Bailout?

16 years ago

Not to make this more political than it already is, but I think we probably would have crashed to the bottom faster, and would have bounced back by now. That's how free enterprise works. Capitalism has a way of balancing itself out. If a company can't survive on it's own merit, then it should be allowed to fail. Let the natural cycle take place. As it is now, we have very high unemployment, and it doesn't seem to be getting better any time in the near future.

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1846296].message }}

SocialBookmarkPro

16 years ago

Honestly, I believe that the bailouts did help as it pumped money into the growth of the economy and the news outlets spun this to imply that it was the US coming out of a recession and back into a period of growth. Hence, they believed this, coupled with the running of the market, would fuel consumer confidence. In the end, it is all smoke and mirrors, thus I expect another deep correction.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1846583].message }}

Kenster

16 years ago

Tough call for me. I think its easy to hate bankers and underestimate the importance of financial institutions in any country and the ripple effect that can occur if a few large ones go under (which most were on the brink of doing).

So to me, it was a balance of the long term repercussions, mainly moral hazard, and the short term pain I think we would be feeling right now if the banks did start collapsing. The credit market is bad, but not terrible. Unemployment is bad but not nearly as bad as predicted (depression era numbers). But I am a huge believer in free market.

So for me, I think if it didn't occur, we would be in a much uglier place right now. Unemployment double and credit still frozen. So, good decision for short term, bad for long. And I like to be a big picture, long term type guy, so bad!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1848009].message }}

Michael Motley

16 years ago

I think the bailouts helped, but I also think they should have been way more controlled. Blindly handing out blank checks to people who handle money is no way to do business.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1848016].message }}

Kay King

16 years ago

The DOW may look better - but trading numbers remain low. We don't know if people will come back into stocks to trade - or to sell off.

would be feeling right now if the banks did start collapsing

That is happening - smaller banks are failing at a rate even higher than last year but no one seems to be noticing. As for foreclosures...

From American Banking News (at the end of 2009):

With rising unemployment and mortgage resets about to hit in big way, the pain for the American people will continue on, no matter what the government line on being in a recovery maintains. This doesn't even take into account the coming fallout of commercial loans which are projected to be huge and to explode in the second half of 2010.
For the banking industry, it remains to be seen who is most vulnerable and how it will effect the bottom line. But any way you look at it, the hoopla of record profits and all of that isn't going to last long, and the reality will hit hard as the story of the real condition of the banking industry emerges in 2010, and it isn't going to be pretty.

The media in January reported a "decline in foreclosures" compared to Dec 2009 - but didn't mention the January rate was still 15% higher than a year ago.

In my opinion, "hunker down and protect what you have" is still the best advice out there. My worry is that by next fall we will be facing the same or a similar "crisis" - and we won't have the resources to stop the crash. I hope I'm wrong about that!

kay

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1848428].message }}

Michael Motley

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

The DOW may look better - but trading numbers remain low. We don't know if people will come back into stocks to trade - or to sell off.

That is happening - smaller banks are failing at a rate even higher than last year but no one seems to be noticing. As for foreclosures...

From American Banking News (at the end of 2009):

The media in January reported a "decline in foreclosures" compared to Dec 2009 - but didn't mention the January rate was still 15% higher than a year ago.

In my opinion, "hunker down and protect what you have" is still the best advice out there. My worry is that by next fall we will be facing the same or a similar "crisis" - and we won't have the resources to stop the crash. I hope I'm wrong about that!

kay

I think when the media reports things like 'foreclosures are down'...thats true and not true at the same time.

as an example..if there are 1000 people who own houses, over a 6 month period foreclosures start, with the apex being about 3 months in..in the 4th month, not as many are reported, not because there arent as many foreclosures any more, but because everyone that can be foreclosed on, has been forclosed on. They dont have their houses back.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1848546].message }}

Tiffany Holbrook

16 years ago

I justed wanted to say that I am in the real estate field in michigan and foreclosures are still high. The loan modification called the hamp is not doing as much as the government hoped for. If anyone needs assistance about a short sale or loan modification. I will help you as much as possible. I am an x-loss mitigation specialist. I used to work for a bank.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1848596].message }}

Kay King

16 years ago

The loan modification program is a bad joke. The claim was it would help 8-9 million homeowners stay in their homes. So far, after a year, only 100k people have had any help through that program.

This week another program was announced that will throw over a billion to those who go for "short sales"....geez, what's next? Probably buying the glut of homes on the market and running a federal rental agency?

I don't envy you if you are in real estate now. I was a broker years ago and remember losing $14k in commission one month in the 80's when the economy dipped a lot less than it has now. It's a difficult line of work in a bad economy.

kay

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1848655].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

This week another program was announced that will throw over a billion to those who go for "short sales"....geez, what's next? Probably buying the glut of homes on the market and running a federal rental agency?

