Diatribune - economy - Comments

This story reminds me of a

Jacob Freeze — Mon, 12 May 2008 13:57:25 -0600

This story reminds me of a great tagline from Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger:

"Less talk, more killing."

No Kidding! This glaring

alexwierbinski — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:12:39 -0600

No Kidding!
This glaring contradiction really comes into focus in the China trade.

China picks the Bishops, controls the congregations, and forces abortions on all. And The Christian Right remains silent.

China runs an authoritarian regime, arresting, detaining, torturing and killing. And the Christian Right remains silent.

But hell, they haven't said a thing about our crimes either.

I too believe that we are

Milos Janus Outlook — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:23:33 -0600

I too believe that we are moving toward the "D" word, not the "R" word. Thanks for the report and link.

I dropped a word, and my

Jacob Freeze — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:28:50 -0700

I dropped a word, and my comment should read "...your comparison between the Bush and Clinton economies..."

Thanks for this funny,

Jacob Freeze — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:25:30 -0700

Thanks for this funny, insightful diatribe. The figures for your comparison between the Bush and Clinton are well selected and perfectly comprehensible even to econ-challenged rubes like me. If Democrats had any focus, they would be pounding this dismal picture into the brains of the public with similar clarity.

Oh this is sooo good! Please

moongirl — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:23:47 -0700

Oh this is sooo good! Please submit this to http://www.hypocrisy.com

The Clinton's Corporate

alexwierbinski — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:18:51 -0700

The Clinton's Corporate Democracy

Corruption Updates 59, 2^nd article on the page, At Wal-Mart, Clinton didn't upset any carts

Corruption Updates 33, ^th article on the page, Corporate Democrats of the Democratic Leadership Council Laughs at democracy

See Right Web for an interesting profile of the DLC and its Corporate backers

Corruption Updates 59, 2^nd article on the page, At Wal-Mart, Clinton didn't upset any carts

Corruption Updates 62, 6^th article on the page, Suit Sheds Light on Clintons’ Ties to a Benefactor

Corruption Updates 62, 10^th article on the page, Clinton: Pakistani businessman, donor to Dems, returns to U.S. to face charges

Corruption Updates 76, 4^th article on the page, Clinton: Fundraiser allegedly demanded stock

Corruption Updates 78, 6^th article on the page, Poll: Dem Voters Hate Canididates

Corruption Updates 93, 7^th article on the page, He backs Clinton; her backers help him

Corruption Updates 97, 2^nd article on the page, Executive privilege touchy for presidential hopefuls: Just a Reminder of why Bush is out of Control

Corruption Updates 109, 8^th article on the page, Clinton-Hsu: Yet Another Criminal Foreign Donor

Corruption Updates 113, 3^rd article on the page, Clinton to Hsu: Your Money is hot now. Please take it back

Corruption Updates 113, 4^th article on the page, FBI looks into disgraced donor's business: Investigating a pyrmid scheme from within a pyrmid scheme. The House of Mirrors.

Corruption Updates 127, 9^th article on the page, Billery and Corporate Democrats thoroughly Bribed by Corporate Medicine

Hsu the Billery bundler, lat, 9-14-07

NYT, October 29, 2007; Health Sector Puts Its Money on Democrats: Billery Bought to the Hilt by Corporate Medicine: Expect all Medical Costs to Continue Rising after Election

Clinton sets up fake soft-ball questions at public rallies: Just like bush, Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2007

Hsu used billery connection to bilk investors, Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2007

Clinton rolls a sizable pork barrel, LAT, 12-12-07

Hsu, bundler to billery, Democrats Is sentenced in California, NYT, January 5, 2008

Every political economy

alexwierbinski — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:01:05 -0700

Every political economy claims to serve the health and (productivity?) of their particular society. Few do.

I've decided that rather than following a particular political philosophy, it is more fruitful to work to restore the democracy that brings all the political perspectives to the table, to decide our policies among ourselves.

