[SK in CV]

No he’s not right. And neither are you.

[quote=partypup][quote=GH]Even if Obama was determined not to be a legitimate US Citizen, which given his mother IS a US Citizen, it seems to me Congress and the Senate would rush to amend the constitution to allow his presidency to continue, so I recon this angle is moot.[/quote]

Actually, I think you’re right. But I also believe that people deserve to know the truth about their Commander-in-Chief so that the issue is out in the open and in the future, should the issue come up again, we take the inquiries more seriously and ask the hard questions BEFORE someone is sworn into office.The quest for the truth is the enemy of any elected official.[/quote]

First, congress can’t amend the constitution. That right is afforded the states, and requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. It’s unlikely it could be done quickly.

Second, the inquiries were taken seriously. Obama has provided a certified copy of his birth certificate (In the case of Hawaii, they issue a document called “Certificate of Live Birth”).

This discussion should have been over a year ago.

[SK in CV]

No he’s not right. And neither are you.

[quote=partypup][quote=GH]Even if Obama was determined not to be a legitimate US Citizen, which given his mother IS a US Citizen, it seems to me Congress and the Senate would rush to amend the constitution to allow his presidency to continue, so I recon this angle is moot.[/quote]

Actually, I think you’re right. But I also believe that people deserve to know the truth about their Commander-in-Chief so that the issue is out in the open and in the future, should the issue come up again, we take the inquiries more seriously and ask the hard questions BEFORE someone is sworn into office.The quest for the truth is the enemy of any elected official.[/quote]

First, congress can’t amend the constitution. That right is afforded the states, and requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. It’s unlikely it could be done quickly.

Second, the inquiries were taken seriously. Obama has provided a certified copy of his birth certificate (In the case of Hawaii, they issue a document called “Certificate of Live Birth”).

This discussion should have been over a year ago.

[SK in CV]

No he’s not right. And neither are you.

[quote=partypup][quote=GH]Even if Obama was determined not to be a legitimate US Citizen, which given his mother IS a US Citizen, it seems to me Congress and the Senate would rush to amend the constitution to allow his presidency to continue, so I recon this angle is moot.[/quote]

Actually, I think you’re right. But I also believe that people deserve to know the truth about their Commander-in-Chief so that the issue is out in the open and in the future, should the issue come up again, we take the inquiries more seriously and ask the hard questions BEFORE someone is sworn into office.The quest for the truth is the enemy of any elected official.[/quote]

First, congress can’t amend the constitution. That right is afforded the states, and requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. It’s unlikely it could be done quickly.

Second, the inquiries were taken seriously. Obama has provided a certified copy of his birth certificate (In the case of Hawaii, they issue a document called “Certificate of Live Birth”).

This discussion should have been over a year ago.

[SK in CV]

No he’s not right. And neither are you.

[quote=partypup][quote=GH]Even if Obama was determined not to be a legitimate US Citizen, which given his mother IS a US Citizen, it seems to me Congress and the Senate would rush to amend the constitution to allow his presidency to continue, so I recon this angle is moot.[/quote]

Actually, I think you’re right. But I also believe that people deserve to know the truth about their Commander-in-Chief so that the issue is out in the open and in the future, should the issue come up again, we take the inquiries more seriously and ask the hard questions BEFORE someone is sworn into office.The quest for the truth is the enemy of any elected official.[/quote]

First, congress can’t amend the constitution. That right is afforded the states, and requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. It’s unlikely it could be done quickly.

Second, the inquiries were taken seriously. Obama has provided a certified copy of his birth certificate (In the case of Hawaii, they issue a document called “Certificate of Live Birth”).

This discussion should have been over a year ago.

[SK in CV]

I think you miss an important point here patientrenter:

[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
[/quote]

It’s true. Except for those guys that were guarding the door? They got paid big bucks for guarding the door. They got paid even BIGGER bucks for leaving the door open. In fact, they did more than leave the door open. They went in, grabbed the gold and hand delivered it to those people who “stole” it. And then went searching, begging for more borrowers to “steal” other people’s gold.

