The current economy needs to crash, and individual communities need to figure out how to survive as self-sufficiently as possible, or die. That's the future.
It blows my mind that this is being taken so lightly by some people. A trillion dollars is a gargantuan, mind-boggling amount of money. Where is it coming from? It's not like we're debating whether or not to break open some giant emergency piggy bank. We do not have the money! It will have to be borrowed from foreign sources, borrowed from ourselves in the form of taxes, or magically created by the federal reserve which will result in inflation the likes of which we've never seen.
And it is not a sure thing. It is a gamble. It may or may not work. There is no precedent for this that we can look back on that will make us feel safe about it. It will be the largest transfer of private funds to a central government in the history of mankind.
Obama is comfortable gambling with our money (and our children's money and their children's money...). I'm sorry but I don't trust somebody with such little experience to make this decision for me.
It must be checked, double-checked, and analyzed to the letter. Anything less would be reckless and just plain foolish.
How is it so easy for you to blindly trust the federal government with this much of our hard-earned money?
Obama is comfortable gambling with our money (and our children's money and their children's money...). I'm sorry but I don't trust somebody with such little experience to make this decision for me.
The core question is if it is true that the economy would collapse without this stimulus package. Wasting too much time with checking, double-checking and analizing might render your money and your childrens money into worthless paper. It sounds like a better idea to do something with it while it's still worth something.
I always thought that the concept of a democracy is all about having the people vote for its government so they can have trust in it. You just spent 8 years under some old fart who had stolen the election, lied to your people, lead young soldiers into an unlawful war and watched as the economy spiraled into disaster. Now you have a president who's young, who has a vision and enjoys unparalelled popularity on the entire planet and out of a sudden you're having doubts you can trust him?
Yeah oddly enough, now is the time to slow things down and take their times. Not mind you in the 6 years Reps controlled pretty much everything and did everything they could to push shit thru and increased government in massive amounts under their watch all the while pushing for deregulation.
What is really burning their ass is anything that is a benefit to poor people.
The notion that all Republicans and free-market capitalists are the same and agree on everything is a gross misunderstanding. Bush's tax cuts were paired with overspending which obviously is not good. For tax cuts to work, government needs to be down-sized and spending cut. In spite of this, the dotcom bust, 9/11 and the ensuing wars, the GDP still grew 45% during his years in office. Also, for the majority of those 8 years unemployment was at 5% which by common standards is considered full-employment. It wasn't until the very tail end that things took a turn.
The core of the issue is the mortgage crisis. We cannot live beyond our means. It is not an inalienable right for anyone to own an expensive home. It sounds nice, but it just isn't the case. It's hard medicine to swallow but it's time to pay the piper. It might be extremely difficult but we just have to suck it up and face the problem head-on. We can't just take money that we don't have and throw it at the problem and hope it will go away.
The stimulus plan is not attacking the problem. It's just putting it off for the future.
Tax cuts paired with spending cuts provide REAL cash that you see every payday and don't have to pay back to anyone.
As far as me not trusting Obama, what has he done to EARN my trust? He's a fuc*ing lawyer. Where did he get this great understanding of economics and business? When he was asked about the capital gains tax during the campaign he couldn't give a coherent answer. Does he really not understand something like that, something that is at such a basic level?
The current economy needs to crash, and individual communities need to figure out how to survive as self-sufficiently as possible, or die. That's the future.
i like the simplicity of this logic...but im afraid things are gonna be a bit more confusing and indirect. still, i'm planning for the self sufficient community paradigm just for shits and giggles. octavia butler knows the deal
The core of the issue is the mortgage crisis. We cannot live beyond our means. It is not an inalienable right for anyone to own an expensive home. It sounds nice, but it just isn't the case. It's hard medicine to swallow but it's time to pay the piper.
See the problem with this is it's not just consumers who thought they could live the good life just on credit. While many should take part in the blame, this is a direct result of the powers that be who pushed for years of deregulation. One of the reasons we up here in Canada haven't been too damaged by this is because the government stepped in to put a stop to many of these practices before they could get going. Add into the mix that the gov. also stepped to the banks to stop them from getting involved in certain ways with all this shit.
And I'm sorry, but many Reps seem to always push for deregulation. Which (IMO)is a pure bullshit argument in many cases.
The core of the issue is the mortgage crisis. We cannot live beyond our means. It is not an inalienable right for anyone to own an expensive home. It sounds nice, but it just isn't the case. It's hard medicine to swallow but it's time to pay the piper.
