Holy Hell...470,000 job loss in June, national 9.5% - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

jet57 · #61 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

I'll just remind everyone congress has been democratic for the last 2.4 years........where as the holy of the holies balanced budget was under what congress? Enjoy the paradox...clinton great, rep congress shit, bush shit, dem congress great....and here we are.uh huh.

Clinton was for NAFTA, lower tarriffs, IT, and the dot com explosion didn't hurt him either. The corporate loved him.

Slon · #62 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

Okay john. I'll explain it and be brief.

When the bank takes a house, it will get rid of it at almost any price. Banks don't want to own the real estate. They don't "loan to own". By the time they have foreclosed and sold the house, they have lost a minimum of 20% of the original value. (That's why they like to see 20% down so the buyer losses, not the bank...see how that works?) So it's called a fire sale. When your neighbors house sells for less than they paid for it, the value of your house goes down as well. Now, one foreclosure in your town isn't going to bring down the values in the whole town. But 50 or 500 will and thousands devastate the market. The problem was that a lot of people stopped paying their mortgages. It snowballed into what we have today. Derivatives have nothing to do with the value of homes. People buying and selling the homes determine the value. Banks, insurance companies and investment companies have nothing to do with that. They only facilitate a purchase that has already been agreed upon.

And it's not so much that there was a tiny fluke and we're having problems now, it's that the problems were discovered now. Many of the people who took the loans had no way of paying them then just like they can't pay them now. It's just at the time of the loan, the assumption was that the loan could be paid back (as the contract was signed for the repayment), and that the money actually existed. Now, we find out that there is no money, but there wasn't any money back then, either. And this is grounded in piss-poor contract enforcement.

Doctor Who · #63 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

And it's not so much that there was a tiny fluke and we're having problems now, it's that the problems were discovered now. Many of the people who took the loans had no way of paying them then just like they can't pay them now. It's just at the time of the loan, the assumption was that the loan could be paid back (as the contract was signed for the repayment), and that the money actually existed. Now, we find out that there is no money, but there wasn't any money back then, either. And this is grounded in piss-poor contract enforcement.

Meh. Maybe. It's more of the banks, at the behest of the govt, relaxed their underwriting standards in order to give low income families the ability to buy a new home. Many paid on time...enough didn't.

Slon · #64 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

Meh. Maybe. It's more of the banks, at the behest of the govt, relaxed their underwriting standards in order to give low income families the ability to buy a new home. Many paid on time...enough didn't.

Yes. They relax lending procedures and then don't even bother enforcing contract law. Of course you'll have many people borrowing with no intention to repay.

daddio · #65 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

I think it is better for all spending to be in the budget.
That way it can be more easily tracked and reduced.
Obama claims he will reduce the budget to being balanced again.

separate is better as it stands out instea of disappearing in the forest. tracking is the same either way.

when has government gone own ? not since 1955. there is zero reason to believe him.

smurf · #66 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

hows that working out in Zimbabwe ?

where do you keep your Iraqi oil ?

You are correct to infer that it is not a good idea. It will eventually cause massive inflation here in the U.S. as well, but the current debt load will not bankrupt the U.S. government. They will inflate it away. Zimbabwe didn't borrow in Zimbabwean dollars, they borrowed in other currencies which they could not print themselves. The U.S. is unique because we, and we alone, issue the global reserve currency. That is most likely in the process of ending, however.

My glib answer is: in Iraq, under U.S. military protection, with a properly installed puppet government to lend an air of legitimacy. But what exactly are you asking, in case I misunderstood you?

smurf · #67 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

I see. So we could print dollars we don't have to pay off debt that we can't payoff. Not sure how that works. Obama can however, tax the crap out of us to pay off his schemes. That is the likely scenario.

You and I don't have the dollars, because if we print them up, it is counterfeiting. The U.S. government, on the other hand, can and will print new dollars to pay for things. Do a google search on the term "quantitative easing". In my opinion, Obama will never be able to tax enough to pay off the national debt. Since the U.S. went off of the gold standard, it is my belief that ever increasing debt has been the goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

So was Bush a puppet also and if so, how did the truly powerful let him fuck up?

Yes, he was a puppet. He didn't fuck anything up. We have secured the third largest oil reserve on the planet. Mission accomplished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

No doubt we went into Iraq mostly for oil. Not necessarily for Iraq's oil but more to make sure the region didn't fall into the hands of Saddam. But I hope you're right about this.

Yes, for oil. To secure Iraq's, to bolster our security of Saudi Arabia's, and probably to secure Iran's as well, in the end. No, we didn't care about Saddam, he was a tool that we used. We care about Russia and China. They are true potential foes, not Saddam.

smurf · #68 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

The way it works is that you don't tax this generation, but just pass it on to the next one.
But it may work, if we can get the economy back up to productivity so that the next generation will be able to afford it.
It is sort of debt reduction by inflation.

Yes, Bush was probably also a puppet, in which case what he did was intentional.
But you should not be happy about getting Iraqi oil, because the people pulling the strings are not going to share that with us.
We are going to have to pay more than $5 a gallon for it, just like the rest of the world.
It would be better to hope that Bush as just a personal screw up, and that neither he nor Obama were puppets.
Then we would not control Iraqi oil, but would have normal world competition equal access, which is much better than cheating.
That is the only scenario were we as individuals have any hope.

