The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

This ought to make SR feel all warm & fuzzy..

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...ZSAPEC2JT2E2E0

U.S. oil and gas executives bet big on 2016 Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush - they donated more to his White House run than to all of his rivals combined, according to a Reuters review of campaign disclosures.

All that oil money wasted.

[Annoyed]

Perhaps Hillary (and anyone considering voting for her) should review "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back". Specifically the part about “Do. Or do not. There is no try.”

From an interview for CBS News, interviewer is Scott Pelley.

PELLEY:You know, in '76, Jimmy Carter famously said, "I will not lie to you."

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY:You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON:I've always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEYome people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON:Well, no, I've always tried --

PELLEY:I mean, Jimmy Carter said, "I will never lie to you."

CLINTON:Well, but, you know, you're asking me to say, "Have I ever?" I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will. I'm gonna do the best I can to level with the American people.

[Gatefan1976]

I'm not up on Australian government or politics, but what I found in a quick google search makes me think they might be as boneheaded as the US.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...51174bbe2b31b3
(May not load for you, seems to be a subscriber only article, but with firefox & ad/script blockers in use, I was able to load it)

If I understand this right, the Australian government is using tax revenue to artificially prop up the value of real estate properties to ensure property owners don't take a bath because property values are dropping.

Not exactly.
What is going on is that people who buy investment properties are given a tax break, so it encourages buying in the market. Of course, with "extra buying", prices go up.

I'm not so fond of that idea. First, property value losses mean nothing UNLESS YOU ARE SELLING. Values will go back up when whatever is driving them down is fixed.

Oh contraire my friend, If I take out a loan on a house for 500k, and next month that house is worth 300k, I still have to pay back the loan and interest on that 500k, even though my house is not worth it anymore. Yes, you can assume that the prices will go back up, but that is not certain, and ties your assets in for an extended period of time. If this was Owner/occupier situations, yes, you would be right in it not mattering, but this is Own to rent/invest.

But artificially manipulating the market like this has other downsides too. The practice protects those who already own property, at the expense of those who do not, and would like to purchase property at reduced cost due to the (presumed) economic downswing that is forcing prices lower.

Sorta.
A lot of these investment properties are "mum and dad" investors buying a second property to take advantage of the current tax breaks, and they re-mortgage their existing property to use as capital, so they too are in the firing line for loosing -both- properties. The "big investors" however will have a field day to a degree, sure.

I'm not so fond of the government playing games like that.

It's not really the government, it's the banks. Basically, we are approaching the housing collapse that you guys had, but due to the extra oversight we have on banks, we -shouldn't- have the follow on collapses that the US had. It -is- going to hurt however.

Does that help?

[Annoyed]

Not exactly.
What is going on is that people who buy investment properties are given a tax break, so it encourages buying in the market. Of course, with "extra buying", prices go up.

So the government is indeed manipulating the market. If a tax break is involved, the gov. is behind it.

Oh contraire my friend, If I take out a loan on a house for 500k, and next month that house is worth 300k, I still have to pay back the loan and interest on that 500k, even though my house is not worth it anymore. Yes, you can assume that the prices will go back up, but that is not certain, and ties your assets in for an extended period of time. If this was Owner/occupier situations, yes, you would be right in it not mattering, but this is Own to rent/invest.

So the primary beneficiary of this is the for-profit property management companies, landlords and financial institutions.

Sorta.
A lot of these investment properties are "mum and dad" investors buying a second property to take advantage of the current tax breaks, and they re-mortgage their existing property to use as capital, so they too are in the firing line for loosing -both- properties. The "big investors" however will have a field day to a degree, sure.

It's not really the government, it's the banks. Basically, we are approaching the housing collapse that you guys had, but due to the extra oversight we have on banks, we -shouldn't- have the follow on collapses that the US had. It -is- going to hurt however.

Does that help?

So, the govt is propping up the market, to the detriment of those on the lower end of the ladder in favor of the upper middle and better classes, directing taxpayer money to the banks.

That's just as screwed up as the US if not moreso.

[Coco Pops]

So, the govt is propping up the market, to the detriment of those on the lower end of the ladder in favor of the upper middle and better classes, directing taxpayer money to the banks.

That's just as screwed up as the US if not moreso.

That is correct. It's very screwed up but all the politicians we have here came off the short bus.

[Gatefan1976]

So the government is indeed manipulating the market. If a tax break is involved, the gov. is behind it.

Of course, but the original intent was to stimulate the housing market as we were basically running out of housing for our projected population in the urban sprawl of most major cities. The -intent- was good, but as you know, intent does not always translate into reality. It actually worked well for a good 20 years, but due to other factors, is not really what it once was.

So the primary beneficiary of this is the for-profit property management companies, landlords and financial institutions.

Originally, it was for landlords. The idea was that "mum and dad" investors could get into the market and shore up their retirement portfolio's so they did not need government assistance when they retired. The financial institutions didn't really see much of the action, and the property management people were cut out a little as some of the parents used it as a way to help their kids by having them as tenants to begin with.
Again, nice idea, initially.

So, the govt is propping up the market, to the detriment of those on the lower end of the ladder in favor of the upper middle and better classes, directing taxpayer money to the banks.

Nononono.
The government is not propping it up at all, they are giving people a break now, so they don't have to concern themselves with retiree's later.
What has happened now is the same kind of predatory lending that you folks suffered before the '08 collapse. Adding to that was the fact that -because- properties kept rising in value, people played the short term, taking out huge loans on properties (that they could never pay back, and the banks should never have offered), bought properties, cleaned them up and turned them around 6-12 months later to pay of the loan and turn a profit.

That's just as screwed up as the US if not moreso.

