Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[strikeviperMKII]

What does that have to do with what I said? It appears you missed the part about Congress?

Put the executive and legislative branch in place of 'president' and it still fits.

My point is that the economy is not as simple as two, or even all three branches of government. Ours is a global economy, not just a national one. To say that a liberal government is entirely at fault is ignorance. It may well be a factor, but it is not the only one.

 

[Shermana]

Put the executive and legislative branch in place of 'president' and it still fits.

My point is that the economy is not as simple as two, or even all three branches of government. Ours is a global economy, not just a national one. To say that a liberal government is entirely at fault is ignorance. It may well be a factor, but it is not the only one.

I include RINO and Neo-con "Conservatives" in the "Liberal Government" who support overspending and overtaxing (all the while getting their filthy paws in the spigots). But I stand by my argument that the policies which Democrats and Neo-con RINOs overwhelmingly favor are the reason why the economy is stuck in quicksand, and the only solution is to take a hard shift to the right.

 

[Copernicus]

I include RINO and Neo-con "Conservatives" in the "Liberal Government" who support overspending and overtaxing (all the while getting their filthy paws in the spigots). But I stand by my argument that the policies which Democrats and Neo-con RINOs overwhelmingly favor are the reason why the economy is stuck in quicksand, and the only solution is to take a hard shift to the right.

I asked you before, and I'll ask it again, although it seems obvious that you have no clue: tell us what specifically you think the Democrats did to screw up the economy in the last two years of the Bush administration.

 

[Kathryn]

My 3-bedroom, 1,400 sq. ft. rancher that we bought 2 years ago in not the best neighborhood was still $200,000, and that's well after the bubble burst.

Maybe you shouldn't have bought it. Maybe you should be renting. Or moving elsewhere. I don't know. I wouldn't spend $200,000 on a 1400 square foot house, that's for sure. But hey, that's just me.

I'm sure you are. Unfortunately, I know how biased your experience can be.

Everyone's experience is biased - including yours. However, I would say that my ownership of a real estate company with a staff of twenty (oh, and did I mention that I also managed a real estate company with 100 realtors on staff?) gjves me a bigger view than most people.

Then you should have checked out Maryland.

Actually, I have checked out Maryland. In fact, I've lived there twice in my adult life. Didn't buy a house there, though - too expensive. I chose to rent instead. I also didn't choose to settle there permanently, in spite of the many things I like about the area. What I specifically DON'T like, and therefore voluntarily choose to avoid like the plague, is the ridiculously high cost of living.

8-10 years ago, our house would have been in the $150-160,000 range.

Well, I don't know where you live in Maryland, but I can tell you one thing - I lived there twenty years ago and I couldn't have bought a 1400 square foot house THEN for $150,000 in the 'burbs.

But hey, I can STILL buy one like you're describing for that price in East Texas!

 

[Shermana]

I asked you before, and I'll ask it again, although it seems obvious that you have no clue: tell us what specifically you think the Democrats did to screw up the economy in the last two years of the Bush administration.

From 2010.

I see you ignored what I said about the radical spending increase which became 3x the average deficit of an average bush year. And I see you also ignored what I said about how the Frannie and Freddie and FDIC policies causing gargantuan problems in the preceding years.

The tale of a Democrat-run Congress | FreedomWorks

• The national debt has increased by 41.8%: When the Democrats gained control of Congress in January of 2007, the national debt was$8.67 trillion. It currently stands at a staggering $12.3 trillion. That is an increase of $3.63 trillion.
• The deficit has nearly tripled: From FY 1996-2007, a Republican controlled Congress ran a cumulative deficit of $1.2 trillion. From FY 2008-2010, a Democrat controlled Congress will run a $3.2 trillion deficit.
• The deficit was higher in FY 2009 than in every year from FY 1996-FY 2007 combined: The deficit in FY 2009 was $1.42 trillion. The cumulative deficit from FY 1996-FY 2007 was $1.25 trillion. The FY 2010 deficit is projected to be $1.349 trillion.
• The debt limit has been increased five times: Congress is currently considering proposals to increase the debt limit for a sixth time from $8.965 trillion to $14.29 trillion. If enacted the debt limit will have increased by 59.4% since the Democrats gained power.
• Annual deficits have turned into monthly deficits: On average, in FY 2009 and FY 2010, Congress will run monthly deficits that exceed the annual deficits of the past 12 years.

When the Democrats gained control of Congress, the CBO projected that the federal government would run a budget surplus of $800 billion between FY 2008-2017. Now, over that same period, the federal government is projected to run a deficit of $7.4 trillion.
This is an $8.2 trillion deterioration of the budget outlook from just three years earlier.

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BudgetRecord_012810.pdf

 

[Kathryn]

That doesn't explain why there are so many houses still up for sale after months or even years on the market. If market forces dictate the price of houses, then these houses should be selling like hotcakes, not sitting empty and unsold for all this time.

Oh, I can explain that easily - the sellers are either upside down on the note and can't afford to write a check at closing, or simply are asking too much for the local market, or both. It's really very simple. Supply and demand.

Every house will sell when and if it's priced right for the market. Period. I mean, unless of course there's some sort of weird disaster which makes the area inhabitable.

Perhaps with new housing, this may be true, but I was talking more about older housing built in the 1960s. The same house on the same lot keeps getting sold and resold at a profit, but nothing new is built. The effect on the economy is the same as if you went out and just printed more money.

That's simply not true.

I sold a house for $30,000 profit. What did I do with that money? I spent much of it - in the local economy.

Also, when I bought the house, many people made money off that transaction. When I renovated it, many more people made money. When I sold it, MORE people made money.

And most of them spent most of that money - locally.

Building is only one of thousands of ways to pump money into an economy.

 

[Copernicus]

From 2010.

No. You are evading the question. You saw a correlation between Democrats taking control of the House and the Senate and the economic blowout at the end of the Bush administration. That was 2006-2008. What did the Democrats do to cause the crash? Please be specific.

I see you ignored what I said about the radical spending increase which became 3x the average deficit of an average bush year. And I see you also ignored what I said about how the Frannie and Freddie and FDIC policies causing gargantuan problems in the preceding years.

The tale of a Democrat-run Congress | FreedomWorks
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BudgetRecord_012810.pdf

These do not refer to any policies initiated by the Democrats between 2006 and 2008 that could have led to the collapse of the economy. Bush wrote all the budgets and signed all the bills that passed. He was in charge of executing government policy. All that the House and Senate could do was pass legislation that he had the power to implement. He actually exercised a great deal of power in how he carried out acts of Congress. Remember the signing statements?

Now, I'll ask you again to back up your claim that it was the Democrats who caused the economic blowout, not the Republicans. What specifically did the Democrats do to cause it? Did they pass any specific law that Bush opposed? Did they override any vetoes? What did they do? Stop trying to weasel out of defending your claim.

 

[Shermana]

Once again, it was a process that began in the early 2000s with Freddie and Fannie and the FDIC flooding the market with loan-money and causing prices to skyrocket, then by 2006 the Demos were blocking attempts to rein in the spending with Filibusters. They popped the Bubble they created by destroying confidence in those who had the Capital.

Fanniegate: Gamechanger For The GOP? | Via Meadia

 

[Revoltingest]

Once again, it was a process that began in the early 2000s with Freddie and Fannie and the FDIC flooding the market with loan-money and causing prices to skyrocket, then by 2006 the Demos were blocking attempts to rein in the spending with Filibusters. They popped the Bubble they created by destroying confidence in those who had the Capital.
Fanniegate: Gamechanger For The GOP? | Via Meadia

It's worse than you think. It began much earlier....with the creation of Fannie & Freddie, capital gains tax changes
in the 80s & systematic currency devaluation leading to continual inflation, regulations banning red lining.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I include RINO and Neo-con "Conservatives" in the "Liberal Government" who support overspending and overtaxing (all the while getting their filthy paws in the spigots). But I stand by my argument that the policies which Democrats and Neo-con RINOs overwhelmingly favor are the reason why the economy is stuck in quicksand, and the only solution is to take a hard shift to the right.

Of course, the only solution, because we have gone so far left, is that we must go far right. Out with the old and in with the...older. That's not a new strategy, and to tell you the truth, it rarely works.

 

[Shermana]

Of course, the only solution, because we have gone so far left, is that we must go far right. Out with the old and in with the...older. That's not a new strategy, and to tell you the truth, it rarely works.

So you're saying further leftist policies like taxing and spending is going to get the nation out of the hole?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So you're saying further leftist policies like taxing and spending is going to get the nation out of the hole?

False dichotomy. You assume that because I am 'against' conservative policies, that I must be for liberal policies. The fact that I did not even mention either the left or the right in my post speaks to that assumption.

 

[Shermana]

False dichotomy. You assume that because I am 'against' conservative policies, that I must be for liberal policies. The fact that I did not even mention either the left or the right in my post speaks to that assumption.

Well let's see how false it is. Care to share your opinion on what direction the country should take in detail that doesn't involve less taxing and less spending (aka going to the right) ?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You said:

I include RINO and Neo-con "Conservatives" in the "Liberal Government" who support overspending and overtaxing (all the while getting their filthy paws in the spigots). But I stand by my argument that the policies which Democrats and Neo-con RINOs overwhelmingly favor are the reason why the economy is stuck in quicksand, and the only solution is to take a hard shift to the right.

I said:

Of course, the only solution, because we have gone so far left, is that we must go far right. Out with the old and in with the...older. That's not a new strategy, and to tell you the truth, it rarely works.

Where does it say left, right, liberal, conservative or any other term you want to use to describe the two halves of the political spectrum?

Well let's see how false it is. Care to share your opinion on what direction the country should take in detail that doesn't involve less taxing and less spending (aka going to the right) ?

If you want to make assumptions, go right ahead. I think the economy is far more complex that needed to balance the budget. The simple fact that a balanced budget doesn't affect the economy nearly as much as you appear to think it does. A simple shift to hard right wing policies will not solve anything. A balanced budget will not solve the problems that you think it will. Does that mean I think we shouldn't cut spending, no. Does that mean I think we should raise taxes, no. It just means I don't think a sweep to the right will solve anything. (and if you read between the lines, neither will a sweep to the left.)

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so are you denying that "leftist policies" involves more taxing and spending and that "Right" policies involve less taxing and less spending? If you're not going to accept basic terms, why object to what I said?

The simple fact that a balanced budget doesn't affect the economy nearly as much as you appear to think it does. A simple shift to hard right wing policies will not solve anything

Why not?

A balanced budget will not solve the problems that you think it will.

Why not?

Does that mean I think we shouldn't cut spending, no

Okay, so you agree with one particular "right" policy....why are you arguing?

Does that mean I think we should raise taxes, no.

Again, looks like you agree with the "right" ideas. Why are you arguing?

It just means I don't think a sweep to the right will solve anything.

Why not?

(and if you read between the lines, neither will a sweep to the left.)

I am reading between the lines, so do you think doing nothing and staying where things are will save things? I asked you for your opinion on solutions, a bit shy to reply on what you think the solution is?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I am reading between the lines, so do you think doing nothing and staying where things are will save things? I asked you for your opinion on solutions, a bit shy to reply on what you think the solution is?

The solution is that something must be done about the student loan bubble that is getting incredibly close to popping. Weren't the republicans in congress raising hell about a possible default by the federal government..or was that the democrats? Yes, I believe it was the democrats...and the republicans shouting about too much debt...which has nearly nothing to do with the economy (unless of course there is no one to buy the debt, which there was). How many students are already defaulting on their loans? The rate is pretty high last time I checked. Cut spending and where do all those federally subsidized loans go? Where do all the federal grants go? Just means more private loans, more interest and...more defaults. Some higher education system.

I know one thing, trickle down economics doesn't work very well. I thought we'd have learned that. There's nothing wrong with cutting overspending, but a hard shift to the right won't trickle money. The top usually takes all of it. Not usually. Always.

 

[Shermana]

The solution is that something must be done about the student loan bubble that is getting incredibly close to popping.

Like?

Weren't the republicans in congress raising hell about a possible default by the federal government..or was that the democrats? Yes, I believe it was the democrats...and the republicans shouting about too much debt...which has nearly nothing to do with the economy (unless of course there is no one to buy the debt, which there was).

Who taught you economics? Inability to pay debt has drastic consequences on international purchasing power of the dollar. Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

How many students are already defaulting on their loans?

As many that realize that College doesn't guarantee success? As many that went in without a backup plan? As many that had false hopes and expectations?

The rate is pretty high last time I checked.

Lots of people who put their faith blindly in the University system indeed.

Cut spending and where do all those federally subsidized loans go?

Ummm, no more loans being given out which are a drain on the economy?

Where do all the federal grants go?

Grants for what exactly?

Just means more private loans, more interest and...more defaults. Some higher education system.

I don't understand the complaint here.

I know one thing, trickle down economics doesn't work very well.

As opposed to?

I thought we'd have learned that.

The 80's were an economic boom despite massive government spending which tripled the debt. So was the 2000-2006 period. And the 90s which had a Republican congress that tangled with Clinton.

There's nothing wrong with cutting overspending,

Is it just me or is there a contradiction here? Overspending on what? Military? I'll see you there and raise you the Discretionary budget.

but a hard shift to the right won't trickle money. The top usually takes all of it. Not usually. Always.

So once again, what's to be done instead?

 

[Kathryn]

If students would stop taking out student loans (which are ALWAYS optional) then perhaps universities would get real and lower their tuition.

Supply and demand.

 

[Magic Man]

At times that is true, but at others housing rises less than inflation. (In fact, housing is currently dropping here.)

Well, yeah, after the housing bubble when prices skyrocketed, they're now coming back down. But if you look at it over the past 10 years, or 30 years, you get a different picture. A couple years is not a big enough sampling.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, yeah, after the housing bubble when prices skyrocketed, they're now coming back down. But if you look at it over the past 10 years, or 30 years, you get a different picture. A couple years is not a big enough sampling.

You should've researched this a little.
Prices here have been falling for a decade.
(I happen to buy appraisals regularly, so I have some painful expertise in this market.)
As we can see in this link, housing prices for the past 40 years fluctuate in their inflation-adjusted value, sometime gaining & sometimes losing value.
The net gain over time is quite low (less than 1% per year.)
http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/