MAN, that is RIDICULOUS!

Frankly, the stimulus hasn't saved ONE job! Not ONE! Just yesterday, they revealed that, as a beautification project, $10,000 was paid for some stupid little fish sculptures you can hardly see, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. The cash for clunkers should have happened a few months later, as most cars sold were american, most bought were foreign. Think of people that may have died in their new toyotas! The money given to AIG and GM was a JOKE! AIG squandered it on parties, etc.... GM basically stole the money from stock holders and bond holders. The government simply was an accomplice.

And look at home owners! They pay all these people for buying a new home or moving. *I* keep chugging along, and didn't get a PENNY! INSTEAD, the bank that ripped me off of tens of thousands through a lie was relieved of all liability, and their buyer ended up giving me a loan with HIGH closing fees. THEY lied AGAIN, just to complete the cycle. That lie will likely take another 6 months to roll off the books, but who knows how long it will affect my fico?

I took that loan ONLY because that first lie made it to where my whole future was being paid to credit cards. NOW, I have a number of accounts FLUSH with cash! Still, I have to pay maybe another $10,000 because of a stupid lie!? BTW I don't DARE pay my credit cards off, though I have a number of accounts with the cash to easily do so. WHY? Because they might be closed! And I have to pay a credit reporting firm to check my credit TWICE a month to catch lies before they can REALLY damage my credit. HECK, It is costing me MORE money!

Banks are STILL failing! People are STILL losing their jobs.

Oh well, most of the recalls are on FOREIGN cars. Many have told me they will NEVER buy a toyota again! They are lucky Wozniak is so nice and fair. He could have sued them BIG TIME! They would have NO defense! AND, at this point, Wozniak isn't the only one saying he is right!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1849487].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Funny, Gov Arnold says it's saved or created 150,000 jobs just in California, but you strangely claim it hasn't saved even one job. Somebody is off a little bit.

Originally Posted by seasoned

Frankly, the stimulus hasn't saved ONE job! Not ONE!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1849728].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Funny, Gov Arnold says it's saved or created 150,000 jobs just in California, but you strangely claim it hasn't saved even one job. Somebody is off a little bit.

Since when do you take anything a republican says as true or fact?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1849806].message }}

seasoned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Since when do you take anything a republican says as true or fact?

Since he isn't REALLY a republican! He is a KENNEDY, believe it or not! Don't believe me?

Maria Shriver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His mother in law is Eunice Kennedy Shriver!

And look at how he has changed SINCE!

BTW you can bet arnold is claiming some government jobs too. I WOULD say zero sum gain, but it is more of a net loss. and if they have SO much cash, HOW come they gave out IOUs, and are essentially BANKRUPT!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1849976].message }}

Kenster

16 years ago

Things arent butterflies and rainbows, agreed. But I dont think some people realize how close we were to ALL the bulge bracket and large commercial banks failing. The ripple effect would have been massive, globally not just domestically.

I dunno, I hate the concept of bailouts but I really fear what could have been if there was no intervention and there began runs on all the banks and investors fleeing etc. Would have thus been 0 loaning, more foreclosures, and the vicious cycle continued. I feel like it could be 30x uglier than what we are seeing. Who knows

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1849519].message }}

garyv

16 years ago

Giving bailouts to many of these companies, would be comparable to giving buckets to the people on the titanic. They may be able to keep it from going under for a little while longer, but eventually it's still going down.

The Dow numbers are not a good indicator of how well our economy is doing. People are still losing jobs. And even though we are not losing as many jobs as we were before, we're still LOSING them. Which means that we are still on a down cycle.

And in California, the un-employment rate has gone from around 9% to 12.5% since the bail outs. So those jobs that Arnold said were "saved" - were by far offset by the amount of jobs lost. The numbers don't lie.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1850470].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Seems you and Steve are getting the bailout and the stimulus mixed up. Arnold was talking about jobs saved/created as a direct result of the stimulus bill. I'm not sure why the stimulus was brought up though since the Kenster was asking about the bailout.

Originally Posted by garyv

And in California, the un-employment rate has gone from around 9% to 12.5% since the bail outs. So those jobs that Arnold said were "saved" - were by far offset by the amount of jobs lost. The numbers don't lie.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1850561].message }}

garyv

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Seems you and Steve are getting the bailout and the stimulus mixed up. Arnold was talking about jobs saved/created as a direct result of the stimulus bill. I'm not sure why the stimulus was brought up though since the Kenster was asking about the bailout.

regardless - the numbers are still the same. You can't claim job savings, when more jobs were lost than saved.