As it is now, we have a corporate elite bribing the hell out of our political elite, producing putrid policy that is unhealthy and over-productive.

Until we stop the bribery, and restore democracy, we will continue to get ripped off. Rational policy and our rights will continue to be sacrificed for irresponsible profits.

I am posting a constant stream of news and analysis focusing on political corruption.
Check it out: committeefordemocracy.org

I was taken aback by that

Intrepid Liberal Journal — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:04:31 -0600

I was taken aback by that answer as well. Many people are more interested in doing the right thing and getting the job done. People like Greenspan are interested in self-promotion and self-aggrandizement.

Is that a picture you drew

Intrepid Liberal Journal — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:03:19 -0600

Is that a picture you drew of Greenspan? I like it!

60 Minutes interviewed him

WayneNight — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:11:20 -0600

60 Minutes interviewed him this evening. My personal favorite was when he responded to a charge that had been made about him a long time ago by Ayn Rand: That he's "too much of a social climber."

His response something along the lines of: "Everyone is a social climber. It's part of being human."

I don't particularly subscribe to that line of thought. Not everyone puts "climbing the latter" above all else. Perhaps his desire to be "in with the boys" explains some of what happened after Bush took office.

Shouldn't trust anyone who was a Rand disciple, anyway. Those people are nuts.

Why is anyone surprised at

epppie — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:53:14 -0600

Why is anyone surprised at this? Doesn't anyone remember how Greenspan repeatedly raised the rates in the late nineties, helping trigger the recession that Bush capitalized on to "win" the White House? It made no sense, other than political sense, for Greenspan to do that. The Fed blamed it on inflation that wasn't ocurring.

I see a couple of problems

kerry — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:32:34 -0600

I see a couple of problems with this. Monthly mortgage payments are generally lower than comparable market rent for the same home. If they can't make a mortgage payment, they are not likely to be able to pay market rent on the same home. It is more likely that the homeowner would have to find a cheaper place to live. If the homowner is in default due to prolonged unemployment, they may not be able to pay for anything. Also, as mentioned in an earlier comment, why would you buy a house even in foreclosure if you were committed by contract to keeping an existing tenant, especially one who lost the home to begin with.

I do agree with the initial premise however that we should be using tax dollars to help homeowners keep their homes rather than bailing out unscrupulous lenders. I just think there are probably better ways to do that. The simplist thing it seems would be to extend the loan for 12 to 24 months allowing the homeowner to get on their feet again. The lender makes more money in interest and the homeowner keeps their home. It would be a win win for everyone. The real shame in all of this is that buyers who don't put 20% down are usually required to carry insurance in the event they default on the loan. They can't use this insurance that they paid for to keep their homes and even though the insurance pays the mortgage co. for their loss the homeowner still has their credit ruined. This is just one more example of how special interests control our government. The consumer pays the insurance premium while the mortgage company reaps all of the benfit. Only in America!!!!

I think the way to go is a

epppie — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:49:25 -0600

I think the way to go is a rent-to-own deal, where the rent can count as ongoing mortgage payment if the former owner recovers the ability to purchase the house.

Re. the assumption that tenants will trash a house is, I think, insulting to tenants. Whoever takes over a mortgage takes on an obligation to be a good landlord. Tenants of good landlords don't tend to destroy the property (of course, there are exceptions to every rule).

The people were told over and over again that the credit bubble was sustainable. they were lied to. They should not have to take the hit alone.

Ok, you lost me right

feebog — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:13:49 -0600

Ok, you lost me right here:

"6. After the foreclosure, the mortgage holder is free to resell the house, but the buyer is still bound by the commitment to accept the former homeowner as a tenant indefinitely."

Why would anyone buy a home, even at a foreclosure price, if they were bound to accept a tenant indefinetly? That makes no sense at all. What if the tenant, who no longer has a stake in the house trashes it? You can't evict because of that clause. What if, at some point, you need the house to live in? You can't evict, even if it means you have to go out and rent something else. Sorry, this will simply not work.