...The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack ????? says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half..."The very wealthy have been growing ever richer, and are earning much more in comparison with the average American, so naturally they're paying more in taxes.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621

In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

[1happygirl]

Short term I agree. Long term we are promoting some in society to take unwarranted risks at our expense, and with each cycle the risks will become greater.

I'd let the ship sink to break the cycle knowing most who used good judgment and lived within their means have life preservers.

I agree with letting it sink. Here, here.
My parents taught me two wrongs don't make a right.

That being said, this thread is talking about the housing bill. The war, Social (in)Security, Medicare, energy crisis, the candidates, the Pres, unemployment etc.--those are seperate issues.

[fiamme red]

I think Goon had it nailed. People TRY what you're suggesting Climb. They tend to get clobbered. Ross Perot kind of did it - didn't help that he was a wack job or was at least successfully portrayed that way. This year Dennis Kucinich did it on the left and Tom Tancredo did it on the right. They obviously had very different priorities and identified the problems differently, but they were both brutally honest. And got laughed off the stage. Occasionally someone comes along and does it and wins a couple of primaries. Tsongas in '92, McCane in 2000, Babbit in '88. Clobbered, clobbered, and clobbered. The press always loves these folks and says nice things about them, but they never win.And if they tell the truth while in office, they're voted out in the next election, e.g., Jimmy Carter and his energy policy speech.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us...

[1centaur]

In that wsj piece, divide tax share by share of income to get a rough sense of fairness. The Top 5% do a lot worse than the top 1% (or anybody else) on that measure. But the top 5% are right in the bullseye for expected tax increases as a lot more of their income comes from wages/bonuses vs. capital gains (thus making them subject to huge SS increases that might not hit the top 1% as much).

If every Democratic tax increase is done in the name of "fairness," and every tax cut is skewed to the poor (as the Democrats must want given the demagoguing of 'Bush's tax cuts for the rich' that were actually tax cuts for those who pay taxes and were skewed against the rich, ratewise), at some point the system becomes so top heavy that there's a problem. O'bama acts like the current system is grossly unfair to the poor and he has the vision to see that. He went to Harvard and he must have seen charts like the one in the wsj. Until he acknowledges the present disparity, he is pandering. A visionary can't just tax more, he must spend less - a lot less.

[Ray]

And if they tell the truth while in office, they're voted out in the next election, e.g., Jimmy Carter and his energy policy speech.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us...
Incredibly on-point example. Looks prescient in retrospect but it just wasn't enough of a crisis yet for people to feel the pain enough to believe him or want to believe him or want to deal with it. The choice was between malaise and morning in America - no contest!

-Ray

[93legendti]

The very wealthy have been growing ever richer, and are earning much more in comparison with the average American, so naturally they're paying more in taxes.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621

In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

There's nothing wrong with paying taxes - it means I am making money. When I pay MORE than my fair share, that's where I have a problem.

[Ozz]

There's nothing wrong with paying taxes - it means I am making money. When I pay MORE than my fair share, that's where I have a problem.
So I guess what remains is defining "fair".....

"One for you, nineteen for me......TAXMAN!"

:beer:

[Pete Serotta]

Sounds fair - unless you are the TAXMAN and then the question of why you let one get away :confused:


So I guess what remains is defining "fair".....

"One for you, nineteen for me......TAXMAN!"

:beer:

[Climb01742]

In that wsj piece, divide tax share by share of income to get a rough sense of fairness. The Top 5% do a lot worse than the top 1% (or anybody else) on that measure. But the top 5% are right in the bullseye for expected tax increases as a lot more of their income comes from wages/bonuses vs. capital gains (thus making them subject to huge SS increases that might not hit the top 1% as much).