If my wife goes to the grocery store and spends $100 more this week than last week on the same amount of groceries. She can't say that she saved $5 on the bill this week, just because she pulls out a $5 coupon. The result is still an overall loss.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1850749].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Using your analogy, yes you can claim job savings just as your wife can claim that the coupon saved money. That is what is being claimed: the stimulus saved jobs. Your wife could claim that the coupon saved money and she would be right also. However, according to you if your wife said "my coupon saved $5 on this product" you would say "No it didn't because you spent all this other money on other items". That doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by garyv

regardless - the numbers are still the same. You can't claim job savings, when more jobs were lost than saved.

If my wife goes to the grocery store and spends $100 more this week than last week on the same amount of groceries. She can't say that she saved $5 on the bill this week, just because she pulls out a $5 coupon. The result is still an overall loss.

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1850897].message }}

Kenster

16 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Giving bailouts to many of these companies, would be comparable to giving buckets to the people on the titanic. They may be able to keep it from going under for a little while longer, but eventually it's still going down.

The Dow numbers are not a good indicator of how well our economy is doing. People are still losing jobs. And even though we are not losing as many jobs as we were before, we're still LOSING them. Which means that we are still on a down cycle.

And in California, the un-employment rate has gone from around 9% to 12.5% since the bail outs. So those jobs that Arnold said were "saved" - were by far offset by the amount of jobs lost. The numbers don't lie.

Hey GaryV, always love hearing your comments...

To your first point....what if giving people buckets kept the ship up long enough so help could be found? or so the ship got closer to shore and some people could swim to shore. Ship still goes down but the result is better than not giving buckets. I see what you're saying but food for thought

To your second point...people are still losing jobs and we may be on a downcycle, but that isn't really what I was asking. If we didn't have the bailouts, maybe we would be at 25% unemployment and still declining. Its all relative ya know

We need to think in relative terms. Of course the bailouts didn't solve everything and I think from the start, the people responsible said the bailouts wont turn the economy around, it was meant to prevent the economy from crashing and burning. Maybe a little over dramatic there. I am not saying I agree with the bailouts, i'm just saying perhaps things could have been much much worse. Remember depression era unemployment was 30%+

And as for California...all I can say is the Terminator...Governor...what?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1850733].message }}

garyv

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Kenster

Hey GaryV, always love hearing your comments...

To your first point....what if giving people buckets kept the ship up long enough so help could be found? or so the ship got closer to shore and some people could swim to shore. Ship still goes down but the result is better than not giving buckets. I see what you're saying but food for thought

To your second point...people are still losing jobs and we may be on a downcycle, but that isn't really what I was asking. If we didn't have the bailouts, maybe we would be at 25% unemployment and still declining. Its all relative ya know

We need to think in relative terms. Of course the bailouts didn't solve everything and I think from the start, the people responsible said the bailouts wont turn the economy around, it was meant to prevent the economy from crashing and burning. Maybe a little over dramatic there. I am not saying I agree with the bailouts, i'm just saying perhaps things could have been much much worse. Remember depression era unemployment was 30%+

And as for California...all I can say is the Terminator...Governor...what?

I see what you're saying, and I guess it all comes down to how you believe capitalism works. In my scenario, these ships may be going down, but there are plenty of other ships and boats all around to take on these people. So it makes no sense to hand out buckets. Quit wasting energy and get onto the other boats already. That's why this recession is taking so long. People are still trying to use their buckets.

Would things have been worse? Maybe - but not for as long as it is now. It would have been like ripping off a bandaid. Maybe it'll hurt worse, but it'll be over quicker. Would we have failed completely? Not a chance, because there were plenty of companies and banks still out there that were not struggling that would have gladly picked up the slack.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1850784].message }}

Ken Strong 16 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

The Dow numbers are not a good indicator of how well our economy is doing.

That's for sure. It's an indicator of how a small number of extremely wealthy investors are feeling psychologically on a certain day. It's geared to them, not to the average worker. Whenever a large corporation lays off a bunch of people, their stock usually goes up. That's a good indicator of what the stock market means to most people.
- Thanks
Signature

The RETURN of OBI:
Learn IM From the Experts Who Are Already Doing It!

"Sammy-approved, baby!" -- Offline Brat Pack
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1851081].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Tim,

Can't you add? $100-$5=$95 net LOSS!!!!!!! So she did NOT save $5, it cost $95 MORE!

I guess if I somehow had you pay 105% of all your assets to something, and gave you a 5% coupon, you would STILL figure you really saved. But you know, everyone else would STILL consider you BROKE!

