Glenn Beck is an idiot

 " ... but you can't believe a word out of his mouth. Or, at least you shouldn't. "

A guy who peddles bonds for a living climbs up on his high horse and attacks a guy who is trying to get America to stop printing bonds.

And he's giving us free advice on who to trust.

 Thanks for the exursion into the liberal mind, bond guy.

Couple of things here.

Glenn Beck IS an idiot. 

But Glenn Beck is also an actor.  I don't think either of you are right on this.  Mainly because he doesn't believe half of the crap that he says.  He's an entertainer.  Like Cramer.  And other idiots on TV.  He says things to get a reaction.  Most pundits do.

BondGuy rocks no matter what he sells. The value he has provided to newbie (and veteran FAs) has been unequaled.  Judge may have had the 500 day war, but BondGuy has been here for a long time.

Go back and read a thread from him where he talks about how all of the old tired broker style doesn't work.  I'm equally sure that BondGuy has been in this business so long that he has done it all.  If he can start a relationship with a safe bond, why shouldn't he?

And lastly.  Climate change may be happening.  Man-made climate change is bull.

Yeah, why shouldn't he, Magician?

It's a free country.      

  ..... right?

The man started in the business over 20 years ago.  Fee-only and fee-based was a dream then. 

It's not like the only thing he does is sell bonds.

Millionair, I don't care who you trust. But, unless you want Palin as our next president you need to think about it.

Magician, I agree, Beck is light entertainment. Kinda the right's Bill Mawr, only not as funny. And maybe not as well written.  Look at Beck, compares every libreral to the Nazis and then says it's Ok to burn people out of their homes for their beliefs. Is that high comedy, bad writting, or a confused mind?  Unfortunately, too deep for the average Tea Bagger who is hoping the Santa Ana winds keep up year round. But, there's that science thing again, ops! I guess that's funny too. Well, until Sarah takes the oath of office.

On the biz front, I don't care what anyone thinks about what i do. It works for my clients, it works for my family, it works for me. Simple!

Full disclosure here: I like Glen Beck.  I listen to his radio show when I'm in my car and he's on.  I DVR his show and watch it probably once a week.  I realize that his show is about entertainment, ratings, and money.  Not necessarily in that order.  My political leaning align themselves pretty squarely with the Tea Party movement.  Bond, your use of the Tea Bagger verbiage is a little disturbing.  I took you for a guy who was smart enough not to having to resort to name calling when you disagree with someone. 

Beck, while entertaining us average Tea Partiers, has uncovered, or at least brought to the forefront some things that should disturb us as US citizens, no matter what party we find ourselves in.  For instance, did you know that Freddie and Fannie now have a direct, unlimited line of credit whith the US government?  No TARP money needed, just walk across the hall to Uncle Sam and have him write you a check.  Those are tax dollars going to that failure of an organization.  Yours AND mine. 

While you may not agree with his politics or his tactics, you can't argue that the man knows his audience and his audience is listening and acting.  I think it's the acting part that gets under the skin of the average liberal/progressive.  It's pretty disturbing when the astro turf starts to cause some problems. 

It's OK, your (meaning the progressive Dems) time in the sun is limited.  How many days until mid-term elections?  I can't wait to see how effective Obama is when his party is no longer in control of the House and Senate.  Wait, did I use effective and Obama in the same sentence?  Sorry for the oxymoron.   

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

Full disclosure here: I like Glen Beck.  I listen to his radio show when I'm in my car and he's on.  I DVR his show and watch it probably once a week.  I realize that his show is about entertainment, ratings, and money.  Not necessarily in that order.  My political leaning align themselves pretty squarely with the Tea Party movement.  Bond, your use of the Tea Bagger verbiage is a little disturbing.  I took you for a guy who was smart enough not to having to resort to name calling when you disagree with someone. 

Calling them teabaggers is a put down? Who knew?

Beck, while entertaining us average Tea Partiers, has uncovered, or at least brought to the forefront some things that should disturb us as US citizens, no matter what party we find ourselves in.  For instance, did you know that Freddie and Fannie now have a direct, unlimited line of credit whith the US government?  No TARP money needed, just walk across the hall to Uncle Sam and have him write you a check.  Those are tax dollars going to that failure of an organization.  Yours AND mine. 

Ah, I'm speechless! Well, not quite. You didn't know? I can understand Joe Lunchbox not knowing, or really caring, but you?

Space, my view of the tea partiers is one of not too bright,  easily led conservatives who as a group don't understand how money works. I gotta tell ya, You're not helping to change that view. And, honestly I'm not trying to put you down, but funding of Fannie and Freddie as mechanism to help bail us out of this mess is well documented.

Why are we, with our tax dollars, doing this? To keep the economy from capsizing and to keep familes in their homes. Over the past six months alone they have modified over 135,000 mortgages. That's 135,000 families that won't be homeless. That's 135,000 houses that won't get added to the see through inventory. Think about that number, 135,000. That's my town and and every town around it. That's a lot of people, and that's just over the past six months! On the flip side mortgage delinquencies are still increasing. Are Tea partiers for putting people out of their homes?

While you may not agree with his politics or his tactics, you can't argue that the man knows his audience and his audience is listening and acting.  I think it's the acting part that gets under the skin of the average liberal/progressive.  It's pretty disturbing when the astro turf starts to cause some problems. 

Yeah, it's scary that somone with the IQ of astroturf could be elected prez because the audience is not well informed. The same audience that believes the health care debate was about health care.

It's OK, your (meaning the progressive Dems) time in the sun is limited.  How many days until mid-term elections?  I can't wait to see how effective Obama is when his party is no longer in control of the House and Senate.  Wait, did I use effective and Obama in the same sentence?  Sorry for the oxymoron.   

Because i call Beck what he is I'm a progressive Dem?

Well, I think the Alabama gubernatoral race were the attack ads are centered on the teaching of evolution are an absolute joke. Except they are dead serious. People in this day and age making a decision that rejects science? This is scary stuff! The dumbing down of America! And, the pandering to it. If rejecting the right's pandering to the flat earth crowd, and turning evolution into a religious debate makes me a progressive democrat, well I embrace that title heartily. Personally, i think it makes me a thinking American.

As for The effectiveness of the house and senate: There was a time when the parties would come together for the greater good of the country. After all the debate, and retoric, things got done. This is the way our governement is suppose to work. Now, we are polarized. I mean opposite ends of the magnet.  There is no compromise  regardless of the stakes. The talking heads energize groups at opposite ends of the spectrum and politicians have to pander to them. A good example is what you brought up, TARP. Without it we'd be looking at bread lines, yet the average Tea Bag partier doesn't know that or at least understand it. So, the drumbeat starts with all the crap about socializing the country and nationalizing the banks. This group buys into it. That's scary!

I'd say i'm more of a regressive centrist. i want things like they were in the good old days. When reasonable men with differing beliefs could agree. And debate wasn't spun into complete lies with supporting cheerleaders on both sides.

[/quote]

The problem with working at Jones is that I'm surrounded with teabaggers. I believe that it's impossible to be dumb about politics and smart about investing. So I sit at meetings being forced to listen to their idiotic misuse of political facts, occasionally interupted by come to jesus testimony.

Ah, yes.  Loan modifications.  Have you called your banker, assuming you still carry a mortage, and asked him if you can modify your loan?  He'd probably chuckle at you and tell you that you've got a great job, pay your bills on time, don't miss payments, have an emergency fund, have a great credit rating, bought a house you can actually afford and are generally a nice guy, so no, he's not going to modify your loan for you.  You signed a contract with his bank, now deal with it.  But he appreciates your business.

Meanwhile, your banker's counterpart at Freddie gets a phone call from somone who bought much more house than they could afford, took out a second mortgage on said house to buy that ________ they couldn't live without, have a horrible credit rating because they can't pay the minimum balance on their credit card bills, didn't have an emergency fund, and are generally nice people with a fatal planning flaw.  Their sob story is so compelling that the lender at Freddie feels so sorry for them that he says, sure, we'll modify your loan for you.  There now, doesn't that make things easier for you? 

OK, those were my tax dollars that guy just pissed away.  Those TARP dollars that just had to be spent to save the country.  Well, what lessons did we as a country learn from this last few years?  Was it to save more?  Was it to only buy what you can afford?  Was it to prepare for the worst?  Nope.  It was if you get into trouble, reach out of Uncle Sam's outstretched hand and grab the dollar bill that he's offering you.  It's your right as an American citizen to have the government bail you out of your own stupidity. 

We can at least agree on something.  Our current government is broken.  And broke.  I too want things to go back the way they were.  We're not going there.  We're headed the exact opposite direction.  

The funny thing is that if you are indeed a regressive centrist, I'm not sure why you're so tough on Beck.  The vast majority of his commentary is about getting back to the way things were when the government didn't want to control every little part of our existence.  Getting back to the way things were when men could argue and disagree with each other but yet get something accomplished.  He's looking back to men like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and the other founding fathers as the ideal of what our leadership should be right now.  Those guys didn't agree with each other, but they all knew what had to be done to make this country great, and they put aside their differences and did it.  Underneath Beck's ratings grab is some really good information.

How about we leave the evolution conversation to another time and place?  

Bond Guy, liberal blowhard.

1. Picks a fight about Beck.

2. Diverts meaningful discussion about overspending. Makes fun of Spiff for being Joe lunchbox in his understanding about the (liberal and conservative engineered) cause of the meltdown.

3. Believes spending your money on bailouts is good for the economy.

4.Thinks he's qualified to judge who has the IQ of astroturf.

5. Apparently denies that America has swung hard to the left ( socialist economic policy).

6. Probably voted for Obama, now he's attacking Beck.

7. Peddles bonds for a living, makes fun of people who are worried about debt and bloated government and government intervention in the economy.

8. Apparenty pines for the good old days, when America cold afford his BS.

For the record, I have zero problems with the way Bondguy makes his living.  He's been at this a long time.  I have no doubt that picking his brain on all things bond related would be a wonderful educational experience. 

Selling debt is a lucrative and honorable way to make a living, I speak from experience. ( Pretty objective perspective, huh?)

Part of the hypocrisy of sucessful baby boomers has to do with selfishness ( as in, borrowing for today, and leaving the next generation in debt for tomorrow) - while claiming to be improving the or maintaining the economic legacy left by our parents.

To state the obvious, when a guy who peddles debt for a living ( who probably voted for the current leadership) - attacks the opposition - any points he can get win from the discussion are gravy. Just defining the playing field is a victory.   

Whether he is conscious of what he is doing or not, BG is employing Ombamian tactics in his fight.

1. Pick the fight (define the playing field).

2. Divert attention ( I profit from selling debt, but I'm qualified to attack those who fundamentally oppose overspending).

3. Debase the opposition ( astroturf I Q).

4. Justify your own actions or strategy.

5. Call for a reasonable harmony ( like the old days, when Congress got along).

Thanks for the lesson, BG. If you carry on in ignorance, I guess you're just a blowhard. If you know what you're doing, perhaps it makes you a socialist - in the purpose driven sense.

For example, when Obama attacks the health care industry ( most people are not trained to understand it), and creates fear and loathing of corporations to win public emotional support, you could call that fascist, or you could back off a little and be polite and call it socialism.

Meanwhile, it seems like liberals have a general sense that a guy like Beck is really a fascist. Maybe you could enlighten us, Bond Guy. This is your thread.

I am curious, Bondguy, what got you heated up enough that you felt the need to come onto RR and blast Beck?  Did the Bold Fresh tour just leave your neck of the woods?  Casual dust jacket reading at the local Barnes & Noble? 

