Log In | Register
63 Comments
Print
msnbc.com Newsadvertisement
As Congress and the incoming Obama administration work out the details of a massive economic stimulus plan, some readers are asking: Where is all this money going to come from? How long can we keep up with all this borrowing? And why should my tax dollars be spent to clean up the mess made by other people’s mistakes?
Just how long can the U.S. government sustain all this borrowing and spending? First of all, basic revenues and expenditures are out of balance, generating the large annual federal deficit. Now, we have one or more bailout programs, plus a stimulus package or two; and on top of all that, all the governors want a $1 trillion bailout. How long can this go on?
— Tom Kwiat, Address withheld
The only honest answer: No one knows. For the past few decades, a number of economists, analysts and a few members of Congress have been pressing to balance the federal budget; some have called it a national security issue. During that period, the U.S. economy enjoyed one of its longest economic expansions in history — interrupted by two relatively mild recessions. The takeaway for some: Rising national debt isn’t a problem as long as the economy keeps growing at roughly the same pace.
Proponents of this idea argue that the overall level of debt is less important than its relationship to the size of the U.S. economy. If you’re carrying a $5,000 credit card balance with an annual income of $30,000, your debt load is going to ease considerably if you get a new job that pays $60,000. In fact, you could then double your debt and carry the same load on a percentage basis.
Today, the U.S. national debt is about two-thirds of its gross domestic product. We’ve seen much higher: During World War II, the debt hit 120 percent of GDP.
But when the war was over, defense spending plunged and the economy surged, bringing the ratio back down to 60 percent by the early 1950s. That’s about where it was in the late 1980s and early 1990s before concerted efforts by Congress and the White House balanced the budget and cut that ratio below 60 percent. In the past eight years, heavy tax cuts and spending on the war and prescription drug benefits pushed the percentage back to the mid-60s.
That ration is almost certainly headed higher. On top of the ongoing, multibillion-dollar shortfall between taxes and spending for government services, the congressionally approved bank bailout program will add at least $700 billion to the debt. Now Congress and the White House are considering a plan that would add another $675 billion to $775 billion in relatively short order. That would push the overall national debt closer to 85 percent of GDP.
The gamble is that the economy will begin growing again and the government will recoup some of the borrowed money by selling off assets it is buying in the bank bailout program, bringing the debt-to-GDP level back down to (roughly) currently levels.
Even if the bet pays off, there’s a real risk of nasty side effects. For starters, there’s only a certain amount of hard money (savings and investment) around the world for Uncle Sam to borrow. As the U.S. soaks up this cash, there’s less money for businesses to borrow and grow or for homeowners to buy houses. That forces interest rates higher — reversing the stimulus effect the Federal Reserve is trying to engineer with lower rates.
Churning out more debt also increases the amount of dollar-based investments flowing through the global financial system. It’s not exactly the same as printing dollars, but the effect is similar. As the global system is flooded with dollars — and investors start wondering how Uncle Sam is going to pay all this back — the value of the dollar falls.
If it falls a little, that’s not a bad thing — it helps U.S. exporters sell goods overseas. But if the value of the dollar falls too far, so does its purchasing power — even if demand for goods and services remains sluggish during a recession. That’s where inflation comes in. And if you have inflation in a recession, you get stagflation, the disease that left the U.S. economy and stock market in ruins throughout most of the 1970s.
Even if policymakers manage to navigate successfully through the current recession and the trillions in new debt bring the desired economic recovery, this is not a great time to raise the level of debt relative to GDP.
That’s because another multitrillion-dollar bill is coming due — no matter how well the economy recovers. As baby boomers retire and begin making claims on the Social Security and Medicare systems, the government will be forced to borrow heavily to meet those obligations. Unlike the surge that sent debt levels above GDP during World War II, that level of borrowing for decades of Social Security and Medicare payments just isn’t sustainable.
As the problem comes into clearer focus over the coming years, it could get more difficult to convince the rest of the world to lend their money to the U.S. Treasury.
Why should those of us who purchased cars and homes based on our budget have to help out the builders, lenders and people who made commitments they obviously could not afford?
— Don W., Hesperia, Calif.
Because if we don’t, we won’t have an economy to produce more homes and cars for our kids.
No matter who you think is to blame, no matter what you think about the importance of letting businesses and people fail, we’re past the point where that debate matters much. There will plenty of time for that later — after the economy is stabilized. At the moment, there are few signs that’s happening.
The hope is that the government’s massive intervention can break a downward spiral that shows no signs of letting up in the short term. Falling house and stock prices have destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth, which has forced companies and consumers to cut back. Those job losses have further cut into spending and home buying, which is bringing more layoffs.