Well, if you take the point of view that it was banks irresponsibly lending to these people, then wouldn't the financial institutions of our country be the 'core of the issue'? I mean, it isn't an inalienable right for a financial institution to loan 6 times their worth, hoping to make huge money on leverage, so they can give themselves huge salaries and bonuses, knowing they can just ask for money from the government if it fails.
I mean, that sounds nice, but it just isn't the case. And, it's hard medicine for the banks to swallow, but now it's time to pay the piper.
The core of the issue is the mortgage crisis. We cannot live beyond our means. It is not an inalienable right for anyone to own an expensive home. It sounds nice, but it just isn't the case.
The problem is not consumers taking out loans they can not pay.
The problem is wall street trying to get rich quick with out working or investing.
As far as me not trusting Obama, what has he done to EARN my trust? He's a fuc*ing lawyer. Where did he get this great understanding of economics and business?
I hope you listened to the press conference tonight. His understanding of the problem and clear explanations boosted my trust in him. Why the hate for lawyers? They are the cornerstone of any justice system.
For tax cuts to work, government needs to be down-sized and spending cut.
No. For tax cuts to work (in the fullest sense of the word), the people receiving need to have an incentive to spend them. That's not occurring now. Trickle-down economics makes the most sense when the economy is at least in stasis. Otherwise, the big dudes have a great source of income for their childrens' college funds. And how will a down-sized Government pay for two wars, a bank crisis, and a crumbling infrastructure? Without raising taxes, I mean.
In spite of this, the dotcom bust, 9/11 and the ensuing wars, the GDP still grew 45% during his years in office. Also, for the majority of those 8 years unemployment was at 5% which by common standards is considered full-employment. It wasn't until the very tail end that things took a turn.
You really believe that "It wasn't until the very tail end that things took a turn?" That's just not how economies collapse. I'll agree with you that George Bush is not 100% to blame for the current crisis. Clinton and Greenspan, among 50-100 others (many Dems) are up there, too. But Bush's laissez-faire policies should certainly shoulder a whole lot of the blame. His lack of regulation certainly has a thing or two to do with this.
The core of the issue is the mortgage crisis. We cannot live beyond our means. It is not an inalienable right for anyone to own an expensive home. It sounds nice, but it just isn't the case. It's hard medicine to swallow but it's time to pay the piper. It might be extremely difficult but we just have to suck it up and face the problem head-on. We can't just take money that we don't have and throw it at the problem and hope it will go away.
Mostly correct, although I'd argue that the credit crisis is deeper and more fundamental than the housing crisis.
The stimulus plan is not attacking the problem. It's just putting it off for the future. Tax cuts paired with spending cuts provide REAL cash that you see every payday and don't have to pay back to anyone.
These are extraordinary, singular times, and drastic measures are being taken. Paying down the deficit is a good idea when the country has some money; cutting taxes is, like I said before, a good idea when the money is certain to be reinvested. Even Ron Paul, a fierce opponent of this bill, admitted that some Government spending is necessary. This is not simply a recession - it's a burgeoning depression that will end up sacking more countries than Iceland. Is all this spending going to pay off? No one really knows. I'm not sold yet, either. I'm not sure that anyone would have given a more bipartisan effort than Obama given the same circumstances. Would McCain have fared better? I'm not sure that he would have. Gridlock is the only weapon the GOP has now, and for three of them to break ranks shows that Obama has enough moxie to get things done. Again, though, I'm not sold on this bill. I'd probably vote "no," myself.
As far as me not trusting Obama, what has he done to EARN my trust? He's a fuc*ing lawyer. Where did he get this great understanding of economics and business? When he was asked about the capital gains tax during the campaign he couldn't give a coherent answer. Does he really not understand something like that, something that is at such a basic level?
Barack Obama is not your employee. He is not your prospective lawyer. He does not need anything from you. He is already your President, and he is not making these decisions by himself. NO legislator is a full-time economist, and no full-time economist is a legislator. Your straw-man reduction of the President's role stumps your analysis. If you want to do something about it, petition him, contact your congressman, or run for office yourself. I'm not fully sold on his the Democrats' Congressional plan, either. But my whining accomplishes nothing.
And here is McCain's speech on the Senate floor in May of 2006:
"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."[/b]
This was repeatedly blocked by democrats and as recently as June of 2008 Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others were still saying, "Everything is cool here. Move along."
Dude, give it up. Both parties have blood on their hands. Trying to saddle one party with the load makes you look silly and, again, accomplishes nothing.
I know it's FOX news but the facts are still the facts. Here's your regulation:
Yeah.. Fox news...
So let me get this straight. The bush adminstration in 4/2001 raised red flags and in 2003 the White House upgraded the warning to a systemic risk. And even though they had the white house for almost 8 years and also controlled the house & the senate for 6 of those, they never did anything concrete to stop this? Maybe it's because they had too big of a hard on spending billions to rebuild iraq, instead of looking out for Americans back home.
Barney Frank,"Everything is cool here. Move along."
Didn't Frank say that he didn't think it was a good investment, but that he said, going forward he thought things were going to be good or swell or something like that?
The sad part is anyone going to jail over any of this???
Dude, give it up. Both parties have blood on their hands. Trying to saddle one party with the load makes you look silly and, again, accomplishes nothing.
Exactly. I'm not trying blame it all on democrats. There are guilty parties across all sorts of lines but the majority of people, including Obama are blaming only Bush and Republicans and that is not the case.
I'm just not cool with Obama rushing this to pass and criticizing those who want clarification.
And too many people are cool with it. Now their golden boy got elected and they can stop thinking.
Now their golden boy got elected and they can stop thinking.
I'm not trying blame it all on democrats.
BTW I have nothing against lawyers.
They're just not right for leading the country, right? Barack Obama is not an attorney - he allowed his registration to expire. And he'd been in elected office for a decade prior to becoming President. But none of this matters.
I would like to see a provision in the Stimulus Bill that assures ALL the jobs created will ONLY go to American citizens.
Sounds like the same unrealistic pledge Gordon Brown made over here recently, that, due to various laws, might win support from certain sections of the voting public, but has absolutely no chance of being enacted... 'trade wars[/b]' related.
I tried to hold back ... I swear. Sorry in advance for the longass post.
So although I'm not the biggest fan of his, Krugman's post yesterday was really pretty scary.
Also, shockingly, Ron Paul has come our against the bailout. I just watched the youtube, and besides saying that jobs created by the stimulus package will come at the expense of jobs in the private sector of the "productive economy", CNN claims he
said that he agrees that the economy needs to be stimulated but that he doesn't think the federal government should be doing it.
"Sure, we want more spending," Paul said. "We need a lot more spending in the economy, but it has to be done by market forces, by individuals, by businesses making proper decisions."
Can one of his supporters please elaborate on wtf this means? Is he actually proposing the government do nothing except step aside, cheer on capitalism, and just continue to cut taxes and services to people?
Anyone that still buys into this hoodoo that the "free market" and private business are going to step up and save the economy - right after they fucked it up beyond all recognition - needs to have their heads examined (a la Ron Paul).
I see that I am not the only Ron Paul supporter (SmallAxeRick?) or at least, not the only one that sees the big picture instead of Bush vs. Obama or Dems vs. Republicans, but you got to look beneath the surface on this spending package.
Dr. Paul is in no way, as you put it, "proposing the government do nothing except step aside, cheer on capitalism, and just continue to cut taxes and services to people." But, he is certainly saying that we should not continue towards the path of massive government and socialism that the Bush Administration and others before him pushed so hard for. And you keep referencing cutting taxes as if Ron Paul and others say that it is the only viable option. It is just one of MANY options, but again, not just any old tax cuts like Bush and Republicans always push for. And, that government SHOULD, for once, step out of the way and let the market reset and work itself out. This can only be done by market forces, as opposed to forced lending or spending or artificially lowered interest rates. By individuals that are productive and have jobs that actually stimulate the economy, as opposed to make work jobs. By businesses making proper decisions, as opposed to risky investments pushed by the Government and the Fed's central economic planning and bailouts, which reward risky behavior.
And by the way, we haven't lived in a free market economy since the Federal Reserve was enacted by Congress in 1913. So how can anyone say that private businesses "fucked [the economy] up beyond all recognition"? Or reference Bush's "laissez-faire policies." What Bush laissez-faire policiies? You mean the TARP legislation? Auto Industry Bailout I and II? Natiolization of the mortgage and banking industry? How is that laissez-faire? Private business cannot do what they do because of so much government intervention.
PLEASE look at the big picture about this economic situation ... there were many things that lead to it, and it sure wasn't just tax cuts and a laissez-faire approach. It wasn't just irresponsible people that took on mortgage loans that they couldn't afford. It wasn't just greedy bankers that wanted to give out loans to get themselves rich quick. It was a whole system, propagated by the Federal Government (see the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the Federal Reserve, (artificially lowering interest rates, much lower than a free market would have ever set them), and basically letting these mortgage/banking institutions know that, if things got bad (which they obviously did), they would get bailed out.
This is what created this huge bubble. But wait, there is more!
Couple that with the fact that we spend more on our "Defense" budget per year than any other nation in the world - COMBINED - with an overseas empire we cannot maintain without borrowing or prining up money, countless wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran next) ... is it any surprise that our country is broke? Look at what happened to the Soviet Union.
We cannot keep borrowing and printing money to pay off our debts, or stimulate the economy, or we might just see hyperinflation like the Weimar Republic experienced during the 1920s. Or, more recently, Zimbabwe, where people needed to load up a wheelbarrow full of cash just to buy a loaf of bread.
Think it can't happen here in the US? I sure hope we never see those days, but we cannot rule it out.
And, that government SHOULD, for once, step out of the way and let the market reset and work itself out. This can only be done by market forces, as opposed to forced lending or spending or artificially lowered interest rates.
Cause we all know that the "markets" always do what's in the best interest of the consumer or workers and not just for the stock holders or executives...
And, that government SHOULD, for once, step out of the way and let the market reset and work itself out. This can only be done by market forces, as opposed to forced lending or spending or artificially lowered interest rates.
Cause we all know that the "markets" always do what's in the best interest of the consumer or workers and not just for the stock holders or executives...
Yup. They just might, if we actually let them be. Instead of letting former CEOs of Goldman Sachs to run the Department of the Treasury and bailout all his buddies, while letting others go bankrupt.
EDIT: And how is that any different from letting former Presidents of the New York Federal Reserve Bank who don't even pay their taxes run the Treasury?
And, that government SHOULD, for once, step out of the way and let the market reset and work itself out. This can only be done by market forces, as opposed to forced lending or spending or artificially lowered interest rates.
Cause we all know that the "markets" always do what's in the best interest of the consumer or workers and not just for the stock holders or executives...
Yup. They just might, if we actually let them be. Instead of letting former CEOs of Goldman Sachs to run the Department of the Treasury and bailout all his buddies, while letting others go bankrupt.
How long before the followers of "Dr Paul"* gather at a compound in the desert for the big flight to Mars??
When your kids school, and your local library, firehouse and hospital all get their budgets slashed, your public transportation gets even more shitty and expensive, and you still don't have health insurance, you'll know the markets are "working"....
Comments
Here is a list of things that got cut.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/stimulus.cuts/index.html
And it is not a sure thing. It is a gamble. It may or may not work. There is no precedent for this that we can look back on that will make us feel safe about it. It will be the largest transfer of private funds to a central government in the history of mankind.
Obama is comfortable gambling with our money (and our children's money and their children's money...). I'm sorry but I don't trust somebody with such little experience to make this decision for me.
It must be checked, double-checked, and analyzed to the letter. Anything less would be reckless and just plain foolish.
How is it so easy for you to blindly trust the federal government with this much of our hard-earned money?
The core question is if it is true that the economy would collapse without this stimulus package. Wasting too much time with checking, double-checking and analizing might render your money and your childrens money into worthless paper. It sounds like a better idea to do something with it while it's still worth something.
I always thought that the concept of a democracy is all about having the people vote for its government so they can have trust in it. You just spent 8 years under some old fart who had stolen the election, lied to your people, lead young soldiers into an unlawful war and watched as the economy spiraled into disaster. Now you have a president who's young, who has a vision and enjoys unparalelled popularity on the entire planet and out of a sudden you're having doubts you can trust him?
What is really burning their ass is anything that is a benefit to poor people.
I find this interesting.
In spite of this, the dotcom bust, 9/11 and the ensuing wars, the GDP still grew 45% during his years in office. Also, for the majority of those 8 years unemployment was at 5% which by common standards is considered full-employment. It wasn't until the very tail end that things took a turn.
The core of the issue is the mortgage crisis. We cannot live beyond our means. It is not an inalienable right for anyone to own an expensive home. It sounds nice, but it just isn't the case. It's hard medicine to swallow but it's time to pay the piper. It might be extremely difficult but we just have to suck it up and face the problem head-on. We can't just take money that we don't have and throw it at the problem and hope it will go away.
The stimulus plan is not attacking the problem. It's just putting it off for the future.
Tax cuts paired with spending cuts provide REAL cash that you see every payday and don't have to pay back to anyone.
As far as me not trusting Obama, what has he done to EARN my trust? He's a fuc*ing lawyer. Where did he get this great understanding of economics and business? When he was asked about the capital gains tax during the campaign he couldn't give a coherent answer. Does he really not understand something like that, something that is at such a basic level?
i like the simplicity of this logic...but im afraid things are gonna be a bit more confusing and indirect. still, i'm planning for the self sufficient community paradigm just for shits and giggles. octavia butler knows the deal
See the problem with this is it's not just consumers who thought they could live the good life just on credit. While many should take part in the blame, this is a direct result of the powers that be who pushed for years of deregulation. One of the reasons we up here in Canada haven't been too damaged by this is because the government stepped in to put a stop to many of these practices before they could get going. Add into the mix that the gov. also stepped to the banks to stop them from getting involved in certain ways with all this shit.
And I'm sorry, but many Reps seem to always push for deregulation. Which (IMO)is a pure bullshit argument in many cases.
Well, if you take the point of view that it was banks irresponsibly lending to these people, then wouldn't the financial institutions of our country be the 'core of the issue'? I mean, it isn't an inalienable right for a financial institution to loan 6 times their worth, hoping to make huge money on leverage, so they can give themselves huge salaries and bonuses, knowing they can just ask for money from the government if it fails.
I mean, that sounds nice, but it just isn't the case. And, it's hard medicine for the banks to swallow, but now it's time to pay the piper.
The problem is not consumers taking out loans they can not pay.
The problem is wall street trying to get rich quick with out working or investing.
I hope you listened to the press conference tonight.
His understanding of the problem and clear explanations boosted my trust in him.
Why the hate for lawyers?
They are the cornerstone of any justice system.
Here's your regulation:
No. For tax cuts to work (in the fullest sense of the word), the people receiving need to have an incentive to spend them. That's not occurring now. Trickle-down economics makes the most sense when the economy is at least in stasis. Otherwise, the big dudes have a great source of income for their childrens' college funds. And how will a down-sized Government pay for two wars, a bank crisis, and a crumbling infrastructure? Without raising taxes, I mean.
You really believe that "It wasn't until the very tail end that things took a turn?" That's just not how economies collapse. I'll agree with you that George Bush is not 100% to blame for the current crisis. Clinton and Greenspan, among 50-100 others (many Dems) are up there, too. But Bush's laissez-faire policies should certainly shoulder a whole lot of the blame. His lack of regulation certainly has a thing or two to do with this.
Mostly correct, although I'd argue that the credit crisis is deeper and more fundamental than the housing crisis.
These are extraordinary, singular times, and drastic measures are being taken. Paying down the deficit is a good idea when the country has some money; cutting taxes is, like I said before, a good idea when the money is certain to be reinvested. Even Ron Paul, a fierce opponent of this bill, admitted that some Government spending is necessary. This is not simply a recession - it's a burgeoning depression that will end up sacking more countries than Iceland. Is all this spending going to pay off? No one really knows. I'm not sold yet, either. I'm not sure that anyone would have given a more bipartisan effort than Obama given the same circumstances. Would McCain have fared better? I'm not sure that he would have. Gridlock is the only weapon the GOP has now, and for three of them to break ranks shows that Obama has enough moxie to get things done. Again, though, I'm not sold on this bill. I'd probably vote "no," myself.
Barack Obama is not your employee. He is not your prospective lawyer. He does not need anything from you. He is already your President, and he is not making these decisions by himself. NO legislator is a full-time economist, and no full-time economist is a legislator. Your straw-man reduction of the President's role stumps your analysis. If you want to do something about it, petition him, contact your congressman, or run for office yourself. I'm not fully sold on
histhe Democrats' Congressional plan, either. But my whining accomplishes nothing."Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."[/b]
This was repeatedly blocked by democrats and as recently as June of 2008 Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others were still saying, "Everything is cool here. Move along."
Yeah.. Fox news...
So let me get this straight. The bush adminstration in 4/2001 raised red flags and in 2003 the White House upgraded the warning to a systemic risk. And even though they had the white house for almost 8 years and also controlled the house & the senate for 6 of those, they never did anything concrete to stop this? Maybe it's because they had too big of a hard on spending billions to rebuild iraq, instead of looking out for Americans back home.
To me that's almost criminal, it that's true...
Didn't Frank say that he didn't think it was a good investment, but that he said, going forward he thought things were going to be good or swell or something like that?
The sad part is anyone going to jail over any of this???
Exactly. I'm not trying blame it all on democrats. There are guilty parties across all sorts of lines but the majority of people, including Obama are blaming only Bush and Republicans and that is not the case.
I'm just not cool with Obama rushing this to pass and criticizing those who want clarification.
And too many people are cool with it. Now their golden boy got elected and they can stop thinking.
BTW I have nothing against lawyers.
They're just not right for leading the country, right? Barack Obama is not an attorney - he allowed his registration to expire. And he'd been in elected office for a decade prior to becoming President. But none of this matters.
I KEED I KEED!
I'm the only dude in my circle of friends/dj's that leans to the right (as far as I know).
Sounds like the same unrealistic pledge Gordon Brown made over here recently, that, due to various laws, might win support from certain sections of the voting public, but has absolutely no chance of being enacted... 'trade wars[/b]' related.
I see that I am not the only Ron Paul supporter (SmallAxeRick?) or at least, not the only one that sees the big picture instead of Bush vs. Obama or Dems vs. Republicans, but you got to look beneath the surface on this spending package.
Dr. Paul is in no way, as you put it, "proposing the government do nothing except step aside, cheer on capitalism, and just continue to cut taxes and services to people." But, he is certainly saying that we should not continue towards the path of massive government and socialism that the Bush Administration and others before him pushed so hard for. And you keep referencing cutting taxes as if Ron Paul and others say that it is the only viable option. It is just one of MANY options, but again, not just any old tax cuts like Bush and Republicans always push for. And, that government SHOULD, for once, step out of the way and let the market reset and work itself out. This can only be done by market forces, as opposed to forced lending or spending or artificially lowered interest rates. By individuals that are productive and have jobs that actually stimulate the economy, as opposed to make work jobs. By businesses making proper decisions, as opposed to risky investments pushed by the Government and the Fed's central economic planning and bailouts, which reward risky behavior.
And by the way, we haven't lived in a free market economy since the Federal Reserve was enacted by Congress in 1913. So how can anyone say that private businesses "fucked [the economy] up beyond all recognition"? Or reference Bush's "laissez-faire policies." What Bush laissez-faire policiies? You mean the TARP legislation? Auto Industry Bailout I and II? Natiolization of the mortgage and banking industry? How is that laissez-faire? Private business cannot do what they do because of so much government intervention.
PLEASE look at the big picture about this economic situation ... there were many things that lead to it, and it sure wasn't just tax cuts and a laissez-faire approach. It wasn't just irresponsible people that took on mortgage loans that they couldn't afford. It wasn't just greedy bankers that wanted to give out loans to get themselves rich quick. It was a whole system, propagated by the Federal Government (see the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the Federal Reserve, (artificially lowering interest rates, much lower than a free market would have ever set them), and basically letting these mortgage/banking institutions know that, if things got bad (which they obviously did), they would get bailed out.
This is what created this huge bubble. But wait, there is more!
Couple that with the fact that we spend more on our "Defense" budget per year than any other nation in the world - COMBINED - with an overseas empire we cannot maintain without borrowing or prining up money, countless wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran next) ... is it any surprise that our country is broke? Look at what happened to the Soviet Union.
We cannot keep borrowing and printing money to pay off our debts, or stimulate the economy, or we might just see hyperinflation like the Weimar Republic experienced during the 1920s. Or, more recently, Zimbabwe, where people needed to load up a wheelbarrow full of cash just to buy a loaf of bread.
Think it can't happen here in the US? I sure hope we never see those days, but we cannot rule it out.
Go. Bye!
Cause we all know that the "markets" always do what's in the best interest of the consumer or workers and not just for the stock holders or executives...
Yup. They just might, if we actually let them be. Instead of letting former CEOs of Goldman Sachs to run the Department of the Treasury and bailout all his buddies, while letting others go bankrupt.
EDIT: And how is that any different from letting former Presidents of the New York Federal Reserve Bank who don't even pay their taxes run the Treasury?
Its just more of the same ...
How long before the followers of "Dr Paul"* gather at a compound in the desert for the big flight to Mars??
*I'd feel better taking political advice from
Ah the good old days who can forget. Things were so much better then.
Families happily worked together.
With out regulations landlords were free to look after tenants best interest.
Business prospered as labor was cheap
Sometimes it was even free. Good for everybody.
One of the highlights of those great years was the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.