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

Ah, yes.  Loan modifications.  Have you called your banker, assuming you still carry a mortage, and asked him if you can modify your loan?  He'd probably chuckle at you and tell you that you've got a great job, pay your bills on time, don't miss payments, have an emergency fund, have a great credit rating, bought a house you can actually afford and are generally a nice guy, so no, he's not going to modify your loan for you.  You signed a contract with his bank, now deal with it.  But he appreciates your business.

Meanwhile, your banker's counterpart at Freddie gets a phone call from somone who bought much more house than they could afford, took out a second mortgage on said house to buy that ________ they couldn't live without, have a horrible credit rating because they can't pay the minimum balance on their credit card bills, didn't have an emergency fund, and are generally nice people with a fatal planning flaw.  Their sob story is so compelling that the lender at Freddie feels so sorry for them that he says, sure, we'll modify your loan for you.  There now, doesn't that make things easier for you? 

Actually, it would make it easier if you knew what you were talking about. The people getting approved for loan mods are honest people caught in a bad situation. No fraud. But speaking of fraud, it's the bankers in paragraph one who committed the fraud. They originated bad loans knowing that they were shit and sold them to Fannie and Freddie.  Bringing  bad loans current thru loan mods is a time honored banking practice. When it works it's the cheapest way out for the bank. Ultimately, it will be the cheapest way out for fannie and freddie. Still, for the Tea baggers agenda, easier to spin the beneficiaries as undeserving losers and deadbeats. Unfortunately, not true.

OK, those were my tax dollars that guy just pissed away.  Those TARP dollars that just had to be spent to save the country.  Well, what lessons did we as a country learn from this last few years?  Was it to save more?  Was it to only buy what you can afford?  Was it to prepare for the worst?  Nope.  It was if you get into trouble, reach out of Uncle Sam's outstretched hand and grab the dollar bill that he's offering you.  It's your right as an American citizen to have the government bail you out of your own stupidity. 

The average american isn't getting bailed out of anything.  Well, at least in my neck of the woods.

We can at least agree on something.  Our current government is broken.  And broke.  I too want things to go back the way they were.  We're not going there.  We're headed the exact opposite direction.  

The funny thing is that if you are indeed a regressive centrist, I'm not sure why you're so tough on Beck.  The vast majority of his commentary is about getting back to the way things were when the government didn't want to control every little part of our existence.  Getting back to the way things were when men could argue and disagree with each other but yet get something accomplished.  He's looking back to men like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and the other founding fathers as the ideal of what our leadership should be right now.  Those guys didn't agree with each other, but they all knew what had to be done to make this country great, and they put aside their differences and did it.  Underneath Beck's ratings grab is some really good information.

I'm tough on Beck because he's dishonest. And he's part of the problem. He takes the out of context and seeks to enflame with it. That drives the poles further apart rather than bringing them together. Going back to your comments about the undesrving getting bailed out. That's not true. Yet, it's guys like Beck who present the spin as fact and sell it to uninformed america. I'm not saying Beck actually said that, only that it's part of the ultra right spin machine. if you actually believe that irresponsible people who should  never have been approved for mortgages  are a meaningful percentage of those getting loan mods then you've bought in-you've been brain washed.  And there-in lies the problem with the Glenn Becks of the world, both on the right and the left. Neither is doing us any good.

How about we leave the evolution conversation to another time and place?  

That comment wasn't about evolution, but ok, another time.

And, the only thing I use a bank for is checking. On a personal basis i really hate those bastards.

[/quote]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704879704575236673459521654.html

Actually, it would make it easier if you knew what you were talking about. The people getting approved for loan mods are honest people caught in a bad situation. No fraud. But speaking of fraud, it's the bankers in paragraph one who committed the fraud. They originated bad loans knowing that they were **** and sold them to Fannie and Freddie.  Bringing  bad loans current thru loan mods is a time honored banking practice. When it works it's the cheapest way out for the bank. Ultimately, it will be the cheapest way out for fannie and freddie. Still, for the Tea baggers agenda, easier to spin the beneficiaries as undeserving losers and deadbeats. Unfortunately, not true.

It must be fun to be you, your economic world must be so simple. And the solutions to the problems that " your people"  create make you richer. Still, your fascination with Beck is fascinating.

It's really just all about you and your legacy, liberal boomer. Blow hard, BG! This has been a education for me.

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

I am curious, Bondguy, what got you heated up enough that you felt the need to come onto RR and blast Beck?  Did the Bold Fresh tour just leave your neck of the woods?  Casual dust jacket reading at the local Barnes & Noble? 

[/quote]

Speaking of dust jackets, it is Becks misattribute of a quote on his own book's dust jacket that neatly pins him up like a butterfly at a high school science fair as the fraud he is. And, I say that realizing they don't teach science everywhere.

Still I'm not heated up at Beck. He's meaningless, if not harmless. As for tea partiers, well it depends on what branch? There are many not so good people, with not so good agendas and intentions competing to co-opt the tea party movement and message. That presents a potentially big problem.  I do like the anger, the being pissed off at the status quo. Change needs to happen. But i meant what i said, these people are too easily led and that's far from a good thing.

Oh, and the Bold Fresh tour? Yeah, we'll take your money, we'llbrain wash you, but you'll love it!  I like Bill, but he too is part of the problem, and he too is a little too loose with the facts. I usually skip his column in our local paper.

How do you feel about some of the American people being  misled in their understanding of the health care industry's role as it relates to health care costs and  reform?

How do you feel about Chicago politics, broke boomers, debt, and the role of the government in the economy?

Do you think there is a massive socialist grab going on right now in the economy?

How exactly are you going to pay for the spending?

How will you hold your probable pals in power accountable for the spending?

Since you apparently think a lot of people are not as intelligent as you, how would you educate and awaken the masses if you agreed with the idea that we  need to be fiscally responsible?

There are no excuses for the past. All parties need to take responsibility. The problem I have is that while the economy is literally being taken over by the government, apparently bright enough folks like you are running offense for the invaders of the private economy.

In fairness, I'm not optimistic about the outcome of this battle, majority will win. Look at  Europe. Frankly, when I think about it, I think you're just messing with us. Relishing your liberal triumph. ( Yeah, you support Obama.)  I guess you're entitled, and the Beck crowd is doing its best to feel good about itself. I'm going golfing.

Milyunair, when you stop re-editing your posts, we'll talk. First, make up your mind on what  you want to say, then say it, and then leave it alone long enough for us to get the gist that it's a complete thought.

We probably need to end up in the middle, but here's the trend:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704314904575250310858891850.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel

And here's my conclusion, BG: you come across as if you're as dangerous as Beck as you infer Beck is an idiot, by defending the status quo by attacking those who would expose it. Maybe I'm wrong about you being a comfortable, blowhard liberal boomer, but I doubt it. Fire away, or just ignore me, I don't really care because this exercise is not going to solve our problems. For my part, I'm just trying to understand things so I can be happy, and I believe in my heart that many of us are going to have to become more secular about our expectations for life in America in order to remain happy. And as for the average American, the result of what is happening will be a fundamental reversal of the historical expectation that economic life improves.

Still, we all gotta try to be happy Americans, I'm grateful for each day.

We are defined by our heroes. The conservative Republican was defined by Taft in the 50's(bad), and by Reagan in the 80's(good, but a failed economic policy). Now , are you really comfortable with the likes of Palin and Beck? I don't see that sort of leadership going anywhere. Like a loud fart on a windy day. This country needs more socialism, particularly healthcare and better regulation over dangerous multinational financial institutions. While the economic world breaks down, the right worries about gay marriage, the epitome of non-issues.

BG - Freddie and Fannie are not the problem.  Got it.  Freddie and Fannie are the solution to the problem with their loan modification tactics.  Got it.  All of those 135,000 folks are just unfortunate souls who are struggling in this awful economy.  Those poor people.  WE should help them.    

Here's the problem with that - www.makinghomeaffordable.gov.  I underlined the part I feel is the problem.   See, if you follow that link, you get a whole lot of Hope and Change kind of a vibe.  Why, even the toll free number I can call for help makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, full of Mr. Obama's positive YES I CAN message.  1-888-995-HOPE.  That number alone makes me think everything is going to be OK. 

Oh, but wait.  I don't qualify.  Evidently I haven't had my mortgage long enough.  See, I just moved last year and, on the instructions of my banker, my mortgage payment isn't more than 31% of my gross income.  And I'm not having trouble paying my mortgage either.  So, I guess Mr. Obama can't help me. 

What he can do, however, is use my money to help other people.  Without asking for it.  Which I suppose makes sense...since the government owns them.  Why do you have to ask for money from your own piggy bank? 

If you look at that website, you'll eventually run across the examples of people might benefit from a loan modification.  These are the poster children for this program.  Let's take Jennifer.  She's been downsized.  But before she was downsized she bought a $200,000 home with a $1950 a month payment.  ON A $4200 A MONTH INCOME!!!  Poor Jennifer.  She gets downsized and suddenly she can't make her house payments.  So, who's to blame in this situation? 

The bank?  Yep.  Jennifer should have never been allowed to make such a stupid purchase. 

The economy?  Yep, economy crashed, which meant that Jennifer got downsized. 

Jennifer?  No, not hardly.  She only bought the house her banker said she could afford.  Everyone has the RIGHT to have a $1950 a month house payment on a $50K a year job.  It's not her fault the economy crashed. 

Think Jennifer still has her cell phone, her internet, her coffees from Starbucks, Netflix, and her once a month mani/pedi?  I'm going to say she probably does.  Poor Jennifer.  She needs my money to help her out of this tough time. 

My opinion - Jennifer needs to learn some responsibility.  The lesson Jennifer is learning here, is that if you get into trouble, Mr. Obama (because he, or at least his administration, takes credit for helping poor folks like Jennifer out) will just get you out of this bad situation.  Guess who Jennifer is probably going to vote for in the next election?  Sorry, I digress.  I think Jennifer should learn the same lesson our grandparents would have learned had they done this 50 years ago.  When things get tough, you lose the house.  Yep, that's the American way.  Sometimes the best lessons learned are the toughest ones. 

So, does your regressive centrist philosophy think that Jennifer should learn this lesson the hard way, or does it believe like Mr. Obama does that she should get her own little bailout program?  Cause I'm pretty sure that Jennifer doesn't want things to go back to the way they used to be.  Just so you know, this little situation right here with Jennifer and her financial troubles, us uneducated Tea baggers call the solution redistribution of wealth.  Does it piss you off like it does us? 

The Tea Party is for smaller government and less taxes. Who can argue with that, good stuff, right? Here's the problem, the government just gave 95% of them a tax cut. Yet, they rage at the government about taxes. Sounds like a confused group. And, who is their leader? Is it Newt, Sarah, or the Airyan Nation? All have a hand in the pot.

Let's talk about Jennifer: If i've got this straight, first time home buyer, and ordinary working person Jennifer, found herself in trouble when she lost her job. And, you are pissed because rather than man up, accept responsibility, lose the house, the government is lending a helping hand allowing her to keep her house? Which she still has to pay a mortgage on? And. she's making those payments? But you're pissed because eff her , she lost her job moving her to the loser's bracket and she deserves to be homeless, right?

How about this, the very bank that looked over her financials, OK'd the loan, booked the thousands, if not ten's of thousands of dollars in fees and commissions, put her into a high risk loan, crossed it's fingers that the loan wouldn't blow up before it got sold to fannie, turns a cold shoulder to jennifer when the bad loans that, that very bank approved crash the economy costing Jennifer her job. Is that about it? Dude you are pointing your finger at the wrong bad guy.