So far, trillions of dollars have been dropped on the economy by the Federal Reserve. The Treasury has pumped $350 billion in taxpayer funds into the banking system. And Congress and the incoming Obama administration are prepping a massive spending package to fill in the gap created by the shutdown of consumer spending.
In the midst of all this, we’re getting a bonus: Crashing oil prices have slashed prices at the gas pump. That’s freed up an estimated $250 billion in consumer spending power. Every hundred billion helps.
This flood of money will take time to work its way through the system; some of these programs will work more quickly than others. The Fed’s effort to push mortgage rates lower is barely under way, and rates already have fallen sharply. On the other hand, there’s evidence that banks are hanging on to much of the money they have received.
It all goes well, these measures should begin to have the desired impact by the middle of next year. A lot, though, can go wrong.
On top of the list is a new surge in foreclosures that is just now getting under way and expected to continue through next year unless something can be done to prevent it. As long as lenders keep dumping houses on the market at distressed prices, more home equity will be destroyed for all homeowners, spending will continue to shrink, jobs will be lost and the economy will remain in its downward spiral.
11 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- John Schoen's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
 | The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2 | sleser001 | Sun Jan 4 | 1 |
 | U.S. Debt Set to Soar in This Year - washingtonpost.com | The Washington Post | Mon Jan 5 | 1 |
| U.S. Debt Expected To Soar This Year | The Washington Post | Sun Jan 4 | 0 |
- Public Discussion (63)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
6.1
1.8
1.4
{"commentId":4672194,"authorDomain":"tony-21"}
I'm referring to CHARLES EVANS, President of The Chicago Fed, JAMES BULLARD, President of The St. Louis Fed, and Janet Yellen of The San Francisco Fed, along with CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.
The former wants to "mimic" below-zero interest rates, while Bullard wants an "inflation target" and Yellen says "its worth pulling out all the stops" according to speeches today.
All are displaying absolute panic as the reality of what they have done has finally crossed their conscious barrier and is now staring them in the face.
Yellen's commentary is particularly outrageous:
“Although our economy is resilient and has bounced back quickly from downturns in the past, the financial and economic firestorm we face today poses a serious risk of an extended period of stagnation,” which may intensify financial-market conditions, Yellen, 62, said during the annual meetings of the Allied Social Science Associations and the American Economic Association.
“It’s worth pulling out all the stops to ensure those outcomes don’t occur,” she said."
Why outrageous? Because The Federal Reserve has been both complicit and actively involved in creating the mess we find ourselves in today!
Rather than come out and admit the outright stupidity that they have practiced over the previous ten years, starting most notably with Greenspan's bankrupt economic policies, they instead are desperately searching for some way to beat the laws of mathematics, lest angry crowds figure out the scam, descend on their tony little country clubs and find a new use for a 4-iron!
Every last one of these clowns is fully aware of the fact that interest is a compound function - that is, it is an exponential function.
Let me make this clear: every single person in this country who claims to have a High School Diploma should understand this without prompting.
They clearly do not, or we would have 200 million Americans literally storming every Federal Reserve Bank office and the home of every one of these "masters of the universe" and Washington DC, forcing the lot to admit to their central role in the mess we now find ourselves in and demanding that they stop it right now and instead force ALL of the bad debt out into the open where it will be either paid down or default.
Why?
Because mathematics is never wrong, whether you liked the subject or not in school, and making claims that violate the laws of mathematics is always and everywhere an act of fraud.
So here's your education folks - the education you were supposed to get in High School Algebra Class, if you were actually awake and paying attention instead of smoking pot around the corner and dreaming of that cute girl (or guy) in the next chair over.
And to you the so-called Teachers in our schools, all of you need to be fired. Every last damn one of you. Not one of your so-called "students" who doesn't get this should have passed. NOT ONE. When the history books are written on the destruction of our economy - the first part of which is happening right now - there will be a special notation made for you who failed to teach the basics of mathematics to our citizens - knowledge that, had it been actually taught according to the claims you have made over the years, would have prevented this stupidity from happening.
We're going to do this first the "hard way".
Assume 10% interest (very low on a credit card eh?) for 5 years.
MOST people in this country don't think that's so bad, because they'd only pay 50% (in total) interest on the money.
WRONG.
Here's the math:
In the first year, $100 @ 10% interest is $110.
In the second year, $110 @ 10% interest is $121 (oh oh, here it comes!)
In the third year, $121 @ 10% interest is $133.10 (heh, what's going on?)
In the fourth year, $133.10 @ 10% is $146.41 (why is my butt sore?)
In the fifth year, $146.41 @ 10% is $161.05!
And it gets worse from there. A lot worse.
Now I could sit down and do this for every year out to, oh, 20 years.
But I don't have to. See, I have this thing called a Calculator, and you probably do too. You can do this calculation for ANY interest rate over ANY number of years with just a couple of keystrokes.
