In my recent posts on Log Cabin, I’ve taken some flak for criticizing the organization. At the heart of my case against this ostensibly Republican organization is that in the past few years, it has, as I put it in my last post on the group, been “at pains to make itself indistinguishable from the gay left.” One of our critics has a different view, noting that everything he gets “from the national office of LCR is very Republican.” But, one thing Republican organizations do is criticize Democrats and others on the Left, particularly those who attack the GOP, its policies and supporters.
And Log Cabin doesn’t do much of that. To be sure, I have praised Patrick Guerriero on a rare occasion when he took gay groups to task for their ideological rigidity. Last fall, he chastised them for applying an “ideological ‘litmus test’” on then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. But, more often than not Log Cabin bypasses opportunities to criticize Democrats and the gay left.
So, in today’s open thread, we’re inviting you to provide links to articles or releases where Log Cabin national has criticized Democrats — or others on the Left. You may include such links in the comments below or in an e-mail to me. After verifying the link, I will add it to this post as an update. (Please note that given an obligation today, I may not be able to check your links until late evening Pacific time.)
To qualify for inclusion in the body of this post, such criticism must be from Patrick Guerriero’s term as head of Log Cabin and be exclusively of Democrats (or others on the Left), that is, it may not as Log Cabin’s Statement on Senator Kerry’s Comments Regarding Mary Cheney also include criticism of Republicans. I mean, what other partisan organization goes around saying the other side may be bad, but our side’s just as bad?
UPDATE: Well, it seems AverageGayJoe was right when he speculated that this post would yield “an empty thread.” As I was organizing an event all day, I barely had time to check this (or any) blog. When I got back, I found that while there were some interesting exchanges in the comments, no one provided a link to an article or release where Log Cabin criticized Democrats — or anyone on the left for that matter.
I don’t think we would have much trouble if we solicited links to pieces where Stonewall Democrats criticized Republicans.
That said, former Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron e-mailed me two releases from his tenure at the organization. Neither quite fits the criteria for this post as both include criticism of the president. That said, each offers some choice passages taking issue with then-Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and merits acknowledgment here. I should also note Log Cabin issued both these releases before Bruce launched this blog in September 2004.
On February 26, 2004, two days after the president endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, Log Cabin noted that by favoring a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts banning gay marriage, Kerry was beginning “his own journey down a trail of ‘broken promises.’” Patrick Guerriero noted, “Whether it’s taxes, trade policy, the war on terror, or amending Constitutions to discriminate against gay and lesbian families, John Kerry’s positions change more often than the Massachusetts weather.”
Six months later, Patrick noted that Kerry’s indication of support for an amendment in Missouri banning gay marriage amounted to “another example of a Kerry flip-flop.” Chris added that Kerry’s message to gay Americans “seems pretty clear; Senator Kerry will support discriminatory amendments when it becomes politically expedient.”
To be sure, in each of these releases, Log Cabin’s criticism of President Bush was somewhat muted. But, at least they took a flip-flopping, pandering Democrat to task. It’s too bad they didn’t do that more often in the final stretch of the 2004 campaign.
Heya Dan, just a simple point: and open thread usually isn’t limited by a topic, let alone a call for singular activity on the part of commentators.
I doubt anything recent will be forthcoming from any who follow the Log Cabineers. It just isn’t there and, if someone contends an item meets that criteria, it’s easy to apply subjective criticism to dismiss it as no proof.
Open threads are usually, ummm, open in terms of subject matter.
Concerning Log cabin republicans; this much publicized group has no position on gay “marriage” & gay “rights” that are any different than the most far left organization. They may be all for low taxes and a strong defense, but that’s hardly the point. I view this group (properly I believe) as a obvious Trojan hoarse for the gay left. Its purpose is to make clear that on social issues all homosexuals think alike. There are authentic gay social conservatives out there (who are against gay “marriage” and expansion of gay “rights” as unnecessary and overwrought demands) but the LCR don’t represent them. They are also used by the main stream media in promoting a mythical divide within the Republican Party over gay rights.
Media coverage should seek fairness and strive toward objective truth. In this instance (and many others) media fails to capture the all important context. The LCR are not an influential group within the Republican caucus. Their agenda seeks to support their version of “gay rights” while their other affinities are merely utilitarian toward this end. Rather than properly reporting toward this end, media organizations tout the LCR often and widely to reinforce their own leanings and agenda.
Groups like Homeschool Republican, Republican Liberty Caucus, Republican Jewish Coalition, Republican National Hispanic Assembly, Republican Youth Majority & even groups like Republicans for Choice (and many others) are all infinitely larger in numbers with infinitely greater influence than the LCR. Yet these groups don’t get nearly the press or national attention. I believe this further reinforces my thesis.
Now, you may disagree with this view. You may say (properly) that such stories make for good copy, end of story. Well, no doubt they do. I believe I can further reinforce my thesis by pointing out the dearth of other stories that would make good copy also.
The truth of the mater (objectively & within context) is that the Democratic Party is infinitely more fractured over “gay rights” then are the Republicans. Yet this important divide is rarely reported upon. Nor are Democratic organizations that differ widely over the agenda of “gay rights” given the prominence and exposure of the LCR.
I can bring a multitude of evidence to support this contention, but I’ll start with a few timely and important examples. The recent spate of marriage protection amendments throughout the United States drew wide spread support across party lines. Yet this was never used to illustrate the divide among Democrats on “gay rights” issues.
Furthermore if anyone can find me a single issue relating to gay right were the LCR differ in opinion from the ACLU, Lamda Legal, or the Human Rights Campaign, I would be extremely interested to know the distinction.
Well, for starters, LCR is usually much less supportive of pedophile groups, soliciting and intending to perform sex in public restrooms, or other such things than are HRC, Lambda, and the ACLU.
Well, for starters, LCR is usually much less supportive of pedophile groups, soliciting and intending to perform sex in public restrooms, or other such things than are HRC, Lambda, and the ACLU.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2006 @ 1:58 pm – May 8,
NOt Sure what your intentions are mentioning Gays & Pedophile in the same sentence…sure NO ONE is perfect..but, it’s been proven that the majority of “child molestors” are Heterosexuals….and moderates & Libs are NOT all out to have sex in men’s rooms either…your generalizations are as bad as the “Extreme Right Wing” paints us all to be….maybe you need to re-think where you stand. either that or join a “Reperative Therapy group” and go for the Bush.
Unfortunately, JRC, they are the truth.
— ACLU and pedophilia
— Lambda and soliciting (with intent to perform) sex in public restrooms
And HRC is right there to cheer them both.
My intention is simple; confront the accusation directly and demonstrate that the linkage between gays and pedophilia is minimal at best.
However, I keep running into opposition from people like yourself, who want to perpetuate the idiotic denialism that makes us look like liars and fools in the eyes of the American public.
The reason you’re being told to respond that way, JRC, is because HRC’s Executive Board is made up of Washington lobbyists whose influence over the “gay vote” is a commodity to be bought and sold for their personal enrichment.
JRC writes “…it’s been proven that the majority of “child molestors” are Heterosexuals”.
Um, what rock have YOU been living under? My fellow Catholics have been wrestling with a priest-pedophile scandal for years now… tell me and the vicitims that the majority of those behavioral gay priests are heterosexual –BS.
Argggh.
#4: “NOt Sure what your intentions are mentioning Gays & Pedophile in the same sentence”
It’s just his shtick. Plus it’s one of the many things on which he is in agreement with James Dobson.
#6 Even if you are correct about the sexual orientation of priests, they represent only a tiny fraction of the total number of pedophiles. In fact, the majority of sexual abuse of children by adults is male on female so JRC is correct. Furthermore, the best research to date has been unable to show that “gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children”
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Now, you see, Ian, had you brought that forward first, you would have a reasonable argument.
But you see, you and JRC’s instant, knee-jerk reaction was to deny and blast anyone who challenged “gay standard”.
Now your own research shows that there are gays who molest children — precisely what JRC denied.
I don’t know enough about the organization other than that they say they are republican. . . . .
Is it possible that they might be a shadow group serving the purposes of the left under the guise of a “Republican” title?
I like the idea that they support republicans because of national security, military blah blah blah all of the foreign policy arguments that the ‘Pubs win, but then, as was posted here, they are willing to neglect all of that in favor of a single issue, that is being manipulated by the left to isolate homosexuals in the nation, forcing their followers to the left.
#6 – Matt and earlier – I disagree that the pedophile priests are either “behaviorally gay” or straight (whatever the statistics turn out to be).
Last time I checked, being gay and being straight both involved peer relationships, i.e., relationships with other adults (if you’re adult).
What’s characteristic of the pedophile priests, and all pedophiles (whether they favor same-sex kids or opposite-sex), is that they are profoundly immature and insecure; unable to face an adult relationships.
(Which is not an excuse: their blameworthy moral error is their failure to STOP themselves, get treatment and grow up.)
Pedophilia does not equal homosexuality… period. Just like it doesn’t equal heterosexuality, when opposite-sex kids are the victims. The Pope is very wrong on this one.
I agree 100% on anything you might say about how we should reject any NAMBLA-excusing or NAMBLA-promoting types in our midst.
Gay Conservatives…I get it. But, Gay Republicans? Just take yourself out to the parking lot and beat yourself up while you’re at it.
But, on a more serious note, I’ve come to the conclusion (completely unproven of course) that Gay Republicans probably came into existence because of the necessity of a group of business-oriented gay folk to preserve professional and social ties to people who also happened to be prominent Republicans. And then as LCR matured, it began to have some “mission creep,” due to its inherent social conflict with large sectors of the Republican base.
What a bunch of tired, pathetic stereotypes, Ettanin.
Try for some originality sometime.
#10 “Is it possible that they might be a shadow group serving the purposes of the left under the guise of a “Republican” title?”
Yes, of course, that must be it. While we’re on the subject of leftist infiltrators, apparently Bush himself is a liberal http://tinyurl.com/nlwge
Who knew?!!!
It’s all part of the conservatism-can’t-fail-it-can-only-be-failed dogma that we can all watch for over the next few months. More details here:
http://tinyurl.com/sx4us
Gay Conservatives…I get it. But, Gay Republicans? Just take yourself out to the parking lot and beat yourself up while you’re at it.
That would be more convincing if you weren’t standing there now, throwing money and “pro-gay, gay-supportive” to them as Democratic candidates and leaders repeatedly ran over you with dump trucks.
NDXXX, if it’s a Democrat Party dumptruck, Ian S and some of the others here will literally throw each other under the wheels if it helps the dumptruck slide a little further to the Left.
What self-loathing gays they must be to hazard our community’s future and collective interests for sheer partisan momentary advantage.
Thank you GayLeft for keeping all of us tied to the Democrat Plantation.
#16 Who’s tying you to anything? I’m not tied to anything apart from my own strong principles. It just so happens that the Democratic Party stance is more closely aligned to those principles than any other. I still support the occasional Republican but to be honest, here in Arizona, there has been a very effective purge of socially liberal fiscal conservatives from the GOP. Remember, this is the state GOP that seriously contemplated removing Barry Goldwater’s name from its headquarters building for his support of letting open gays serve in the military.
This is off topic, but this ad keeps staring me in the face. I’ve noticed these ads for Volpac, asking for contributions. His family owns and operates HCA, inc. It’s the largest for-profit hospital network in the country, and has had fines against it from the US goverment for a total of 1.7 BILLION dollars over the years, much of it for defrauding goverment health care plans. This distinction makes it the 2nd highest amount of government fines for any company in US history. Gimmee a break; this guy’s ads and image as some kind of simple country doctor are nonsense – like many other politicians, he was born into an extremely wealthy family; this guy is in medicine for the love of the money and greater wealth it brings him, not to help people.
Well, I didn’t meant to offend. Stereotypes became stereotypes by *sometimes* accurately depicting reality. Gays aren’t physically lynched as much these days unless you’re in Europe, but when I wrote about that metaphorical “parking lot,” I was thinking mostly on the attempts to ban gay marriage in several states and in the U.S. Constitution.
So the big topic is why do LCR only seem to criticize the elephants? That’s obvious. Because they want the Republican party to change. Being gay in this country right now is undeniably an existential issue, at least it is politically and legally. So, perhaps you should consider that being “gay with conservative values” is a bit secondary when today’s issue is just about being “gay.” Perhaps, its only natural that gay groups (conservative or otherwise) would be tempted to aim their criticism towards where they sense the most opposition to their lifestyle comes from. I’m not saying its right, but I am saying it is a natural instinct in politics.
When gays get acceptence legally and politically, and the existential issues disappear, only then will they more gracefully divide on the liberal/conservative spectrum.
