The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Nobody has ever suggested that "everyone" is writing "every single" news article in a liberal slant. That would be an innacurate portrayal of what I said and quite frankly, intellectually lazy on your part, to say the least.

I clowned a team of liberal journalists that were trying to award President Obama with being transparent compared to President Bush (I mean, who the fuck else would they be comparing him to?) and enjoyed President Obama's reaction (which was to have the dumbass ceremony completed in private).

Dumbass Liberal journalists? It was OMB Watch, the National Security Archive, OpenGovernment.org, and some other groups. OMB Watch runs a non-profit that pushes for transparency and open records laws. They run FedSpending.org which lists all the contracts, loans, grants, and other spending the federal government does. OpenGovernment.org runs a site that lists federal, state, and local laws. You've probably used or come across them at some time. It doesn't filter results based on whether someone is liberal or conservative. It just lists all the shit that the government releases.

Now if you want to explain to us how open records is some big liberal vs conservative debate, I'm all ears. Or how these groups constitute as dumbass liberal journalists? Personally I've never understood why a citizen wouldn't want to be able to look at what our government is doing with our money. But seemingly the politics as sport crowd has turned this into some kind of political attack. If there is some bias taking place in their records releases, please let us all know.

And I found the article funny when Jon posted it. A bit ironic. Didn't see how anyone "got clowned". The article stated they were pleased to get 20 minutes with the guy and hear his support for more transparency.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Basic economics? The price of gold shot through the roof because the United States prints money at will. It isn't that gold is more valuable its that the dollar is worth less. See silver, cotton, oil, iron ore, lead, tin, sugar, food prices... (The graphs since the money printing bonanza are insane! Though I am sure somebody will give a statist definition of inflation not being the reason why everythings price is going up.) Your explanation for why the current economic system needs to stay is because it is built on a house of cards. I guess I agree somewhat that going all out like Paul wants might cause the house to collapse but do you really think trillion dollar deficits are sustainable?

No, it shot through the roof because of financial uncertainty. Because of loss of jobs, because home values dropped. When trouble strikes, people turn to Gold. The price of it shot up the other day based off a weak jobs report. That had nothing to do with printing money. Commodities are simply volataile in nature.

Tying your currency to a volataile commodity is just plain dangerous. It leaves you with no flexibility during a crisis. It leaves you at the mercy of your creditors and anyone with enough financial power to manipulate the market (think China!). Or to trading partners who also base their currency on the same commodity. It would have made this recent financial crisis that much worse. and eliminated the ability to open up the credit markets.

Now please tell me what the gold standard fixes. All this money being printed as you say hasn't given us the doom and gloom inflation scenarios proposed. In fact, deflation has been our biggest concern and is much harder to control (again, read up about Japan). When and if inflaiton issues arise, the Fed will raise rates and curb the problem. It's much better to have a little inflation vs deflation. One you can fix by continuously raising rates, the other you can't once you hit 0%.

I'm sorry, just about every major economist realizes the gold standard is an outdated idea that would cause major problems for this country. It is a horrible concept that can't be implemented and makes him look completely out of touch with the modern world.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, it shot through the roof because of financial uncertainty. Because of loss of jobs, because home values dropped. When trouble strikes, people turn to Gold. The price of it shot up the other day based off a weak jobs report. That had nothing to do with printing money. Commodities are simply volataile in nature.

Tying your currency to a volataile commodity is just plain dangerous. It leaves you with no flexibility during a crisis. It leaves you at the mercy of your creditors and anyone with enough financial power to manipulate the market (think China!). Or to trading partners who also base their currency on the same commodity. It would have made this recent financial crisis that much worse. and eliminated the ability to open up the credit markets.

Now please tell me what the gold standard fixes. All this money being printed as you say hasn't given us the doom and gloom inflation scenarios proposed. In fact, deflation has been our biggest concern and is much harder to control (again, read up about Japan). When and if inflaiton issues arise, the Fed will raise rates and curb the problem. It's much better to have a little inflation vs deflation. One you can fix by continuously raising rates, the other you can't once you hit 0%.