If you want to claim she saved money, GREAT! Just give her the other $100!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1850939].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Yes, I can add. The coupon still saved $5 on one item. If that is what she was claiming then she would be right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is what Arnold was claiming: the stimulus saved/created 150,000 jobs. You guys are adding to his statement and it doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by seasoned

Tim,

Can't you add? $100-$5=$95 net LOSS!!!!!!! So she did NOT save $5, it cost $95 MORE!

I guess if I somehow had you pay 105% of all your assets to something, and gave you a 5% coupon, you would STILL figure you really saved. But you know, everyone else would STILL consider you BROKE!

If you want to claim she saved money, GREAT! Just give her the other $100!

Steve

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1851017].message }}

garyv

16 years ago

Would you still say she saved money, if she had to use $10 from the credit-card to buy that $5 coupon?

With the amount of money spent on the stimulus, we could have given everyone that is without a job, a full time paycheck. The numbers just don't make sense at all.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1851020].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Well, now your adding something else.

Your idea to just let the economy fail is flawed and Hooveresque. We wouldn't have bounced back by now if the bailout and stimulus didn't happen. I think Kenster is right: we would be at depression era levels of unemployment.

Independent sources say the stimulus added up to 1.8 million jobs and helped stimulate the economy:

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody's Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

Economic Scene - Success of Stimulus Bill Is Noteworthy as Another Is Weighed - NYTimes.com

Originally Posted by garyv

Would you still say she saved money, if she had to use $10 from the credit-card to buy that $5 coupon?

With the amount of money spent on the stimulus, we could have given everyone that is without a job, a full time paycheck. The numbers just don't make sense at all.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1851064].message }}

garyv

16 years ago

Nobody said let the economy fail. We said let the companies and banks that are going under (many which have now failed anyway) to go ahead and fail. The economy would have never failed. The unemployment rate was much higher when Jimmy Carter was in office and the economy didn't fail.

The problem here is that there are some that don't really have a proper big picture view of the economy. They're happy as heck w/ their $5 coupon, even though they've just spent $10 for the coupon. They're all saying "woo hoo, we're saving money here." When the rest of us that see the bigger picture are scratching our heads.

Where do you think that stimulus money is coming from? Taxes. Which then forces tax payments to go higher. If you're paying higher taxes, you're hiring less people.

So you're stimulating nothing. You're just pulling successful companies down, so that you can prop up the failures.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, now your adding something else.

Your idea to just let the economy fail is flawed and Hooveresque. We wouldn't have bounced back by now if the bailout and stimulus didn't happen. I think Kenster is right: we would be at depression era levels of unemployment.

Independent sources say the stimulus added up to 1.8 million jobs and helped stimulate the economy:

Economic Scene - Success of Stimulus Bill Is Noteworthy as Another Is Weighed - NYTimes.com

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1851143].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

I believe unemployment never went over 8% under Carter.

Letting the banks fail sounds good. Sounded good to Hoover and Mellon in 1930 also. Study what happened in the great depression and you might think twice about what you see as the big picture.

Originally Posted by garyv

Nobody said let the economy fail. We said let the companies and banks that are going under (many which have now failed anyway) to go ahead and fail. The economy would have never failed. The unemployment rate was much higher when Jimmy Carter was in office and the economy didn't fail.

The problem here is that there are some that don't really have a proper big picture view of the economy. They're happy as heck w/ their $5 coupon, even though they've just spent $10 for the coupon. They're all saying "woo hoo, we're saving money here." When the rest of us that see the bigger picture are scratching our heads.

Where do you think that stimulus money is coming from? Taxes. Which then forces tax payments to go higher. If you're paying higher taxes, you're hiring less people.

So you're stimulating nothing. You're just pulling successful companies down, so that you can prop up the failures.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1851271].message }}

garyv

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I believe unemployment never went over 8% under Carter.

Letting the banks fail sounds good. Sounded good to Hoover and Mellon in 1930 also. Study what happened in the great depression and you might think twice about what you see as the big picture.

Actually you're right unemployment was bad, but didn't go over 8% w/ Carter. It was inflation that was through the roof.

As far as the banks go. They didn't have FDIC back then. The whole purpose of the insurance is to prevent what happened back then. And by the way, many of these bailed out banks and companies are failing anyway, even w/ the government help. The FDIC is now allocating the customer base of these failed banks to other more healthy banks. If we would have allowed this to happen in the first place we could have saved a lot of tax money. Which in itself would have been a "real" stimulus.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1851603].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

The FDIC's deposit insurance fund was at about $10 billion a year ago. The bailout was for $700 billion. We couldn't have allowed the FDIC to cover this since the FDIC was one of the institutions that almost needed bailing out! And that's without considering the $700,000,000,000 allocated to be spent on bailing out banks.

The FDIC insures deposits at 8,195 institutions that have about $13.5 trillion in assets and they only have $10 billion in their insurance fund. Still think the FDIC was the answer?

