Larry David loves the Bush tax cuts

[franklin]

What a sad response, even for you Big Fundy.

I picked countries that have an economic base similar to ours and stronger social support. If I had been cherry-picking, I would not have included Denmark or the UK, but certainly would have included Ireland and Greenland.

Can you name the maximum term for a mortgage in Canada? France? Germany? Do you have any reason to claim 30-year mortgages don't exist there?

Go find out for yourself.

https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/products/mortgages/view_rates.html That 25 year rate is far from subsidized (The bank can actually hedge such a high rate). The next longest is 10 years.

https://www.bmo.com/home/personal/banking/mortgages-loans/mortgages# Ten year max.

https://scotiabank.com/cda/content/0,1608,CID13590_LIDen,00.html Ten year max.

Looking at your objections: Swiss banking laws are good for bankers, but how big a percentage fothe Swixx population are they?

If you cannot figure out the huge windfall that Swiss residents receive from the money pouring in for the safety offered then I'm not going to be much help to you. In fact, if you cannot figure this out then I doubt you understand anything economic. But I'm sure you can find a skewed study to support your fundamentalist ideology.

Do you really think that, even per capita, Norway is as resource-rich as the US?

Norway produced 2.35mm bbl/day in 2009. They have 4.8 million residents. Do the math.

The UK is in debt, but not much worse than the US.

I'll cede the point on Britain because I don't feel up to getting into it. However, you should realize the banking powerhouse was forced into austerity when the US wasn't. They have huge debt problems, and their health care comparables are much worse.

What do you hold German monetary policies responsible for their poverty rate, in particular? More unemployment, less poverty sounds like a decent trade-off to me. Nor do I see how us spending money on our military increases our poverty level.

Germany is in the EU. They don't have monetary policy. I have to point out that you clearly missed the point, again, yet argued against it anyway. Germany has mercantilist policies that hurt many of its EU partners (as well as other deficit nations). Sure they have low employment because of it, but it's causing huge imbalances across borders. Unsolved trade gaps have a way of ending very ugly (1929, Plaza Accord). Ask Greece and Spain (extremely high unemployment rate for a long time) how good Germany's policies are. This isn't much of a secret, but it obviously come as a huge surprise to you.

See, all that is cherry-picking. You simply tried to find one or two nuggets of data to attempt to show why these countries did not match your stated claim (missing a couple in the process) while making no link at all between your nugget and the poverty rate, and why they would have more poverty "except for A, B, and C".

No. What I see is a very confused fellow who has been badly misguided. You are obviously naive to the underlying issues that aren't the secret you think they are.

Or, you can just proclaim what a "fundy" someone else is, and how they are so impossible to convince that you can't be bothered with coming up with real data. That will convince everyone, right?

I'll get back to you after you've formed a respectable opinion with some actual insight. You're a fundamentalist ideologue. Your lack of insight is glaring as you attempt these terrible justifications for your radical views. I'll leave you with a song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNvnSLNrrAU

 

[One Brow]

Go find out for yourself.

So I'm supposed to believe a 25% unsubsidized rate is far superior to building wealth than a 30-year subsidized rate?

As for your trio, anecdotes are not data. Get some real information on mortgage length if you want to prove your claim.

If you cannot figure out the huge windfall that Swiss residents receive from the money pouring in for the safety offered then I'm not going to be much help to you.

This sort of cop-out is typical. You don't even have any evidence that the money stays in Switzerland, you just make vapid suggestions.

Norway produced 2.35mm bbl/day in 2009. They have 4.8 million residents. Do the math.

So, you haven't checked a comparison of overall natural resources per capita. Again, typical.

I'll cede the point on Britain ...

Not to mention France, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, etc.

This isn't much of a secret, but it obviously come as a huge surprise to you.

I'm aware that many countries are unhappy with Germany. What I don't see is evidence that their social structure has interfered with their unemployment rate. Are you claiming they would have less unemployment otherwise?

No. What I see is a very confused fellow who has been badly misguided.

I can have very reasonable conversations with people who politics/sconomics I disagree with, but where I acknowledge their superior expertise (The Pearl, for example). If you had superior expertise, I would have no problem with that.

You are obviously naive to the underlying issues that aren't the secret you think they are.

I am beginning to wonder if you lack the capacity to see people other than as stereotypes.

 

[franklin]

You're a masochist, Big Fundy. I like it!

So I'm supposed to believe a 25% unsubsidized rate is far superior to building wealth than a 30-year subsidized rate?

As for your trio, anecdotes are not data. Get some real information on mortgage length if you want to prove your claim.

LOL. Building wealth... or a bubble, expensive housing, loading landfills, instability of trillion dollar bailouts, and crushing debt burdens that is prohibiting the once mobile Americans from moving to where the jobs are (like N. Dakota currently)? LMAO.

Again, it's no secret. Search around a little. Try a few highly respected periodicals.

This sort of cop-out is typical. You don't even have any evidence that the money stays in Switzerland, you just make vapid suggestions.

I cannot do everything for you. I cannot learn for you, either.