Its the "Exponent" key, sometimes labeled as yx
On the HP12c, to perform this I can key in: 1.1 <ENTER> 5 yx and VOILA!
Now let's do it the "simple way" - 10% interest over 10 years. You pay "twice" for that item, right? 10% interest, 10 years, 100%. Right?
WRONG.
You pay 2.5937 times for that item, or nearly sixty percent more than a simple doubling, due to the exponential nature of interest.
Now let's take your 29% interest that the credit card companies want to charge nowadays, and figure out how badly you get screwed by that in ten years.
Ready folks? You will pay NOT roughly three times the original purchase price but rather TWELVE POINT SEVEN SIX TIMES the price.
That $10 pizza at 29% interest over 10 years will cost you ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN DOLLARS AND SIXTY CENTS, WITH ALL BUT $10 OF IT BEING INTEREST!
If you go talk to any real scientist (in any discipline) and start describing a system that is exponential but which must operate in a world (closed system) that has finite limits he will instantaneously freak out.
That is because what you have described is a system that is mathematically impossible to maintain. The exponential growth (even with a very low exponent - that is, a very low interest rate) will always eventually cause the destruction of the system.
ALWAYS.
We are simply arguing over the when the destruction takes place. We can either choose to destroy the excess debt before it reaches the critical point or that destruction will happen in a totally uncontrolled fashion and take down our economy and government.
THIS is the fallacy of The Fed's BS and games, and its the fallacy they are counting on you not to understand.
This is why none of their "money printing" can or will work because all money is in fact debt (go see the previous Ticker) and interest is an exponential function.
It is why it did not work in 2000-2003 and will not work this time. It can't work because the laws of mathematics are facts, are not subject to interpretation, and no amount of political BS, lies and jawboning change them.
Each and every one of you who claims a High School Diploma learned this stuff in school!
Let me make this crystal clear: All exponential functions will, every time, consume the entirety of any fixed-size system (e.g. the planet earth, which is fixed in boundaries and resources) given sufficient time, so long as the rate-of-growth is a number greater than 1.0. This is a mathematical law and nothing can change it.
There is exactly one way to stop this destruction, and that is to reduce the rate-of-growth to less than 1.0. The exponential function then runs "in reverse" and shrinks at an ever-increasing rate, and the damage that must occur is thus stopped (and recognized) at that point in time.
When we are discussing debt the only possible way to reduce the rate-of-growth to below 1.0 is for the total debt in the system to be reduced.
There is exactly - and only - one solution: the unservicable debt that is currently being hidden must be forced into the open and defaulted, since it is being hidden and tampered with for the precise reason that it cannot be paid down - the only other way to get rid of it.
Nothing else will work.
Mathematically, nothing else can work.
Central bankers, policy makers and politicians claiming that they can "help" the situation by taking on more debt are arguing for driving the exponent higher. This makes the problem worse, not better.
America: You had better wake the hell up because the longer we wait to stop this, the worse the economic collapse is going to be.
There is no possible path forward that does not involve the massive loss of jobs and wealth, but the exponential nature of ALL interest and growing debt guarantees that the longer we keep screwing around the worse it will get. We must stop trying to prevent defaults - indeed, we must force inevitable defaults to take place now because that is the only way to interrupt the exponential function.
We are now choosing between amputating FINGERS and ARMS.
(Thanks, Karl)
{"commentId":4672194,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"tony-21"}
- 4 votes
#1 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 2:32 PM EST{"commentId":4672867,"authorDomain":"cgudipaty"}
Very well analysized! - As the commentor said, it is just and simple High School level math/algebra, not Rocket Science, not to be able to follow the logic here about this exponential growth and blowing-up debt process! No more need to be added.
Yes, wake up America! - Otherwise, if not our children, their children (our grand children) will live is a less than Third-world country! - What I mean is, Not all Third world countries have this type of back-breaking National debt to start with!!!
{"commentId":4672867,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"cgudipaty"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4675542,"authorDomain":"newvistaschool"}
Great Post!
PS: How about running for the Senate?
{"commentId":4675542,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"newvistaschool"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4675690,"authorDomain":"bleake"}
Finally someone who gets it! Great points! I get so tired of everyone saying "if we don't bail them out the entire economy will fail" that is akin to saying if we don't all go to jail the criminals will take over the world.
Lesson here - be irresponsible????
Unfortunately the only thing that will happen by trying to hold those responsible for this mess accountable is our butts in jail.
{"commentId":4675690,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"bleake"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4678436,"authorDomain":"luvinlife5280"}
We're going to do this first the "hard way".
Assume 10% interest (very low on a credit card eh?) for 5 years.
MOST people in this country don't think that's so bad, because they'd only pay 50% (in total) interest on the money.