BTW, first time home buyers going 50% of income on a mortgage happens everyday. This especially holds true in some of the country's more expensive metro areas like NY, DC, etc. In normal times it's never been a problem. Not everyone is rich like you Space.

Let's talk about health care. I'm for the health care bill and i don't care what you call it. I find it interesting that it's only people with access to a health care plan who are against this plan. My reasons for being for it are personal. Here's the story. A good friend of mine is a waitress. She doesn't make a lot of money and doesn't have access to a health care plan. She is an honest working class american who didn't get a break her entire life. She contracted breast cancer. Like much of the country, in this area there is a designated center for the unisured to go to to seek treatment. Here's the dirty little secret. To control costs, this center  turned her away. They told her they weren't the center. The stonewalled her, refused to answer her questions or direct her to THE center. Why, because they are the center and they didn't want to treat her. Time went by with noone helping her, including the ones who were supposed to help. The result, she's on the losing side of the fight. She getting treatment only because others, with connections to top docs got involved. Unfortunately, too late.

Space you can call me a bleeding heart if you'd like, the fact is if your wife or daughter turned up with a lump in their breast not a heartbeat would pass before they got treatment. Why? Because you are rich. You have gotten breaks in life. If you are the typical gen Xer your parents picked up your college tab, paid for your wedding, and gave you the DP for your house. If you're a boomer, survey says 8 chances in 10 you owe substancially all your net worth to your parents, from whom you inherited it. No woman in this country should be rejected for treatment based on their ability to pay. Yet, this happens every day. But you won't hear about it at a tea party.

And, you make an Obama- bailout connection. And you say i'm for bailouts thus for Obama. I'm confused by this. Wasn't it Bush who pushed the bailouts through congress? In fact it was! Bush owns the bailouts, not Obama. Obama got stuck with them. Is this a tea party spin?

If your opinions are based on Beck or any of the other haters, you are misinformed. You deserve the future you get. My hope is that you don't take the rest of us with you.

First of all Glenn Beck is an idiot.. That is fact not fiction. He had drinking and drug problems until 1994. He has no college degree, no training in government positions, he is simply a talking head. The only thing that I do like about him is that he admits that it is entertainment and that he "doesn't give a damn about politics".

Spiff you have to be kidding me...Half the people who need a bailout are jones trainees who were promised if they work hard to first year they would make $125K with bonuses(just kidding). I agree with you that some people bought more house then they could afford, but there were also massive layoffs in industries that no longer exist(housing, mortgage market, etc)..The reason you take on $100 DCA accounts is the same reason the government extends a helping hand(optional) to people who need/want it. Because they maybe rewarded(for you that means referral of $500k account, 401k rollover etc). The part of the story about the lady that you don't point out.. First of all $200K mortgage doesn't equal $1950 even with escrow included. Second of all if she bought a smaller house or rented wouldn't she still be in the same predicament if she got downsized?? What about if she had a 6 month savings, but couldn't find a job(not out of the question) and after 6 months she couldn't make payments. (Then her jones advisor(because if we are being honest let's face it that is who she would do business with) took her old 401K and put it in B shares and is telling her "you said you didn't need the money")

This country is beginning to make me sick.. Shouldn't it be the goal that our entire population lives at a level that other countries want to be at(unlike other countries where 25% of the people are just rotting away). How the hell does it bother you if someone gets bailed out? Taxes...really? Go live somewhere else, try prospecting in cambodia i am sure their tax rate is low... The only reason you get a good mortgage rate on your home is because you are considered less risky(hence you need someone to be compared to) if those people weren't there the banks would just say 10% mortgage deal with it...

Secondly... Seriously what would your boy George W done? ( i know you voted for him because you live in the south and now appear to be stupid).. That guy got "coat-tailed" his entire life... He is quite possibly the worst president ever..

Your redistribution of wealth is BS.. what it really is is those who have massive wealth passing it to the next in the family so they don't have to worry about the struggle.. Read up on the Vanderbilts... One guy made all the money and everyone else squandered it, but it didn't matter because there was so much it...Redistribution of wealth..seriously are you retarded?

It used to be that people had to save to buy a house.

The lady in Spiff's example would likely have been ok, if she had bought smaller and put a significant amount of money down on the house. 

It's as simple as that. 

Oh, and Glenn Beck is not an idiot.  He's very smart.

Him, Hannity, Rachel Maddow and the other dude on MSNBC (Keith Olberman).  All of those people are parasites, preying on the minds of the weak.

[quote=Magician]

It used to be that people had to save to buy a house.

The lady in Spiff's example would likely have been ok, if she had bought smaller and put a significant amount of money down on the house. 

It's as simple as that. 

Oh, and Glenn Beck is not an idiot.  He's very smart.

Him, Hannity, Rachel Maddow and the other dude on MSNBC (Keith Olberman).  All of those people are parasites, preying on the minds of the weak.

[/quote]

Completely agree. It is for people who are to lazy to do the research themselves and take the idea as the word of god because the guy is on tv.

He is an idiot for helping to create a weak and mentally inferior voting public. But he definitely cashes in on it..

[quote=navet]

We are defined by our heroes. The conservative Republican was defined by Taft in the 50's(bad), and by Reagan in the 80's(good, but a failed economic policy). Now , are you really comfortable with the likes of Palin and Beck? I don't see that sort of leadership going anywhere. Like a loud fart on a windy day. This country needs more socialism, particularly healthcare and better regulation over dangerous multinational financial institutions. While the economic world breaks down, the right worries about gay marriage, the epitome of non-issues.

[/quote]

Good grief. Like the current socialist programs are working so well??? Comments like these induce nauseous feelings in my stomach because of the vast amounts of ignorance and blindness to actual facts...

[quote=squash2]First of all Glenn Beck is an idiot.. That is fact not fiction.

It is not a fact, it IS your opinion.

He had drinking and drug problems until 1994.

What relevance does this comment have? other then you being an azzhole.

He has no college degree, no training in government positions, he is simply a talking head.

This coming from someone that cannot remember his password and/or email address i.e. "was squash & squash1"

The only thing that I do like about him is that he admits that it is entertainment and that he "doesn't give a damn about politics".

I personally do not enjoy more then 5-10 minutes of his or any other "shock jock's" show at any given time. They are all too far from the "center" for me but I try to balance them somewhat against each other.

[/quote]

Have you ever noticed how the far Right spokespeople ...i.e. Limbaugh and Beck have never graduated from college and have well documented problems with substance abuse yet we are supposed to regard them with some sort of reverence ? I think that there are about 20% on the far right fringe and about 20% on the far left fringe that I merely shake my head at because they just don't live in the reality that I do. We live in a society that wants all of their news digested so they don't have to do any real work trying to form an idea. It is sad....

BTW in full disclosure, the spokespeople on the far left are just as bad as the ones on the far right......

Latest numbers show mortgage foreclosures up. Something like 37% of foreclosures in 1st qtr were conventional loans. That is folks with good credit and DP dough. To top it off the deliq rate is going up too. one in ten missed a mort payment in qtr one.

Tough for the tea party folks to make the argument that it's only the undeserving who are in trouble.

Question for everyone; how long could you keep your mortgage current if you were without a paycheck? That's no paychecks coming into the house. And, what lifestyle changes would you make to protect the home? When would you make them? Something to think about. After-all, it could happen.

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=navet]

We are defined by our heroes. The conservative Republican was defined by Taft in the 50's(bad), and by Reagan in the 80's(good, but a failed economic policy). Now , are you really comfortable with the likes of Palin and Beck? I don't see that sort of leadership going anywhere. Like a loud fart on a windy day. This country needs more socialism, particularly healthcare and better regulation over dangerous multinational financial institutions. While the economic world breaks down, the right worries about gay marriage, the epitome of non-issues.

[/quote]

Good grief. Like the current socialist programs are working so well??? Comments like these induce nauseous feelings in my stomach because of the vast amounts of ignorance and blindness to actual facts...

[/quote]

Socialist programs? Like our national parks(started by a Republican), national highway system(started by a Republican), FDA, and I have to mention Social Security and Medicare(our first best socialized medical system), without which your parents (or grandparents if you're a 30 something) would be destitute. Our socialized systems are what makes our lives more livable. Face it, if we continue down the neocon nazi road and the middle class continues to shrink, you'll be in great need of social programs.

[quote=BondGuy]

Latest numbers show mortgage foreclosures up. Something like 37% of foreclosures in 1st qtr were conventional loans. That is folks with good credit and DP dough. To top it off the deliq rate is going up too. one in ten missed a mort payment in qtr one.

Tough for the tea party folks to make the argument that it's only the undeserving who are in trouble.

Question for everyone; how long could you keep your mortgage current if you were without a paycheck? That's no paychecks coming into the house. And, what lifestyle changes would you make to protect the home? When would you make them? Something to think about. After-all, it could happen.

[/quote]

Seems you care about people - good thing.

How carefully do you and the other "libs" on this site follow what is happening with the Euro?

Have you ever visited China - they are kicking the $$$$ out of us, and it is because of unfettered competition. While yo feel sorry for people, someone is taking our lunch.

When you say some of us could lose our homes, it could be because of the next market meltdown.

It's great that you want to do good for people, but when you make fun of people like Beck, who is smart but uneducated, it smacks of the final days before the fall of Rome. I wasn't there, but it feels like I am.

If you don't think we need to be tough minded, I get it. Some believe progressive economics will cause our downfall. What really freaks me out is the apparently number of RRs who are economic pussies. This does not bode well for America.

Go ahead and bail everyone out, give free healthcare, and all of the other "incentives" - some of us believe in our hearts that America needs to become fiscally responsible before it is too late. We take a lot for granted with regards to our debt. A Bond Guy should know better.

Perhaps we can all join together to battle economic pussydom. The Libertarians are probably closest to the truth. Just for the record, I think Palin and Beck and the like are just performers. I wouldn't trust them with my money (even if they are honest). Not bright enough, or experienced enough, or educated enough - it is really hard to get someone with all the skills. It is very disappointing how so many Americans went for Obama.

A lot of damage is being done. The thing that worries me is the dollar - we're not doing all the right things, and we take a lot for granted. We are all at risk, including the pensions of government worker, the union members and others that you economic pussies adore.

We can't afford the luxury of ignorance about how we can afford the luxury of being here - as stewards of capital - in the first place. Calling the minor pundits of economic conservatism "ignorant" is ironic and dangerous.

Where did all of the pussies come from on this forum - is this the state of our profession?

[quote=navet]

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=navet]

We are defined by our heroes. The conservative Republican was defined by Taft in the 50's(bad), and by Reagan in the 80's(good, but a failed economic policy). Now , are you really comfortable with the likes of Palin and Beck? I don't see that sort of leadership going anywhere. Like a loud fart on a windy day. This country needs more socialism, particularly healthcare and better regulation over dangerous multinational financial institutions. While the economic world breaks down, the right worries about gay marriage, the epitome of non-issues.

[/quote]

Good grief. Like the current socialist programs are working so well??? Comments like these induce nauseous feelings in my stomach because of the vast amounts of ignorance and blindness to actual facts...

[/quote]

Socialist programs? Like our national parks(started by a Republican), national highway system(started by a Republican), FDA, and I have to mention Social Security and Medicare(our first best socialized medical system), without which your parents (or grandparents if you're a 30 something) would be destitute. Our socialized systems are what makes our lives more livable. Face it, if we continue down the neocon nazi road and the middle class continues to shrink, you'll be in great need of social programs.