If every Democratic tax increase is done in the name of "fairness," and every tax cut is skewed to the poor (as the Democrats must want given the demagoguing of 'Bush's tax cuts for the rich' that were actually tax cuts for those who pay taxes and were skewed against the rich, ratewise), at some point the system becomes so top heavy that there's a problem. O'bama acts like the current system is grossly unfair to the poor and he has the vision to see that. He went to Harvard and he must have seen charts like the one in the wsj. Until he acknowledges the present disparity, he is pandering. A visionary can't just tax more, he must spend less - a lot less.

can we agree there is pandering going on on both sides? aren't most tax cuts pandering, particularly given the deficit and war spending? both parties and candidates are moving toward the low ground, not the high ground.

[Pete Serotta]

__________________________________
NEWS ALERT
from The Wall Street Journal



July 29, 2008

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator, has been
indicted on seven counts of making false statements. Stevens, 86 years old, has
been dogged by a federal investigation into whether he pushed for fishing
legislation that also benefited his son, an Alaska lobbyist. Authorities have
also scrutinized his ties to a corrupt oil contractor who paid employees to
renovate the senator's home.

[R2D2]

We elected W. to two terms. We deserve everything we are about to get.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" HLM

The Supreme Court did.

[93legendti]

The very wealthy have been growing ever richer, and are earning much more in comparison with the average American, so naturally they're paying more in taxes.http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621

In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

"...Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive...

The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.
This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.

The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...emEditorialPage

[johnnymossville]

The Supreme Court did.

Kinda like the DNC nominated ????? even though Hillary got more votes. *duck!* At least the Supreme Court goes through some sort of official nomination process.

Actually, anyone who puts that much faith in one person is looking for a king, and not a president. Personally, I'd rather live day to day without being bothered by either.

[Ray]

No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. [/B] These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003..."
I'm not gonna get into the whole tax the rich question with you guys - we're never gonna convince each other. But you might wanna check your budget deficit numbers in light of yesterday's announcement. We've got an all-time record deficit piled onto an already huge debt. This is another reason that neither of the current candidates can tell the whole truth - neither of them are gonna be able to afford to do much of what they'd like to and that's a very tough sell.

-Ray

[93legendti]

I'm not gonna get into the whole tax the rich question with you guys - we're never gonna convince each other. But you might wanna check your budget deficit numbers in light of yesterday's announcement. We've got an all-time record deficit piled onto an already huge debt. This is another reason that neither of the current candidates can tell the whole truth - neither of them are gonna be able to afford to do much of what they'd like to and that's a very tough sell.

-Ray

This point was also addressed by the WSJ:


"...This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. (The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.)..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...emEditorialPage

[Climb01742]

grain of salt time: the WSJ has an editorial bias, heightened by its new owner. i'm not saying it's numbers or conclusions are flawed -- i ain't that smart -- but the objectivity of murdoch outlets is, at least, open to discussion.

[93legendti]

grain of salt time: the WSJ has an editorial bias, heightened by its new owner. i'm not saying it's numbers or conclusions are flawed -- i ain't that smart -- but the objectivity of murdoch outlets is, at least, open to discussion.

Jim, the article has a sidebar indicating:

"Source: IRS, Statisctics of Income, 2008".

I'd go easy on Mr. Murdoch. He had the good sense not to send his news anchor on BHO's Magical Mystery European Tour/photo op, unlike the other news anchors (from the channels ones whose combined ratings are dwarfed by Fox) who fell all over themsleves to follow BHO around. Andrea Mitchell seemed less than pleased with the scripting of the whole trip.

Also, his media outlets do not cover BHO 3 times as often as they do JM - unlike the other media outlets.

[zap]

sniped

Kinda like the DNC nominated ????? even though Hillary got more votes. *duck!* At least the Supreme Court goes through some sort of official nomination process.



If I'm not mistaken, even counting the full florida and michigan votes, hill's was still behind in raw votes.

Denver is not too far away so it ain't over yet. Pelosi and Dean will put a tight lid on the whole proceeding, but.....