#10 FYI, Log Cabin began in California in response to a ballot question that sought to ban gays from teaching in the public schools. It was ahead in the polls until Ronald Reagan publically opposed it and it subsequently failed.
Being gay in this country right now is undeniably an existential issue, at least it is politically and legally. So, perhaps you should consider that being “gay with conservative values” is a bit secondary when today’s issue is just about being “gay.”
Ah yes, the polite way of saying that Republicans want to round up gays and put them in concentration camps.
Given, as I pointed out, that it’s quite kosher among the gay Democratic set to support stripping gays of rights as long as Democrats are doing it, I fail to see your point. You’d think that, if such things were really the danger to gays that you claim them to be, you’d — well, maybe —oppose candidates like these and not give them millions of dollars and call them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, like all the “gay rights” organizations do.
Being gay in this country right now is undeniably an existential issue…
On the contrary. Never has America been better for gays than today.
Let me give you some historical perspective. I came out 17 years ago. Sodomy was still illegal in 22 states. It’s legal in all 50, today. Pat Buchanan in those days was making ugly comments about gays and AIDS and culture wars. I never thought I would live to see gay marriage and civil unions catching on. But I have!
Even the Christian Right has shifted from saying “We know what causes homosexuality, and it’s the person’s sin”, to “We really don’t know what causes homosexuality and should treat gay people with respect”. Bush said something like it (not an exact quote) in one of the 2004 Presidential debates.
Never has there been a time in American history when gay people were more accepted. We still have a ways to go – it’s true. But claims that gay people are under some great threat – more than, say, 30 years ago – are the exact opposite of the truth.
People who think like you are stuck in a time warp. It’s 2006. Get with the times, Rip van Winkle! 🙂
Heh, I think both of you are going out of your way to assume I’m in a more extreme position than I actually am. I used to work among prominent Democrats and gay men. I know things are getting better all the time for gays at a generational speed. Nor do I believe Republicans want to put gays in camps.
I’m just pointing out that politics is a game of creating perception. So, if anyone initiates a discussion wondering why such-and-such political group attacks another group, don’t be surprised when the answer given is that they *feel* threatened, regardless of what the reality is. As I said, the problem is existential, rooted in the experience of how they *feel* the world is working and younger gays and lesbians don’t have the generational perspective.
So, if you have a problem with that, then I guess you need to educate people on the reality. You’re very informed…more than me, I admire that, but the last thing you want to create is the perception that gays have *enough* right now. I get your point, but you don’t want to make it too strongly, because as the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Having gay rights frozen where they are now is not a desirable thing, and downplaying the urgency of your cause in the Byzantine world of Washington politics with its thousands of competing voices and moneyed interests isn’t conducive to further progress. You just won’t be heard.
You’re right about the younger generation (not that older people don’t suffer from memory issues from time to time as well)… different issue but my baby sister was complaining about how Bush was responsible for this and Bush was responsible for that and how it was Bush’s people who were responsible for the legal ruling that labor unions for graduate students (ie. university slave labor). She teaches science at a university and has never done so under any other president. All she knows is now.
So I asked her… how was it before? And, how can you blame Bush for the labor issues when this has been going on forever *and* in an environment that is predominately Democrat and liberal?
She’s bright but it was obvious she’d never thought about it that way before.
Ack… labor unions for graduate students weren’t legal…
Ian S (in #8), we agree on something, but then again, we both just acknowledge the facts. While most of the priests (involved in the recent church scandal) did assault post-pubescent males, an overwhelming percentage of adult sexual abuse of children is of girls. This is something which should get more media attention.
WickedPinto in #10, you’re not the first to ask, “Is it possible that they might be a shadow group serving the purposes of the left under the guise of a “Republican” title?
Ian #14, thanks for the first link as it will help me with a piece I am working on, hopefully to post on Friday.
HEY North Dallas Thirty – I’ll take a Dem over this batch of Repubs anyday!!! I will NEVER vote Repub until these (backwards,bigoted dicriminators) are LONG GONE. They DO NOT stand for true conservatizm….and many other repubs will agree. These Repubs are radical extremist hell-bent on running America into the ground (politically, financially and socially) I will NEVER trust republicans for years to come….I am not saying the Dems are better — but they are MORE socially responsible when it comes to the public at large in ALL aspects!
