Republican vs Conservative vs Democrat

[Goath]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

The banks were also being forced into the loans by the govmt as well.

Banks wanted to make the loans- because they were sure they'd make huge profits off of the variable rate when the rates went through the roof. They didn't anticipate the mess they were getting into.

Don't misunderstand- the banks aren't alone in culpability- the Republican Congress that fostered the mess in the first place share an ounce of blame, too.

Now, though, it's time to re-regulate the market. No more businesses too big to fail.

[Sibirsky]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

How does this help someone who isn't able to work, rather than someone who just can't get a job? Someone on disability legitimately, in other words.

greed and death explained the difference well but I will go further than that.

Why is the inability to work the responsibility of the Government to fix? As I already pointed out, to give that person a dollar the Government must take $1.70 from "someone else". Government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place so why would anyone believe more Government will have any better results?


Less government means more jobs, more jobs means everyone is making more money and then these very few who can't work (not to be confused with those who can but choose not to) can be easily taken care of by their family. Charity is not the responsibility of the Federal Government and it is costing more than it can ever help.

I know I'm jumping into a deep puddle here, but on what can you base the statement "government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place [...]?" From what I can see, it was the lack of appropriate government regulation of the financial system that has caused this most recent economic kerfluffle.

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Agreed on all counts. Also, banks thought they had almost no risk because the government would back them. Fannie and Freddie anyone. And were they wrong? Of course not.

Your house somewhat surprises me, because Texas, during the growing of the bubble had some of the least growth in real estate prices. Sounds shitty. As a result, after the bubble burst, they also had the lowest declines in the nation. Sounds wonderful!

[Ordo Mallus]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

The government made them give out loans to people who were buying houses weither or not these people who pay for them or not. This was a plan to get everyone a house, this as you can see failed epicly and we are now in this fine hole of debt. So actually anyone can safely say that regulation set this recession in motion, not some greedy bankers that wanted some extra pocket money.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

How does this help someone who isn't able to work, rather than someone who just can't get a job? Someone on disability legitimately, in other words.

greed and death explained the difference well but I will go further than that.

Why is the inability to work the responsibility of the Government to fix? As I already pointed out, to give that person a dollar the Government must take $1.70 from "someone else". Government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place so why would anyone believe more Government will have any better results?


Less government means more jobs, more jobs means everyone is making more money and then these very few who can't work (not to be confused with those who can but choose not to) can be easily taken care of by their family. Charity is not the responsibility of the Federal Government and it is costing more than it can ever help.

I know I'm jumping into a deep puddle here, but on what can you base the statement "government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place [...]?" From what I can see, it was the lack of appropriate government regulation of the financial system that has caused this most recent economic kerfluffle.

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Agreed on all counts. Also, banks thought they had almost no risk because the government would back them. Fannie and Freddie anyone. And were they wrong? Of course not.

Your house somewhat surprises me, because Texas, during the growing of the bubble had some of the least growth in real estate prices. Sounds shitty. As a result, after the bubble burst, they also had the lowest declines in the nation. Sounds wonderful!

well, thats not the whole story. When the dotcom bubble collapsed, so did the housing market in Austin. After getting laid off, I began missing payments and ended up short selling the house for ~150K. I move to a small town and started renting.

[The Norse Hordes]

This thread should be market adult only for all the handjobs the 'invisible hand' is giving out.

[Ordo Mallus]

holy shit can we cut down on the tunnels, only 4 people have posted and its already insanely long lol

[Goath]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

The government made them give out loans to people who were buying houses weither or not these people who pay for them or not. This was a plan to get everyone a house, this as you can see failed epicly and we are now in this fine hole of debt. So actually anyone can safely say that regulation set this recession in motion, not some greedy bankers that wanted some extra pocket money.

That is simply not true. The government never required banks to give loans to people the banks felt were poor risks. The banks decided to do that all on their own.