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/15/breaking-?????-superds-switching-to-hillary/

[1centaur]

politicians pander - we agree - but I don't like it. Deficits are a two-sided coin often looked at as about taxes more than spending. Anyone serious about deficits needs to be very serious about painful spending cuts in lots of areas, from defense to welfare to social security. Anybody who says he is serious about deficits and only mentions taxes is not a serious person, just an average politician.

The objectivity of NPR is as suspect as that of the wsj, i.e., well known and therefore to be adjusted for. We all have biases, but that's just the start of the conversation. The facts are the facts, even though they are statistics. Without the wsj's bias, that chart does not get presented or discussed in mainstream media, but it's a very important chart, right? The world does not like imbalance, and pretending it does not exist won't change the facts. I have mentioned here before that an increasing proportion of the population pays for very little of the cost of government yet votes in people who promise to send more money their way. That's a problem, and that's my point.

[Climb01742]

politicians pander - we agree - but I don't like it. Deficits are a two-sided coin often looked at as about taxes more than spending. Anyone serious about deficits needs to be very serious about painful spending cuts in lots of areas, from defense to welfare to social security. Anybody who says he is serious about deficits and only mentions taxes is not a serious person, just an average politician.

The objectivity of NPR is as suspect as that of the wsj, i.e., well known and therefore to be adjusted for. We all have biases, but that's just the start of the conversation. The facts are the facts, even though they are statistics. Without the wsj's bias, that chart does not get presented or discussed in mainstream media, but it's a very important chart, right? The world does not like imbalance, and pretending it does not exist won't change the facts. I have mentioned here before that an increasing proportion of the population pays for very little of the cost of government yet votes in people who promise to send more money their way. That's a problem, and that's my point.

i agree fully that spending is the real issue, not taxes. yet neither party seriously discusses spending cuts_large enough and broad enough_to deal with the deficit. each party wants to cut what it dislikes.

and i fully agree, as well, that the tax code is farked up. robin hood taxation -- take from the rich and give to the poor -- is an election year exercise in BS.

so how do we, as a nation, move toward a serious discussion about these issues?

[goonster]

The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts. This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.

Uh, the way I saw it, the only thing that really grew in that period was the real estate bubble.

You describe a scenario where those with substantial capital to invest did very well, but I fail to see how any of that trickled down or created real economic growth (y'know, the kind that creates salaried jobs w. benefits, etc.), or reduced the deficit, or would in any way persuade non-millionaires to vote for permanent tax cuts while there's a war going on.

[1centaur]

so how do we, as a nation, move toward a serious discussion about these issues?

It will not happen in our lifetime. It would take changes in our education system to even create the right base of economic understanding, and those changes are impossible, IMO.

Thus I guess I should only talk about bikes.

[velodadi]

Did you see where Congress raised the debt ceiling in this legislation so they can borrow from the Chinese and Saudis to pay for this?

Thanks....my kids will thank you.

V
(No job anymore....but no longer paying taxes...I'll take care of myself, thank you.)

[Climb01742]

Uh, the way I saw it, the only thing that really grew in that period was the real estate bubble.

You describe a scenario where those with substantial capital to invest did very well, but I fail to see how any of that trickled down or created real economic growth (y'know, the kind that creates salaried jobs w. benefits, etc.), or reduced the deficit, or would in any way persuade non-millionaires to vote for permanent tax cuts while there's a war going on.

goonster is right. the rich have gotten richer, while most everyone else has stagnated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html

the article is two years old, but the picture remains the same.

[rounder]

[QUOTE=1centaur]politicians pander - we agree - but I don't like it.

