Quote:No one's arguing for a deregulated market, he's creating a false narrative and tearing it down.
The Federal Government created the subprime mortgage market with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack then turned a blind eye to the wild abuse by the investment banks. That's the point people have been making, the whole "we have to make housing affordable for the poor" argument is the reason we had a subprime mortgage to abuse in the first place.
You want the hard truth, the hard truth is poor people shouldn't own homes and it's why they didn't own homes prior to federal involvement.
That is a very true statement. Generally speaking, people that make a lesser income are usually put in that position by their own doing. They are typically lesser educated than the average person, and tend to be more irresponsible when it comes to debt, hence they are a higher risk.
However, I did see people that were a bit more educated and in positions where they made a bit higher salary fall in to the same trap. As an example, I saw a young couple with 3 small children qualify for and purchase a home around the $130,000 range. The father was a salesman and I estimate that he maybe made an income somewhere around $45k - $50k and his wife was a teacher. The thing is, at that income level, with three small children (the oldest might have been in first grade) they couldn't possibly afford the mortgage, at least one car payment, insurance, etc. for too long, especially if they have no savings to back them up. Well, the father ended up getting laid off, the job outlook was grim, and they ended up losing their home to foreclosure.
My point is, the sub-prime mortgage crisis wasn't necessarily a product of "poor" people buying homes. It was people buying homes that they really couldn't afford.
There were warnings that this was happening, and we were told by members of the government (Barney Frank specifically) that it wasn't an issue. As much as liberals hate George W. Bush, it was his administration that pointed out the problem back in April of 2001.
Quote:I'm not ignoring it, I fully admit and blame the banking cartels for what happened in 2008 with the housing market. I'm simply pointing out that market would not exist if not for government creating the market. Prior to legislation no one was seeking to lend money to low income individual who had a high risk of default to purchase a house, why because it was a bad investment. Of course once the government created a risk free investment in bad loans the banking cartel ran wild, they knew it was a balloon and they padded their wallets as deep as they could, was it wrong HELL yes, should they be arrested absolutely.
Fair enough but I think you put too much blame on government as a whole. The individuals (paid by the bankers) that put forth the legislation (likely written by the bankers) and then passed it have culpability in the matter but that's not necessarily an indictment of the overall form of government as much of it is how these people have to sell themselves out to get elected in the first place.
Quote:A government that is strong and dictates what is best for the entire society? Be careful what you hope for.
How about a government that is strong that actually works for the people?
Yes, that's actually a much better way of saying it.
Here's an interesting thought... hard core "progressives" and hard core libertarians are on the same page, I think, when it comes to certain issues. One of them, in my opinion is regarding who our representatives are actually working for.
There's got to be some policy to fix this problem that both sides could come together to resolve. Thoughts?
Quote:Here's how I see it, economies only work on small scales, be it socialism, capitalism, communism, there can be case for any one of them working in specific cultures and capacities. However when you have an economy as large, vast and complicated as ours it becomes more difficult to keep an economy pure of corruption and ultimately corruption is what kills an economy. I only advocate capitalism because it gives the consumer the most power to fight corruption, in communism and socialism you're counting on political officials to fight back corruption, I have yet to see that really work out well.
I hear ya. While I'm not in total agreement with your points, there is some truth there.
Consumers do have some ability to shape a large corporation's practices. But only in regards to the product the entity produces. When in comes to corporate governance, such as labor policy, environmental policy, and social policy, consumers have no true voice.
You got to remember, there are 300 million of us in this country. The federal government just by the nature of the population size is gonna be large as well.
Quote:Yes, that's actually a much better way of saying it.
Here's an interesting thought... hard core "progressives" and hard core libertarians are on the same page, I think, when it comes to certain issues. One of them, in my opinion is regarding who our representatives are actually working for.
There's got to be some policy to fix this problem that both sides could come together to resolve. Thoughts?
Campaign finance reform. It's a small movement that passed muster in about 3-4 states so far. Needs about 30 more though since congress wont act on it until forced by the states.
Quote:Yes, that's actually a much better way of saying it.
Here's an interesting thought... hard core "progressives" and hard core libertarians are on the same page, I think, when it comes to certain issues. One of them, in my opinion is regarding who our representatives are actually working for.
There's got to be some policy to fix this problem that both sides could come together to resolve. Thoughts?
