This is why should not be 'bailed out'

[lil_dcb7]

A lot of home owners are misunderstanding what this whole "bail out" situation is all about. From what I noticed, they just want their rates lowered. I suppose, not knowing the whole bit..

Countrywide should be in a lot of deep shit if they arent already. They give mortgages to people who cant afford them, and to the people that do, if they need help, they're not going to help out.

My dad was in the hospital last year for a solid four months due to respriatory problems. He was out for another two months for recouperation. During the last two he was out of work he collected disability insurance. Which is no where near the amount he got paid.

Because of this my parents fell behind on their mortgage. We sent this "case" to countrywide, and they said that we did not qualify for their "home owner retention program"

Not ONLY was my dad out of work for so long, because of the housing "crisis" we are upside down on our house. A house that was once worth 350K is now worth 80 thousand. Thanks to short sales and forclosures.

Countrywide still didnt budge.

It wasnt untill my parents hired an attorney did they decide to help.

[Ghetto_CB7]

What facts

Just wondering what facts you are considering wrong?

Let me know.

[lil_dcb7]

this is what i think is the bottom line, i heard it on tv and it made PLENTY of sense.

You pay people more, they spend more. The more they spend, the more taxes they pay, the more taxes they pay, the better off the economy is.

[npor]

I'm speechless at the video.

Who the FUCK gives a bus driver and a construction worker the ability to buy an $800,000 house?

[owequitit]

The bailout is a strikingly stupid yet politically necessary tactic to get the idiots of out economy to spend money.

Weather you want to admit it or not it is stupid people like them that are necessary to start the economy again. Why?

It is because the sane smart individuals are fearing a total collapse and saving money. The people willing to go out and save the economy are the very idiots that were given these outrageous loans and credit cards in the first place causing the issue.

1) NOBODY is buying, not even the "stupid" people. Currently, many of the people suffering weren't "stupid." They are now in survival mode because all of the stupid people created such a mess, that we are all going down the toilet together.

People wouldn't actually have to spend an obscene amount to restimulate the economy. 300-1000 per person would do it. Well, that would at least provide a "stimulous" package 3-10X what the goverment just tried to do, which, oh by the way, doesn't do much stimulating.

So if the government lets them off the hook guess what they then have money to do again, that's right buy things they do not need with money that should be spent elsewhere. This time around however they should not be given credit cards or loans!

So you have never purchased anything you didn't need? It isn't about buying stuff you don't need. It is about HOW they bought stuff that they didn't need. The credit card debt of the average American was a problem long before the housing was. They have been mentioning that for in excess of a decade now. Also, mortgaging your house so that you can buy a truck IS stupid, but it is the person's right to do what they want with the equity in THEIR property. Stupid or not.

It reallllllly sucks that they are the ones to be forgiven considering that they made the mistakes, but that is the way it is going to be.

The thing that pissed me off just as much if not more so were the "fiscal conservatives" that had been giving the banks free rule quoting small government is good and let the big business prosper without regulation from the government. Then when shit went down hill they begged the GOVERNMENT for a bailout. Yes that thing they wanted to keep small so it would stop regulating them. AHHHH! Yet we are going to give the banks, car manufacturer, retail stores, and anyone else who made poor decisions money with no grantee that they will change.

What do you propose in difference to the "fiscal conservatives?" First, "fiscal conservatives stand for 2 things for very specific reasons. They believe in not spending money you don't have. Second, they believe in trying to allow a free market to operate as much as possible. They believe this because despite it's ups and downs, on average, the free market economies of the world have created much greater prosperity and wealth than the command economies, ESPECIALLY for the average person. You show me a command economy that has performed better than ours. You can't, because there isn't one. You either have a free market economy, or a command economy, or some varying degree of the two. The more you move toward command economy, the more you lose economic prosperity. I love how free market economies are villified by the "average joe" even though the "average joe" is about 100x better off than they would be under a command economy.

We are already a hybrid economy. We err on the side of consumer freedom, but there are many checks and controls in place designed to prevent this thing from happening. The problem? The "controls" and "checks" failed. One of the BIGGEST issues was when Clinton signed a bill allowing the restriction for investment banking to be lifted. Prior to this point, private banks could not also do investment banking because it was deemed to make their portfolio too risky. This was a reaction to the Great Depression, where it was decided that private banking and investment banking would be seperate, so that if the investment banks failed (as a side effect of their greater risk) the private banking would still be financially strong and be able to continue to do business. Once the ban was lifted, some of the large banks jumped right into investment banking. Other banks had to follow suit in order to maintain a competitive product, and alas, we have the same disaster we have now, and similar to the same disaster that caused the Depression.

Couple with what in MY OPINION were average investment bankers that weren't as qualified as they should have been, and you had greater risk than was necessary.

Still, the primary cause was Americans overextending themselves with credit, and relying on housing value to offset the increased debt. Once the bubble burst, it was all over. You can spot a pricing bubble by the fact that the values BEHIND the bubble aren't supported by what is actually there. SO CAL is the best example of this, as well as Nevada and Arizona. There was so much demand for housing, that the prices were rising faster than what was reasonable. Paying $850K for a run down shack in SO Cal just didn't make sense. Paying $460K for an average 3 bedroom 2 bath house in AZ that 10 years ago was barely 100K didn't make sense. Eventually, it got to the point where people were no longer able to sustain the prices and they collapsed. It is very similar to the dotcom bubble that occurred 10 years ago. There was nothing to back up the stock prices, and eventually, the market corrected itself, and a lot of people lost everything.

The fact is that each generation learns only what it needs to. In the 1920's reckless spending lead to the Depression. That generation of people never again spent recklessly. Fast foward 80 years, and most of those people are dead and gone. They never spent recklessly, and as such the economy did fairly well stability wise. The new and upcoming spenders just assume that "oh, this is easy, and our money is practically guaranteed." They start to spend recklessly. And here we are again, with history repeating itself with a new generation of people. Why? Because they didn't learn the same lessons as the Depression generation, which is a lesson they are learning right now. Their kids will probably not be reckless. Their kids probably moreso, and their kids will be about where we are, so who knows. History repeats itself because people are too short sighted to REMEMBER the lessons that generations before them learned.

Again I hate it, but there is no sense getting my panties in a bundle.

The American dream has gone from paid off house with white picket fence, two kids, beautiful spouse (husband / wife ) 9-5 job that pays the bills and leaves enough in the bank to take vacations and leave the kids something when your gone.

To pray your check pays the mortgage (unless your atheist), then call your ex spouse to find out who is picking up the kidd from counseling, going to work only to hear that they are making cuts and people who you have worked with the last 5 years are getting the axe.

The "American Dream" is a little more complex than that. That is the American Dream that began to go away in the 1950's. The "American Dream" is not what you described. The "American Dream" is having the freedom and ability to drag yourself out of the dirt and make something for yourself. The American Dream is about having a system that allows you to achieve YOUR dreams, and not to have to be a slave to society or a particular group of people just because that group thinks you should. The American Dream is about being able to vote with your feet. If you think something is wrong, change it. If you think something can be done better, do it. The interpretation of the "American Dream" being just enough to get by IMO is a flawed one. I don't disagree because I think those people had a better grasp on what was actually NEEDED in life versus WANTED, and I think they were more connected with reality. Blame it on MTV perhaps. I don't know.

However, I can say that from MY perspective, my idea of retirement is a whole lot different than what you described.

WTF happened people? That wasn't that long ago.

Greed and easy money.

[owequitit]

this is what i think is the bottom line, i heard it on tv and it made PLENTY of sense.

You pay people more, they spend more. The more they spend, the more taxes they pay, the more taxes they pay, the better off the economy is.

Not true.

Well, the last part anyway. The taxes are good for the government, but when they spend MORE than they get, no matter what, it doesn't work long term. Right now, our debt is more of a drag on our system than all expenses except Social Security. The concept described is partly correct because you can actually INCREASE income by lower taxes (if people spend enough money), but it isn't necessarily true.

Also, people have to be WORTH more money or paying them more does nothing more than create an inflationary response. Why do you suppose the cost of living is so high where you are? In most cases, a mandated income increase is offset by the fact that costs rise in proportion to the income increase, which effectively cancels out buying power.

[Ghetto_CB7]

???

After reading your entire post and comparing it to my entire post. I found that you really didn't show that anything I said was false. You expanded on a few things but it did not contradict what I said.

My first comment about "stupid" people spending money was referring to after they are given a way out by the government. I thought that was clear in my initial post.

And I never said I didn't send my money on things I didn't need, but I have not been spending money that needs to go into rent, car, food or other essentials. You took my statement and attempted to make it sound foolish.

The "fiscal conservative" was in quotes for a reason, to show sarcasm. You diligently explained what a fiscal conservative is supposed to be and no one is disagreeing with you. I did enjoy the bit about Clinton though that is a good thing to remember. I was still to young to really care much about politics while he was commanding and would like to read more about his presidency.

As for the American dream, I would venture to say that most people on this thread agree with both of our descriptions, mine being the actual outcomes and yours being the process. I agree that there is more to the American dream then what I wrote, but there is more to it then what you wrote too.

I really enjoy hearing your responses to mine and other peoples posts, especially about anything political. Not just because you have very keen insight but because it seems no matter what people post you have a disagreement with it.

This is not bad, and I often agree with the majority of what you write, but sometimes it just seems like you post things to ether piss people off or to overly correct what they wrote.

I completely am for the addition of good sourced information like that you provide, but I see no reason to say that my loose definition of something like the American dream was wrong, and to make statements like "a lot of your facts are wrong so please correct them before commenting."

If I am wrong then please do not post your un-backed claims against mine.

EG. I said something like only the stupid people are spending money

You said no one is spending money.

I could easily say that the statement that no one is spending money is completely false and that some people are and state the definition of spending and of money but that is not necessary. I know that you meant very few people are spending excess money right now and I agree.

Do you see what I am getting at. I do not want this to get ugly or for this thread to get closed, but I just thought I would let you know how you can come across sometimes.

No hard feeling,



Regards.

[bcjammerx]

ehh, i wouldnt say "hot" maybe cute...

still doable

[Law Grandeur]

ehh, i wouldnt say "hot" maybe cute...

i'd piitb


i hate spanish folk like them -_-. they give us bad names

[phantomcow2]

It sucks that some people were irresponsible and took out mortages that they could not afford. It also sucks that mortage brokers issued said loans...

It's tempting to pull the "every man for himself" card and cite individual responsibility, accountability for ones actions, and that these people should suffer and not at your expense. Except that this is where you would be wrong, their suffering is at your expense.

Banks and financial institutions play a critical role in the economy. Banks allow investment to occur. People take out loans to finance projects. A business owner borrows funds from a commercial bank to finance construction of a new factory, which creates demand for conrete, machinery, and countless other things. This money creates what's called a mulitiplier effect, meaning that the dollar you pay me becomes income for somebody else, who uses it to pay somebody else. This multiplier effect is key to success on the macroeconomic level.

The private sector is not investing, therefore new employment is not being created. In fact, the private sector is undergoing market correction -- jobs are being lost! The truth of it is that the government is all that there is left to stimulate demand unless we want to experience the painful self-correcting mechanism of the free market. Government needs to protect it's people. The best thing it can do is ensure the banks have enough funds to justify lending out money again -- issuing credit. This means giving money to the banks directly (the bailout) and to needy consumers directly.

As far as the debt goes: we often hear giant figures on the news about how many trillions of dollars it is. What we don't hear is that about half of this debt is money owed is just money owed from one branch of the government to another. Most of the remaining is in the form of low-yield treasury bonds, which foreigners are all too willing to buy because despite the gloom and doom attitude some people have, they see US assets as a safe buy.

Some of the treasury bonds/bonds that the fed issues to finance our debt is purchased by American citizens! So when we gradually repay our debt, a lot of money is just going back into the hands of the citizens earning interest on their T-bonds!
Lastly, a look at our nation's public debt in terms of % of GDP. Currently our national debt is about 60% of GDP. Check out the following chart to see how we measure up against other countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt

[Ghetto_CB7]

again

I in no way disagreed with anything you posted. I did not say that they were not hurting everyone, and I stated in the very first line of my post that the bailout was necessary.

I said that it was stupid and unfortunate, but I also stated that it was necessary.

If you don't think it is stupid and unfortunate then I guess we can have a discussion about that, but otherwise I think you agreed with what I said.

[Fake Thug]

If GM ,Chrysler , major banks, octomoms/welfare mothers, Gaza strip, the states and everyone's babies/kids can all get bailed out then so should the consumer. You cannot argue against this with such a blantant double standard in place.

[Fake Thug]

I

The private sector is not investing, therefore new employment is not being created. In fact, the private sector is undergoing market correction -- jobs are being lost! The truth of it is that the government is all that there is left to stimulate demand unless we want to experience the painful self-correcting mechanism of the free market. Government needs to protect it's people. The best thing it can do is ensure the banks have enough funds to justify lending out money again -- issuing credit. This means giving money to the banks directly (the bailout) and to needy consumers directly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt

I dont believe that government can stimulate to the extent that people want to believe. I looked and looked and I cannot find a decent example of massive government spending 'signifigantly' uplifting economies unless it involves war or military type/related expenditures spending. This seems to be the case globally. I can think of two countries in the past that rose this way too.