So, you haven't checked a comparison of overall natural resources per capita. Again, typical.

Fine, I'll do the simple math for you. Norway's government profit from oil revenue alone is equivalent to $900 billion per year if the US had an equivalent per capita benefit. NINE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS. That's not a small chunk of change. I won't argue with you that the US has a large supply of natural resources--coal, timber, etc. The government doesn't get a huge windfall from this and these resources are not anywhere near the liquid gushers that Norway has. No, the US brand is much more labor intensive.

To Norway's credit, they're properly anticipating the end of the gushers and have built a nicely sized sovereign wealth fund. They're as smart as US conservatives and have invested it into productive assets alongside debt instruments. Unlike our social security system that purchases self-issued debt. But that's another topic.

Not to mention France, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, etc.

Populations so small hardly supply any meaningful comparison. Separate Texas--a state larger than the three here with a good economy--and offer full military protection and then let's compare.

I'm aware that many countries are unhappy with Germany. What I don't see is evidence that their social structure has interfered with their unemployment rate. Are you claiming they would have less unemployment otherwise?

LOL. Are you seriously asking me if Germany's mercantilist policies affect their unemployment rate? What do you think they have them for? Just to bitch slap the neighbors? You make me chuckle on the inside.

I can have very reasonable conversations with people who politics/sconomics I disagree with, but where I acknowledge their superior expertise (The Pearl, for example). If you had superior expertise, I would have no problem with that.

I'd put that up for popular vote. I wasn't aware you could reason, let alone be reasonable. But whatever you think of yourself.

I am beginning to wonder if you lack the capacity to see people other than as stereotypes.

It's just you Big Fundy.

 

[One Brow]

Lot's of rhetoric, little fact. I'll leave most of the empty rhetoric unanswered.

Fine, I'll do the simple math for you. Norway's government profit from oil revenue alone is equivalent to $900 billion per year if the US had an equivalent per capita benefit. NINE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.

We just put better than a third of that into the economy directly (40% of it via tax cuts) this past year. Are you saying that had a positive effect on poverty in the USA? How large of an effect?

If not, why would Norway's intake reduce poverty, unless directed across the whole population as opposed to concentrated in a few hands? Since your argument is that wealth distribution increases poverty, that would make Norway a counter-example to your point, unless you put a lot more behind it.

That's not a small chunk of change. I won't argue with you that the US has a large supply of natural resources--coal, timber, etc. The government doesn't get a huge windfall from this and these resources are not anywhere near the liquid gushers that Norway has. No, the US brand is much more labor intensive.

So, the fact that we need to pay more workers explains why more people are living in poverty?

Separate Texas--a state larger than the three here with a good economy--and offer full military protection and then let's compare.

Texas doesn't currently pay for full military coverage? Why does this impact the poverty rate? You're still throwing out random thoughts.

By the way, Texas has about 25 million people, France about 65 million.

I'd put that up for popular vote.

Up to you.

I wasn't aware you could reason, let alone be reasonable.

I am not responsible for your inability to read conversations I have with other posters, one even within this thread.

 

[franklin]

We just put better than a third of that into the economy directly (40% of it via tax cuts) this past year. Are you saying that had a positive effect on poverty in the USA? How large of an effect?

So the US can borrow and spend it's way to poverty? You have a twisted way of relating things together. There's no comparison between borrowing and producing something of value such as oil. Another irrelevant, Big Fundamentalist response that really didn't deserve even the brief attention I gave it.

If not, why would Norway's intake reduce poverty, unless directed across the whole population as opposed to concentrated in a few hands? Since your argument is that wealth distribution increases poverty, that would make Norway a counter-example to your point, unless you put a lot more behind it.

First off, you make no sense here. Second, quit stating arguments I never made to score Big Fundamentalist points. Norway is able to pay for their social programs thanks to oil production. Period. The USA doesn't have this luxury.

So, the fact that we need to pay more workers explains why more people are living in poverty?

No. A) We don't have much in the way of poverty by my standards. B) Norway's easy production frees up production time available to increase wealth through alternative activities. C) Are you aware of the extremely high cost of living in Norway (in spite of this huge advantage)?

Texas doesn't currently pay for full military coverage? Why does this impact the poverty rate? You're still throwing out random thoughts.

What? Are you out of your mind? How do you consistently misread the simplest of concepts? I really hope you are planning on donating your body to science for study after you die. You have some serious comprehension and reasoning deficiencies. Studying you might answer a lot of questions.

By the way, Texas has about 25 million people, France about 65 million.

France was specifically excluded in my responses. I'm afraid your literacy is suffering proportionally to your post count. Keep up or quit making yourself look like a fool.

 

[One Brow]

There's no comparison between borrowing and producing something of value such as oil.

Since you claim one has an effect on poverty and the other does not, the reasoning behing the distinct is yours to make.

Norway is able to pay for their social programs thanks to oil production. Period. The USA doesn't have this luxury.

Since the topic of discussion is poverty, and whether that spending increases poverty (as you claimed), you now need to link poverty rates to specifically having oil production, as opposed to other types of production. I'll keep waiting.

No. A) We don't have much in the way of poverty by my standards.

Vague, and meaningless in a discussion comparing poverty, and what it increases it.

B) Norway's easy production frees up production time available to increase wealth through alternative activities.

Does an increase in wealth always translate into a decrease in poverty, or does it often mean a greater wealth disparity? If the wealth is not dispersed through a social support apparatus, how does poverty get diminished by it?

C) Are you aware of the extremely high cost of living in Norway (in spite of this huge advantage)?

I would be unsurprised by it. Much of Norway is above the Artic Circle, IIRC. Alaska and Northern Canada also have high costs of living.

What? Are you out of your mind? How do you consistently misread the simplest of concepts?

If you're comments weren't connected to the poverty rate, why did you bring them up? I was trying to connect your comments to the topic, could not see a direct connection, hence asked about it.

France was specifically excluded in my responses.

But not mine. I am supposed to automatically respect any exclusion of data you make for the convenience of your argument?

 

[franklin]

You keep trying to push an argument onto me that I've not made. I guess honesty is a little too much to ask from you.

I have a feeling this is one of the reasons a lot of others on this site refuse to engage you. I'll leave you to argue with yourself yet again.

I am a little curious where your fundamentalist ideology comes from so I think I'll poke around your blog a bit.

 

[One Brow]

You keep trying to push an argument onto me that I've not made.

I apologize, then. That really is aggravating when that happens. Let's backtrack.

The issue left-leaners seem to have the most trouble with is their policies can cause more poverty than they cure. ... you're only helping the billionaires when you hit them hard) and true social safety nets rather than this all encompassing, destined to fail social security bull ****.

I understood you to say that government programs that improve the social stability of people increase poverty rates. What did you mean to say?

I have a feeling this is one of the reasons a lot of others on this site refuse to engage you.

When I want to engage people, I'm usually successful at doing so. Outside of a discussion where JohnDeereJerry was sharing some of his legal expertise, I can't think of a conversation that I wished had gone on further.

I am a little curious where your fundamentalist ideology comes from so I think I'll poke around your blog a bit.

Welcome, and feel free to comment as well.

 

[LogGrad98]

Thread hijacked by Unibrow apparently.

/thread

 

[franklin]

I understood you to say that government programs that improve the social stability of people increase poverty rates. What did you mean to say?

We're really going quite a few steps back, but it looks like a better starting point is in order.

It seems logical to me that support programs taken too far will have negative consequences. If this weren't true then why not expand them to infinity? The answer is obvious--someone has to produce. In case this isn't intuitive, I'll add specific examples referred to earlier but better clarified.

(To bold above) The level of improved social stability is debatable, and truly hard to quantify. If we attempt to measure this level then we'll be required to extrapolate into the future and include those effects into our calculation. As far as social security goes, looking into the future doesn't look as pretty as it is or has been. In essence, the safety net program is becoming less safety net and more subsistence living, at best. How can we call it a safety net when a) everyone is caught rather than only those who truly need to be, which b) has ended up in increasing the benefit age and/or reducing benefits (arguably, at least)? It's quite possible we'll be unable to provide for those who truly require the assistance because we're also dolling out valuable resources to those who don't.

Subsidized housing loans: This is a very basic explanation. The 30 year loan programs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided cheaper loans both in up front principal and lower interest rates. Econ 101 tells us that cheaper prices will increase demand. Housing prices "skyrocketed" over a 40 - 50 year period (relative to both overall CPI and average wage growth). One side effect was increased housing demand meant increased labor demand for larger houses and products purchased thanks to the house ATM. Meanwhile, housing prices went up and became less affordable. Loan notes held by the less fortunate who bought in near the end of the cycle became harder and harder to service (housing as a percent of disposable income went too high for many of these folks). A default wave hit and fed on itself as one default lowered the value of the house next door, which couldn't be sold at loan value if needs be, and ended in default as well. Prices headed lower and lower, and many Americans became trapped under a mortgage they couldn't afford and a house they couldn't sell.

This program was taken too far (and combined with stupid banking deregulation) and ended up hurting instead of helping. Nothing is free and those subsidized loans are being paid for by the taxpayers, bankers, mREITS, pension funds, and bankrupt citizens.

 

[One Brow]

We're really going quite a few steps back, but it looks like a better starting point is in order.

It seems logical to me that support programs taken too far will have negative consequences. If this weren't true then why not expand them to infinity? The answer is obvious--someone has to produce. In case this isn't intuitive, I'll add specific examples referred to earlier but better clarified.

That makes sense, and I pretty much agreed with what you posted. If that was all you meant, than other than a gratuitous "left leaning" insert, your position seems reasonable.

 

[franklin]

That makes sense, and I pretty much agreed with what you posted. If that was all you meant, than other than a gratuitous "left leaning" insert, your position seems reasonable.

What's wrong with the generalization? I don't understand why people get so hung up on saying leftist or rightist or whatever. I understand that our media uses the terms to denigrate, but that's not what I intended. I thought I was careful enough to not put "left-leaners" up as a shot across the bow. Do you have a better suggestion?