Why is it a recession rather than the second Great Depression?

**Detroitej72** · May-13-09, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

BTW libs...nobody has directly refuted in a compelling way that the principle of socialized housing [[or "affordable housing" per Barney Frank) is NOT at the heart of this crisis...Why? because it is, and it has liberal written all over it.

I have on numerous occasions, but you choose to ignore them. Perhaps it because you want a true liberal to debunk you, and I clearly do not fit the bill.

**jams** · May-13-09, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

It is, or should be, everyone's primary goal to enrich themselves...that is the premise of Objectivism. It carries incentive and individual responsibility to where it should be...with the individual.

Especially while taking advantage of public schooling and state universities to attain that status.

**jams** · May-13-09, 06:22 PM

We won't even get into zoning regulations that keeps your neighbor from building a smelter next to your house.

**mjs** · May-13-09, 11:32 PM

Once again its hard to predict an Ann Ryand [[Atlas Shrugged) response. At one point, she says the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect property rights and contract rights so it seems to support zoning regulations which protects property rights. Of course you can also argue that stopping fraud is protecting property rights and contract rights. You could even argue that when AIG accepted premiums for insurance policies on mortgages they could never honor, it should have been called fraud and disallowed by the government.

**mjs** · May-14-09, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Just because ignorant boobs call a flat tax, "The Fair Tax" doesn't make it so, just as "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" promoted air pollution and logging, respectively.

Deductions certainly do impact everyone, Dr. Lives-in-Cocoon. The less you pay in taxes, that's more money that has to be made-up somewhere, either with higher rates of taxation, or with cuts to programs.

Actually all of this is why there never will be a flat tax. If the Feds want to force an action, they prefer to sugar coat it as a tax deduction or credit rather than classify it as a fine. If they want you to add as much insulation to your house as I have, they can either raise overall taxes and credit me or they can lower overall taxes and fine you. In the end, its the same financial result to me, you, and them.

"There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."- The Outlaw Josey Wales

**rb336** · May-14-09, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by jams

We won't even get into zoning regulations that keeps your neighbor from building a smelter next to your house.

i think bats has supported that neighbor's right to do so

Lorax · May-14-09, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

It is, or should be, everyone's primary goal to enrich themselves...that is the premise of Objectivism. It carries incentive and individual responsibility to where it should be...with the individual.

Has there been a more self-centered egotistical admission on any thread anywhere? I don't think so.

Maybe you missed the message of Dicken's "A Christmas Carol."

Scrooge redeemed himself in the end after a life of greed, avarice, cheapness.

You could do the same, but you have to recognize the children under the robe are yours too, fool.

ccbatson · May-14-09, 09:43 PM

You know that the story you refer to is pure fiction from a time and place that had little understanding of the modern world as we know it today. Without Ebeneezer [[or those like him), Cratchett would have no job and no income. If the whole society were of that ilk [[socialist), everyone would be in the same boat [[and a miserable one at that). Also, if a true free market were in place, the competition for labor would elevate the quality of life for Cratchett [[hard workers in demand, companies bid for them). Over time, young Cratchett climbs the ladder and replaces the old guard on a higher rung.

**otter** · May-15-09, 03:07 AM

Bats,

Your next assignment will be to show how Don Quixote and La Recherche de Bon Temps Perdu reinforce capitalist principles.

You have a remarkably single-minded view of, well, everything, it seems!

When, in your conception, did "the modern world as we know it today" begin, anyway?

O.

**rb336** · May-15-09, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

You know that the story you refer to is pure fiction from a time and place that had little understanding of the modern world as we know it today. .

ditto for anything Ayn Rand ever did, including her allegedly "non-fiction" works

Lorax · May-15-09, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

You know that the story you refer to is pure fiction from a time and place that had little understanding of the modern world as we know it today. Without Ebeneezer [[or those like him), Cratchett would have no job and no income. If the whole society were of that ilk [[socialist), everyone would be in the same boat [[and a miserable one at that). Also, if a true free market were in place, the competition for labor would elevate the quality of life for Cratchett [[hard workers in demand, companies bid for them). Over time, young Cratchett climbs the ladder and replaces the old guard on a higher rung.

You knew this was coming, BatBoy.

No one disputes there are chiefs and indians in our business world, and indeed in our society.

That said, where is it written that great wealth doesn't come with societal responsibility?

Generosity, forgiveness, forebearance, charity obviously have no place in your world view.

I guess you'd agree that the prisons, treadmills, workhouses, for which the odious, greedy Scrooge said he was taxed enough for were sufficient to handle the needs of what he referred to as "the lazy, shiftless, disaffected?"

I don't deny anyone their wealth, industry, etc. But when they use it as a weapon against society, then it's open season on them, baby!

Your precious sludge fund managers are first in line in today's world. They create only wealth for themselves, they manufacture nothing, they employ no one, and with off-shore tax havens, they contriubte nothing to the general fund. They are worthless, and have no right to hold the jobs and futures of millions in their grimy little hands. F-them. And the socially retarded fiscal policy they rode in on.

**oladub** · May-15-09, 09:47 AM

Ghettopalmetto: "Congress should do away with the tax deduction for mortgage interest. I'm tired of subsidizing your lifestyle with MY hard-earned dollars."
"Just because ignorant boobs call a flat tax, "The Fair Tax" doesn't make it so, just as "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" promoted air pollution and logging, respectively.
Deductions certainly do impact everyone... The less you pay in taxes, that's more money that has to be made-up somewhere, either with higher rates of taxation, or with cuts to programs."

Totally agree with you and Flanders response. I have a son who bought a $300k downtown condo. Since he is in a very high income bracket, [[ADD misfit turned computer network architect), he is also in a very high income tax bracket. VoilÃ[, the government came to his rescue by allowing him a proportionately large tax write off on his mortgage. The greater one's income, the greater the percentage of writeoff. I would rather that the government get out of housing or at least put a modest limit, eg $80,000, that it would lend to anyone qualified. Why should the government be borrowing money from China to subsidize the well off with thousands of dollars of tax write-offs?

The Flat/Fair tax idea would be devestating to retirees. When they sell their house to move in whith their kids or a retirement community, the capital gains on their house would be taxed at about 23%. Since the capital gains, especially for long time owners, is about equal to government created inflation, the sales tax on homes would be a substantial tax on a hidden tax that would make senior care that much less affordable.

Lorax · May-15-09, 09:50 AM

Agreed, though it begs the question, does anyone have measurable capital gains these days? Especially in real estate?

**oladub** · May-15-09, 10:06 AM

Lorax, I recently saw a graph, which I can't find now, that showed the increase in value of the average sales price of a house being pretty consistent with the CPI. Then, somewhere in the Clinton administration, and especially in the Bush administration, thanks , in part, to all the housing programs including tax benefits, the value of homes spiked. In 2005, home prices leveled off and in 2006 began an average 21% drop nationally so far. However, home prices would have to lose an average of another one third of their value to get back to the historic correlation. They might not drop that far as there are so many housing programs starting with tax deductions to keep the housing bubble inflated. Those who bought their homes 20 years ago, on average, should still be ahead of inflation. Good luck though to 2006 home purchasers.

Lorax · May-15-09, 10:11 AM

Agreed, it was Clinton's repeal of Glass-Stegall, and Phil Gramm's Commodities Reformation Act that opened the flood gates to unfettered sub-prime lending as well as unregulated loan shark credit card rates.

Closing these gaping holes, and forcing banks to lend what's given to them will have an effect on reversing this trend.

**oladub** · May-15-09, 01:09 PM

Phil Gramm has earned his share of discredit but don't forget that Obama appointee "Robert E. Rubin, secretary of the Treasury, recommended that Congress pass legislation to reform or repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 to modernize the country's financial system. "
http://www.allbusiness.com/governmen.../500983-1.html

I would go way back to Woodrow Wilson to begin placing blame.

Some of this money was given but some was also forced upon reluctant banks. In some of these cases of benign or compulsory governemnt largess, the Federal Government also required bank stock as partial compensation.

**rb336** · May-15-09, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

I would go way back to Woodrow Wilson to begin placing blame.

that's just being goofy

dumping Glass-Steagall was a huge mistake. Obama, like Clinton, is no progressive, certainly not a liberal.

why i voted for dennis

**mjs** · May-15-09, 01:29 PM

Amen Lorax! Glass-Stegall seemed to work just fine for 60 plus years. Banks had a hell of a time before then with their crash and burn cycles. Just like the one we're going through now.

ccbatson · May-15-09, 09:24 PM

I think you are mistaking Chicago style political corruption for an absence of radical liberal philosophies on Obama's part.....he is both.

DetroitDad · May-15-09, 10:05 PM

Michigan is in a depression.

I always thought it had to do with time and severity. The time will be up there. If you pin the start of this in Michigan in 2005/2006 and realize that we are only one third or halfway through this, you'll see this will probably be the Second Great Depression, yet hopefully less severe.

Right now, I'm seeing it being as severe. Consider what happened in Detroit in 2005/2006 to be a sign a storm was coming, and the mortgage crisis was just a first wave storm surge. We're in the eye right now. There is another mortgage crisis of equal or greater size coming on top of the commercial and industry problems.

**mjs** · May-15-09, 10:23 PM

Since there's no consensus on what a depression is, the better question is how this recession will rank for Michigan compared to the other recessions in the last 100 years. I'm hoping third or higher behind the early 1930's and the early 1980's rather than second.

ccbatson · May-16-09, 10:20 AM

I agree...time and severity...and Michigan is further down the road towards a Depression than the rest of the nation.

**East Detroit** · May-16-09, 12:33 PM

A depression is any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent.

A recession is an economic downturn that is less severe.

A capitalist is someone who puts profits before people.

A partisan is someone would puts party before country.

Lorax · May-16-09, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Phil Gramm has earned his share of discredit but don't forget that Obama appointee "Robert E. Rubin, secretary of the Treasury, recommended that Congress pass legislation to reform or repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 to modernize the country's financial system. "
http://www.allbusiness.com/governmen.../500983-1.html

I would go way back to Woodrow Wilson to begin placing blame.

Some of this money was given but some was also forced upon reluctant banks. In some of these cases of benign or compulsory governemnt largess, the Federal Government also required bank stock as partial compensation.

Actually Timothy Geithner is the current Secretary of the Treasury. But, yes, I am aware of Bob Rubin's take on Glass-Stegall, and he has said now it was a mistake to get rid of it.

I am certain that it will be revived in some form to anchor any regulation platform Obama is building.

I also agree with the above poster who mentioned how he voted for Dennis Kuchinich instead of Obama. I too, was a supporter of Kuchinich, and think he would have made a super president. He didn't have the widespread support needed to win, unfortunately.

**firstandten** · May-16-09, 11:44 PM

.

Originally Posted by Lorax

I also agree with the above poster who mentioned how he voted for Dennis Kuchinich instead of Obama. I too, was a supporter of Kuchinich, and think he would have made a super president. He didn't have the widespread support needed to win, unfortunately.

There is a political reality we have to deal with in this country. This is a two party system, no room for third parties except at the local level. Candidates who win elections at the national level range from center-right to center-left a pretty narrow area. Obama is not a progressive and has never claimed to be. For example if you thought Obama would support single payer health care think again. Its not happening. After everything is said and done its about winning elections and third parties have neither the base or money to do it on a national level.

The think that scares me about this Michigan depression... recession everywhere else is that the fundamentals of this economy hasn't been , is not and will not be good until we can protect our key industries. Until that happens I really don't see many changes at least as it relates to S.E. Michigan.