Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Government bail-out plan      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 15
Government bail-out planPage 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
All things considered, we've got a lot of retooling to do to put our economy on a sustainable footing. If the stimulus takes the form of incentives to convert to lower-energy-consumption transportation, HVAC, and food production, we could all come out of this situation ahead--or at least our kids and grandkids will.

If the stiumulus is just another nontargeted give-away, it will be more money wasted. We could become the world's leader in the design and manufacture of an energy-efficient modern lifestyle. Or, we can continue to try to live out the 50s for as long as we can possibly hold out.

YMMV.
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 16
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/23/2008 2:10:59 PM
cncgandolf

Oh please.

Jimmy Carter started this mess by pushing legislation that forced banks and other lenders into giving loans to unqualified borrowers. All in the name of justice and equal opportunity for all. Three decades later, in the beginning of the meltdown aftermath, the Messiah of Needed Change wants Joe Plumber to pay even more taxes to those "less fortunate", all in the name of justice and equal opportunity for all. But then again, the Messiah has never had to run a business, he can't even seem to find his Harvard papers to let us read them. (Harvard can't seem to locate them either.)

Clinton (um, he was a Democrat too) expanded the money-for-nothing lending program, then sicced Janet Reno on the sensible lenders who resisted.

Bush expressed concern about the toxic lending several years ago, and Congress shut him down. But the money-changers are making bank as long as they can, since they know that the poo will inevitably hit the fan. When it does, everyone stands around wondering how did this happen? "We gotta print some more money out of thin air and give it to the banks so borrowing and lending can start over again."

Now, don't get me wrong, Dubya spent like a drunken sailor on vote-buying by expanding Medicare so much that it actually removed the Social "Security" ticking time bomb as a primary concern. That was no small feat.

So the Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats, and both parties take money from the same special interests, and neither party will imprison the robber baron CEO's who pay them their hush money. (Hookers don't call the cops on their johns after the prostitution occurs since there's always tomorrow.)

Presidents come and go, but Congress doesn't, and the Democrats have run Congress for several years now but keep telling the gullible citizenry that George Bush has ruined everything. (Good thing he didn't ruin Manhattan and New Jersey by invading Iraq thus intimidating next door Iran who pays for terrorists' activities more than anyone else. If there had been another 9/11 or worse on Bush's watch, he would have been crucified for not taking the fight to the enemy's backyard, and this other stuff would be second page news.)

Republicans are corrupt, but have enough sense not to kill the golden goose. Democrats are corrupt do-nothing finger pointers, and their blinding ideology speaks to the recently-diluted and dumbed down citizenry who is content to watch movies stars dance on television (instead of attending a school board meeting or doing anything to govern themselves) and take tax refund handouts, even if they don't pay taxes. Hey, fair is fair, and that kind of nonsense serves justice and equal opportunity, doesn't it?

Just wait until the gravy train really derails.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 17
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/24/2008 1:55:59 PM

Jimmy Carter started this mess by pushing legislation that forced banks and other lenders into giving loans to unqualified borrowers.


Well, here's the thing. When the banks won't lend to qualified borrowers who happen to be the wrong color or have the wrong last name, that's a problem. If the bankers won't let competition do the job of making loans available to all who _qualify,_ then when the government steps in and they still don't want to do it, it's very easy to monkey-wrench the policy to "prove" that they were right all along.

The intention of the Fair Community Investment Act was _never_ to force bankers to make bad loans. But hey, it makes for a great excuse when loans turn up bad and you want some political cover for yourself and your cronies. And if you honestly think that it was the cause of the melt-down, you might want to look at what Ben Stein has to say about it. He attributes it to Credit Default Swaps, instruments that are essentially short-selling contracts for mortages, which are used to insure holders of real-estate-backed paper. The problem with them is that they too can be bought and sold on the open market and leverage the losses created by defaults. Creditors won't lend because they don't know what the exposures of their borrowers are to liabilities from instruments like these.

People _lie._ The lies that the _other_ side tells are easy to spot. I'm sure you've got a few to point out to me and please do.

The lies that are dangerous are the ones told by the people who claim to agree with the person listening.

Yes, both parties are corrupt, and both figure that the Treasury is their pie to divide up amongst themselves and their friends. The Cs use external security threats to justify their siphons. The Ls use internal injustices to justify theirs.

There is usually some underlying truth to their pretexts, though pretexts they often are. The bottom line is that no one in our government has a vision for what this country could be in 50 years, and so none of us is working toward anything beyond our own short-term self interest. In a climate like that, it's easy to lie.