I'm sorry, just about every major economist realizes the gold standard is an outdated idea that would cause major problems for this country. It is a horrible concept that can't be implemented and makes him look completely out of touch with the modern world.

You bitch and moan all of the time about Wall Street and monster corporations and how they have bought the US government (I agree by the way) but somehow don't think the economics field is a crucial part of this game? Nah, the government is telling the truth on this one!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Watch the below video if you want or laugh at the nut Peter Schiff like the yahoo's did we he predicted the real estate bubble bursting.

Peter Schiff has also been wrong an awful lot. He predicted hyperinflation a couple years ago and told everyone to get out of the dollar right away. Practically compared it to Zimbabwe. Told people to get into foreign currencies. Well the dollar got stronger and foreign currencies got killed.

He claimed that foreign equities would not be effected by what happened in the U.S and to position clients accoridingly. He was very wrong about that one too. He claimed deflation wasn't a concern, he was wrong about that. He claimed foreign commodity makers would not be effected, he was wrong about that.

Schiff predicted a drop in the stock market..........BACK IN 2002. He lost out on a nice 50% gain while he peddled his doomsday scenario. Eventually if you keep saying the market is going to go down, it will. A broken clock is right twice a day.

Now I'm not shitting on the guy as a ton of people were wrong about this. But being right about 1 thing after 5 years of saying it and then being wrong about the next 10 things doesn't make you some bigtime prophet we should all follow. He's not a nut either, but you're using one of his predictions that came true and ignoring the other 10 or so that didn't.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

You bitch and moan all of the time about Wall Street and monster corporations and how they have bought the US government (I agree by the way) but somehow don't think the economics field is a crucial part of this game? Nah, the government is telling the truth on this one!

I don't see how that relates to the gold standard though. What is the government lying about in this scenario? The CPI and other numbers are no secrets. They can be calculated by others if they really want to. It's not some behind the scenes voodoo math.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Peter Schiff has also been wrong an awful lot. He predicted hyperinflation a couple years ago and told everyone to get out of the dollar right away. Practically compared it to Zimbabwe. Told people to get into foreign currencies. Well the dollar got stronger and foreign currencies got killed.

He claimed that foreign equities would not be effected by what happened in the U.S and to position clients accoridingly. He was very wrong about that one too. He claimed deflation wasn't a concern, he was wrong about that. He claimed foreign commodity makers would not be effected, he was wrong about that.

Schiff predicted a drop in the stock market..........BACK IN 2002. He lost out on a nice 50% gain while he peddled his doomsday scenario. Eventually if you keep saying the market is going to go down, it will. A broken clock is right twice a day.

Now I'm not shitting on the guy as a ton of people were wrong about this. But being right about 1 thing after 5 years of saying it and then being wrong about the next 10 things doesn't make you some bigtime prophet we should all follow. He's not a nut either, but you're using one of his predictions that came true and ignoring the other 10 or so that didn't.

I was mainly talking about how he explains the CPI and the government's inflation statistics. I admit that I don't know his complete track record and he is a bit of a bear (to put things lightly ) but I think his views on how the government screws up the market are pretty spot on.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't see how that relates to the gold standard though. What is the government lying about in this scenario? The CPI and other numbers are no secrets. They can be calculated by others if they really want to. It's not some behind the scenes voodoo math.

You used the term "major economist" and I only question what it takes to rise to that classification. (There are plenty of dissenting voices if you remove major and go outside the mainstream) My guess would be either strongly involved in the financial sector or in the government financial sector. So like you said earlier about having Madoff run the SEC why would any of these guys mess with the very game they are a crucial part of?

[RainMaker]

Economists meaning most people in the field. Whether those who work for financial/investment companies, the government, or are educators in the science. It's just seen as an extreme stance that doesn't bear out in the modern economy. The world's economy has over $50 trillion in circulation and there is only $4 trillion of gold that's ever been unearthed. That makes the logistics of a move quite difficult.

