The Republican Thread

[The Sir]

Question, have we not learned much about economies in the past 80 years? Is it still such and inexact science that improving on the results from the depression isn't possible? Why is there even a debate as to what to do?

 

Because each side manages to find enough examples to support their arguments, and this evidence will keep their beliefs entrenched even in the face of opposing evidence.

 

Politics has been around for a long time. Why are there debates on anything anymore? Maybe because there aren't any absolutely correct answers. For instance, I have my evidence for widespread gun ownership and someone else will have their evidence in support of gun control. It's just different angles that we're coming from. I totally believe my stances and will argue against all comers, but that doesn't mean the opposition is evil or ignorant. They're just different people coming from different backgrounds and philosophies.

 

Just my two cents.

[Texsox]

Because each side manages to find enough examples to support their arguments, and this evidence will keep their beliefs entrenched even in the face of opposing evidence.

 

Politics has been around for a long time. Why are there debates on anything anymore? Maybe because there aren't any absolutely correct answers. For instance, I have my evidence for widespread gun ownership and someone else will have their evidence in support of gun control. It's just different angles that we're coming from. I totally believe my stances and will argue against all comers, but that doesn't mean the opposition is evil or ignorant. They're just different people coming from different backgrounds and philosophies.

 

Just my two cents.

 

We found some common ground, I agree 100%.

[The Sir]

We found some common ground, I agree 100%.

 

Good to hear. Of course, there are some groups out there that bear exception to the rule of being different and not evil, but those should be pretty obvious. And hopefully those types won't be joining our discussion anytime soon.

[VictoryMC98]

Good to hear. Of course, there are some groups out there that bear exception to the rule of being different and not evil, but those should be pretty obvious. And hopefully those types won't be joining our discussion anytime soon.

 

Jewish Muslims?

Edited September 11, 2011 by VictoryMC98

[Texsox]

Good to hear. Of course, there are some groups out there that bear exception to the rule of being different and not evil, but those should be pretty obvious. And hopefully those types won't be joining our discussion anytime soon.

 

The problem with groups is other people start deciding who is in the group, which may or may not be true. I have a much different image of Mexican immigrants than almost anyone else here. I teach at a school that is 99% Hispanic. I live in an area that is 90% Hispanic. Economically our area thrives because of Mexican tourism. When I group together Mexican immigrants, I see doctors, lawyers, business people, laborers, and almost everything in between. Others around here only group up the lowest wage earning immigrants. Some people group Muslims and only group the extremists, leaving out the majority.

 

Almost everyone here would label me a Dem. But I'm a gun owning, balanced budget wanting, abortion hating, limit social program, Dem. So I bristle when I hear Dems think this or Dems think that.

[The Sir]

The problem with groups is other people start deciding who is in the group, which may or may not be true. I have a much different image of Mexican immigrants than almost anyone else here. I teach at a school that is 99% Hispanic. I live in an area that is 90% Hispanic. Economically our area thrives because of Mexican tourism. When I group together Mexican immigrants, I see doctors, lawyers, business people, laborers, and almost everything in between. Others around here only group up the lowest wage earning immigrants. Some people group Muslims and only group the extremists, leaving out the majority.

 

Almost everyone here would label me a Dem. But I'm a gun owning, balanced budget wanting, abortion hating, limit social program, Dem. So I bristle when I hear Dems think this or Dems think that.

 

You and I share more common ground than I previously thought. What kind of guns you got? I've got a SIG 556 (it's front heavy but the piston operation makes it far more reliable than any AR IMO), a Mossberg 590 with pistol grip and telescoping stock, the obligatory 1911, a Glock 19, Beretta 92 and HK USP in .45. I'd like to get an AR soon just because they are so customizable. I could go on all day with everything I want to own, so I'll spare you the rest of it.

 

And I get what you're saying about groups. In 99% of them, there's good ones and bad ones. But as far as I'm concerned, there are a few groups that just don't offer anything. I'm not going to meet a Nazi or a Stalinist or a Klansman, people whose beliefs led to the deaths of millions throughout the last century, and think, "he's not evil, just different." There are evil groups out there, but that label applies to the murderers and the torturers and the tyrants and the thugs. It doesn't apply to groups that want more spending or less spending, more gun rights or less gun rights, more social programs or less social programs etc. If you call such people evil just to further your political agenda ("racist" comes to mind here too), it cheapens the word's meaning when you eventually have to use it on someone who truly is evil or racist. I hope that makes sense.