There are no innocent here. Not the investor/lenders/packagers who funded and bought the debt. Not the direct lenders, loan brokers, loan agents, underwriters and processors who facilitated the loans. Not the government regulators who had their head in the sand while the gold was being stolen. And not the borrowers, who knowingly or not, borrowed more than they should have. And last, but certainly not least, the financial wizards who created and traded derivatives based on that debt.

[SK in CV]

I think you miss an important point here patientrenter:

[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
[/quote]

It’s true. Except for those guys that were guarding the door? They got paid big bucks for guarding the door. They got paid even BIGGER bucks for leaving the door open. In fact, they did more than leave the door open. They went in, grabbed the gold and hand delivered it to those people who “stole” it. And then went searching, begging for more borrowers to “steal” other people’s gold.

There are no innocent here. Not the investor/lenders/packagers who funded and bought the debt. Not the direct lenders, loan brokers, loan agents, underwriters and processors who facilitated the loans. Not the government regulators who had their head in the sand while the gold was being stolen. And not the borrowers, who knowingly or not, borrowed more than they should have. And last, but certainly not least, the financial wizards who created and traded derivatives based on that debt.

[SK in CV]

I think you miss an important point here patientrenter:

[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
[/quote]

It’s true. Except for those guys that were guarding the door? They got paid big bucks for guarding the door. They got paid even BIGGER bucks for leaving the door open. In fact, they did more than leave the door open. They went in, grabbed the gold and hand delivered it to those people who “stole” it. And then went searching, begging for more borrowers to “steal” other people’s gold.

There are no innocent here. Not the investor/lenders/packagers who funded and bought the debt. Not the direct lenders, loan brokers, loan agents, underwriters and processors who facilitated the loans. Not the government regulators who had their head in the sand while the gold was being stolen. And not the borrowers, who knowingly or not, borrowed more than they should have. And last, but certainly not least, the financial wizards who created and traded derivatives based on that debt.

[SK in CV]

I think you miss an important point here patientrenter:

[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
[/quote]

It’s true. Except for those guys that were guarding the door? They got paid big bucks for guarding the door. They got paid even BIGGER bucks for leaving the door open. In fact, they did more than leave the door open. They went in, grabbed the gold and hand delivered it to those people who “stole” it. And then went searching, begging for more borrowers to “steal” other people’s gold.

There are no innocent here. Not the investor/lenders/packagers who funded and bought the debt. Not the direct lenders, loan brokers, loan agents, underwriters and processors who facilitated the loans. Not the government regulators who had their head in the sand while the gold was being stolen. And not the borrowers, who knowingly or not, borrowed more than they should have. And last, but certainly not least, the financial wizards who created and traded derivatives based on that debt.

[SK in CV]

I think you miss an important point here patientrenter:

[quote=patientrenter]analyst, when I read your argument, what I see is, to paraphrase: “Those people over there guarding the gold at Fort Leavenworth left the door open. Other people are stealing the gold. Let’s blame the people who left the door open, and not assign any blame or responsibility on the people who stole the gold. Hell, they hardly even stole it, because whenever you see a door open, everything inside is yours for the taking.”
[/quote]

It’s true. Except for those guys that were guarding the door? They got paid big bucks for guarding the door. They got paid even BIGGER bucks for leaving the door open. In fact, they did more than leave the door open. They went in, grabbed the gold and hand delivered it to those people who “stole” it. And then went searching, begging for more borrowers to “steal” other people’s gold.

There are no innocent here. Not the investor/lenders/packagers who funded and bought the debt. Not the direct lenders, loan brokers, loan agents, underwriters and processors who facilitated the loans. Not the government regulators who had their head in the sand while the gold was being stolen. And not the borrowers, who knowingly or not, borrowed more than they should have. And last, but certainly not least, the financial wizards who created and traded derivatives based on that debt.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]

I would argue that to stop paying while continuing to live in the home is unethical. It’s trying to play both sides. Breaking the contract but still reaping the benefits (occupation of the house.)

I believe that there is plenty of blame and pain to share among the parties to the contract – borrower loses downpayment and takes credit hit. Lender takes hit to investment and has costs associated with reselling the property. But if the person doesn’t vacate and chooses to not pay – in some ways, that’s theft. It’s kind of like “dining and dashing”. They are reaping the benefits without the costs.[/quote]

Good point UCGal.