WRONG.
Here's the math:
In the first year, $100 @ 10% interest is $110.
In the second year, $110 @ 10% interest is $121 (oh oh, here it comes!)
In the third year, $121 @ 10% interest is $133.10 (heh, what's going on?)
In the fourth year, $133.10 @ 10% is $146.41 (why is my butt sore?)
In the fifth year, $146.41 @ 10% is $161.05!And it gets worse from there. A lot worse.
Now I could sit down and do this for every year out to, oh, 20 years.
Your explanation is flawed as it omits the decreased principle, no matter how slight, that will be applied to the balance. Taking your example let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the principle reduction will be 1% of the balance (paid at the end of the year). Thus the numbers become:
In the first year, $100 @ 10% interest is $110.
In the second year, $109 ($110-$1) @ 10% interest is $119.90 (oh oh, here it comes!)
In the third year, $118.70 ($119.90 - $1.20) @ 10% interest is $130.57 (heh, what's going on?)
In the fourth year, $129.26 ($130.57 - $1.31) @ 10% is $142.19 (why is my butt sore?)
In the fifth year, $140.77 ($142.19 - $1.42) @ 10% is $154.84!
This also invalidates the use of the yx key. On the HP 12c you approximate the correct numbers using the n/i/PV/PMT/FV keys. I say approximate because the PMT key doesn't permit the use of a percentage, at least not that I'm aware of though I'm not a pro with this calculator, instead of a fixed amount. If you enter:
n=5 (five years)
i = 10 (10% interest rate)
PV = -$100 (must be negative)
PMT = 1 (one dollar which is close to 1% for this example and is the reason I say approximate for small values)
and then hit the FV key you will arrive at: $154.95 which is close to the value of $154.84 calculated above.
While the principle payment on a credit card may be small (as represented by the 1% principle reduction used in my example) it is present and thus changes the total interest paid. Not sufficiently to drastically alter the intent of your message. But since you were so hard on people's lack of basic math skill I thought it would be appropriate to point out your mistake.
IMO the problem with credit cards is the miniscule amount of the minimum payment applied towards the principle. Because it's so small it leads to the situation you outlined. Thus any credit card reform should focus on increasing the amount applied towards the principle. IMO the minimum payment should be sufficient to pay off the entire principle (assuming no addition to it) in say 36 months (or whatever number is appropriate as long as it's not too long). The companies can charge whatever interest they want and provide whatever credit limit is appropriate. As long as the minimum payment is sufficient to pay off the balance in 36 months. Yes that means the minimum payment would be considerably higher. But isn't easy credit what got us into this mess to begin with?
{"commentId":4678436,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"luvinlife5280"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4683329,"authorDomain":"bevos4"}
Dazed. Your calculations are correct, but, that is based only on NOT making any payments. And of course, if you aren't making any payments, the debt is only going to get higher. And THAT my friend IS simple math!
I don't know about you, but I pay 4 & 5 times my minimum payment on all three of my credit cards. Sometimes more. I keep one card for only items over $300.00, then I have a yr to pay it off and there is never an interest charge on it.
{"commentId":4683329,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"bevos4"}
{"commentId":4684349,"authorDomain":"caasp"}
Wrong answers - appling the Jimmy Carter principal - simply raise infaltion to 9%
Then $100 becomes about $155 - so lender makes nothing
{"commentId":4684349,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"caasp"}
{"commentId":4694842,"authorDomain":"sunnybreeze"}
Re: Mike Jones,
Your solution of having the minimum payment raised would indeed work BUT it would not be in the best interest of the CC companies themselves. As Dazed points out, the companies profit off of the ignorance of the CC holders. Many solutions have been suggested regarding our economic situation; my number one pick is 'education'.
{"commentId":4694842,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"sunnybreeze"}
{"commentId":4698119,"authorDomain":"bevos4"}
Dazed & Mike Jones , Why not pay as much as you can afford? that way you pay it down faster. You will have less to spend, each month,but if you didn't have the card, maybe you would have had to go without a refrigerator, or a stove or something equally important, for a few months while you saved the money, if you hadn't had the card.
You are right, you wouldn't have to pay those Int. charges, but you would have been without a way to cook your food or refrigerate it. And at todays prices, that would take a couple of months for most people.
{"commentId":4698119,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"bevos4"}
{"commentId":4711162,"authorDomain":"REALITYCHCK"}
Has anyone wondered why there aren't any Congressional investigations of who's responsible for the Financial Meltdown that has cost Americams up to $5 Trillion? Here's why:
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
2001 April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002 May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003 February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005 April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
2008 February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
Political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:
Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since both the White House and Congress are controlled by Democrats, and they get to decide what things get investigated, don't expect the truth to come out.
