• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Where are you Liberalism?

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm wondering if any other liberals have noticed a frightening economic trend in this country: a dramatic shift to the right. The old values of liberalism (equality and economic security) are all but gone as most Democrats now are moderate when it comes to economics, supporting the free market agenda. There is no party where true liberals can turn to today, as both are increasingly fiscally conservative. This has happened once before...a similar situation arose in the roaring 20's (although then Democrats opposed these things much more strongly): labor rights stripped away, the poor getting poorer, and government halting regulations on business and letting business run its course. This lack of government action once led to the Great Depression. I'm not saying that we are on the brink of another Great Depression, but I do feel that workers should be concerned seeing as both parties have turned their back on labor and are now now more or less pro-business. This, I think, is the great flaw in a two party democratic system: the two parties tend to move toward the political center (and in this case, the center is moving towards the right) in order to get the most of the vote. A proportional representation system would be much more beneficial, especially right now as the once pro-labor Democrats shift their base farther and farther to the right and become more and more pro-business. When will the Democrats wake up and see that they are weak on morals? (atleast weaker than the Republicans, anyway); their strong point, dating back to Wilson and FDR, has always been the economy. Let's end this shift to the right and put the Democratic party back on the left.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
135
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
I completely agree. The New Deal and Great Society values of equality and selflessness have seem to given way to greed and self-serving motives over the common good.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, I agree with you. But I do think there are still liberals & Democrats out there who care about the class of people who built this country. (Even though they are, the middle class, part of a dying class in this society, either moving up or down.)
I think it is time for a new generation of Democrats to take over. I like John Edwards, he spoke often & still does about poverty & the rights of the working class and I think he really cares.
Not sure where Dean stands on labor & industry issues but I would imagine his views are pretty strong on the side of justice.
I agree with what you have said in previous posts about Clinton. I love Bill Clinton, and Hillary!, but he was not the ideal Democratic president. He was our only hope in his place and time and was certainly better than the alternatives. But he did have very moderate leanings on economics & social issues.
I'm still monitoring Barack Obama. I was thinking for a while that he might be our New Hope. Time will tell, though, I was a little disappointed that he voted to confirm Ms. Rice.

I do believe fervently that the Democratic Party needs to back away from moderation. We need to say what we believe and be proud of it and STAND BY IT. After four years of dubya, the country is going to be ready for a profound change. That's my silly dream anyway.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
mixedmedia said:
Yes, I agree with you. But I do think there are still liberals & Democrats out there who care about the class of people who built this country. (Even though they are, the middle class, part of a dying class in this society, either moving up or down.)
I think it is time for a new generation of Democrats to take over. I like John Edwards, he spoke often & still does about poverty & the rights of the working class and I think he really cares.
Not sure where Dean stands on labor & industry issues but I would imagine his views are pretty strong on the side of justice.
I agree with what you have said in previous posts about Clinton. I love Bill Clinton, and Hillary!, but he was not the ideal Democratic president. He was our only hope in his place and time and was certainly better than the alternatives. But he did have very moderate leanings on economics & social issues.
I'm still monitoring Barack Obama. I was thinking for a while that he might be our New Hope. Time will tell, though, I was a little disappointed that he voted to confirm Ms. Rice.

I do believe fervently that the Democratic Party needs to back away from moderation. We need to say what we believe and be proud of it and STAND BY IT. After four years of dubya, the country is going to be ready for a profound change. That's my silly dream anyway.
After four years? Or after four more years?
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Pacridge said:
After four years? Or after four more years?

doh! after four MORE years. Four more fabulous years.....America's gonna be ready for James Brown to be president after four more years.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
mixedmedia said:
doh! after four MORE years. Four more fabulous years.....America's gonna be ready for James Brown to be president after four more years.
After four more year we're going owe Asia and the rest of the world so much money we're certainly going to need someone who can sell more CD's then James Brown.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I see that only liberals have responded...Where are those cons who claim that that the Dem party of today is run by left-wing nutjobs and socialists?

Oh, and Barack Obama does seem to be a promising rising star of the party. He voted for Rice, yes, but perhaps that was a peace offering to Bush before the huge debate over Social Security. And how could this debate not happen? Bush's SS plan is total nonsense.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
After four more years we're going owe Asia and the rest of the world so much money we're certainly going to need someone who can sell more CD's then James Brown.