Dan, in your update you wrote, “…before Bruce launched this blog in September 2004…”
Did you mean 2003? I’m pretty sure I remember visiting this blog in the mid-summer of 2004.
I am not saying the Dems are better — but they are MORE socially responsible when it comes to the public at large in ALL aspects!
LOL…..you aren’t saying they’re better, but you then say they’re better.
Good boy, JRC; I figured you’d bark on command with a good Democratic talking point about how stripping gays of rights is “socially responsible” when Democrats do it.
Also, I would suspect that JRC has a strange (or rather, a typical leftist) mis-conception of what is “socially responsible”.
To me, “socially responsible” is:
– Protecting America from terrorists and evil dictators.
– Letting people keep or spend what is THEIR OWN money. (Not stealing it from them at government-gunpoint.)
– Letting people save for their retirement. (Not mandating people to stick with a government Ponzi scheme due to collapse any decade now.)
– Letting poor people have real choices in where to educate their kids. (Not forcing them to stick with incompetent schools run by government and teachers’ unions.)
I am not a Republican. I have never been a registered Republican. Only in 2004 did I vote Republican for the first time.
But I will probably do it again in 2006 – in essence because, where it counts, and hard as I find this is to believe, the Republicans are more socially responsible.
Take that as a measure of how bad today’s Democrats are, or how far they have fallen.
Now this would be a current-day example of why, before all the Clinton betrayals and the fall to Bush Derangement Syndrome, I once was a Democrat.
Senator Feingold has the right position on gay marriage and the FMA. It is such a shame that he is such a complete socialist moron on everything else.
But, in life, you have to take the good with the bad. Everyone’s view is ultimately limited. Feingold’s moonbattery lets him take the right stand on gay marriage, even as it makes Feingold take the wrong stand on almost everything else. Similarly, Bush’s confidence in traditional values makes him take the wrong stand on gay marriage, even it makes him take the right stand on protecting America from Islamo-fascism (including protecting gays).
So Bush and Feingold are the same, in that neither is close to being perfect. Grownups understand that life can be complicated, that way.
Aargh. Bad link. Sorry. Here is the right link.
This is an open thread (see #1) and I’m on a roll. Here is a “thought for the day” on gasoline prices, from economist and author Thomas Sowell.
Key quote:
…The government collects far more in taxes on every gallon of gasoline than the oil companies collect in profits. If oil company profits are “obscene,” as some politicians claim, are the government’s taxes PG-13?
The very politicians who have piled tax after tax on gasoline over the years, and voted to prohibit oil drilling offshore or in Alaska, and who have made it impossible to build a single oil refinery in decades, are all over the television screens denouncing the oil companies. In other words, those who supply oil are being denounced and demonized by those who have been blocking the supply of oil…
Another bad link, sorry! This link should work.
Senator Feingold has the right position on gay marriage and the FMA. It is such a shame that he is such a complete socialist moron on everything else.
And the REASON Feingold is taking these stances is to manipulate money and endorsements out of the gay community. Kerry and Clinton did the same thing — saying they supported gay rights, then spinning out of it later. It’s the classic “option right” in the Democratic campaign playbook.
Feingold is different from Kerry in the following way. Feingold openly says he supports gay marriage, and thinks gay marriage is something society should have. Kerry, by contrast, says he opposes gay marriage and thinks gay marriage is something society shouldn’t have.
Now, whether Feingold will keep his promises and vote consistently in favor of gay marriage, is a legitimate and separate question.
This is what happens when a thread on this blog is left up just a bit too long…
Calarato begins filling the room with his intelligence, leaving me NO ROOM WHATSOEVER to bitch about the sorry state of my Chicago Cubs.
Selfish little devil, ain’t he? ;-P
Eric in Hollywood
Calarato in #28, nope, Bruce launched this blog in September 2004.
#30 “Protecting America from terrorists and evil dictators.”