I understand Schiff's stance on inflation, I just think he's overdoes it. Part of me thinks he believes it and part of me thinks it's sort of his schtick. He ran for office on that position and likes to scare people into thinking the U.S. dollar is going to collapse. He has just been wrong for so long that I don't think his opinion on inflation holds much merit anymore.

The real problem in modern economies is deflation, not inflation. Inflation can be controlled somewhat with interest rates. Deflation can't be. Japan has had their economy destroyed for over a decade because of deflation. Housing prices falling off a cliff caused it for us and was our primary concern. The problem with a gold standard is that it's deflationary. You will have longer and far worse downturns with it. It's why FDR had to ban owning gold and took us off the gold standard temporarily.

There are just so many downsides to it and almost no upsides at all. If spending is the issue, you're better off pushing for balanced budget amendments and stuff like that. It would be much less traumatic and much more flexible than a GS.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Economists meaning most people in the field. Whether those who work for financial/investment companies, the government, or are educators in the science. It's just seen as an extreme stance that doesn't bear out in the modern economy. The world's economy has over $50 trillion in circulation and there is only $4 trillion of gold that's ever been unearthed. That makes the logistics of a move quite difficult.

I understand Schiff's stance on inflation, I just think he's overdoes it. Part of me thinks he believes it and part of me thinks it's sort of his schtick. He ran for office on that position and likes to scare people into thinking the U.S. dollar is going to collapse. He has just been wrong for so long that I don't think his opinion on inflation holds much merit anymore.

The real problem in modern economies is deflation, not inflation. Inflation can be controlled somewhat with interest rates. Deflation can't be. Japan has had their economy destroyed for over a decade because of deflation. Housing prices falling off a cliff caused it for us and was our primary concern. The problem with a gold standard is that it's deflationary. You will have longer and far worse downturns with it. It's why FDR had to ban owning gold and took us off the gold standard temporarily.

There are just so many downsides to it and almost no upsides at all. If spending is the issue, you're better off pushing for balanced budget amendments and stuff like that. It would be much less traumatic and much more flexible than a GS.

I always consider Paul a theory guy anyways and don't believe that he will ever get any of his ideas passed. I think he is more about shifting the conversation like him and Rand are about war and the federal reserve. I think he has said he prefers the gold standard to a balanced budget amendment because he knows everything in the sun would somehow be exempt by politicians of both parties (war, an "economic crisis", homeland security)

As far as your other points there are counterpoints from the Austrian school of economics if you are interested... (I studied Keynesian economics in college as electives for my math degree and do understand what you are saying but in my opinion the Austrian Business Cycle actually was the first stuff I ever read about that actually made sense of explaining what seems to always actually happen. Surprisingly never saw any of this at any of my coursework at a major state university. )

Japan's Bust: An Austrian Critique of the Fed's Explanation

http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_4_3.pdf (an article about how deflation is probably better than governments extending a crisis for years to "avoid the crisis")

[JPhillips]

You act as though politicians set the value of our money and that isn't true. Our money system is actually a market oriented system to a much greater degree than a gold standard would be. Our money is worth what the global market thinks it's worth. Yes, there are ways that a government can try to push the value up or down, but in the end it's the market that makes that determination. The reason we aren't experiencing hyperinflation and currency devaluation is because the market still sees the US as a good buy.

Our currency is currently based on the entire output of the US economy. Basing the currency on a single commodity, be it gold or corn, is much more volatile and much more subject to outside manipulation. It's a terrible idea that would lead to massive fluctuations in wealth and economic health.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And I found the article funny when Jon posted it. A bit ironic.

That's pretty much my stance too. The difference is that you see intellectual honesty where I see the political gameyness of it.

[JPhillips]

I'm so thrilled I'm going to spend my working life paying for everything the boomers ever wanted and then when it's my turn to retire I'll be forced to buy shitty insurance with a shitty voucher.