You have any idea what the interest rates are going to look like in 2, 4 or even 6 years at the rate things are going? You better hope you don't have or you better get rid of any ARM home loan you have. And I'd do this quick. Better safe than sorry.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
anomaly said:
I see that only liberals have responded...Where are those cons who claim that that the Dem party of today is run by left-wing nutjobs and socialists?

Oh, and Barack Obama does seem to be a promising rising star of the party. He voted for Rice, yes, but perhaps that was a peace offering to Bush before the huge debate over Social Security. And how could this debate not happen? Bush's SS plan is total nonsense.
Left-wing nut jobs and socialists, really now, not around here. We are all obviously left wing crackpots, a much more distinguished & fearsome breed.

I agree with you about SS. Although I must admit on this issue I am not well versed. It just SEEMS to me that putting the country's retirement money into the stock market could be very risky, and, of course, that rich folks will likely make lots of money from it (otherwise it just wouldn't be a Bush plan, would it?). I understand there are many economists, who know what they're talking about, who feel it is an unnecessary risk. I try to keep up with Paul Krugman at the NY Times. He seems to make a lot of sense on the issue.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Pacridge said:
After four more years we're going owe Asia and the rest of the world so much money we're certainly going to need someone who can sell more CD's then James Brown.
Oh, okay then, Willie Nelson?

Just kidding.

How about, 50 Cent? He sells a lot of records I understand.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here mixed media-some info on SS. Here's SS now: out of your income, you pay a total of 6% (leaving decimals out for simplicity, I think its something like 6.2) and your employer pays 6% toward SS, that is, towards todays retirees (pay as you go). Bush's great plan: allowing workers under 55 to transfer 4% out of their 6% (2/3 of your share) into an array of mutual funds. 3 obvious problems: 1) Your retirement! Whether you actually have any money for retirement is entirely dependent on if the market is up or down when you retire. 2) Other people's retirement. Remember, our tax dollars today are going towards todays retirees. So how will Bush compensate for 2/3 of your tax money going into the market? This transition will cost a ton of money. 3) Bush has totally left out 40-54 yr olds. If you are in this age bracket, you will not even have a chance for any kind of increase in your mutual funds. And remember that 4% that Bush is letting younger people invest? That was your SS money!! Again, he will have to tax or something to get that money back.

There is, thankfully, an obvious, reasonable solution to the SS crisis. Right now, there is a $90,000 limit that can be taxed. This means that those who make, say, $200,000/yr only are taxed on their first $90,000 they make. What if these limits are removed? Estimates are that if the ceiling was $200,000 the crisis would be nearly averted. But, of course this would mean taxing Bush's campaign funders more, so that's why he left it out of his state of the union and really hasn't mentioned it at all. In fact, SS isn't really the major crisis confronting us. Healthcare is, and most people agree that the best way to reform it is for national state health care. Perhaps if the ceiling on SS was completely broken (meaning that Roger Clemens would pay 6.2% of his $18 million) national healthcare would be achievable. Maybe Kerry wasn't so crazy...
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
anomaly said:
Here mixed media-some info on SS. Here's SS now: out of your income, you pay a total of 6% (leaving decimals out for simplicity, I think its something like 6.2) and your employer pays 6% toward SS, that is, towards todays retirees (pay as you go). Bush's great plan: allowing workers under 55 to transfer 4% out of their 6% (2/3 of your share) into an array of mutual funds. 3 obvious problems: 1) Your retirement! Whether you actually have any money for retirement is entirely dependent on if the market is up or down when you retire. 2) Other people's retirement. Remember, our tax dollars today are going towards todays retirees. So how will Bush compensate for 2/3 of your tax money going into the market? This transition will cost a ton of money. 3) Bush has totally left out 40-54 yr olds. If you are in this age bracket, you will not even have a chance for any kind of increase in your mutual funds. And remember that 4% that Bush is letting younger people invest? That was your SS money!! Again, he will have to tax or something to get that money back.

