Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[work in progress]

What kinds of "Regulations" and "Tarriffs" do you want to impose on Companies who outsource? What about companies who simply cannot afford to deal with the high costs of American regulation compliance? You ever heard of "Retaliatory tarriffs"? You might think that would hurt exports...

The old scheme worked much better for most people than the present "free trade" model that has allowed corporations to overrule the policies of individual governments....especially in the Third World.

You must have a radically different idea of what "economic growth" means, because the economy was growing at a breakneck speed of 4.5% a year until 2006.

Actually, radicalism is going to become the accepted wisdom very soon, as more and more people make the common sense realization that a finite world with decreasing natural resources cannot accommodate the demands for endless economic growth. Before the gold standard was abolished, economies didn't have to depend on annual average growth of 3% to remain healthy. Thanks to a debt-based system, 3% growth is essential just to remain in neutral, and a system that requires continual increases in energy use and resource development is going to fail eventually.

Name some of these products that were outsourced to China they couldn't on average afford specifically. Can you guess some of the reasons why its so much cheaper to Outsource to China?

Define what you mean by the economy crumbling during the Bush years.

This is what I mean: The Housing and Mortgage Industry - The Politics eZine

[SIZE=-1] What happened was the build up in personal debt. Because the economy under Bush had been rocky even at the best of times many Americans were forced to rely on credit to make ends meet. This unfortunately later caught up to them in two ways:
#1. Americans who would like to buy houses couldn't afford to make downpayments because their debt load was already too great.
#2. Americans who already has mortgages couldn't afford to make their mortgage payments, thus defaulting on their bank loans.
[/SIZE]​

In other words, the relatively anemic economic numbers that the Bush Administration was claiming as signs of a healthy economy, were instead the products of average people spending more on credit cards (another aspect of bank deregulation). This piece commenting on the reasons behind the housing bubble and collapse, point to the growth in consumer debt levels after 2000, as real income declined through loss of manufacturing jobs and their replacement with lower paying, service jobs. Many people tried to make up the difference by taking advantage of the easy credit offered through credit cards.

Do you honestly think taxing the rich more is going to make more and better paying jobs (outside of publicly-funded public sector jobs?)? I'm guessing this question will get avoided as well.

The loss of well-paying jobs owes to the facts of globalization and the destruction of the union movement, that leaves most people without any option for collective bargaining in their workplace. Taxing the rich more is a matter of principle - similar to reforming laws regarding lobbying and campaign financing - to prevent a powerful, wealthy class of citizens from making the laws, regulations, and tax rules work in their favour, and to the disadvantage of the average citizen. When some people can afford to buy government, democracy is a meaningless concept.

Returning to progressive taxation...remember, this is how it was done before the right reduced the rates, allowing with the reductions in corporate taxes and investment income...is the only way to promote greater equality in a society that has a dramatic range in income levels. The benefits for a society that becomes more equal are the reverse of all of the social ills that befall a society that has gone in the other direction...as most of the world's nations are today. For more info, check out the Equality Trust evidence page of links.

And as for nationalizing the Banks like Sweden (which has a population of less than 10 million, to keep in mind when comparing), that's sort of what the Fed is trying to do right now by getting the Private Banks into a new $16 trillion dollar debt, which is totally beneficical to the Government if they default and have to hand over their assets.

When I see bank executives being frog-marched off to prison, then I'll be impressed!

Which is why many of the Greeks considered Democracy and Republics to be jokes, why the Founding Fathers said things like "We are changing from 1 tyrant to 3000". Maybe, just maybe, 1 tyrant IS better than 3000, and is certainly better than "mob rule". Even Medieval and Renaissance "Absolutist" kings were held in checks and balances by their Aristocracies. Some of history's best golden ages were under benevolent monarchs/dictators. The problem is when the dictators are like Nero...

Well, first of all, it wasn't all of the Greeks, it was only ancient Athens for a brief time that it existed as a democracy. And Athens was reported to have at least one slave for every free citizen that enjoyed voting rights...strike two! And Athens was a commercial city dependent on trade, so from the modern examples, we can surmise that the wealthier citizens were among those who disapproved of "mob rule," and wanted to be ruled by a tyrant....and I'm guessing that they hand-picked the tyrants that ruled Athens afterwards.

Nevertheless, I guess condemning democracy and arguing for a return to a more formalized aristocratic system, means that you would prefer the removal of the present sham-democracy, rather than its reform or restoration.

