patrick.net

How do I know you’re not a teenage girl? You could be a teenage girl posing as an adult male living in SF, trying to get the rest of us in trouble for some unknown reason.

that's tru. he/she could be baiting for online predators for dateline nbc. kewl.

cu l8r ...

DS,

Let me play devil's advocate for a second and turn your argument on its head.

The only organization with a mandate to prevent the kind of genocide you describe is the UN. Therefore, the lack of resolution in those conflicts is an indictment of the UN worldview, not of the neocon worldview.

Personally, I would be in favor of U.S. intervention in Darfur and elsewhere. But, generally speaking the U.S. will only intervene where geopolitical stability is at stake. (I know many believe it comes down to oil, but although the presence of oil is correlated with geopolitically important locations it is not in fact the direct cause. The perfect example is Korea, where the U.S. has had 40,000 troops for over 50 years--a far greater monetary investment to date than Iraq and Afghanistan put together).

What I do not understand is, when the U.S. topples a totalitarian regime for geopolitical purposes, why don't those on the far left at least cheer for the secondary benefits? For example, those who had been rightly bemoaning the oppression of women in Afghanistan for decades--why did they not throw their weight behind the U.S. military effort? They could think to themselves: "Toppling the Taliban is the right thing to do, but the U.S. is doing it the wrong reasons. But in the interest of those Afghani women, I will support this effort."

Instead, what I hear is complaining about any U.S. intervention, but an unwillingness to provide an alternative.

p.s. I know my view is unpopular, but I am definitely not trying to offend anyone. Apologies if I have.

They were playing russian roulette, now that they realize the bullets in the gun are real, they want to pass the gun to the illegals!

SFGuy,

Thanks, Financial Sense always seems to have good stuff. Rob Kirby probably echoes sentiment here that energy issues have not been "magically resolved".

DS,

Re: DS

Don't forget he's an aussie. When he says "you", he's rejecting his own government's troop contribution (which was important politically but negligable militarily).

If I was to make the same charge, I would have used "we went" and I would have left off the only aspect. My main charge on Iraq is that when your primary motivation is Real Politique and your execution is half-assed, you've got a real problem on your hands.

DS,

Re: Afghanistan, yes there are oil interests there, but your world view is far too simplistic if you think that's the primary reason we went in there. If Bush had done what we've done in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India (knocked out the Taliban, established order in Kabul, forced Mushariff (sic) to reign in his tribal terrorists and strengthened a valuable alliance with India) and left it at that, we'd be praising his prowess. We also still have a managable dipole (Babylon vs Persia) in the eastern Middle East.

What we've got right now is classic overreach. We're only 1/20th of the world population. We need to work in the international framework and to work with local powers.

The problem with proxies in Iraq is the only local powers are either openly opposed to us (Iran and Syria) or they have some other issues which makes them tough partners (i.e Turkey's Kurdish hangups).

Boston Transplant,

Well you certainly haven't offended ME! I hate politics, really I do. (Btw, Rummy just got canned for purely non-political reasons I'm sure). S. Korea was my example to DS too but that was quickly and conveniently swept under the carpet to find the "oil company in the cookie jar".

Peter P Says:

> However, the welfare system cannot reward this
> trend because many single moms got into the situation
> through bad judgment, like marrying the wrong
> husbands.

Most single moms never bothered to get married and for some strange reason decided not to use one of the many forms of birth control available to women. Most single moms also thought that is was a good idea at one time to get knocked up by an “outlaw biker” “gang banger” or other random drifter/out of work looser (since none of the above guys ever plan to have any type of gainful employment with wages that can be garnished for child support most don’t bother to spend a few dollars a month on condoms)…

Most single moms never bothered to get married and for some strange reason decided not to use one of the many forms of birth control available to women.

So if this group is helped in any way it will incentivize more to follow.

Besides Peter P is the guy studying for his CFA (I’m just a street smart trader). There’s new stuff every day.

- studying for
+ failed

@SP, @DinOr

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way...

Peter P,

I think of the few CFA's I know only one passed it on their first attempt. He was a great guy, don't get me wrong but was one of those rare BYU guys that drank, chased women and never really studied? Kind of the "Jim McMann" of the CFA world. If you passed on the first shot everyone would think you cheated anyway!

I think the vote was mainly a referendum on the war. It looks like the Dems could take the senate, and with Rumsfeld resigning I think Iraq policy will really change.

I'm a republican, but I think some of the things the republican party has done lately are atrocious. The Jack Abramhoff scandal, totally irresponsible spending, and ridiculously rigid Irag policy are just some of the problems. But honestly you don't hear much detialed information in the media on what exactly the Irag policy is, just the "stay the course" label they like to pin on Bush. So, I think some change isn't so bad.

