kapkomet

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 13, 2006 -> 12:30 AM) Clinton was a few days away from going to WAR with North Korea. BS. I don't beleive that, but I think they wanted people to think that. As many are suggesting, why would Bush INTENTIONALLY let NK do what they are doing?

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 08:58 PM) Economies are ruled by monetary policy. Interest rates are the only fool proof method of putting money directly into the economy. Taxes, in my mind, have only nominal impact on the economy. Low interest rates affect way more than those who have the ability to get a loan. Low rates make it cheaper for businesses to borrow money. When they can borrow money cheaply, they can expand, hire new workers, develop new markets, innovate, etc. Also, when interest rates are low, investment is pushed to the private sector. Stocks attract new investors because stock performance is substantially better than interest based investments (like T-bills, bonds, etc.). When companies have access to capital, they can expand. This is especially important in America where our position as the global capital center gives us the advantage to pursue other international markets unavailable to those without financing. I believe that lowering taxes can expose an economy to inflation. I believe the "pure injection" of money into the economy translates into higher demand for consumer goods. Some of those consumer goods are foreign (e.g. using tax reductions to upgrade from a ford to a mercedes). For every tax cut dollar, the American economy only receives the percentage that is spent on american goods or benefits american companies. The consumer spending which stays in the U.S. drives up inflation in the short term. If a billion more dollars is available to americans, its foolish to believe that prices won't eventually reflect that as well. I definitely understand supply-side theory that tax cuts produce a trickle down affect... and I agree that it is somwhat helpful. But its not nearly as substanial as Reagan disciples want to believe. The Reagan Tax cuts in 81 and 86 were probably good for America (though the deficits are not good). However, its also worth noting that Paul Volker lowered interest rates a whopping 10% in the early 80's. Volker contained price growth, he spurred investment, and ultimately a huge boom in American Business. He is the uncredited hero in the American economy. George Bush Sr. raised taxes in 1990. Clinton raised taxes in 1993. The result? 9 years of booming economy. No inflation, low unemployment. Budget surpluses. If tax breaks help the economy, then we logically should have seen a bad economy from tax increases. It never happened. So I you ask me how to grow an economy, I'll tell you to use monetary policy. Tax cuts are overrated. The Sweds have a 56% income tax... but they have a very powerful central bank. Somehow, they've prospered. .. and they've grown even faster than us. Abe, I don't have time to respond, but you make some good arguements, and besides, SS probably can answer this better then I. Bush and Clinton did raise taxes, but only incrementally compared to the MUCH higher rates that we had pre-Reagan, and that's why I don't think we saw as much of an effect. Plus, the economy was shifting from a largely manufacturing environment to a services oriented environment (economic engine wise) so there was an influx of cash that probably wouldn't have been there otherwise.

You know what? George W. Bush has done a lot of s*** wrong, and you see me say that quite a bit too, if you read what I say ... but I get sick and damn tired of seeing every f***ing article suggest that nothing was Clinton's fault and everything is Bush's fault, and that article was EXACTLY that. It's bulls***. EVERYONE from 1953 on has choked the chicken on North Korea, IMO. But, it sure sounds good, as Rex noted, to say that Bush has allowed it ALL to happen over the last six years, and Clinton's s*** smells like roses, too. (Rex I know that wasn't YOUR point, but it surely was in the Slate article). That's why I put my comment.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 06:11 PM) John McCain is dead wrong about North Korea. It's ALWAYS George W. Bush's fault.

My, ain't that a shame.

QUOTE(mreye @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 01:04 PM) I'm just pointing out that you and NS have a comment about almost everything posted in here and it's usually a counterpoint. Maybe that's how the "Dems Only" thread goes too. I don't know. I don't go in there. I just think it's counter to what this thread was originally intended to be. Again, maybe I misunderstood. No, you're right. But I think a lot of us can sometimes see both sides.

Noe let me be clear... I don't care that Reid did this: BUT... If he had an ® behind his name, he would be front page fodder for the NY Slimes, Washington Compost and the rest of the mainstream media for DAYS.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) Any idea on houses that the taxes aren't paid on...? A lot of times you can see this on a county website.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 02:08 PM) For the exact reason Nuke stated above. Folks don't think BEFORE signing the dotted line. Failure to use their common sense and jump in with both feet exceeding the SOL they can afford. You are absolutely right, but a lot of times, in a high pressure sales situation, people don't think. Yes, it's let the buyer beware, but really, how much of that is really true? It's like these high interest rate payday loan places. I've been asked to interview with them, and they pay really well, but I refuse to interview, because to me, it's morally bankrupt to make THAT much money off of people who are in a bad situation. I hate that our system punishes people who make mistakes, and I won't prey off of people like that. Steff, it is my opinion that you should consider yourself lucky that you have the knowledge, and the means to learn and educate yourself. Most people don't. I consider myself very lucky in that regard. If we help ONE person think that comes to soxtalk, then I feel our discussion has been well worth it.

QUOTE(mreye @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) I must have misunderstood something when I read "GOP Only - Sink or swim together" Hmmmmmm???? Oh, don't go there. There's a lot of cross pollination going on, and as long as it's civil, who cares?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:33 PM) Do whatever you want with it. I'm sure it will be taken *seriously* and treated with *respect.* :rolly I hope it is, because there's some awesome points in this; some I hadn't thought about in the way it's presented. I'll take it seriously. I'll break it out later, or if someone has time, can they do it?

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) Seriously. It's common friggin sense. To you it is. You're smarter then most. Why are foreclosures going through the roof?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) From wiki: In addition to the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine subcommittee. Studds was later appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Studds received standing ovations, not in Congress as has been reported, but in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure. The other member of congress implicated in the scandal, Dan Crane (R, IL), was also censured and defeated at election time. Now I want to know the truth... because people were saying they were there when the "standing O" thing happened.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) Or just have the party faithful start the comments, why wait. The finance close is the fastest and easiest close in the world. Works for all big ticket items. Look at cars. Six year auto loans. I remember when three was the standard and four almost unheard of. Why? To sell lower payments and get people into more expensive vehicles. Historically, mortages are about the safest loan banks can make. The properties generally increase in value to the point that the banks can get out with a profit if the people default. How nice. And they know it too, which is why they prey on people. It's all about making $$, not protecting the consumer.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) Its different. It's always different. It certainly is... /rolly

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) If they want to fine them, they will find a way. And as I said, I hope they do. So why should ESPN get fined? Do you think they let it go on purpose?

Rec, NO ONE gives a s***. And it cracks me up when this feigned outrage comes from both sides of the aisle. Our government is so full of horse s***, they ought to just light the match and let the methane explode. The Democrats want power back. At any cost. They have to leak s*** like this because they can't talk about issues. The Dems EVEN ADMIT IT! To paraphrase, if we talk about our plans, Karl Rove will beat the s*** out of it... boy, now THERE's a party full of ideas. The Republicans have become little sniveling wimps. They are so worried about what THE MEDIA (notice I did NOT say the people) thinks and how they will get smeared that they can't talk about issues either. I hate to say it, but most people in this country are fiscal conservatives (by that I mean, leave me the hell alone and let me live my life and don't have me pay up the wazoo in taxes). They are somewhat more liberal when it comes to social aspects, but most have a moral compass that guides them as they get more and more conservative as they live and understand life. I think that's why everyone is always so shocked when election day comes around and they seem to hang on. For all their problems, the Republican ideas seem to coincide more with mainstream America. We'll see if that happens this go round, smear tactics and assmuches like Foley notwithstanding. Now where in the Democratic party does that fit now? I hear Pelosi's 100 hour plan, but that's all smoke and mirrors anyway, as is anything else coming out of the right wing spin machine. Oh and one more thing, Studds should have resigned, like Foley did. And later on, with censure on record, he got appointed to leadership positions, assisted in some ways by no one other then Ms. Pelosi. So it's ok that the guy actually had sex with a 17 year old page and got leadership positions in the house, but then it's also ok to run for the microphones and talk about how bad the whole Republican party is for allowing Foley to send written messages (note differences)? I'll try to say this again... Foley is an assmunch and deserves to have been ran off. But the Democrats want to use this as a referendum on the entire Republican party, and it's hypocracy at a very high level.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 11:10 PM) No offense, but your last sentence is completely laughable. Or when properly used its a tremendous way to get people into home's and allow them to ease into the whole home buying experience (especially people that are younger who will make considerably more money in the coming years). It can also be tremendous if you plan on flipping your property in a couple years. Of course right now wouldn't exactly be the time to buy if you were planning on flipping in a couple years (unless you had some real connections and found some steals that needed refurbishing but you would be able to do it very cheaply; these are much harder to find than the general public thinks though). The caution is, you have to know your market - REALLY understand it. Most people don't. That's my point. They focus on the payment, and they aren't thinking about the other side. Listen to the ads for ARMs. Not now, but two years ago. (stupid announcer guy voice) Now YOUUUUUUUUUU can have a $500,000 mortgage for just $499 a month. Call me NOW to find out HOWWWW... (/end) That baits people. And it's a quick sell for realtors. Again, I'm not saying that it's NOT for everyone, but you have to be careful, and most people don't understand that. You do, Steff does, "finance types" do, but I think I said the same thing when this came up before, most people don't.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 10:10 PM) For the same reason you asked about the other guy...because Hastert (and Boehner and Reynolds) actually has a leadership position within the party, he only retains that position as long as he has the support of a majority of those within the Congress. If he were to be removed from his leadership position, a-la Trent Lott, it would be a sign of disapproval on the part of his constituents in his party who vote for him for that position. His retaining that position is either tacit approval of his actions or a belief that his actions are not serious enough for his removal from that position. A better metaphor would be to discuss a state where the radical islamist party has won an election and therefore has shown that it has the support of a majority of the people, i.e. Hamas in the Palestinian territories. So it's hang the bastard (read: he MUST resign) now, but 20 years ago, it wasn't. Hypocrites.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 10:04 PM) People who thought they were getting over on the system and getting themselves into houses they really couldnt afford are about to really get it. How much does anyone want to bet me that Lou Dobbs or some other idiot will get on TV and somehow blame the President for this and start another class-warfare cry-fest. Score another point for living within your means. Now that's very true. Having said that, I think it's really crappy for people to get baited like this, not really knowing what they are getting into. They get sold on the low payment, and not really think about the ADJUSTMENT part. Now yes, they should have thought about it, but most people don't. It's just another mechanism to rip people and make money.

Don't you mean to have another picture there?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 08:05 PM) Another random thought here.... if it isn't OK to group the radical Islamists as represently all Islam, why is it OK to paint all repubs are being a part of this scandal? Guys like Hastert I understand, but unless Dems are calling the entire party coverup artists and child molesters, this should be affecting anyone except the few people who have been named, right? That's what I was trying to get at, sort of, before I got all sidetracked. But that's ok, I don't know any better, apparently.

It's amazing to me that it's all about the Republicans losing, and not the Democrats winning. Think about it.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) What is a Liberal? (From Today's trib) chicagotribune.com >> Editorials What it means to be a liberal By Geoffrey R. Stone. Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime." Published October 10, 2006 For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling. In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them. Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate. 1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate. 2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.) 3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." 4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.) 5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people. 6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare." 7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women. 8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.) 9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens. 10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty." Consider this an invitation. Are these propositions meaningful? Are they helpful? Are they simply wrong? As a liberal, how would you change them or modify the list? As a conservative, how would you draft a similar list for conservatives? Soxy, I read through this really fast... and haven't digested it all, but there's some good points in here. I'd like to cut this out and start its own topic, because this would be a really good debate, IMO, if people took it seriously. Would that be ok?

It's actually supposed to be chilly here this weekend (at least in Dallas/Fort Worth) - highs in the 60's for a couple of days and lows in the mid 40s, but sunny.