There is, thankfully, an obvious, reasonable solution to the SS crisis. Right now, there is a $90,000 limit that can be taxed. This means that those who make, say, $200,000/yr only are taxed on their first $90,000 they make. What if these limits are removed? Estimates are that if the ceiling was $200,000 the crisis would be nearly averted. But, of course this would mean taxing Bush's campaign funders more, so that's why he left it out of his state of the union and really hasn't mentioned it at all. In fact, SS isn't really the major crisis confronting us. Healthcare is, and most people agree that the best way to reform it is for national state health care. Perhaps if the ceiling on SS was completely broken (meaning that Roger Clemens would pay 6.2% of his $18 million) national healthcare would be achievable. Maybe Kerry wasn't so crazy...
You brought up some very valid points concerning problems with Bush's Social Security plan. But I think you're missing perhaps the most valid of all. Bush has been claiming the system is in a complete crisis, it's going to be bankrupt and soon. I think currently he's got that date at 2042. So let's say that's not a lie, it is but, let's say for the sake of argument that it's not. Bush's plan to save the system is to remove money from it. To allow private citizens the option of putting a portion of their retirement savings into private accounts. The day after he gave his SOTUA a reporter asked Bush's head talking head, Scott McClellan, how exactly is this going to save the system from the crisis Bush currently says it's in? McClellan's response? "Well, the private retirement accounts don't address the crisis, the systems funding short falls and the private accounts are separate issues. The funding crisis will still need to be addressed." So, basically Bush's plan to fix the problem- doesn't fix the problem.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oops....I'm sorry Pacridge, but there's just so much wrong with Bush's plan that I forgot some of it!!! Yes, Bush is quite mistaken in saying that SS will be bankrupt in 2042. Obviously W misunderstands SS...it can't go bankrupt! Its impossible.

Also, I'm wondering what liberals think of the "unmentioned alternative" of raising (or removing completely) the ceiling for social security taxes. I think that that is probably the best solution. After SS handle healthcare in two ways which cons won't be fond of. Remove the SS ceiling completely, and instead of borrowing the surplus it gives the gov't, use it to fund national healthcare. If that's not enough money for national healthcare, cut military spending by a little bit (I mean we spend way more on defense than any other country). And speaking of spending, did you guys see Bush's budget plans? He's cutting everything!! 150 social programs? Even cutting national security! Bush has got to be the worst president economically since Reagan.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
anomaly said:
Oops....I'm sorry Pacridge, but there's just so much wrong with Bush's plan that I forgot some of it!!! Yes, Bush is quite mistaken in saying that SS will be bankrupt in 2042. Obviously W misunderstands SS...it can't go bankrupt! Its impossible.

Also, I'm wondering what liberals think of the "unmentioned alternative" of raising (or removing completely) the ceiling for social security taxes. I think that that is probably the best solution. After SS handle healthcare in two ways which cons won't be fond of. Remove the SS ceiling completely, and instead of borrowing the surplus it gives the gov't, use it to fund national healthcare. If that's not enough money for national healthcare, cut military spending by a little bit (I mean we spend way more on defense than any other country). And speaking of spending, did you guys see Bush's budget plans? He's cutting everything!! 150 social programs? Even cutting national security! Bush has got to be the worst president economically since Reagan.
You're right there's just so many things wrong with his plan, it's hard to understand why he would put forth something like this. I can't imagine him getting any of it through congress. But then again this is the guy that basically told people in his speeches "you can't try and tax rich people (like Cheney and me) because they'll/we'll just dodge and stick you with the bill anyway." And thousand of hard working, tax paying folks applaud as if he just told them they all just hit the lotto. His ability to convince people of complete BS is really quite amazing.

I'm not sure how I feel about removing the ceiling. I think you'd find most liberals would be happy to sign on to that plan. And yes on the flip side most Cons. wouldn't like it at all. I think I need more info. I mean the ceiling is there because it's a retirement plan and people earning that kind of income don't see any return at that level. They'd still get the max. but nothing close to what it would be if it were calc. from earnings of 200K or 500K. So basically you'd be forcing people to pay into a retirement system that they weren't going to benefit from, least not at the level you were forcing them to pay into it at. Social Security isn't so much a tax as it is a retirement plan.