I'm not sure what the real reason was we went into Irag. I'll tell you this though-we have to win, it's a must. By win I mean when the US leaves there must be a stable government there that can protect it's citizens, is at least somewhat democratic and somewhat friendly to the West.

If that doesn't happen, this will be the ultimate breeding ground for terrorists. The extreme militants will actually have something to be mad about, we invaded their county, and were indirectly responsible for killing Iragis. I would argue that the insurgents are responsible for all the civilian casualties over there, but I think Democrats would take a different view.
In the past the militants have justified their actions with a lot less than this, I can only imagine what they will do when they have a more reasonable set of circumstances to be mad about.

We also must be viewed as the victor by the world. North Korea and Iran are watching, and what happens in Iraq will determine their actions. Iran has said repeatedly in Public that it wants to eliminate Israel and America.

With respect to the housing bubble, all of the above creates a great deal more uncertainty about the future stability of America. The massive amount of borrowing were doing is dependent on foreign countries (mostly China, Japan) who view our investments (most notably T-bills) as very stable, predictable, and having good returns. This will change if the things above boil over and become worse with respect to the things above. And that in turn should raise interest rates which will hurt housing.

I just hope that Democrats understand how important the Irag war is. They seem to focus on short-term gain over longer term results. In my opinion the election results siginificantly increases the chances of a housing meltdown. I'm hoping for the best though.

In my opinion the election results siginificantly increases the chances of a housing meltdown. I’m hoping for the best though.

A housing meltdown is already baked in the cake...doesn't really matter who wins!

Allah,

The article you linked above was pretty shocking. How is it that "realtors" are going to be put in a place where they are determining the criteria for credit worthiness of their own buyers? By using utility bills and day labor "pay-stubs"? Oh this is just silly.

A housing meltdown is already baked in the cake…doesn’t really matter who wins!

I think you're right about that. But if foreigners stop buying our debts interest rates will really increase which will be an even bigger meltdown. The increase in interest rates will also hurt other parts of the economy as well. It's a terrible situation we are in, I hope it works out OK. It will be really interesting to see what happens, to say the least.

FRIFY & SFW

I certainly see the benefit of preventing a few, marginal teens from picking up their first pack of smokes. But I don't think there is any way to justify the overall net damage that severe cigarette taxes cause.

The net dead-loss to the system that overtaxation causes could easily be applied towards greater education/enforcement to prevent teen (and pre-teen) smoking.

And anyone who thinks the black market for cigs is not real, I suggest you hit Costco in Novato on a random weekday. I see the black marketers out there pedaling smokes probably 25% of the time. And consider they are targeting Costco, where you can already buy the cheapest possible legal cigs. They were selling $300 worth of Basic cigs (about 10 cartons) for $200.

That's 1/3, all dead-loss to the system. The tobacco mfg gets their money (if they're not counterfeits), the consumer gets their smokes, and the rest of the system gets robbed.

The moral of the story is that you cannot legislate judgment in a free society. Not through zero-tolerance drug laws; not through sin-taxes. But we'll keep trying, since it's politically popular.

The article you linked above was pretty shocking. How is it that “realtors” are going to be put in a place where they are determining the criteria for credit worthiness of their own buyers? By using utility bills and day labor “pay-stubs”? Oh this is just silly.

...and when they default, how can their credit be destroyed? Without a SSN, they really have no way of tracking them. This is kind of a no-lose situation for the immigrants....buy a house, live on free rent until the sheriff kicks you out.....change your name, rinse and repeat.

Jason,

I'm a little puzzled that you don't see detailed information regarding policy in Iraq. Do you read the opposition's media organs, or tap international sources? Certainly the New Yorker has given existing policy a thorough airing for years, and the International Herald Tribune or NPR's All Things Considered are easy enough to find.

I don't mean to impute "correctness" to their coverage but, in my experience, you never develop much of a perspective view - whether of objects or of ideas - without taking a look from several positions.

Probably you do this already - and you certainly don't give the impression of a Fox Network monomaniac. Just a suggestion.

Allah,

It made so little sense I didn't bother to follow up any further. But you're right, what possible accountability could there be? Besides aren't there more important things to gaining citizenship in this country BEFORE you own a home? Like understanding how many of those coins equal a dollar? "Programs" like these are so prone to abuse I can't even discuss it.

I think you’re right about that. But if foreigners stop buying our debts interest rates will really increase which will be an even bigger meltdown. The increase in interest rates will also hurt other parts of the economy as well. It’s a terrible situation we are in, I hope it works out OK. It will be really interesting to see what happens, to say the least.