[stevew]

This might be the worst time in American history to be alive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

This might be the worst time in American history to be alive.

I wouldn't argue that much, at least not if we define "time" as being a few years (as opposed to, say, literally "today").

[molson]

Originally Posted by stevew

This might be the worst time in American history to be alive.

For white men, definitely.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm so thrilled I'm going to spend my working life paying for everything the boomers ever wanted and then when it's my turn to retire I'll be forced to buy shitty insurance with a shitty voucher.

The joke will be on them when they're all living to be 100+ and they've killed off all of the kids.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The joke will be on them when they're all living to be 100+ and they've killed off all of the kids.

Eh, at least the lawn will finally be safe.

[stevew]

I'm probably just more depressed today than normal. I need a new job bad. The people I contract thru have such a shitty contract and im getting raped on fuel. The job alternatives seem to be Wal-Mart for 16 hours a week right now. My wife can't find a teaching job. I'm just trying to stay ahead of the 8ball right now and I'm working on my degree.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eh, at least the lawn will finally be safe.

Nothing but net.

[Young Drachma]

Round Two.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm so thrilled I'm going to spend my working life paying for everything the boomers ever wanted and then when it's my turn to retire I'll be forced to buy shitty insurance with a shitty voucher.

+1.

Although to be fair, although the (R)'s are the most egregious pushers of this, the (D)'s aren't exactly saints in this regard. Everybody panders to the boomers in an effort to win their votes, and in this existing system where politicians have no incentive at all to take a long-term view of things I'm not sure what you can do to solve that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's incredibly lazy shorthand.

When the other "team" so consistently works against my own goals/desires what possible reason would I have to want to see them "win"? Ever?

Team, cabal, cult, axis of evil, or simply a collection of individuals who can't even manage to be as often in a week as often as a stopped clock is in a day, you're damned skippy I'm going to be happy when their efforts are stymied.

Put an alternative on the table that I like better than what my "team" has & I'll back it ... but if you're always putting forth the worst proposal(s) to situation X then what possible rational motivation is there to get behind them/celebrate their success? To even suggest that as a course of action is absurd.

I'll take the layup on this one: Because sometimes the other team winning is the lesser of two evils - the alternative being worse than "the other team" winning due to inaction or gridlock or whatever.

Your courage in your convictions is admirable, but there are times when it's shortsighted.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'll take the layup on this one: Because sometimes the other team winning is the lesser of two evils - the alternative being worse than "the other team" winning due to inaction or gridlock or whatever.

I'm hard pressed to come up with a scenario where I consider inaction or gridlock worse than what I've seen from "the other team". It's theoretically possible, but so is a unicorn.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

This might be the worst time in American history to be alive.

Really? I know times are tough but I'll take what we have now over being involved in massive wars, working in sub-human conditions, and having to worry about polio and smallpox. And I think most black people can find worse times in American history to be alive.

[stevew]

I think it's going to get continuously worse, the baby boomers retiring will destroy whatever is left of the economy. I don't think that the future will hold the same benefits such as WW2 helping to end the depression.

We are involved in massive wars, and unless you have an established career and a good job, you're dealing with a job significantly worse than what was available generations before.

My friend has a buisiness degree, and hasn't been able to find shit. It could be and probably is our area. He was working for a bank, and they expected him to work 6 days a week, approximately 4 hours per day for like 8 bucks an hour. That's "entry level" for a lot of people these days.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm hard pressed to come up with a scenario where I consider inaction or gridlock worse than what I've seen from "the other team". It's theoretically possible, but so is a unicorn.

Really? You're not thinking very hard then. How about if it results in say...allowing a nuclear attack on US soil that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands (for a hypothetical)?