What exactly did the Bush Administration do between January 2001 and 9/11 to protect us from terrorists? It will soon be five years since that attack. Bin Laden is still on the loose. So is the Taliban leadership which is organizing increasingly effective attacks on coalition troops in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration even had plenty of opportunity to destroy Zarqawi and his gang but declined to do so. So we have a Dept of Homeland Security which just last year displayed it ineptness in dealing with a disaster we KNEW was coming. Lord help us if it has to deal with a terrorist inflicted disaster that we WON’T know is coming. How about loose nukes? Oh that’s right, we cut funding for the Nunn-Lugar program after 9/11 and now MAYBE we’ll have the old Soviet nuclear facilities secured by 2008 http://tinyurl.com/mv77n Yeah, I know, we took out Saddam but IMHO, the costs in casualties, money and weakened image worldwide are too high and growing.
“Letting people keep or spend what is THEIR OWN money.”
Oh yeah, a few hundred $’s in lower federal income tax more than offset by thousands of $’s in increased interest costs for typical middle class folks.
“Letting people save for their retirement. (Not mandating people to stick with a government Ponzi scheme due to collapse any decade now.)”
I’m saving for my retirement, aren’t you? SS doesn’t preclude you from setting aside money in IRA’s and 401 k’s. Social Security is in no danger of collapsing ever. Unfortunately, you can’t say that for your pension plan or your stock market investments. The baby boomer problem was foreseen 30 years ago and provided for. By mid-century most of us boomers will be dead and gone along with any SS problems we created.
“Letting poor people have real choices in where to educate their kids.”
Yeah, right, it’s all about POOR people’s choices.
Calarato, thanks for the reminder that it’s an OPEN THREAD and the T Sowell’s money quote on gasoline taxes.
Here in Michigan it’s even worse, if you can stomach that possibility without hurling… the State is collecting a tax attached to the sale of gas that was originally intended to help gas stations clean-up their leaking underground storage tanks… the State instituted the tax, sold bonds off future collections of the tax, took care of the enviro-hazard, paid off the bonds and gues what? The State is still collecting the tax!
We have a 6% sales tax in Michigan and we actually pay taxes on the taxes hidden in the cost of a gallon of gasoline –taxing the taxes!
Our Governor Good Smile, a big govt Democrat, says the State tax collections aren’t gouging like Big Oil… LOL. Just try prying those taxes out of her cold dead hands –no way.
#33 and #40 So, remind me again which oil company uses it profits to build and maintain our highway system?
Well, Ian, let me give you a lesson in economics.
— Companies make income.
— Companies are taxed by the government on their income.
— Companies provide workers with an income.
— Workers are taxed on their income.
— Workers are then taxed on the gasoline they purchase with their income.
Therefore, Exxon, etc. ARE paying to maintain our highways — through the salaries they pay workers.
#37 – Thanks Eric 🙂
#26: “thanks for the first link as it will help me with a piece I am working on,”
You’re welcome. That’s what I’m here for – just to help you guys. 😉
Ian in #39
Oh yeah, a few hundred $’s in lower federal income tax more than offset by thousands of $’s in increased interest costs for typical middle class folks.
Could you flesh this point out a little more? A short example or a link would be nice. I honestly would like to hear your opinion/explanation.
Social Security is in no danger of collapsing ever.
Same goes for this.
And to NDT in #42
Here is a little secret that the blame Exxon/blame corporations crowd should know:
This is the full article from The Tax Foundation.
Thanks John.
That is what’s funny about the whole thing; the leftists who repeatedly berate corporations and try to destroy them would collapse the entire foundation and structure of their welfare state if they ever actually succeeded.
“Social Security is in no danger of collapsing ever” – LOL 🙂 Laugh of the Day, in fact 🙂 Keep arranging those deck chairs, Ian.
#46 – 47 – Likewise with personal income taxes: the richest 1% have always paid an extraordinarily high percentage of the tax burden, but under Bush, the percentage has gone higher than ever. Not making a big point about goodness/badness here; just that it is an inconvenient fact for leftists.
Don’t forget the ever growing number of people paying no income tax at all.
#45 Well, the median (close approximation of middle class) tax cut in 2003 was less than $500 http://www.factcheck.org/article145.html and that hasn’t changed much in the succeeding years http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
For homeowners, many of whom have opted for ARMs, the 1 year CMT index is commonly used to adjust the interest rate. Since 2003, that index has increased more than three percentage points. I’m not sure what constitutes a typical middle class homeowner but just assuming a mortgage loan of $100,000, a change in that person’s ARM to reflect the CMT would be about $3000. Add in the other loans typical middle class folks are going to have – car, credit card, etc. – and I think the average middle class person’s tax cut pales in comparison to the interest costs that have increased.