{"commentId":4711162,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"REALITYCHCK"}
{"commentId":4957658,"authorDomain":"ebookout"}
I think most people understand it was not Bush who started this mess. We should all know Congress runs the country. They pulled the strings,and if you look closely at who had funds in each company that has been bailed out you will find your answer. Almost all where including Obama.
Now ask yourself a question . How can Congress who is made up of people who have never run a business find a way to fix this mess? Answer They can't.
How can they ask people for advice who are activity involved in this mess to find a way out of it. How can you get a so call expert who has been teaching economic in school who also has no business back ground but is only book smart find an answer to this problem.? Answer ,you can't ,
They are going trial and error using our funds because they can not be man enought to say they are over their heads and they scewed up. In the mean time they are protecting themslves and their freinds at our expense.
I lessoned to a interview with a person who is tied to wall street , an he made a statement that was well taken. He said that we are lucky that in this country we have a lot of people who still believe in this country and it's government. If not we would all ready be in a rebellion. I believe this is true , But as being one of these persons my patience is running thin.
{"commentId":4957658,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"ebookout"}
{"commentId":4672322,"authorDomain":"plhagen"}
This article avoids the question of "Where will the money come from?"
The answer is the Feds will try to raise more cash by selling more US treasury bonds/bonds to the Chinese, Japanese, and OPEC countries. We trade our Treasuries for their cash.
When the foreign governments refuse to buy more of our US Treasury Junk Bonds AND at the same time they try to cash-in their Trillions of U$A Bonds, then the good old USA is doomed to becoming a bankrupt third world nation with rampant deflation.
{"commentId":4672322,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"plhagen"}
- 1 vote
#2 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 2:41 PM EST{"commentId":4672349,"authorDomain":"toddsimon"}
Since the people in Washington know that their Ponzi Scheme(Social Security) is about to be swamp with the Baby boomer's, Are they going to admit it like Madoff?
{"commentId":4672349,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"toddsimon"}
- 1 vote
#3 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 2:42 PM EST{"commentId":4672560,"authorDomain":"cymarsden"}
They mention how bad it was in the '70s, well I started a service business from scratch in 1970 and did exceptionally well, right through that decade-----from that I became convinced that starting a service business in "bad times" is the best time to start for a number of reasons--if it is of interest to anyone.
{"commentId":4672560,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"cymarsden"}
- 1 vote
#4 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 2:58 PM EST{"commentId":4672623,"authorDomain":"feb1931-1"}
ALL the wise guys in financial things KONW the problems with today's economy, BUT finding the will to control this kind of deficit spending, that's a horse of a DIFFERENT color. The next time the economy goes through the ROOF, it may mean, it's really GOOD BY AMERICA in the whole world, let alone here, on he home front. And gas will not stay $1.35 a gallon forever either, which even a blind man can see and bet on.
{"commentId":4672623,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"feb1931-1"}
#5 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 3:03 PM EST{"commentId":4672637,"authorDomain":"ketchgaff"}
The article touched on the real problem when Mr. Schoen mentioned the social security dilemma. In the 80's and 90's the economy grew because of the enormous swell of baby boomers whose increased productivity supported the borrowing by gov't, business and consumers.
The tide is about to change. The huge boomer generation is beginning to be less productive as they enter retirement. Unless we figure out a way to grow population and hence the economy (ie immigration), we are headed for collapse.
{"commentId":4672637,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"ketchgaff"}
#6 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 3:04 PM EST{"commentId":4673258,"authorDomain":"chasft"}
All Mr. Schoen talks about is money, money, money & more money.
How about food, clothing, shelter, transportation, energy & health care.
I learned in high school economics that money is just a medium of exchange & store of value.
What are those who get their hands on all this money you talk about going to exchange it for? What are those who are storing this money for the future going to exchange it for in the future.
Who's going to produce all this stuff? That's the question before the house.
{"commentId":4673258,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"chasft"}
#7 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 3:44 PM EST{"commentId":4673291,"authorDomain":"Natureguy"}
"As long as lenders keep dumping houses on the market at distressed prices, more home equity will be destroyed for all homeowners."
So what? All that "equity" was illusory anyway -- based on lax lending and artificially low interest rates. Only if lenders keep selling at increasingly affordable prices will we RENTERS be able finally to buy on responsible terms. Sheesh.
{"commentId":4673291,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"Natureguy"}
#8 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 3:46 PM EST{"commentId":4673448,"authorDomain":"diurnalemissions"}
1) What is left out of the analysis is WAR. The great expunger of domestic debts and entitlement spending. You can give away more than what your own GDP can output if you just take it from other people.
2) And No matter who you think is to blame, no matter what you think about the importance of letting businesses and people fail, we’re past the point where that debate matters much.
That works great if you look at us all as being in one big basket, indistinguishable from each other. But we are individuals. I am working hard, and improving myself for MY benefit and my family. So to simply mash all of our balance sheets together and wipe off other people's over consumption/under laboring by helping yourself to MY equity (that is my under consumption relative to my labor expended) to make everything balance in TOTAL makes me a SLAVE to the lazy and ignorant and indigent and stupid people of the world.
So "it doesn't much matter" if you are a collectivist dolt where individual happiness and enjoying the fruits of your own labor is some sort of bygone, quaint notion. This is ultimately about the power of the State to sell handouts for Power. And all you need to do is NOT HONOR the idea that a persons labor is their own, and not honor a person's sense of right and wrong that translates into their behaviors, which in turn leads them to EQUITY to pay their way in the world. Instead it is about the Government who MAKES jobs and puts all of us silly little serfs to work for the "common good". Your puny little bit of labor is actually the State's to do with what it sees fit, and if you get some worn out, threadbare "gubmint cheese" goods and services in return, count your blessings.
And we fought a hot war agin' dem Nahzis and fought a cold war against the Reds why? How is an economy that is fully liened upon by the government NOT Totalitarian? It's the frickin' operating definition of Totalitarian.
"Oh well, aren't they all just so handsome? And they REALLY, REALLY do look out for us don't they? I get such a warm, cozy feeling when I do my civic duty and turn out every four years and fill in that dot. The NEXT batch of people will put things to rights."
The Republicans and Democrats have sold us down the river, they have taken your huge portion of your labor and nearly fully liened upon your future labor. So we CAN keep borrowing and borrowing, we will just be vassal laborers to foreign investors and a domestic "bonded class" through the conduit of our own government as the slave masters with the whips.
But I'm sure this will all work out after the next Trillion is borrowed and spent.
{"commentId":4673448,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"diurnalemissions"}
#9 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 3:56 PM EST{"commentId":4676592,"authorDomain":"ketchgaff"}
That's it. Everybody for himself. Let's hear it for anarchy!!!
{"commentId":4676592,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"ketchgaff"}
{"commentId":4673668,"authorDomain":"langum12"}
All but the most basic goverenment programs at every level need to be flat out eliminated, including social security. Anyone under age X should be exempt from paying in since they will never see a dime of it. Everyone above X age will need to settle for whatever they get.
{"commentId":4673668,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"langum12"}
#10 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 4:10 PM EST{"commentId":4674244,"authorDomain":"Natureguy"}
I'm betting you're under age X.
{"commentId":4674244,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"Natureguy"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4683434,"authorDomain":"cjohnson1950"}
And we will have all the senior citizens that cannot survive without social security come stay at your house so that you can take care of them.
{"commentId":4683434,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"cjohnson1950"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4683458,"authorDomain":"cjohnson1950"}
And we will have all the senior citizens that cannot survive without social security come stay at your house so that you can take care of them.
{"commentId":4683458,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"cjohnson1950"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4683615,"authorDomain":"bevos4"}
Brian, I sure feel sorry for your Mom And Dad!
I paid into SS for a lot of yrs., so why shouldn't I draw on it? Did your Mother abandon you or something? Is that where you get all of your hate for the elderly.?
{"commentId":4683615,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"bevos4"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4674295,"authorDomain":"mojomoon"}
"The takeaway for some: Rising national debt isn’t a problem as long as the economy keeps growing at roughly the same pace."
Falling off a cliff isn't a problem as long as the ground never hits you
{"commentId":4674295,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"mojomoon"}
- 1 vote
#11 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 4:48 PM EST{"commentId":4698259,"authorDomain":"bevos4"}
Mojomoon I like that one.
{"commentId":4698259,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"bevos4"}
{"commentId":4674661,"authorDomain":"chrisvanbekkum"}
the basic problem in my estimation began when we went away from a gold stadard that gave actual VALUE to paper money and limited the governments ability to produce paper without backing.. Now , if i put $1000 in a new bank account , the bank now (legally)will lend between $750 and $900 of my money to someone else at 5 or so % rates. (i get 1.5%) this entire ponzi scheme system can not continue . It got us here and heaven help us get out of it. Collectively we have to start doing what my dad used to do : only buy "stuff" when you have the money to pay for it.
{"commentId":4674661,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"chrisvanbekkum"}
- 1 vote
#12 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 5:16 PM EST{"commentId":4675793,"authorDomain":"bleake"}
If the government wants my money (like I have a say in our great socialist regime here in the good ole US of A) they should take the money and those who were responsible and paid their bills get tax rebates while the irresponsible either go to jail (and by jail i mean rent space in the Siberian Gulag) or pay double in taxes. And we, the responsible, get to charge credit card interest rates. No need for a 401 k in that case and the lazy pay.
Ahh the beauty of pipe dreams...
{"commentId":4675793,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"bleake"}
#13 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 6:40 PM EST{"commentId":4675967,"authorDomain":"terry-riley"}
I remember in business school referring to the old industries as smoke stack industries. They were debt laden and many failed because of their debt load. The numbers, as I understand them for the US are GDP of $14.3T, current public debt of $10.6T plus the bailout of $1.5T bringing the debt load to 85% of income. Now factor in the unfunded social obligations for the military and baby boomers and public debt is way above income levels.
The use or misuse of derivatives as cheap and easy finance leads to an overstatement of what the GDP really is. Once the bubble settles down and the growth numbers revert to some mean growth level, we have a fairly serious problem ahead.
Now let's factor in the most likely interest rate scenario once the economy gets some traction and we might very well see double digit inflation on a global level. On the one hand it has a tendency to reduce the comparative size of the debt and on the other it provides some real risks in terms of who is holding our debt.
We all need to take a blood transfusion and get some of the old scottish blood into our veins. Only buying what we can afford! Of course, that has its downsides on the economy as well. OK, back to spend, spend, spend.
{"commentId":4675967,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"terry-riley"}
#14 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 6:52 PM EST{"commentId":4676511,"authorDomain":"bicemic1"}
Don't worry GM and Chrysler will not survive. The fed can give you the money, but the people will not buy. When you spend more than you make you have a problem. Fix it, first.
{"commentId":4676511,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"bicemic1"}
- 2 votes
#15 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 7:31 PM EST{"commentId":4682837,"authorDomain":"tur"}
My son-in-law is the only guy in family using American-built car. Well, not anymore. His Dodge Neon is hopelessly broken - timing belt, meaning engine is dead. With less than 20 000 miles on the odometer!
Lenin's famous slogan "Unions are the school of Communism"is provedrelevant even for America!
{"commentId":4682837,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"tur"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":4676573,"authorDomain":"bicemic1"}
That would be sweet. The people who have debt should pay the most. That is what the credit card companies are doing. Why does the Fed give money to the banks. Why can't they lend out the money themselves?
{"commentId":4676573,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"bicemic1"}
#16 - Mon Jan 5, 2009 7:35 PM EST{"commentId":4681035,"authorDomain":"tjhallusaf"}
{"commentId":4681354,"authorDomain":"clark32"}
Lets be brutally honest, this is the kind of managing that I have witnessed over the years, live in a shack and drive a big luxury car .
{"commentId":4681354,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"clark32"}
- 2 votes
#18 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 8:13 AM EST{"commentId":4693472,"authorDomain":"westerngents"}
You forgot drive the luxury car to pick-up the welfare check..
{"commentId":4693472,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"westerngents"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4681454,"authorDomain":"Pat-293163"}
I've been watching Republicans complain about Obama's spending plan. Where were the complaints when BUSH spent BILLIONS? Or is it because Obama's billions will go to helping the public, not banks and businesses????
{"commentId":4681454,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"Pat-293163"}
#19 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 8:30 AM EST{"commentId":4682847,"authorDomain":"holmeed"}
It is end game for the US now. We can not pay the interest on our national debt and we are raiding the money market accounts for the cash right now and it's only going to last two more years.
We have a perfect storm hitting the financial markets.
The economy is falling apart and more and more people are losing their jobs.
As people retire and lose their jobs they are cashing in on their 401k plans to pay the bills.
As the stock market sells off due to people selling their 401k plans the leveraged debt the Wall Street banks created are coming unglued.
As the Wall street banks deleverage from 30 to 1 even 50 to 1 to 10 to 1 this means 2/3 at least of the world's wealth is just simply going to disappear.
As the government bails out the super rich Wall Street bankers they are needing to borrow trillions of dollars no one has.
This whole economic meltdown is going to make the Great Depression look like the Great Expansion.
Sell everything and put it into your local banks so at least they can lend the company you work for money to pay your salary for a while longer.
Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
Human need, not corporate greed
Socialism is based on the idea that we should use the vast resources of society to meet people’s needs.
It seems so obvious--if people are hungry, they should be fed; if people are homeless, we should build homes for them; if people are sick, the best medical care should be available to them. A socialist society would take the immense wealth of the rich and use it to meet the basic needs of all society. The money wasted on weapons could be used to end poverty, homelessness, and all other forms of scarcity.
There’s no blueprint for what a socialist society will look like. That will be determined by the generations to come who are living in one. But it seems obvious that such a society would guarantee every person enough to eat and a sturdy roof over their heads. The education system would be made free--and reorganized so that every child’s ability is encouraged. Health care would be made free and accessible to all, as would all utilities like gas and electricity. Public transportation would also be made free--and more practical and efficient. All of these basic needs would become top priorities.
