# Far Left or Far Right



## Sirius

Given that today's political climate continues to push both of the major political parties to their polar extremes, when given a choice - who do you think the American voters will choose if given the choice of the extreme left or the extreme right and why?


----------



## Blake Bowden

It doesn't matter. Democrat or Republican, they're both wolves in sheep's clothing.


----------



## RedTemplar

Far left = Communism
Far Right = Fascism


----------



## HKTidwell

Unfortunately/fortunately I've gotten very involved in politics.  I was at dinner the other night with a gentleman that is running for office and the one thing I keep telling people is Conservatism wins.  When I say conservative I'm not referring to the religious right, I'm talking about conservative policies.  These key policies (fiscal responsibility, Freedom of succeeding, Freedom of choice, and constitutional adherence) if discussed in a manner that explains them to people, will always win.  The problem is most people allow for others to shape them, this is a tactic that will create failure every single time.

I actually consider myself far right but not in the manner that most people see the term.  I base it off of the Barry Goldwater Conservative far right mind set.  While most think of this as a religious statement, I'm sorry but decisions based upon ones personal determination of doctrine is never a good thing.  Granted every decision a person makes is based upon their moral compass so it is a fine line.  Morality and spirituality tend to go hand in hand.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Sirius

HKTidwell said:


> The problem is most people allow for others to shape them, this is a tactic that will create failure every single time.
> 
> I actually consider myself far right but not in the manner that most people see the term.  I base it off of the Barry Goldwater Conservative far right mind set.  .


 
I love Barry Goldwater. A true conservative. And not really so far right as a Tom Delay or Rick Perry. 

I agree that most people follow the band wagon, its an American tradition.


----------



## JTM

i've disowned labels like that.  the only thing it serves is to divide based on a label.  

<---refuses to vote.


----------



## TCShelton

blake said:


> It doesn't matter. Democrat or Republican, they're both wolves in sheep's clothing.


 
+1.


----------



## Wingnut

RedTemplar said:


> Far left = Communism
> Far Right = Fascism


 
now that alone could make for a good discussion!  Many scholars now dont believe that Fascism IS to the far right!  In many ways its actually more left in its ideology.


----------



## Sirius

Wingnut said:


> now that alone could make for a good discussion!  Many scholars now dont believe that Fascism IS to the far right!  In many ways its actually more left in its ideology.


 
A  Political Scientist would say fascism is on the far right. You would think left due to govt control of industry, but the others aspects of the ideology (superiority of a race, religious controls, etc) make it a far right government. 

Which according to the poll, most here think that the people would choose a far right government over a far left. Most interesting is that a far right government has never been elected in any country that was prosperous and free of internal turmoil. So does this mean that things are that bad?


----------



## drapetomaniac

Well, when we've had internal "issues" that affect public rights - McCarthyism, Internment camps- those are when we've been closest to the extremes.


----------



## Sirius

drapetomaniac said:


> Well, when we've had internal "issues" that affect public rights - McCarthyism, Internment camps- those are when we've been closest to the extremes.


 
And we learned from those mistakes. Thats why we didn't round up Muslims and Arabs on 9/12/2001.


----------



## TCShelton

Sirius said:


> And we learned from those mistakes. Thats why we didn't round up Muslims and Arabs on 9/12/2001.


 
We didn't need to, when we now have electronic imprisonment.  We may not have rounded them all up, but we sure did "monitor" them nonstop.  Go Patriot Act.. !


----------



## Sirius

TCShelton said:


> We didn't need to, when we now have electronic imprisonment.  We may not have rounded them all up, but we sure did "monitor" them nonstop.  Go Patriot Act.. !


 
Very true. The Patriot Act was a surge right for sure. Most troubling, its still there.


----------



## Sirius

I think the answer to the question lies in economics. If we were to enter a depression like era again, I believe the far right would prevail. But when the economy recovers and the GOP truely becomes the Tea Party, the left is gonna win again and again.


----------



## rhitland

I did not see a choose for either, although our current President is a Democrat I feel is was less an extreme than his opponent and the people voted for the closet middle of the aisle guy the could.  The public seems to be tired of my way or the highway mentality.  Just my 2 cents although I would have been happy with either one of the candidates this last election.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Sirius said:


> And we learned from those mistakes. Thats why we didn't round up Muslims and Arabs on 9/12/2001.


 
Well, we rounded up fewer.  But monitoring kicked in, profiling kicked in and several were taken without public disclosure (secret detentions).  Police departments were recruited for several rounds of "voluntary interviews" for thousands in the Muslim and Arab communities (some departments refused to participate).  Michelle Malkin has repeatedly justified those camps and still remains a normal commentator for folks, so I'm not sure it's considered that fringe to support camps.

We actually don't know how many were rounded up for questioning or disappearing.  We learned we can't do it in public.


----------



## Sirius

rhitland said:


> The public seems to be tired of my way or the highway mentality.


 
As much as I want to believe that's true, bot h parties are not showing signs of moderation but rather extremism. 