#50
Between
For homeowners, many of whom have opted for ARMs
and
I’m not sure what constitutes a typical middle class homeowner
It doesn’t seem like a good explanation, by your own admission.
Do you have any evidence of how many homeowners opted for an ARM. If you do, how many would fit into your catetgory of “middle class”.
Add in the other loans typical middle class folks are going to have – car, credit card, etc
Again, you would have to quantify “middle class folks”
Is anybody going to address the question I asked in this post?
I’m not but then again I don’t give a rat’s ass about LCR. You should be happy your point was made.
I think Cal had it right in #1
Matt, not Cal.
Heya Dan, sure someone will answer your question –see comment #1.
For homeowners, many of whom have opted for ARMs, the 1 year CMT index is commonly used to adjust the interest rate. Since 2003, that index has increased more than three percentage points. I’m not sure what constitutes a typical middle class homeowner but just assuming a mortgage loan of $100,000, a change in that person’s ARM to reflect the CMT would be about $3000. Add in the other loans typical middle class folks are going to have – car, credit card, etc. – and I think the average middle class person’s tax cut pales in comparison to the interest costs that have increased.
Excuse me, my mouth just fell open.
First off, adjustable-rate mortgages constitute, if they’re lucky, just a bit over 30% of new mortgages written. Indeed, part of the refinancing boom from 2001 onward was in moving old ARMs into fixed-rate loans once the fixed-rate ones fell.
Second, the Federal Reserve has only been raising interest rates since June of 2004. If the rate is increased today (Tuesday), the rate would be at its highest level since April of 2001.
Furthermore, the reason the Fed is raising interest rates is because they want to prevent runaway inflation — which happens when the economy is growing. They cut interest rates when the economy goes into recession, as it did at the end of the Clinton Presidency, to help keep the economy from crashing.
In addition, your calculation is based on a straight-line number, not an amortized number over years, as most mortgages are. Go to a mortgage calculator and check.
Plus, and perhaps you didn’t know this — mortgage interest is tax-deductible. You recover an enormous proportion of any amount of money you spend on rate increases.
Then, check your “less than $500” figure against the table in your “factcheck.org” link, which points out how much individuals’ income taxes would rise if the tax cuts were repealed. Notice that the only way your taxes would rise less than $500 is if you are single and make less than $35k, married with no dependents and make less than $25k, and — my favorite — making less than $15k, period.
What I find hilarious, Ian, is that you’re whining about the mortgage payments for these middle class families, using the wrong calculation, assuming they even HAVE an adjustable-rate mortgage, and forgetting to include the impact of the tax deduction, but then want a family making $50k with three kids to pay the Feds an additional $2200 per year in addition to that.
Or maybe the theory is that, if we raise taxes, we can crash the economy and force the Fed to lower the interest rates.
Typical Democrat.
Well said, NDXXX. You ought to consider having your own blog one day.
Well I guess nobody could find any examples of Log Cabin criticizing Democrats — or others on the left.
-And the REASON Feingold is taking these stances is to manipulate money and endorsements out of the gay community. Kerry and Clinton did the same thing — saying they supported gay rights, then spinning out of it later.-
Feingold voted against DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He’s always been consistent in his support of gay rights, even though Wisconsin is a fairly conservative state.
I wonder if the site will put up anything about LCR criticizing Howard Dean on his erreneously stating that the 2004 Democratic platform said marriage is between a man and a woman.
http://washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=6713
Here’s Patrick G. in the Washington Blade on gay rights champion Howard Dean.
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=6713
Note that no one at HRC, despite it’s massive staff, was available for comment. I would say that is because that don’t want to piss off Dr. Dean, but they’re non-partisan so surely it must be something else. Perhaps Barbra was in town.
#57 “Well said, NDXXX.”
Not really. While he claims an “enormous” effect of the mortgage interest deduction, a lot of middle class families see no effect of that deduction since the standard deduction of $10,000 is considerably more than their itemized deductions. Even if they itemize, the marginal rate for married filing jointly is going to be only 25%.