A socialist society would not only take away the existing wealth of the ruling class, but also its economic control over the world. The means of production--the factories, offices, mines, and so on--would be owned by all of society. Under the current system, important economic decisions are left to the chaos of the free market and to the blind competition of capitalists scrambling for profits. Under socialism, the majority of people would plan democratically what to do and how do it.
{"commentId":4682847,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"holmeed"}
#20 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 10:27 AM EST{"commentId":4695487,"authorDomain":"tur"}
You forgot to tell the whole truth about "socialist society" - millions of grave stones, almost life-long lines in stores for everything from bread to toothpaste and endless misery... The rest of your story looks really nice - obviously, you never knew the real "beauty" of socialism. Good for you, so far... You see, greed is present in socialism too, shares are simply too small.
{"commentId":4695487,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"tur"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":4683872,"authorDomain":"bevos4"}
Time to go back to the 60s & 70s. Only problem is, most people don't have the guts to do that. Cut prices to what people can afford, get rid of Unions, they are who raised the prices to start with, cut wages, from bottom to the top on all large Co.s. Vote anyone in Congress and the House out after two terms. That is one of the biggest causes of the problems we are having.
{"commentId":4683872,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"bevos4"}
- 1 vote
#21 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 11:35 AM EST{"commentId":4684570,"authorDomain":"Pat-293163"}
The Iraq war sapped all of our funds and created a major deficit! Those troops should have stayed in Afganistan where we had a right to be. It would have been over by now, but with 2 oil men running the country they went after the oil disguised as WMD! Now Obama is stuck with the clean up. I have high hopes that he can do it. Let's give him the chance!
{"commentId":4684570,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"Pat-293163"}
#22 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 12:13 PM EST{"commentId":4685408,"authorDomain":"azinfandgal"}
Only speculation about what would have happened in Afghanistan . . . USSR and Great Britain were there for many years and couldn't get the job done . . . what makes you think we could? Also - where is the oil? Not here as far as I can see. I'm willing to give Obama a chance but so far I'm not too impressed.
{"commentId":4685408,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"azinfandgal"}
{"commentId":4687243,"authorDomain":"anyteangel1"}
If the lawmakers and our new president really wanted to help the economy and save money they could give the u.s. citizens 1 million dollars with the stipulation the first thing that had to do was buy a home. They would come out cheaper than any bailout and cheaper then any stimulous. Add it up!
{"commentId":4687243,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"anyteangel1"}
#23 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 2:19 PM EST{"commentId":4698540,"authorDomain":"thattune1"}
Hey don't forget about the Illegal aliens. They have the same rights as we do! Just ask them or any Liberalcrite you see.
{"commentId":4698540,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"thattune1"}
{"commentId":4688895,"authorDomain":"forest5"}
just get in practice to bend over and grab your ankles
the big's get bailed out and get their sweet bonuses
our great great great grand children will be doing the same
unless we have a revolution
{"commentId":4688895,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"forest5"}
#24 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 3:42 PM EST{"commentId":4692386,"authorDomain":"lyra"}
No matter who you think is to blame, no matter what you think about the importance of letting businesses and people fail, we’re past the point where that debate matters much
Bullsh!t, it matters VERY, VERY MUCH.
By not allowing the "creative destruction" phase of capitalism (thousands of businesses failing, millions of foreclosures) the government is depriving smart people the opportunity to take the reins of capitalism from foolish people. That's it in a nutshell.
There will be he11 to pay for this.
{"commentId":4692386,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"lyra"}
#25 - Tue Jan 6, 2009 7:13 PM EST{"commentId":4697593,"authorDomain":"letsplay-66801"}
Heres a idea for the bailout mess. Give each U.S. household legal citizen a 20,000. check for the stimulus instead of giving it to the company's and Banks that have created a meldown to the U.S. economy. Each legal (Validated household is U.S Citizens) would ahve the right to pay off their debts or, save some of the money, or even purchase houses or new vehicles. By giving this money to the legal citizens this provides a economic strengthing plan as well as let the citizens make choises on how to help the economy. Americans are tired of the government handing over billions of dollars to CEO's and Banks to do what ever they wish with the money. As of todate the bailout funds that have been dispersed cannot be accounted for. Go figure. When the government handed the keys to the hen house (money) they did not impose specific guidelines (auditable) for how the monies were used and that is why they continue to ask fore more money. A prime example is when the nations largest bank was given money, the next week the executives took a lavish trip to an island and had a party on our money without having to provide any justification for their actions. This is the type of ridiculous actions we cannot tolerate any longer from our elected government officials.
{"commentId":4697593,"threadId":"461248","contentId":"2276055","authorDomain":"letsplay-66801"}
#26 - Wed Jan 7, 2009 8:38 AM EST{"canLink":false,"threadId":"461248","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