Seems to me interest rates will rise no matter what they do. The economy is going to take a serious beating! Consumers are already cutting back and Wal-Mart is starting a price cutting war since they had such a bad quarter. Santa just might not show up this Christmas!

It made so little sense I didn’t bother to follow up any further. But you’re right, what possible accountability could there be? Besides aren’t there more important things to gaining citizenship in this country BEFORE you own a home? Like understanding how many of those coins equal a dollar? “Programs” like these are so prone to abuse I can’t even discuss it.

DinOr,

They don't care what happens, this is just a last desperate attempt to delay the sure-fire housing crash....but I don't think it's going to work!

Allah,

I wish I could give proper credit but someone here mentioned this is like the last "MEW" Xmas! YTD we've already topped ALL of 2005. The weird part is that consumers seem to sense it's the end of the line.

Just in case I’m not back before Randy kills this thread, I would just like to go on record and say that:
“All cheese is smelly”.

...and I was going to get into an argument with him that not ALL cheese is smelly. :lol:

What I do not understand is, when the U.S. topples a totalitarian regime for geopolitical purposes, why don’t those on the far left at least cheer for the secondary benefits? For example, those who had been rightly bemoaning the oppression of women in Afghanistan for decades–why did they not throw their weight behind the U.S. military effort? They could think to themselves: “Toppling the Taliban is the right thing to do, but the U.S. is doing it the wrong reasons. But in the interest of those Afghani women, I will support this effort.”

Instead, what I hear is complaining about any U.S. intervention, but an unwillingness to provide an alternative.

I certainly cannot speak for Pelosi-style Democrats (Libertarian-leaning Independent), but I cannot recall ANY time in the 5 years since 9-11 that a majority of Democrats have ever opposed our actions in Afghanistan.

Virtually ALL anti-war opposition --with the exception of a few hard-core socialists/extremists-- started only AFTER the invasion of Iraq became a foregone conclusion. Most Democrats I know (and this is uber-liberal CA) were FOR the war in Afghanistan from the start. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and unhelpful.

In fact, if "we" had dedicated ourselves to "staying the course" in Afghanistan (annihilating the Taliban and establishing a stable government), I strongly suspect Bush & Co. would not be in the situation they're currently in. Hell, I would have even supported going into Syria in the months after 9-11. With the right exit strategy, I might even support it now.

Lumping in everyone who opposed the war in Iraq with reflexively anti-war peacenik hippies does a disservice to the truth and undermines badly needed debate on the subject.

Allah,

I'd read just yesterday that consumer debt slowed by 1.2 bil last month, the most since April 1992. If I see one more Capital ONE or "Rewarding" commercial I'm going to knock my teeth out w/ a tack hammer one at a time! Seems the c/c co's sense it too!

And please don't tell me "I want the terrorists to win" or "hate our troops" because I though invading Iraq was a bad idea.

OT - has anyone got an idea of how many mortgages are going to reset next year now? With all the re-financing going on at the minute - I would guess less than previously reported, but how much less, and how is this going to affect the housing crash?

What I do not understand is, when the U.S. topples a totalitarian regime for geopolitical purposes, why don’t those on the far left at least cheer for the secondary benefits?

Ditto what Harm said. When Feinstein (who supported the war) said in 2003 "I know something my constituants don't know", that actually won me over for a while. For all I knew, the reason might have been "He's planning on bombing Iran's oil fields and taking his oil off the market". Greatest good for the greatest number would still favor war. Instead it was bogus WMD data.

The war cost (@ around $300 Billion) would probably have started producing some sound returns if invested in alternative energy technology and installation. Instead the returns we're seeing are flag draped.

What now? Partition and the continued rise of Iran as the regional power.

Claire,

I believe (and these are only estimates) .5 bil this year and 1.5 bil in 2007 for a total of 2 trillion in 2 years. Eat up!

"Lumping in everyone who opposed the war in Iraq with reflexively anti-war peacenik hippies does a disservice to the truth and undermines badly needed debate on the subject."

I didn't intend to lump those groups together. My apologies. Really I was responding to comments by DS regarding the LACK of intervention in certain parts of the world, with my point being that, A) no one else seems to intervene when required, and B) when the U.S. does intervene it catches flak for it, and not just in Iraq.

I agree that most Democrats supported going to Afghanistan, to their credit. However, it is discouraging that many other countries that supported our efforts there are already wavering.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6072366.stm

I guess another way to put it would be this: the U.S. overreached in Iraq, and has lost credibility because of it. But until other powers step up their support where it should be a given (Afghanistan) I feel they have lost credibility as well. If the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan tomorrow, would anyone else fill the vacuum? (Other than the Taliban of course...)