Same here. We have been going to Williamsburg nearly every year for the past 10 years or so. A lot of people say that it is just a theme park but i believe it is more than that. Everyone there you talk to is in character and you can talk to anyone you like, including the cabinet makers (who were great) on up to T. Jefferson. These are all folks who have studied history and know their stuff. Every year, on the way back my wife will ask me how we were so lucky to have founding fathers with so much wisdon and why don't we have anyone like that today. Every year, I consider what she is asking and try to come up with an answer. It is always, those guys shared a common experience and knew what they wanted...plus they were willing to die for it. I don't see any of our elected officials sharing those values today. To me they are all in it for some kind of ego trip or personal gain. I don't see any of them taking a position that they really believe in, much less die for. (end of rant.)

[1centaur]

The rich don't stay the rich - income mobility is very high in this country. The days of high middle class wages for labor are over as we have globalized and moved on to being a knowledge economy. Brain power is scarcer than muscle power. There's no way around that. US GDP grew and jobs grew over the last few years (and "trickle down" - perjorative term that actually is an inevitability unless people put their cash under a mattress - economics worked, but on a global scale as capital and leverage became widely available and much of it came here and created jobs), but that can't turn back the clock to when we were industrializing. China gets to go through that cycle now. What happens when all the cheap labor has been chased around the globe? Time for outer space I guess.

We can't hang on to a brief transition in American economic development and think it can be mandated from Washington. We can choose to be an inefficient economy so people have jobs that would not have jobs under Adam Smith economics, but that will also kill our standard of living in the end. Adapt or die - it's the way of the universe.

[RPS]

Adapt or die - it's the way of the universe.Our unwillingness to allow it for the individual will lead to it for the nation.

[Ray]

We can't hang on to a brief transition in American economic development and think it can be mandated from Washington. We can choose to be an inefficient economy so people have jobs that would not have jobs under Adam Smith economics, but that will also kill our standard of living in the end. Adapt or die - it's the way of the universe.
All empires come to an end, usually after an extended period of decadence. I don't even think its possible to forgo the decadence to extend the life of the empire - its a natural outgrowth and reward of success - probably not the precipitating event. A symptom of the impending end rather than a cause perhaps? We show all of the signs of ours winding down. Like Britain and others, we can probably survive it and adapt if we go out with a whimper rather than a bang. The end of empires is just a natural leveling of societies over time. I think you're saying the same thing in economic language, but the upshot is the same, no?

-Ray

[Climb01742]

We can't hang on to a brief transition in American economic development and think it can be mandated from Washington. We can choose to be an inefficient economy so people have jobs that would not have jobs under Adam Smith economics, but that will also kill our standard of living in the end. Adapt or die - it's the way of the universe.

i, too, do not believe that more government or more laws is the answer to everything. but that is a false dichotomy. because less government or fewer laws isn't necessarily the answer in every situation either. lack of appropriate oversight is one glaring weakness of the past 7 years, for example.

i (hope) we can agree that_smart_government involvement is useful. an example: to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges, who but the government? if we move toward more nuclear power, who but the government? if we seek to improve our educational system, who but the government? i fully, totally, absolutely agree that (for a change) the government action should be (please, please) well thought out, efficient, as waste-free as possible, and based on facts, not lobbists. a long shot? yes. but where i greatly fault the anti-government part of the right wing is: by saying that government is the problem and thus try to eliminate it (starve the beast), elimination is the only answer they try. versus trying to make government better, smarter, more transparent, efficient, accountable. it's like making surgery they go-to option instead of rehab.

if we devolve toward a country of haves and have-nots, we're doomed. we need government to encourage the environment for the advancement of as many americans as possible. i think one could argue that the GI bill after WWII led, in no small part, to the post-war boom. the GI bill created an environment and resources for motivated americans to improve themselves and their lives. that, to me, is good government.

[1centaur]

I pretty much agree with all of that, Climb. My comment about Washington was not a generic small government howl, but specifically to government trying to create an idealized economic society from our memory - can't be done.