Well for starters, I think that the 17th Amendment should be repealed and that the Senators should be selected by State Legislatures as originally written in Article 1 of The Constitution. The Senate is supposed to represent the states, not the people. This gives more power back to the states which in turn gives more power back to the people.
Next there should be a call for term limits just like the Executive Branch (two terms).
Quote:Well for starters, I think that the 17th Amendment should be repealed and that the Senators should be selected by State Legislatures as originally written in Article 1 of The Constitution. The Senate is supposed to represent the states, not the people. This gives more power back to the states which in turn gives more power back to the people.
Next there should be a call for term limits just like the Executive Branch (two terms).
Spot on.
I'm especially a fan of instituting term limits for congress. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to make elected office a career choice.
Quote:Well for starters, I think that the 17th Amendment should be repealed and that the Senators should be selected by State Legislatures as originally written in Article 1 of The Constitution. The Senate is supposed to represent the states, not the people. This gives more power back to the states which in turn gives more power back to the people.
Next there should be a call for term limits just like the Executive Branch (two terms).
So you think we should go back to the smoke filled rooms to select US Senators? How exactly does this give more power back to the people?
Quote:Well for starters, I think that the 17th Amendment should be repealed and that the Senators should be selected by State Legislatures as originally written in Article 1 of The Constitution. The Senate is supposed to represent the states, not the people. This gives more power back to the states which in turn gives more power back to the people.
Next there should be a call for term limits just like the Executive Branch (two terms).
Not a fan of senators being elected by the state legislature. Especially when many legislators run unopposed. And with Gerrymandering...
Term limits? I'm not against Term Limits. Lifetime politicians is one of the major problems with our country. All they care about is getting re-elected. Term Limits would help shift the focus toward policy rather than toward elections.
Quote:So you think we should go back to the smoke filled rooms to select US Senators? How exactly does this give more power back to the people?
It gives more power back to the states because the state government would be who selects the people that will represent the state. This means that residents of that particular state can choose their legislators based on how they will work for their state including representation at the national level. As it stands right now, the Congress is nothing more than two houses of representatives.
Quote:Not a fan of senators being elected by the state legislature. Especially when many legislators run unopposed. And with Gerrymandering...
Term limits? I'm not against Term Limits. Lifetime politicians is one of the major problems with our country. All they care about is getting re-elected. Term Limits would help shift the focus toward policy rather than toward elections.
I would bet that if the 17th Amendment were repealed, you wouldn't see state legislators running unopposed. In fact, I would bet that more people would actually pay more attention to who they are voting for in state elections.
As far as the gerrymandering, again that is a State Legislature function. I don't think that either side likes it. As an example, I happen to live in Corrine Brown's district. Her particular district is designed in such a way that she is pretty much guaranteed to win each election cycle. My idea regarding districts is to divide them up based on counties and population.
Quote:I would bet that if the 17th Amendment were repealed, you wouldn't see state legislators running unopposed. In fact, I would bet that more people would actually pay more attention to who they are voting for in state elections.
As far as the gerrymandering, again that is a State Legislature function. I don't think that either side likes it. As an example, I happen to live in Corrine Brown's district. Her particular district is designed in such a way that she is pretty much guaranteed to win each election cycle. My idea regarding districts is to divide them up based on counties and population.
I don't think they would because how we get our information has changed. It's no longer localized, it's nationalized. I'm pretty involved with politics, and I can't even name our local representatives. Partly because one of them (who I just looked up, after guessing wrong by names I was familiar with) ran unopposed.
Quote:I don't think they would because how we get our information has changed. It's no longer localized, it's nationalized. I'm pretty involved with politics, and I can't even name our local representatives. Partly because one of them (who I just looked up, after guessing wrong by names I was familiar with) ran unopposed.
That would all change pretty quickly if you think about it. If the 17th Amendment was repealed, I would guess that you would be very sure about who your local representatives were. They would be a part of selecting who the Senate members representing your state are.
Quote:Spot on.
I'm especially a fan of instituting term limits for congress. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to make elected office a career choice.
Most of the Founding Fathers had outside Jobs or businesses to run, they couldn't be a politician Full Time
Been out or town but put me down with repealing the 17th amendment, term limits and populations + counties as districts.
Quote:It gives more power back to the states because the state government would be who selects the people that will represent the state. This means that residents of that particular state can choose their legislators based on how they will work for their state including representation at the national level. As it stands right now, the Congress is nothing more than two houses of representatives.
