The Housing Bubble

Now, now, oxide. You know better than that. In every market in the country (perhaps even the world) you can rent for 50% or less of the cost of buying using a loan. No matter where you are. No matter what your requirements. It is a rule. Like gravity.

They set themselves up. Colbert and Stewart ought to be charged royalties on all the material the RNC offered them.

Because of all the material provided by the RNC, someone wondered what Carville’s orgasm-face looked like. Someone snapped this picture of Carville watching the convention:

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs8/i/2005/365/6/4/Gollum_Gollum_by_I_evermind.jpg

“Would Jeb bomb the $hit out of brown people all over?”

No.

Would Jeb bailout Wall$treet?

Not sure, maybe, but then again, Hank’s another one we woudn’t have had under Jeb.

Would Jeb carry out many policies as GW? No. They WERE very different people.

Would Obama bomb the $hit out of brown people all over?
Would Obama bailout Wall$treet?
Would Obama carry out as many neocon policies as GW?

We already have the answer to these questions.

We already have the answer to these questions.

Some people still believe Obama is an improvement. LOL.

Would Obama bomb the $hit out of brown people all over?
Would Obama bailout Wall$treet?
Would Obama carry out as many neocon policies as GW?

A fresh dose of duopoly crushing truth is delightful.

Here’s what gets me about the current political situation, even amongst those here on this blog. Nobody from either party even discusses stuff like this:

‘The war on drugs just got a whole lot more warlike. Two hundred U.S. Marines have entered Guatemala, on a mission to chase local operatives of the murderous Zeta drug cartel. The news comes as two U.S. agents wounded in an attack in Mexico last week were discovered to be likely working for the CIA…as one of the wounded agents’ false identity was linked to a post office box in Virginia previously tied to CIA rendition flights.’

‘On the night of May 11, Honduran troops along with Drug Enforcement Administration agents allegedly killed two civilians — possibly four according to local accounts — including a pregnant woman.’

‘n February, Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina said his country is “not doing what the United States says, we are doing what we have to do” — in other words, decriminalize drugs. But Molina has also emphasized cracking down on the cartels in a mano dura, or “iron fist,” approach to crime.’

‘Now, on the contrary, the U.S. hasn’t gone anywhere close to suggesting drugs be decriminalized. Gen. Douglas Fraser, the head of U.S. forces in South and Central America, said last year to the House Armed Sevices Committee that “the violence continues to increase in Central America, and that’s where and why we are focusing there.”

Lot’s of real issues there. Moral questions, expensive operations, dead people, and maybe even some of you are affected by the drug war. Where is the discussion of this on your nightly news? On this blog?

Oh, and by the way, the US military trained the Zetas before they formed the own cartel.

It because we are wrapped around the axle on what might happen instead of what is directly in front of us in the here and now. People only pay attention to the nightly news and political pundits who give them talking points which always shy away from the most important issues.

-We have the largest prison population in the world.
-We have our own prison industrial complex.
-We have militarized our police force and in turn see aggression from police daily that 20 years ago would get officers fired.
-How many towns do you know of that are less than 30k people with an SRT team and their own tank?

Needless lives ruined. Needless tax dollars thrown into an endless pit in the name of fighting the war on drugs…..I suppose this should be extended to the war on terror.

Everyone here is aware of bath salts? I wonder if the government asks themselves the question: Would someone do bath salts (knowing what they do to you) if cocaine, ectasy or whatever other drug were more readily available to them?

Ben,

I’ve brought up the topic a few times, but.. I try to stay off the non-housing/finance related grandstanding about political issues. I’m afraid you’ll throw me off the blog, and then what will I have to do with my mornings?

The War on Drugs is actually a war on our own people, particularly our children. It’s ineffective and shockingly expensive. More and more people are coming to this realization every day, and hopefully, the tides are starting to change (IE, MJ legalization is on the ballot in CO this year).

I’ve known lots of good people who’ve had their lives ruined by drugs. Most of those ruined lives are a result of the illegality of drugs (not the inherit dangers of the chemicals themselves). I’ve also known a few people who’ve succumb to drug addiction, which, while a terrible and painful process to watch, the illegality/legality in no way stopped people who were ready to throw it all away for drugs.

The thing that’s the most obtuse about this entire situation is alcohol and tobacco, arguably near the top in addiction potential and personal harm are our legal alternatives to things like MJ (very low addiction and personal harm) and even harder drugs like Ecstasy/LSD (low addiction, moderate personal harm). The only drug that consistently rates higher than our 2 legal drugs is heroin. Which, actually, is a misnomer, we have always had “legal heroin”, we just call it by other names (Oxycontin, Morphine, etc).

It’s a sad state of affairs. IMHO, if there’s no victim, there’s no crime. If we returned to that guiding principal, our lives would be dramatically more free and, IMHO, much better overall.

Let’s hope Amend 64 passes in Colorado. I’m watching that much more closely than I’m watching the presidential run. It would have a much larger effect on this country if a state legalized MJ than either BO or MR would have sitting in the captains chair.

“Everyone here is aware of bath salts? I wonder if the government asks themselves the question: Would someone do bath salts (knowing what they do to you) if cocaine, ectasy or whatever other drug were more readily available to them?”

Of course not. Same thing goes for “synthetic marijuana”. Same thing also goes (for most users) for methamphetamine (those users would most rather use cocaine). And crack (again, cocaine or freebase). And LSD (mushrooms). And oxycontin (heroin).

The drug way makes the most dangerous/potent (or easy to produce) chemicals the most available. A lot more profit available from 1g of LSD compared to 1g of mushrooms. So, what we wind up with is the most dangerous drugs become the most available, not because they are “better” and users like them more, but because there’s more profit in increasing the potency, even if some users die.

Drug addiction/danger chart..

http://www.rave.ca/fr/gallery_image/all/283009/

As you can see, our legal drugs outstrip most of the illegals handily on this chart.

Also, this chart is a little screwy, heroin (all opiates, actually) have very low physical harm unless you OD and die. Just like people can be on opiate painkillers and live a relatively normal life, so do many heroin users. The problem comes when they get a “hot” batch and OD, another direct result of the ongoing drug war.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin-abuse-addiction/what-are-long-term-effects-heroin-use

‘I try to stay off the non-housing/finance related grandstanding about political issues’

And I’m not trying to add anymore to that. I’m just curious, that with hundreds of comments here every day about this election, why such things aren’t talked about?

I can remember when the CIA or special forces running around killing people in Latin America was a big deal. Now we just had a LA summit, where several elected leaders begged the US to at least begin to consider de-criminalization. Not so they can get high, but to stop the decades of violence. Obama slammed the door shut. How about that progressives?

Long ago, when we actually debated the drug war, someone would bring up organized crime and prohibition. The Zetas and other cartels make Al Capone look like a Girl Scout. And yet we plod on the same path.

I’m very socially liberal. When Obama came into office, the 2 things that I hoped he would do were:

1) Legalize MJ
2) End the debate (legalize) same sex marriage

Now, I do want to qualify this a bit. I haven’t used drugs in a decade. I’m a married heterosexual. However, these 2 social issues are like a cancer on our country. The harm caused by the drug war is really incalcuable, and, gay marriage is something that, much like the cival rights movement, is going to be seen as a scar on this country 50 years from now when everyone thinks “You mean gays weren’t allowed to marry in 2012?!?”.

Unfortunately, Obama has done the opposite, pushed fiscally liberal policies and done nothing on the social liberty front, exactly what I hate about democrats (taxing me to death).

I’m going to hold my nose and vote R this year, but.. It’s really going to hurt. The Republicans live in the past (socially), I can’t stand their position on God, social liberty and things like abortion. However, I hate the dems view on the “rich” even more, and, IMHO, it’s MUCH more likely that that whoever is elected is going to change the tax code than change something about social liberty. So, a Republican I continue to be, although, as an atheist, it just pains me to put religious wackos into office.

If Obama came out and said he’d work to legalize drugs in his 2nd term, I’d vote for him, no doubt about it.

Cooke believes that Janis Joplin had accidentally been given heroin that was much more potent than normal, as several of her dealer’s other customers also overdosed that week

—————-
not because they are “better” and users like them more, but because there’s more profit in increasing the potency, even if some users die.

I’m going to hold my nose and vote R this year, but.. It’s really going to hurt.

Just wait until you find out which “loopholes” they’re gonna close to pay for the tax breaks for the super rich.

“And I’m not trying to add anymore to that. I’m just curious, that with hundreds of comments here every day about this election, why such things aren’t talked about?”

Ben, the answer to this is obvious to me. Both parties have exactly the same position on this.

Neither candidate would immediately pull troops out of Afghanistan, so what would be the point of arguing about that?

Both candidates will continue to have kill lists and use drone attacks in attempts to kill those people. Again, what’s to argue about?

Both candidates will continue the war on drugs and use military troops in an attempt to go after the suppliers while continuing to treat the users as criminals.

We can only argue the points the politicians at least PRETEND to disagree about.

Oh, Obama sucks because he surged troops into Afghanistan! And McCain wouldn’t have done the same thing? Or Romney?

Paul want’s to bring the troops home, but his economic philosophy is so whacked that he’s not really a valid alternate candidate.

“I’m going to hold my nose and vote R this year, but.. It’s really going to hurt. ”

What about getting out there and trying to make the R party be a “reality based” party again?

And as to prohibiting gay marriage, I see it as a straightforward violation of the 1st amendment.
The government should not be in the business of determining which relationships deserve “blessing”, that should be up to the religions.
The governments only interest should be in legally valid (domestic) contracts, which you should contract separately - in writing - if you want the benefits society gives to the married.

We can only argue the points the politicians at least PRETEND to disagree about.

This is so true is nauseating, especially first thing in the morning.

I’ll be glad when this election is over. I am a bit of a news junky, but right now I’m so disgusted I can barely read or watch snippets about the election.

There IS a difference between Obama and Romney, but not enough of a difference for me to get interested or excited.

We can only argue the points the politicians at least PRETEND to disagree about.

Bingo.

“The government should not be in the business of determining which relationships deserve “blessing”……

The gay “marriage” prohibition law was based on the religious code of the majority. If you believe they should not be in this business, you should expect them to stay out of polygamy, incest and infidelity. Not sure I can work woman on horse into this, but if anything goes between consenting adults, why should the government enforce any morals at all?

(Repubs) I can’t stand their position on God, social liberty and things like abortion…. I hate the dems view on the “rich” even more

So you hate the Dems wanting to revert the top tax bracket from 35% to 39.6% more than you hate the Repub’s God, Social liberty crackdowns, things like abortion, war chants and lies.

So for you, a 4.6% increase in the taxes of rich trump all of that other stuff. Your priorities are not mine.

The president can’t force the states to allow gay marriage. He can appoint Supreme Court justices that might someday decide that disallowing gay marriage is a violation of the Constitution or some other federal anti-discrimination law. The best arguments I have heard are based on sex discrimination since you are prohibiting a man from marrying another man even though you would allow a woman to do it and prohibiting a woman from marrying another woman even though you would allow a man to do it. I’m not sure if the state decisions have been based on this theory, but it is the one that is most convincing to me. It would be stronger if the ERA had ever become law.

The president could have tried to get Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which would allow the federal government to recognize state sanctioned gay marriages. Does anyone know if the repeal of the DMA would then require states that don’t recognize gay marriage to recognize gay marriages from other states? Because that is pretty much as good as repealing the ban, but I’m not sure if repealing DMA gets you all the way there.

“based on the religious code of the majority.”

Again, refer to the first amendment.

As to polygamy, I’d don’t care if they want to practice polygamy, I don’t see how it hurts me or makes me less free. I’d rather not have second wives posing as single mothers and collecting welfare.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/05/how-polygamy-affects-your-wallet.html

As to infidelity, I would consider that reasonable grounds for dissolving the legal contract.

As to incest, well that should be addressed as child abuse, which I think religious and secular society can agree is wrong.

ut if anything goes between consenting adults, why should the government enforce any morals at all?

Bring back the anti-miscegenation laws, too, while we’re at it.

The blacks and the gays are too damn uppity.

Unlawful drugs are a profit center pure & simple…

Take the profit away and most of the problems go away…

Just think about who profits from it…

D. A’s office….
Police
Probation officers
Jails
Prison guards
Attorny’s
Courts
Re-Hab houses

And the user pays the price…A big price…A lifetime price…

And to me its a JOBS bill. We need JOBS and gay people spend money on entertaining. I wish gay people would promote it this way….what would a repub say…NO to creating jobs???

And as to prohibiting gay marriage, I see it as a straightforward violation of the 1st amendment.

“As to incest, well that should be addressed as child abuse, which I think religious and secular society can agree is wrong.”

not trying to defend the incest point with respect to the gay marriage debate but…a brother and sister having sex is incest and if of legal adult age…not child abuse.

“but if anything goes between consenting adults, why should the government enforce any morals at all?”

It’s not morality if it’s enforced by the rule of law (it’s legality then). Morality is what you do when nobody is watching and there are no specific penalties for doing the “wrong” thing. Your pet pisses you off, do you kick him/her or do you shrug it off? That’s morality. Do you give to charities without expecting/wanting anything in return (including recognition)? That’s morality.

Legality trumps morality. If something is regulated by law, it really doesn’t have much moral standing any more. You don’t do the “wrong” thing because you are afraid of punishment, not because you are a moral/upstanding person.

“Legality trumps morality. If something is regulated by law, it really doesn’t have much moral standing any more.”

slavery…segregation…and the “A” word.

“Legality trumps morality…”

Only for the individual. For the whole, the laws should normally reflect what the majority consider right. Not all, but most of these right/wrong ideas are not just made up as we go along from day to day, they are based on ancient tradition and religion.

“Illegal” drugs are illegal because there is too much money to be made in keeping them that way.

- Too many powerful families who depend upon the world-wide money-laundering business
-Too many politicians with a vested interest in the vested interests of their local businessmen
-Too many pharmaceutical conglomerates who don’t want the competition er, “unregulated dosages and quality”
-Too many federal agencies who don’t want any more “clients” straining their resources

-Too much “velocity” keeping the money churn going through the underground drug markets to risk upsetting the network of providers.

And look at all the trouble the administration had just getting gay civil rights into the discourse of the political mainstream.

That said, some of the pot-lobby sites are rife with rumors of an “October Surprise” (but then, when are they not?)

+1 for the lady….

“If Obama came out and said he’d work to legalize drugs in his 2nd term, I’d vote for him, no doubt about it.”

I don’t blame you one bit for voting for Romney, but Obama knows damn well he can’t go saying that, as if provides too much ammo to the competition, even if it’s the right thing to do.

Even his “evolution” on gay marriage was calculated and gutless. Politically it may have been wise, I don’t know. But a second term Obama is more likely than a first term anyone to work for drug decriminalization and gay rights. Note I said “more likely”, not “likely”.

Reading through some of these comments must make your radical (progressive)professors quite proud, what a number they did on some of you.

- IBP

“Reading through some of these comments must make your radical (progressive)professors quite proud, what a number they did on some of you.”

I notice you have a habit of slagging away without saying who/what you’re referring to. If you’re going to go to the effort to post an insult, why not explain yourself?

“I notice you have a habit of slagging away without saying who/what you’re referring to. If you’re going to go to the effort to post an insult, why not explain yourself?”

Again, you must be missing some of my earlier posts, they were very well researched and thoughtful, sorry you missed them.

There is not way I could have replied to the hundreds of bogus arguments and half truths posted above, so I just mocked them. That’s what I do…but thanks for asking.

- IBP

Point of clarification, nick,

By the time you’re studying with professors, you’ve presumably learned some critical thinking skills — which is why you’ve been admitted to university and not a trade school. The idea that wild-eyed professors are somehow indoctrinating innocent young minds into the dark ways of the liberal is a paranoid construct of a fearful and unexamined mind, one which ignores the fact that university students are the cream of the intellectual crop, there by choice and paying good money to study with these professors, and are quite likely already in sympathy.

Your comment brings to mind the shadowy “outside communist agitators” who were supposedly “riling up” American university students in the 1960’s — as if we’d never read or considered any of this before. “Radical professors” are a convenient rationale for the unschooled masses who prefer to think that sinister forces are controlling the minds of those whose ideas they don’t understand.

“based on the religious code of the majority.”

Again, refer to the first amendment.

The Right considers most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights to be iffy, and subject to majority overrule. Except of course the 2nd, which is sacrosanct.

Ahansen,

I read somewhere recently that the human mind is not fully developed until around age 25…mine took much longer personally…just thought that was interesting.

michael,

Aha! Critical thinking! You been hanging around one-a them libral profs again, son?

Jeb would have had a chance if he hadn’t been tainted by his brother’s regime and merry band of neocons. If it had been just Jeb, there would have been no Rumsfeld, no Cheney, no Rove, no Rice, etc. He would have put together his own team. But, he was sucked into shrub’s orbit and he’s never been able to shake it, since. He became a different person. The Jeb that used to be would never have been sucked into that whole Terry Schiavo debacle, among other things.

He has survived as a sort of gray eminence behind the scenes of the Republican party in Florida, giving his blessing to such as Marco Rubio, Mitt and others. A real pity, and a real waste of what could have been.

“Jeb would have had a chance if he hadn’t been tainted by his brother’s regime and merry band of neocons.”

+1 Dubya was a neocon shill who repudiated the oath.

i would vote for hillary or obama over jeb just for spite.

fool me once…shame on you…fool me twice..shame on…well…you ain’t gonna fool me again.

Tosh, really? I find his voice so annoying.

When Tosh is the better choice, you’ve definitely been driven into your Dark Place.

better to marry money, like John Kerry, Arianna Huffington, and other women of leisure.

Going to Harvard without a student loan and living off your trust fund in the “hard times” is NOT doing it on own.

recent article about over 100 harvard students being investigated for plagarism… google it.

Not everything is about Obama.

He could release the tax returns for that year…

He could release the tax returns for that year… ??

He could release all of them for that matter but that would likely do him in now wouldn’t it…McCain appeared to think so…Why else would he have chosen Palin over a qualified Presidential candidate like Romney…There is dirty linen in those returns…

+1 Rio….Neocons chased me out of the party….

+1 Rio….Neocons chased me out of the party….

Me too.

I just ignore the religious fundies and Neocons, they don’t represent the views of moderate conservatives.

I might be a republican by now if things hadn’t changed so much.

“The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon submitted a reorganization plan to Congress and it was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.”

(from wikipedia article)

Damn, I’m a Republican By Gov. Susana Martinez

My parents also taught me about having the courage to stand for something. So, I went to law school and became a prosecutor.

I took on a specialty that very few choose to pursue — I prosecuted child abuse and child homicide cases. Cases that were truly gut-wrenching.

But standing up for those kids, being their voice for justice, was the honor of a lifetime.

Sometimes you pay a price for standing up.

When I was a young prosecutor, I got called to testify against my boss. I could have backed down, but I didn’t. I stood up to him. And he fired me for it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/30/damn_im_a_republican_115266.html

I just ignore the religious fundies and Neocons, they don’t represent the views of moderate conservatives.

I wish Mitt would. All things considered, I think he is fairly moderate. Trouble is, he’s not talking like it right now.

I don’t think you get much on how far your party has gone right-wing nut-job the past 30 years.”

To put a fine point on it, Mitt Romney is to the right of where Barry Goldwater was circa 1964, which was far to the right of Mitt’s father, George Romney, Goldwater’s rival in the 1964 election.

But this is what it takes these days to appease the neocon extremists who have a death grip on the Republican party.

so I discount his current Presidential experience.

Of course you discount Obama’s presidential experience Northeastener. You have no option. You HAVE to discount it. Because to not would be to betray your rigid dogma.

and Clinton passing the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That combined to help form the bubble. Bush inherited that mess, so blaming Bush for the housing collapse is a bit short-sighted ??

I would have thought you would do a little homework before you posted that;

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep.Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

And, the bill would have easily withstood a Veto so blaming Clinton for it is a Red Herring…

On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13][note 4] and by the House 362-57.[14][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[15]

The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

The buck stops at the top, bud. We’ll never know if it would have withstood a veto or not, as Clinton buckled and signed it into law…

As I said, I voted for Clinton and would do so again, but at the end of the day, he kept Greenspan as Fed Chair and he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

“and Clinton passing the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That combined to help form the bubble. Bush inherited that mess, so blaming Bush for the housing collapse is a bit short-sighted ??”

Dubya culled the regulators, and placed the FBI on a short leash.

The fact is (bud) it would have withstanded a veto…Why should he veto it then…He is a politician…He had nothing to gain by vetoing it…Nice try though…Reps are the ones that drove this legislation…

Oh…By the way…I voted for Clinton also and would again…

Why should he veto it then…He is a politician…He had nothing to gain by vetoing it

Well, for one, we wouldn’t be here more than a decade later disputing who was responsible for the passing into law of the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

As I said, politicians veto bills all the time to make a point, regardless of whether the veto would stand. GW Bush had 4 of his Veto’s overridden. Bill Clinton had 2 of his vetoes overridden. Ronald Regan had 9 of his vetoes overridden. Politicans make a stand all the time. Clinton didn’t make a stand on this particular issue, nor did his administration.

The fact is (bud) it would have withstanded a veto…

BTW, no disrespect. I was just getting channeling Wolverine with that statement… it might have sounded better in my head than in the blogosphere

I agree with NE here. I ask “why didn’t X* veto it then?” all the time. Usually ends the discussion.

I’ve used it most recently regarding TARP when I’m told that it was the Dem Congress, and not the Prez, who was to blame for it. Why didn’t GWB veto it then?

*where X = BO, GWB, BC, GHWB, RR, etc.

“I agree with NE here. I ask “why didn’t X* veto it then?” all the time. Usually ends the discussion.”

Do you actually want to know the answers? Something that can pass and override a veto has money behind it. Something like the repeal of G-S especially. You don’t veto it and screw up the campaign contributions (for you or the next person in your party) when you are going to get the legislation shoved down your throat anyway.

Greenspan was appointed by Reagan. After Reagan fired Volcker.

If you’re seeking the origin.

Well, that’s their out Dave. Otherwise they’d have to live up to their “support your President no matter what” cries from 2003*-2008. This is the excuse they came up with so they didn’t have to follow their own advice when it didn’t suit them.

(*Why 2003? Because most of the country had his back until then.)

LOL.

We still have troops in Kuwait serving as a quick reaction/security force in case we need to go back into Iraq, but we did leave Iraq and hand over all US military bases to the Iraqi military.

As someone else mentioned, the Iraqi government wouldn’t provide US military personal criminal immunity, so the US military refused to provide anti-terrorism training and advisory services once combat forces had withdrawn.

Personally, I think that was as foolish a decision on the part of the Iraqis as was the US decision to disband the Iraqi military under Saddam after the fall of Baghdad. As things stand now, they will rise or fall on their own… given the spate of bombings in Baghdad recently, it seems mostly fall.

“…it seems mostly fall….”

Now there’s a surprise. There was a reason we put Saddam in charge in the first place.

The day after that election, Bush sent Rummy packing. That was the real turning of the corner in Iraq.

Do you even know the history? Bush sent Rummy packing but also massively increased the troop level next day.
Does the war end when you send more troops? If that’s the case let’s once in for all accept that there’s no war in Afghanistan.

‘the war in Iraq was ended by hard-working grassroots Democrats’

The Shia govt the US installed, with the added pressure of insurgents, forced (some would say tricked) the Bush administration into signing a withdrawal of forces agreement. Undoubtedly, the US thought they could get out of it later. But the Iraqi’s held firm, even as the Obama administration bribed, threatened and fought until the last day to keep the US in Iraq.

The main reason the US left was the Iraqi’s refused to extend immunity to US troops from crimes committed in Iraq. Which was part of the agreement Bush signed and Obama couldn’t get around.

Sometimes sending more troops ends a war sooner. Wasn’t Rummy the one whose philosophy of how to fight a war was very tied to doing it with less troops no matter what anybody says?

Wasn’t Rummy the one whose philosophy of how to fight a war was very tied to doing it with less troops no matter what anybody says?

Yes. It was Rumsfeld’s policy to use lighter, faster combat brigades and special forces instead of the typical, old army way of heavy, slow moving and expensive combat divisions. He believed that a smaller, lighter, more agile military was the future of combat in the 21st century and did everything he could to shape that policy.

He was right, but as in much in life, wrong about the timing, and thus failed. Fighting and winning the initial conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan using fewer troops than traditionally planned was very successful. Occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan require lots of troops on the ground and failed miserably with the lighter troop deployments used during combat operations.

Yes, Carl. Rumsfeld thought Iraq would be a good place to test out whether they could stop relying on the Powell Doctrine.

The main reason the US left was the Iraqi’s refused to extend immunity to US troops from crimes committed in Iraq. Which was part of the agreement Bush signed and Obama couldn’t get around.

Not that we had any business invading that country in ‘03, mind you. But good job on getting US to leave. You go, Iraq.

Not that we had any business invading that country in ‘03, mind you.

I can’t defend the actions of the NeoCons leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

To this day, I despise what they did to Powell and his dog and pony show for the UN. They turned a highly respected former general and top cabinet member into a patsy for the Iraq invasion.

“To this day, I despise what they did to Powell and his dog and pony show for the UN. They turned a highly respected former general and top cabinet member into a patsy for the Iraq invasion.”

+1 Meanwhile neocons don’t join the military ranks preferring college degrees instead. Soldiering is for someone else’s young men.

+1 more. His body language at the time was tough to watch, yet spoke volumes.

Man, the entrepreneurial side of me says there is money to be made opening a Progressive deprogramming center or creating some books and tapes to sell…or both.

- IBP

…channeling Guiness here…

Brilliant!

“Would you really rather have Obamacare rip off $700,000,000,000+ of funding? At least Ryan is trying to repair it. Obama is raiding it.
…
Did I miss something?”

Yeah. You missed that you are channeling one of the many propaganda lies straight from Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech. The MSM already called him out on it. Read much?

I don’t have any issues with what happened yesterday. And if anyone thought I was particularly absent towards the end of the day, I was at the Shakespeare Theater’s free-for-all production of All’s Well that Ends Well last night. I find there is a serious structural problem with the play (Helena is kind of great so it really doesn’t make sense for her to be that in love with a drip like Bertram), but the production was fantastic and the play is fine except for that structural issue. Great time. Chatted with the people on either side.

And, by the way, I’ll be delighted to post links to some of the fact checkers for the D convention too. But the Rs came first, so they got all the attention this week.

Yeah, it’s tough when you get demagoged on your own issue. The Dems screwed up when they used this in an effort to balance Obamacare. Now its time to pay for it.

You read the wrong things.

Oh, and here is the Washington Post Fact checker on last night’s speech:

Fact checking Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech at the GOP convention

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-mitt-romneys-acceptance-speech-at-the-gop-convention/2012/08/31/70c3d8de-f31f-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html?hpid=z2

This is a list so it is hard to do a tease, so here are the second and third items, just because the analysis seems fairly complete:

“I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour.”

This is one of Romney’s signature lines, but in a lengthy column last year, we tracked down every statement Obama uttered that partisans claim was an apology, and concluded that each one had been misquoted or taken out of context. His comments overseas were not much different than that of his predecessor, former President George W. Bush

Indeed, on several occasions Bush apologized to foreign governments for actions taken by U.S. soldiers, such as for the shooting of a Koran or prisoner abuse in Iraq. “I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families,” Bush said at a news conference with Jordan’s King Abdullah.

Despite earning Four Pinocchios for this claim for months, Romney keeps saying this.

“Does it [the economy] fail to find the jobs that are needed for 23 million people and for half the kids graduating from college? No.”

Romney is referring to an Associated Press survey earlier this year that concluded that about 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed. This was the highest level in 11 years, since the dot-com bust in 2000.

“A weak labor market already has left half of young college graduates either jobless or underemployed in positions that don’t fully use their skills and knowledge,” the news agency said. “Young adults with bachelor’s degrees are increasingly scraping by in lower-wage jobs — waiter or waitress, bartender, retail clerk or receptionist, for example — and that’s confounding their hopes a degree would pay off despite higher tuition and mounting student loans.”

Romney often cites this fact but is generally careful to include the phrase “underemployed.” His phrasing in his speech might have led viewers to believe that 50 percent of college graduates cannot find jobs at all, which is incorrect.

Would you really rather have Obamacare rip off $700,000,000,000+ of funding?

Ryan’s budget ripped the exact same $7 billion of funding.

Obamacare is ripping nothing off.

The only thieves in medicine are the drug companies, the insurance companies, the hospitals and the medicare scammers.

Under Obama, more Medicare fraud has been successfully prosecuted than ever in history.

His phrasing in his speech might have led viewers to believe that 50 percent of college graduates cannot find jobs at all, which is incorrect.

Again with the damn lies, leftists?

Parse this statement very carefully… phrasing MIGHT HAVE LED viewers to believe incorrectly that 50% of college grads can’t find jobs. It doesn’t say Romney lied or was even incorrect in his statement.

The left in full dis-information propaganda mode. You guys are worthy of the legacy of distortions propagated by the likes of the KGB…

you (Lip) are channeling one of the many propaganda lies straight from Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech.

Lip’s political posts are all channeling RNC talking points, with the usual deflections and straw-men.

Check it out.

I’ll be delighted to post links to some of the fact checkers for the D convention too. But the Rs came first, so they got all the attention this week.

If this ends up being a true statement, then I apologize for any attacks I made directly or indirectly against you. BTW, it does look like you did your homework on the Tax issues we discussed yesterday and you posted in the Weekend Topics.

The post in weekend topics is almost a repost of what I put up earlier in the week. I added a few I had forgotten and divided it up into sections to make for easier reading. The real reseach is to get deeply into the CBO report where the numbers are. Not up for that right now. But if you want to talk about it over the weekend, you have to contribute something now. No reason for Ben to use it if no one seems interested.

And since I am doing the fact checker links here is the one that seems to be covering that role from Wonkblog.

The trends behind Romney’s numbers
Posted by Dylan Matthews on August 31, 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/31/the-trends-behind-romneys-numbers/

I can’t really tease this one. But here are the words. There are a bunch of graphs too:

Mitt Romney’s speech Thursday night didn’t contain a whole lot of policy, but it did contain the following paragraph condemning Obama’s economic record:

In the richest country in the history of the world, this Obama economy has crushed the middle class. Family income has fallen by $4,000, but health insurance premiums are higher, food prices are higher, utility bills are higher, and gasoline prices have doubled. Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before. Nearly one out of six Americans is living in poverty.

Romney is absolutely right that the economic situation remains dismal, and the gist of what he said is right. Some of the numbers are off — according to the Census Bureau, median family income in 2010 was down $1,900 from 2008 adjusting for inflation, not $4,000 — but average family health insurance premiums in 2011 were up $2,393 from 2008, food prices last month were up 6.5 percent from January 2011, utility prices were up 1.7 percent and motor fuel prices were up 78.6 percent. In raw numbers, 46.18 million Americans were in poverty in 2010, above the previous peak of 39.85 million in 1960.

In 2010, 46.18 million was 15.1 percent of the U.S. population. That’s a big portion. But it’s a whole lot lower than 22.2 percent, the percentage in poverty in 1960. Indeed, if you look at the poverty rate from 1959 — when the Census Bureau started computing it — onward, it’s clear that poverty under Obama has not come close to where it was before the War on Poverty, a peak, indeed, that hasn’t been neared since Lyndon Johnson launched the Great Society:

[graph]

And it’s not just the poverty numbers. The inflation data is similarly presented without important context. Yes, food, utility, and gas prices are up. But unless the economy is in a deflationary spiral, prices are supposed to go up. The Federal Reserve has implicitly set a target of 2 percent inflation every year — that is, as a matter of policy it is committed to making prices grow that much. And inflation, in these three categories and generally, has been fallen sharply. Let’s look at overall, food, and utility inflation first:

[graph]

The red line is overall inflation, the blue line utility inflation, and the green line food inflation. The black vertical line is when Obama took office, and the dotted line is the Fed’s 2 percent target path for inflation As you can see, inflation in all three categories has been under target for most of Obama’s presidency, and was above target for the eight years preceding that. Utility prices, in particular, took a huge plunge with the economic downturn. Food prices are the only ones that are above target at the moment, while overall inflation has once again dipped below 2 percent. Have prices risen under Obama? Absolutely. But they rise all the time.

Gasoline is a different story:

[graph]

Gas prices have nearly doubled since Obama took office, but that’s because they took an enormous dive due to the economic crisis. As my colleague Glenn Kessler notes, gas prices are roughly where they were exactly four years ago, and the overall price spikes aren’t too different in scale from those during Bush’s presidency. This is not to indict either president but just to note that gas prices are overwhelmingly driven by factors — such as increasing demand from Chinese and Indian drivers, declining supply from oil producers, etc. — outside of the control of U.S. policymakers.

So Romney didn’t lie last night. Every one of his claims was true as he phrased it. But a viewer could be forgiven for thinking that poverty and inflation have been at unprecedented highs under Obama. They haven’t. The War on Poverty’s programs permanently lowered poverty in the United States, and while poverty has spiked during the recession, it hasn’t gotten nearly that high. And inflation has actually been well below where the Fed wants it.

[By the way, I'm not going to change my sources to Fox or anything when the D's have their go at it next week. The Washington Post does this better than most - much better than the New York Times as far as I can tell. I'm not linking to EJ Dionne op-eds or anything like that. Heck, I'm not even linking to the articles about the attendees who threw nuts at a black CNN camera operator and yelled that they were showing how to feed animals.]

Do those Republican propaganda hack gigs pay well?

Do those Republican propaganda hack gigs pay well?

Do those Democratic obfuscation campaigns pay well?

and almost none of it describing any realistic plans for how to do it better.

Lip, how many times do we need to hear what was done wrong? We know what the situation is. How about addressing the above statement? What’s the plan going…uh…forward?

Sleepless,

I was in Hobbs, NM when Romney made his announcement on his goal of making the US “energy independent by 2020″.

When he gets elected, he will try to institute his policies related to developing “all of our energy assets”. It focuses on the petroleum resources by allowing each individual state to run their own energy program.

IMO this will unleash a wave economic development in the states that have something to develop. Some states, such as CA, might not choose to develop their resources, and they’ll be left out of the economic recovery. Why do I think this? Well if you look at the states that are going well: Texas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and a few others are all drilling for petroleum products. Small companies in the Permian Basin of TX and NM cannot find enough workers and I hear the same is true in ND.

So that is the first thing to happen. Of course the Congress will have to be significantly Republic or this plan might not see the light of day.

“One can only hope that some thoughtful solutions get caught in the draft.”

Your extreme optimism is admirable.

Run the numbers Rio, the math isn’t there.

Again. That raising the rich’s taxes will not “solve the problem” on its own is irrelevant and an intentional deflection of the issue.

Raising taxes on the rich will help lessen the deficit - as they did under Clinton.

” Everything the left is spewing to discredit Paul Ryan attempts to paint the picture of lies and deceit.”

So Ryan wasn’t trying to paint any picture there? He was simply stating some random facts about something that happened?

Just like that PAC was just telling a story about some guy’s wife who couldn’t get insurance while he worked for a Bain owned company?

No insinuation at all?

There is no debate, only dis-information spread by the left…

No. There is a HUGE debate and there will continue to be. Why? Because Ryan’s speech was that of a slime-ball who plays fast and loose with the truth.

That’s why Republicans are having to pathetically defend him so much the past 2 days. (because of the RNC’s slime-ballishness) I don’t think 2 days of defending a slime-ball speech is very good for that campaign.

I’m not defending Ryan as his speech held up on it’s own merits. I’m ensuring the lies and dis-information being spread by the left don’t become top-of-mind to those who are still undecided in this election.

People have a problem with what he was insinuating, NE. Just like people had a problem with a PAC insinuating Romney killed a former employee’s wife. It’s pretty simple, really.

Just like people had a problem with a PAC insinuating Romney killed a former employee’s wife.

The problem with that argument is that Romney passed the Massachusetts Health Care Reform while governor of MA. To say on the one hand that Romney was responsible for this woman’s death because the company he ran, Bain, was responsible for the dead woman’s husband losing health insurance, doesn’t jive with Romney’s efforts to socialize health care for the masses.

Obama’s administration bailed out GM in January 2009. The Obama Administration gave GM $17.4 billion for General Motors and $6 Billion for GMAC to continue financing autos. At what point did GM decide it would close the GM plant? April 2008. Was the GM plant in question still building trucks in January 2009? Yes. Could the government have forced, as a condition of taking the bailout, GM to not close the plant? To retool it, as Obama had said he would do? Yes. Did the Obama administration do that? No.

People will believe whatever they want to believe, but the truth is hard to dispute: If the Obama administration had wanted to save that particular plant, it could have. Obama either lied or was disingenuous in his speech to those auto workers. Paul Ryan was spot on to call Obama on that speech and his failed promises… a pattern Obama has followed throughout his term.

Obama either lied or was disingenuous in his speech to those auto workers.

Or, the market took over and rendered his speech pointless. Did Ryan mention that?

Was the GM plant in question still building trucks in January 2009?

And you seem to keep coming back to this point as your ace in the hole. The point you are ignoring is that the decision itself was made, DUE TO THE MARKET conditions, that the plant would be closed, BEFORE January. The fact that they decided to honor a contract that was already in place and keep one more operation running does nothing for your argument.

Yes, perhaps he could have lived up to the promise and used executive orders to keep it open. Would that make it better for you? Or are you glad that the market made the decision, at least in that case?

As Republican convention emphasizes diversity, racial incidents intrude

“The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

There it is, in a nutshell.

“We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

Did you see the people at the GOP convention? They looked like they came from a Heehaw memorabilia convention.

Definitely NOT the party of the future.

Would the paid Republican trolls on this thread please raise your hands and be counted?

Why are you asking us? Email the author.

To be clear, my perspective on “not enough homes” is only for places where there are significant controls/restrictions by government…there are plenty of homes in places like TX, for instance, where there is little in the way of government restrictions.

add to the misery

That must be so hard, inheriting stuff like houses.

Bite me. The main misery was losing my dad.

A better reason is to have the paid off house for when you’re 65-85.

But even after that, buying a house is not throwing money away, even for the children. Maybe it’s a pain to convert the house into cash to divvy up among the kids, but it’s a lot more cash than the kids would get if the parent rented until the end.

I’m sorry to hear about our father. Happened to me too.

My father died a renter.

He moved frequently in his old age, trying to find cheaper and cheaper rent, as his VA pension and retirement (which tanked in 2001) did not ultimately provide enough money as his rent and his overall cost of living went up.

Us kids chipped in for funeral costs and to buy a small obit in the NY Times.

My mother, also in Manhattan (they divorced a long time ago), has a paid-off apartment and she is retired. If things ever get really tight for her, she can rent the place and move somewhere cheaper. Rent on a 3 BR apt. in Manhattan will cover her maintenance, condo fees, rent somewhere else, and living expenses.

“My father died a renter.

He moved frequently in his old age, trying to find cheaper and cheaper rent, as his VA pension and retirement (which tanked in 2001) did not ultimately provide enough money as his rent and his overall cost of living went up.”

What about that fugg’n Old Soldier’s Home fee they dutifully subtracted from our military pay; something else that doesn’t work, huh?

A Historical Introduction (on HUD Initiated Housing Bubble)

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/examining-the-big-lie-how-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/2011/11/16/gIQA7G23cN_story_1.html

Consider the causes cited by those who’ve taken up the big lie. Take for example New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s statement that it was Congress that forced banks to make ill-advised loans to people who could not afford them and defaulted in large numbers. He and others claim that caused the crisis. Others have suggested these were to blame: the home mortgage interest deduction, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, the 1994 Housing and Urban Development memo, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and homeownership targets set by both the Clinton and Bush administrations….

…. if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.

The market share of financial institutions that were subject to the CRA has steadily declined since the legislation was passed in 1977. As noted by Abromowitz & Min, CRA-regulated institutions, primarily banks and thrifts, accounted for only 28 percent of all mortgages originated in 2006.

•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

Nice find, Rio.

Moreover, as posted here before on several occasions, the CRA’s had and have a higher repayment rate than private firms because as such they were required to use more selective (governmentally mandated) underwriting in making their loans in the first place– with actual tax returns and income verification and everything!

But keep on posting that twattle, Lippy. And we’ll keep providing you with the facts.

Fact-checkers are basically unanimous that all three of these claims either stretch the truth or are flat-out false.
…

So which is it? False or a stretch of the truth?

Congratulations! You know you had a successful political convention when all the talk is of just how badly or how successfully your party lied or can lie. Or how you just “stretched the truth”.

I mean all the headlines in the MSM of “RNC Lies” mean you guys totally nailed it!

So what?

Oh yeah, I forgot, we live in a color blind society.

The only thing we know for sure is that its a troll. As to its race, who knows. It is just trolling.

What`s important are body parts anyway.

Judge Turkey ladies and gentleman. Not only a judge, but apparently an eye witness to the event.

- IBP

Some weight is more useful than other weight. His mostly looked less useful.

Another eye witness to the crime has popped up.

- IBP

And paying a massively and grossly inflated price for a rapidly depreciating asset is even less affordable.

It’s your funeral.

One day Pimp Watch will tell us how much he pays in rent.

Or maybe he’s a landlord and just wants to be sure that he can continue lording over everyone else.

Or inherited a house that he didn’t have to save up to buy?

Or lives in his parent’s basement?

Fess up, Pimp.

This isn’t about me… It’s all about you and your pandering and whining.

Carry on with your victim parade.

A lot of deals are blowing up over appraisals not coming in at a high enough value.

If you actually want certainty of close, a cash buyer is better than one who needs a bank approval and appraiser to also agree.

The seller just sits at the closing table and watches the checks and wire transfers fly around.

Time. Cash closes faster.

Blue, I have asked that question several times and Awaiting never answered, except for the Medical Black Swan (as if CA is the only state with a medical center). Not only is rent 1/3 somewhere else, but paid-off houses are 1/3 someplace else. I don’t think Awaiting has a job — at least not a job where she really needs to be there — and her husband, sadly, doesn’t seem to have many working years left.

There must be some other reason to stay in south CA — something that’s worth more than $300K in cash cushion. I don’t want to know what it is, but it would help to understand if there IS something. For one thing I’d stop being a bug bug about why it’s so darn imperative to live in a very expensive area.

Yes, I’ve seen your posts with the same question.

You’re a liar Darryl. Why lie?

“You’re a liar Darryl. Why lie?”

If he is indeed a liar, then the question is moot!

the number of liberal leftist socialist Democrats on this blog has gotten out of control

Out of control? Who? And why? Because they consistently and effectively counter your RNC talking point truth-stretching?

So much so that you are reduced to “out of control” raving?

“you raving leftist socialist lunatics” !!!

Who sounds in control there Northeastener?

Considering you added the bold-face type and the exclamation points, I’d say you made my point for me… spin, dis-information, and outright lies to obfuscate the truth:

Obama’s presidency didn’t live up to anyone’s expectations and will most likely be viewed as another Carter-like failure for the nation when the lens of history looks at this time period.

Considering you added the bold-face type and the exclamation points, I’d say you made my point for me… spin, dis-information, and outright lies to obfuscate the truth:

Right dude. You sounded Soooooo “in control”.

“you raving leftist socialist lunatics” !!!??!

LOL. Is that better? I just didn’t know how to add “foaming at the mouth” to your foaming at the mouth rant but that’s what you often sound like. Read your words. Embarrassed much?

Obama’s presidency didn’t live up to anyone’s expectations and will most likely be viewed as another Carter-like failure

Carter ranks in the middle of the pack as presidents and W Bush ranks among the worst and most corrupt. And Reagan began the demise of the middle-class. So now I should vote for Repub Romney because you don’t like Obama? I think not.

Carter ranks in the middle of the pack as presidents and W Bush ranks among the worst and most corrupt.

Under what pretenses or conditions? As I recall, GW lasted two terms to Carter’s one. As I recall, Carter was in charge during the botched Iranian hostage rescue where 8 American commandos lost their life. Carter was in charge when 3-mile Island occurred. Carter was also president during the 1979 Energy crisis.

Don’t get me started on the founding of the Department of Education by Carter…

“As I recall, Carter was in charge during the botched Iranian hostage rescue where 8 American commandos lost their life. Carter was in charge when 3-mile Island occurred. Carter was also president during the 1979 Energy crisis.”

My lord man, there are many reasons one can argue that Carter was mediocre to bad, but the things you named aren’t among them. I mean, they’re true, but they have no bearing on whether he was good or bad. So if you’re to to counter the “liberal leftist socialist Democrats”, you best step it up.

the number of liberal leftist socialist Democrats on this blog has gotten out of control.

That cracked me up, because here I was thinking that the number of far right conservative Republicans on this blog had been getting out of control.

Poor Darryl The Liar. Fawn over him. Fawn!

The basement of the house they just walked away from?

hiding gold coins in a paint can in the basement

+ 1000

How come liberals are not happy he voted WITH obama for TARP?

You should be singing joys of praise.

Are the democrats that DESPERATE that they seek to destroy the republicans by saying “look what a loser he is - he voted for something obama also supported…”

LOGIC Fail.