I think one of the reasons the systems headed toward a problem is people are living longer. So it seems logical to me that if that's the case raising the retirement age would make a lot of sense. In the end I think they're going to have to do a little of several things to help keep the system running smoothly. A little of this and little of that to sole the whole. I don't think removing funds from the system is any fix at all.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I just copied this from today's Center for American Progress' newsletter "Progress Report." It all applies to what we are talking about here.

I had heard late last week about the SS privatization plan not addressing the "shortfall" crisis they've been using to sell it. What the hell is going on here?

I agree with you, anomaly, about national healthcare. I think it is far more important and would be happy to pay whatever I had to in taxes to support it. I think it's time for Americans to grow up and learn that all this money grubbing is leading to the slow, shallow death of the American soul. If you love something, set it free, yes?

(Yes, still dramatic, still reading The Lord of the Rings, Pac, and it's ringing lots of my bells.....yes, my precious.....)


BUDGET
Bush's Middle Class Tax Hike

A closer look at the administration's 2006 budget shows an economic agenda promoting the wrong choices and wrong priorities. Rolling back massive tax cuts for millionaires is off the table, but the Bush administration has no qualms about raising taxes on average Americans. The budget President Bush submitted to Congress yesterday imposes $5.3 billion in new, regressive taxes. (They are conveniently listed in table 18-3 on page 305 of the Analytic Perspectives supplement to the budget.) The administration's budget contains new taxes that will increase the price of a six pack of beer, an airline ticket and prescription drugs for veterans. Meanwhile, the budget cuts funding for education, public health and environmental protection and includes $1.4 trillion in new tax cuts for the wealthy. Welcome to Bushonomics. (Sound off on the president's middle-class tax hike on ThinkProgress.org.)

THE SHELL GAME: No matter which way you slice it, the administration's budget is egregiously fiscally irresponsible – by its own estimates, it will result in a $390 billion deficit in 2006. Worse, that figure is only arrived at through trickery. The budget includes over a billion dollars in revenue from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), even though Congress hasn't authorized such drilling and has rejected President Bush's proposal to open ANWR to oil exploration for the last four years. Budget Director Josh Bolten defended the move, claiming, "the budget is the right place to present the entirety of the president's policies, so all of his proposals are reflected in there." Really? The Bush budget excludes all funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the administration's $2 trillion Social Security package.

KICKING THE NEEDIEST WHILE THEY'RE DOWN: During the Bush administration, more and more Americans are struggling. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities sums it up: "The number of poor went up for the third straight year in 2003, the share of total income that goes to the bottom two-fifths of households has fallen to one of its lowest levels since the end of World War II, and the number of people lacking health insurance rose to 45 million in 2003, the highest level on record." Yet the Bush administration is cutting programs that help people get back on their feet. For example, the administration's budget proposes "a five-year freeze on child care funding that...will result in cutting the number of low-income children receiving child care assistance by 300,000 in 2009." The Bush budget also cuts $45 billion from Medicaid, the program that provides basic health coverage to the poor.

THE MEDICARE MESS: The industry-backed prescription drug bill President Bush jammed through Congress is a bad law that keeps getting worse. While the bill was pending before Congress, the administration promised the bill would cost $400 billion over 10 years and threatened to fire the Medicare actuary who knew that figure was too low. Later, the administration revised its estimated price tag to $534 billion over 10 years, largely due to excessive payments to private insurers and HMOs. Now, in the most recent budget, the Bush administration estimates the bill will cost $395 billion over five years. In the meantime, drug companies have already jacked up their prices enough to offset any discount to seniors.

FUNDING FOR ABSTINENCE-ONLY PROGRAMS INCREASED: Apparently, President Bush isn't concerned that abstinence-only programs are misleading the nation's children about sex. A study last year found that some of the most popular programs pushed lies, such as claiming that mutual masturbation can cause pregnancy and condoms fail to prevent the transmission of HIV 31 percent of the time. President Bush's budget increases funding for abstinence-only education by $39 million, to a total of $209 million.

FUNDING FOR CLEAN WATER SLASHED: Good news for Evian, bad news for everyone else. President Bush proposes reducing federal funds states use to improve water quality by $369 million. The federal contribution to the program is now just $730 million, down from $1.98 billion four years ago.

