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.
Joined: 9/25/2007
Msg: 22
I love the discussion, compassion, and sincerity of those of you who approached this extremely serious issue, which concerns us all....

May providence guide us in the future so that wealth, prosperity, and the American Dream be restored for all citizens.
Joined: 9/25/2007
Msg: 23
Posted: 1/28/2009 11:12:52 PM
That's quite an excellent suggestion, I'm thinking you are a mensa with an IQ of like 150 or higher?

Awesome suggestion. I AM WIT YOU ON IT.
Zero out the mortgages, and RENTAL VOUCHERS for renters..

Oooh Rahhh.

Oh yes, now we are talking HELP.
Joined: 9/25/2007
Msg: 24
Posted: 1/28/2009 11:16:08 PM
Maybe we can BAIL OUT THE BANKS, and Also HELP THE PEOPLE with their mortgages, and rental vouchers, which HELPS THE BANKS Too...

Also, restore the "Gold STandard," Silver Standard, and stop giving money away to foreign countries...

Also, tax those corporations higher if they outsource their jobs out of the U.S...

Oh yes...

I'm also thinking a moratorium on Income Tax, Estate Tax, and let the U.S. start selling some of that SURPLUS OIL THEY HAVE to fund this stuff, (THEY HAVE A LOAD)...
They got it from Iraq...

Keep it up people....I'm loving this.
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 25
view profile
Posted: 2/9/2009 11:07:21 AM
As I've voiced my 2 Cents worth, many times,.......

The best way to help restore the American Economy, reduce Runaway inflation, and allow the Citizens to catch up to the Cost of Living, to REDUCE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, and stop all these Government Bail Outs, to Companies that got themselves into this mess by mismanagment from the CEO's that it was their responsibilties to Run and Manage their business,...not Ours.

Duh !
Joined: 7/5/2005
Msg: 26
Posted: 2/14/2009 9:14:22 AM
this is from Michael Rivero at a great site to keep up to date

If the US Government took the same money they are pouring onto the bankers and gave it back to the people (whose money it is anyway) each and every one of us would get about $30,000.

We could pay our mortgages. That would end the mortgage crisis.

We could pay our credit cards. That would end the credit crisis.

We could start new businesses. That would create jobs. That would end the unemployment crisis.

Those new businesses could make products for export. That would end the trade imbalance.

Why on Earth are they not doing this? Or at least slashing taxes by 50% which would produce the same result?

Instead the government has taken $8 trillion from the people to give to the banks so the banks can loan it back to us at interest!

This is like seeing a house burning and deciding that the best way to put out the fire is to rip wood from all the other houses to try to smother the flames!!!!!

Are the wealthy in this nation so greedy that they would not surrender their hold on our throats just long enough for us to stand back up again?
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 27
view profile
Posted: 2/14/2009 1:32:10 PM
How many times must people be told,.....

"Our Government",....... isnt interested in how we, and I,.... feel,..or are effected by the Economy,...
as long as it doesnt affect them,..the rich "Fat Cats", ...that are the "Ruleing Elete" of the "Powers That Be",.....

They "Tease" us, the American people,...with this so called "Free Stimulus Check", to make us all "Feel Good",...and look the other way,.........
while they rob our countrys coffers.

One web site,...states that less than 5% of this Economic Stimulus Package, is actually going to "You & Me",........."LESS THAN 5%" actually going to the American Taxpayers !

This web site,..said,..."IF",...this $780 Billion,...were to go to us,....
"You & Me",...the "American Taxpayers",.......all taxpayers would recievie a $75,000 Check,..

Now that would for sure,..."Stimulate the Economy",........

Instead,......the proposed Stimulas Package,.......creates another $6,700 Debt,.....per American,......

Do the Math,....Follow the Money........

Who is getting the major benifit from this so called,.... "Stimulus Package" ?

And who will be responciable for the debt created ?

YOU, & ME,....the American Taxpayer !
Our Children, and their's, for years to come.

NOTHING,.....IS all comes at a cost.

I'd just as soon see the bottom fall out,....start from scratch,....all over again,.....and restore the Gold Standard,...instead of the Fiat Dollar.........

Ask yourself, AMERICA,.........borrowing $$$BILLIONS$$$ ,...from China,....just to keep our country afloat ???

Because our $Dollar$ looses more and more of its "Buying Power",..everytime we do something like this, creating more debt, and devalueing the dollar even further.

AND BECAUSE,......China's Currency, actually worth something.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 28
view profile
Posted: 2/15/2009 5:37:07 AM
Admittedly, the banks have provided a lot of the problem. Unfortunately, the US have the same problem they did when LTCM was about to fail in 1998. There are so many businesses have savings and loans from these banks, that if these banks fail, these businesses will fail too. Then the debts that these businesses owe to other businesses will not be repaid, and they are substantial enough to sink many of these businesses as well. Likewise, more businesses depend on these businesses, and they will fall as well. This makes for a Domino effect, across most businesses in America. Because 90% of businesses now function on an overdraft, they rely on their monthly payments from the businesses who are their clients, to not survive. While they do, they stay successful. But the minute most of those client businesses collapse, so do they. This Domino Effect could bring 90% of businesses in America to bankruptcy. That would account for 90% of the workforce being put out of work. With that level of unemployment, the government could not pay for them all, not even just to feed them. So millions of Americans could starve, if this Domino effect falls hard enough.

It's just not that simple to let them fall.

An alternative would be to invest in them, but to nationalise them, take over their management, and then exert much stricter regulation, that would prevent borrowers from getting loans larger than they can reasonably afford to pay back. But then, sub-prime borrowers couldn't buy a house, and many couldn't afford a car. We would be back to the mindset of the 70s. Things would still be very hard for the poor, and would still be very good for the rich. The economy would be much more stable. We wouldn't have to face such hard depressions, just because of speculation. The poor would be able to get 3 squares a day, and somewhere to sleep. But you still might have to cut their lifestyle in half.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 29
view profile
Posted: 2/15/2009 2:35:56 PM

This is what the bigwigs in government believe and it filters down through the media and they convince the public at large to believe.
This is NOT what the "bigwigs" believe, because they have NOT nationalised the banks, and the banks are STILL being managed by the same people.

Giving money to the banks makes no sense. If the banks loan out more than they have, then it's their problem. Why do we let them continue to profit after mismanaging depositor funds? Why are we giving THEM the bailout funds?
Because no-one has the guts to turn around to Obama and DEMAND that he either nationalise the banks against their will, and put others in control of the banks, again against their will, or leave office. Practically every politician in America and the UK, when they have left office, they got rich jobs with banks and other similar institutions. Taking direct control of them, and even suggesting to take control of them, for a politician, is like destroying your pension in one swift move. No politician has the guts to take them on.

The domino effect referred to is a real phenomenon, but I think you have the direction that the dominos are falling - exactly backward. As apparently most do. The bailouts are being aimed in the wrong direction and will not work any better than previous attempts.
The dominos are the money, the cash flow. Without cash flow, no-one has the money to get a job, to pay your bills to have food and heating so that you can get to work the next day, or for businesses to pay their suppliers to get more goods to sell. So you have to follow the money.

We used to live in an agricultural economy, but not any more. We live in a capitalist economy, and in a capitalist economy, we get paid by our employers. No cash flow for our employers, no cash for us. We can be given a handout, but as soon as that handout is gone, we are back to our employer, and with no cash flow for our employers, all we've done is delay the inevitable, with even less government resources to try and resolve the problem. So the problem stretches back to the cash flow of our employers.

We used to buy with cash and our employers used to buy with cash as well. But not any more. Now, they buy with credit. Almost every business in the free world functions with an overdraft. So cut off that overdraft, and they don't have enough cash to pay their suppliers, or to buy more goods from someone new. So their suppliers won't front them any more goods, and neither will someone new. So our money, which is dependent on our employers, is dependent on the banks. No cash flow from the banks, no cash flow to employers. No cash flow from employers, no cash for their employees, us. So the problem stretches back to the cash flow of the banks.

The banks used to function on cash, just like us. They would only lend what they had. If they didn't have cash, they wouldn't lend. Not any more. They lend to us, based on money they borrow from other banks. They shuttle the money around, just so the lending between banks are legal. But it's really all one large network of banks, that all lend to each other. But since quite a few went down, they don't trust each other to stay around long enough to pay those loans back. So they have stopped loaning each other money. That means they are refusing to loan to each other, until they can see they've collected what they owe, so they won't go under before repaying their loans. The banks are forcing the other banks to go into debt-collection mode, because each bank is too scared to throw more good money after bad. Their main aim right now, is to collect every penny they are owed, and only to lend to the most reliable of borrowers, which probably means a AAA-credit rating, a good, steady, white-collar job, living in the same address for the last 2 years, living in a good neighbourhood, and being married, to show commitment.

Giving the money to the people might work, if only it wouldn't filter down to the banks, because once they get a piece of it, they won't give it back, and that means that over the next 2 years, all the bailout money given to the people would be used to buy stuff from companies, which would end up paying them to the banks in charges. So the money would end up there anyway, if we are not careful.

The only way to stop it would be to stop the banks controlling the cash flow.

We COULD close down the banks. But businesses are hopelessly reliant on banks, certainly until a new system of monetary storage and credit is developed and forced on every business.

The only other option is to take control of the banks, so that WE could control the cash flow, and ensures it flows the right ways.

Either way, it still means one thing no-one is prepared to do: TAKE CONTROL OF THE BANKS!
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 30
view profile
Posted: 2/16/2009 7:04:00 AM
RE msg 66 by WantaSmart1:
You and I are definitely talking two different kinds of business. I must be the only business in the world then that does NOT live off the overdraft or credit cards to survive.
I commend your business sense. If every business was like yours, then we wouldn't be in the problems we are currently in.

I don't know about you but I DO have an overdraft provision on my business account. It's $39.00 when triggered, plus $10 per day.

That's some foolishly expensive money to be using, hoping that someone calls or comes by to buy from you.
If you have the money anyway, it's foolish to get an overdraft. But once you've triggered it, it's $10 a day, or, $3,650. If your annual profits are $60,000, and you rely on that overdraft for credit, then it's just interest for loans.

Cash flow comes to me from my CUSTOMERS, not from my bank. MY cashflow goes INTO my bank. My bank does NOT generate my cashflow. On those occasions where I hire on help, their pay comes NOT from my bank, but from purchases from customers.
If you have a steady stream of customers who always pay on time, then there is no problem. But if you have an irregular amount of business, like 40% of your profits come during the Xmas period, and/or if your customers will pay you, but only 3 months after they've gotten the goods, there is a serious shortfall for much of your working year. That shortfall can be made up by credit, from banks. The interest is often only a small cost of your profits, and a lot cheaper than cutting down on your business.

An alternative to that, is to sell your assets. That works in old-fashioned businesses that have lots more assets than their yearly profits. But that can take many years to accumulate that kind of assets from such small profit margins. Since the 80s, quick-turnover businesses boomed, with profits far exceeding their expectations, and with such high profits, and the ability to rely on banks for credit, it just made a lot of sense for people to not worry about squirrelling their money away in assets for a rainy year.

If a business can only survive on a credit line from a bank, then obviously it is NOT a viable business and shouldn't even exist.
Lots of businesses are viable, and make a lot of profit, and produce a valuable service to the community on top. But a lot of those businesses would not have been able to be started without the capital investment of their first loan, and without subsequent loans, would have had to grow at a snail's pace, as so many businesses used to. Credit allows faster turnaround, and allows much more growth than normal.

When did running a business become so****eyed and twisted? Oh right since inexperienced college teachers began telling everyone how it's SUPPOSED to be done - without benefit of real world experience. Well, that's why you have what you have.
It became twisted, ever since we invented the idea of everyone having their own home, without having to build it from scratch, and so many being able to be their own boss, without having to be a farmer. Someone needs to build those houses. Someone needs to be the employees of those businesses. The reality is that the world relies on builders and on workers, not on businesses.

I wonder how the world ever survived before the advent of central banks a mere 150 years ago. Yeah. Let the big banks fail and let it go back to local and regional banking so if someone farts in Switzerland, I don't lose interest in my interest-bearing checking.
Back in the 60s and 70s, a mere 30 to 40 years ago, my parents wanted to buy stuff. They had to get Hire Purchase. Just to get the HP, they had to have a top credit reference, and a guarantor. Do you know anyone who will guarantee to pay your debts if you go bankrupt? If they missed ONE payment, ONE, the goods would be taken away. Imagine a world where one of your customers cannot pay, and it's break his legs, or you don't have a bed to sleep on for 3 months. 99% of people would still be living without a car, with a black-and-white TV for entertainment, and with basic food for dinner. Go to Disneyland? Once or twice in a lifetime. Want to get to your friends' house 3 miles away? WALK! That's reality before free credit.

I'm not against going back to those days. I was happier in many ways back then. But most people I know, would be horrified at the thought. They enjoy their comforts too much.

No, if my bank cut off my overdraft, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. If they cut off my business credit, it would also not affect me in the slightest - since I really don't believe in it. If my business cannot survive on its own merits, then it deserves not to survive.
Then you agree with the banks, because that is exactly what they are doing, and the reason is just as you say, that if they cannot survive on their own merits, then they deserve not to survive. Unfortunately, America is the top economy, and that means that a LOT of businesses only exist there and make profits, off the money that comes from elsewhere to America, like China, and AFAIK, most businesses function out of an overdraft, even the viable ones. If that is true, then killing off the businesses that cannot survive on their own merits, means 90% of businesses, and with that, means 90% of people out of work. They can just go back to pre-credit days. But there is a period of job adjustment, while people get dazzled as careers end, and they have to figure out what to do next. That usually takes years, as most of us just aren't self-starters that much. Once that's over, then everyone has gone to new jobs, probably to pre-industrial jobs like farming, and businesses return to the old mom-and-pop hardware stores. The only problem is what to feed your kids in the intervening years. After all, you don't want your kids to starve to death, and THEN make money. Not much point.

Like it or not, the transition will be hard on many, and could lead to many deaths, more likely of children, not adults. But that's hard life.

As far as this living and floating your way through business that you say almost all businesses in the free world utilize...I guess the business people I know just aren't as sophisticated...or is that foolish? Don't get me wrong. I've seen businesses try to survive that way.

They usually are the ones that survive for two years before their owners shut down in bankruptcy. Just as it should be.
Well, you won't have a problem saying that. But then again, your kids won't starve. Or will they?

If these businesses go under, they can be enough to send power supplies companies under, clothing, all sorts of companies. You might not have gas for 100 miles. It all depends where you live. If everyone in your area is totally self-sufficient, then you will be fine. But if they are in any way dependent on any company that can fall in the chain, that provides a service without which your supplies cannot survive, then down go they, and down goes you.

The direction of the bailout is still backward. No businesses = no jobs. Everyone thinks it's No banks = no jobs. Businesses and jobs existed long before banks did.
Sorry, but you got it wrong there. Banks started way before businesses. Businesses deal in money. But someone had to invent and distribute money for businesses to use, and that's banks.

You are thinking of feudal lords, and of farmers who worked all day growing their crops. They existed way before banks.

Look at America. Americans in the Mid-West eat stodgy German food, because they used to work so hard, they would burn all those calories up without a second's thought, and still be hungry. Now, Americans get fat, because they no longer work that hard.

America was founded on hard work. That's what Americans are missing. Good, old-fasioned, back-breaking hard work, for 12-14 hours a day. Money has no value except what it can be traded for, and that is what Americans have to produce to make money valuable, good hard work.

Banks need tighter regulation. That's obvious. Why cannot you, and the rest of the world, be able to accept that?
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 31
view profile
Posted: 2/19/2009 8:50:27 PM
RE msg 70 by WantaSmart1:
Who's been calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System since I got here, as well as on other sites for years?

You want to "regulate banks", but first you have to get rid of the so-called current regulators. The BIGGEST BANKS in the world are who run the Federal Reserve.
Sorry. I live in the UK. The Bank of England runs things here, and that is controlled by the government, not the banks.

But I can see your point. We are calling for regulation of the banks, and Brown, the current Prime Minister, refuses to, and we don't even have a Federal Reserve system.
You can micro-manage all the details ad nauseum, OR you can take one single sweeping measure that inherently takes care of all the years of micro-managing you're setting yourself up for. If you want to solve the banking problem, put the oversight of banks back into the DIRECT hands of elected officials who truly represent you.
OR, you can just re-enact the Glass-Steagall Act, by act of Congress. Even the Federal Reserve is bound by act of Congress.

You COULD try and get rid of the whole system. But there is likely to be a lot more pressure to do that, than just to reapply the safeguards you put in as a result of 1929, that stopped this happening before. Besides, you have to first plan a system that can offer the same benefits right now, or you'll return to the way things were before the Federal Reserve, and considering how fast finance moves now, that could have a disastrous effect. Saying it could be done. But it would be easier to just have another revolution like in 1776, than to keep the USA and change the Federal Reserve overnight. So it probably needs to be planned out in advance. But that's just my opinion. I don't live there. So feel free to just believe I'm wrong.

I'm just in favour of regulation, because we in the UK DON'T have a Federal Reserve and we STILL have similar problems because the banks aren't regulated to stop doing this.

Or you will be arguing this point until the sun goes dim. Get on the phone and start yelling. If I have to tell you who to call, then it's a lost cause.
Yell at who? I have no congressperson. I'm not even in America.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 32
view profile
Posted: 2/23/2009 11:53:01 AM
RE msg 74 by WantaSmart1:
So the Bank of England is run by "the government", yet they are still acting like the greedy elite, according to scorpio. Very interesting.
Actually, I keep saying the very opposite. The Bank of England is doing everything it can to regulate the banks. But the banks are NOT regulated by the Bank of England. ONLY THE GOVERNMENT HAS THAT POWER!

The UK government refuses to regulate the banks.

Funnel the Prime Interest Rate back into the government to relieve the tax burden, instead of GIVING it to entities like the Bank of England for mismanaging our economy. That's all the prime rate is and ever was...skimmed "free money" for the main members of the Fed.
It's the government that made the problem in the first place. The Fed was created by the governments. The governments are the only ones to control taxes. The governments are the only ones who control what banks do. Yet people always try and blame everyone but the people they voted into office. When will people learn?
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 33
view profile
Posted: 2/24/2009 5:08:18 PM
RE msg 76 by WantaSmart1:
As far as I know, the Bank of England is state-owned. While the Fed is privately-owned, yet as central banks, both perform similar REGULATION activities. In your case, the Bank of England, being state-owned, is essentially the government and it does regulate, so I'm not sure what you're saying.
AFAIK, the Bank of England has 2 main powers:
1) It is the only organisation that can make UK banknotes and coins.
2) It controls the Bank of England Interest Rate, that the banks base their interest rates on.
That's it. It doesn't control the interest rates that the banks charge.

This was a big problem during the last 2 months, because the Bank of England cut its interest rate to below 2%, which is lower than it's ever been. But the banks wouldn't pass this on, as their contracts with borrowors had a clause that allowed them to reflect interest rate changes from the Bank of England, at their discretion. Their hands were tied.

It seems that only the government could do something about it, by issuing a bill to force the banks to lower their interest rates. But so far, Brown has refused to make any demands on the banks. Ironically, Brown was the former Chancellor of Exchequer, the head of the UK Treasury. Yet despite this, he has not taken any action to put any demands on the banks, or to demand that any bodies like the FSA do.

I agree that the Federal Reserve System is severely flawed. From what I've read of it, it was a compromise between those who were anti-regulation and those who were pro-regulation, that although it would be regulated, it would be regulated by its own people. It hasn't turned out like that. But while I'd like to see it become a better system, I am not in favour of mass changes, because I don't believe that most revolutions bring success. Despite what Americans think, theirs is the exception to the majority of cases of revolutions.

But maybe people could petition Obama to limit its powers, and to give Congress the power to order it to do things, if so needed.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 34
view profile
Posted: 2/28/2009 11:36:46 AM
RE Msg: 80 by WantaSmart1:
Alright, I see what you're saying. We had a difference in semantics. What I'm referring to as regulation, you're actually referring to as positive control.
I am glad that we can see eye-to-eye, finally.

By regulation, I was referring to the influencing of rates by manipulation of Federal Funds rates - when they're lowered or raised, banks tend to lower or raise their final rates. Like setting a thermostat and waiting for the room temperature to react accordingly - that was what I was referring to as regulation.

No, the Fed doesn't positively control rates the banks charge to consumers here, either. Even so-called Usury Laws have so many loopholes, companies are allowed to charge poor people 25% PER MONTH for things like payday and car title loans.
Well, the Bank of England is already doing that. I was actually hoping for more, that the Federal Government would pass legislation that would allow the Treasury at least temporary powers to demand that their rates are passed on by bansk to borrowers, because that is the whole point of lowering the interest rates, to lower the pressure of interest rates on borrowers, to re-start the economy. That way, the Treasury can work out when it needs to lower rates to borrowers again, and when it can afford to start raising them again.

I imagine the banks in England (as in most of the world) also had their most lucrative investments as US mortgage-related holdings, too and a large chunk of that simply disappeared, so I view their refusal to lower rates in response to the central bank as a survival mechanism.
That's a very accurate assessment.

But in order to recoup their losses, they have started to get very threatening to borrowers. Banks cannot force you to sell your house on a personal loan. But there are court orders that can attach personal loans to your house, that banks can easily get, that can force you to sell your house to pay a personal loan. Those orders have gone up massively, from something like 100% at the least. Bankruptcies have doubled. Banks are refusing to lend even previously good borrowers.

What's more, they even have a practice of selling off many loans to "debt recovery companies". I believe that you have companies like that in the US. But these are not always very nice people. Some will turn up at your house, at almost any time, barge their way in, and take your property. Others can harrass you extremely.

It's not good.

Since the banks and your government refuse to do anything to force lower rates, why don't the banks' customers do something then? If banks rely upon depositor funds to generate an override profit for the banks and their shareholders, maybe depositors should target the very worst offender (largest bank) and begin withdrawing their deposits. then , go on to the next, and the next...I would bet banks change their tune in a hurry once they figure that they'll make even less money by holding fast to inflated rates. It's called "the market".
People aren't that united in the UK. It would be an excellent idea if people did this en masse. But right now, everyone is just staying where they are. It's an idea, though. It might work.

If depositors can't find a bank to deal with them on a reasonable basis, how hard would it be to form their own banks? That's one big solution I would hope for in this country.

New banks would be unfettered by the unwise decisions of past banks and don't hold billions in bad mortgage paper. They would take in new deposits, pay a fair return on them and it would make viable, well-underwritten loans also at a fair return that ensures the new bank a fair profit. Who cares if they're only regional or individual state-chartered?
I would love to see that as well. But we don't have mom-and-pop banks on every street corner, and most banks have been running for decades. I doubt that it is that easy to start a new bank in the UK. I would like to see a new bank, but incorporated in the old way before corporations were defined as people, with a fixed group of directors, with a fixed term of years, a cap on assets, and other strict controls, so that it is never allowed to get too big and greedy.

(My current bank pays me 12/1000's of 1% in interest per year on my deposits...or 0.012% per year "return". That's $0.02 per month on each $2,000.00 on deposit. I'm sure they're lending it out at 6-8% per year. They're making $160 on that amount and keeping $159.76 while giving me $0.24 per year to use my money. That's a 66,566% markup on their "cost", which doesn't even come out of their pocket.)

Like your banks, companies like Citibank borrow at now-lower Federal Funds rates, yet the rates they charge on their credit cards hasn't gone down one iota - in fact they are raising them in many cases. Most people are afraid to try to transfer those outstanding balances to another company because they know they probably wouldn't qualify for new credit under more realistic underwriting. And like in your case, no one is forcing them to lower credit card rates, and many Americans live on their credit cards.

Once more, the equivalent is to pay off and give up credit cards from those companies - CUT OFF their flow of cash as a protest in order to force them to come back down to earth, or go out of business. This needs to happen sooner than later.
A LOT of people are recommending this. I only use debit cards now, as I got into debt a few years ago, and refuse to allow myself the luxury of credit anymore. Too dangerous.

No one is talking about that action and as jobs evaporate, more and more defaults will occur, increasing the burden on surviving accountholders as companies tighten up on them to pay more, pay sooner and at even higher rates. Just a continuation of their pyramind scheme, which if allowed to survive, only means it will happen again in the future. These companies are surfing on the heads of their "customers" to keep their own heads above water. The exact same analogy goes for mortgage financing companies and reckless, greedy banks and their stockholders.
Almost every week, 1000s of jobs are going. Some major companies have had to cut wages majorly, or cut their staff's hours majorly. We have major car manufacturers with staff on a 3-day week.

Cut them off from all angles - depositors, account holders, investors and shareholders, and public bailout funds. Force them to operate responsibly AND responsively, or go out of business. Force the formation of new banks that operate as banks always should have and force public accountability on even those to prevent this from happening again.

Those are the bitter pill steps people have to realize they MUST take to fix this. Their degree of resistance to accepting that will determine how long and how deep this global faux pas lasts. Globally, other investors who jumped on this lame bandwagon will have to undergo the same type of cash-ectomy in order to move forward. It seems the American mortgagee has been paying much of the world's bills with inflated, kited mortgage paper while global investment schemers have reaped the rewards. That pyramid investment scheme MUST come to an end. (The free lunch is over. Time to go back to work.)

It's all paper and been rendered worthless, yet we continue to throw more future funds at a bottomless problem. Start new banks under a new central bank, phase out the Fed and its fleet of bankrupt banking partners, then put them and the rest of the hopeless to the torch. Burn the infection away to start the healing.

(There are many who will say this is defeatist and a glass half-empty view of things, however I'm not the one trying to revive a dead, rotting horse. I see it as the only real, long-term viable solution.)
Actually, I completely agree with you.

I was quite pleased when I heard that we had 40% of one of the biggest banking networks in the UK. I thought that the banks would get the money to stay afloat, and we would get control, put some sensible people in, put in legislation, and we could get the dividends of the investment, not just during the current crisis, but also after the market picks up, so that we can recoup the value of the investment, in terms of decent interest rates, over the term of the loan. After all, if the public bails foots the bill, why shouldn't the public get paid for it, and why shouldn't we have the right to make things work?

But all I saw was the opposite. The banks were allowed to do as they wanted. We are expected to only be paid back what we lent, on an interest-free loan, while the banks lend us money on interest.

But I don't hold the banks responsible. If we give them the rope, and they pull it, and we don't yank it back, what do we expect them to do, stop pulling? If we let them continue as they did before, they will. I blame the government, and us, the people, for electing them.

Neither do I see your attitude as defeatist, but rather realistic. Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". Well, extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions. But really, if you think about it, what you (and I) advocate, is not extraordinary. It's pretty much common sense.

But thanks for this last post, because you have shown me that we the people still can act in concert, in unison, and still act. We have the power to act together, and that is the true form of democracy. Sadly, governments have let us down. Time for us to act as if we were the government, together.
Joined: 3/28/2009
Msg: 35
view profile
Posted: 4/11/2009 1:41:54 PM
I'm a firm beleiver in prevention as opposed to repair. (Like at work, there's never enough time to do the job right the first time, but there's always enough time to fix it and do it a second time. Stupid, huh?)

Anyway, to repair this current problem:
* Create public works projects for those unemployed
* The bail out money to banks should go to get those behind on their moartgages or in forclosure to bring them up to date, assuming they will be able to continue making regular payments afterwards. If not, sell the homes and used use the bailout to set these people up in homes they can afford.
* Credit card companies must bring their interest rates down to a 'reasonable' amount, not to exceed mortgage rates, for a period of 12 to 24 months, based on the amount of the total balance.
* Create gov't sponsored contests to for people to submit their ideas for a recovery on-line. The public website will be seen by everyone who wants to look at the ideas with a rating system. Votes are submitted and automatically tabulated. (So far only a small administrative cost, at most.) The top 10% (?) vote getters get viewed and analyzed by top economists/scientists/brainiacs, etc. . If approved, they get submitted to a Presidential panel and copies are emailed to lawmakers to ponder.

HOWEVER, to avoid this mess in the future, some very simple things can be done. For example:
* Teach grade school children about financial responsibility. ("You have a dollar. Do you buy a Snickers or do you save it for something better in the future?" Some days don't give them the monopoly dollar. Did the kids plan for that? Get them thinking.)
* Teach grade school children about social responsability. (Whatever you do in life comes back to you somehow. Example: Take them to a community pool two days in a row. On the second day put yellow dye in the water and tell them that someone pee'd in the water and won't be able to swim that day. Well, you get the idea. Or just show them a picture of a dead fish with a six-pack plastic around it's neck. Tell them that the fish died because someone was selfish and a pig.)
* Teach grade school children how to THINK.
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 36
view profile
Posted: 4/15/2009 9:26:54 AM

like the Free money people receive on Social Security Disability.

Is this a lame attempt at Trolling ?

YOU, have made some very fine post in the past, this doesnt seem like You ?

YOU,..know that Social Security Disabilty isnt "FREE MONEY",.......its Money paid into Social Security by both the Worker, and his/her Employer, duering the span of their working life.

The Problem were faced with, the Government, that was supposed to place this $MONEY$ into an Account, to be used exactly for when a Taxpayer Retires, or becomes Disabled,....hasnt kept this $MONEY$ in a Social Security Retirement/Disabilty Fund,.......they have SPENT it, on other Government Welfare
Programs, such as Section 8,....FOOD STAMPS,...for people that are either unable to find jobs, or just too LAZY, and are abuseing the System.

Hence the saying,.."Robbing P eter To Pay Paul",...

if the $Money$ would of been put into an Account, and invested wisely, the profit made should be more than sufficent to pay these Seniors, and Disabled People when they turn the appropreate age to Retire,..or become Disabled.

"$$$Free Money$$$" ,........
is what our Government is giving away to people too Lazy to work,
and to "Non Legals ",..that are living in this country and has never paid a cent into our Countries Coffers.......and now the Government is being pressuered to $PAY$ these People, and "Non Citizens",...
Social Security Benifits ?

Talk about how to Fix our Economy ?
QUIT giving it away to people that dont DESERVE it.
QUIT the BAIL OUTS, to Companies that have gone under,
due to their own MISMANAGMENT,...

Thats exactly like REWARDING people for being DUMB !

Excuse me,...but where the BAILOUT DUMB LINE ?
Id like me some of the $FREE MONEY$ their just giving away to people that DONT DESERVE IT !