US Elections 2010

[justinstrife]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alaska_senate

More proof that the Tea Party doesn't bow down to the Republican/Washington Establishment.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I'll respond in reverse order with your points.

Exactly how is the Fairness Doctrine constitutional? And where exactly do you want it enforced?

Obama is doing more harm than good with his Health Care Reform, not continuing the Bush Tax Cuts, running up the National Debt to epic record numbers, and generally just getting the Government involved in places it should not be involved with. He hasn't been making the situation any better. In some cases, he's continuing Bush policies(which aren't necessarily good), and in others he is going above and beyond them.

We haven't had a good President since Reagan.

So, you are basically proposing tax cuts AND reduced government spending?

If Obama immediatly ends the war like situations in Iraq/Afgahnistan (most costly), cuts public services (btw. I wonder where you'll drive your car when the roads cannot be repaired. Where you park your car when the man power lacking police is not able to chase small fish like car thiefs <= there will be more of them if the spending for people without income is also cut and the gap between the rich and the poor grows larger)
Would you still agree with your own proposal?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alaska_senate

More proof that the Tea Party doesn't bow down to the Republican/Washington Establishment.

Blah...Joe Miller...more Rovian style politics at their best (he called her a whore, reported false claims of election fraud many times, and deliberately misquoted her at nearly every opportunity, it's just baffling how Alaskan Republicans could have decided Miller was somehow lees disgusting than any other politician)...

Whatever the case, I have to wonder how much the Ted Stevens' ad would have helped or hindered Murkowski in her final weeks. She was an extremely strong supporter of getting money to Alaska (following in Stevens’ footsteps), something pivotal to the Alaskan economy, and Miller has, more or less, lambasted Murkowski for doing a good job. And while I certainly didn't agree with Murkowski on many of her positions, I found her fairly moderate and very reasonable.

It'll be interesting to see how Miller's race with Scott McAdams (D) pans out, considering that McAdams, following in Palin's footsteps, is the more realistic "voice of the people" than Miller. Still, much polling suggests Miller will win handedly...

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Jinto

So, you are basically proposing tax cuts AND reduced government spending?

If Obama immediatly ends the war like situations in Iraq/Afgahnistan (most costly), cuts public services (btw. I wonder where you'll drive your car when the roads cannot be repaired. Where you park your car when the man power lacking police is not able to chase small fish like car thiefs <= there will be more of them if the spending for people without income is also cut and the gap between the rich and the poor grows larger)
Would you still agree with your own proposal?

I live in California. Our roads suck. Our schools suck. We have a pretty high unemployment rate. Our politicians and unions have mega high pension funds setup while the rest of us suffer.

You think you're so clever Jinto, but I watched this state's budget DOUBLE from 50+ billion, to 100+ billion in the past ten years. How many people who have been employed for 20+ years, can claim their salaries double every ten years? Spending has gotten out of control, and what it has gotten us, is in an even worse situation. It's time to scrap all of the social welfare programs, all of the farm/drug subsidies programs, cut out 90% of the Federal Departments(Education, Agriculture, Transportation, etc.).

And I don't rely on the police to protect me or my property. They are reactionary at best. The Supreme Court has already ruled that they do not exist to protect you. You are responsible for your own protection.

And I keep hearing how the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. From my own personal experiences, I know far more Middle Class than I do anyone else, and they are doing very well for themselves. The Middle Classes' standard of living is considerably higher than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

Please try again.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

And I keep hearing how the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. From my own personal experiences, I know far more Middle Class than I do anyone else, and they are doing very well for themselves. The Middle Classes' standard of living is considerably higher than it was 50 or 100 years ago.
.

Anecdotal, please try again.

[Kaijo]

While I'd scrap a lot of subsidies, I wouldn't cut welfare. I've made a habit of looking at countries with functioning safety nets, with good employment, with good healthcare, and who didn't suffer much from the global economic issues, and I realize it can be done.

The cure isn't an extreme socialist agenda, nor an extreme capitalist agenda. The cure is a moderate mix of both, applying what works best for each specific situation.

Since I don't live in California, I can't say what remedies to apply to their specific situation, but for general congress-related things, I'd trim the military budget by at least 10%, make pork illegal, unrelated riders illegal, and require each bill to be read aloud in Congress before a vote. Any amendments or changes to the bill would require a signature from a senator or representative who authorized the change (no changes that are kept secret).