As for my mortgage calculation, as I stated, the 1 yr CMT has risen “more than three percentage points.” Using a mortgage calculator and the 1yr CMT of about 1% from July, 2003 and of about 5% from today, the $100,000 mortgage, and an initial rate of 4.5%, we get an annual increase in payments of $3002.04. Last time I checked, that was “about $3000” as I had claimed. So I don’t know what NDT was smoking when he attacked my calculation. I notice he didn’t actually present one of his own.
As for the claim of the effect of the tax cuts in 2003 which is what I was discussing, factcheck.org states the following:
“A more meaningful number is the median — or mid-point. The Tax Policy Center calculates the median cut received for income earned in 2003 is $470.”
That’s not far off the entry of $431 for the “Middle 20%” shown in the table at http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm . So I’m not quite sure from where NDT is pulling his numbers but I can guess.
And of course, NDT says nothing about the rise in credit card interest rates and auto loan rates which just add to the middle class misery.
Finally, improvements in the economy don’t seem to be trickling down all that well to the typical wage earner. Indeed, wages aren’t even keeping pace with inflation for most http://tinyurl.com/j8r3y .
Waking earlier than I, Bruce saw that Patrick had slammed Dean and blogged on it here. But, I’ll note that Patrick’s attack follows this post. So maybe we’re having an effect.
Ian, while I admire your desperate and flailing attempts, please sit down — because you’re about to be schooled.
Exhibit A — the average taxpayer deductions.
Even the lowest income group manages more than $10k in average annual deductions, mainly because mortgage interest is but one of MANY deductions that families can take.
In short, your blithering statement about how most middle-class families don’t crack $10k in deductions doesn’t hold any air.
Next up, your statement concerning the 1 year CMT:
As for my mortgage calculation, as I stated, the 1 yr CMT has risen “more than three percentage points.” Using a mortgage calculator and the 1yr CMT of about 1% from July, 2003 and of about 5% from today, the $100,000 mortgage, and an initial rate of 4.5%, we get an annual increase in payments of $3002.04. Last time I checked, that was “about $3000? as I had claimed.
Unfortunately for you, Ian, as the graph marked “1-Year Constant Maturity Treasury index (1 Yr CMT)” shows, while the CMT rate did fall to barely 1% in 2003, the average 1-year CMT-indexed ARM rate bottomed out at 3.5%.
That is because the interest rate is set based on the 1-year CMT, not directly at the CMT. Add to that the fact that the 1-year CMT is only used for about half of all ARMs, which themselves are just over a third of the mortgage market, shows that Ian is using fake numbers to exacerbate a minimal problem.
Now for your attempt at taxes:
So I’m not quite sure from where NDT is pulling his numbers but I can guess.
You don’t need to guess. I told you.
Then, check your “less than $500? figure against the table in your “factcheck.org” link, which points out how much individuals’ income taxes would rise if the tax cuts were repealed.
In short, Ian, your own table shows that middle class families would be hit with an bill in the thousands if you were to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Instead, many of them are getting thousands of dollars back — which means they’re not only getting the actual dollars in the tax cut, they’re getting the additional dollars that the government ISN’T taking out in their paychecks.
Why do you want middle-class families to have thousands of dollars taken out of their paychecks, Ian?
And of course, NDT says nothing about the rise in credit card interest rates and auto loan rates which just add to the middle class misery.
For the fiftieth time, Ian; interest rates rise because the Fed raises them.
The Fed raises interest rates when the economy is going well in order to prevent inflation from going out of control. If you want to lower interest rates, crash the economy.
And here’s where Ian proves he’s a pure partisan. When the economy was bad, he wasn’t praising Bush for low interest rates; now, when the economy is going well, he’s whining about interest rates going higher.
#63: LOL!!! Well, Mr. Accountemp, I think you should rethink your absurd claim re “average itemized deductions.” Here’s a broad hint: how would you know what the “average itemized deductions” are for those taxpayers who don’t have enough deductions to make it worth their while to itemize?
As for your explanation of ARMs, it’s equally ignorant. The CMT indexed ARM rate refers to the starting – read “teaser” – rate for the ARM mortgage. It’s gone after the first adjustment at which point the interest gets pegged to the CMT index + a fixed percent.
The CMT index to which I referred is the critical number for everything beyond the initial “teaser” rate.
So you’re the one who needs to be “schooled” and here’s a start:
http://www.fanniemae.com/commentary/pdf/fmpv3i4.pdf