On education specifically, government sets the tone, though I might suggest that local monopolies have not done a great job of making us globally competitive in science and engineering over the last few decades. I'd like to see competition in education so that better teachers are paid more and worse teachers are washed out. I also think, maybe, that in the modern economy it might be better to make "average" intellects into engineers and computer science workers rather than educating to the standards of yesterday (3Rs are great for factory workers). The most creative minds will still win a lot of the economic pie, but the middle class needs to work closer to that wealth generation if it's going to remain middle rather than lower.

[Climb01742]

I pretty much agree with all of that, Climb. My comment about Washington was not a generic small government howl, but specifically to government trying to create an idealized economic society from our memory - can't be done.

On education specifically, government sets the tone, though I might suggest that local monopolies have not done a great job of making us globally competitive in science and engineering over the last few decades. I'd like to see competition in education so that better teachers are paid more and worse teachers are washed out. I also think, maybe, that in the modern economy it might be better to make "average" intellects into engineers and computer science workers rather than educating to the standards of yesterday (3Rs are great for factory workers). The most creative minds will still win a lot of the economic pie, but the middle class needs to work closer to that wealth generation if it's going to remain middle rather than lower.

again, we agree! my mom taught in public schools for 30 years. creating a meritocracy, not a mediocracy, in education is very very important.

[flydhest]

The rich don't stay the rich - income mobility is very high in this country.

I'm curious why you say this. In regressions to predict an individual's wage, the single best predictor is their parents' income.

Moreover, very mainstream economists who study this type of phenomenon don't share your view. Gary Solon (in particular, his 1992 paper) is among the most respected on the topic. (cf http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gsolon/) An update to his 1992 paper that argues reasonably convincingly that even Solon's results overstate mobility can be found here.
http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/workingpapers/papers/wp2003-16.pdf

[johnnymossville]

...I don't see any of them taking a position that they really believe in, much less die for. (end of rant.)

Well said.

I held a season pass to Williamsburg the few years I lived down there and I agree, it's a must see. You also have to visit Independence Hall in Philly. Like you, I always came away with such a respect for our founding fathers. It seems today if you even hint at defending your country with any form of patriotism you are seen as some kind of naive hick.

Today if you believe in something, 50% of the population will AUTOMATICALLY disagree with you because you aren't in the same political party as them. Sad.

[97CSI]

....Actually it is quite true....so you are not familiar with the process of redlining?...and the regulations that resulted..


Calling Pete...Are you going to allow this guy to call me a liar....or is that permissable because I expressed a conservative view?.....Am quite familiar with red-lining and have read or heard nothing in the news about red-lining being an issue with any of this. The issue is the wannabes (both lenders and borrowers) trying to live beyond their means. While this will create some pain, too bad from them. Learn, lick your wounds and do better next time. Just don't do it on my dime.

And, no one called you a liar. A fair number of other unflattering terms available that fit, but there is no reason to call names because you are mistaken or uninformed........which is the bane of most knee-jerk conservatives (think rush limberger). He who yells the loudest (or whines the most) is not always (in fact, very rarely) the one who is correct. But, that's a different thread. ;)

[Ray]

It seems today if you even hint at defending your country with any form of patriotism you are seen as some kind of naive hick.

I think most of us who you accuse would only define you as a naive hick if our opposition to a particular military operation (which may or may not have anything to do with DEFENDing our country) caused you to question our patriotism. And I wouldn't even define someone who did that as a naive hick, just as someone who took a VERY different lesson from the genius and bravery of our founding fathers.

-Ray

[Kirk Pacenti]

.

[93legendti]

Uh, the way I saw it, the only thing that really grew in that period was the real estate bubble.

You describe a scenario where those with substantial capital to invest did very well, but I fail to see how any of that trickled down or created real economic growth (y'know, the kind that creates salaried jobs w. benefits, etc.), or reduced the deficit, or would in any way persuade non-millionaires to vote for permanent tax cuts while there's a war going on.

I didn't describe anything. I was quoting from the WSJ. Please see above and below.