Or defunding public schools and bankrupting you to the point that your kid can't afford to get a decent education because you can't afford one of the private schools where he could be educated? (again - hypothetical, but coming closer to reality)

Or putting the industry that you work in out of business through too much regulation? How about insufficient regulation causing you to lose your life savings, or causing the value of your house (your primary asset) to suffer a dramatic collapse without enough time left before your retirement to have it rebuild (to pick ones that may hit close to home for people and have happened).

I'm at the tail-end of a long day and I have a headache and I'm hungry so I'm not going to like...go and dig one up with supporting articles about how it came to happen though.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Really? I know times are tough but I'll take what we have now over being involved in massive wars, working in sub-human conditions, and having to worry about polio and smallpox. And I think most black people can find worse times in American history to be alive.

Right, comparitively, this is a pretty okay time to be alive.

[JediKooter]

Playing devil's advocate here...

Originally Posted by stevew

I think it's going to get continuously worse, the baby boomers retiring will destroy whatever is left of the economy. I don't think that the future will hold the same benefits such as WW2 helping to end the depression.

How do we go about fixing this? Most voters are mindless robots that only vote because they see a D or R listed before someone's name and then continue to vote for the same people, election after election, yet no one seems to wonder why there's a continual quagmire (giggity) in Washington D.C., where inaction is rewarded with re-election. A politician has probably one of the easiest gigs in the country. There's hardly any accountability, you give pay raises to yourself, you only go on tour every couple of years and you only have to go to work part of the year.

We are involved in massive wars, and unless you have an established career and a good job, you're dealing with a job significantly worse than what was available generations before.

Are the wars really all that massive? When I think of massive war, I think of the scale of WW2. Not conflicts localized to a small portion of the globe. Now if you meant expensive, then yes, that I can see as being a massive drain of dollars.

My friend has a buisiness degree, and hasn't been able to find shit. It could be and probably is our area. He was working for a bank, and they expected him to work 6 days a week, approximately 4 hours per day for like 8 bucks an hour. That's "entry level" for a lot of people these days.

That definitely sucks and I know a couple of people (one is a relative) that have been looking for jobs for going on two years now. A thought that often pops into my mind is, maybe it's time to try a different career field or different part of the country. Easier said than done though.

/devil's advocate

In all seriousness, until we (the voters) start holding these politicians accountable for their ineptness and malingering, it is going to continue to be status quo and things will continue to get 'worse'. Sorry, but, a politician that spends his or her life as an elected official is nothing more than a parasite sucking on the teat of taxpayers. If two terms is good enough for the president, it's more than good enough for congress and the senate.

[RainMaker]

I'll agree that there are some shitty things going on, I just don't know how anyone could think it's the worst time in this country's history.

We are rather advanced medically and can live long and healthy lives. Access to food and clean water is commonplace. Travel is incredibly safe. We can communicate with anyone in the country at almost anytime. We have access to news and information instantly.

Tonight I'll likely order a pizza and buffalo wings from a local pizza place that will deliver it to me in around 30 minutes. I'll sit in my temperature controlled house, clean from the shower I took earlier, and watch the NCAA Championship game in HD with millions of other people. I'll likely surf the web a bit and maybe stream a movie from Netflix. My nightly bowel movement will be worry-free and I won't even have to leave the house to do it. I even splurged and bought two-ply last time I was out.

Now I don't think my life is much different than the people here, or millions of other Americans. I guess I'm wondering what times you are referring to that were much better than the worst time in American history. Because despite the bad things happening, our quality of life is still rather high.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Now I don't think my life is much different than the people here, or millions of other Americans. I guess I'm wondering what times you are referring to that were much better than the worst time in American history. Because despite the bad things happening, our quality of life is still rather high.

This is kind of the point I was trying to make a few pages back in regards to wages being stagnant for the middle class. While they may have been stagnant (for those who havent moved up the income ladder) they have been offset with quality of life.

I guess I'd have to define quality of life as all of the things (and more) that we currently take for granted that my parents did not have. And if I chose to live the life that my parents led, then I could do it and easily survive on a stagnant wage. Not saying we shouldn't push for more access & better access to the luxuries that society has...just saying it is better for the vast majority over the previous generation.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

I think it's going to get continuously worse, the baby boomers retiring will destroy whatever is left of the economy. I don't think that the future will hold the same benefits such as WW2 helping to end the depression.