 

[Kathryn]

[SIZE=-1]What happened was the build up in personal debt. Because the economy under Bush had been rocky even at the best of times many Americans were forced to rely on credit to make ends meet. This unfortunately later caught up to them in two ways:
#1. Americans who would like to buy houses couldn't afford to make downpayments because their debt load was already too great.
#2. Americans who already has mortgages couldn't afford to make their mortgage payments, thus defaulting on their bank loans.
[/SIZE]​

First time homebuyers today wouldn't DREAM of sacrificing like their parents did in order to save up a 20 percent down payment. Oh, no. Nor would most of them consider buying a tiny starter home with one bathroom and a one car garage - a home that was actually WITHIN their realistic budget (not what their pre-qualification letter states their max is).

A couple of years ago, my husband and I went house shopping. We got a pre-qual letter from the bank. This letter said that we were qualified to buy a home worth up to $425,000. SAY WHAT???? I mean, sure, I guess we could actually make house payments on that amount, but we sure as hell don't want to. We put our own cap in place at about half that amount, and we had a large down payment as well.

When I worked in real estate, I worked with many first time home buyers, during the boom years. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, I never met a SINGLE one who wasn't shopping at the very top of their price range. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, not a SINGLE first time home buyer I worked with, in five years, had a 20 percent down payment. Hell, most of them had NO down payment. If they had one, it was because their parents gave it to them.

A lot of them would turn down homes nicer than the one I actually lived in at the time, because it was "too small" (2500 square feet isn't enough for two people???) or "too old" or "needed too much renovation" (ie, too much paint - oh, and the countertops weren't granite!!!).

On a daily basis, I was shocked at the expectations of 20 and 30 something home buyers. Their parents were often with them, and usually made comments like, "Wow, I've worked all my life and my own house isn't THIS nice." However, they would also often look at me and wink and say, "But - it's paid for."

Night and day. Their own children wouldn't think their parents' house was nice enough for them to live in. Amazing.

It's this sort of outlook that horrifies so many people, because we can see where it ends up. Besides the (what should be) obvious economic benefits of a larger down payment on a more modest home, it has a psychological effect as well. You are much more likely to hang onto something you've got $25,000 or more invested in, than you are something you have no equity in.

"I want it all and I want it now" seems to be the prevailing outlook and expectation of a depressingly large segment of the population.

 

[Revoltingest]

"I want it all and I want it now" seems to be the prevailing outlook and expectation of a depressingly large segment of the population.

Geeze Louise....that's what I saw happen over the last several decades. And with
homeowners perceived as an important voting block, politicians are ready to deliver.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, who needs facts to get in the way, because obviously that $800 billion increase was a big illusion.

Who needs facts, right. No need to actually check the numbers, that would be unnecessary. Not like I posted a link with them, it was just filled with lies that it was hoping no would actually look up for themselves. There was no $800 billion increase in revenue, it was all monopoly money cleverly disguised.

And of course, I so totally ranted about how horrible people are. No need to actually reference what I said.

And of course, if you make a claim that disagrees with mine, no need to get your own facts or anything, you can just say my facts are wrong without actually disproving them, trying to back your own claim and discredit the link I posted would just be a big waste of time. You can just "Nuh uh", that's a perfect rebuttal and really proves your case. My respects!

Look, you made a mistake. It's OK. Admitting it would be better than this drivel, though. You made the extremely erroneous claim that Bush's tax cuts caused an increase in revenue. That is patently false. You can deny it, if you want, but then don't go pretending it's other people who "aren't letting facts get in their way", when you're the one with that problem.

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe, just maybe....the unemployed might be possibly benefited by the rich class having less taxes and regulations so they'd, you know, have an easier time employing them? Just saying.

They might. I might also win the lottery today without having bought a ticket. I think my scenario has the better shot at happening, though. The only way one could think that your solution has a chance at working is if you just ignore all of history. Lower taxes on the rich and less regulation has never led to more jobs. Just look at the past 10 years, and you can see that quite clearly. The regulations part especially gets me, though. What regulations exactly do you think stop the rich from creating jobs?

Plus, being more competitive with the Chinese and Indian labor wouldn't hurt. It's not just factory workers, you can get programming done in India for 1/4 the price.

Yup, all we have to do is get rid of minimum wage, start paying people $10,000 a year for work they could be getting $50,000 for now, and we'll be all set.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Look, you made a mistake. It's OK. Admitting it would be better than this drivel, though. You made the extremely erroneous claim that Bush's tax cuts caused an increase in revenue. That is patently false. You can deny it, if you want, but then don't go pretending it's other people who "aren't letting facts get in their way", when you're the one with that problem.

Which is more important, a high tax rate or the amount of revenue the government collects?

At this point in time, it would seem no matter what we do, the government's lack of self control in regards to spending make any changes fruitless when they cannot balance the budget.