SOCIAL SECURITY
Hot Air in Motown

President Bush heads to Detroit, MI, today as part of his aggressive marketing campaign to sell his deeply flawed – and very expensive – Social Security plan. Don't hold your breath waiting for the president to flesh out more details, however; the Detroit Free Press reports "the traditional question and answer period after the speech has been dropped for Bush's visit." (There may be good reason for this: as the New York Times wrote this weekend, when it comes to the Bush plan, "The more we learn, the worse it gets.") Don't believe his hype. Here are the basics to keep in mind when listening to his sales pitch.

IT'S A BENEFIT CUT: The private accounts President Bush wants to create do nothing by themselves to reduce the shortfall. A White House memo to conservative allies which was leaked to the press last month even "acknowledged that individual accounts themselves would do nothing to close the projected Social Security shortfall." What President Bush really is pushing are giant benefit cuts, which he said during his State of the Union Address were "on the table."

IT'S A TAX HIKE: President Bush has resisted raising the payroll tax to pay for Social Security reform. But don't be fooled: his Social Security plan is a tax hike. Here's how it works: President Bush is proposing keeping the Social Security wage tax at the same level while reducing benefits for future retirees. "By keeping the tax the same and reducing future benefits," Newsweek reports, "Bush is like a candymaker that cuts 46 percent off a chocolate bar but charges the same 75 cents for it. In other words, his plan would effectively increase the Social Security tax."

IT INCREASES THE DEBT: The Bush plan also entails "significant new federal borrowing." Vice President Cheney this weekend admitted the government would have to borrow $754 billion over the next decade to set up the private accounts. (That's low-balling the number – most experts agree the first ten years of the Bush tax plan would cost about $2 trillion.) And after that? "Trillions more after that,'' he admitted. Large-scale borrowing carries a huge price for the middle class. When the federal government runs up a large debt, that means less money is available for average Americans to borrow when they want to buy a house or a car or pay for college tuition. That smaller pool of money available for loans translates into higher interest rates – which not only puts a squeeze on individual consumers but also slows the rate of economic growth. That means, in the long run, fewer jobs, low wage growth and less money coming into the federal Treasury.

THE MONEY'S NOT REALLY YOURS: President Bush is trying to capitalize on the fact that Americans like to own things to sell his program to chop Social Security benefits. The reality of his plan is a far cry from the private ownership he's touting, however. For example, instead of private plans that let Americans control their own investments, there are tight restrictions on which conservative stocks and bonds the public will be allowed to buy. And, the New York Times writes, "the more restrictions there are, the harder it would be for people to achieve the outsized returns the administration has generally promoted to sell the public on private accounts." Also, Bush has played up the fact that his accounts can be passed on to one's heirs. In reality, unless you die before you retire, there's not going to be a lot to bequeath. Retirees under the Bush plan will be required to use the money in their accounts to buy the annuities that will then provide them with their post-retirement income. The only money left to pass to heirs is whatever is left over – if anything – from purchasing the annuities. As Business Week puts it, "The problem isn't the restrictions on ownership in the Bush plan. It's the false billing, which is aimed at drumming up support from a skeptical public."

PRESIDENT BUSH EXPLAINS IT ALL: Confused about how President Bush's Social Security privatization proposal works? Here is his explanation: "Because the – all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those – changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be – or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled." (Thanks to Atrios.)
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
mixedmedia said:
Bush's Middle Class Tax Hike

A closer look at the administration's 2006 budget shows an economic agenda promoting the wrong choices and wrong priorities. Rolling back massive tax cuts for millionaires is off the table, but the Bush administration has no qualms about raising taxes on average Americans. The budget President Bush submitted to Congress yesterday imposes $5.3 billion in new, regressive taxes. (They are conveniently listed in table 18-3 on page 305 of the Analytic Perspectives supplement to the budget.) The administration's budget contains new taxes that will increase the price of a six pack of beer, an airline ticket and prescription drugs for veterans. Meanwhile, the budget cuts funding for education, public health and environmental protection and includes $1.4 trillion in new tax cuts for the wealthy. Welcome to Bushonomics. (Sound off on the president's middle-class tax hike on ThinkProgress.org.)