If you read my posts #66 and #69, the deficit "argument" was addressed by the WSJ:

This point was also addressed by the WSJ:


"...This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. (The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.)..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...emEditorialPage

"...The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003..."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...emEditorialPage

[johnnymossville]

I think most of us who you accuse would only define you as a naive hick if our opposition to a particular military operation (which may or may not have anything to do with DEFENDing our country) caused you to question our patriotism. And I wouldn't even define someone who did that as a naive hick, just as someone who took a VERY different lesson from the genius and bravery of our founding fathers.

-Ray

I was speaking of defending your country through patriotism, not military action. Somehow you projected that. Sorry if I don't feel like I have to make some sort of excuse for being American like some people seem to do all the time.

[Pete Serotta]

We are doing good so far,,,,,,,,keep :D Voicing views is good with no personal :argue: attacks :no:

[Ray]

I was speaking of defending your country through patriotism, not military action. Somehow you projected that. Sorry if I don't feel like I have to make some sort of excuse for being American like some people seem to do all the time.
I wasn't sure where you were coming from, so I qualified my statement with an "IF". I'm also tired of having to prove I'm a patriotic American just because I define patriotism more broadly than some do. I'm glad that's not you. We're hereby not accusing each other of anything!

-Ray

[Climb01742]

admitting we have flaws is attractive in a person, and a country.

[johnnymossville]

...We're hereby not accusing each other of anything!

-Ray

:) Nice to hear. hehe

Patriotism to me = "At the end of the day, we're the good guys and the system those founding fathers dreamed up is of value and something to be proud of and protected." <-- nutshell version

Squabbles over the day to day stuff is just politics.

[RPS]

I'm also tired of having to prove I'm a patriotic American just because I define patriotism more broadly than some do.By all means enlighten us. Broader can be good.

Personally I like this one:

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it. -- George Bernard Shaw

[johnnymossville]

By all means enlighten us. Broader can be good.

Personally I like this one:

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it. -- George Bernard Shaw

That's a crappy one to me, because it discounts the immigrants that are patriots. (I've met some believe it or not) I even married one.

[Climb01742]

Patriotism to me = "At the end of the day, we're the good guys and the system those founding fathers dreamed up is of value and something to be proud of and protected." <-- nutshell version

johnny, i think we need to live up to, and live by, the second part of your definition if we hope to be considered the first part of your definition.

[Ray]

:) Nice to hear. hehe

Patriotism to me = "At the end of the day, we're the good guys and the system those founding fathers dreamed up is of value and something to be proud of and protected." <-- nutshell version

I absolutely agree that the system that the founding fathers dreamed up is of value - I actually think its pure genius and is the main reason I think we're such an incredible nation. It is the primary source of my patriotism. I don't think this chunk of land or our dna as humans is all that amazing relative to anyplace or anyone else. But our system of government, as dreamed up by our founding fathers, was and is exceptional and still makes us exceptional. Remarkable. Amazing, really, when you look at all of the other attempts at self-government.

But I don't take the next step and always assume we're the good guys. I'll agree we're generally trying to be the good guys. But, for example, when we start tossing aside what I consider to be important parts of the system the founding fathers dreamed up in the interest of the expediency of the moment, I think that's something that has to be opposed. For example, in giving up civil rights in the name of safety or torturing to get information. I recognize there are balances to be found and reasonable people can disagree. But there are people who would consider anyone who opposes what our government is doing at any given moment to be unpatriotic. There are a few things on the table at the moment that I think we're getting very wrong and I oppose. I believe that I oppose them BECAUSE OF MY PATRIOTISM but some see it as a lack of patriotism to oppose them at all.

RPS, I guess that's what I mean by defining patriotism more broadly than some and I'm not accusing anyone here of being part of that "SOME". I don't think the fact that I was born somewhere makes it any better than anyplace else. Quite the opposite sometimes - what's that old Groucho Marx joke about not wanting to be belong to any club that would have me as a member? :cool:

edit - I see that Climb went and said the same thing more eloquently in one sentence while I was composing this damn novel. That's why he's in advertising and I'm not!