[Sibirsky]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

Nope, the banking bailouts were not necessary. Citi has major losses? Fuck you, not the tax payers' problem. Bank of America? See the note I sent to Citi.

But we need banks! Indeed. So instead of buying toxic assets, as the original, $700 billion Paulson plan set out to do (TARP) take the $700 billion and start a completely new banking system. Pick a number, I say 35. Set up 35 new banks and give them $20 billion a piece. With fractional reserve banking the banks could lend $200 billion, each. That's $7 trillion in lending. Well, Sibirsky that is still a bailout. Indeed. Except this plan would actually work. Instead of giving money to badly damaged banks that will not lend it, and just use it to repair their balance sheets in survival mode, the new, healthy banks would be free to lend. Who would own this banks? The taxpayers. Give everyone 1 or 10 or 100, whatever number (as long as it's equal) of shares of stock in each one of the banks to the taxpayers. Simple. And fair. The taxpayers now own the banking system. One that actually works. And of course they are free to sell their shares if they wish. Or to buy more.

[The Norse Hordes]

But we need banks! Indeed. So instead of buying toxic assets, as the original, $700 billion Paulson plan set out to do (TARP) take the $700 billion and start a completely new banking system. Pick a number, I say 35. Set up 35 new banks and give them $20 billion a piece. With fractional reserve banking the banks could lend $200 billion, each. That's $7 trillion in lending. Well, Sibirsky that is still a bailout. Indeed. Except this plan would actually work. Instead of giving money to badly damaged banks that will not lend it, and just use it to repair their balance sheets in survival mode, the new, healthy banks would be free to lend. Who would own this banks? The taxpayers. Give everyone 1 or 10 or 100, whatever number (as long as it's equal) of shares of stock in each one of the banks to the taxpayers. Simple. And fair. The taxpayers now own the banking system. One that actually works. And of course they are free to sell their shares if they wish. Or to buy more.

Comrade Lenin supports this idea of communal ownership.

[Goath]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

Nope, the banking bailouts were not necessary. Citi has major losses? Fuck you, not the tax payers' problem. Bank of America? See the note I sent to Citi.

But we need banks! Indeed. So instead of buying toxic assets, as the original, $700 billion Paulson plan set out to do (TARP) take the $700 billion and start a completely new banking system. Pick a number, I say 35. Set up 35 new banks and give them $20 billion a piece. With fractional reserve banking the banks could lend $200 billion, each. That's $7 trillion in lending. Well, Sibirsky that is still a bailout. Indeed. Except this plan would actually work. Instead of giving money to badly damaged banks that will not lend it, and just use it to repair their balance sheets in survival mode, the new, healthy banks would be free to lend. Who would own this banks? The taxpayers. Give everyone 1 or 10 or 100, whatever number (as long as it's equal) of shares of stock in each one of the banks to the taxpayers. Simple. And fair. The taxpayers now own the banking system. One that actually works. And of course they are free to sell their shares if they wish. Or to buy more.

Well, alright. Your solve is potentially a little more ungainly than the on the one passed by Congress, but, hey, whatever floats your boat.

It really sucks there are businesses anywhere in the world "big" enough to actually collapse the economy- but that's how it is in the US. The banks couldn't be allowed to collapse. Well, no, they could be...but we'd be in the middle of a depression today instead of climbing out of a recession.

[Sibirsky]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

The banks were also being forced into the loans by the govmt as well.

Banks wanted to make the loans- because they were sure they'd make huge profits off of the variable rate when the rates went through the roof. They didn't anticipate the mess they were getting into.

Don't misunderstand- the banks aren't alone in culpability- the Republican Congress that fostered the mess in the first place share an ounce of blame, too.

Now, though, it's time to re-regulate the market. No more businesses too big to fail.