FRIFY,

I don't want to speak for HARM but I'm not sure that's exactly what he was driving at. The knee-jerk reactions have happened on both sides. Please don't assume just b/c I'm a pretty conservative guy that I "get off" watching news clips of a war torn Iraq. I don't.

Uh, that's .5 trillion in 2006 and 1.5 trillion in 2007 for a total of 2 trillion (and yes that's trillion)

Sorry Claire.

What is proposed in Iraq is not 'partition' - viz postwar Germany's Brit, Yank and Soviet occupied zones - but a federation with resource-sharing formulae to be worked out.

We have done all we could to insure that Iran would emerge as the regional heavyweight, though that has not been our intention, and have behaved in a fashion that is all an enemy could wish. Extreme religious factions abroad - and, may I say, at home - have done a great deal of harm by polarizing the views of millions who have heretofore had no basis for serious disagreement, let alone military adventures, covert operations, or acts of terrorism.

Bin Laden, and others with their own individual fixations, has been consistently clear that the destruction of Western economies is the weapon of choice - through the disruption of financial centers, the costs and inefficiencies associated with heightened security measures, and the vast expenditures involved in active military adventures in distant lands.

A variant on Reagan's 'spend the Soviets into a collapse' approach is thus applied to ourselves. We have been most cooperative, if you think about it.

DinOR - thanks for the info - you don't think all the refi's going on at the minute will push back the resets? Do you think people will wait until their reset before trying to refinance?

I guess another way to put it would be this: the U.S. overreached in Iraq, and has lost credibility because of it. But until other powers step up their support where it should be a given (Afghanistan) I feel they have lost credibility as well. If the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan tomorrow, would anyone else fill the vacuum? (Other than the Taliban of course…)

I can agree with this. Our NATO and U.N. "allies" have tended to be long on rhetoric and short on commitment for a very long time. Unfortunately, Iraq has now provided a lot of political cover for them and a huge distraction away from other regional conflicts, where military intervention can be justified on humanitarian grounds (Darfur).

Thanks for the "Rapture Ready" link, eburbed. I don't know whether to laugh or be frightened that there are lots of people who really believe that God is a Republican.

Bruce,

Sorry, just not buyin' it. What you describe is basically a scene from "Team America". The notion that we're being "out smarted" is just ridiculous. Oh wait, if the economic expansion post 9/11 was bin laden's "crowning achievement" you're right! We're in total disarray.

Uh, if this were D-Day the total number of American serviceman in Iraq that have died to date would have covered about the first 20 minutes of the invasion. I've heard the "they suckered us in" as they let us waltz across the desert unchallenged theory before. Look, it's a mess. No one's trying to deny that. Again as Boston Transplant suggests, what would have been the alternative? Now that the Dem's are going to have their way everyone will like us! WTF.

HARM,

Would you kindly address Claire's question as well? I've read so many of the links you've posted regarding the reset and you're really more qualified to speak to this than most here.

Claire, it's a bona-fide mess. Right now most on-line MB's Quicken, Di-Tech etc. are frantically pushing for those w/ARM's to re-fi to a fixed ASAP! They're literally putting the fear of God into these folks in an effort to generate fees. I tend to think that rather than moving the "reset" back it's actually pulling it forward. Many of these people have become so accustomed to living off of cash out re-fi's they are even getting out of lower int. rate loans to access "their equity". Even if it means a higher rate and a higher payment. So they're basically volunteering themselves for the "default line" but probably figure "they'll just sell in the spring".

Thanks for the “Rapture Ready” link, eburbed. I don’t know whether to laugh or be frightened that there are lots of people who really believe that God is a Republican.

All I know is that I hope the Rapture doesn't happen soon - I haven't had time to shop for my Rapture season clothes yet.

In some ways, I feel bad for the Democrats.

Sure they won - but that's like saying you won a contest where the prize is cleaning up poop.

Let's see, in the next two years:
1- FBs will become more F'ed - screaming out in pain. Who's going to have to do the dirty work of either bailing out voters/corporations or letting them burn?

2- National Debt spirals out of control. Who's going to have to raise taxes/cut spending/favorite programs to do that?

3- Iraq. Who's going to have to go fix it?

No matter what, these are all going to be ugly. And the likelihood of ending well is low. Democrats will just end up looking like the "party that made us all hurt" because they'll have to be responsible and do the right thing.

No one gets elected for being responsible. People get elected for making sure our gas prices are low, our freedom freeways continue to grow, and that houses continue to appreciate.

Democrats are screwed next cycle.