[farmteam]

Man, I get busy for a few days and miss all the fun!

[Texsox]

You and I share more common ground than I previously thought. What kind of guns you got? I've got a SIG 556 (it's front heavy but the piston operation makes it far more reliable than any AR IMO), a Mossberg 590 with pistol grip and telescoping stock, the obligatory 1911, a Glock 19, Beretta 92 and HK USP in .45. I'd like to get an AR soon just because they are so customizable. I could go on all day with everything I want to own, so I'll spare you the rest of it.

 

And I get what you're saying about groups. In 99% of them, there's good ones and bad ones. But as far as I'm concerned, there are a few groups that just don't offer anything. I'm not going to meet a Nazi or a Stalinist or a Klansman, people whose beliefs led to the deaths of millions throughout the last century, and think, "he's not evil, just different." There are evil groups out there, but that label applies to the murderers and the torturers and the tyrants and the thugs. It doesn't apply to groups that want more spending or less spending, more gun rights or less gun rights, more social programs or less social programs etc. If you call such people evil just to further your political agenda ("racist" comes to mind here too), it cheapens the word's meaning when you eventually have to use it on someone who truly is evil or racist. I hope that makes sense.

 

My tastes lean more towards black powder and shotguns (nothing exotic a 12 and 20 gauge). I made a decision when my oldest son was 2 that I wasn't go to have a handgun in the home. The rational was for the weapon to be useful for self defense it would have to be ready in seconds. That made it too available and in too dangerous of a state with kids around. No matter how well I trained them. I do enjoy heading out to a ranch and shooting some of my buddies stuff.

 

The nice thing about living in Texas is so much land to shoot on. The worst thing comparing Illinois to Texas is he cost of hunting. I never paid a fee to a farmer for access. Here a decent lease will cost $2,500 and up.

 

 

[The Sir]

I made a decision when my oldest son was 2 that I wasn't go to have a handgun in the home. The rational was for the weapon to be useful for self defense it would have to be ready in seconds. That made it too available and in too dangerous of a state with kids around. No matter how well I trained them.

 

I can't fault you for that (although I don't think I'll take the same approach when I have children). However, if you still have an interest in handguns while keeping it safe from children and still available in seconds, I'd recommend GunVault. I have one myself. It's small enough to sit on a nightstand and it is quick to open yet sturdy if you're not supposed to get in it. Just a friendly suggestion.

 

The nice thing about living in Texas is so much land to shoot on. The worst thing comparing Illinois to Texas is he cost of hunting. I never paid a fee to a farmer for access. Here a decent lease will cost $2,500 and up.

 

I'm not a big hunter. And by that, I mean, I've never gone hunting in my life. But I do agree with you about Texas. One of my favorite things to do is drive out of the city and shoot at beer bottles we set up in the desert. We have a good time out there.

[Texsox]

I explored the options in 1990 and wasn't comfortable with them. I also lived in a low crime area, so I wasn't too worried about a home break in. I preferred a monitored security system. My thinking was I needed to be able to grab it in under 15 seconds, while half asleep, and be ready. That meant loaded and ready. My bedroom set had a couple hidden compartments, and I rigged one to take an extra step to open, but in the end, I just wasn't comfortable with kids around. It basically stopped me from shooting handguns and I guess I never really looked back. It's a personal choice and I know I am one of the few gun owners that leaned that way. When I was a junior in high school a little kid who lived next door to my girlfriend killed himself with his parent's gun, so I know that is a big factor in weighing the risks.

 

We have world class dove shooting in the area. With the King ranch just north of me and some other lesser known, but just as nice ranches close by, there is a lot of interesting hunting opportunities.

[southsider2k5]

We started on the exact same path in the fall of 2008. GDP was shrinking at a 9% annualized rate.

 

In the depression, GDP sank by 9% in 1930, 7% in 1931, and 12% in 1932.

 

The GDP drop going into Obama's term was on the same pace as 1930. But that entirely turned around and instead of a 9% drop over the full year, things leveled off and began growing at 1% for the next 2 years. GDP is monstrously above where it was in the depression. Employment is monstrously above where it was in the depression. The level of shock was the same, but the path diverged rapidly after March 2009. (Blue bars in this graph).

 

 

We did the 1930 bar for 1/2 of a year. Then we passed the stimulus package. And instead of giant negative bars, mimimally positive bars.

 

I see you ignored the 20% current unemployment comparison completely

[The Sir]

When I was a junior in high school a little kid who lived next door to my girlfriend killed himself with his parent's gun, so I know that is a big factor in weighing the risks.

 

Kind of goes in line with what I said earlier about different perspectives and circumstances, eh? I might not be as pro-gun as I am if my childhood had included such a tragedy. Either way, again, I can't fault you for your decision.

[Texsox]

Kind of goes in line with what I said earlier about different perspectives and circumstances, eh? I might not be as pro-gun as I am if my childhood had included such a tragedy. Either way, again, I can't fault you for your decision.

 

It didn't make me anti-gun, just much more safety conscious. There was some debate whether his death was accidental or he intended to kill himself. Either way, I saw the look in his father's eyes and knew I would never wish that on anyone. Kids do dumb things for a lot of reasons from peer pressure to a lack of maturity. I'd rather take a chance on an intruder getting past my security system than risk a ready to fire handgun. I even toyed with the idea of having one unloaded around thinking I could bluff my way past someone. But in my mind that scenario always ended with two guys facing each other and scared the other is going to shoot. In that scenario, I wanted to be able to shoot for real.

[Balta1701]

I see you ignored the 20% current unemployment comparison completely

And if we go and look at employment to population, the drop now will be Half that of the depression.

[EvilMonkey]

Dust can be a ridiculously hazardous substance and a major contributor to breathing issues. Keeping dust under control has been a major part of the clean air act. Dust generated by dry land out west was one of the largest contributors to U.S. air pollution before the city of L.A. was forced to give back some of its water to keep it wet.

 

And as the Wall Street Journal put it about the federal regulation requiring tractor drivers to get a commercial license, "There is no such regulation."

 

I'm impressed that at least 1 of the regulations you complained about was in fact real. Usually we get the rants about how Obama was mean to wall street by only giving them a trillion dollars rather than taking them over.

 

You are correct the CDL and dust one are not regulations, for now. but they were proposed and would be if enough people didn't b**** about it. And simply putting forth those as serious proposals is enough to give businesses the jitters when it comes to investing. i swear we need to go back to part time legislators as they come up with more and more crap just to justify their paychecks.

[VictoryMC98]

You are correct the CDL and dust one are not regulations, for now. but they were proposed and would be if enough people didn't b**** about it. And simply putting forth those as serious proposals is enough to give businesses the jitters when it comes to investing. i swear we need to go back to part time legislators as they come up with more and more crap just to justify their paychecks.

 

You watch allot of fox "news" don't you?

[EvilMonkey]

More talking points.. Name the exact regulations that have put into place since the economy took a dive.. that is a burden.

 

You know why companies are hurting, CEO's getting 8 figure bonuses, then go.. Opps we are hurting. We give tax breaks to companies, who then ship jobs overseas.. I see it in my business all the time. Its not the GOV job to figure out corp finance. And its both sides

 

BTW.. I love the talking point that the gov caused the banks to hand out risky loans.. Showcased exactly the wording that states.. As a Bank, you have to give out a 400.000 loan to a guy making 30k a year. Its the Banks own fault, plain and simple.

You speak in generalities, yet demand minute specifics when anyone says anything you disagree with. There is no one regulation that started the economic nosedive. You are an idiot for thinking so or demanding that there be one.

 

As for the loans being 'the banks own fault, plain and simple', are you absolving the idiots who TOOK the loans that they couldn't afford of any blame? IN 2004, Barney Frank said ""I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing." He went further: "I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing." And that he did. Even Obama was in on the act back when he was with Acorn, suing banks for supposedly redlining applicants, forcing them to loosen standards in order to 'comply'. And you Do know that he is on the House committee charged with oversight of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But I guess that doesnt carry any weight with the banks in question.

 

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

 

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

 

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

 

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits

Yup, it is all the banks fault, no pressure there from the people that oversee you.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business...ge-lending.html

[EvilMonkey]

You watch allot of fox "news" don't you?

You play with yourself in the dark a lot, don't you? And no, I do not watch Fox news, nor cnn.

[EvilMonkey]

You watch allot of fox "news" don't you?

Do you own a business? because I did for a number of years, and I know the number of rules and regulations that are needed to be followed. Even little things like 'Franchisee licenses' and all the paperwork small businesses need to go thru to be incorporated, the tax form that are way too long and so on. I know first hand about hiring and firing people because I have done it. In my current position we need to purchase a new piece of equipment, but are waiting because we don't know what the future will hold. Every time a politician opens their mouths, the stock market dives. I have 2 funeral homes as major customers, and they are BOTH concerned about new regulations that MAY be coming down regarding cremations. I looked for what those could be online and cant find anything, but they seem to think there is something being proposed somewhere. I have a hospice as a customer that has to have 28 different forms to fill out to comply with various government regulations. While that is good for me, as I get to print them, it costs them a lot of money. Businesses are worried, despite your worrying about a CEO paycheck or three. The head of every company is not like compensated like Jeffrey R. Immelt.

[VictoryMC98]

You speak in generalities, yet demand minute specifics when anyone says anything you disagree with. There is no one regulation that started the economic nosedive. You are an idiot for thinking so or demanding that there be one.

 

You came here sparking about regulations.. and ending them.. The economy seemed to be just fine prior to 2008 with those same regulations.

 

There is no need for 3rd grade insults here.. Just don't use talking points as your main argument.

As for the loans being 'the banks own fault, plain and simple', are you absolving the idiots who TOOK the loans that they couldn't afford of any blame? IN 2004, Barney Frank said ""I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing." He went further: "I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing." And that he did. Even Obama was in on the act back when he was with Acorn, suing banks for supposedly redlining applicants, forcing them to loosen standards in order to 'comply'. And you Do know that he is on the House committee charged with oversight of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But I guess that doesnt carry any weight with the banks in question.

 

 

Yup, it is all the banks fault, no pressure there from the people that oversee you.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business...ge-lending.html

 

So no wording.. Got it Overall just talking point.. Zero Facts on how the GOV forced those loans. But do like how to you try and change the topic, to blame someone else since blaming the GOV isn't working.

Edited September 12, 2011 by VictoryMC98

[VictoryMC98]

You play with yourself in the dark a lot, don't you? And no, I do not watch Fox news, nor cnn.

 

Yes, and twice on Sundays.. And with the lights on as well.

[southsider2k5]

And if we go and look at employment to population, the drop now will be Half that of the depression.

 

Nice work on showing how similar the moves are again by the way.

[southsider2k5]

You came here sparking about regulations.. and ending them.. The economy seemed to be just fine prior to 2008 with those same regulations.

There is no need for 3rd grade insults here.. Just don't use talking points as your main argument.

 

 

So no wording.. Got it Overall just talking point.. Zero Facts on how the GOV forced those loans. But do like how to you try and change the topic, to blame someone else since blaming the GOV isn't working.

 

If you want people to not address you snidely, do the same to them. If you'll notice his comment was in response to your own look down your nose at him.

[southsider2k5]

You came here sparking about regulations.. and ending them.. The economy seemed to be just fine prior to 2008 with those same regulations.

There is no need for 3rd grade insults here.. Just don't use talking points as your main argument.

 

 

So no wording.. Got it Overall just talking point.. Zero Facts on how the GOV forced those loans. But do like how to you try and change the topic, to blame someone else since blaming the GOV isn't working.

 

If you want people to not address you snidely, do the same to them. If you'll notice his comment was in response to your own look down your nose at him.

 

And it is common knowledge that banks force those loans on banks. They wanted as many banks as possible to take them as to mask the banks which were in trouble and keep them from getting run.

[Balta1701]

Nice work on showing how similar the moves are again by the way.

Also worth noting is what I haven't yet found a graph to show.

 

The red line there stays horizontal.

 

The Blue line continues to plummet.

 

The employment/population ratio dropped from 54% to 42% by 1933. Most of that drop happened in 1931 and 1932. In this case, it dropped fromm 63% to 58.5% and has stayed at 58.5% since it stabilized.

 

A similar magnitude drop in employment/population ratio would put it at ~50% right now. That would be an extra 25 million unemployed, give or take.