We are involved in massive wars, and unless you have an established career and a good job, you're dealing with a job significantly worse than what was available generations before.

My friend has a buisiness degree, and hasn't been able to find shit. It could be and probably is our area. He was working for a bank, and they expected him to work 6 days a week, approximately 4 hours per day for like 8 bucks an hour. That's "entry level" for a lot of people these days.

I think there are two assertions there- one true and one false. Yes, I think things are going to continue to go downhill for quite a while. However, it's because we're so high up right now.

Believe me, as someone who has had to move across country twice in the last 3 years- once to "advance" in my job and the other time to keep a job- I understand that the labor market for anyone under about 40 is pure crap and might be for most of our adult life. You get to choose where to live or what to do but there's no way you can even get close to optimizing both.

SI

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Believe me, as someone who has had to move across country twice in the last 3 years- once to "advance" in my job and the other time to keep a job- I understand that the labor market for anyone under about 40 is pure crap and might be for most of our adult life. You get to choose where to live or what to do but there's no way you can even get close to optimizing both.

SI

+1

Same here. I've had to move as well in order to continue progressing my skillsets & improve my value in my industry. It wasn't my first (or preferred) choice, but I felt it gave me the best opportunity to better my value to the point that I could eventually look for something closer to "home" (whether with the current company or another). I tried & tired for years to get on with the local office (close to my hometown area) of the company I now sit in the corporate office for and now work with and am a source of direction for that local office. Funny how things work out sometimes.

But it is definitely a choice & a decision to make for our generation. Do you pursue opportunities that take you away from "home" in order to increase your value/skills...or do you accept whatever is available in your hometown area. The latter is easier when you live near a larger metro (or at least can find "similar enough" positions)...but for me, there simply wasn't going to be that type of opportunity & I had to take the opportunity that enhanced what I already knew & did.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Sorry, but, a politician that spends his or her life as an elected official is nothing more than a parasite sucking on the teat of taxpayers. If two terms is good enough for the president, it's more than good enough for congress and the senate.

Sorry, but I'd be hard pressed to disagree more.

It's hard enough to find a decent rep to send to D.C. Damned if I see any rational reason to throw them out over something as arbitrary as a calendar. I've been at both ends of the spectrum on this, represented by a range of McKinney(D) to Broun(R), but in neither case did term limits seem like a remotely good idea to me.

One of our major problems IMO is a lack of properly qualified people to send in the first place, I don't see the bench as being anywhere near deep enough to limit eligibility. And I've often recalled what I was told many years ago by a local officeholder (I won't say politician, he only stuck around for 1 term for personal reasons), you spend the first two years in any office just figuring out where the bathroom is. Colorful description aside, he made a good point about how short first terms tend to make for ineffective legislators.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by stevew

This might be the worst time in American history to be alive.

I still contend that was when Full House was on the air.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Or defunding public schools and bankrupting you to the point that your kid can't afford to get a decent education because you can't afford one of the private schools where he could be educated? (again - hypothetical, but coming closer to reality)

Or putting the industry that you work in out of business through too much regulation? How about insufficient regulation causing you to lose your life savings, or causing the value of your house (your primary asset) to suffer a dramatic collapse without enough time left before your retirement to have it rebuild (to pick ones that may hit close to home for people and have happened).

I'll agree with the first, however both of these examples include ACTION by politicians, not INACTION. It has required ACTION to fund things outside of the regular mandates, and those outside things are what cut into education funding (at least at the state level, at the federal level I'm all for the federal government getting out of this business aside from maybe Pell Grants to help pay for college), and adding regulation is a key thing Jon wants to avoid through government ACTION.

As for saving life savings and the like, the government has been doing a bang-up job with all of its regulation, hasn't it? My Dad's pension was wiped out because of all the insider deals with the ENRON fiasco, for example. Not internally within ENRON, but all the outsiders that bought into it because morons running the Florida state education pension invested so heavily in a single stock.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'll agree with the first, however both of these examples include ACTION by politicians, not INACTION. It has required ACTION to fund things outside of the regular mandates, and those outside things are what cut into education funding (at least at the state level, at the federal level I'm all for the federal government getting out of this business aside from maybe Pell Grants to help pay for college), and adding regulation is a key thing Jon wants to avoid through government ACTION.

As for saving life savings and the like, the government has been doing a bang-up job with all of its regulation, hasn't it? My Dad's pension was wiped out because of all the insider deals with the ENRON fiasco, for example. Not internally within ENRON, but all the outsiders that bought into it because morons running the Florida state education pension invested so heavily in a single stock.

Fair enough - the general point is still valid though - that sometimes inaction is more harmful than action. My examples may not have been the best, I accept that.

Not that I want to Godwin this whole thing, but take WWII for example. Inaction would have resulted in Hitler triumphing, whereas action resulted in his eventual defeat.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

gentlemen, please. the deck chairs should obviously face the starboard bow. it has the best view of the iceberg.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

As for saving life savings and the like, the government has been doing a bang-up job with all of its regulation, hasn't it? My Dad's pension was wiped out because of all the insider deals with the ENRON fiasco, for example. Not internally within ENRON, but all the outsiders that bought into it because morons running the Florida state education pension invested so heavily in a single stock.

Very sorry about that. I can't imagine depending on a pension and then having it go away. Still (and here is where you and I have fundamentally different American DNA, Greg), I would argue that the problem there wasn't too much regulation, but a lack thereof.

State pensions, unlike private pensions, are not subject to federal regulation and, therefore, are more likely to go off the reservation without anyone to check the fraud and/or negligence and/or just plain bad math of the people running it.

Some in Congress want to change that.

http://www.naco.org/newsroom/countyn...ionpolans.aspx

Now, to the extent your complaint is about how bad the state of Florida managed things, I agree 100%.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I still contend that was when Full House was on the air.

The revolution will be syndicated.

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/house/tv-listings/100169

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really? You're not thinking very hard then. How about if it results in say...allowing a nuclear attack on US soil that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands (for a hypothetical)?

The military is the least affected among by "government shutdown", IIRC. And I have seen very little from "the other team" that improves national security.

Or defunding public schools and bankrupting you to the point that your kid can't afford to get a decent education because you can't afford one of the private schools where he could be educated? (again - hypothetical, but coming closer to reality)

I'd like to see the amount of money wasted down the increasingly dry hole of public education cut consistently. Without dramatic reform it's a dead model that just hasn't stopped twitching yet afaic.

Trust me, if the government took two weeks off, my income isn't going to change (they've already poked their nose into too many place already). The biggest threat the government poses to what little income I have left is by grabbing more of it.

Or putting the industry that you work in out of business through too much regulation?

As gstelmack pointed out already, that's action not inaction. I sure as hell haven't seen any signs of that being reduced.

How about insufficient regulation causing you to lose your life savings or causing the value of your house (your primary asset) to suffer a dramatic collapse without enough time left before your retirement to have it rebuild

Where the hell have you been? That's ALREADY happened, although I don't believe a lack of regulation was the primary cause of the former & couldn't have stopped the latter through any acceptable means. I'm upside down on two houses already & I don't have a shred of belief that'll change in my lifetime so claims of the government somehow saving me from that situation fall on extremely deaf ears.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sorry, but I'd be hard pressed to disagree more.

It's hard enough to find a decent rep to send to D.C. Damned if I see any rational reason to throw them out over something as arbitrary as a calendar. I've been at both ends of the spectrum on this, represented by a range of McKinney(D) to Broun(R), but in neither case did term limits seem like a remotely good idea to me.