IT'S A TAX HIKE: President Bush has resisted raising the payroll tax to pay for Social Security reform. But don't be fooled: his Social Security plan is a tax hike. Here's how it works: President Bush is proposing keeping the Social Security wage tax at the same level while reducing benefits for future retirees. "By keeping the tax the same and reducing future benefits," Newsweek reports, "Bush is like a candymaker that cuts 46 percent off a chocolate bar but charges the same 75 cents for it. In other words, his plan would effectively increase the Social Security tax."
Exactly, Mixed, Just what the hell is going on? Bush's and the GOP are doing what they do best. They're swifting the tax burden away from the wealthy and toward the middle class and poor of this country. But I'm betting they get it done. Anybody who can convince a bunch of people that there's no reason to even try and tax the wealthy, we're just going to dodge the taxes anyway and still stick you with the bill. To say that and get those people to wildly applaud. Or sell the idea that really these laws to protect people getting paid overtime, they're not needed; big companies need to get rid of them so they can pay people more fairly, then they can sell anything to anybody.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
mixedmedia said:
IT INCREASES THE DEBT: The Bush plan also entails "significant new federal borrowing." Vice President Cheney this weekend admitted the government would have to borrow $754 billion over the next decade to set up the private accounts. (That's low-balling the number – most experts agree the first ten years of the Bush tax plan would cost about $2 trillion.) And after that? "Trillions more after that,'' he admitted. Large-scale borrowing carries a huge price for the middle class. When the federal government runs up a large debt, that means less money is available for average Americans to borrow when they want to buy a house or a car or pay for college tuition. That smaller pool of money available for loans translates into higher interest rates – which not only puts a squeeze on individual consumers but also slows the rate of economic growth. That means, in the long run, fewer jobs, low wage growth and less money coming into the federal Treasury.
Herein is a lot very important points. One of which is that the increased debt load this country faces will likely have a major impact on interest rates. This is an item I haven't been seeing much of in the "standard media" outlets. But a lot of economists are talking about it and the resulting rate increases could have dramtic effects. Dramtically bad for most people. Not so bad for other's. You have to ask yourself why would it be good to raise interest rates? Sometimes a small rate increase here or there helps the economy. Sometimes a small decrease has that effect. Depends on the current state of the economy and growth. But the swift that might well result from the massive deficit is not likely to be small, nor is it likely to be a decrease. Many sources, like the one you've cited, are saying the increase will most likely be large, very large. How large? Don't know sure. But look at the effects of an increase of say 4% of the "prime." Many home loans are now tied to the "prime." Let's say your home mortgage had a current balance of 150K and let's say your current ARM was at 5.25% your house payment would be somewhere around 820.00 for P&I. Now if interests were to go up 4% your house payment would now be right around 1235.00. An additional 415.00 every month, just for interest. If the rates went as high as 13.25% your loan payment would double to 1640.00. And that's just your house payment. Your credit cards rate would go up as well. Plus if you wanted to buy another car, any new car loan would be at a higher rate as well. So, that leads us back to why would it be good to have rates raise? Well, it wouldn't be good- unless your the one doing the lending and not the borrowing. So it wouldn't be good for the middle class or the poor, but it would be a huge boon for the wealthy.

I've said it before on here and I'll say it again: If you have an adjustable rate mortgage, I would without waiting- get rid of it. None of this may happen. But are you in a postion to possibly have your house payment increase by several hundred dollars?
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Pacridge said:
Herein is a lot very important points. One of which is that the increased debt load this country faces will likely have a major impact on interest rates.
Incredible. I get so busy seeing the obvious injustices before me, that I neglect the more insidious & probably more harmful ones. Lends a whole new meaning to the concept of "fixing" Social Security.

So this, if it played out as cited, would affect many of the low-income & first-time home owner's who were so gleefully encouraged to take advantage of the low interest rates right after 9/11. Right?

Thanks Pacridge & anomaly both for the insight.

Oh, if I had a hammer.....
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
mixedmedia said:
Incredible. I get so busy seeing the obvious injustices before me, that I neglect the more insidious & probably more harmful ones. Lends a whole new meaning to the concept of "fixing" Social Security.

So this, if it played out as cited, would affect many of the low-income & first-time home owner's who were so gleefully encouraged to take advantage of the low interest rates right after 9/11. Right?