How on earth can we ever balance the budget when we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend?

How on earth can we continue to do this?

Neither side wants to face the truth of the matter, we need to raise taxes and spend less.

Republicans will never raise taxes or reduce the defense budget while Democrats will never reduce entitlements.

We need to do all three or this country will be like Greece very soon.

 

[Magic Man]

Granted that the National debt increased about $3 trillion over 7 years of Bush (and the numbers jumped from about a $500 billion increase a year to $1 trillion a year after 2007), but in raw number terms, it increased in what Bush's regime spent in 8 years in less than 3 of Obama's. From 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the yearly increase was over 3 times what the average increase of a Bush year was. I'm guessing that subject will be avoided as well. And Clinton's regime doubled the National debt (despite Republican attempts to apply the brakes), but to be fair, Reagen's tripled it. (But so did Carter's).

The national debt at the end of Clinton's last fiscal year was $5.8 trillion. At the end of Bush's last fiscal year it was $11.6 trillion. That's an increase of 100%, or $5.8 trillion. Right now the debt is $14.9 trillion. That's an increase of $3.3 trillion, or 28%. The last two fiscal years under Bush the debt went up $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion. That's the most important part. The two years before Obama took over the debt went up $2.6 trillion. In the 3 years since, it's gone up $3.3 trillion.

I'm not saying Obama has done the best job, or even a good job economically, but let's get things straight here. A huge recession started under Bush, which forced him to run up the debt even more than he had been when the economy was fine, so it's no surprise that Obama has had to run up the debt on pace with Bush's last two years.

The main reasons for the Economic crash nonetheless were from Democrat-pushed policies like the FDIC and Fannie and Freddie and the House Price correction which toppled the value of such debts.

The main reasons for the economy crash were greed and deregulation. Fannie and Freddie played a part in it, but they weren't the main problem.

 

[Magic Man]

First time homebuyers today wouldn't DREAM of sacrificing like their parents did in order to save up a 20 percent down payment. Oh, no. Nor would most of them consider buying a tiny starter home with one bathroom and a one car garage - a home that was actually WITHIN their realistic budget (not what their pre-qualification letter states their max is).

Ah, yes, the old myths that make conservatives feel better. Housing prices today are much higher in relation to middle-class incomes than they were when my parents were starting out. Most people do buy smaller starter homes. You hear about the idiots who go big, but they're not necessarily the rule. You always hear about the crazy people in a group a lot more than the reasonable ones, because the crazy ones make a better story. For instance, out of all the people in my group of friends, the ones who own houses either own townhouses or small single-family homes. Granted, my personal experience isn't a big sample size, but this "problem" gets blown out of proportion.

The problem with the housing bubble was that even a small starter home was exorbitantly expensive.

 

[Magic Man]

Which is more important, a high tax rate or the amount of revenue the government collects?

Government revenue, of course. The point is that lowering taxes does not increase government revenue.

Neither side wants to face the truth of the matter, we need to raise taxes and spend less.

Republicans will never raise taxes or reduce the defense budget while Democrats will never reduce entitlements.

We need to do all three or this country will be like Greece very soon.

I'm glad you realize this. After all this, it seems we're on the same page.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm glad you realize this. After all this, it seems we're on the same page.

Lets bask in the after glow and enjoy this moment while it lasts. :beach:

 

[Shermana]

Ah, yes, the old myths that make conservatives feel better. Housing prices today are much higher in relation to middle-class incomes than they were when my parents were starting out. Most people do buy smaller starter homes. You hear about the idiots who go big, but they're not necessarily the rule. You always hear about the crazy people in a group a lot more than the reasonable ones, because the crazy ones make a better story. For instance, out of all the people in my group of friends, the ones who own houses either own townhouses or small single-family homes. Granted, my personal experience isn't a big sample size, but this "problem" gets blown out of proportion.

The problem with the housing bubble was that even a small starter home was exorbitantly expensive.

Who determined that those small starter houses would be exorbitantly expensive exactly? The market? Or artificial market fluctuations caused by Democrat policies within Fannie, Freddie, and the FDIC? People could have just boycotted the housing industry until prices sank to correct levels, even now refuse to drop to their true value. In California, they're all waiting for some millionaire to look past the 50% overprice.

 

[Shermana]

Look, you made a mistake. It's OK. Admitting it would be better than this drivel, though. You made the extremely erroneous claim that Bush's tax cuts caused an increase in revenue. That is patently false. You can deny it, if you want, but then don't go pretending it's other people who "aren't letting facts get in their way", when you're the one with that problem.