-Ray

[Ray]

That's a crappy one to me, because it discounts the immigrants that are patriots. (I've met some believe it or not) I even married one.
I'm guessing RPS was joking about that, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna try to speak for him :cool:

-Ray

[RPS]

That's a crappy one to me, because it discounts the immigrants that are patriots. (I've met some believe it or not) I even married one.Dude, I is one.

Don't take it so seriously. The point is that we all have a definition and at the end of the day I'm not sure it really matters. We are who we are regardless of how we define ourselves.

[1centaur]

I'm curious why you say this. In regressions to predict an individual's wage, the single best predictor is their parents' income.

Moreover, very mainstream economists who study this type of phenomenon don't share your view. Gary Solon (in particular, his 1992 paper) is among the most respected on the topic. (cf http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gsolon/) An update to his 1992 paper that argues reasonably convincingly that even Solon's results overstate mobility can be found here.
http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/workingpapers/papers/wp2003-16.pdf

While I am not going to read a 35-page paper and study its methodology, I appreciate the quality of your response. From what I could tell after reading a few pages your data was focused on intergenerational mobility more than variations of income over a few years, which is what I was focused on related to the rich getting richer over the last few years and the assumption they were the same people. I have read many articles in the last decade, granted most of them in the wsj and Forbes, that looked at income mobility among "the rich" as it related to tax rates. As those publications like to point out, there are a lot of small business owners having a good year or generational-transition asset sales each year that clog the top of the scale. Moreover, it seems the rich (top 1%) have a habit of losing that status at a particularly high rate vs. other cohorts (lazy heirs; lack of incentive for those who have made it, stupid investments, etc.). Studies that look at the entire society's income mobility may catch the difficulty of going from poor to rich as opposed to the ability of the upper-middle class to become rich. With a pyramid-shaped income distribution the poor may be overweighted when it comes to answering whether the rich stay rich.

Common sense suggests, especially in a knowledge-based economy, that wealthy parents who got there through superior genetics and hard work will pass on both characteristics while buying a good education for their offspring, with the converse true at the bottom of the heap (read that phrase carefully before assuming I am making a characterization that is not true), so I am not surprised at low intergenerational mobility. I am surprised at foreign mobility, since I view some European countries as very discriminatory in education and employment towards previously wealthy people. Without reading the paper, I can't pull out potential flaws, if any, such as much greater compression between income layers that makes quintile shifts less meaningful.

[flydhest]

1centaur,
Again, you and the mass-media sources you cite, are falling victim to the dilettante's (ab)use of statistics. There are lots of data everywhere and it is very hard to sift through them in a way that satisfies peer review by others who have spent decades studying appropriate use of statistical analysis.

Common sense isn't actually all that common, and besides, it is a poor substitute, in my view, for the combination of logic and facts. To assert (or even suggest as plausible for the part of a genuine debate) that people got to be rich by superior genetics and hard work is . . . evident of the sort of bias that afflicts (or perhaps creates) the poor analysis of data in places like the op-ed page of the WSJ (although I am not saying that your references were to op-ed pages.) Of course, your point is not that that is the cause of all wealth, merely a subset that may then have been propogated by buying education for the next generation, so I shall stand down. Lest my use of the word "bias" create a tempest in a teapot, I would further note that psychologists have an entire body of study on "attribution bias" and the like. It turns out that those with more money than others are quick to believe that it is their virtue that caused them to be above average. And, how one can measure "superior genetics" is a bit beyond my scope, I freely admit. One could argue that superior genetics are defined by those that lead to higher income. While that logic is not especially taut, it is tautological, so there's that.

Back to the point at hand, however, the notion that the rich have a habit of losing their status is an odd one. If the assertion is that people's incomes are not static from year to year, and thus any strict ranking will not be consistent year to year, then, I think few would object, though many may yawn. Given this variability, then, an arbitrary cutoff such as 1 percent builds in this type of shifting of rank essentially by construction. As a result, those who are trained in the analysis of data account for such mechanical results, if they are worth their salt. Indeed, that type of variation is the fodder for jokes when I teach undergraduate courses.

To draw any sort of conclusions that are relevant for policy considerations, I would think that one would want to adjust for such things. But what do I know? How good are the schools in Jersey anyway?

[1centaur]

I suspect we could start drawing ever tighter circles in our arguments and thus both be right but not agree on anything meaningful. Thus the odds are this will be my last set of comments on this relatively narrow topic.

Intergenerational wealth mobility was not my point, though it is an interesting topic on its own. Economic forces within a given country (at least, in this country over the last 100 years) change so much over a generation or two I am not sure it's worth doing a flawless study on generational mobility in the past and then setting tax policy based on that study in the future. Further, society may be better off increasing estate taxes to prevent physical wealth transference rather than disincentives to current wealth creation if maximizing GDP and limiting structural disparities between rich and poor are the twin goals. Many popular press accounts of "wealth" disparity seem to blur the line between income and wealth - do we really want to say that one person should not earn 200x the level of another in a capitalist society over a lifetime? If society sets the price of productive behavior through supply and demand, I would not want to limit the incentive of one person to be 200x more productive than another, nor would I want myself or my government defining the value of productivity. CEOs being overpaid through flawed pay-for-performance models, as an aside, does not meet my standard for societal tendencies. n is too small and the issue will be self-correcting, I predict.

As to genetics, I believe that IQ (don't quibble) is highly influenced by genetics in the aggregate. Again in the aggregate, the people I have seen be very successful (made a lot of money, since this is a tax discussion and not a life success discussion) in the last 30 years in business have used a good combination of high intelligence and hard work in most cases (very few successful people I have observed are to the manor born), and as a professional investor my sample size is greater than most. One is nature and one is, to a greater extent, nurture. I would expect those successful people to pass both traits on to their children as best they can. Statisticians can be as blinded by their numbers as individuals can be from their attribution bias. Truth is generally found in the middle, I believe, not at either end of those approaches to determining what and why something "is." Statistics show patterns, but explaining those patterns rests much more on intuition and real world experience than many statisticians will admit.

While you may yawn at top 1% income mobility, I wonder if you yawn at top 5% mobility, since top 5% is where the upcoming tax crosshairs are aimed (until of course they move on to lower levels since there are always more worthy projects to fund). Again, my point earlier was in response to a generic "the rich get richer" statement that covered a short span. If you have peer reviewed data showing the top 5% of income earners stay overwhelmingly the top 5% in the US over 5, 10 or 20 years I would be interested in knowing that for my own purposes.

[Ray]

Flyd and 1Centaur,

Please do not get pissed at each other and stop. This is fascinating. Seriously. Maybe yawn material to some, but you have an audience of at least one.

-Ray

[93legendti]

Flyd and 1Centaur,

Please do not get pissed at each other and stop. This is fascinating. Seriously. Maybe yawn material to some, but you have an audience of at least one.

-Ray
make that an audience of two

[Climb01742]

make that three.

to both seth and john, you're enlightening us to issues far more important and fascinating than how to install a crank. please continue. it's like duel at the synapse corral. ;)

[zap]

+

Great stuff.

[Birddog]

Fly and Centaur, add me to the list. You guys deserve props for your ability to write cogently too.

Birddog

[Tobias]

As to genetics, I believe that IQ (don't quibble) is highly influenced by genetics in the aggregate.Since genders appear to inherent intelligence differently, it would be interesting to compare “intergenerational wealth mobility” by gender to see if there is a difference.

[Samster]

_smart_government
... is up there with:

airline service
military intelligence
hospital food
innocent flirting