So when the election comes in a few years when the choice is between one extreme or the other, who will the people choose?


----------



## TCShelton

Sirius said:


> As much as I want to believe that's true, bot h parties are not showing signs of moderation but rather extremism.
> 
> So when the election comes in a few years when the choice is between one extreme or the other, who will the people choose?


 
I'll choose Libertarian yet again.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Sirius said:


> I think the answer to the question lies in economics. If we were to enter a depression like era again, I believe the far right would prevail. But when the economy recovers and the GOP truely becomes the Tea Party, the left is gonna win again and again.


 
Well - Obama's support escalated drastically when the economy started to tank.  Analysts openly discussed if the economy was good Obama would have received fewer votes and others that the GOP needed a terrorist attack to win.

I do think you hit on something - the GOP is more likely to win when people feel like they already have something to hold on to.  What happened in Latin America is the poor finally started voting and paying attention and because many are still largely an oligarch, the poor outnumbered the wealthy and didn't equate the wealthy with themselves.


----------



## TCShelton

drapetomaniac said:


> Well - Obama's support escalated drastically when the economy started to tank.


 
And what cracks me up is the Republican supporters are blaming their economic losses on Obama.  Almost like Katrina getting blamed on Bush.. !


----------



## Sirius

TCShelton said:


> And what cracks me up is the Republican supporters are blaming their economic losses on Obama.  Almost like Katrina getting blamed on Bush.. !


 
What cracks me up is the GOP formula for handling the economic crisis was to do nothing. Thats real bold leadership. 

As for Katrina, Bush dint cause it, but he damn sure did nothing after it happened. You wont find a Republican in the States of Louisiana that will have  a kind word for Bush in regards to Katrina. Unless maybe  they are in Shreveport.


----------



## drapetomaniac

TCShelton said:


> And what cracks me up is the Republican supporters are blaming their economic losses on Obama.  Almost like Katrina getting blamed on Bush.. !


 
The words "Obama recession" were uttered by tv commentators before he took office.  The GOP has always been smarter strategically. People will forget the origins of this economic disaster and why it happened as they forget a lot of things.  And you can attack any policy for recovery (even though everyone pretty much supported the first round) because when recovery happens you can say "there was never a problem."


----------



## drapetomaniac

Sirius said:


> As for Katrina, Bush dint cause it, but he damn sure did nothing after it happened. You wont find a Republican in the States of Louisiana that will have  a kind word for Bush in regards to Katrina. Unless maybe  they are in Shreveport.


 
Yeah, I think 2% of people might have blamed Bush, if that. But some also think he's a reptilian freemason.  It's a smart talking point that got out into the public.  "Stop blaming Bush for Katrina"  instead of "Stop blaming Bush for Bush's reaction to Katrina" If you respond to every attack on his reaction with "He didn't cause the hurricane" you might eventually believe that's why people were angry.


----------



## TCShelton

Sirius said:


> What cracks me up is the GOP formula for handling the economic crisis was to do nothing. Thats real bold leadership.
> 
> As for Katrina, Bush dint cause it, but he damn sure did nothing after it happened. You wont find a Republican in the States of Louisiana that will have  a kind word for Bush in regards to Katrina. Unless maybe  they are in Shreveport.


 
I was still in LA when Katrina hit.  From what I remember, the LA governor at the time was the main reason Bush did nothing.

I do like the idea of the govt doing nothing about the economic crisis.  My views lean towards the people who broke it fixing it.  Let that stuff run its course so maybe we learn something from it.


----------



## Sirius

TCShelton said:


> I do like the idea of the govt doing nothing about the economic crisis.  My views lean towards the people who broke it fixing it.  Let that stuff run its course so maybe we learn something from it.


 
Easy to say from the sidelines. Would 30% unemployment really be OK?


----------



## TCShelton

Sirius said:


> Easy to say from the sidelines. Would 30% unemployment really be OK?



Since I'm on the sidelines, you tell me?  Do mommy and daddy need to bail us out everytime we make dumb decisions?  Accountability and responsibility have a role here, just like you pointed out earlier in dealing with the issues in Masonry today.


----------



## Sirius

TCShelton said:


> Since I'm on the sidelines, you tell me?  Do mommy and daddy need to bail us out everytime we make dumb decisions?  Accountability and responsibility have a role here, just like you pointed out earlier in dealing with the issues in Masonry today.


 
True. But we're not going to let the kids go sleep in the street to learn their lesson. It wouldn't be the fat cat bankers punished it would be all of us. I don't want to be punished for another man's mistake.


----------



## TCShelton

Sirius said:


> I don't want to be punished for another man's mistake.


 
And I don't want to pay for another man's mistake.

So, our govt. did the right thing by bailing out the banks that screwed us to begin with, and by bailing out failing automakers who produce inferior products, giving the govt shares of ownership?  With that being the other choice, I'd take "do nothing" any day of the week.