Thanks Pacridge & anomaly both for the insight.

Oh, if I had a hammer.....
I don't know. Don't know much about those loan programs. If they're based on ARM's (adjustable rate mortgages) Then yes, most certainly. I have a friend who runs a small mortgage company. The rates and numbers I posted came from her, as well as some of the warning to get rid of any ARM's. Though she's certainly not the only person in the country announcing that warning. I'll ask her about the first-time home buyer programs.
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The inherent problem with the US is that you have no left wing. Your liberalism has let you down because it is too wishy washy, on the fence, idelologically flawed and incapable of achieving anything. You may make a few token gestures, but any real attempts to help the poor will be blocked by the real power: corporate America (witness the failure of Clinton's proposed health reforms). Ultimately, like your republican friends, you end up only serving the interests of a rich minority, and frankly, wouldn't know what social justice meant if it slapped you in the face. The world's poor will only be liberated by international socialism, but of course for you guys, you'll just get hysterical televangelists screaming "communists!" and "reds under the bed!"
The closest your poor will ever get to real social security is to go on a TV game show and "Grab That Dough!!!!"*** Sad nation :thumbdown


***Sponsored by McLiving (extra fries)
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Urethra Franklin said:
The inherent problem with the US is that you have no left wing. Your liberalism has let you down because it is too wishy washy, on the fence, idelologically flawed and incapable of achieving anything. You may make a few token gestures, but any real attempts to help the poor will be blocked by the real power: corporate America (witness the failure of Clinton's proposed health reforms). Ultimately, like your republican friends, you end up only serving the interests of a rich minority, and frankly, wouldn't know what social justice meant if it slapped you in the face. The world's poor will only be liberated by international socialism, but of course for you guys, you'll just get hysterical televangelists screaming "communists!" and "reds under the bed!"
The closest your poor will ever get to real social security is to go on a TV game show and "Grab That Dough!!!!"*** Sad nation :thumbdown


***Sponsored by McLiving (extra fries)
I appreciate your views and thanks for your support. Perhaps it is that the left spends as much time eating itself as it does its opposition. Maybe that's the problem? We can handle it from here. Have a good day.

And, sorry, but why don't you defile the name of one of your dynamic European pop stars for a while? Some of us over here admire Aretha Franklin and don't appreciate her being used as a cheap-joke username. Have a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T, why don't ya?
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mixedmedia said:
I appreciate your views and thanks for your support.
Thank you darling. You're welcome.


mixedmedia said:
Perhaps it is that the left spends as much time eating itself as it does its opposition.
Given that you don't actually have a left in the US, how would you know?

mixedmedia said:
And, sorry, but why don't you defile the name of one of your dynamic European pop stars for a while? Some of us over here admire Aretha Franklin and don't appreciate her being used as a cheap-joke username. Have a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T, why don't ya?
Yeah, like mixedmedia is your real name?
Now lighten up and get a life.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Urethra Franklin said:
Thank you darling. You're welcome.




Given that you don't actually have a left in the US, how would you know?



Yeah, like mixedmedia is your real name?
Now lighten up and get a life.

You may not consider us as having a left, which I can argue with, but certainly you can grant us that times are ripe for its blossoming - that America has some capacity for change. That said, I agree with you to a great extent about the current state of the American spirit. I rant about it myself fairly often.

I'm not sure where you are in Europe, but let's not forget that Europe isn't too far removed from their own shameful, self-serving, empirical histories. Not far enough removed to claim providence over progressive thought. And still, even so, I love France! Laisser les bons temps rouler!

So Urethra Franklin is you real name?
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
mixedmedia said:
And, sorry, but why don't you defile the name of one of your dynamic European pop stars for a while? Some of us over here admire Aretha Franklin and don't appreciate her being used as a cheap-joke username. Have a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T, why don't ya?
I love Aretha - the true queen of soul. BUT, I'm afraid she's always been called Urethra by us health workers. It's a little joke. Live with it!:)
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Naughty Nurse said:
I love Aretha - the true queen of soul. BUT, I'm afraid she's always been called Urethra by us health workers. It's a little joke. Live with it!:)

Oh, that I shall...in fact I'm over it already! I'm working up a series of good Falco & Abba jokes.
 
Top Bottom