I'd dissolve the department of homeland security (it's a bunch of security theater we don't need; the FBI can handle it). It's a waste of money. I'd trim the TSA expenditures; we don't need body scanners at airports. We don't need to take off our shoes. We're safer today when we fly just by virtue of the fact that passengers will fight back.

Corn subsidies and gas subsidies would be trimmed, and perhaps redirected to electric car subsidies. My main goal would be balancing the budget, and then getting a surplus with which we can start making payments on the national debt.

Last, but not least, would be corporation reform. I'd add tariffs to imported goods so that it would cost the same, or cheaper, to manufacture in country. Declaring corporations "non-persons" with heavy penalties (heavy fines and jail time) for any corporate misconduct. In return, to get them to go along with it, I'd lower the tax rate for corporations to encourage them to stay in country and employ Americans. Severely limit H1-B visas.

Then just for giggles, I'd make a number of proclamations: I'd proclaim that current copyright law violates the constitution, the highest law in the land, so all the copyright laws would be repealed back to 14 year lengths. I'd abolish software patents, because it's illegal to patent mathematics. And I'd either nationalize the broadband structure, or just declare ISPs to be common carriers like phone companies; regulate them, but declare them not responsible for what passes over their wires.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I live in California.

Well, earthquakes and such things aside, you have good weather most of the time. Thats something to start with.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Our roads suck.

And you would want those roads to suck even more?

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Our schools suck.

How exactly does cost cutting change them for the better?

But then again, raods and schools is basically almost exclusively state business, so Obama can do little about it, ask the governator instead.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

We have a pretty high unemployment rate.

Might be the after effect of a certain cash crash which was a predictable outcome when we consider the deregulation mantra for the (financial) markets of the past years and human nature. This basically had to fail... like socialism/communism must fail when we add human nature.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Our politicians and unions have mega high pension funds setup

Ask the bosses of medium/large/huge corporations if they would work for the little money those politicians get. These days, if you really want competent people to run the state you would have to pay them way more money. I bet those financial market genuises at the top banks cost you at least as much as all the politicians (if we include their incompentence based generated net loss, it may as well be 100 or 1000 times the costs).

Originally Posted by justinstrife

while the rest of us suffer.

It is one thing to suffer, it is another thing to propose ideas that make you suffer even more (there is a word for that which I don't want to use, because this would be an insult).

Originally Posted by justinstrife

You think you're so clever Jinto, but I watched this state's budget DOUBLE from 50+ billion, to 100+ billion in the past ten years.

Inflation-adjusted, thats not much of a gain.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

How many people who have been employed for 20+ years, can claim their salaries double every ten years?

I could tell you which group even quadrupled their income in the same time. Thats the same people who benefit from lobbying for free, deregulated markets, tax cuts and weak antitrust agencies. You are working your ass off for them (directly or indirectly)... you even think like they want you to think - you are their tool - pissed for the wrong reasons - playing into their hands.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Spending has gotten out of control,

Yes, and proportionally most of the spending has risen for military purposes... who was that again... heading this way - opening pandoras box?

Originally Posted by justinstrife

and what it has gotten us, is in an even worse situation. It's time to scrap all of the social welfare programs, all of the farm/drug subsidies programs, cut out 90% of the Federal Departments(Education, Agriculture, Transportation, etc.).

Who needs infrastructure, education and something to eat when you can have lots of weapons, modern fighter jets and the worlds most costly war peace machinery instead.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

And I don't rely on the police to protect me or my property. They are reactionary at best. The Supreme Court has already ruled that they do not exist to protect you. You are responsible for your own protection.

Ah, I forgot about that. Its the right time to introduce vigilante justice again, it had not been around for a while now. Maybe you want to try that type of justice again, maybe it has improved since the witch hunts and segregation times.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

And I keep hearing how the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. From my own personal experiences, I know far more Middle Class than I do anyone else, and they are doing very well for themselves.

So, you basically know one class... and that makes you think you can speak for the others.

So if I was showing you this:

(source wikipedia)

You'ld certainly say, well that looks very homogenous. Now if I was telling you, that the y-scale is logarithmic... the thing suddenly looks quite unfair wouldn't you agree?