So once again, instead of providing a link to counter mine, you accuse me of making a mistake and denying it and being patently false. Much easier I suppose. I do appreciate the comical irony of your posts. No need for actual proof and links to your claims that would be a waste of time. Now if you have an actual source that proves there wasn't an $800 billion increase in revenue as the link provided, by all means, feel free to actually back your claims with proof. If you can't understand that it was drowned out by ludicrous increased Congressional spending (that got MORE ludicrous under Obama, which you claim was "necessary" to fix the recession), economics is not for you.

The problem was that while reveneues increased, the Republicans did very little to combat extreme spending, and as demonstrated, after the Democrat takeover, the Budget went from $500 billion annual defecits (which Bush's Medicaid didn't exactly help with and can be 50% blamed for) to over $1 trillion after 2007. I'm assuming your own economic theory calls for little chopping in the Discretionary budget.

Now you said that the recession started under Bush (which happened mainly due to Democrat policies that the Repubs were fighting against the whole 8 years like Fannie and Freddie), FORCED Obama to spend a lot? That doesn't make much sense. The Stimulus (AKA pocket lining to Democrat cronies) wasn't exactly forced.

 

[no-body]

It's possible to do that in America, but it would mean having to impose rent, wage, and price controls. Everything would have to be made more affordable so workers could take lower salaries. Rents would have to be reduced to around 10% of what they are now. Same for food, gas, utilities - all would need to be drastically reduced in price.

You misunderstand what he means. It's like the conservatives promise to create more jobs by getting rid of minimum wage and benefits. You will have to have 3 or 4 jobs to support yourself and your family but hey at least there will be tons of jobs to go around. Creating a slave class and lowering the standards of living is OK as long as you have the thin chance to one day escape.

 

[Two-bit guru]

False equivalence! Fox News dupe! Right wing toady!
My side is good, just & intelligent.
The other side is mean, stupid & corrupt!

Just kidding! I agree with you.
Campaigning fills me with disgust & dread.

And I agree with you. I believe meditation is the way to peace and harmony. What's your
illusion?

 

[Two-bit guru]

Sometimes "Balance and Harmony" gets you nowhere but stuck in the quagmire, and one side has very bad, if not Toxic ideas and policies that will lead to serious economic ruin, further unemployment (and lower paying jobs), inflation and decrease of purchase parity, and even more corruption, while the other will lead to the real desired effect of poverty alleviation, job creation (not at public expense), more capital circulating, less government corruption and cronyism. It's like, do you want to "balance" your water with ****? Most Republicans are fairly compromised to include fair amounts of urine in their water, and those like Ron Paul may have real Lemonade, but they lack key ingredients (or they use certain bad ingredients) that disinterests most of the potential voting block and would stand no serious chance of stopping the pollution of the water supply. And most of those who vote Democrat just love the taste of **** or they can't stand the prospect of pure water no matter who is selling it. They are truly "brainwashed" to the point that they refuse to even acknowledge the real numbers, a bit is demonstrated in this thread even.

When you're dealing with one side of leaders that wants to **** in the fountain (and their base who loves the taste no matter what) and the other side that wants to mostly put a ************* mixture in, you have to say "no" to balance and harmony or you'll be stuck with just different levels of **** in your water.

I believe that the realization of harmony won't come about unless human consciousness somehow makes a quantum leap in understanding. I'm not talking about compromise. I am talking about a discovered universal awareness, which may sound sky-blue to a lot of folks but to go on with our collective limited awareness isn't going to get us anywhere at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I agree with you. I believe meditation is the way to peace and harmony. What's your
illusion?

I suffer from the illusion that liberty will make us happier & better off.
But I count myself fortunate that I have no unrealistic expectations that many will agree with me.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I was watching some economics guy talk about how he thought that the entire reason we are in a recession is that liberals are in office right now and that if a republican gets voted in 2012, the economy will recover...

 

[Revoltingest]

I was watching some economics guy talk about how he thought that the entire reason we are in a recession is that liberals are in office right now and that if a republican gets voted in 2012, the economy will recover...

If only it were so simple.....& so possible.

 

[Shermana]

I was watching some economics guy talk about how he thought that the entire reason we are in a recession is that liberals are in office right now and that if a republican gets voted in 2012, the economy will recover...

Well I suppose its merely coincidence that Fannie and Freddie and the FDIC are Liberal operations, and that the economy shattered after the 2006 Democrat takeover of the House, and I suppose its merely coincidence that the Annual Deficits are TRIPLE the average Bush year under Obama. All coincidence.

 

[dust1n]

How about doing something about Companies who pay negative taxes like General Electric (Democrat sponsor)?

General Electric: All Recipients | OpenSecrets