I think, instead of giving more power to the people, repealing the 17th Amendment would give more power to the legislatures. To me, that seems to put more power into the hands of the politicians and less into the hands of the people. If I can't vote directly for my Senator, but instead I have to vote for a politician who then votes for my Senator, that means it's not my Senator, it's his Senator.
The whole thing is kind of paternalistic. It's like you think the legislature would make a better choice of Senator than I would.
There would be so much deal-making and horse-trading in the legislature it would be ridiculous. Legislators would be selling their souls to get the votes from their colleagues so they could become a US Senator.
Quote:I think, instead of giving more power to the people, repealing the 17th Amendment would give more power to the legislatures. To me, that seems to put more power into the hands of the politicians and less into the hands of the people. If I can't vote directly for my Senator, but instead I have to vote for a politician who then votes for my Senator, that means it's not my Senator, it's his Senator.
The whole thing is kind of paternalistic. It's like you think the legislature would make a better choice of Senator than I would.
There would be so much deal-making and horse-trading in the legislature it would be ridiculous. Legislators would be selling their souls to get the votes from their colleagues so they could become a US Senator.
That's the way I see it happening as well. With gerrymandering, it would just make it worse. You would have near locks in a large number of states for the house and therefore the senate.
Quote:I think, instead of giving more power to the people, repealing the 17th Amendment would give more power to the legislatures. To me, that seems to put more power into the hands of the politicians and less into the hands of the people. If I can't vote directly for my Senator, but instead I have to vote for a politician who then votes for my Senator, that means it's not my Senator, it's his Senator.
The whole thing is kind of paternalistic. It's like you think the legislature would make a better choice of Senator than I would.
There would be so much deal-making and horse-trading in the legislature it would be ridiculous. Legislators would be selling their souls to get the votes from their colleagues so they could become a US Senator.
The purpose of the Senate was not to represent the People, the People's House is the House of Representatives. The Senate was supposed to represent the sovereign states, not the population at large. There is no real point to a bicameral legislative body if there's no difference in the groups being represented.
Quote:The purpose of the Senate was not to represent the People, the People's House is the House of Representatives. The Senate was supposed to represent the sovereign states, not the population at large. There is no real point to a bicameral legislative body if there's no difference in the groups being represented.
But isn't the representation of the state still and extension of representing the people?
Quote:The purpose of the Senate was not to represent the People, the People's House is the House of Representatives. The Senate was supposed to represent the sovereign states, not the population at large. There is no real point to a bicameral legislative body if there's no difference in the groups being represented.
I disagree. I think the main reason we have a separate Senate and House of Representatives was because when they wrote the Constitution, the smaller states wanted equal representation and the larger states wanted proportional representation. So they compromised by having a Senate with equal representation, 2 Senators for each state, and a House of Representatives with representatives apportioned by population.
I know that before the 17th Amendment, there was no direct election of Senators; the legislatures did the electing, but from what I have read, there were a lot of problems with that process and a movement to reform and clean up the process by passing the 17th Amendment and getting the state-level politicians out of it.
I really don't know how anyone could favor putting the Florida legislature in charge of selecting our Senators for us. That seems like such an invitation to corruption, and history shows that when it was done that way, there were many instances of corruption that were investigated. That's what led to the 17th Amendment.
Quote:But isn't the representation of the state still and extension of representing the people?
No, you have to remember that when the Constitution was ratified the State governments were considered to be the primary
Quote:I disagree. I think the main reason we have a separate Senate and House of Representatives was because when they wrote the Constitution, the smaller states wanted equal representation and the larger states wanted proportional representation. So they compromised by having a Senate with equal representation, 2 Senators for each state, and a House of Representatives with representatives apportioned by population.
I know that before the 17th Amendment, there was no direct election of Senators; the legislatures did the electing, but from what I have read, there were a lot of problems with that process and a movement to reform and clean up the process by passing the 17th Amendment and getting the state-level politicians out of it.
I really don't know how anyone could favor putting the Florida legislature in charge of selecting our Senators for us. That seems like such an invitation to corruption, and history shows that when it was done that way, there were many instances of corruption that were investigated. That's what led to the 17th Amendment.
Sorry bro, Madison in Federalist #62:
"II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion.
It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems."