More bad economic news

Originally posted by dadudemon
I commented on this, sort of.

If Obama tried to strong arm in this current setting, he'd become the most impotent president in modern history.

It would have been nice had Obama closed down Guantanimo and setup a withdrawal plan much more steep for Iraq.

How long do you think Republicans could keep filibustering for? When has a filibuster ever stopped a bill (I don't mean bills where they backed down on the threat of a filibuster). If republicans actually spent their days rambling off speeches, it wouldn't look bad for Obama; it would look bad for republicans. They would look foolish and obstructionist filibustering on a 40-60. Obama never calls them on it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Agreed on all points except that: I don't think his advisor's are off in their advice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What are his recourses? He can't veto something that will never get passed. That's been thep problem.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think that right now, he is the most impotent president in modern history. Because he lets the republicans have their way in every dispute. If he strong armed it, at least he'd come off neutral to me. Right now he's all bad.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How long do you think Republicans could keep filibustering for? When has a filibuster ever stopped a bill (I don't mean bills where they backed down on the threat of a filibuster). If republicans actually spent their days rambling off speeches, it wouldn't look bad for Obama; it would look bad for republicans. They would look foolish and obstructionist filibustering on a 40-60. Obama never calls them on it.

They could do it until the life of the bill expired, obviously. Why do you think we have the system of just standing up and saying you will filibuster? It's cause it wastes too much time to talk a bill to death. It's actually quite easy to talk for long periods of time about nothing. That's how they got elected. awesome

Originally posted by King Kandy
You think guys like Tim Geithner are giving good advice? I don't see how people advising him to cut medicare, extend bush tax cuts, or remove the public option from his bill, are giving good advice. On a personal basis, I would vote for him in 2012 if he did these steps. As is I will probably not. So that is at least one vote his advisors have lost him. I suppose in 2012 we will see how successful he is. I think he will win in 2012, but it won't be because anyone believes in his leadership. It will be because the republicans fail to field a real candidate.

Yes, Tim can and does give out good advice. You think he doesn't? Don't you think that is a bit one-track minded to say he doesn't give out good advice? Bush-Tax-Cuts: Obama had to appease in order to get something from the GOP, remember? It's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not as simple as strong-arm politics, like you suggest. The public option was removed because he couldn't get enough backing as some Dems will NEVER support that type of option and pretty much none of the Republicans will either.

Also, appeasing a thinking, intelligent, and politically educated voter, is DEFINITELY not who they are aiming to attract votes from. You don't win people elections, bro. Sorry. It's the masses of morons that cared about Casey Anthony, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, watch Jersey Shore, etc. These are the majority voters. (Yes, that includes old people.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
I already talked about this. Rather than backing down at the threat of filibuster, he should demand that congress bring it to vote and allow the republicans to actually execute the filibuster. I think it would make the republicans lose credibility then, not him, and he would eventually get what he wants because filibusters aren't infinitely sustainable.

You think so? I don't. I think it would just delay them from getting any real work done and it would make both sides look like whiners that didn't get any work done.

Originally posted by King Kandy
? This is supposed to be the most qualified person in the entire country.

WOW! Really, I mean how are we supposed to get the "most qualified" person with an election? 😱

I like Jersey Shore.

One tiny aspect where I support the imposition of Jewish Old Testament law on the public where I don't think I'm going to get any argument from anyone on this forum- All debts should be forgiven after 7 years.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
All debts should be forgiven after 7 years.

student loans? mortgages? other major bank loans for cars and things people need?

I see the benefit of such an idea, but with that caveat, no bank/institution would give the loans many people need to go to school or buy a house

Originally posted by inimalist
student loans? mortgages? other major bank loans for cars and things people need?

I see the benefit of such an idea, but with that caveat, no bank/institution would give the loans many people need to go to school or buy a house

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well the original biblical intent of that law is that the debt is forgiven after 7 years of faithful payments, not after 7 years of not paying. I don't think this would hurt anything but corporate profits if it were applied to credit cards for example.

oh, sure, but aren't mortgages normally like, 10-15 years? or in the case of student loans, don't you often have more then 7 years before they require you to start paying?

I just don't think a blanket "no debt after X" is really worthwhile, as exceptions will have to be made in almost every case. I think it would actually make it harder for lower/middle income people to get homes or education, because banks wouldn't be as willing to loan, or, if there is a 7 year limit, poorer people wont be able to pay off the rate of a 7 year mortgage, imho at least.

something does need to be done about credit cards, yes... pay-pal is helping, but I look at it more as a consumer side thing. There are students at my school who buy their morning coffees with credit card (we've all been there, I'm just saying), and the average credit debt people have is ridiculous. Is it a symptom of a loss in the ability of people to afford what they need? sure it is. Is is also a symptom of people being irresponsible with their money, yes, most assuredly.

idk, tough issue, and my "look, all we need to do is change cultural values and the way people think about money" is a little on the Utopian side, I admit, but I think your plan might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In principle, I don't see anything wrong with being able to voluntarily get into a long term loan with a bank.

I think people should pay the debts they borrow. If you can't afford to take out the money then don't do it. People take out money and refuse to pay it back, or file bankruptcy and make no effort to pay anything back show a sign of a morality issue.

I've had customers at times order services and then try to weasel out of them. Which is why I changed my payment services (also for the convenience). I want my money for the service my company performed and so would anyone else.

Also people who don't pay back loans hurt everyone (like the mortgage crisis). Somebody's paying for the difference and it is all of us. In the forms of higher taxes, higher interest rates, harder time getting loans or applying for mortgages (to those who are actually responsible). It ends up hurting everyone. People need to look at their finances closer, especially with student loans since they can't be forgiven. Those who go and take out the loans and then find themselves making $12 an hour may be disappointed when the they have debt close to or over 6 figures.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think people should pay the debts they borrow. If you can't afford to take out the money then don't do it. People take out money and refuse to pay it back, or file bankruptcy and make no effort to pay anything back show a sign of a morality issue.

I've had customers at times order services and then try to weasel out of them. Which is why I changed my payment services (also for the convenience). I want my money for the service my company performed and so would anyone else.

Also people who don't pay back loans hurt everyone (like the mortgage crisis). Somebody's paying for the difference and it is all of us. In the forms of higher taxes, higher interest rates, harder time getting loans or applying for mortgages (to those who are actually responsible). It ends up hurting everyone. People need to look at their finances closer, especially with student loans since they can't be forgiven. Those who go and take out the loans and then find themselves making $12 an hour may be disappointed when the they have debt close to or over 6 figures.

I agree, but only if the lender wasn't predatory or disingenuous or engaging in loan sharking.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I agree, but only if the lender wasn't predatory or disingenuous or engaging in loan sharking.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
One tiny aspect where I support the imposition of Jewish Old Testament law on the public where I don't think I'm going to get any argument from anyone on this forum- All debts should be forgiven after 7 years.

I disagree. I think it should be 'interest free' after 7 years of faithful payments. That would be nice.

And no more than 10% APR. No variable rates.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Possibly. If the person was elderly or mentally disabled I could understand. But people who go and take a loan out and have the paperwork in front of them should read before they sign or go somewhere else. Everybody has to be responsible for their financial well being. Americans are especially bad and greedy when it comes to this.

those forms are written in such, deliberately, obtuse and confusing ways that even regulators have said they have no idea what they say

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I think it should be 'interest free' after 7 years of faithful payments. That would be nice.

And no more than 10% APR. No variable rates.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They could do it until the life of the bill expired, obviously. Why do you think we have the system of just standing up and saying you will filibuster? It's cause it wastes too much time to talk a bill to death. It's actually quite easy to talk for long periods of time about nothing. That's how they got elected. awesome

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, Tim can and does give out good advice. You think he doesn't? Don't you think that is a bit one-track minded to say he doesn't give out good advice? Bush-Tax-Cuts: Obama had to appease in order to get something from the GOP, remember? It's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not as simple as strong-arm politics, like you suggest. The public option was removed because he couldn't get enough backing as some Dems will NEVER support that type of option and pretty much none of the Republicans will either.

Also, appeasing a thinking, intelligent, and politically educated voter, is DEFINITELY not who they are aiming to attract votes from. You don't win people elections, bro. Sorry. It's the masses of morons that cared about Casey Anthony, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, watch Jersey Shore, etc. These are the majority voters. (Yes, that includes old people.)

Bush got more down with a republican minority in congress than Obama did with a democratic supermajority. Any way you cut it that is a breathtaking failure of leadership. Republicans steamroll with the slightest advantage while democrats can get the biggest advantages around and not get anything done. And you are trying to tell me that the democrats are genius politicians?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You think so? I don't. I think it would just delay them from getting any real work done and it would make both sides look like whiners that didn't get any work done.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Can you give me any examples of important bills that were defeated that way? I already offered an example of what happens when its taken to filibuster. When segregationists filibustered civil rights bills, they exhausted their filibuster long before the bill itself expired. There are tons of examples of how to beat a filibuster so its hardly like some invincible weapon that democrats were helpless against.

Are you really asking me to teach you American Government history? 😬

I am not up for it. facepalm But if you want a history of the filibuster:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=History+of+the+US+Filibuster

Here's a relavant link:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1933802,00.html

Originally posted by King Kandy
Bush got more down with a republican minority in congress than Obama did with a democratic supermajority. Any way you cut it that is a breathtaking failure of leadership. Republicans steamroll with the slightest advantage while democrats can get the biggest advantages around and not get anything done. And you are trying to tell me that the democrats are genius politicians?

Bush's limited success can be partially attributed to 9/11 and other terror events that occured after.

Additionally, part of Bush's success can be blamed on the same problem we have now: a fractured democratic party.

Lastly, advisors are not politicians: they are advisors. 😉

Originally posted by King Kandy
As opposed to now? What "real work" have they done lately? I suppose bills have been passed, but they're so awful that i'd rather they didn't.

The "work" being done is usually a messy compromise that has been heavily amended by the GOP before they will pass it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The torah already commands jews not to charge interest on their fellow jews... so that would have been redundant.

This is not about the Torah, but DJ's suggestion. I don't like his suggestion, so I came up with my own.

Jew on Jew actions be damned in my suggestion. They can operate how ever they want to when giving each other money.

I read that Obama said they have to sort it out in 24 - 36 hours "or else"
or else what?

I missed that bit:

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I read that Obama said they have to sort it out in 24 - 36 hours "or else"
or else what?

I missed that bit:

Spankings. Painful ones. 😐

Originally posted by inimalist
those forms are written in such, deliberately, obtuse and confusing ways that even regulators have said they have no idea what they say

It goes back to what I said about Americans and financial literacy. Most have little savings or anything for retirement. Most don't understand interest or the fact that a 0% interest loan goes up dramatically after a specified period of time, so they just sign the loan.

People who do research (especially on a purchase that large) know that by default. Why anybody would take out large sums of money and not know what they're getting into is beyond.