Why should any of us sacrifice anything when our country no longer stands for anything worthwhile? Really. What _do_ we stand for now? And so, we're all ready to fall for anything.

Me? I stand for a future in which every person on American soil has ready access to clean air, clean water, fresh, nutritious food, adequate clothing, adequate shelter, adequate and appropriate health care, lifelong education, and ready access to the full range of technical information extant at the time. To me, that is the baseline from which a robust, innovative, and competitive culture can emerge.

Notice I didn't say I'd guarantee them wealth, luxury, or retirement benefits (other than adequate health care). I also didn't say I'd be willing to go on being the world's police force. Of course we need to protect our borders and look after our interests overseas--but we are woefully overextended as witnessed by our huge military budget and corresponding foreign debt. And as police forces go, we've now had to resort to open torture, so our credibility there is shot. They'd all be better off policing themselves at this point, and so would we. We still have a use for our nuclear arsenal, and that is to assure anyone else who drops one that they'll be hit themselves 30 minutes later. Otherwise, it's a waste of money. We'll be able to wield a lot more influence in the world when we aren't dependent on outsiders for our baseline needs anyway.

Jefferson's model of the yeoman farmer as the means for providing that baseline was good in agrarian times, but we have yet to figure out a good industrial model of a self-reliant community.

As far as I'm concerned, once the baseline is met, people can make as much profit as they can manage. And they can keep as much of it as they can legally hang onto, so long as they aren't making it by undercutting the next generation's ability to meet the baseline.

If that makes me a socialist, so be it. But if our civilizion isn't going to benefit us all equally to that minmal extent, why bother? If we ruin the world in the process of trying to get ahead at the expense of one another, that's not going to do us much good either.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/26/2008 9:01:47 PM
Hey when did my thread turn political?

Ace -- I thought I mentioned this 'small' fact in another thread...it's when banks won't hand out loans based on bad credit scores. Again look at Wells Fargo (no racial motivated charges against them ) and they remained in the green through this whole banking crisis. Race? Has someone been getting mentoring lessons from Rev. Wright again?

Adding to Sock's comments (should I dare? ;-p)...I'm still waiting for my stimulus check that will never come because I paid enough taxes to subsidize a min. wage worker's job...yet I'm middle class and not wealthy. Liberals wouldn't approve a realistic stimulus though. They need to update their income guidelines to reflect inflation...and until they do this -- they haven't 'even' 'begun' to address the economic crisis in the U.S., let alone care about the middle class.

Yet it's those 'with' (versus without) that are spending right now and keeping the economy afloat...well then again we are a nation that lives on debt now aren't we and taking it to a smaller scale: does a person really need TIVO/DVR when they can't make a house payment?

Taking from the 'middle class' [at least here in CA that is what 75k-100k a year is] and giving to the 'truly rich' [banking industries] is not what 'should' make a market system tick. Is it? Who really believes here in CA, a person is wealthy if they make 100k? I think they are 'hard' working myself, but hardly rich. And btw -- over 250k for a business is not wealthy either if one was to consider overhead, taxes, health care, etc. ... chances are the business is netting close to or under 100k (middle class...owning a home and maybe a boat, sending their children to college...but by no means living in a 1.65 million dollar home (<--lol, now where did I get this figure from...hint, hint...he claims to be middle class and thinking of the middle class:]).

The stuff :-p is going to hit the fan if business taxes and capital gains taxes are raised versus helping the market (s) the way they are now. It's ECON 101. That's all I have to say as for politics...(okay not really...I could go on and on actually).

As for the Government bail-out...I still say we need different candidates for a 'true' bail out...and that's the 'only' change that is needed. (whoops -- scuse me. I think that might still be on political lines. Sorry). :-p

Thanks all for your thoughts and beyond politics (or any disagreements)...I hope all were prepared for economic changes now being experiencd (well predicted before hand) as well as continuing to be wise in choices made and choices to come. There is always an up side in every down market or situation.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/26/2008 10:06:02 PM
Skooch -- and the Dem. chair Nancy P. is blaming Reagan.

Policies are enacted in the future. For example the Bush tax cuts are going to end in 2010 (well after his term in office) and even some Democratic leaders [if viewing legislative hearings] are recognizing these tax cuts were necessary and this is not being addressed in the 'O' economic plan or by advisors to the party. Some desired to push something through 'before' Bush left office. Again a dollar too short and out of time though.

We need more than 'hope' as far as the lemonade stand is concerned.

A revolutionary 'response' is fine and dandy when stated...but how does it look in reality and on paper?

Then again I work in government service myself while dabbling in investments -- so I'm probably not as educated as others here either. :-p.

I'm just sitting back enjoying my benefit package while tax payers bail out the boys with the real toys ...
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 20
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/26/2008 11:26:02 PM
Skoochie



Outside of that, we will have a one term president after this election is over. This econ mess will take five to eight years to get out of and that is why the next president will be a one term president.


Why anyone wants to be elected President of the United States in 2008 is a mystery to me. Given the nearly intractable problems confronting this nation, you have to be either crazy or simply arrogant to want to be the President (and probably a one term President.) I believe that the next President will go down in history as being spectacularly ineffective.


The whole campaign to end the middle class was funded by the upper class.


Word! I concur, and the upper class is still playing the middle and lower classes like a fiddle, and is getting away with it! Shame not on those moneyed elite basstards, but shame on us--the masses who ignore our collective power to change things since we are so busy entertaining ourselves with gossip television and video games. We are just a load of chumps. More people watch the E Entertainment Channel (featuring celebrity nymphomaniacs) than C Span (featuring blowhard politicians who will become instant nymphomaniacs when a campaign contribution check is written to them.)

And Ace of Space my man... Bro, you have so bought into the whole Democrat/leftist/socialist viewpoint, I worry over your whether you can be salvaged or not at this point... But if I wait 4 more years, I know you and millions of other "progressives" will finally come around to the idea that Big Government is for the most part ridiculously incompetent, and that an uninvolved citizenry gets taken advantage of and should not count on The Government to watch out for them...
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 21
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/27/2008 2:56:05 PM

And Ace of Space my man... Bro, you have so bought into the whole Democrat/leftist/socialist viewpoint, I worry over your whether you can be salvaged or not at this point... But if I wait 4 more years, I know you and millions of other "progressives" will finally come around to the idea that Big Government is for the most part ridiculously incompetent, and that an uninvolved citizenry gets taken advantage of and should not count on The Government to watch out for them...


Sock, dude!

Do you know why there is a discipline called "macroeconomics?" A lot of people will say that it's about government policy and how it interacts with the economy, but the bottom line is that somebody needs to understand and reckon with market failures. If the market was a perfect mechanism, it wouldn't fail catastrophically every so often. The vaunted law of supply and demand is just _one_ feedback mechanism in the economy. When things go well, it dampens price fluctuations. But that's only when things are going well.

I'm not a fan of big government per se. I tend to agree that the people should do the things that need to be done. However, there are certain things, aside from the collective defense, that the market cannot do. For example, delivering water to your tap. Left to the free market, you'd be paying a dollar a pint for it and nobody can afford that.

Should the government be in the water business? Probably not. When there are significant barriers to effective competition, the appropriate arrangement is an investor owned regulated utility. For situations in which reliable information is unavailable for market decisions, SEC-style regulation is necessary. When there are environmental side effects or social dislocations, or when irreparable harm could result from market-driven behavior, prescriptive regulation is necessary. When there is a significant power imbalance such that uprotected workers can be reduced to virtual slavery, collective bargaining agreements are necessary.

In every situation where there is a lack of adequate regulation, competition overreaches and cannibalizes the resource base on which the market rests. Within bounds, I favor the market. But only within bounds.

BTW, people say that Keynsian policies lifted our grandparents out of the GD, but that's not necessarily so. WW II is really what got everyone busy. However, we won't have enough fuel to burn on another grand adventure like that.

The worst example of the government being in the wrong business is the lottery. I DO NOT WANT MY GOVERNMENT RUNNING LOTTERIES! I want the government to _regulate_ and _tax_ lotteries instead. I would prefer that the government not go into the medical care business. But, I do think that medical care should be handled like any other utility where the consumer has little control over supply, quality, or price, and cannot really shop around effectively.

Also, it's all to easy to say that the government is incompetent when every so often you get people in power who feel that it is their mssion to monkey-wrench any program that actually provides a social service . But then, I don't see why many of those programs couldn't be peformed by nonprofits or regulated monopolies anyway.

I don't see it as a "market vs. government" dichotomy the way that most people do. I see that we have a menu of choices for how to handle each type of product or service. The appropriate ownership and regulatory structure depends on the characteristics of the product or service, including how it's produced, delivered, and financed.
 Foster1
Joined: 1/8/2007
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/28/2008 2:07:06 PM
I agree the government should bail out of office, out of the country, out of existence. There is no clear cut solution. We could talk until one or the other is blue in the face. Socialism, Marxism, and Communism already rules. McCain/Palin; or Obama/Biden doesn't have a clue or the awareness to maneuver past ignorance.

Ask yourself who is complaining, who is always complaining the one with the most to lose. If you think its the rich and not the middle class call me school is open 24/7. Deflationary forces are winning out take that to the bank. I wouldn't let the government mow my lawn. "I am not a crook." Don't look at the market the Feds are manipulating the market.

The government want solve the current crisis for the same reasons crooks can't out run the police in a car chase. The brain is connected backwards.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/28/2008 2:56:39 PM
Skoochie Sir --
What does Keynes or the Boston Tea Party have to do with the Candidates we have running now? Neither hold any revolutionary 'change' in their policies.

Both offer 'small' changes in tax conditions and neither has anything revolutionary as far as the economy as an aggregate. One offers enough 'change' to damage the economy (raising middle class business taxes in both the form of raised percentages and social security tax during a time of threatened recession/depression). The other Candidate keeps the tax status quo (while offering a bit of a break to those with children).

The 'truly' wealthy do not pay taxes. They don't own in their own name (foundations, etc.). Loop holes well established for 'old' money. A business grossing 250k might net under 100k. As well a family income of 200k income is not wealthy either. It's middle class spenders. They might own a home and be able to put their children through college...but most will not own the 1.65 million dollor home Senior Obama owns without the backing of old money.

Revolutionary? Perhaps you are thinking of Ron Paul who is out of the running?

Ace the man --
The dichotomy is not market or government and was drawn a long time ago (it's either socialsim or an alternative form of government...ours being built on market economics [well originally at least]).

The market is up somewhere around 900 today...if you think it will stay there then I do indeed have a wonderful investment for you to consider. I think Lucie called this vegaminvitam or something to that effect.

Much like the environment -- we see fluctuations or cyclical activity (and disruptions when placing policy into 'natural' competition or occurences such as raising/lower rates--a tool of the feds. I don't need to tell you about). The government hasn't developed birth control for bad business yet and when they do (new policy regulations) -- new birth in bad business will pop up (I think they are formed in cabbage patches :-p).

What happened to the banks and those holding mortgages they can't offord is the cost of doing 'bad business.' As stated before the fact is those holding ARMs couldn't afford a house to begin with. The banks made billions...and now they are making more money off of 'your' tax dollars once again. Even the new chair at Wamu didn't go unpaid for his short time in office (to a tune exceeding one mill).

That is the long and short of the macroeconomic policies that people try to dress up. To use a term that both Obama and McCain have claimed fame to...if you put lipstick on a pig...it's still a smelly creature. Oink, Oink.

(Now isn't it great to hear government policies and politicians referred to as this over that of men in the general population?)
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 24
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/28/2008 4:03:00 PM
What happened to the banks and those holding mortgages they can't offord is the cost of doing 'bad business.' As stated before the fact is those holding ARMs couldn't afford a house to begin with. The banks made billions...and now they are making more money off of 'your' tax dollars once again. Even the new chair at Wamu didn't go unpaid for his short time in office (to a tune exceeding one mill).

That is the long and short of the macroeconomic policies that people try to dress up. To use a term that both Obama and McCain have claimed fame to...if you put lipstick on a pig...it's still a smelly creature. Oink, Oink.


For better and worse, the Interstate Highway system is a macroeconomic investment. Any governmental expenditure on infrastructure that affects commerse is an intervention in the market that has measureable and predicatble effects. Don't believe me? Just look at all the small towns whose downtown areas when bust after Wal-Mart set up shop at a nearby freeway interchange. It was only a matter of time before the Interstates supplanted local roads to become the main arteries for retail commerce.

Funny, we all seem OK with speed limits and cops to pull over and arrest reckless drivers. But when it comes to reckless speculators, OMG we can't dare interfere with them! Let them crash and burn and shut down the economy with them! Enact preventive regulation to prevent such traffic jams, even when we can all see them coming? That would be unAmerican!

Pardon me, but I don't see the logic in that. This current bust is a result of a widespread failure to value mortgages based on the ability of borrowers to make the monthly payments for the life of the loan. The failure to require the proper measure of value was a failure of appropriate regulation. Without that information, the market was guaranteed to fail.

I do not favor burdensome regulation that does not address the predictable causes of market failures. But I do favor the minimum regulation needed to ensure that buyers and sellers can make intelligent choices. Appropriate regulation _supports_ the market. So does well-thought-out governmental investment. If the government can build roads and manage military operatons--the largest civil engineering projects and most challenging managerial environments imaginable, it should be able to manage just about anything.

I'm not saying it should. What I'm saying is that the claim that the government can't do anything right just because it's a government is hogwash. If there was anything to it, the last thing that anyone would entrust the government with would be the lives of their sons and daughters in times of war.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 10/28/2008 4:39:39 PM
Ey, yi, yi -- (as Ricky would say)...Ace man...

If you are going to sing a liberal tune, you must educate yourself on what tax dollars pay for what commodities. 'Fuel' taxes are earmarked for Freeways. It was California tax payers themselves (not fed. gov.) that paid for a large majority of our extentive infrastructure as far as the freeway stystem you enjoy. [a very good one at that, but it doesn't leave much room for public transportation]. Police is paid for by local and state government.

You compare mangos and coconuts here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Transportation costs along side freeways are something 'all' people 'have the ***privilege*** of using.

Do you or I have the privilege of living in another's home if the government pays for it via bail out??? Do you and I have the privilege of executive annual bank salaries?

NO.

You can continue this conversation with Sock man. :-p

I will say one last thing though -- the tax payer should not have to pay 250 or 800 billion dollars for ***regulations***...even without out sourcing this can come quite a bit cheaper. If you can't see this...then again that vegavitam is still for sale if you'd like some.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 26
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 11/24/2008 4:43:40 PM
Sari,

Amid all the name calling and one-upmanship, you have a point. Appropriate regulation can and should be as inexpensive and unobtrusive as possible.

Whether that is feasible in a polarized political climate fueled by a powerful special interest whose objective is to externalize expenses at all costs is somewhat doubtful.

I am not blind to the lies told by liberals who want to establish sinecures for themselves and use guilt and false hope as leverage to extract money from voters. However, I am also aware of the lies of conservatives who use fear and demagoguery to do the same.

There is no such thing a s a pure Capitalist system. Every stable economy is a blend. Getting the blend right would be far easier if everyone on both "sides" understood that there is more at stake than just their own narrow interest. That would be the "enlightened" part of the enlightened self interest that Adam Smith was talking about.

But perhaps I'm just being duped after all. So please explain to me what led to the current economic fiasco. Please tell me how these causes differ from those of the Great Depression.

I'm listening, and if what you say makes sense and holds up I will gladly acknowledge what I've learned from you. But if you cannot, then please take the name-calling and superior attitude down the street.

Sock and I agree to disagree, and though we don't always see things the same way at least he has the decency to frame his critiques of my position respectfully. If you are as right as you believe yourself to be, I should think you would be able to do the same. Your failure to do so leads me to think that you have been sold a bill of goods, and you you're trying to pass it off on the rest of us. Sorry, Sari, we've all just gotten burned and are in no mood to humor that sort of nonsense any longer.

So explain the situation and how it came about as anything other than a failure of appropriate regulation, or admit to yourself that you can't.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 27
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 11/24/2008 9:48:14 PM
Whew! I just reread my last post and I think I overreacted, to say the least. I'm still pretty hot over the prop 8 nonsense, and apparently some of that anger bled out over here. Sari, I beg your pardon.

I still believe as I do, and I still invite you to question both my assumptions and your own, but that was certainly an unfriendly way of putting it.

I am getting very tired of conservative smugness, much as I'm sure others get tired of liberal guilt-tripping. However, Sari, you didn't deserve to be skewered just for having a different viewpoint.

Perhaps your conservative cohorts who appear to love doing that so much will recognize that there's a difference between being smart and being patronizing, between being in the right and being vicious.

Most days I really do know the difference.

Please accept my apology.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 11/25/2008 1:03:08 AM
LW -- You are not late at all. (We will be in this economic mess for 'some' time afterall). Thanks for your post.

Ace -- no problem. Apology accepted and forgive me as well if I come across condescending at times. Unfortunately we can not see facial expressions and know when another is not intending offense [but offering humor...and I confess to needing to curtail my sometimes off and wreckless sense of humor]. So apologies to you, Ace. I do appreciate you and your posts. Moving along...

How the U.S. got to the economic spot it is in (hope you have a few minutes )!

Let's look at the great depression as LW suggests. At the time the nation was battling not only business failure and high unemployment, but also inflation. There are 'rumors' of 'deflation' with oil prices, RE prices and stocks going down...but watch gold and consider that as businesses struggle prices will have to go up or business closures will occur (as we are seeing now...150,000 businesses are predicted to close their doors in the next year and this means over 1/2 mill jobs will be lost).**sigh

Going back to the Great Depression. Social programs were created that were suppose to be a 'temporary' fix. Now they have become an 'expectation' as 'parental' government took form in order to overcome the problems of the Great Depression. The problem today (which is neither political party's fault) is we have an hour glass society (more elderly [baby boomers retiring] and youth than taxpayers). Still another problem is after recovery of the Great Depression people forgot the 'buy American' slogan and the U.S. became one of the greatest consumers of other country's good and failing to circulate our own dollars here in our own nation. And alas the birth of the all China 'dollar stores' sprung up like locusts in towns everywhere.

The other problems is higher and over taxation and failure to allow the market system to set the minimum wage. This has caused U.S. businesses to set up overseas (again we are not circulating dollars here and offering employment in the U.S. when this occurs).

Going back to social programs though and in particularly social secuity and 'new deal' era programs that are not as accomadating in our 'hour glass' society: last year more outlay went to social security than it did to the war.

Unless the 'real' issues are 'faced' and the 'blame game' that policians use for campaigning ceases--our government hasn't even 'begun' to address the U.S.'s economic problems let alone 'change.' The 'creative' loans were created during the Clinton era...if one wanted to play the blame game, yet where is he solution 'if' not looking 'realistically' at 'both' party's failure to 'catch' the falling markets 'before' the 14 month recession we've been in.

What we see now is a new administration that is going to raise taxes on businesses (businesses that are already stressed and filing for bankruptcy which leads to the job loss predicted and televised of more than 1/2 million workers). In addition, we have the 'worse' play of Reaganomics being used to rectify banking industry whoas. These businesses are not merely being given tax breaks (Reaganomics), but being given hand-outs at the cost of our rising deficit and tax payers (yet one party blames the other). We need conservative measures now or the nation is going to tank, yet we've voted in the opposite. My thoughts: professors and those truly studied are needed to run our nation [as was the case originally with the framers] versus politicians.

Let me ask you a question now: How do you feel about the 20 billion bail/hand out given to Citigroup knowing they still intend to finance 400 million to have a stadium named after it. Taking it further are you aware that CEO's and top executives of banks earn 'millions' in salary each year? The CEO of Wamu got over one million prior to the bank being taken over by Chase...

As well how do you feel about AIG's 86 million dollar vacation it held for its employees after the 85 billion bail out it received?

Trusting the government to 'regulate' isn't something I personally feel wise in doing as history dictates as well as the current economic situation and this is not on 'one' party's or one man's shoulders as the largest problem (an hour glass society) is not even being addressed outside of Universities and those studied in economics. To answer your specific question about regulations though...I never stated to my knowledge (I'd have to go re-read what I wrote) that regulations was not required. I think it's failing to be 'accurately' addressed by both the outgoing and incoming administrations though. Banks need to be regulated much more than the hand-outs provided can furnish, imo.
 OldFolkie
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 11/25/2008 11:21:03 AM
And the news keeps just getting worse. Even corportations who have done very well by the lack of regulation or oversight of their industries are starting to feel the pinch of this recession. For example, I just heard that Exxon/Mobil, in spite of their record $14 billion profits for the last quarter, now has to lay off employees, including 20 Congressmen.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 30
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 11/25/2008 12:07:24 PM
Trusting the government to 'regulate' isn't something I personally feel wise in doing as history dictates as well as the current economic situation and this is not on 'one' party's or one man's shoulders as the largest problem (an hour glass society) is not even being addressed outside of Universities and those studied in economics. To answer your specific question about regulations though...I never stated to my knowledge (I'd have to go re-read what I wrote) that regulations was not required. I think it's failing to be 'accurately' addressed by both the outgoing and incoming administrations though. Banks need to be regulated much more than the hand-outs provided can furnish, imo.


There is always the risk of corruption whenever regulation is involved. No question about it. Who regulates the regulators? Yet, without adequate regulation based, as you say, on an accurate assessment of the economy, we get ourselves firmly wedged--as we are right now. The thing is, I can vote for the people who manage the regulators. I can't vote for the people who manage the large corporations.

I do agree that the underlying drivers are not being accurately addressed. That is a very astute observation on your part. (See, I did learn something from you!!!) I hope that the Obama administration can get their heads around a more accurate model.

Meanwhile, we've gone from a regime of covert corporate welfare in the form of pork-barrel projects, unneeded farm subsidies, and defense contracts, to overt handouts directly from the Treasury in exchange for nothing but nonvoting equity. And this in a Republican administration. Unbelievable!
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 1/12/2009 3:49:18 PM
OldFolkie -- Love what you wrote here:


And the news keeps just getting worse. Even corportations who have done very well by the lack of regulation or oversight of their industries are starting to feel the pinch of this recession. For example, I just heard that Exxon/Mobil, in spite of their record $14 billion profits for the last quarter, now has to lay off employees, including 20 Congressmen.


Feeling any sympathy? . They were part of the problem (greed) and crude took a nose dive, yet is this permanent? There will always be greed in this world.

Ace -- Independent regulators would be a 'change' and create jobs needed in our economy.

The problem I see with Obama institutionalizing 'FDR' policies to avoid greater recession/depression is we are dependent on 'global goods' now.

Keynes theory made sense and worked under previous conditions of 'buy American' because we were circulating our own money here at home. So the infrastructure we built we paid for and circulated those dollars right back to us...Today we buy from China and they reinvest their profit in our stocks.

Stategies for 'today' imo have to be created considering 'all' variables existing and the very most prevailing variable hasn't even been addressed (our hour glass society and social security expenditures outweighing what is spent on the war and all other gov. expenditures).

We truly did not have the money to bail out the banks...and it cuts into the 'viable' stimulus package we truly need [but what is presented currently needs a lot of work as we can't affort infrastructure ... we don't even have steel plants to speak of anymore like we did in the Great depression as far as 'old, old, old' policy being inacted (the stimulus now being discussed).

Corruption you bet. Turning an blind eye to it is the problem though. As long as this occurs it will prolong fiancial recovery (institutionalizing ineffective old policies for these modern times will do the same). Institutionalizing 'ignorant' polices does 'more' damage than prolonging economic recovery though.

I also heard the 60% majority are aiming to make 'some' discrimination cases [for now it's equal pay] 'retroactive' [with no time restriction for filing] ... lol...the 'millions' [perhaps billions] of law suits will really help our economy, eh? I know I qualify for such a law suit if this is enacted --
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 32
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 1/12/2009 7:49:35 PM
I'm not at all sure that the New Deal got this country out of the Great Depression--whatever Mr. Obama may think. Unemployment was 5% when the stock market crashed in October, 1929, and it rose to about 9% by the end of that year. But then the rate started drifting down, and by late spring it had fallen to about 6.5%.

In June, 1930, Congress passed the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Act, whose tariffs made grain imports to the U.S. too expensive to compete. But it also made American grain too expensive to export competitively. The law hurt American farmers more than it helped, and that in turn harmed the many banks which held farm mortgages. At about this same time, the Fed made the first of several substantial increases in the prime rate it would make in the next year and a half, making all credit harder and harder to obtain.

By FDR's inauguration in early 1933, the unemployment rate was 25%. For the next three years, during which the administration was implementing the New Deal policies like crazy, it never dropped below 20% for any month. And in 1937, just as the economy seemed to have started upward, it collapsed again--the second "dip" of the Depression.

It's obvious much of the damage was done under Hoover's administration--but it's hard to see that the policies of the Roosevelt administration, as radical as they were, improved anything. It's impossible to know how the economy would have fared if Roosevelt had made no attempts to improve it--but after more than eight years of the New Deal, the Depression still persisted.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 1/18/2009 5:24:11 PM
The New Deal policies were suppose to be 'temporary' -- today we see those same policies being the 'largest' contributor of today's economic failures (social security outlays make up the largest in US budget outlays -- well above spending for the war).

What is so largely differerent in theory though is back then we had 'buy American' and not a global dependency, so that USD could and did circulate here versus abroad at a larger rate.

You make a good argument, Matchlessm as far as New Deal policies. Can't argue much for them. *wink* (just the theory we all are fed in studies as to what 'was' done as far as gov. activity). I can and will argue though that circulating USDs here versus abroard would have a positive impact on this country though and that policy to me alone held the greatest effect on helping the US out of the Great Depression.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 34
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 1/20/2009 2:49:51 PM
Stirring the pot just a little ...



Our original system of government led us to the peak of economic success on a global scale, as well as fuel the dreams of those not fortunate enough to have the freedom to rule themselves.


Actually, our original system of nonregulation got us into the Great Depression, and I'm inclined to agree with Matchlessem that it was only WW II that got us out. Why did we wind up on top after WW II and not someone else? Because our leading international competitors at the time -- Great Britain, France, Germany, the USSR, and Japan, all had their industrial infrastructure destroyed. We wound up with a virtual monopoly on industrial capacity after the war.

A completely dysfunctional system could hardly fail with a head start like that. Fortunately ours wasn't. Free enterprise is a very good foundation within appropriate limits. Just as fortunately, our parents' generation remembered the lessons of the Great Depression and left the safety nets and regulatory systems in place.

It was our generation who let ourselves get bamboozled by the idealogues of whichever party you care to name either to stop regulating our investments industry, or provide social services directly via government without sufficient oversight.

Let's not forget our self-proclaimed role as the world's policeman/superpower and the military spending that goes along with it--think of the opportunity costs when it comes to productive as opposed to military inventions. Talk about a drain on our economy!


We've had a bail out plan at work for 5 years. The boat starts filling with water, you grab the bucket that says, "Bail" and start bailing. I don't need the Gov. for that.


In both cases we took our eyes off the ball and got burned. Should we just keep bailing while the hosers keep poking holes in the boat? Or should we patch up the holes and keep an eye on those who would profit at our expense from now on?

There's a difference between making an honest profit by adding genuine value and taking advantage of others. The microeconomic model is supposed to _illustrate_ the principle of a win-win transaction and to show how we all benefit by providing value to one another. But the "law of supply and demand" can just as easily be used to justify any sort of rip-off. Why shouldn't an unscrupulous seller be the one to beware?
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 35
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 1/20/2009 3:08:01 PM
Ace, I think if you check, you'll find that defense spending (not just for Iraq, etc., but in total) is only about 5% of GDP. That's a fraction of what we spend on largely ineffective federal social engineering. As the ship of state tries to make speed, these rewarmed New Deal programs are like a half-raised anchor it has to drag through the water.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 1/20/2009 10:20:05 PM

Ace, I think if you check, you'll find that defense spending (not just for Iraq, etc., but in total) is only about 5% of GDP. That's a fraction of what we spend on largely ineffective federal social engineering. As the ship of state tries to make speed, these rewarmed New Deal programs are like a half-raised anchor it has to drag through the water.


Yips. In agreement that the 'Old Deal' policies are sinking the ship. Shall we reinstutionalize 'more' in response? Obama's stimulus plan is to create larger gov. (gov. contracted or employed workers to build infrastructure) as a 'stimilus' to 4.1 million 'new' jobs (with around 750 billion--do the math on the overhead cost and then salary payments). My thoughts are that China or other large export countries dealing with us has to love this plan (as a country that relies heavily on imports when manufacturing anything from a paper bag to a mechanic pencil). The cost will be phenomenal and infrastructure is covering over our greatest asset and export: fertile land for agriculture.

The only infrastructure needed is to build stronger borders anyway, imo. :-p

Social security more than quadrupled the expense on other gov. expenditures ... and makes the war look like a fractional expenditure when reading the charts. The gov. has raised age requirements for ss (mine is now 67 -- but I suspect this to raise and be buried and dead before collecting any of my tax burdens back). . They charge a premium for medicare like federal health plans now, but recipients only get 80% of medicare costs covered...and nothing for medications such as chemotherapy. This unless you were not a heavy taxpayer (low income people get medical to supplement their medicare). Both of my parents didn't rely on social security/medicare, etc., but carried pensions and crediable health ins. into their retirement.

I suggest people not count on the government for any return on dollar's paid in, but am often ridiculed for such 'bizarre' suggestion amongst the liberal minded.

As far as my family and me...I can rightfully say that we have given more than my fair share to charity...

even to ...banks? (unsure why any tax payer supported this measure still...although appreciate views expressed here).
 Rabbitman49
Joined: 10/20/2005
Msg: 37
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 2/1/2009 7:17:21 PM
What I think really sucks about this whole mess: Those who screwed-up get rewarded with bail-out money, while those who were financially responsible get nothing. Isn't life and society supposed to reward those who do the right thing and punish those who don't?

Given that, I see no reason why any law should be obeyed. Obeying the law screws the citizen. Breaking the law leads to rewards. This position is supposed to be a wrong conclusion, so why is it the apparent conclusion for the situation of the world today?
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 38
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 2/21/2009 10:38:34 PM
Hey all
May I recommend a site. piggington.com. It's mostly San Diegans. The man who started the blog as been calling the real estate market ( and the economy to a lesser extent )for what it is for about five years. I'm not saying the dates were spot on but the events were predicted pretty accurately. The best info is from those who called it.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Government bail-out plan
Posted: 2/22/2009 2:23:31 PM
Rabbitman --


What I think really sucks about this whole mess: Those who screwed-up get rewarded with bail-out money, while those who were financially responsible get nothing. Isn't life and society supposed to reward those who do the right thing and punish those who don't?


agreed...


Given that, I see no reason why any law should be obeyed. Obeying the law screws the citizen. Breaking the law leads to rewards. This position is supposed to be a wrong conclusion, so why is it the apparent conclusion for the situation of the world today?


Because you don't want to go to jail. Social and financial responsiblity are too different animals.

Matt -- thanks for the website. If any followed Dow theory to this point -- it has predicted things to an interesting level of accuracy.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Government bail-out plan