[/quote]

I am a fiscally conservative AMERICAN. I try to balance ALL sides. For me, it is not a Republican/Democrat thing. It is a Constitution thing. Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to pick and choose which class of people to take from and redistribute to? Creating parks and infrastructure benefits the entire country. I did not make it a Rep/Dem thing (like you are) because the fact is that no matter which party started the programs, they have and will be modified from the original person’s ideas.

Most socialist programs will not provide an acceptable return for their investment and I am ok with that to a point where it causes strain on the entire country. My issue is the fact that our government (all parties included) will not address the current failing programs before creating new ones. If I ran my personal finances the way the government runs this country’s, I would have filed bankruptcy long ago and perhaps sentenced to some hard time in prison.

And I have a problem with the new guy that instead of bringing “Hope”, “Change I can believe in” and “go through the budget with a scalpel”, he decided to create another socialist program that WILL bankrupt this country as long as we stay on the current path.

I could go on and on, but I am sure I would be wasting my time on you considering your posts seem to mirror the antonym of Beck et al...

p.s. good post Milyunair

I think political parties are just that political... A. Lincoln was a republican. Yet increased the power of the federal gov't.

The problem is like our industry, you can advise people until you have clients, so you have to sell something. Politics, you can't win the Presidency while being a member of a political party other than the big 2.

I think taxes should be progressive, because people with more money enjoy(and have a lot more to lose) the fruits of those tax dollars then someone who can't afford to do things(has less to lose).

Regarding our country's debt.. Does it really matter? I know it looks bad, but as you can tell from what is going on in Europe right now, American Debt is still the one you want to hold.

China is full of crap and everyone knows it, the gov't lies about their numbers because it is in their best interest to(perception). They have too many people and no innovation(Most of that still goes on over here).

THe problem with the current failing programs is that there is no cure(I assume you mean SS). Most of the ideas that are failing were originally meant to be a crutch or a cane to get people through some tough times, they weren't suppose to be sustaining ideas that would last for decades.

Still would rather live here than anywhere else..

I hope you never accuse other folks of being economically ignorant. Have you ever been in a situation in your life, where you suddenly realized you were in trouble and it nearly made you **** your pants?

Do you know the feeling, the body chemistry, of what it's like when you suddenly realize you lost a certain client? Your brain tries to make sense, to rationalize, but you lost the AUM. Maybe you didn't even like the client, or knew you should part ways, but your bowels feel just a little looser, and you're a little poorer.

You'd rather live here than anywhere else, but  your brain is backing up and trying to rationalize what is going on.

Try this, economic pussies: How good do you feel about America's borrowing with the Chinese? You feel good that your progressive pussiest ideas are being implemented, but in the back of your mind, there is this nagging knowledge that debt will test the markets, as it does every day.

You preach frugality and savings and the formation of capital and the taking of personal responsibility, and in the back of your mind you fear the collapse of the capital markets ( unless you're ready to go take a job as a census taker).

But you enjoy being a do gooder, even while China invests and forms your capital, even while letting her own people fall through the economic cracks and the suppression of political freedom. Somehow you are doing good, even if you have a nagging feeling your stomach that you are in danger of losing your lunch.

But markets are decisive, and one that client who has been helping to pay your overhead (who you knew would leave) - leaves. That is when you get honest with yourself, and you say, okay, what do I want for myself, what is my purpose, what do I have to do to survive so I can continue to help my family, and then other people?

Elitist economic pussies have it the other way around, and one day, the reality of having to deal with your own survival is, in the words of the old Tom Waits song, " like a billyclub to the head". Suddenly, those morality police you have been funding are pushing you down the street along with a big crowd, move along now,  and you're questioning your own cleverness. Witness, Athens, Greece.

For most Americans, life during the past ten years has not been improving, economically. Their jobs were exported to China, in the hopes that economic comparative advantage would life all boats - cheap goods made in China would be purchased with the dollars earned from the next wave of American ingenuity - products and services that could be swapped for what we used to manufacture.

When that didn't pan out, we opted for "hope and change" - whichs turns out to be the status quo - with the potential for a carve-out for certain politically correct players.

Meanwhile, capital has be re-forming. Who is calling the shots? Who has the money? The Chinese, the Brazilians ( natural resources for China), The Iranians ( (oil for China), who else - the U. S. government (money borrowed from China). If you like what the U.S. government is doing right now, you are going to love what the Chinese have planned for us.

Does that sound diabolical and cynical? That the Chinese have a financial plan for America? Like I say, the irony gets thick, when you get in the game and educate yourself a little about what is happening. Consider the possibility that there are a lot of intelligent people in China, and with four times the population, that is a lot of smart people who are looking at the same things you and I are looking at - how big is that ocean that hides us from each other?

What makes you good at your "game"? What differentiates you from the next guy -  the next two billion guys - who want to eat your lunch. You know, just hungry ,don't want to take your house, or your car, or your job - you just skip lunch today and feel the gnawing in your stomach and remember, probably most of the people in world feel a little gnawing each day - literally - because their income and ability to pay for everything also means burning a little fat during the day. Today I'm just going to take your lunch, because you assumed it was yours, and you were busy looking the other way debating politics, instead of minding the store.

Next time you buy a car, though, it is really going to need to be downsized. Maybe used. Your health care premiums are going up, if the market crashes, you are going to burn your cash reserver. You need to be a little leaner. Your bright kids can go to college, your average kids need to go straight to work. You can wait a little longer at the doctor, but look how happy everyone in the waiting room is to be here. You can work a little harder, or a little longer, and don't have to worry about making any of the big decisions, like where to allocate your capital - you don't have any, because progressivism, like progressive income taxes, and progressive health care, and the progressive nature of capital formation ( our debt should be held outside the country) - means your basic needs are handled - and you're an average guy. You're an American, and you look over at the wild, wild West of China, and think, boy, they've really got everything in play over there, I'd like to go see it.

Just don't show up without your papers, and keep your thoughts to yourself.

Gee, I didn't know that China just stared buying our debt after Obama took office. I thought they were doing that when GW was pres. Didn't the Chinese in effect pay for Iraq and Afghanistan wars, since they were unfunded mandates? You lose all credibility when you blame progressives for our current problems. Why not blame congress/ Then you have to blame the constitution that created the congress. Finger pointing and namecalling just show how much you are in control of the institutions who caused our economic problems.

[quote=navet]

Gee, I didn't know that China just stared buying our debt after Obama took office. I thought they were doing that when GW was pres. Didn't the Chinese in effect pay for Iraq and Afghanistan wars, since they were unfunded mandates? You lose all credibility when you blame progressives for our current problems. Why not blame congress/ Then you have to blame the constitution that created the congress. Finger pointing and namecalling just show how much you are in control of the institutions who caused our economic problems.

[/quote]

China (Japan/China/Korea/Taiwan top 4) is the second largest buyer of our debt. The buyer is irrelevant, the amount is relevant.

There are no benefits from blaming the previous administrations for the problems we have today. I did not vote for Obama but I did/am giving him a chance to give me some "Change". The longer he stays in office the more blame for the current situation he will receive from me and MANY other Americans.

As for Congress, if they followed the Constitution, there would be no reason to blame Congress.

The point of blaming the past administration is that it eliminates the conservative solution, sine it was conservatives that caused the problem. And waiting for change is actually working against it. You're either a part of the problem or a part of the solution. The change coming has to be progressive.

[quote=navet]

The point of blaming the past administration is that it eliminates the conservative solution, sine it was conservatives that caused the problem.

There is no way you can place the blame on one administration, or even one ideology i.e. Republican vs. Democrat or Liberal vs. Conservative. The blame is shared by all parties and their lack of coming to more of a "center" consensus. Instead of working on current problems and out of date legislation, they ALL choose to "make their name" in history books by creating the next piece legislature that will save us all. We need legislation to save us from legislature.

 And waiting for change is actually working against it. You're either a part of the problem or a part of the solution. The change coming has to be progressive.

[/quote] I have spent too much time discussing this with you two already. I will leave you with a quote from the greatly missed former Governor of New York…

“When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves.”- George Pataki

navet - So, are you the problem or are you the solution? 

Wait...I just reread your last sentence.  I answered my own question.  Nevermind.  

Another question though.  If we let Obama and his ilk have free reign with their progressive change, I believe the phrase was "fundamentally transforming America", what will this country look like?  Will it look like the country that my grandfather fought for in WW2?  Or will it look more like the namby pamby socialist-lite countries like France?  Or will it look more like Mother Russia before the collapse?   

Blaming Bush for all of the problems we're having right now is a bit short sighted.  You've got to go back decades and a few administrations to actually see how we got to where we are.  There were certainly some things that happened in his administration that weren't, in hindsight, the best decisions.  You can certainly put the first round of bailouts on his shoulders, but I believe Obama is responsible for a far greater amount of bailout money.  Bush bailed out the banks.  Obama is bailing out banks, countries, homeowners, credit card holders, private corporations, etc.   He's strong arming (that kind of makes me chuckle) countries like Germany and France, all the while bowing to dignataries from other countries.  Countries whose citizens have waged Jihad on us.  Tell me how that makes any sense at all.   

I wholeheartedly agree that we need some change in this country.  But we do not need that change to come at the expense of the future of this great country. 

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society" Olive Wendell Holmes

Spiff I agree with you that all of the problems fall on one guy(GW) but I will also say we should wait to judge Obama until his term is over(and maybe 4 years past that, same for GW)... I believe that some of the change that Presidents do, takes longer than there term to process, thus why assigning blame and awarding credit is so difficult.  Some presidents are just a byproduct of what they walked into... Housing mess, Stock Market crash etc... Sometimes I wonder what McCain would have done differently(not what he is saying he would have done now, but what he actually would have done)... I voted for McCain(because I thought his experience was far superior to Obamas), but I also think during the election he stopped being John McCain and started being "Republican" John McCain and started flip flopping(by the way Palin didn't help)...

I find voting difficult because of the issues..I like Mitt, but struggle with his views on abortion, civil unions,guns the usual.. THough i find it odd he hated the national health care plan, but Mass pretty much had the same thing when he signed the Massachusetts Health Care bill...

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

navet - So, are you the problem or are you the solution? 

Wait...I just reread your last sentence.  I answered my own question.  Nevermind.  

Another question though.  If we let Obama and his ilk have free reign with their progressive change, I believe the phrase was "fundamentally transforming America", what will this country look like?  Will it look like the country that my grandfather fought for in WW2?  Or will it look more like the namby pamby socialist-lite countries like France?  Or will it look more like Mother Russia before the collapse?   

Blaming Bush for all of the problems we're having right now is a bit short sighted.  You've got to go back decades and a few administrations to actually see how we got to where we are.  There were certainly some things that happened in his administration that weren't, in hindsight, the best decisions.  You can certainly put the first round of bailouts on his shoulders, but I believe Obama is responsible for a far greater amount of bailout money.  Bush bailed out the banks.  Obama is bailing out banks, countries, homeowners, credit card holders, private corporations, etc.  

[/quote]

Why do you believe Obama is responsible for more bailout than Bush? Can you point me a non right wing link that has the facts and figures? I ask because the spin machines on both sides have muddled the facts to a point that getting good info is difficult. I know it's a fact that Bush bailed out all the banks, FDIC, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, and the car companies. But i'm hazy on what Obama has added to the list and the price tag for his loose spending versus Bush. But, you seem to have a handle on it, so let's have it. Can you direct me to the link?

A couple of things.  

1)  TARP was Bush's.  However, the cost of TARP ends up being 50% less than S & L.  And about 20% of what the original cost was thought to be.

2)  Glenn Beck is an entertainer (again), but not an idiot.  He may act like an idiot.  But he is laughing all the way to the bank.  Not stupid.

3)  Bailouts are bad.

4)  We're not turning into Russia, or France.  Not yet anyway.

5)  I have sympathy for people.  But people need to pay for their mistakes.  Part of the reason in the run up of home prices was because of the easy availability of credit.  People who had no business making home purchases made home purchases.  When I bought my house, I put 20% down, and the amount of principal I financed was less than my salary at the time.  The issue is that people are not educated or responsible enough to make their own financial decisions.  The banks preyed on these people.

6)  Why did the banks prey on these people?  Well, regulations were loosened.  While the banks did not HAVE to lend, they could easily assume that other banks would lend and make more money than they did.  If every bank thought that, what did you think they would do?  Lend.  For sure.  

We, as Americans like to bail people out.  Nobody wants to see anybody fail.  But we were also founded on personal responsibility.  Don't buy what you can't afford.  The issue with the people buying what they can't afford is the problem.

Does that mean if someone calls Barney Frank a socialist, he is a ngr as well?

Or does that translate to f*g?

This sounds like an excuse.  Our economic situation did not start with Bush.  Further, advancing social reforms (such as NCLB) was a plank in the Bush agenda.  However, NCLB is an obvious program that doesn't work, but had support of both Democrats and Republicans.

A clear indication that government should keep their noses out of certain things. 

[quote=navet]

I am not a democrat, however I have become progressive after experiencing the debacle(both economically and socially) of the Chebey/Bush administration. Conservatives had their chance and blew it. Now we have teabaggers. Whenever a teabagger calls Obama socialist, I hear a white guy saying XXXX. And that is repugnant to any thinking person. And since they are usually carrying a bible(figuratively or literally) it usually speaks volumes about the nature of christianity in America today.

[/quote]

You are a moron, plain and simple. I cannot believe my eyes with the level of ignorance in your posts. How can you make a comment like this? You need to come closer to the center. Unfortunately, it appears you have entered a drunken liberal stupor and ventured way to far on the left side.

I ask the Administrator to delete this user and his posts…

My disdain for Obama's policies and leadership have nothing to do with the color of his skin.  My disdain for his policies have to do with the fact that he has said that he wants to fundamentally change this country.  Well, the fundamentals of this country aren't broken and they don't need to be changed. 

navet - do you even know anyone who would actually claim to be a part of the Tea Party movement?  Somehow you are equating the Tea Party with racism and bigotry.  Where does that come from?  Do you even have any actual references that point to racism in that movement?

Now, I will concede the point that there are some folks in this country who do not like Obama because of the color of his skin.  That is racism pure and simple.  But that's a two way street.  There are black people in this country who believe that the white man is out to get him.  That too is racism. 

The problem the left has is that when they try to defend an untenable point of view, they often resort to inflammatory name calling.  navet's post is a prime example. 

navet - The nature of Christianity in America today?   Really?  Again, what proof do you have that the average Christian in America today is a racist? Have you heard any preacher speaking out against black people since like the 1950's?  Have you heard Billy Graham, Jr. saying anything racist in nature?  How about Rick Warren, Joel Osteen ( who I don't care for), Dr. Stanley?  Those guys are the preachers of some of the largest churches in the country.  And to my knowledge don't espouse any sort of racist propoganda from their pulpits.  Now, Rev. Jeremiah Wright on the other hand...

ND - I'd ask the Admin to keep his posts up there.  They're good character reference posts. 

The nature of christianity in the US today follows two paths. The progressive path is harmless, thus fine. The evangelical path is dangerous. Any religion that claims to have the only answer, the be the only conduit to god is potentially dangerous. It leads it's believers to just a step away from terrorism. It shuts down communication between divergent religions and that isolation is dangerous. Now, you can believe in anything you want. Fine with me. Just don't try and dictate to others what they "have to believe". It's coercive. There is nothing worse than going to regional mettings and having to hear bible thumping yahoos thinking that work is an appropriate place to give testimony.

[quote=navet]

The nature of christianity in the US today follows two paths. The progressive path is harmless, thus fine. The evangelical path is dangerous. Any religion that claims to have the only answer, the be the only conduit to god is potentially dangerous. It leads it's believers to just a step away from terrorism. It shuts down communication between divergent religions and that isolation is dangerous. Now, you can believe in anything you want. Fine with me. Just don't try and dictate to others what they "have to believe". It's coercive. There is nothing worse than going to regional mettings and having to hear bible thumping yahoos thinking that work is an appropriate place to give testimony.

[/quote]

What does that have to do with Christians being racist?

[quote=Magician]

[quote=navet]

The nature of christianity in the US today follows two paths. The progressive path is harmless, thus fine. The evangelical path is dangerous. Any religion that claims to have the only answer, the be the only conduit to god is potentially dangerous. It leads it's believers to just a step away from terrorism. It shuts down communication between divergent religions and that isolation is dangerous. Now, you can believe in anything you want. Fine with me. Just don't try and dictate to others what they "have to believe". It's coercive. There is nothing worse than going to regional mettings and having to hear bible thumping yahoos thinking that work is an appropriate place to give testimony.

[/quote]

What does that have to do with Christians being racist?

[/quote]

ZIPPO.  Which is why he attacked religion, not defend his original statement that Christians are racists. 

navet - What is the progressive path of Christianity?  I'm not being argumentative, I've not heard those two terms used to define a mindset of Christians. 

While you formulate your answer, I'll give you my thoughts on your comments:  HOGWASH!! 

All religions say they are the one true faith and that everyone else is wrong.  Ask a Muslim if he believes a Christian will be in Paradise with him.  Ask a Christian if he believes he will be sharing the streets of gold with a Buddhist.  They all believe that their path is the only path to God or Allah.  

If you hadn't guessed already, I'm one of those dangerous Christian American's today evidently.  An evangelical protestant.  My belief is that there is only one path to God.  It doesn't require Jihad, special underwear, reincarnation, or priests.  It requires a personal belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the grace and forgivness those events offer us.  That's it.  Everything beyond that is just window dressing that determines whether you sit in a pew in the Methodist church or the Baptist church on Sunday morning.  Which one you choose doesn't matter to me as long as you pick one.    

At what point during a regional meeting would anyone have the opportunity to give their testimony?  Most of the people in my region know me as one of the religious guys.  Mostly because I'm the only one sober at the end of the regional golf outing.  But I've never had the opportunity to get up in front of the group and share my faith with them.  One on one, sure.  But never in front of the group.  My RL, who is much more vocal about his faith than I am, doesn't even do that.     

Finally, what do you mean by the comment - "It leads it's believers to just a step away from terrorism"? 

Actually, evangelical christians, pre vatican 2 catholics and moslems call theirs the one true faith. Other religions are more ecumenical, thus in my words,progressive.  I'm glad your Jones region is less evangelical, mine isn't. I have not been at a meeting withoud at least a couple exhorting their christian testimony. As far as christians being racist, I believe that I inferred that teabaggers are racist. A point I certainly still maintain. As far as christians being racist, probably. BTW, at our regional meetings, the born again's get the drunkest.

Actually Spiff, Buddhists don't think everybody should be Buddhists.

Navet - you lump "teabaggers" (which is a term I used for chicks in college) with Christians. 

Also, how does being for individual rights and responsibilities make you racist?  President Obama is a product of that thinking - that any man or woman may achieve the highest office in the world. 

The Tea Party movement is one that is against most government.  Remember that our government is there to serve ALL of the people, not just the people who don't earn much.  Even the rich deserve representation.  When programs that lower their quality of life are put in place, they should have a say in the matter.

Well magic, I guess that you were very outspoken about the bush presidency when the rich recieved greater benefits at the expense of the middle class. I didn't hear it, but I'll assume I just missed it. So far, the laws enacted by our current administration are primarily for the benefit of the middle class. It's pure ignorance to suggest they were for the poor. The poor didn't have investments, therefore the bailouts didn't help them. The poor already had public paid health insurance, so the health care initiative didn't help them. And your stated purpose that the teabaggers are against government makes my point. Less government helps the rich. Pro-rich power brokers are leading you sheep using all kinds of foolish talking heads and appealing to your worse common interests including racism, fear and greed. I have no respect for the movement. I like it though, because by splitting the rebooblican ticket it will insure more progressive legislation, which is dearly needed. Can you say single payor health insurance?

Ah navet.  Less government is the reason our country became great.  More government will be our downfall.  Historical fact.

[quote=Magician]

A couple of things.  

1)  TARP was Bush's.  However, the cost of TARP ends up being 50% less than S & L.  And about 20% of what the original cost was thought to be.

2)  Glenn Beck is an entertainer (again), but not an idiot.  He may act like an idiot.  But he is laughing all the way to the bank.  Not stupid.

3)  Bailouts are bad.

4)  We're not turning into Russia, or France.  Not yet anyway.

5)  I have sympathy for people.  But people need to pay for their mistakes.  Part of the reason in the run up of home prices was because of the easy availability of credit.  People who had no business making home purchases made home purchases.  When I bought my house, I put 20% down, and the amount of principal I financed was less than my salary at the time.  The issue is that people are not educated or responsible enough to make their own financial decisions.  The banks preyed on these people. Sometimes this isn't possible for everyone and the rising rental rates(homes and apts) caused it to be more advantageous to purchase a home. Also what about people who put 20% down and now there home is worth 30% less and they lost their job(so your down payment just evaporated).

6)  Why did the banks prey on these people?  Well, regulations were loosened.  While the banks did not HAVE to lend, they could easily assume that other banks would lend and make more money than they did.  If every bank thought that, what did you think they would do?  Lend.  For sure. And wall street expected certain returns and in order to meet those you have to continue to make money.  

We, as Americans like to bail people out.  Nobody wants to see anybody fail.  But we were also founded on personal responsibility.  Don't buy what you can't afford.  The issue with the people buying what they can't afford is the problem.

[/quote]

[quote=navet]

I am not a democrat, however I have become progressive after experiencing the debacle(both economically and socially) of the Chebey/Bush administration. Conservatives had their chance and blew it. Now we have teabaggers. Whenever a teabagger calls Obama socialist, I hear a white guy saying n-g--r. Agreed  And that is repugnant to any thinking person. And since they are usually carrying a bible(figuratively or literally) it usually speaks volumes about the nature of christianity in America today.

[/quote]

[quote=Magician]

Also, how does being for individual rights and responsibilities make you racist? 

[/quote]

Ask tea bagger favorite son Rand Paul.

Spaceman- still waiting for my links. Or, were you just voicing an opinion?

A comment earlier said that less government was the reason our country became great. Really? Just when do you think our country became great? By international standards using economic analysis as well as standard of living and military improvements, our country became great after the start of World War 2. Which was after the enactment of Social Security and long after Sherman Anti-trust. After the SEC and FDA. Unions were well established. WPA,CCC, etc etc. The founding fathers who wanted a small, weak central government were protecting their property rights, to wit slavery. Is that the lack of government you espouse? The founding fathers were dead set against a standing army, remember? "You can build an army but must maintain a navy". The founding fathers were dead set against involvement in foreign wars. So I imaging you are protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Public health programs(all government run) eradicated such diseases as polio, typhoid, small pox, cholera etc etc. I gues you are in favor of people dying from those epidemics since government involvement is so evil. Ever see a polio victim? Socialism, to a certain degree is what has civilized us as a species. We are all better off for it.

I'm still working on the links.  You're correct that the left and right have muddied them up.  I did find a link in a NY Times article that tracks the bailout:  http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html

If you take the time to add up what happened under both administrations it's pretty much even.  However, if my memory serves correctly in Dec of 2008 Bush contacted Obama and asked if he thougth they were going to be spending more of the TARP funds than had already been earmarked.  Obama said yes and in fact wrote a letter to Congress or the Sentate I don't remember which one stating the same.  Bush made the request official.  So, officially it appears that they have spent an equal amount.  In reality that's not the case.  There were several articles I found that referenced that exchange and the dollar amount, but they were from places like Fox News, so I didn't figure they would be sufficient. 

I spent some time one day looking for an official tally on the Treasury.gov website, but that's more painful than reading a prospectus. 

So, until I can find the proof to back up my accusations, I'm willing to concede that it is my opinion, based on what I have heard from various sources that may or may not be fair and balanced. 

As to the Rand Paul comment, I don't believe that his comment was an implication that he was a racist.  I think it was his opinion on the reach of the federal government into private business.  He's a Libertarian.  By their very nature they want big government out of the private sector altogether. You have, as the rest of the left leaning folks out there, made the jump that he is a racist.  It's the same type of jump that navet made that assumes that because someone is active in the Tea Party movement that they both religious and racists.  He might actually be a racist.  I don't know enough about him to say one way or the other. 

Fair enough on the links.

Rand Paul called for the repeal of the civil rights act. He later recanted. Many people call Libertarians morons. That Paul is confused on his Libertarian history puts an exclamation point on that perception.

As for less government, how'd the Great Depression work out for the United States? That's a prime example of less government. No regulation, and a hands off approach for years. And, i realize the Libertarians blame the Fed for the the Depression. While true that the fed made wrong moves after the bottom fell out, the Fed wasn't the reason the bottom fell out. It was a toothless agency.

Libertarians/tea partiers are also against big banks. Yet, it was the roll back of regulation that allowed banks to become so big. In 1998 Glass-Steagall was rolled back. Banks were once again allowed to bet it all on the Pass LIne. And they did! It took only ten years of pre-depression regs for the banks to blow up the economy for the second time in 80 years. Go figure!

Libertarians and Tea partiers should be carefull what they wish for-they may get it!

[quote=navet]

A comment earlier said that less government was the reason our country became great. Really? Just when do you think our country became great? By international standards using economic analysis as well as standard of living and military improvements, our country became great after the start of World War 2. Which was after the enactment of Social Security and long after Sherman Anti-trust. After the SEC and FDA. Unions were well established. WPA,CCC, etc etc. The founding fathers who wanted a small, weak central government were protecting their property rights, to wit slavery. Is that the lack of government you espouse? The founding fathers were dead set against a standing army, remember? "You can build an army but must maintain a navy". The founding fathers were dead set against involvement in foreign wars. So I imaging you are protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Public health programs(all government run) eradicated such diseases as polio, typhoid, small pox, cholera etc etc. I gues you are in favor of people dying from those epidemics since government involvement is so evil. Ever see a polio victim? Socialism, to a certain degree is what has civilized us as a species. We are all better off for it.

[/quote]

Good job.  Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 

I guess you're going to dismiss the 200 years between the signing of the Declaration of Independance and the Consititution and the end of WW2 as inconsequential.  Never mind the westward expansion of the late 19th century.  The Industrial Revolution.  Those things weren't important.  I guess all of those immigrants wanted to come here because it was the second or third best country in the world.   The French gave us that big statue in NY because we were just a mediocre country.  The land of opportunity was just a figment of the world's imagination.

Social Security and the Sherman Anti-trust act are the progressive claims to fame that we should all be applauding?  How well is that Social Security program going to work out for us?  My statment says bankrupt in 2037 or somewhere close to that.  Too bad for me.  Congrats on the Sherman Anti-trust act.  You guys took down the railroads and Major League Baseball.  

Polio -  FDR created the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis after he contracted polio as a child and then became President.   The NFIP later became known as the March of Dimes. It was not a governmental agency that took down polio in the US.  It's not even a governmental body that is trying to eradicate polio worldwide now.  It's Rotary.    

The other diseases have similar stories.  Typhoid was controlled because municipalities started filtering their public water supplies.  So, maybe I'll give you that one.  But that was more municpal than federal. 

It takes some big one to even propose that Socialism is what civilized us as a species.  Even for someone with your ability to make a leap, that's a pretty big one.     

The comments was that lack of government made our country great. I assumed that by great the writer meant great in relation to other countries. It wasn't until the twentieth century that The US became great. Immigrants came to this country for work and cheap land. Because of lack of government control, the US was victimized by frequent panics that devastated much of the polulation. Lack of government control allowed slavery and horrible working conditions that were a curse to the average american. Wealthy stock manipulators took advantage of lack of government control. Polio was cured by the Salk vaccine, not the march of dimes. The discovery and creation of said vaccine was the result of government subsidy and FDA regulation. The reason big government has evolved is that businesses and corporations cannot be trusted. Socialism has benefited all of us. Lack of adequate regulation, aka the recent market meltdown, is a testiment to this obvious fact of life. The fact is that the lack of regulation( in the belief in the efficient market theory) led to our current economic meltdown. Deregulation is a conservative mantra. Teabaggers are anti regulation. That makes teabaggers dangerous.

Businesses and corporations will always act in their best interests.  People will always act in their best interests.  A regulated market does not make these basic facts go away.  If people will not buy a product that a business produces, that business will fail.

As a financial advisor, if you charge 4% on assets under management, when your competitor is charging 1%, who is going to receive the most clients?

Regulation creates complexities that are not needed in a market.

I will grant you that certain regulations are needed for the good of ALL.  But they should be crafted with the good of ALL in mind.

Did the Soviet Union collapse because of lack of regulation?  Or because it's socialist policies destroyed the country from within?  People starved to death under Soviet rule.  

When did China start it's rise to prominence?  When it loosened certain government regulations.

What about Cuba?  Why is half of the Cuban population in Miami?  

Why is Social Security failing?  I wrote a journal article published in the Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning on Social Security.  Interestingly enough, the SSA is one of the most efficient government agencies.  Perhaps THE most efficient organization in our government.  Yet this efficient organization is failing.  What does that tell you?

Let's talk about a standing military.  I believe that the founding fathers were fallible.  A standing army is necessary for the protection of the Republic.  The military however, is designed to protect our country from foreign threats.  You mentioned foreign wars.  The age of communication has necessitated a military that can protect our nations interests abroad.  

There is no such thing as the efficient market theory.  It is a hypothesis.  EMH is hokum, but applies to traded assets.  Lack or regulation and EMH do not go hand in hand.  Are you saying you want the government to set the prices on traded assets?  You would be out of a job, for sure.

In Germany, that's how it is.  You want to buy a car?  Ok, here we go.  I go to the dealership in Frankfurt.  I want to buy a BMW.  'Zat will be 30,000 Euros".  Don't like that price, go to Berlin.  "Zat will be 30,000 Euros".

Slavery was in place in governments where there was a strong central government, so that idea is BS.  The best AIDS medicines were developed by private companies.  When people were afraid of swine flu, where did the government turn?  Private industry.  Why?

Simple economics.  Talented individuals get paid what their market value is.  If you are a brilliant researcher, you don't work for the government.  

Advances in cancer, surgical techniques - private industry.  

GPS technology is attributed to the military - however it was a Raytheon researcher who came up with the idea and who created the technology behind it.

Who invented the internet?  Tim Berners-Lee, an MIT professor.  How was the project funded?  The endowment at MIT.

Hmmmm, what else?  I did microbiology research before this business.  Way back when.  At NIH.  NIH is where post-docs go to die.  Why?  These are the scientists who can't get a fellowship because they aren't smart enough.

Government has it's place.  It's place is in support of the people.  All people.

Regulation should be common sense, not overbearing.  Government regulates to increase it's own power.  

So you are for a strong central government.  Does that mean you approve of FISA warrants?  

Regulation is needed because the strong will feed on the weak. 2007-2008  is a great example of this in action. The mortgage meltdown involved predatory behavior at EVERY level. Predatory borrowers feeding on local banks., Predatory realtors and loan brokers feeding on borrowers. Predatory banks feeding on Fannie and Freddie.  Wall Street banks feeding on local banks, the Feds, and insurance companies. At every level people knew these loans were shit, but still, they sought to get over on the system to benefit themselves. It was a free for all caused by lack of regulation and lax oversight of what regulation was there. Why did this happen? Simple answer; because it could. Want to know what less government looks like? Were living it right now.

Lack of regulation would work without predatory behavior. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, that ain't happenin.'

And, if that's not enough, there's a pretty good example of less government happening in the Gulf of Mexico right now as well. We can't unring the bell in that situation so we'll never know if regulators doing their jobs as they should have would have made a difference. We do know, it couldn't have hurt.

I'm not for more government or even big government, but i am anti no government or bare bones government. Personally, when i get on one of Southwest's 737s i like the idea that they have to answer to someone regarding safety. If the Tea Partiers want to fly on Ariana Afghan Airlines or Air-koryo well, be my guest!

Qantas has the least amount of crashes for a major airline.  Austrailia (other than gun control) has some of the least strict regulations, and are some of the least politically correct people.

The FAA has failed on so many levels it's not even funny.

I'd fly Emirates Air in a heartbeat if I didn't think I'd get beat up.

The comment about the strong preying on the weak is a little strange.  You said the predatory borrowers were feeding on the banks.  Those predatory borrowers were the weak? 

If the regulations pre- Clinton had been left in place (and don't get me wrong, I like Bill Clinton, but the loosening of restrictions to allow bad lending was dumb), there would have been no predatory lending.  Easy money wouldn't have been that easy.  Home prices wouldn't have inflated so much.  Soccer moms would still be soccer moms instead of realtors.

The National Association of Realtors would still know they are a joke.

And none of this would have happened.  Because the government tried to flex it's muscle and attempt to force rules on banks, this is what we get.  Why?  Because the banks start using ridiculous leverage. 

Someone made a comment about houses that have lost 30% of their value even though they put 20% down.  Yes, that 20% is gone.  But if you got a mortgage that would allow you to keep paying, you would be ok.  Why do people have $2000 mortgages, when they only make $3000 a month?  That's ridiculous.  Irresponsible.  Dumb.  Idiotic.

Why would you get an adjustable rate, when interest rates have a history of changing?  Balloon payments?  Oh, that's right, you're going to win the lottery in five years, so who cares?  Or the home price is going to appreciate so much you'll be able to refinance? 

Did the banks make stupid bets?

for some reason people like navet and bondguy thinks the world is all fluffy teddy bears and cotton candy. people are by nature manipulative and competitive. there is not enough regulations in the world to supress this fact. let them place the blame where ever they choose. fact is we are all to blame. the poor blame the rich. the rich blame the government. the government blame terrorists. terrorists blame our way of life.

the world will be a better place if people become responsible for their own actions and the reactions afterwards. no mater how much you point the finger at someone else it all starts with you.

we could go on and on but it is now obviously wasting breath.

[quote=Magician]

Qantas has the least amount of crashes for a major airline.  Austrailia (other than gun control) has some of the least strict regulations, and are some of the least politically correct people.

The FAA has failed on so many levels it's not even funny.

I'd fly Emirates Air in a heartbeat if I didn't think I'd get beat up.

The comment about the strong preying on the weak is a little strange.  You said the predatory borrowers were feeding on the banks.  Those predatory borrowers were the weak? 

If the regulations pre- Clinton had been left in place (and don't get me wrong, I like Bill Clinton, but the loosening of restrictions to allow bad lending was dumb), there would have been no predatory lending.  Easy money wouldn't have been that easy.  Home prices wouldn't have inflated so much.  Soccer moms would still be soccer moms instead of realtors.

The National Association of Realtors would still know they are a joke.

And none of this would have happened.  Because the government tried to flex it's muscle and attempt to force rules on banks, this is what we get.  Why?  Because the banks start using ridiculous leverage. 

Someone made a comment about houses that have lost 30% of their value even though they put 20% down.  Yes, that 20% is gone.  But if you got a mortgage that would allow you to keep paying, you would be ok.  Why do people have $2000 mortgages, when they only make $3000 a month?  That's ridiculous.  Irresponsible.  Dumb.  Idiotic.

Why would you get an adjustable rate, when interest rates have a history of changing?  Balloon payments?  Oh, that's right, you're going to win the lottery in five years, so who cares?  Or the home price is going to appreciate so much you'll be able to refinance? 

Did the banks make stupid bets?

[/quote]

Im not defending the FAA. however, as former Air taxi and commercal cargo operator i can tell you, they have big teeth.

Nothing against the writers of Rainman but Qantas has had fatal accidents. Still, a good airline with an impressive safety record. Butttttttt, not the point and you know it. The predatory behavior I mentioned extends to all facets of business. From predatory lending, to sales scams and ponzi schemes, sweat shops, to airlines shipping old oxygen generators as cargo on their airliners.

The banks made bets because they could. Noone was minding the store. Banks would sell the mortgages before they blew up. Many bankers probably couldn't believe their were buyers for this junk, thus feeding on those buyers.

Where borrowers fed on banks, it was the banks that were weak. They wanted in on the boom. They lowered their standards or were careless in due diligence. Still, it is and was this predatory behavior that brings in the need for regulation.

The real debate is over bailouts. The tea partiers don't want bailouts and want to punish anyone who had a hand in them. Yet,  few of them are really aware of the consequences had we not bailed out the banks. I say this based on my own clients and friends who are anti bailout. These are, for the most part, smart and well educated people. Many are professionals or business owners. Yet they fume at the bailouts. When i tell them of the credit lockup, the freeze and the fallout of not doing the bailouts I get a deer in the headlights look. I know they are doubting my word or not understanding it. What i'm saying is news to them. But as we know, the real deal, no bailouts and life as we know it ceases to exist.  But, again, most of the TPs and Libertarians stomping for no bailouts do not get this economic fact. They are average uniformed citizens. Just like my clients and friends. And this leads to the ultimate predatory behavior; their leadership who do get it, feeding on them. Pandering to their stupidity or naivety. Rah rah no bailouts!!!!! Throw those bastards out of office and take our government back!!!! Sound familiar?

The intellectual dishonesty of the Libertarian/Tea party movement moves beyond the bailouts. In the Rand Paul dustup Libertarian bat boy, John Stossel, of all people , spoke up. He defended Rand's anti civil rights comments saying, and i'm paraphrasing here, " that business men should have the right to pick and chose who they serve. if they don't want to serve men with mustaches or blond woman, it should be their right to do so without government interference." Ok, here's the problem with that statement; It's not about serving men with mustaches or blond woman. It's about serving black people. And again, we all know that.  The dishonesty in play here emboldens the cause while masking it's true intent.

[quote=navet]

The comments was that lack of government made our country great. I assumed that by great the writer meant great in relation to other countries. It wasn't until the twentieth century that The US became great. Immigrants came to this country for work and cheap land. Because of lack of government control, the US was victimized by frequent panics that devastated much of the polulation. Lack of government control allowed slavery and horrible working conditions that were a curse to the average american. Wealthy stock manipulators took advantage of lack of government control. Polio was cured by the Salk vaccine, not the march of dimes. The discovery and creation of said vaccine was the result of government subsidy and FDA regulation. The reason big government has evolved is that businesses and corporations cannot be trusted. Socialism has benefited all of us. Lack of adequate regulation, aka the recent market meltdown, is a testiment to this obvious fact of life. The fact is that the lack of regulation( in the belief in the efficient market theory) led to our current economic meltdown. Deregulation is a conservative mantra. Teabaggers are anti regulation. That makes teabaggers dangerous.

[/quote]

You really are completely discounting our entire history until the 20th century, aren't you?  Seriously?  We weren't a great nation until the 20th Century?  You failed your American history classes in high school and college didn't you? 

Was it the government or was it the Unions that changed the working conditions in this country? 

What were these frequent panics that devastated much of the population?  I'm curious what you're referring to. 

As to polio - wrong again.  You are correct that it was Jonas Salk and his work on the vaccine that would eventually rid this country of polio.  But, the funding for his work, and the resulting campaign to vaccinate children, was primarily funded by FDR's non-profit organization that would become known as the March of Dimes. 

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=Magician]

Qantas has the least amount of crashes for a major airline.  Austrailia (other than gun control) has some of the least strict regulations, and are some of the least politically correct people.

The FAA has failed on so many levels it's not even funny.

I'd fly Emirates Air in a heartbeat if I didn't think I'd get beat up.

The comment about the strong preying on the weak is a little strange.  You said the predatory borrowers were feeding on the banks.  Those predatory borrowers were the weak? 

If the regulations pre- Clinton had been left in place (and don't get me wrong, I like Bill Clinton, but the loosening of restrictions to allow bad lending was dumb), there would have been no predatory lending.  Easy money wouldn't have been that easy.  Home prices wouldn't have inflated so much.  Soccer moms would still be soccer moms instead of realtors.

The National Association of Realtors would still know they are a joke.

And none of this would have happened.  Because the government tried to flex it's muscle and attempt to force rules on banks, this is what we get.  Why?  Because the banks start using ridiculous leverage. 

Someone made a comment about houses that have lost 30% of their value even though they put 20% down.  Yes, that 20% is gone.  But if you got a mortgage that would allow you to keep paying, you would be ok.  Why do people have $2000 mortgages, when they only make $3000 a month?  That's ridiculous.  Irresponsible.  Dumb.  Idiotic.

Why would you get an adjustable rate, when interest rates have a history of changing?  Balloon payments?  Oh, that's right, you're going to win the lottery in five years, so who cares?  Or the home price is going to appreciate so much you'll be able to refinance? 

Did the banks make stupid bets?

[/quote]

Im not defending the FAA. however, as former Air taxi and commercal cargo operator i can tell you, they have big teeth.

Nothing against the writers of Rainman but Qantas has had fatal accidents. Still, a good airline with an impressive safety record. Butttttttt, not the point and you know it. The predatory behavior I mentioned extends to all facets of business. From predatory lending, to sales scams and ponzi schemes, sweat shops, to airlines shipping old oxygen generators as cargo on their airliners.

The banks made bets because they could. Noone was minding the store. Banks would sell the mortgages before they blew up. Many bankers probably couldn't believe their were buyers for this junk, thus feeding on those buyers.

Where borrowers fed on banks, it was the banks that were weak. They wanted in on the boom. They lowered their standards or were careless in due diligence. Still, it is and was this predatory behavior that brings in the need for regulation.

The real debate is over bailouts. The tea partiers don't want bailouts and want to punish anyone who had a hand in them. Yet,  few of them are really aware of the consequences had we not bailed out the banks. I say this based on my own clients and friends who are anti bailout. These are, for the most part, smart and well educated people. Many are professionals or business owners. Yet they fume at the bailouts. When i tell them of the credit lockup, the freeze and the fallout of not doing the bailouts I get a deer in the headlights look. I know they are doubting my word or not understanding it. What i'm saying is news to them. But as we know, the real deal, no bailouts and life as we know it ceases to exist.  But, again, most of the TPs and Libertarians stomping for no bailouts do not get this economic fact. They are average uniformed citizens. Just like my clients and friends. And this leads to the ultimate predatory behavior; their leadership who do get it, feeding on them. Pandering to their stupidity or naivety. Rah rah no bailouts!!!!! Throw those bastards out of office and take our government back!!!! Sound familiar?

The intellectual dishonesty of the Libertarian/Tea party movement moves beyond the bailouts. In the Rand Paul dustup Libertarian bat boy, John Stossel, of all people , spoke up. He defended Rand's anti civil rights comments saying, and i'm paraphrasing here, " that business men should have the right to pick and chose who they serve. if they don't want to serve men with mustaches or blond woman, it should be their right to do so without government interference." Ok, here's the problem with that statement; It's not about serving men with mustaches or blond woman. It's about serving black people. And again, we all know that.  The dishonesty in play here emboldens the cause while masking it's true intent.

[/quote]

BondGuy - I know that Qantas has had some major crashes.  But, as you said, impressive safety record, which is what I was referring to.

Personally, I think the bailouts were necessary.  But this is what is interesting.  Bush is criticized for the bailouts, and as you pointed out, he owns TARP.  It's like the people who criticize Obama for things Bush did.  Where were they when Bush was doing them?  It's all political, and no politician really cares about the people.  I fully believe that once a president is into their second term is when they begin to care.  I personally feel that it happened with Bush sooner due to 9/11, but that may be my naivete talking.  Whatever, everybody has their opinions.

I may disagree with your position or opinions, BondGuy, but some of what you say is right on. 

However, I have to agree with Stossel.  If someone is racist and doesn't want to work with black people, then you shouldn't legislate that.  I know a mortgage broker who refuses to work with white people.  He's white.  Is that racist?

I think so.  But it's not my job to tell him what to do.

You should be able to work with whoever you want to.  If I choose to work only with UHNW business owners, the majority of my clients are going to be white.  If I choose to work with basketball players, the majority of my clients are going to be black. 

There will likely always be racism.  Which is fine.  Personally, I hate dealing with morons.  I always tell a story of when I had a couple with four children walk into my office.  They were going to be inheriting some money and wanted to invest some of it.  Was going to be about $100k.  I was new, so of course this was a big account for me.  After doing my fact finding, I found that neither one of them worked and were on disability and welfare.  Between the two of them, they were pulling in about $40k a year.  Their house was paid for, because it was inherited.  They had several cars, a few of them worked.  He was scamming the SSA because he still worked as a self-employed brush hauler at $15 an hour, but yet he was physically disabled.  Of course, none of that income was claimed.

They wanted to invest exactly $1000 of that $100,000.  I was so furious I told them to get out and never come back (at the time, I think I was more furious that the commission would be so low, but later realized that I was pissed that they were using my tax money like that). 

Most people I tell that story to assume these people were black.  They weren't.

Yet, this ignorance knows no color.  It's everywhere. 

ND - navet and BondGuy have opinions and they should be allowed to express them.... at least until the government starts regulating our opinions.  But I'm sure navet is all for that, because some people have "dangerous opinions".

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

[quote=navet]

The comments was that lack of government made our country great. I assumed that by great the writer meant great in relation to other countries. It wasn't until the twentieth century that The US became great. Immigrants came to this country for work and cheap land. Because of lack of government control, the US was victimized by frequent panics that devastated much of the polulation. Lack of government control allowed slavery and horrible working conditions that were a curse to the average american. Wealthy stock manipulators took advantage of lack of government control. Polio was cured by the Salk vaccine, not the march of dimes. The discovery and creation of said vaccine was the result of government subsidy and FDA regulation. The reason big government has evolved is that businesses and corporations cannot be trusted. Socialism has benefited all of us. Lack of adequate regulation, aka the recent market meltdown, is a testiment to this obvious fact of life. The fact is that the lack of regulation( in the belief in the efficient market theory) led to our current economic meltdown. Deregulation is a conservative mantra. Teabaggers are anti regulation. That makes teabaggers dangerous.

[/quote]

You really are completely discounting our entire history until the 20th century, aren't you?  Seriously?  We weren't a great nation until the 20th Century?  You failed your American history classes in high school and college didn't you? I suggest you read some history. The USA was not an economic or military leader in the world prior to the 20th century. In fact, prior to WW1 we had a tiny standing army that had difficulty fighting Ponch Villa in Mexico. WW2 brought our economic and military greatness to light. And socially we were a racist, sexist country with clear class distinctions. What we had going for us was free land(homesteads) and a workable constitution. I will compare my understanding of history with your kool-ade approach any day.

Was it the government or was it the Unions that changed the working conditions in this country?  Unions were formed because of the violence and abuse by management and owners. Because of the unions large numbers they became a political force. The improved working conditions that were the result benefited all americans. I consider the union movement in the USA to be heroic.

What were these frequent panics that devastated much of the population?  I'm curious what you're referring to. Read some history. You may learn a little about past government bailouts.  

As to polio - wrong again.  You are correct that it was Jonas Salk and his work on the vaccine that would eventually rid this country of polio.  But, the funding for his work, and the resulting campaign to vaccinate children, was primarily funded by FDR's non-profit organization that would become known as the March of Dimes.  Nonsense. Big pharma sold those vaccines at a tidy profit. Salk had the patent on his and made a tidy profit as well, and I believe he gave most of it away. The government subsidized both organizations with bax breaks. Now I'm not putting down the March of Dimes. And they may have paid for some vaccines. But don't think for a minute that government didn't have a large hand in the growth of big pharma. You are out of your league if you intend to argue that point with me.

I would suggest you start reading some non politically biased history. Get out of the conservative book club and at least join the history book club. And turn off that jackass glen bicker.

[/quote]

The only reason government has had any hand in big Pharma is simply because they know that private industry is better equipped to advance science.  Brilliant people don't work for peanuts, and that's what the government pays.  Seriously, you need to take a remedial economics course.

The government may pay for things (out of taxpayer money), but it is not a government organization that discovered these vaccines.  You are arguing something ridiculous.  Just because the money comes from the government (which comes from the people), doesn't mean government should be bigger.  In fact, it's an argument that government should be smaller.  Use the taxpayer funds to fund grants that will allow private industry (the smart people in the room), to improve quality of life for everyone. 

Nowhere in your argument does it state that the government actually created an agency that created a vaccine.

Most of big pharma discoveries came from (or the science originated from) NIH research. And it's been a boondogle for big pharma. Big pharma R&D has been a black hole of cash for at least a decade. You don't know s--t about the industry. The best and the brightest minds in medicine work at teaching hospitals, not big pharma. Most discoveries originate there. And teaching hospitals are either government run, or public or private university run. Salk and Sabin worked for universities or foundations. Your ignorant response proves the value of public support for the sciences.

You're pretty good at answering my questions, but not with enough facts to actually be believable. 

We can agree that the unions cleaned up working conditions in this country.  Heroic is a stretch.  They've outlived their usefulness, BTW. 

It is true that our national military became the reigning world power in the 20th century.  Mostly because people were more concerned with their state militias than the Army or Navy.  Today those roles are reversed with the National Guard being in a support role to the regular Army (or Marines, or Navy, or Air Force).  My opinion is that if you were to take the combined forces of all of our original state militias, we would have been one heck of a military presence. The reason we were became such a force in WWI and WWII is that we were forced to create a large national military presence.  If we were going to fight as one US military force, that couldn't be accomplished on the backs of the state militias.

You don't know when to stop with this polio thing do you?  Jonas Salk became a national hero who endeared himself to the masses BECAUSE he DIDN'T patent his vaccine.  I believe he said that the people owned the patent.  He might have become a wealthy man, but I don't believe it was because of his patent rights on his vaccine.

You have nothing against the March of Dimes, but refuse to acknowledge that it wasn't the government that played the primary role in the eradication of Polio in this country.  It was a US president's non-profit organization that raised money to conduct clinical trials and dispense thousand of doses of free vaccines to school children.  Your desire to prove that government is the only thing that can save us from ourselves is mind boggling.  Now, did big pharma produce the vaccine.  Yep.  Did the government give those not for profit organizations tax breaks?  Most likely if they worked then like they did now.  But claiming the government is the reason our kids don't have to worry about polio is just plain stupid. 

Since this thread was originally about Beck, I'll bring him back up.  You know why I like watching his show?  He brings on experts that can give the balanced view of the history books.  Now, I know his primary job is to make money for Fox and for himself.  But it's comments like the one you made telling me to read non-biased history that make me chuckle.  You, a progressive, telling me, a conservative, to read non-biased history book.  Perhaps you should follow your own advice.  This conversation might be different.    

[quote=N.D.]

for some reason people like navet and bondguy thinks the world is all fluffy teddy bears and cotton candy. people are by nature manipulative and competitive. there is not enough regulations in the world to supress this fact. let them place the blame where ever they choose. fact is we are all to blame. the poor blame the rich. the rich blame the government. the government blame terrorists. terrorists blame our way of life.

the world will be a better place if people become responsible for their own actions and the reactions afterwards. no mater how much you point the finger at someone else it all starts with you.

we could go on and on but it is now obviously wasting breath.

[/quote]

A person certainly should take responsibility for their own actions. And it is up to the government to insure a level playing field. Read some history. You encounter stories that involve Standard Oil and US Steal, where the Sherman Anti-trust Law was needed to keep large corporations in check. I'm sure that you will agree that we need to reintroduce trust legislation to reduce the dangerous power of large multinationals.

[quote=navet]

Most of big pharma discoveries came from (or the science originated from) NIH research. And it's been a boondogle for big pharma. Big pharma R&D has been a black hole of cash for at least a decade. You don't know s--t about the industry. The best and the brightest minds in medicine work at teaching hospitals, not big pharma. Most discoveries originate there. And teaching hospitals are either government run, or public or private university run. Salk and Sabin worked for universities or foundations. Your ignorant response proves the value of public support for the sciences.

[/quote]

This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.  I worked for NIH.  As an undergrad, I corrected bad calculations, watched DNA and RNA assays done without any protocols, and even saw electrophoresis gels mixed wrong on a regular basis.  The people who get promoted to Director level positions conducted research that had absolutely no impact on anything.  People leaving acids out overnight.

I saw a guy on his 3rd postdoc let test subjects hemorrhage and still include them in the population.  I have also worked at GSK, where the protocols are stringent, the scientists are top notch researchers with multiple degrees from programs that are also top notch.  

The real research comes out of big pharma.  As someone who has actually spent time in the industry, I think I know a little more than you do.  But if it makes you feel better to think you do, go for it.

[quote=navet]

[quote=N.D.]

for some reason people like navet and bondguy thinks the world is all fluffy teddy bears and cotton candy. people are by nature manipulative and competitive. there is not enough regulations in the world to supress this fact. let them place the blame where ever they choose. fact is we are all to blame. the poor blame the rich. the rich blame the government. the government blame terrorists. terrorists blame our way of life.

the world will be a better place if people become responsible for their own actions and the reactions afterwards. no mater how much you point the finger at someone else it all starts with you.

we could go on and on but it is now obviously wasting breath.

[/quote]

A person certainly should take responsibility for their own actions. And it is up to the government to insure a level playing field. Read some history. You encounter stories that involve Standard Oil and US Steal, where the Sherman Anti-trust Law was needed to keep large corporations in check. I'm sure that you will agree that we need to reintroduce trust legislation to reduce the dangerous power of large multinationals.

[/quote]Says who? The Federal Government has the right to enforce and collect taxes to fund foreign policy, military and interstate commerce. Everything else should be left to the individual states.

The phrase does not state "This is the United States of America" the phrase states "We are the United States of America"

And they said Beck is an idiot.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280363277341150.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEADNewsCollection

[quote=Magician]

[quote=navet]

Most of big pharma discoveries came from (or the science originated from) NIH research. And it's been a boondogle for big pharma. Big pharma R&D has been a black hole of cash for at least a decade. You don't know s--t about the industry. The best and the brightest minds in medicine work at teaching hospitals, not big pharma. Most discoveries originate there. And teaching hospitals are either government run, or public or private university run. Salk and Sabin worked for universities or foundations. Your ignorant response proves the value of public support for the sciences.

[/quote]

This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.  I worked for NIH.  As an undergrad, I corrected bad calculations, watched DNA and RNA assays done without any protocols, and even saw electrophoresis gels mixed wrong on a regular basis.  The people who get promoted to Director level positions conducted research that had absolutely no impact on anything.  People leaving acids out overnight.

I saw a guy on his 3rd postdoc let test subjects hemorrhage and still include them in the population.  I have also worked at GSK, where the protocols are stringent, the scientists are top notch researchers with multiple degrees from programs that are also top notch.  

The real research comes out of big pharma.  As someone who has actually spent time in the industry, I think I know a little more than you do.  But if it makes you feel better to think you do, go for it.

30 years with the biggest of big pharma. If you don't think R&D has been a black hole for more than a decade, then you don't know this industry.

NIH provided the scientific background for products such as ACE's, ARB's, CCB's, H2blockers, many antibiotics, cancer drugs.....just to name a few. Now somehow in that teabagger brain of yours you seem to think that I believe that government has done everything and there is no place for private industry. Let me be clear, I believe that government is a necessary participant in the economy. It protects the greater good. Private industry doesn't have the incentive to do so. To state that government is the enemy is both foolish and blind to the economic quagmire that we have been experiencing. To state that private industry is the solution, is short sighted. We need both. But things have become so out of balance with too-powerful multinationals that now is the time to reinvigorate federal oversight.

[/quote]

" The idea that multiplying rules and statutes can protect consumers and investors is surely one of the great intellectual failures of the 20th century. Any static rule will be circumvented or manipulated to evade its application. Better than multiplying rules, financial accounting should be governed by the traditional principle that one has an affirmative duty to present the true condition fairly and accurately—not withstanding what any rule might otherwise allow. And financial institutions should have a duty of care to their customers. Lawyers tell me that would get us closer to the common law approach to fraud and bad dealing.

Public choice theory has identified the root causes of regulatory failure as the capture of regulators by the industry being regulated. Regulatory agencies begin to identify with the interests of the regulated rather than the public they are charged to protect. In a paper for the Federal Reserve's Jackson Hole Conference in 2008, economist Willem Buiter described "cognitive capture," by which regulators become incapable of thinking in terms other than that of the industry. On April 5 of this year, The Wall Street Journal chronicled the revolving door between industry and regulator in "Staffer One Day, Opponent the Next." O'Dricsoll, WSJ

With time, the name and meaning of this thread changes in my perception.  The idea that people would do the right thing, instead of " following regulations" - gets at the root of the thing.

Glenn Beck, in his idealism, is an idiot. It is  easy to see where we are headed at the moment - if you believe in the concept of personal responsibility and just doing the right thing.

Ironically, we now have the Gulf Crisis to throw all of that in relief. Doing the right thing will always come down to individuals taking personal responsibility and doing the right thing at the right moment.

A comment earlier said that less government was the reason our country became great. Really? Just when do you think our country became great? - Navet

Maybe it was not so much less government, as more incentive to take personal responsibility. In that sense, this is still a great country.

Happiness is your responsibility. And yes, I know that even though I am responsible for my own happiness, other people seem to be very much able to make me miserable. Well, the truth is that we are also responsible for our own misery. We can learn to recognize and control our own emotions. In the process of doing so we become happy. Adding compassion for all others gives our life purpose. We are alive. We are human. We are living in a great country. We have freedom. We have decent health. We have opportunity. We have enough to eat and a warm place to sleep. We probably are getting some nookie every now and then. Do you all realize that most of the people alive on this planet now and in all of history would gladly trade places with us? Count your blessings. - Navet.

I think this is  mainly what  Glenn Beck is really trying to say, from what I can see.