----------



## Sirius

TCShelton said:


> And I don't want to pay for another man's mistake.
> 
> So, our govt. did the right thing by bailing out the banks that screwed us to begin with, and by bailing out failing automakers who produce inferior products, giving the govt shares of ownership?  With that being the other choice, I'd take "do nothing" any day of the week.


 
And you would pay $10 for a loaf of bread. If not more. Then what do we do with all the unemployed?


----------



## TCShelton

Riiight.  That's what it would have come to?  Take a look at who really got helped here.  What are we doing with all the unemployed now?  We helped the rich get richer, and the poor are more dependent on the govt.  Nobody has to save, or be responsible for their own finances anymore, because somebody who already is will fund your retirement.  

Why do we keep broken institutions from failing?  Who does that help?  We are another step closer to communism.  How much longer will our current system hold up?  This whole solution of bailouts, stimulus checks, etc., is like polishing a turd.  This last economic 'crisis' is economic evolution happening, and we interfered.  

Your arguement is good, but it is still an accountability issue.  Yeah, high prices suck.  Yeah, unemployment sucks.  Yeah, it all sucks.  And, yeah, we walked right into it.  It is what it is.  Time to pay the piper.


----------



## drapetomaniac

I'm not sure having billionaires and millionaires lose their companies so that they have to scale down to two houses would be enough to shock the system or "show accountability."

I've been laid off a few times from companies that wasted money and resources - I guarantee I was held more accountable for their actions than they were. (I'm faring very well during this recession though)

I agree the rich got helped, but I don't think they got helped more.  When they suffer, they get rid of us first.  They would have kept getting rid of the middle class in order to shore up their preserves.  We effectively slowed the rate that they would have gotten rid of us.


----------



## rhitland

Trickle down effect explained perfectly.. !


----------



## rhitland

except I am tired of being tinkled on.. !


could not help myself


----------



## TCShelton

So this "solution" fixed the problem?  If what Drape is saying, that it has only slowed down the process, who is that really helping?


----------



## drapetomaniac

TCShelton said:


> So this "solution" fixed the problem?  If what Drape is saying, that it has only slowed down the process, who is that really helping?


 
It helped the status quo and the rich long term.  It helped the many, many, many, many families and small communities who have much less to sustain themselves in a crisis in the short term.

I believe in "too big to fail" but I think it is a direct result of a violation of our anti-trust principles.  If you are too big to fail, you're not competing in a normal manner.  We don't want one company to own all banks (but we seem to be ok with 5).

We should have fixed the failures and then broke up the companies so they wouldn't be too big any more.


----------



## TCShelton

drapetomaniac said:


> We should have fixed the failures and then broke up the companies so they wouldn't be too big any more.


 
And until we do, we haven't fixed anything.


----------



## Wingnut

Sirius said:


> A  Political Scientist would say fascism is on the far right. You would think left due to govt control of industry, but the others aspects of the ideology (superiority of a race, religious controls, etc) make it a far right government.
> 
> Which according to the poll, most here think that the people would choose a far right government over a far left. Most interesting is that a far right government has never been elected in any country that was prosperous and free of internal turmoil. So does this mean that things are that bad?


 
Many today are starting to realize by definition facism is the heavy control by the government with the government being the focus and not the people.  See Cambridge Encyclopedia 2008, Wikiepida and other online sources.  at best its a mix of far right and far left.  It also varies by implemenation ie Italy's version was much different from what people refer to as Hitler's version.


----------



## Wingnut

Sirius said:


> Very true. The Patriot Act was a surge right for sure. Most troubling, its still there.


 
and was put in AND renewed by a democrate controlled congress!


----------



## rhitland

If everybody was watching a building burn and they knew you had a bucket of water would you feel obligated to throw it at the fire when millions of eyes are telling you to do so?  Although the water had no real effect your effort is what is being called upon.  I think everybody in Washington would agree they had no idea how to fix the problem of this recession but they had to do something and usually you do what the smartest guy in the room says to do until he turns up a dummy.


----------



## Wingnut

rhitland said:


> I did not see a choose for either, although our current President is a Democrat I feel is was less an extreme than his opponent and the people voted for the closet middle of the aisle guy the could.  The public seems to be tired of my way or the highway mentality.  Just my 2 cents although I would have been happy with either one of the candidates this last election.


 
Seiously?  Closest to the middle?  My way or the highway mentality?  What do you call ramming a health reform bill down our throats that has even been made available to see?  That was engineered by one party without any input accepted from the other party?  Even with a veto proof majority they had to bribe several democrat senators with extras for their states only to get it to pass.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Wingnut said:


> and was put in AND renewed by a democrate controlled congress!


 
Yep - no group ever reduces the powers of the president, because they hope one day their own president will have those powers.  Which is what makes the recent expansion of accepting the Unitary Executive theory so dangerous (and having a Chief Justice who supports it).


----------



## drapetomaniac

TCShelton said:


> And until we do, we haven't fixed anything.


 
We fixed lives, not the system.

Looking at the system of this fiasco, "nothing was done."

Looking at the lives affected at this moment, I can't say the same.

What often happens in these situations is the people recognize what happened and react.  Instead, we keep personally identifying with execs and bankers.


----------



## Wingnut

Sirius said:


> What cracks me up is the GOP formula for handling the economic crisis was to do nothing. Thats real bold leadership.
> 
> As for Katrina, Bush dint cause it, but he damn sure did nothing after it happened. You wont find a Republican in the States of Louisiana that will have  a kind word for Bush in regards to Katrina. Unless maybe  they are in Shreveport.


 
and what exactly SHOULD the Federal government have done?  If they step in they are accused of taking over states rights.  If they dont do anything its the Feds fault.  If the state doesnt ask for help or accept that which was offered its the STATES fault!  I question WHY we are spending billions of dollars to repair a city that lies below sea level and will without a doubt be hit again?  Stupid is as stupid does, and living below sea level on a coast line that is prone to hurricanes is not what Id call an intelligent decision!


----------



## rhitland

I am not saying it is candy land in Washington now nor would I say he close to the middle just closer than most.  Nothing ever gets done up there unless it is cut throat and one party this is how it has been for many years and will take at least half that long to change it if we wanted to.  So to say we are going to come up with anything that the Rep.s and Dem.s would agree on right now would be to say we live in Candy Land.  Right or Wrong that is how the system works at present so we gotta use it.


----------



## Wingnut

Sirius said:


> True. But we're not going to let the kids go sleep in the street to learn their lesson. It wouldn't be the fat cat bankers punished it would be all of us. I don't want to be punished for another man's mistake.


 
The banks were forced to give loans for mortages they couldnt afford and couldnt qualify for.  When the bubble broke the banks failed, thank you Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Just last week Obama was telling banks they need to start lending more money!  To who?  People that cant afford it?  Thats what got this ball rolling to begin with!  The kids no!  When we bought our house, I was told I qualified for a rather substantial loan.  The bank and the realtor was really pushing me to get a house that was way above what I thought was affordable.  My thinking, my military retirement is xxx and I wanted payments right around that not 2 to 3x that!  

An interesting thought and study is to look at the time line of the recession and when it started and took its big dives.  Strange how the correlates to timeframe of the campaign where people were talking about how bad the economy was.  The more people said how bad it was, the worse it got.  Self fulfilling prophecy?   

Bailouts were wrong when Bush did them, they were wrong when Obama did them!


----------



## drapetomaniac

Wingnut said:


> and what exactly SHOULD the Federal government have done?  If they step in they are accused of taking over states rights.  If they dont do anything its the Feds fault.  If the state doesnt ask for help or accept that which was offered its the STATES fault!  I question WHY we are spending billions of dollars to repair a city that lies below sea level and will without a doubt be hit again?  Stupid is as stupid does, and living below sea level on a coast line that is prone to hurricanes is not what Id call an intelligent decision!



On the state refusing help: http://www.snopes.com/katrina/politics/blanco.asp

On "taking over states rights" :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act#Recent_legislative_events

We're building a tower where the last one was knocked down.  Many of our fondest locations are in deserts or ice.  If we read the settling of the west or Texas with the same eye, we can call every pioneer an idiot.


----------



## Wingnut

rhitland said:


> I am not saying it is candy land in Washington now nor would I say he close to the middle just closer than most.  Nothing ever gets done up there unless it is cut throat and one party this is how it has been for many years and will take at least half that long to change it if we wanted to.  So to say we are going to come up with anything that the Rep.s and Dem.s would agree on right now would be to say we live in Candy Land.  Right or Wrong that is how the system works at present so we gotta use it.


 
No they should be working WITH eachother.  When the dems work on a bill and tell the republicans they arent welcome in the room so its written by interns and what appears from their views to be very far left you get a bill that has more PAGES than the Constituion has WORDS and doesnt come close to even trying to fix the real problem.  No medical reform isnt about REFORM, its about control.


----------



## rhitland

Wingnut said:


> The banks were forced to give loans for mortages they couldnt afford and couldnt qualify for.  When the bubble broke the banks failed, thank you Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Just last week Obama was telling banks they need to start lending more money!  To who?  People that cant afford it?  Thats what got this ball rolling to begin with!  The kids no!  When we bought our house, I was told I qualified for a rather substantial loan.  The bank and the realtor was really pushing me to get a house that was way above what I thought was affordable.  My thinking, my military retirement is xxx and I wanted payments right around that not 2 to 3x that!
> 
> An interesting thought and study is to look at the time line of the recession and when it started and took its big dives.  Strange how the correlates to timeframe of the campaign where people were talking about how bad the economy was.  The more people said how bad it was, the worse it got.  Self fulfilling prophecy?
> 
> Bailouts were wrong when Bush did them, they were wrong when Obama did them!



Could not agree more.  I was a Personal Banker for a bank in the good times of lending and we where to push the Adjustable Rate Mortgage which I knew after reading all about it was a scam unless you where flipping the house within 6 months or so and then it was hard to get one so they where utterly useless and a scam in my opinion whihc lead me to selling none and pressure being applied greatly to sell them so I ended up leaving on that note and a few others.  I also when I bought my house got approved for more than I needed and without proof of income which blew my mind.  With banks getting free money right now I can only see us going down that same road.