Wrong. ACORN shares the majority of the blame. The banks were forced to make bad loans. Not only that, they were led to believe they could sell the loans (and they could) to Fannie and Freddie. The government, essentially backed it. Republican congress? Housing is a social issue. And we know which party is up in arms about social issues. Jimmy Carter (D) signed the CRA into law. Bill Clinton (D) expanded it. Also, Clinton (with the help of Greenspan) decided to keep Credit Default Swaps of exchanges and completely OTC. That makes them less transparent. That also allows scum like AIG to write an unlimited number of them based on their AAA (at the time) rating. With no collateral to back them. Damn I was mean to the Democrats. Ok, Paulson (appointed by a Republican) and a former Goldman Sachs CEO engineered the AIG bailout. A damn good chunk of it went to Goldman Sachs. No corruption there, no siree. $10 billion if I remember correctly. Bush also expanded the housing mess with some bill my memory fails to remember the ridiculously long name off. To be fair, Bush did suggest tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie (only to be blocked by a Democratic congress) early in the bubble. As well as John McCain a few years later (again blocked).

[Sibirsky]

Welfare does the same.

Yes, yes, someone who isn't able to work would be better off without welfare than with it.

In most cases it is Government that caused the lack of jobs. Government regulations and taxes are the biggest reason jobs leave America. By trying to rape the rich with unfair taxes, you make them react by figuring out ways to protect their income. Look At California, employers leaving the State and going to friendlier States next door. Greedy? None of us would pay more than we have to so why does anyone else believe business owners should act differently then we do? Do any of you decline to take your legal deductions on your tax returns?

Another mistake many make is they don't understand that government employees do not pay taxes. Sure they have tax deductions on the stubs but they are recycling the same tax dollars, there is no gain for the Government tax collecting. New government jobs hurt the economy, they don't help it for the same reason. The only thing that helps the economy is new earned dollars, and unfortunately liberals in general, and this President specifically hurt business. Obama will be responsible for the loss of more private sector jobs than any other President in history.



Instead of being mad that you don't have as much money as someone else, how about instead just get off your behind and go get your own prosperity?

How does this help someone who isn't able to work, rather than someone who just can't get a job? Someone on disability legitimately, in other words.

greed and death explained the difference well but I will go further than that.

Why is the inability to work the responsibility of the Government to fix? As I already pointed out, to give that person a dollar the Government must take $1.70 from "someone else". Government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place so why would anyone believe more Government will have any better results?


Less government means more jobs, more jobs means everyone is making more money and then these very few who can't work (not to be confused with those who can but choose not to) can be easily taken care of by their family. Charity is not the responsibility of the Federal Government and it is costing more than it can ever help.

I know I'm jumping into a deep puddle here, but on what can you base the statement "government meddling caused most of the lost jobs in the first place [...]?" From what I can see, it was the lack of appropriate government regulation of the financial system that has caused this most recent economic kerfluffle.

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Agreed on all counts. Also, banks thought they had almost no risk because the government would back them. Fannie and Freddie anyone. And were they wrong? Of course not.

Your house somewhat surprises me, because Texas, during the growing of the bubble had some of the least growth in real estate prices. Sounds shitty. As a result, after the bubble burst, they also had the lowest declines in the nation. Sounds wonderful!

well, thats not the whole story. When the dotcom bubble collapsed, so did the housing market in Austin. After getting laid off, I began missing payments and ended up short selling the house for ~150K. I move to a small town and started renting.

That's a tough story KMA

[The Norse Hordes]

Wrong. ACORN shares the majority of the blame.

Stopped reading here.

[Sibirsky]

But we need banks! Indeed. So instead of buying toxic assets, as the original, $700 billion Paulson plan set out to do (TARP) take the $700 billion and start a completely new banking system. Pick a number, I say 35. Set up 35 new banks and give them $20 billion a piece. With fractional reserve banking the banks could lend $200 billion, each. That's $7 trillion in lending. Well, Sibirsky that is still a bailout. Indeed. Except this plan would actually work. Instead of giving money to badly damaged banks that will not lend it, and just use it to repair their balance sheets in survival mode, the new, healthy banks would be free to lend. Who would own this banks? The taxpayers. Give everyone 1 or 10 or 100, whatever number (as long as it's equal) of shares of stock in each one of the banks to the taxpayers. Simple. And fair. The taxpayers now own the banking system. One that actually works. And of course they are free to sell their shares if they wish. Or to buy more.

Comrade Lenin supports this idea of communal ownership.

That's not what that is. You own shares. Just like shares of APPL or MCD or whatever. You can buy more, or you can sell them.

[Spetsnazastan]

I am against both of the parties. However, I am less anti democrat. Republicans=Bush=

[Sibirsky]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

Nope, the banking bailouts were not necessary. Citi has major losses? Fuck you, not the tax payers' problem. Bank of America? See the note I sent to Citi.

But we need banks! Indeed. So instead of buying toxic assets, as the original, $700 billion Paulson plan set out to do (TARP) take the $700 billion and start a completely new banking system. Pick a number, I say 35. Set up 35 new banks and give them $20 billion a piece. With fractional reserve banking the banks could lend $200 billion, each. That's $7 trillion in lending. Well, Sibirsky that is still a bailout. Indeed. Except this plan would actually work. Instead of giving money to badly damaged banks that will not lend it, and just use it to repair their balance sheets in survival mode, the new, healthy banks would be free to lend. Who would own this banks? The taxpayers. Give everyone 1 or 10 or 100, whatever number (as long as it's equal) of shares of stock in each one of the banks to the taxpayers. Simple. And fair. The taxpayers now own the banking system. One that actually works. And of course they are free to sell their shares if they wish. Or to buy more.

Well, alright. Your solve is potentially a little more ungainly than the on the one passed by Congress, but, hey, whatever floats your boat.

It really sucks there are businesses anywhere in the world "big" enough to actually collapse the economy- but that's how it is in the US. The banks couldn't be allowed to collapse. Well, no, they could be...but we'd be in the middle of a depression today instead of climbing out of a recession.

I think $7 trillion in new lending would be sufficient to keep us from a deeper Depression. Yes, we are (were?) in a Depression. The government won't admit it. They are scared to scare you. Tell the people that indeed we are in a depression and they stop spending all together making the mess that much worse.

[Sibirsky]

Wrong. ACORN shares the majority of the blame.

Stopped reading here.

What are you one of their employees or something? Did I hurt your feelings?

[Sibirsky]

I am against both of the parties. However, I am less anti democrat. Republicans=Bush=

Bush was not a real Republican. He expanded many social programs. In theory, I am more anti Democrat. In practice, I am more anti Republican because of their massive lies. Who am I supposed to vote for?

[Sibirsky]

it was the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldnt afford it. This was a political move to get people into houses. This ended up being fine, for a while, while jobs and the economy was good. As soon as the economy took a bad turn, the house of cards fell down.

The "Flip this house" culture at the time also caused it. I bought a house in Austin TX for 217K in 2000. That same house by 2005 was worth 350K. Well, it wasnt WORTH 350K, but that is what houses on the block were selling for at the time. People didnt care about the value, all they knew was that they could buy a house, make some changes and sell it 6 months later for some huge profit. THAT is why there were so many funky loans. You couldnt possibly afford a 350K house, but you could afford 1K/month payments. The banks knew(or gambled) that once you sold the house in 6 months, they would get thier money back.

Now, that, also, is good if the economy is good. Once there is some sort of hiccup, it all falls apart. Now, the dude who has the 350K house, and who can onoly afford the 1K/mo payments, either has to sell the house (which no one is buying at 350K) OR come up with the ~3K/mo payments. He can't do either, so he hands it back to the bank. Now the bank has a house for 350K that THEY cant sell.

Essentially, people were using thier houses as a business. They gambled. They lost. The banks gambled. They lost. Boo Hoo. Thats business.

Well, yes..but...no. Banks did indeed gamble- they made horrible, greedy decisions based on anticipated profit. They let out horribly irresponsible, unethical loans. Individual home-buyers were horribly irresponsible, too, of course.

This gets into the debate on the financial business bailouts, of course, which were a disgusting necessity if we wanted the American economy to continue plugging along. I abhor corporate bailouts on principle, but when federal regulation fails to do enough to avoid collapse in the run-up to said collapse something has to be done.

Increased regulation of the financial industry- including anti-trust prosecutions to make sure we never again have a business that is "too big to fail"- is the answer to this question. It was a lack of common sense- in regulations and otherwise- that has caused the mess we're in today.

Nope, the banking bailouts were not necessary. Citi has major losses? Fuck you, not the tax payers' problem. Bank of America? See the note I sent to Citi.

But we need banks! Indeed. So instead of buying toxic assets, as the original, $700 billion Paulson plan set out to do (TARP) take the $700 billion and start a completely new banking system. Pick a number, I say 35. Set up 35 new banks and give them $20 billion a piece. With fractional reserve banking the banks could lend $200 billion, each. That's $7 trillion in lending. Well, Sibirsky that is still a bailout. Indeed. Except this plan would actually work. Instead of giving money to badly damaged banks that will not lend it, and just use it to repair their balance sheets in survival mode, the new, healthy banks would be free to lend. Who would own this banks? The taxpayers. Give everyone 1 or 10 or 100, whatever number (as long as it's equal) of shares of stock in each one of the banks to the taxpayers. Simple. And fair. The taxpayers now own the banking system. One that actually works. And of course they are free to sell their shares if they wish. Or to buy more.

Well, alright. Your solve is potentially a little more ungainly than the on the one passed by Congress, but, hey, whatever floats your boat.

It really sucks there are businesses anywhere in the world "big" enough to actually collapse the economy- but that's how it is in the US. The banks couldn't be allowed to collapse. Well, no, they could be...but we'd be in the middle of a depression today instead of climbing out of a recession.

Did you also miss the part about the new banks being able to lend?

[Spetsnazastan]

Vote none of the above!

[Goath]

Banks wanted to make the loans- because they were sure they'd make huge profits off of the variable rate when the rates went through the roof. They didn't anticipate the mess they were getting into.

Don't misunderstand- the banks aren't alone in culpability- the Republican Congress that fostered the mess in the first place share an ounce of blame, too.

Now, though, it's time to re-regulate the market. No more businesses too big to fail.

Wrong. ACORN shares the majority of the blame. The banks were forced to make bad loans. Not only that, they were led to believe they could sell the loans (and they could) to Fannie and Freddie. The government, essentially backed it. Republican congress? Housing is a social issue. And we know which party is up in arms about social issues. Jimmy Carter (D) signed the CRA into law. Bill Clinton (D) expanded it. Also, Clinton (with the help of Greenspan) decided to keep Credit Default Swaps of exchanges and completely OTC. That makes them less transparent. That also allows scum like AIG to write an unlimited number of them based on their AAA (at the time) rating. With no collateral to back them. Damn I was mean to the Democrats. Ok, Paulson (appointed by a Republican) and a former Goldman Sachs CEO engineered the AIG bailout. A damn good chunk of it went to Goldman Sachs. No corruption there, no siree. $10 billion if I remember correctly. Bush also expanded the housing mess with some bill my memory fails to remember the ridiculously long name off. To be fair, Bush did suggest tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie (only to be blocked by a Democratic congress) early in the bubble. As well as John McCain a few years later (again blocked).

You're confused, I'm afraid. CRA didn't force anyone to make "bad loans"- in fact, banks were directed to only make loans that made good business sense to them. That's exactly what the banks did...to their misfortune.

The banking industry was deregulated by Republican Congresses (with lots of help from Democrats, too) and because of that we're in a place today that we should never, ever have been. No one is free of blame...though the new right wing straw man ACRON is obviously at blame ;-)

Oh, also- the bailouts as proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Democratic Congress weren't good enough- the Bush Admin hamstrung oversight and far, far too many of the folks voting on the bill had too much vested interest in seeing the banks (their fundraising organs) propped up. They did, however, act generally in the correct direction.

As to the topic of this post...the newest poll out just today says Owens is in the lead, followed by the Conservative Party candidate (Hoffman) with the Republican Party candidate in third.

[Mykola]

I hope that American voters won't be stupid enough to go back to conservatives just because Obama hasn't made all their wishes come true in his first six months. He's not perfect, but he's accomplished quite a bit, and people are expecting too much of him.

If conservatism makes a real comeback, America's economy, reputation, and standards for human rights will likely collapse. Not that I expect a conservative comeback to be widespread or long term.

Accomplished what? Oh yeah of course nearly 2 Trillion Dollars has made for over 50,000 jobs created! Well the Liberal News Media just is too stupid to tell you that, or emphasize that we have lost nearly 700,000 in the past two months! You people are idiots if you think Osa......Obama has done anything.

[North Suran]

If America goes back to conservatism (which shouldn't be for a while, hopefully) they would only participate in more useless wars and only cause an economic downfall. Not to mention how they view the poor, the rich would get richer and the poor would begin to become slaves to the oppression that is capitalism and conservatism.

Communism is slavery of the poor. Capitalism gives them a chance for a job. Property rights. And their own success.

I'm no Communist, but if you genuinely believe that Capitalism is a meritocracy where the rich do not abuse the poor, you're more deluded than the most die-hard Marxist.

[Timesjoke]

That is simply not true. The government never required banks to give loans to people the banks felt were poor risks. The banks decided to do that all on their own.

Actually they did.

Bill Clinton signed the "Community Reinvestment Act" that forced the approval of loans to people who could not possibly pay off their loans. Normal loan qualifications were tossed aside and even downpayments were all but eliminated by this program that gave homes to people even without jobs.


In 2004 (before the mess started to fall apart) the Republicans made a big push to regulate Fannie and Freddie but the Democrats fought off that legislation and even called the Republicans racists for trying to stop loans to minorities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHuc9FGpnq0

Where the banks went wrong in this is they took the Government example and ran with it in other areas. I see why they did it but It was doomed to failure. Their thought was to spread the risk, by having these bad loans that were almost guranteed to fail their idea was to cast the net wider in the hopes to have more people who did pay their loans than not. That part was their fault, but the snowball was started by the Federal Government and the "Community Reinvestment Act".


Social engineering almost always ends in massive failures and causes more harm than the hoped for good.

[Goath]

That is simply not true. The government never required banks to give loans to people the banks felt were poor risks. The banks decided to do that all on their own.

Actually they did.

Bill Clinton signed the "Community Reinvestment Act" that forced the approval of loans to people who could not possibly pay off their loans. Normal loan qualifications were tossed aside and even downpayments were all but eliminated by this program that gave homes to people even without jobs.


In 2004 (before the mess started to fall apart) the Republicans made a big push to regulate Fannie and Freddie btu the Democrats fought off that legislation and even called the Republicans racists for trying to stop loans to minorities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHuc9FGpnq0

Where the banks went wrong in this is they took the Government example and ran with it in other areas. I see why they did it but It was doomed to failure. Their thought was to spread the risk, by having these bad loans that were almost guranteed to fail their idea was to cast the net wider in the hopes to have more people who did pay their loans than not. That part was their fault, but the snowball was started by the Federal Government and the "Community Reinvestment Act".


Social engineering almost always ends in massive failures and causes more harm than the hoped for good.

I'm sorry, but that's not the case.

The Community Reinvestment Act didn't require loans be given to everyone who applied- it required banks to treat everyone the same. For instance, if a poor black person and a poor white person applied for a loan, the bank had to use the same qualification process for both people. The CRA most certainly did not "force" banks to loan to everyone. Banks did that because that's what they wanted to do.