There -are- other factors involved, but I am merely trying to give you a basic rundown of the situation. If you have specific questions, I can -try- to answer them as best I can.

[Gatefan1976]

That is correct. It's very screwed up but all the politicians we have here came off the short bus.

Uh huh...................

[mad_gater]

experience shows us that, more often than not, government usually tends to have a reverse Midas touch when it comes to economic matters

[Gatefan1976]

Trump won SC
Hillary -looks- like she will win Nevada.
And Jeb! dropped out.

[Coco Pops]

Uh huh...................

Name one government in Australia that has done good for the people and not their donors, or the high end of town? The middle to low income parts of town are mostly always forgotten.

[Annoyed]

At least we won't be subjected to "Bush III".

Although Cruz & Rubio are way behind, Cruz did have one thing to say which is dead on the money.

“Indeed, the screaming you hear now from across the Potomac is the Washington cartel in full terror that the conservative grassroots are rising up.”

As far as the Republican party goes, I think he's dead right on this one. There are alot of people like myself who are sick and tired of the choices we've been given by the Republicans for some time now.

[Annoyed]

Of course, but the original intent was to stimulate the housing market as we were basically running out of housing for our projected population in the urban sprawl of most major cities. The -intent- was good, but as you know, intent does not always translate into reality. It actually worked well for a good 20 years, but due to other factors, is not really what it once was.

So, unintended consequences is the defense? I'm sorry, but in my mind if government acts, it is the responsibility of that government to think it through and expect the changes their modifications cause.
That is why those people are in positions of authority and responsibility. Saying "Oh, I didn't expect that to happen" is tantamount to saying that "I'm not competent to do this job".

Originally, it was for landlords. The idea was that "mum and dad" investors could get into the market and shore up their retirement portfolio's so they did not need government assistance when they retired. The financial institutions didn't really see much of the action, and the property management people were cut out a little as some of the parents used it as a way to help their kids by having them as tenants to begin with.
Again, nice idea, initially.

Nononono.
The government is not propping it up at all, they are giving people a break now, so they don't have to concern themselves with retiree's later.
What has happened now is the same kind of predatory lending that you folks suffered before the '08 collapse. Adding to that was the fact that -because- properties kept rising in value, people played the short term, taking out huge loans on properties (that they could never pay back, and the banks should never have offered), bought properties, cleaned them up and turned them around 6-12 months later to pay of the loan and turn a profit.

There -are- other factors involved, but I am merely trying to give you a basic rundown of the situation. If you have specific questions, I can -try- to answer them as best I can.

So, as is predictable, the moneyed interests perverted the program to enrich themselves.

This is one of the best reasons that government should stay out of economic activity. It never fails to work out to the benefit of the moneyed classes, either by those classes having the resources to manipulate the law in unforeseen ways or by outright design on the part of the government.

Does it every work out so that it doesn't benefit the well off?

[garhkal]

At least we won't be subjected to "Bush III".

Although Cruz & Rubio are way behind, Cruz did have one thing to say which is dead on the money.


As far as the Republican party goes, I think he's dead right on this one. There are alot of people like myself who are sick and tired of the choices we've been given by the Republicans for some time now.

I was surprised Cruz came in third to Rubio.. And even more that sanders lost to clinton.
But i am glad Jeb dropped out.
Now if we can just get Kasich to do the same.

[Annoyed]

I was surprised Cruz came in third to Rubio.. And even more that sanders lost to clinton.
But i am glad Jeb dropped out.
Now if we can just get Kasich to do the same.

If you read the coverage & commentary pieces over the weekend, there is a clear tone of ice cold water being thrown in the faces of the national Republican leadership. The base of their party is pissed and coming after them.

[Gatefan1976]

So, unintended consequences is the defense? I'm sorry, but in my mind if government acts, it is the responsibility of that government to think it through and expect the changes their modifications cause.
That is why those people are in positions of authority and responsibility. Saying "Oh, I didn't expect that to happen" is tantamount to saying that "I'm not competent to do this job".

1: It is not a defence, it is an attempt to inform you.
2: Politicians are not lawyers.
3: If that is your criteria for "competent leadership", the US has not had any form of competent leadership since -before- WW2.
4: It is the role of the government to protect the -common interest- and that interest is the Country, then the People, sometimes these conflict.

So, as is predictable, the moneyed interests perverted the program to enrich themselves.

Why yes, corporate interests got in the way. Instead of policing the moneyed interests as they should have, the government just wanted the money to pay for other things, be they social, infrastructure, jobs, or pissing it away on a nice helicopter ride.

This is one of the best reasons that government should stay out of economic activity. It never fails to work out to the benefit of the moneyed classes, either by those classes having the resources to manipulate the law in unforeseen ways or by outright design on the part of the government.

Do you have -any- comprehension of what you are saying?
The -entire- REASON for this is because the Government did not police the matter, nor close the loopholes quick enough, or at all. But, no, leave it to the "free market" the people who got not just us, but the US into this messed up situation. "market forces" are a more magic wand than the elder wand or a sonic screwdriver to these kinds of thought patterns. The private sector -SCREWED- everyone, but yeah, lets leave them alone, because a corporation, who's only reason for existing is to grow and produce more money, -really- cares about you!!
The mandate of government is "for the people", and I agree, they lose their way, staggeringly so sometimes, but the mandate of Corporations is "for the money", and no other interests are applicable. At -least- with the government, I can have "skin in the game", with corporates, unless you are a shareholder, they literally do not care about you at all.

Does it every work out so that it doesn't benefit the well off?

Rarely. The last time it worked out was for the "baby boomers" and they have proven to be the most greedy, asinine, selfish, arrogant, entitled bunch of self important ******s in modern history.