----------



## drapetomaniac

It seems popular to ignore the balloon payment (usury, loan sharking) that actually sparked this.  People were able to afford their loans before the balloon payments went into effect.  Senator Orrin Hatch at one point pointed out that it had nothing to do with risk to have a payment balloon after someone pays on time for several years.  It should go down.  People could and did afford their sane payments.

And yes, it's their own fault for sitting in a room and closing the deal with professionals in that specific sector on the other side of the table, with billions of dollars invested in additional profiteering.

When I closed on my house I had to sign a piece of paper written in spanish (I'm told it was saying I could understand the English documents).  I had a choice of not signing the document I couldn't read (my last name is Spanish, not my primary language) it or losing the house.  People make stupid decisions, but we got our house.  

A lot of average families signed stupid contracts put into place by professionals, lawyers and bankers sitting on the other side of the table who then made a whole market based ont he balloon (loan shark) payments.

But the fact is, they were able to pay on time until the loan shark portion kicked in.  And did for years.  And it had nothing to do with risk.


----------



## TCShelton

drapetomaniac said:


> We fixed lives, not the system.


 
So the "lives" will go through this again, because the system is still broken.  We threw a ton of money at the problem to keep  people from suffering.  People will still buy stuff they can't afford.  It still boils down to consequences, no matter how ugly they are.  I'm all for raking the bankers over the coals.  I'm all for prison time for most of those guys.  I'm not for paying for their mistakes.  I don't identify with any of them.  I identify with the hours I work, and money those hours earn.  

My point is, the solution we used was not a good one.  If the govt had to interfere, it could/should have done a lot better than it did.


----------



## rhitland

Wingnut said:


> No they should be working WITH eachother.  When the dems work on a bill and tell the republicans they arent welcome in the room so its written by interns and what appears from their views to be very far left you get a bill that has more PAGES than the Constituion has WORDS and doesnt come close to even trying to fix the real problem.  No medical reform isnt about REFORM, its about control.


 
Thus the Dem.s screw up and the Rep.s come and fix it then screw up then the Dem.s come and fix it then screw up, so on and so forth and until we want to fix it it will stay the same but would you not agree something has to get done maybe not on health care but pick your issue and one of them will mess it up.. !


----------



## TCShelton

rhitland said:


> Thus the Dem.s screw up and the Rep.s come and fix it then screw up then the Dem.s come and fix it then screw up, so on and so forth and until we want to fix it it will stay the same but would you not agree something has to get done maybe not on health care but pick your issue and one of them will mess it up.. !


 
+1.


----------



## Wingnut

drapetomaniac said:


> On the state refusing help: http://www.snopes.com/katrina/politics/blanco.asp
> 
> On "taking over states rights" :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act#Recent_legislative_events
> 
> We're building a tower where the last one was knocked down.  Many of our fondest locations are in deserts or ice.  If we read the settling of the west or Texas with the same eye, we can call every pioneer an idiot.


 
Apples and oranges!  Living in the desert people have learned to fend for themselves, they arent asking the government to rebuild them.  If you live on a beach chances are your gonna get swell.  If you live below sea level your going to flood.  If YOU cant overcome your environment you will lose to it.  In the west man learned to find water on his own.  If they didnt they died.  They learned how to work with nature and not against it.  Posse Commitatus was put in place to prevent the National Military from enforcing civil law.  After Katrina the outcry for using the military became so huge they asked to have the law changed to allow the military to assist after a disaster.  Unlike most countries, the US Military isnt the Police.  They arent trained to be and shouldnt be!  Giving the military police powers was a mistake.  While it would be nice to use them for drug and boarder control thats a slippery slope that should be avoided.


----------



## Wingnut

drapetomaniac said:


> It seems popular to ignore the balloon payment (usury, loan sharking) that actually sparked this.  People were able to afford their loans before the balloon payments went into effect.  Senator Orrin Hatch at one point pointed out that it had nothing to do with risk to have a payment balloon after someone pays on time for several years.  It should go down.  People could and did afford their sane payments.
> 
> And yes, it's their own fault for sitting in a room and closing the deal with professionals in that specific sector on the other side of the table, with billions of dollars invested in additional profiteering.
> 
> When I closed on my house I had to sign a piece of paper written in spanish (I'm told it was saying I could understand the English documents).  I had a choice of not signing the document I couldn't read (my last name is Spanish, not my primary language) it or losing the house.  People make stupid decisions, but we got our house.
> 
> A lot of average families signed stupid contracts put into place by professionals, lawyers and bankers sitting on the other side of the table who then made a whole market based ont he balloon (loan shark) payments.
> 
> But the fact is, they were able to pay on time until the loan shark portion kicked in.  And did for years.  And it had nothing to do with risk.