The way that it works is that in the future, today's debt is paid off with highly inflated dollars. There is no way that today's debt even comes close to being repaid with dollars that have even a semblance of the purchasing power of today's dollars.

Trust me, if you actually live in the Pacific NW, you should be very happy that we control Iraqi oil, and not Russia or China. You can't fight wars without oil. Its price in paper dollars (that we print at will) is inconsequential. If we were on an even footing with the rest of the world, you would be living in a hut with a dirt floor. Cheating is better.

smurf · #69 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

You forget that we also only own things in dollars, so if the dollar become just paper, the Chinese, Japanese, etc., can come in with truckloads of it, and buy up everything.
When we start financing our national debt to foreign countries, we risk ownership of our local assets.
Printing more currency and making it worth less, is the last thing we should want to do.
It is the country with the strongest currency that everyone invests in, and whose assets then are automatically worth the most.

We may have "secured Iraqi oil", but not for us.
It is probably more likely that people like Chalabi, Sadr, bin Laden, and Israel who will benefit the most.
It is unlikely we will ever get any advantage from it at the gasoline pump.
We were probably manipulated and taken advantage of.
Saddam still in power would have been better for us.
At least he kept oil prices steady and reasonable, and had nothing against us.
People like Chalabi, Sadr, bin Laden, and Israel, would prefer to see us go under if it would help them.

You don't grasp completely. You should ask the Chinese how their purchase of Unocal is faring.

smurf · #70 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

So I guess if you get the clap, and the doctor prescribes anti-biotics, and it doesn't go away the first day, you stop taking the pills, because they obviously aren't working..................

That may be the first thing that you've posted that I have actually agreed with, goober. You compared Obama to gonorrhea.

JDJarvis · #71 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

. When your neighbors house sells for less than they paid for it, the value of your house goes down as well.
.

loans and property values can be a strange thing. I applied for a loan to put a sizable extension on my house, they said "sure you can have that much just not to put into a house in your neighborhood, if you'd like that much even 30 or 40% more we'd cover it but just not there houses in your neighborhood aren't generally worth that much."

Of course now with things as bad as they are I've got someone offering to do the work for much less with a smaller crew, too bad I'm busy competing with people in India now who can charge 20-30% of my rates to almost do what I can do.

I'm afraid the U.S. will not bounce back until the economy adjusts itself so that the equivalent of $7.00-$10.00 an hour or so is an okay wage again.

Danny · #72 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

No story yet - labor dept released data just now.
470,000 people lost their job in June, national unemployment 9.5%.

Damn

Bush and the Republicans really ran the train off a cliff big time (even more than we thought) it seems.

Obama is only human and can only do so much. Imagine if he hadn't passed the stimulus.What I find laughable is Republicans attempting to attack the guy because the biggest depression since the 20s hasn't cleared up in a few months. Not even an idiot would believe that was possible and you all must be grinning behind your screens while posting it.

JDJarvis · #73 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

Bush and the Republicans really ran the train off a cliff big time (even more than we thought) it seems.

Obama is only human and can only do so much. Imagine if he hadn't passed the stimulus.What I find laughable is Republicans attempting to attack the guy because the biggest depression since the 20s hasn't cleared up in a few months. Not even an idiot would believe that was possible and you all must be grinning behind your screens while posting it.

The thing is we can "only imagine" we really don't know what would have happened. We don't even really know what is happening now.

Rakkasan · #74 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

Bullshit. The Cap and Trade if full of takebacks and passthrus which all the Republicans are conveniently ignoring totally. It will cost an average family an estimated $245 annually according to a bipartisan committee that did a study, but I guess that's just too much to keep on being able to breathe the air.

NJ Tax Revolution: Cap and Trade Tax will cost average family $3,900 poer year: MIT

The cost of cap-and-trade: What MIT really thinks | Grist

here he says $800 instead of the original $3100

FactCheck.org: Cap-and-Trade Cost Inflation

and here we go with the CBO saying up to $1600

The Cap and Tax Fiction - WSJ.com

average british citizen pays extra $1300 a year

so in the end i do not think i am the one who is bullshitting jd

Rakkasan · #75 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

Bush and the Republicans really ran the train off a cliff big time (even more than we thought) it seems.

Obama is only human and can only do so much. Imagine if he hadn't passed the stimulus.What I find laughable is Republicans attempting to attack the guy because the biggest depression since the 20s hasn't cleared up in a few months. Not even an idiot would believe that was possible and you all must be grinning behind your screens while posting it.

i just wonder if chiawalla's like yourself will ever find fault in the man

he has already claimed that unemployment wont go above 8% it clearly has, will he be held accountable ever for what he says?????

when cap and trade starts hurting americans will he be held accountable???

i know since no policy he does ever effects you danny , you will probably say no, but i hope someday some of the water carrying obamites like yourself will at least stop being so disingenuous in regards to this man and hold him under the same microscope you held bush

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode