Prime rate cut to 4.75%

In your case? Jump off the highest cliff I can find.

The dollar's already devalued. Our economy is out of whack and, until we right the ship, I don't expect to see the dollar climb.

WRT to your ARMs, do they balloon at some point, or are they forever ARMs?

They're attempting to grab hold of the reins before the horses get their own head. If they succeed, they head off a full-blown (but much needed) recession.

Either way, this is a great time to get into a fixed-rate loan, if you're concerned about volatility.

You're joking, right?

The dollar is devalued in relation to all other currencies (except perhaps the yuan because of China's monetary policy).

And as for China, so you mean when they stop spending and start saving? They have a very overinflated stock market and housing prices, too, just now. Or do you mean if they stop buying the dollar, or start free-floating the yuan?

Obviously you convert to fixed rates.

Well, it would appear that you're letting prayer be your guide, so I'm not sure what gain there is in further answering your question.

Rates will be lowered again this year. Keep your ARMs for now.

Depends on your ARM. If it's at prime +8, it may not be worth the difference in a quarter point in your fixed rate to pay that extra amount for a year. I don't think it will go down another quarter point this year; maybe next.

HOLY SHIT.



This thread turned out to be boring.

I don't know where your properties are located, but watch that the values don't get so low that the banks won't refinance them for the value you paid (as in, you have a principle balance of $500K and the local values fall to $400K and the bank will only finance $400K). I assume you have rental tennants and thus tha payments will be well covered.

Luckily I have a decent fixed-rate with no early payment penalties, but I hope this drop sparks the horrible real estate market down here. I've had my house on the market since early this year, and I'm dying to sell the son of a bitch.

I love how the war mongering, Muslim hating fucktard starts a thread about the declining value of the dollar and the fucked up economy when the war is a HUGE factor in the issue of the economy.

There are many reasons to be upset about Gulf War II but economically, it's a white elephant. If you want to discuss government spending, the amount we spend on individual subsidies (social security, medicare, prescription drugs), corporate subsidies (agricultural spending being the most egregious example), and religious subsidies (tax breaks for religious organizations that accumulate liquid assets, real property, and spend on church infrastructure rather than utilize donations to advance charitable causes) are literally orders of magnitude more significant to our economy. We're talking about hundreds of Gulf Wars in comparison.

Also, Gulf War II wasn't the reason that the idiots at the Federal Reserve allowed the utterly out of control real estate industry (particularly the sub prime lenders) create a bubble far more dangerous than the overinflated technology market of the late 90s.

Overlord, I have to challenge that. Firstly, I wouldn't lump so-called entitlement programs in with religious subsidies because they're diametrically opposed. Religious subsidies are more in line with corporate welfare.

Secondly, I highly doubt the numbers accurately bear out this idea that entitlement programs outweigh Iraq II. Where are you finding these numbers? Also, you can't leave out the pentagon's black budget, which isn't even accounted for or even accurately represented in the overall defense budget.

Here's a chart I found online:


From National Priorities Project

Here's an interesting flash movie on the subject: Oreos

I'm unclear on why Brew's political views should preclude asking for financial advice.

"National Defense"



ETA: I just thought the terminology was... not exactly the wording I would have chosen for that portion of the budget.

Much of what Overlord's talking about is non-discretionary spending. The non-discretionary part of the budget is larger than the discretionary part, if I remember correctly.

Exactly the problem with that chart I was going to point out.

Can either of you please then break it down? Or cite some numbers? This is a meme I've heard for years and I don't buy it.

2007 Federal Non-Discretionary Budget $ 2.22 Trillion

$ 586 Billion: Social Security
$ 367 Billion: Unemployment
$ 394 Billion: Medicare
$ 276 Billion: Medicaid
$ 243 Billion: Interest on National Debt


2007 Federal Discretionary Budget $ 983 Billion

$ 632 Billion: Military & National Security Related
$ 350 Billion: Non-Military

Thank you, Belethedhediel, but the numbers still don't support the idea that defense spending is a drop in the bucket, and it could even be argued that medicare/medicaid/prescription drug costs should be lumped in with corporate welfare as well. Either way, defense spending demands wars. Profit for this sector requires perpetual war and aggression. I think our priorities as a nation have fallen victim to what Eisenhower warned us about.

I do not accept the idea that defense spending isn't a huge part of our problem as a nation and a people, although maybe this rant does not belong in this thread.

I'm not a big proponent of the standing army.

However, given the differences in technology in warfare today, there is beginning to be some legitimacy to the idea that the average factory could not rapidly be converted to making stealth bombers and the average joe american isn't needing to be trained to just point-n-shoot, but to handle planes, ships, and other equipment in wartime.

Please do not shift the topic. We were talking about Gulf War II, not Defense spending as a whole. The war, while costly, is indeed a "drop in the bucket." We'd save more if we cut Social Security expenditures by a very small percentage.

Please explain. The war is $300 billion, and social security is $600 billion. We'd have to cut social security by HALF.

Beginning to be?

Social security is a vital part of the system we've embraced in this country. We're not like a lot of other cultures - the young don't take care of the old. And when you look at your paycheck, you see exactly how much is being taken out for social security - that's like your insurance against being an itinerant old person. We need to stop trying to rob the social security piggy bank.

Iraq II is NOT a drop in the bucket - especially when you ask yourself: what are we paying for? What is the return on this huge (borrowed) expenditure? We're talking about $450 trillion dollars and counting to the tune of millions per day (leaving out the massive cost in lives for a moment). For what? What's the goal? How will this war "make us safer"? How will it do anything other than gild the treasure chests of multinational oil and military-related corporations?

Do you realize that for Bush to consider the "mission accomplished" the Iraqis have to give away control of all their oil resources to western companies for the NEXT 30 YEARS? Is that a deal you'd sign?

So think about that $450-odd trillion and what it could do for education in America, children living in poverty, the infrastructure, development of alternative energies, etc?

yt, I think I have a pretty good handle on what you're against. What are you for? What's your vision for American government? Can you give any contemporary or historical parallels?

Wait, I thought it was like $400 something billion and that they were estimating between $1.5 and 2 trillion as the eventual total...(for Iraq)

It's called "shooting one's own foot" syndrome. It's all tied together, bub.

My apologies. The trillion/billion thing is a result of posting too early in the morning. Estimates for the total cost of Iraq II are between $450 and $500 billion.

FC, you got a couple of hours? I would just like to pay my annual income tax with some sense that my money is going towards the common good, not to bedazzle the tiaras of the ruling classes and their corporate profit-making machines. The President that I most admire for the ethics, compassion and stones he brought to the office was FDR (think the New Deal and the end of Tammany Hall), but I would also say that Jimmy Carter - with his mind on alternatives to fossil fuels and theme of conservation - is another role model.

If I were suddenly put in charge of reforming the federal government, these would be my priorities, in order of importance:

1) Total education reform (starting by repealing NCLB) and vastly increased spending to enrich, diversify and revolutionize education at every level for every kid, including either totally free universities or at least a free freshman year.
2) Vastly increased spending on alternative energy sources toward the ultimate goal of eliminating all reliance on fossil fuels
3) A total elimination of hunger in the US, and greater resources for addressing US poverty and hunger, and world poverty and hunger
4) Reforming all non-US manufacturing, including tariffs and stricter labor and environmental standards to all corporations sending business overseas
5) A WPA-style work program and increased cooperation with unions
6) Breaking up the media monopolies
7) Universal healthcare that removes all business from insurance companies, and healthcare reform in general
8) Reforming the lobby system in Washington and addressing the race disparity in the criminal justice system
9) Restructuring the defense industry to eliminate waste, pork and remove the profit element attached to international hositility.
10) Putting the breaks on corporate real estate development and increasing urban redevelopment

The list goes on and on, but I think defense is WAY too high in terms of federal spending, especially when compared to the other so-called superpowers in the world. How many warheads do you need? And with defense spending as high as it is, how does one account for soldiers going into Iraq without adequate body armor and armored humvees?

In the spirit of totally derailing the thread...

1) Would you continue to hold schools/students accountable and/or require minimum standard testing to students to reach each level (either grade, or school - as in, you have to do X,Y, and Z to enter high school)
2) Good idea. It really pisses me off that during the recent housing boom here in California, $300K houses were being sold for $700K but they developers were not doing even basic things to make them green, when for that kind of money they could have had those houses off the grid (solar panels and solar water heaters, etc etc)
3) There really isn't much hunger in the USA. There are a LOT of private food banks, churches, and other charitable missions out there in addition to the public resources (WIC, food stamps). Now, subsidizing improved agriculture, environmental management, water handling (irrigation, safe drinking water, sewer/septic) and things for other countries, that's something that needs to be done in a big, big way.
4) How do you intend to enforce rules on things happening outside the country? Or just tax the crap out of imports (which will cause other countries to tax us, and thus start a tariff war)?
5) I'm a free market person myself. I think the government should outsource pretty much everything, but in a very transparent way.
6) yeah, and the computer ones.
7) good idea but personally it think there will be utter chaos and bizarre job turnover if all the insurance companies just closed, and then it became state run. I'm really not sure how to actually implement such a thing, logistically, given the current situation of the healthcare industry.
8)Yes to lobbying. I'm not clear on what you mean by race disparity. That some races have less access to counsel/more likely to get plead out than defended? I always thought of it as a socioeconomic thing more than race.
9) yes to this and all gov't spending
10) i'm not against corporate development but i do think urban planning could be done a lot better.

I think the thread is hopelessly derailed.

I have two kids in the public school system and can attest that testing is a farce. Public schools are starved to the bare bones, and have to rely on community PTA type involvement often for the basics, not even including enrichment like arts, field trips, science, etc. NCLB has created a society of worker bees who are forced to "teach to the test." What this means is that the Federal government is centrally dictating the curriculum to every school in the American system, which jams square peg after square peg into round holes, and creates such a boring, incomprehensible and uniform curriculum for students that it becomes totally unclear WHY they're supposed to memorize the things on the test. It is a wholly joyless exercise. There is no complex, creative thinking involved. There is no ingenuity involved. It really comes down to how uniform you can be and how well you test. Testing does not work.

I once talked to a scientist who told me that almost anything in science fiction is possible if you throw money at it, and that is true in every sector. Reagan started the tradition of starving public education, and it has been one long downhill slide since then. When I was in public school, it was a completely different experience than it is today. Teachers brought their experience, passion, knowledge and curiosity into the classroom. Some teachers still do that -- but they have to sneak it in between federally dictated segments of the schedule.

So, to answer your question, I don't think testing throughout elementary and middle school is the answer. I just think that teacher pay should be high enough to attract the best and brightest, school systems should be given some leeway in terms of varying education models, and public schools should be given vastly greater resources to encourage and inspire their kids to be curious, thoughtful, complex thinkers. I've volunteered in classes of students whom the school at large has given up on, and I can tell you that every kid in those classes had an untapped spark, but because of economic or social conditions or whatever, had kept it hidden from sight.

That's such a great point. It makes no sense. I can't talk about developers though because they piss me off in too many ways. But you're right. WTF???

There is hunger in the US.

That's a good question, and I don't really have an answer. But I can't comprehend how it's legal for US-based corporations to break US labor and environmental laws in other countries. It's incomprehensible to me. Maybe that's the kind of thing that would require congressional hearings or something. Maybe there are geniuses out there who have an idea how to fix this broken, ridiculous, unfair and immoral system.


But that's a contradiction. Look no further than Blackwater and KBR/Halliburton. And WPA would both repair our deteriorating infrastructure and put to work the former middle class whose livelihood has been exported.

Agree.

Garth Franklin (of Dark Horizons fame) explained to me that in Australia, there is universal healthcare, but anyone with the money can pay for extra coverage - faster elective care, etc. I don't think that jobs at risk are enough of a motivator to keep these increasingly cynical operations attached to any kind of public health program.

There are socioeconomic factors but there is also heavy sentencing bias wrt race. You need look no further than the Jena case (and other less public but equally egregious cases) to see the disparity in "justice" between white and black offenders.

Y'know, yt, this is what's hard about being a conservative. I read your list and I can practically smell the daffodils. Then, I reread the list and the thought balloons expand above my head: "Huh?" "What?" "That'd be disastrous!" "That'd be impossible!" "They tried that in Zimbabwe!"

Thanks, though. You have a lovely vision.

Care to elaborate, Frank? Some of the items mentioned, like somehow uncoupling profit considerations from our foreign policy and stopping real estate development seem idealistic, even if they are admirable. But about maintaining (some) ethical standards for companies working abroad seems feasible to me. We already enforce ethical considerations abroad, i.e. bans and penalties for companies engaging in bribery.

Y'know, I'd love to. I'll be on the road next week, which translates into a lot of time sitting alone in hotel rooms. If the places where I'm staying have internet access, I'll be happy to drill down a couple of levels.

Today, however, I'm going to play with my kids.

That's probably a better idea. Have fun.

Ahh, internet access!

yt, thanks again for your thoughtful response. Before I go line-by-line, I’d like to take a moment to talk about general political philosophy and worldview. It’ll help put my comments in context.

First, political philosophy: I believe in competition, individual responsibility, the rule of law, and maximizing personal freedom. I believe that the federal government is almost always the least desirable organization to tackle a given problem because federal employees are conditioned to avoid failure, not pursue success. In short, I’m a classic Southwestern Conservative; but without the illogical fear and loathing of the hard-working, risk-taking, family-oriented, churchgoing immigrants who bring us their labor and send home remittances that do more to help the US’s standing in Latin America than all the USAID programs we’ve ever launched.

Second, worldview: I think Thomas Friedman is right, and that the US is experiencing the end of the unprecedented, multi-generational boom brought on by our status as the last industrial power standing after the global catastrophe that was WWII. Like it or not, we’re already competing on the world business stage. To win, we need to get our priorities straight. This demands not just a balanced budget, but a budget that pays off our debt. Additionally, it requires a pro-research, pro-immigration, pro-business orientation that makes the world’s entrepreneurs want to set up shop here in the U.S.A. All of this, of course, is happening while uncertainty grows in many areas: the planet’s ecological balance may be moving toward a new equilibrium that is, at best, a major national economic and security problem and, at worst, a threat to continued human life; a global jihadist movement has dedicated itself to the destruction of the Western way of life; and Russia and China remain question marks that cannot be discounted.

In other words, it’s an exciting time to be alive. Now, let’s get to it!


If there’s one thing DOE has taught us, it’s that federal involvement in education is a waste of time and money. We spend more federal dollars per student than ever before, and we continue to fail to compete on the global education stage. The federal government needs to get out of the School Board business and, aside from education aid to our poorest states, let those closest to their students handle the problem. In higher education, I’m watching France’s attempt to reform its calcified system. While I don’t believe that higher education should be free because we value what that for which we sacrifice, I do think it should be free for veterans of the military, Peace Corps, Americorps, and other public-service organizations. In other words, give us some time and we’ll give you an education. [Thought – can we tie the astronomical increase in college tuition to the improved availability of student aid and loans?]

I can live with a modified version of this, going instead for a goal of eliminating reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation and general transportation. We need to stop the NIMBYism that restricts the creation of wind farms and nuclear power plants, and we need to provide significant tax incentives to private enterprise to encourage innovation in this field. I’m unwilling to go with total elimination of reliance on fossil fuels because I’ve yet to see a viable alternative to jet fuel. But I’m listening.

I take issue with the Ag’s classification of anyone who modifies their food habits due to financial circumstance as any form of hunger. When I was a poor boy, we lived on a $100/month food budget. We ate a lot of beans and considered a monthly trip to the Sizzler the height of fine dining, and we turned out ok. Having said that, no child should come to school hungry, and I think that is a measurable, achievable goal.

Regarding world hunger, that gets a lot less measurable and achievable very quickly. Unless we want to institute a command global economy, farmers will grow the crops that people will pay for. I am a big fan of the recent microcredit movement, as well as any measures that help people (a) fend for themselves and (b) take command of their own fertility, both of which are doable.

Disaster. We discussed this idea in depth in another thread, and I think we have a good understanding of one another’s position here. I’ll quickly reiterate by stating that not only does this condescend to the governments of foreign nations, it kills American global competitiveness. In the global economy, labor, ideas, and goods flow smoothly among nations. Those nations that harness the flow profit from it, while those that refuse do without. We can no longer pretend that we’re exceptional – we’ve got to duke it out, and that means harnessing, not trying to block, the flow.

Ask the American airline industry about the benevolence of unions and their ability to act as good stewards of the long-term best interests of their constituents. Regarding a WPA-style program, I fail to see how the USG would be more effective than the private contractors that USG currently hires to get work done. You want better infrastructure? Let more contracts. The contractors will hire more people. Oh, yeah, but you’ve got to pay for it. No matter which way you slice it.

There are no media monopolies. There are media conglomerates, and I wholeheartedly agree they aren’t good for America (I don’t believe that you could constitutionally dissolve them, but that’s another matter.). While I do not believe that Corporate Mainstream Media (bum bum bummmm) is inherently evil, I do believe that competition is good and that they’re bad for competition.

I’m a recent convert to universal healthcare, a conversion we’ve discussed in another thread. I don’t think that we should remove business from the health care business, however – the profit motive is a powerful force, and a powerful motivator toward the innovation that we think of as one of the hallmarks of our system. I don’t know what universal healthcare should look like, but I think it would be good for America because it would free the American entrepreneur to roll the dice on his dream without putting his family at risk.

I can live with both of these. I have ideas about how to do the former, but I have no idea how to do the latter.

Part one is an easy applause line for democratic politicians, but it doesn’t really mean anything. I assume you’re not advocating a switch to a command economy (Are you? If so, then we have a whole other conversation ahead of us!), so DoD must do business with businesses who meet its needs. The Department is already staffed with hard-working, conscientious people who do the best they can, and yet waste happens. Within the confines of a human system run and staffed by humans, I just can’t imagine how to make things better. If DoD writes me a big enough check, however, I’ll be happy to pull together a staff and try. ☺ Now, about removing the profit element, I’m not sure how you do that. Again, assuming you aren’t talking about a command economy, DoD must do business with corporations who bid contracts in an attempt to make money. Clearly, it’s in the interest of these organizations for their clients to want to solicit more bids, so unless you eliminate the human desire to compete economically, how to you not make conflict a good thing for American Bullet Mfg, Inc?

So family real estate development is ok? As long as the Bluths are taken care of, I’m ok. This is a county-level issue, but let’s talk about how we’d like our counties to handle things. I think my county should demand that developers should pay, up front, for the infrastructure required by new development. That includes sewer systems, water treatment plants, schools, fire houses, roads and mass transit, you name it. This would keep county residents from having to pay so more people could clog up their roads, keep county budgets in line, and, encourage redevelopment.


Ah, I forget Zimbabwe. I think it had something to do with planned economies. Now, I have to get out of this Panera before I float away.

I think it's also fair to point out that if he's financially savvy enough to juggle the ARMs on several rental properties, I doubt he needs advice hereabouts.

It's amazing how similar our viewpoints are, no matter where we fall in the traditional party line. I was nodding my head to almost every point in your post, Frank, perhaps for a minor point or two. While I believe in a vibrant and free economy and am naturally suspicious of both federal and state governments extending their powers, they naturally fit a niche that private enterprise is too focused on profit and short-term gains to provide. Also there IS a correlation between money spent on students and schools and their achievements, though throwing money can't be the only answer. That is why I reluctantly support some facets of NCLB, which has done some good by finally bringing to light how some schools are failing their students, though unfortunately siphons even more of their resources (without pouring any back!) by forcing them to adhere to national standards.

Another difference: we are facing an obesity and nutritional crisis, with our poorest citizens forced to eat the worst of the worst due to their financial straits which in turn leads to distressingly bad health rates (across the board) compared to our more wealthier citizens. This is something that our government needs to tackle aggresively and is not something that should be taken lightly.

Couple last points (I promise): I believe many ethical considerations can be forced on American companies operating abroad. The question is: are we willing to pay for it? A company that does adhere to these standards are going to suffer compared to their competitors and consumers must make the choice to buy it even if their products may cost more. Factors like the astonishingly fast rise of organic based food produce and the way consumers were willing to pay more for dolphin-free tuna point to a possible yes. As for our defense industry, I believe that with additional oversight and an increasingly open view of business dealings between the DoD and private contractors, some positive change might occur and prevent such disasters as the commission of the V-22 Osprey, a machine more than 20 years in the making, billions in the undertaking, and certified as a virtually certain flying death machine.

I think I've rambled enough.

FC, I will respond with my own outlook, which I try to keep open to change and evolution.

With apologies to "It's a Wonderful Life," I'd rather live in Bedford Falls than Potterville. I'd rather live with a sense of community -- the sense that if someone I know in town gets killed in a war, I feel it; that the store I'm buying products from contributes to the general well being of the community it serves; the sense that if a kid that grew up with my own kids gets in trouble, his community will provide a safety net; that someone who might be driven to commit a crime will think twice because the intended victim is someone who knows him and his family. I realize I'm talking about an ideal, but so are you - just from a different perspective.

I think a lot of your philosophy sounds great on paper. It's an excellent and sound intellectual outlook. But I think in practice, a lot of it seems to be an experiment that has failed because of that old chestnut: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would add that power left to its own devices will invariably take the more corrupt path toward attaining more power.

I guess, in terms of worldview, I'm of the Thom Hartmann variety. The current administration is the apotheosis of the kind of damage that started with the "pro-business" "Reagan Revolution." The things you believe in have been subverted to serve the few at the expense of the many. Competition has been absorbed by the biggest fish; individual responsibility has been subsumed into corporate and institutional sociopathy and back-scratching; the rule of law has been hijacked by the wealthy, powerful and immoral - to such an extreme degree that ordinary citizens can do nothing when neither the legislative nor judicial branch will go after an immoral and lawless executive; and personal freedoms are enjoyed mostly by those who succeed while others are locked out.

To use another film analogy, did you see the movie "Mystic River"? What I think that movie does superbly is illustrate what happens to the strong and the weak in crisis. The weak are almost destined to be pulled individually under in the tide, whereas the strong will stand on the shoulders of the weak to survive, stick together with the strong, and get no blood on them. It's the law of the jungle. But this disparity is something that I feel we should work to solve - as civilized citizens of the "land of the brave and home of the free."

I'm not arguing for federal involvement in education - I'm arguing for increased federal resources for schools. Why is a standard that is helping to create generations of educated, informed, useful scholars, thinkers, scientists, businesspeople, etc., in other countries will somehow fail here? Before the Reagan tax cuts, a college education was at the very least affordable to the average American. Even the most low-achieving "cow college" represents decades of debt today. I do support the idea of free tuition for those who go into public service etc. as you suggest above (in fact, there is legislation going through congress right now very similar to this idea), but I think the solution needs to be more extreme than that.

But purely free market "pro-business" policies should allow the energy industry to profit to the maximum degree - that means we stick to fossil fuels. Even if it kills us, at least those businesses will remain "successful." Right? What is creating restriction on alternate energy research and implementation is that it cuts into the closed fossil fuel market. There is no other explanation. Government will have to create these tax incentives and as long as they and the energy industry are "partners in profits," that will not happen in our lifetimes.

You grew up in the '60s and '70s, right? So did I (and trust me, it was no cakewalk). What we grew up with is not what kids are facing today. Maybe you don't see it where you live, but extreme poverty is on the rise, and it's far worse than "modified food habits."

Worth looking into. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but there are better things we could be exporting than imperialistic wars.

To be continued...