Job Discussion Forums

[disraeli123]

I brought some funds with me from the U.S. but I've been here in San Luis for 4 months now and I've been paid every 2 weeks like clock work and I've always been able to pay all my bills. I have also had some money left over for extras and some savings so maybe Mexico City is not where you need to be in order to make a living in Mexico. Again thanks for your concern and support.

[EFLeducator]

[disraeli123]

I'll keep in touch hopefully it is a Mexico City thing. San Luis seems to be a nice city where you can live the way you choose to live and people seem to want to help newcomers as well

[BadBeagleBad]

[geaaronson]

Disraeli

I welcome the discourse with you. First I agree with you that Reagan was considerably to the right of Obama. I remember that election well as it was my third to vote. So I have been around the block and used to read the NYTimes before I was a teenager, (yes, believe it or not) so my political memories go back to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As for the Clinton vs. Obama points on the political spectrum, I do believe that there were differences between the two in emphasis. Obama had a better idea of where he wanted to lead the US vis a vis the rest of the world, whereas Clinton�s focus was in economic expansion. Obama�s economics are a bit shakier than Clintonian�s.

As for Reagan, he was interestingly somewhat progressive on some issues, such as he was personally in favor of some marijuana legalization. However at the time that was not a salient issue. Nevertheless he followed Tip O�Neil�s strong suggestion and come down hard on other drugs. When it comes to politics, there is no such thing as a straight up and down conservative or liberal and people are so many shades in between. I�ve met segragionists who were anti-Vietnam War, so how does the classic ideological line apply throughout? We have to be careful about the liberal-conservative "dialectic". There are conservatives who applauded Miranda and liberals who supported the Iraqi incursion (Liebman). So be careful about your overgeneralization. I tried to address this issue several years ago with Thelmadatter, whose views I find to be anethema, as she does mine, and I believe the two of us came to that understanding there is no such thing as a pure liberal or conservative stance among almost anyone.

As for Pelosi and Hatch being inside or outside, that is your position because you are considerably to the right. Your analysis is incorrect. She did not lose her Speakership because she was outside the political mainstream range but because Obama had not cured the economic situation and the voters took revenge and gave the nod to more Republican contenders for congressional positions.

[disraeli123]

Pelosi, Reid and Obama, couldn't fix the economic situation using left wing voodoo economics and Obamacare instead of consontrating on creating jobs. Pelosi led the charge to create Obamacare she also led the way to pass Obama's stimulus package this together is how Pelosi fell otside of the mainstream or boundries of American politics that is why she lost her Speakership because she was behind the stimulus and Obamacare. Obama is a dead duck he will lose mainly because he has put himself outside of the founders boundaries.

[kona]

[disraeli123]

Kona, The simple facts are that yes GWB added 5+trillion to the national debt and for that conservatives didn't come out for John McCain in 2008, also he GWB did it over an 8 year period so far Obama has added 6+ trillion in just over 3.5 years so who is worse there both bad, but Obama certainly is worse than GWB. Secondly the Congresstional Budget Office is the authority on the cost of programs and they just came out with a new estimate for what Obamacare will cost over the next decade how about 2.3 trillion not 900 billion Obama says it will cost simple math even, if you like Obamacare we can't afford it with a 16+ trillion dollar national debt and a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit looming next year. As far as the mortgage crisis which you don't seem to know that it was a democrat law the Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1978 under Jimmy Carter which at first just encouraged banks to loosen the traditional 20% down on most mortgages, but in 1997 Bill Clinton enforced the law forcing banks to give mortgages to people with almost no money down and no proof of income. The bankers at first tried to fight it, but they then sold the mortgages to Wall Street and Fannie and Freddie and they created the mortgage derivitives and the mess mushroomed till it collapsed in the fal of 2008 by the way GWB and the republicans tried to pass a reform regulation bill in 2005 it was blocked by a filibuster lead by Harry Reid and company, so the republicans did try late, but did try to stop this. The Community Reinvestment Act has been repealed since then, but once again it was the government that started the problem not private business. Did the people on Wall Street take advantage of it YES, but they couldn't have taken advantage of it, if the law didn't exist.

[disraeli123]

Kona, If you say you don't consider yourself a socialist , but you vote for Obama after his stimulus package Obamacare and his wanting to raise taxes WHAT are you a fiscal conservative I think not. The founders created the U.S. political system and believe me to them Obama would be a person they would start another revolution in order too remove him from office, instead the people stopped Obama by giving the house to the republicans changing 63 seats and yes the republicans have obstructed Obama the last 2 years, because they were elected to do just that this year the Obama mistake will be fixed. If you want to know why I will vote against Obama just check out the federalist papers the the constitution which he has tried to rip up.

[Guy Courchesne]

[disraeli123]

McCain won the largest percentage of conservatives, but not the largest number of conservatives. You must also understand that McCain was one of the worst campaingners in U.S. history. You and others haven't touched my economic reasons for Obama's upcoming defeat

[Guy Courchesne]

[kona]

I'll try and take these points one by one:

-Drawing a straight line from the Community Reinvestment Act to financial collapse is a stretch. The recession was not caused by taking away down-payments on houses or making credit available for low-income communities, although it was a part of it in the sense that it did make mortgage backed securities more risky. Having sub-prime mortgages is, in of itself, not a bad thing actually. There are actually quite a few high-risk assets other than sub-prime mortgages that people can invest in, and the fact they are there is a good thing in a sense, because high risk assets also tend to have high yields, and it keeps the economy dynamic. The problem is really the lack of transparency in the valuation of investment assets, and that was really a critical component of the financial meltdown.

The second critical component was that banks who were dealing with these high-risk "AAA" investment securities were also trading in credit default swaps; essentially "insurance" (I use quotes because legally they can't be called "insurance", but they are basically an agreement that says "I'll cover your losses if this thing goes bust"; the reason why they didn't want to call it insurance is because by federal law that would require them to have enough liquidity on tap to pay off all CDS's they hold) against the default of those assets. AIG was heavily leveraged against these, and that's really the reason they went under after there was a run on the banks.

Two rules one should remember in investing: 1. There ain't no free lunch, and 2. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket. The banks missed these two fundamentals by a mile, but luckily, when you got Henry Paulson at the helm of the ship, you can get away with anything (and basically get bailed out of a mess that you created). But in any case, that's neither here nor there, because the bailout probably was ultimately necessary in the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, America has a short memory and now there is little political will to reign in the "renegade" investing (where you can leverage "your" assets 32 to one; I use quotations on that because they are actually people's 401ks) of the banks. No I forgot government is the problem here. Not what is tantamount to someone selling you a coca-cola with arsenic in it.

As far as the debt goes, GWB had the debt above $10 trillion before Obama took office. Most economists agree that his tax cuts were a serious contributor to that (we basically instantaneously threw out the surplus when he did that). In much the same way that conservatives would say "more taxes does not equal a balanced budget" (which is true to a certain extent), "less taxes doesn't necessary mean a balanced budget either".

Here's an article that may illuminate the source of the public debt. I know, I know, it's from the fanatically liberal New York Times, but I thought I'd show it to you just in case of the slight chance you might be interested. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

The founding fathers I think would be proud that we are having a such a spirited and civil debate. Hopefully, the moderators will be tolerant of this too (bit off course from TESOL, but global economics does effect are career prospects).

[kona]

I'll try and take these points one by one:

-Drawing a straight line from the Community Reinvestment Act to financial collapse is a stretch. The recession was not caused by taking away down-payments on houses or making credit available for low-income communities, although it was a part of it in the sense that it did make mortgage backed securities more risky. Having sub-prime mortgages is, in of itself, not a bad thing actually. There are actually quite a few high-risk assets other than sub-prime mortgages that people can invest in, and the fact they are there is a good thing in a sense, because high risk assets also tend to have high yields, and it keeps the economy dynamic. The problem is really the lack of transparency in the valuation of investment assets, and that was really a critical component of the financial meltdown.

The second critical component was that banks who were dealing with these high-risk "AAA" investment securities were also trading in credit default swaps; essentially "insurance" (I use quotes because legally they can't be called "insurance", but they are basically an agreement that says "I'll cover your losses if this thing goes bust"; the reason why they didn't want to call it insurance is because by federal law that would require them to have enough liquidity on tap to pay off all CDS's they hold) against the default of those assets. AIG was heavily leveraged against these, and that's really the reason they went under after there was a run on the banks.

Two rules one should remember in investing: 1. There ain't no free lunch, and 2. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket. The banks missed these two fundamentals by a mile, but luckily, when you got Henry Paulson at the helm of the ship, you can get away with anything (and basically get bailed out of a mess that you created). But in any case, that's neither here nor there, because the bailout probably was ultimately necessary in the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, America has a short memory and now there is little political will to reign in the "renegade" investing (where you can leverage "your" assets 32 to one; I use quotations on that because they are actually people's 401ks) of the banks. No I forgot government is the problem here. Not what is tantamount to someone selling you a coca-cola with arsenic in it.

As far as the debt goes, GWB had the debt above $10 trillion before Obama took office. Most economists agree that his tax cuts were a serious contributor to that (we basically instantaneously threw out the surplus when he did that). In much the same way that conservatives would say "more taxes does not equal a balanced budget" (which is true to a certain extent), "less taxes doesn't necessary mean a balanced budget either".

Here's an article that may illuminate the source of the public debt. I know, I know, it's from the fanatically liberal New York Times, but I thought I'd show it to you just in case of the slight chance you might be interested. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

The founding fathers I think would be proud that we are having a such a spirited and civil debate. Hopefully, the moderators will be tolerant of this too (bit off course from TESOL, but global economics does effect are career prospects).

[kona]

Sorry about the double post. The browser was glitching out on me.