Or let me show you a different graph, that illustrates the problem a little better (because it doesn't use logarithemic scaling to look fair):

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The Middle Classes' standard of living is considerably higher than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

And how should I put this into context with your ideas? Logically this is a counterproductive argument for most of your points (those where you complained about things being bad).

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Please try again.

I do, but I know you cannot be healed. Still, nobody can say I didn't try.

[SaintessHeart]

Memo to Obama: time to break the refinance strike by the big banks

There are growing signs of unease bordering on desperation inside the Obama White House. Most of the O Team now understands that the real, private economy never got out of Dip Number One. The prospect of a permanent downward shift in “trend growth” to a lower track, and continued double digit unemployment, are driving a search for alternative measures that has even touched conservatives in the worlds of finance and economics.

The Obama Administration and the Fed have taken the position that the crisis affecting the U.S. economy and the financial sector is slowly ending. In fact, the largest banks remain profoundly troubled by bad assets on their books as well as claims against these same banks for assets sold to investors. By allowing banks to “muddle along” and heal these wounds using low interest rates provided by the Fed, the Obama Administration is embracing a policy of deflation that has horrible consequences for U.S. workers and households.

In a post over the weekend on ZeroHedge – “Bernanke Fed Drives Deflation With Zero Rate Policy” — I described the negative effects of the Fed’s low interest rate policy on bank earnings, as well as consumer and corporate spending and saving. When interest rates are low, savers move their preference for liquidity to infinity, especially after the past several years of market breakdown. Retirees spend less because the interest earned on bonds and savings has plummeted. Here’s an excerpt:

When the Fed buys securities through QE, it is removing duration from the markets, pushing down yields and volatility. For a while this boosts the net interest margin (NIM) of leveraged investors such as banks, who are able to borrow at lower rates to fund current assets. As assets re-price to the low rates maintained by the Fed, however, NIM begins to disappear. Over the medium to longer term, think of duration and NIM as being linked, so obviously a sustained period of QE is bad for NIM. This is why NIM in the U.S. banking sector is starting to fall.

Just as the earnings of leveraged investors like banks are starting to suffer due to zero rate policy, so too the spending by all manner of savers, from retirees to companies and not-for-profits to municipalities, is falling too. Fed Chairman Bernanke and the other members of the FOMC are killing the real economy to save the banks — but none of the benefit flowing to the banks is reaching U.S. households. In fact, the Obama Administration has been providing political cover for the Fed to conduct a massive, reverse Robin Hood scheme, moving trillions of dollars in resources from savers and consumers to the big banks and their share and bond holders.

The first priority is to make clear to the largest banks, especially the top four institutions — JPMorganChase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Wells Fargo (WFC) and Citigroup (C), that the party is over when it comes to providing credit to the real economy. Until President Obama and Fed Chairman Bernanke recognize that six institutions — FNM, FRE, BAC, C, JPM and Wells Fargo — have broken the mechanism which makes interest rate easing work, we will make little progress fixing the economy.

“In every Fed easing event during my career in finance (1986, 1992, 1998, 2002), it was the wave of refinancing of debt after the Fed eased interest rates that put permanent disposable income into the hands of households,” notes a former Fed official who worked in the banking industry for decades. “In this last easing, however, FNM, FRE and the TBTF banks have conspired to break the transmission mechanism for monetary policy and are now strangling the U.S. economy to save themselves from past errors.”

Rules changes made by FNM and FRE since the Treasury’s conservatorship began in 2008 have prevented millions of American consumers and business from refinancing their mortgage debts. The Bernanke Fed will attempt to compensate for this de facto freeze on refinancing with QE II, but this will fail.

So what should President Obama do?

First, the Obama Administration should use the power provided in the Dodd-Frank legislation to force an accelerated cleanup of bad assets and to mandate refinancing and principal reductions for performing loans with viable borrowers. If any banks resist, the Treasury should use the power under current federal law to remove recalcitrant officers and directors of these same banks.

Second, President Obama also needs to focus on the growing competitive problem in the U.S. mortgage sector. The mortgage banking industry suffered significant consolidation since 2007. In particular, the competitive, third part origination players went out of business via bankruptcy or by being taken over. The industry is now dominated by a cozy oligopoly of Too Big To Fail banks (TBTF).

The top three banks control 55% of all mortgage originations. The top 10 banks control 95%. The top five run the only surviving channels to sell loans to Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), and force their pricing upon the entire banking industry. Small banks give up half the economics of a typical loan to sell a loan to FNM or FRE indirectly, through WFC or JPM. Why is there no antitrust investigation of the top banks by the Department of Justice?

The Obama Administration should move to restructure FNM and FRE now, not in 2011. The Treasury should use its existing authority under the conservatorship to force FNM and FRE to make rules changes to allow for the refinancing of all existing residential mortgages, if only to reduce the current cost of the debt and increase disposable income for households.

By moving on reforming FNM and FRE, the Obama Administration can provide relief to home owners and also send a strong message to Wall Street and global investors that the practice of “too big to fail” is at an end. We should always remember that the model of the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) goes back to fascist Italy and Germany of the 1920s. The very public demise of these GSEs is an important part of ending TBTF for the large banks — but only part of the story.

President Obama should make some political hay over the fact that loan origination margins for the top four banks have gone from ½ point to over 4 points in the last two years. This is the subsidy for Wall Street above and beyond the zero interest rate policy of the Fed. The Obama Administrations needs to require changes in the way in which FNM and FRE do business with the banking sector and with mortgage holders, and use these changes to reform the mortgage market in preparation for legislation from the Congress.

By reducing barriers to refinancing by FNM and FRE, and aggressively forcing private banks to mark mortgages to market and accept principal write-downs or short sales to clear the backlog of bad debt, the Obama Administration can restore balance to the economy and create a healthy basis for new growth.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'm also what one might consider "upper middle class" ... I'd rather my taxes go for the good of the general public than a few fat cats. Those 'crumbs' are a false win if society crumbles.

True. But if you assume that the money isn't going to go to the good of the general public anyway, then I'll take a few crumbs over nothing. I'm not saying I agree with the Tea Party over any particulars (if only because, being French, the particulars interest me only distantly)... just that I understand the feeling.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Memo to Obama: time to break the refinance strike by the big banks

Simply reinstate Glass-Steagal, whose repeal caused this whole mess. Sad that very few have the guts to do this, however.

And thanks to everyone who said they'd vote for me if I ran, heh. Didn't expect so many notes to that effect. I've often considered it, but I'm bad in front of a crowd; I know enough of my own flaws to know I don't know enough. And obviously don't have the money to do it. I'd need a pretty big grass roots campaign, heh.

[Ricky Controversy]

I need to do more research, but I imagine that another electoral period will pass without candidates concerning themselves with the issues I'm interested in:

• Development of an effective, unified, cross-country public transit system--preferably high-speed rail.
• Support for a shift in American farming to large-scale hydroponic and aeroponic models.
• Widespread use of modular education versus standardized education in public schools.
• Greater support for study-abroad initiatives.
• Revisiting international licensing policy, especially vis-a-vis intellectual property and automotive imports.
• Encouraging development of alternative power sources.

Are these highly specific concerns? Sure. But I also know I lack sufficient knowledge of mass finance to engage that arena just yet. So, I continue to hope that some of these more focused concerns get some attention here and there, and I can support things I have reasonable understandings of. I'll happily stay a humble voter with provincial concerns until I've learned enough to earn a voice on big issues.

[LMF]

I don't get too involve in politics but I got say that Obama is basically doing nothing beside shooting hoops.

Hope next election, something happens.

[synaesthetic]

I don't trust anyone in government to do anything. The system's so fundamentally broken it doesn't matter who runs things, left or right, blue or red, Democrat or Republican.

This won't change until a few things happen:

a) term limits on all forms of public office;
b) only allowing public funds to be used for campaigning (no donations, no personal monies, everyone gets the exact same amount);

[FDW]

Originally Posted by Ricky Controversy

[LIST][*]Development of an effective, unified, cross-country public transit system--preferably high-speed rail.

This is the one issue (bundled, like it should be, with urban planning policy and urban public mass transit) that I REALLY (AS IN REALLY FUCKING REALLY) care about in this election, and it is why I will support the Democrats over the Republicans this November.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

b) only allowing public funds to be used for campaigning (no donations, no personal monies, everyone gets the exact same amount);

Realistically, that would just cause private donors to start actually creating advertisements for their candidates. For instance, I could easily see Target or Wal-Mart actually footing the bill for an advertisement for a candidate they like. And since it is now legal for businesses to do just that, it wouldn't matter if the actual candidate has a limit on their expenditure, because the companies that like the candidate or their policies would simply fill the gap left behind due to limited funds for campaigns...

@Ricky Controversy: Good list. Some (more than you'd think) of the Obama Stimulus package includes monies for just such projects (the funds are meant to create interest from potential investors, and from there produce actual funds for the various projects).

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I don't trust anyone in government to do anything. The system's so fundamentally broken it doesn't matter who runs things, left or right, blue or red, Democrat or Republican.

This won't change until a few things happen:

a) term limits on all forms of public office;
b) only allowing public funds to be used for campaigning (no donations, no personal monies, everyone gets the exact same amount);

The problem is that a) will likely lead to an increase in cronyism. People will make deals to keep their influence in other ways, kinda like how everyone who leaves congress walks across the street to become a lobbyist.

b) likely won't have any effect on anything. Money is not the problem. The problem is an undereducated electorate who doesn't really understand the system and who is too easily swayed by the latest attack ad.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by LMF

I don't get too involve in politics but I got say that Obama is basically doing nothing beside shooting hoops.

Hope next election, something happens.

What does this even mean?

@Ricky, I could buy most on the list, but I don't see the value of study abroad, with the power and prestige of the American University system I don't see the incredible need to send people to other places to lean inferior techniques and ideas because in the end the best of best do eventually come to America and the flow of ideas isn't all that stagnant. I mean yes the world is changing, and yes more and more foreign students are not coming over but if there is still a large influx of the best and brightest from abroad and it is still seen as prestigious to come here and graduate from top universities here. I do see the value but in this fiscal state with the deficit, it's something that isn't a critical issue for most of the electorate.

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

What does this even mean?

@Ricky, I could buy most on the list, but I don't see the value of study abroad, with the power and prestige of the American University system I don't see the incredible need to send people to other places to lean inferior techniques and ideas because in the end the best of best do eventually come to America and the flow of ideas isn't all that stagnant. I mean yes the world is changing, and yes more and more foreign students are not coming over but if there is still a large influx of the best and brightest from abroad and it is still seen as prestigious to come here and graduate from top universities here. I do see the value but in this fiscal state with the deficit, it's something that isn't a critical issue for most of the electorate.

At the university level, yes, we have a lot of great resources. However, at the High School level? I'm not so sure. Now, granted, I was self-taught for three of my four years of High School, but what I saw during my year of attendance and in observing my friends attending was a secondary education system drastically in need of reform. I advocate study abroad at that level both as a way to give our best students a way to take advantage of the stronger secondary education systems of other nations until our own reform has taken place, and also as a way to teach those same students how to engage other cultures by experience. We should have as many such apt and equipped youth as possible to take up the conduct of our foreign relations.

That being said, it's probably the lowest priority issue on that list, and I agree that if we're struggling to resolve the bigger concerns--especially the domestic education reform that it needs to be an attachment to--it does not demand our immediate attention. So, good point.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by james0246

Realistically, that would just cause private donors to start actually creating advertisements for their candidates. For instance, I could easily see Target or Wal-Mart actually footing the bill for an advertisement for a candidate they like. And since it is now legal for businesses to do just that, it wouldn't matter if the actual candidate has a limit on their expenditure, because the companies that like the candidate or their policies would simply fill the gap left behind due to limited funds for campaigns...

Then it will never, ever be a level playing field. As it is now, only rich people can run for office. An average joe will never be elected simply because they cannot bypass the massive financial barrier to entry that is campaigning.

Sometimes I think we should just eliminate voting altogether and have our representatives randomly selected by computer...

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I don't trust anyone in government to do anything. The system's so fundamentally broken it doesn't matter who runs things, left or right, blue or red, Democrat or Republican.

This won't change until a few things happen:

a) term limits on all forms of public office;
b) only allowing public funds to be used for campaigning (no donations, no personal monies, everyone gets the exact same amount);

you might be too young to remember this but California actually ran better when there was no term limit. Every since the term limit proposition pass it has taken the legislator longer and longer to come up with a budget. And at least to me it seems like outside interest has a bigger influence on the Assembly then before Term limits.