The only caveat I would add is that IF the borrower offers a deed in lieu, and lender rejects it (which almost ALWAYS happens), then the onus is shifted back to the lender. If no deed is offered, and the borrower just stays and waits for a foreclosure sale, I agree entirely.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]

I would argue that to stop paying while continuing to live in the home is unethical. It’s trying to play both sides. Breaking the contract but still reaping the benefits (occupation of the house.)

I believe that there is plenty of blame and pain to share among the parties to the contract – borrower loses downpayment and takes credit hit. Lender takes hit to investment and has costs associated with reselling the property. But if the person doesn’t vacate and chooses to not pay – in some ways, that’s theft. It’s kind of like “dining and dashing”. They are reaping the benefits without the costs.[/quote]

Good point UCGal.

The only caveat I would add is that IF the borrower offers a deed in lieu, and lender rejects it (which almost ALWAYS happens), then the onus is shifted back to the lender. If no deed is offered, and the borrower just stays and waits for a foreclosure sale, I agree entirely.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]

I would argue that to stop paying while continuing to live in the home is unethical. It’s trying to play both sides. Breaking the contract but still reaping the benefits (occupation of the house.)

I believe that there is plenty of blame and pain to share among the parties to the contract – borrower loses downpayment and takes credit hit. Lender takes hit to investment and has costs associated with reselling the property. But if the person doesn’t vacate and chooses to not pay – in some ways, that’s theft. It’s kind of like “dining and dashing”. They are reaping the benefits without the costs.[/quote]

Good point UCGal.

The only caveat I would add is that IF the borrower offers a deed in lieu, and lender rejects it (which almost ALWAYS happens), then the onus is shifted back to the lender. If no deed is offered, and the borrower just stays and waits for a foreclosure sale, I agree entirely.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]

I would argue that to stop paying while continuing to live in the home is unethical. It’s trying to play both sides. Breaking the contract but still reaping the benefits (occupation of the house.)

I believe that there is plenty of blame and pain to share among the parties to the contract – borrower loses downpayment and takes credit hit. Lender takes hit to investment and has costs associated with reselling the property. But if the person doesn’t vacate and chooses to not pay – in some ways, that’s theft. It’s kind of like “dining and dashing”. They are reaping the benefits without the costs.[/quote]

Good point UCGal.

The only caveat I would add is that IF the borrower offers a deed in lieu, and lender rejects it (which almost ALWAYS happens), then the onus is shifted back to the lender. If no deed is offered, and the borrower just stays and waits for a foreclosure sale, I agree entirely.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]

I would argue that to stop paying while continuing to live in the home is unethical. It’s trying to play both sides. Breaking the contract but still reaping the benefits (occupation of the house.)

I believe that there is plenty of blame and pain to share among the parties to the contract – borrower loses downpayment and takes credit hit. Lender takes hit to investment and has costs associated with reselling the property. But if the person doesn’t vacate and chooses to not pay – in some ways, that’s theft. It’s kind of like “dining and dashing”. They are reaping the benefits without the costs.[/quote]

Good point UCGal.

The only caveat I would add is that IF the borrower offers a deed in lieu, and lender rejects it (which almost ALWAYS happens), then the onus is shifted back to the lender. If no deed is offered, and the borrower just stays and waits for a foreclosure sale, I agree entirely.

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]SK: When tax rates change it takes a while for the actors in the economy to change their behavior, then the hiring, investing, building etc. to increase or decrease, then output and incomes to change, then the tax revenues approaching the following year’s tax deadline of April 15 to change. These time lags are why it is difficult to ascribe a change in government revenues to an earlier change in the tax rate. And that’s why I gave you the six-year result after the tax rates were changed under Kennedy and then Reagan.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you at all on this. I don’t know that it’s 6 years. It may be 4, it may be 10. But given that there are so many other variables affecting the cyclical economy (we’ve had 7 recessions in the last 40 years, roughly 1 every 6 years on average, ranging from 2 quarters to the current recession, which is likely to last 8 or 9 quarters), I’m still looking for compelling evidence that tax cuts are stimulative to government revenues, or that tax increases are depressive. There is none that i’ve found, either way.

[Author]

Posts