Term limits is only part of the solution. Holding the people in office to higher standards is another. It's a multifaceted problem, exasperated by non informed, willfully ignorant voters. I'm not sure what else can be done to insure that the best of the best are running, except for a thorough vetting process and holding incumbents accountable for their actions.

One of our major problems IMO is a lack of properly qualified people to send in the first place, I don't see the bench as being anywhere near deep enough to limit eligibility. And I've often recalled what I was told many years ago by a local officeholder (I won't say politician, he only stuck around for 1 term for personal reasons), you spend the first two years in any office just figuring out where the bathroom is. Colorful description aside, he made a good point about how short first terms tend to make for ineffective legislators.

I 100% agree, the talent pool for politicians is extremely shallow. If it takes two years to find the bathroom, something is seriously wrong with the fundamental set up of the institution. All kidding aside, I say, limit terms, but, at the same time increase the term length. Congress goes from 2 years to 4 and keep the Senate the same, with a max of two terms. If you can't get something done in 6 or 12 years, you should be fired.

I'm not saying I'm right, just saying that this is what I think would help make things better in my opinion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If you can't get something done in 6 or 12 years, you should be fired.

And there's the other part of my argument: if they are getting something done in 6 or 12 years, why on Earth would I want to kick them to the curb?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And there's the other part of my argument: if they are getting something done in 6 or 12 years, why on Earth would I want to kick them to the curb?

I agree, I agree. Trust me, I've thought of that. It is definitely a conundrum that would happen if term limits were imposed, because you do want to keep the good ones.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Where the hell have you been? That's ALREADY happened, although I don't believe a lack of regulation was the primary cause of the former & couldn't have stopped the latter through any acceptable means. I'm upside down on two houses already & I don't have a shred of belief that'll change in my lifetime so claims of the government somehow saving me from that situation fall on extremely deaf ears.

I am trying to understand the housing mess. I do not know what type of regulation should have been in place, but the fact that unqualified people were given loans (because of the quick buck it generated for loads of people), which in turn directly negatively effected those who were qualified (you), seems wrong. I would think at the very least something should be in place to prevent runaway artificial demand.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

but the fact that unqualified people were given loans (because of the quick buck it generated for loads of people),

A situation exacerbated by ... you guessed it ... government regulations.

runaway artificial demand.

Something that government policy promoted.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A situation exacerbated by ... you guessed it ... government regulations.



Something that government policy promoted.

Yes, it's (the credit industry) long been a trade-off. The government has wanted to promote easy credit as a indicator of "growth" at the expense of standard of living (and the dubious goal of equality).

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A situation exacerbated by ... you guessed it ... government regulations.

Something that government policy promoted.

I guess that's my problem, I have know idea what the difference is between regulated and promoted. On one hand, it sounds like you are saying the government created laws or policies that told banks they need to make risky loans. On the other, it seems like you are saying the government saw uncontrolled spending and did nothing because the economy kept going up.

Neither option I think gets at why a regulation that prevents fraud would be a bad thing. Granite that regulation would in some part have to undo previous attempts to promote fraud

[Warhammer]

I forget the bills, but the government did have some legislation that prompted banks to give loans to risky applicants.

[JPhillips]

But the underlying mortgages weren't really the problem. Cleaning all those up would have sucked, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near as painful as cleaning up all the over-leveraged bank bets on those mortgages.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by stevew

I think it's going to get continuously worse, the baby boomers retiring will destroy whatever is left of the economy. I don't think that the future will hold the same benefits such as WW2 helping to end the depression.

We are involved in massive wars, and unless you have an established career and a good job, you're dealing with a job significantly worse than what was available generations before.

My friend has a buisiness degree, and hasn't been able to find shit. It could be and probably is our area. He was working for a bank, and they expected him to work 6 days a week, approximately 4 hours per day for like 8 bucks an hour. That's "entry level" for a lot of people these days.

I'm in a slightly similar boat. I think the only way to have a chance to really get ahead is try to go in business for yourself.