 
When I closed I was told I should have a lawyer there, and I did.  Getting a non-fixed rate mortgage is a recipe for disaster.  Nobody can rationalize it any way other than that.  If interest rates go up so does your payments.  This isnt rocket science just common sense.  Yes I could have gotten a 500k house and I could have made the payments at the time.  Common sense told me that I knew I had x amount from retirement for the rest of my life.  If I kept my payments below that I would ALWAYS have my house paid for.  I can eat by working for McDonalds if I have to.  Risk v Reward and how much risk your comfortable with taking with your family's welfare.


----------



## TCShelton

I think that anytime you sign your name on any dotted line when financing, it is a risk, regardless of whether you can currently afford it, particularly in those "no money down" situations.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Wingnut said:


> Apples and oranges!  Living in the desert people have learned to fend for themselves, they arent asking the government to rebuild them.



Is the government totally uninvolved in maintaining the damns, pipelines and other materials used to put water in the desert and mountain areas?  It's been pointed out that Phoenix has an artificial humidity level because of the lawns and pools.



Wingnut said:


> If you live on a beach chances are your gonna get swell.  If you live below sea level your going to flood.  If YOU cant overcome your environment you will lose to it.  In the west man learned to find water on his own.  If they didnt they died.  They learned how to work with nature and not against it.



Many states, counties and others have been fighting over water and water contracts supplying each other for years.  
People figured out how to live in flood levels too - levees.



Wingnut said:


> Posse Commitatus was put in place to prevent the National Military from enforcing civil law.  After Katrina the outcry for using the military became so huge they asked to have the law changed to allow the military to assist after a disaster.  Unlike most countries, the US Military isnt the Police.  They arent trained to be and shouldnt be!  Giving the military police powers was a mistake.  While it would be nice to use them for drug and boarder control thats a slippery slope that should be avoided.



The US military already had the ability to perform rescue.  People wanted it to "crack down" - which again shows our appetite.   People still want them on our border even though an American civilian was killed the first time.  (After the doem was emptied the National Guard when searching for bodies - anyone remember how many were found versus reported?)


----------



## Sirius

rhitland said:


> Thus the Dem.s screw up and the Rep.s come and fix it then screw up then the Dem.s come and fix it then screw up, so on and so forth and until we want to fix it it will stay the same but would you not agree something has to get done maybe not on health care but pick your issue and one of them will mess it up.. !


 
This is why I started this thread. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, there is a balance that is eventually found. Between the left and the right we should end up in the middle with compromise between those who want limited govt and those who believe in activist government. One will nerve do away with the other. They will always be seeking balance. It's pointless to be angry at the other side. But rather its constructive t find common ground and compromise.


----------



## TCShelton

Sirius said:


> But rather its constructive t find common ground and compromise.


 
Hmm, or a good independent party.. !


----------



## drapetomaniac

Wingnut said:


> When I closed I was told I should have a lawyer there, and I did.  Getting a non-fixed rate mortgage is a recipe for disaster.  Nobody can rationalize it any way other than that.  If interest rates go up so does your payments.  This isnt rocket science just common sense.  Yes I could have gotten a 500k house and I could have made the payments at the time.  Common sense told me that I knew I had x amount from retirement for the rest of my life.  If I kept my payments below that I would ALWAYS have my house paid for.  I can eat by working for McDonalds if I have to.  Risk v Reward and how much risk your comfortable with taking with your family's welfare.


 
That's not common sense - that's education.  I haven't read the book yet, but "Rich Dad Poor Dad" is a book which is said to lay out what is put down from generation to generation. If you stopped the average american and asked for an explanation of interest rates - do you think we'll get a thorough answer?

I'm a strong proponent of of requiring a credit class in high school before graduation or GED.  

I've heard nothing showing the average value of the houses foreclose on was anywhere near $500k (except the wealthy foreclosures easily eclipse and skew the numbers - I lived in a one room apartment where the average property value was 4$mil because of nearby houses)


----------



## drapetomaniac

TCShelton said:


> My point is, the solution we used was not a good one.  If the govt had to interfere, it could/should have done a lot better than it did.


 
I absolutely agree.  The cycle will be repeated and has been several time.  There is a strong theory that is repeated validated that the US needs a poverty class to "succeed".

But I would much rather keep families off the street "first."  We can skin the cats after. But it would be ideal to do both at the same time before amnesia kicks in.

I think people look at those jobs lost as abstract numbers instead of people.


----------



## RedTemplar

Wingnut said:


> now that alone could make for a good discussion!  Many scholars now dont believe that Fascism IS to the far right!  In many ways its actually more left in its ideology.


 
The sad fact is that most people do not know the difference between a conservative and a liberal. What is more sad is they do not care.


----------



## Blake Bowden

RedTemplar said:


> What is more sad is they do not care.


 
Yup


----------



## Wingnut

drapetomaniac said:


> I've heard nothing showing the average value of the houses foreclose on was anywhere near $500k (except the wealthy foreclosures easily eclipse and skew the numbers - I lived in a one room apartment where the average property value was 4$mil because of nearby houses)


 
What I said was I could have gotten a 500k mortgage but I would have lost it when I got laid off.  By NOT living outside my means I had no worries other than eating.    Why do we have to teach someone in school that if you make $75k a year you cant afford a house that has payments of 3k a month + food + a rising payment if the intrest rates change + insurance + car?  That to me should be common sense! if your paying out more in bills than your getting in you will eventual run out of money and be in trouble!


----------



## drapetomaniac

RedTemplar said:


> The sad fact is that most people do not know the difference between a conservative and a liberal. What is more sad is they do not care.


 
I would have the opposite view.  I wish they cared less.

With a handful of labels, you can have two men on the street hating each other just by knowing that label.  The idea the world can just be divided into two ideas is very traditional, but the root of an extreme number of problems.  It's focused on how we can best _disagree_.


----------



## Wingnut

Conservative - helps people with THEIR money

Liberal - Helps people with YOUR money


----------



## Sirius

RedTemplar said:


> The sad fact is that most people do not know the difference between a conservative and a liberal. What is more sad is they do not care.


 
Voter apathy is absolutely  a big problem and a contributing factor to the polarization. The more polarized the politics gets, the less people care.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Wingnut said:


> What I said was I could have gotten a 500k mortgage but I would have lost it when I got laid off.!


 
When the housing hit us - it led to layoffs because faux investments were affected.

In other words, the people who started losing their houses lost them because they were still employed but their payments tripled.  The payments tripled,  the banks foreclosed, lowering the value of those faux investments, affecting the banks, affecting business credit leading to layoffs.



Wingnut said:


> Why do we have to teach someone in school that if you make $75k a year you cant afford a house that has payments of 3k a month + food + a rising payment if the intrest rates change + insurance + car? That to me should be common sense! if your paying out more in bills than your getting in you will eventual run out of money and be in trouble!



Why not?  "Common sense" indicates the vast majority of individuals could explain interest rates and good budgeting and credit scores.  Who here thinks most can?

The banks called these risky loans - but they only lost on them when they tripled payments.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Wingnut said:


> Conservative - helps people with THEIR money
> 
> Liberal - Helps people with YOUR money


 
Conservative - only sees things in terms of money..?

I used to tell people you had to choose between a party focused on civil liberties and one based on your pocket book.

It's asinine that any of these principles are dedicated to one party over another.  In reality, only the extremists of any side are.  If you left these labels aside and discussed public education, health, defense.  A lot more can be done. 

Right now it's an industry to demonize. Blogs and radio have openly discussed that they can only succeed when there is an active enemy.  That's why they become more and more shrill and try to reduce complex policies to a single label that will lead to hatred of your fellow American.


----------



## Blake Bowden

Excellent point.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> Conservative - only sees things in terms of money..?



i understand where they come from.  when you say "only money" i say, "only?"

"money" is not simple paper, or numbers in a bank account.  it is a transitory medium allowing you to turn your hard work, blood, sweat, and tears into something else.  without it, all you have is your hard work, with which most of us nowadays would surely perish.  

that being said, i just responded to your use of the word "only," not really any other part.  i'm pigeon picking, i suppose.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> "money" is not simple paper, or numbers in a bank account.  it is a transitory medium allowing you to turn your hard work, blood, sweat, and tears into something else.  without it, all you have is your hard work, with which most of us nowadays would surely perish.


 
Yeah, that can be the case.  Or I can work hard for the right company and get massive more amounts for failure (as we are seeing now and has been a historical trend) or I can inherit some and work a little and fail into more money.

I get it, but it's disturbing when people ignore every other issue because millionaires got taxed some.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> Or I can work hard for the right company and get massive more amounts for failure.


 and i would say that because you fulfilled a contract, you get every bit of it.  no man has the right to take away more from you because of how they perceive the job was done, unless it was in the contract, and then only the people involved have that right.

a dismissal as "got taxed some" isn't really accurate, i don't believe, either.  when we're talking 39% federal income tax (after the GWB tax-cuts expire), then another 8.5% because of medicare/social security/etc, then whatever the state takes, you're left with around half.  then you get sales taxes, title taxes, property taxes... "some" doesn't seem to accurately describe the whole story.

regardless, it's extremely clear that for a republic to function, a law must be appropriated equally... effect all people equally.  this is reflected in debates about civil rights.  you simply cannot make a law that treats people differently.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> and i would say that because you fulfilled a contract, you get every bit of it.  no man has the right to take away more from you because of how they perceive the job was done, unless it was in the contract, and then only the people involved have that right.



I agree - and bonuses have been recorded for years to be paid out regardless of performance.  And they have been expanding extremely far beyond the wages of average workers.  The "bonus" complaint only recently coalesced but has been tracked for year.  
It has moved from a performance based system to a system of a bunch of guys taking care of each other.



JTM said:


> a dismissal as "got taxed some" isn't really accurate, i don't believe, either.  when we're talking 39% federal income tax (after the GWB tax-cuts expire), then another 8.5% because of medicare/social security/etc, then whatever the state takes, you're left with around half.  then you get sales taxes, title taxes, property taxes... "some" doesn't seem to accurately describe the whole story.



I think my "some" is the idea of the shifts creating such drastic reactions.  The rich's tax rates are about to go back before GWB.  How many of the middle class and unemployed protesting taxes are affected by that?

This is another economic trend preceding the current recession not talked about
"While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent."
"The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

"A recently released research paper from the University of California shows that in 2007, the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages – nearly twice as much as in 2000. The top 10 percent of American earners pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that, according to the research paper, “is higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of the stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s.”"
http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2009/09/03/was-2000-2007-the-u-s-’s-new-gilded-age-try-platinum/


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> I agree - and bonuses have been recorded for years to be paid out regardless of performance.  And they have been expanding extremely far beyond the wages of average workers.  The "bonus" complaint only recently coalesced but has been tracked for year.
> It has moved from a performance based system to a system of a bunch of guys taking care of each other.
> 
> 
> I think my "some" is the idea of the shifts creating such drastic reactions.  The rich's tax rates are about to go back before GWB.  How many of the middle class and unemployed protesting taxes are affected by that?
> 
> This is another economic trend preceding the current recession not talked about
> "While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.
> 
> The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent."
> "The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
> 
> "A recently released research paper from the University of California shows that in 2007, the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages – nearly twice as much as in 2000. The top 10 percent of American earners pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that, according to the research paper, “is higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of the stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s.”"
> http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2009/09/03/was-2000-2007-the-u-s-’s-new-gilded-age-try-platinum/


 okay, but we still have no right to tax them.  those companies moving from a performance based system to a bunch of guys taking care of each other are failing, and were bailed out.  

no matter how much you tax "the rich," they will get it back.  they aren't rich because they are lucky, they are rich because they know how to make money.  take it away from them, and they'll just take it back.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> no matter how much you tax "the rich," they will get it back.  they aren't rich because they are lucky, they are rich because they know how to make money.  take it away from them, and they'll just take it back.


 
Yep - which is about every argument I hear from them.  If you do that, we'll do X which will punish you.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> Yep - which is about every argument I hear from them.  If you do that, we'll do X which will punish you.


 i don't think them "taking their money back after being taken from them" is punishment.

if anything is punishment, i think it's the punishment for being more successful.  "if you earn a ton of money, i'm going to tax you more" = punishment.


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> i don't think them "taking their money back after being taken from them" is punishment.



But that is how it is blatantly phrased.  If you do X, we will retain our growing profits no matter what.  It's happening with credit card reform.  Companies are being forced to have fairer dealings, but that means loss of profits.



JTM said:


> if anything is punishment, i think it's the punishment for being more successful.  "if you earn a ton of money, i'm going to tax you more" = punishment.


 
I  think that's a simplification too.  The wealth disparity numbers I posted aren't small.  You have to wonder whose earnings were squelched first in our current cycle.


----------



## JTM

drapetomaniac said:


> But that is how it is blatantly phrased.  If you do X, we will retain our growing profits no matter what.  It's happening with credit card reform.  Companies are being forced to have fairer dealings, but that means loss of profits.


so, "if you make more money, I'm going to take a higher percentage" isn't punishment?



> I  think that's a simplification too.  The wealth disparity numbers I posted aren't small.  You have to wonder whose earnings were squelched first in our current cycle.



so we can agree that it's a cycle, then?


----------



## drapetomaniac

JTM said:


> so we can agree that it's a cycle, then?


 
Absolutely, but there's only organized concern and momentum for one side of it.


----------



## Wingnut

Graduated Taxes are a disincentive to work and produce.  The way things are now and the taxes we pay, I would actually make MORE money if my wife stopped working and went on the dole.  I have no incentive to take a raise or bonus because it raises me up to a newer and higher  tax bracket.   


_Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels _
   1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
*   2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.*
   3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
   4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
   5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
   6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
   7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
   8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
   9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[8]


----------



## JTM

so you would say that the people organizing to get those taxes raised are in fact not organized?


----------



## jonesvilletexas

I hope far right.


----------



## C_Cabra

Far right if people had to choose between either the Far left or Far right.  (Although I feel the majority of people really fall somewhere in the middle and wish they had representatives that would reflect that)

The reason I suggest that people would choose the far right over the left is simple.  The majority of people don't want to share their "things" with everyone else.


----------



## Traveling Man

Neither:

I think the ruling class elite from both sides of the isles are in for the surprise of their careers.
I think the electorate is finally fed up with all of the double dealing and the lack of true representation of their wishes. I think the common man has finally had enough of the bullying by special interest groups and lobbyist that do not represent their views. I think there will be changes afoot in the state and federal levels.
I think the days of marginalization and intimidation of the voters in â€œfly over countryâ€ have come to an end.

They will finally â€œget itâ€; they should be afraid of us, not vice versa.
We should curtail our lifestyles while they live and rule like drunken lords? I think not.


----------