Originally Posted by garyv

The FDIC is now allocating the customer base of these failed banks to other more healthy banks. If we would have allowed this to happen in the first place we could have saved a lot of tax money. Which in itself would have been a "real" stimulus.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1855029].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

The FDIC's deposit insurance fund was at about $10 billion a year ago. The bailout was for $700 billion. We couldn't have allowed the FDIC to cover this since the FDIC was one of the institutions that almost needed bailing out! And that's without considering the $700,000,000,000 allocated to be spent on bailing out banks.

The FDIC insures deposits at 8,195 institutions that have about $13.5 trillion in assets and they only have $10 billion in their insurance fund. Still think the FDIC was the answer?

The FDIC, like so many other government programs, is a PONZI SCHEME! They do NOT insure ALL the money! They earlier only insured $100,000. They never REALLY made it clear what that meant. Is 5*$100,000 $500,000? Some say it IS! So WHAT is the difference? Well, if you lost 5 accounts that were each $100,000, the FDIC would pay you $100,000, and you would be out the remaining $400,000! If you had $100,000 at one bank that you lost, you might not get it back if you have $100,000+ elsewhere. ALSO, they are NOT supposed to let a bank fail 100%. The deal is to take BAD assets, repackage them, and sell them in other ways. They end up with a FAR stronger bank that is then sold to another bank. In that way, they can cover $13.5trillion with a SMALL portion of that.

Of course, they RAISED it within the pastt 2 years, and I think they renewed it once. I don't know what it is now.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1855231].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

The amount covered now is $250,000 per account.

I don't think the FDIC main job is to prevent banks from failing although it started a program in 2009 to help banks get rid of toxic assets. One of the FDICs main jobs, besides insuring deposits, is to take over insolvent banks after failing, so we're talking about two different things really. The FDIC wasn't in the position and didn't have the assets to save the banks from failing.

Originally Posted by seasoned

The FDIC, like so many other government programs, is a PONZI SCHEME! They do NOT insure ALL the money! They earlier only insured $100,000. They never REALLY made it clear what that meant. Is 5*$100,000 $500,000? Some say it IS! So WHAT is the difference? Well, if you lost 5 accounts that were each $100,000, the FDIC would pay you $100,000, and you would be out the remaining $400,000! If you had $100,000 at one bank that you lost, you might not get it back if you have $100,000+ elsewhere. ALSO, they are NOT supposed to let a bank fail 100%. The deal is to take BAD assets, repackage them, and sell them in other ways. They end up with a FAR stronger bank that is then sold to another bank. In that way, they can cover $13.5trillion with a SMALL portion of that.

Steve

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1855276].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I believe unemployment never went over 8% under Carter.

Letting the banks fail sounds good. Sounded good to Hoover and Mellon in 1930 also. Study what happened in the great depression and you might think twice about what you see as the big picture.

I have been aying this for over a DECADE!!!!!! I have complained about lack of enforcement for about TWO decades! But here I go again! In 1933 they passed the Glass-Steagall act to PREVENT another depression! TOO BAD it was NOT ENFORCED, and REPEALED! Glass?Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So your post has NO merit in your argument.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1852203].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

I agree the Glass-Steagall Act shouldn't have been repealed, but that doesn't mean my argument doesn't have any merit. It's something completely different actually. I was talking about the stimulus which you brought up although the subject was the bailout.

Originally Posted by seasoned

I have been aying this for over a DECADE!!!!!! I have complained about lack of enforcement for about TWO decades! But here I go again! In 1933 they passed the Glass-Steagall act to PREVENT another depression! TOO BAD it was NOT ENFORCED, and REPEALED! Glass?Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So your post has NO merit in your argument.

Steve

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1852320].message }}

Michael Motley

16 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Would you still say she saved money, if she had to use $10 from the credit-card to buy that $5 coupon?

With the amount of money spent on the stimulus, we could have given everyone that is without a job, a full time paycheck. The numbers just don't make sense at all.

you can't give a full time paycheck when there isnt a job to pay them for.

without the bailout and the following stimulus companies wouldn't have been able to retain jobs. then as a bonus, there would need to be unemployment paid..at this point it is up to 99 weeks, and in states like florida there are people takin every single bit of that.

Then there's loss of insurance. Ever used Cobra? yeah good luck with that one.

So lets say we didnt have the bailout and the stimulus, and someone like yourself with children loses his job. Now not only is the business on its way down and out knocking the city/state out of tax revenue, but you are out of a realistic paycheck. For instance in florida..i dont give a crap what you made at your job, you will get $250 a week on unemployment.

So you're now making an unliveable wage. Now one of your kids gets sick. Who's paying for that? You with no insurance and a whopping $250 a week paycheck? What does $250 get you at a pediatrician...an asprin? So who's paying for that? Oh yeah..that would be the hospital...and ultimately the other taxpaying citizens that were able to retain their jobs.

Since you're making an unliveable wage, you are now on the fast track to foreclosure...credit cards can't be paid, car payments can't be made..and some people will even turn to crime when stuff starts getting really rough.

Now multiply that by every person that would have lost a job and has kids.

So which do you really think was cheaper in the long run?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1856827].message }}

garyv

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Now multiply that by every person that would have lost a job and has kids.

So which do you really think was cheaper in the long run?

You must be assuming that the money for this bailout came out of thin air. The amount of jobs lost, because of the taxes needed to pay for this stimulus, will far out weigh the jobs gained by it. Not to mention the inflation that's sure to come because our spending spree (stimulus) is greatly devaluing our dollar.

As it is, most of the companies that were failing - have now failed anyway. We're just prolonging the pain. Let the healthy companies come in and fill in the gaps. That's what's happening now anyway. We have a local bank that was no where near collapse, and they quickly and happily took on accounts from several big name banks that went under. Free markets find a way to sustain and correct themselves. Artificial corrections from the Government only serves to block up the natural flow.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1856878].message }}

Michael Motley 16 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

You must be assuming that the money for this bailout came out of thin air. .

and where do you think the money for unemployment and paying for the uninsured would come from?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1856981].message }}
- garyv 16 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Michael Motley
  
  and where do you think the money for unemployment and paying for the uninsured would come from?
  
  Again - you're assuming that the stimulus actually worked. We're now paying for the stimulus AND the unemployed.
  
  Plus that goes to my statement above. With the amount of money we've spent on stimulus we could have given them all a full time paycheck and more - which by the way is more than you'd receive if you became unemployed.
  
  Plus let's do some simple math. The Whitehouse claimed the stimulus save a million jobs. So considering the fact that we paid 750 billion dollars for that stimulus. We've just paid 750,000 for each one of those jobs. If that's not a waste of monumental proportions then I don't know what is.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1857068].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Again, you are confusing the stimulus with the bailout. It's weird you keep doing that.

By the way, the "spending spree" you see seems to only come from the stimulus apparently. What about the "spending spree" by the prior admin? I think that spending spree ( unnecessary $3 trillion war, unpaid for $600 billion prescription drug bill, $1.8 trillion tax cuts which added to the deficit ) far, far outweighs the stimulus and added much more to the deficit and keeps adding to it.

Also, your "simple math" on the stimulus is wrong in a couple of ways. One, which maybe you aren't aware of, is that over a third of the stimulus was for tax cuts ( that weren't for the rich). Plus when you create jobs for infrastructure items like roads, bridges, high speed trains etc... there are other costs besides the workers wage. You know, things like steel, concrete, asphalt, etc... So you need to do your math over it seems.

Originally Posted by garyv

You must be assuming that the money for this bailout came out of thin air. The amount of jobs lost, because of the taxes needed to pay for this stimulus, will far out weigh the jobs gained by it. Not to mention the inflation that's sure to come because our spending spree (stimulus) is greatly devaluing our dollar.

As it is, most of the companies that were failing - have now failed anyway. We're just prolonging the pain. Let the healthy companies come in and fill in the gaps. That's what's happening now anyway. We have a local bank that was no where near collapse, and they quickly and happily took on accounts from several big name banks that went under. Free markets find a way to sustain and correct themselves. Artificial corrections from the Government only serves to block up the natural flow.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1857319].message }}

garyv

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Again, you are confusing the stimulus with the bailout. It's weird you keep doing that.

By the way, the "spending spree" you see seems to only come from the stimulus apparently. What about the "spending spree" by the prior admin? I think that spending spree ( unnecessary $3 trillion war, unpaid for $600 billion prescription drug bill, $1.8 trillion tax cuts which added to the deficit ) far, far outweighs the stimulus and added much more to the deficit and keeps adding to it.

Also, your "simple math" on the stimulus is wrong in a couple of ways. One, which maybe you aren't aware of, is that over a third of the stimulus was for tax cuts ( that weren't for the rich). Plus when you create jobs for infrastructure items like roads, bridges, high speed trains etc... there are other costs besides the workers wage. You know, things like steel, concrete, asphalt, etc... So you need to do your math over it seems.

You're the one that's obviously confused here. I'm talking about the stimulus.

And yes I realize that there are costs for infrastructure and other things. But this bill was called "stimulus" and some Politicians even called it the "jobs stimulus" bill. So it's only obvious to break down the cost of that "job stimulus" when deciding whether or not it actually "stimulated" - and at what cost was that minor "stimulation".

And you're out of your mind if you thing the last admin's spending is anywhere near to what this one's is:

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1857384].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

You're the one that's obviously confused here. I'm talking about the stimulus.

Here's what you wrote: "You must be assuming that the money for this bailout came out of thin air. The amount of jobs lost, because of the taxes needed to pay for this stimulus,..."

And yes I realize that there are costs for infrastructure and other things. But this bill was called "stimulus" and some Politicians even called it the "jobs stimulus" bill. So it's only obvious to break down the cost of that "job stimulus" when deciding whether or not it actually "stimulated" - and at what cost was that minor "stimulation".

You are aware that the Bush tax cuts were also called a stimulus right? Did you break down that stimulus in amount paid per job also?

And you're out of your mind if you thing the last admin's spending is anywhere near to what this one's is. They may be pushing the numbers to later years, but it's still them spending it:

If you notice that graph shows Bush didn't have a deficit when he took office and that a good portion of the 2009 deficit was from the bailout which was started under Bush. Plus, the current stimulus wouldn't have been needed if the economy wasn't in a free fall at the beginning of 2009. Also, a big portion of the deficit is a result of the recession which started in 2007 under the previous admin.

Here is another graph which breaks down the deficit:

Here is another graph which clearly shows that Bush spent more and is more responsible for the deficit:

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1857496].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

What about the "spending spree" by the prior admin? I think that spending spree ( unnecessary $3 trillion war, unpaid for $600 billion prescription drug bill, $1.8 trillion tax cuts which added to the deficit ) far, far outweighs the stimulus and added much more to the deficit and keeps adding to it.

Originally Posted by garyv

And you're out of your mind if you thing the last admin's spending is anywhere near to what this one's is:

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

You are aware that the Bush tax cuts were also called a stimulus right? Did you break down that stimulus in amount paid per job also?

If you notice that graph shows Bush didn't have a deficit when he took office and that a good portion of the 2009 deficit was from the bailout which was started under Bush. Plus, the current stimulus wouldn't have been needed if the economy wasn't in a free fall at the beginning of 2009. Also, a big portion of the deficit is a result of the recession which started in 2007 under the previous admin.

What a waste of time...

I am not surprised that those on the left and on the right spend more time and waste more energy blaming the other side.

How about this...

Both sides - called the Government - have a hand in how our economy rolls. Both ways. Both sides are to blame when things go bad.

It's a 2-party system. Both sides seem to suck when it comes to spending.

And Yes Tim...even the current administration.

So where are the solutions? Time to stop blaming and start looking for solutions.

No - I don't have one. I am not an economist

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861662].message }}

Kay King

16 years ago

Mike - If I could, I would thank you twice!

For a compact explanation of how the unemployment percentage is arrived at -
How is the National Unemployment Rate Calculated? - Unemployment

or the whole mess of it is at
How the Government Measures Unemployment

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1862781].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Getting back to the original post, the bailout came during the Bush admin and it is one of the few things they did which I agreed with.

Two things to consider about the bailout is that not all the money was used and a good percentage of the money that was spent has been repaid. In fact the government made a profit on some of the largest loans:

The profits, collected from eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, come to about $4 billion, or the equivalent of about 15 percent annually...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/bu...1taxpayer.html

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1863033].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Mike, people have to decide what has worked in the past and what hasn't, what will work in the future and what won't. People have disagreements about these things and take sides. At least we take sides and don't just sit in the middle and say "what a waste of time". Do you ever take a side on an issue. ;-)

By the way, you ask "So where are the solutions?" Well, two of them we are talking about: The bailout and the stimulus.

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

What a waste of time...

I am not surprised that those on the left and on the right spend more time and waste more energy blaming the other side.

How about this...

Both sides - called the Government - have a hand in how our economy rolls. Both ways. Both sides are to blame when things go bad.

It's a 2-party system. Both sides seem to suck when it comes to spending.

And Yes Tim...even the current administration.

So where are the solutions? Time to stop blaming and start looking for solutions.

No - I don't have one. I am not an economist

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1865795].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Mike, people have to decide what has worked in the past and what hasn't, what will work in the future and what won't. People have disagreements about these things and take sides. At least we take sides and don't just sit in the middle and say "what a waste of time". Do you ever take a side on an issue. ;-)

By the way, you ask "So where are the solutions?" Well, two of them we are talking about: The bailout and the stimulus.

Tim,

The comments I was pointing to were more finger-pointing than taking a side or finding a solution.

Sitting on one side saying "The other side left us with a mess..." or "The former people in charge spent way more..." is hardly taking sides from where I sit...it's about both laying blame and shirking responsibility.

It's a big reason why I gave up on both "main stream media" and "talk radio". They spend too much time talking about how screwed up or wrong the other side is.

Taking a side for the sake of taking a side isn't always the right answer.

I take a position on an ACTUAL debate, not a perceived one

Mike

Oh, and most of the comments in this thread seem to revolve around whether the discussion is about a bailout, or a stimulus. I see little in the way of solution discussion - which really makes sense since most of us are not experts in this discussion. We regurgitate all the "stats" we find.

But hey - we're marketers. Not politicians and economists. The best way for US to help the economy is to make sales, create jobs,etc.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1866115].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Really? "most of the comments in this thread seem to revolve around whether the discussion is about a bailout, or a stimulus."?? I don't think so, that's just a convenient statement to support your "percieved" view. There's plenty of discussion about a "solution' which in this case is both the bailout and stimulus which some don't see as good solutions and some do. You don't have an opinion on either one of these apparently and that is fine. I do and so do others.

Yes, we argued about the deficit. I don't think it was any more wasted time than the time you spent coming here and saying it was wasted. ;-)

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Oh, and most of the comments in this thread seem to revolve around whether the discussion is about a bailout, or a stimulus. I see little in the way of solution discussion -

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1867635].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Really? "most of the comments in this thread seem to revolve around whether the discussion is about a bailout, or a stimulus."?? I don't think so, that's just a convenient statement to support your "percieved" view. There's plenty of discussion about a "solution' which in this case is both the bailout and stimulus which some don't see as good solutions and some do. You don't have an opinion on either one of these apparently and that is fine. I do and so do others.

Yes, we argued about the deficit. I don't think it was any more wasted time than the time you spent coming here and saying it was wasted. ;-)

I will agree to disagree with you. We obviously see things differently.

I do know I an not the only one who thinks so...check the post directly under that one

I still don't think it's always necessary to take a side just because others do, or think I need to. Especially in a "debate" like this one where the debate mostly revolves around opinions.

Mike

P.S. "I don't think so, that's just a convenient statement to support your "percieved" view" is a cop-out statement when people don't agree with your viewpoints

So here's MY "cop-out" answer...

I am finished in this thread. Cause you're right - wasted time

Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1867942].message }}

The 13th Warrior 16 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

The best way for US to help the economy is to make sales, create jobs,etc.

Ding , Ding, Ding, circle gets the square.

When I see Asian communities, East Indian communities, etc. they have their own "closed in" economy, they supply and support each other, self-sufficient mini economies.

Cut out the Walmarts, etc, buy locally, even at slightly higher price, and the business owners profits , the major share, will buy services and products locally, sustaining that economy.

Always having a good percentage of income to support local mom and pop businesses who in turn, do the same with their profits.

But that requires trust of both consumer and business owners, partnerships, sorry, it won't happen.

But thats really the few solutions left, every community has to do the same, like the koreans, chinese, armenians, east indians, arabs that come to america, self-sustaining each other, creating jobs and business owners internally.

Screw politics, bankers and big corp.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870370].message }}
- The 13th Warrior 16 years ago
  
  THE WARRIOR FORUM is a small example of a micro-economy.
  
  Everyone sustaining and supporting the entity, some measure of trust, growth, learning, leadership by example, support, help, but mainly JOB CREATORS, business owners, not mules looking to hook up to some farmers plow, soliciting for hard , back breaking work, for some cheap carrots.
  
  Corporations, schools, colleges, politics, teachers, "leaders" philosophy and implementation seem to be to propagate MULES.
  
  Not that mules are not needed, but there should be clear options to go either direction, realistic options, did I say REALISTIC AND CLEAR OPTIONS?
  
  This place is a small but very important example of what school, college, politics and leaders have failed to do, and will continue to fail to do.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870415].message }}
  
  The 13th Warrior 16 years ago
  
  By the way, these guys are in the business of justifying their political job, useless job titles, useless departments, useless corporate job positions and their associates and buddies.
  
  Nothing can be addressed until that is.
  
  Your father and mother do everything in their power to make you self sustaining and independent of them.
  
  Not tie you to them more.
  
  Thats the definition of leadership.
  
  Not more departments, more red tape, more spending, more job titles, more theories, more useless debate, more meetings, more b.s.
  
  What these guys are, well, there all yours.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870455].message }}

Kay King 16 years ago

Michael -

In my area there are some road projects (repaving) being paid for with stimulus money. Those doing the work are county employees with full time jobs.

Those crews are counted as "jobs saved" - but they were never at risk of losing their jobs without the stimulus money. The money saved by the county was not used to add more jobs. The way jobs saved is counted changed in January and now anyone who is paid ANY stimulus money or works for a company paid with any stimulus money is considered a "job saved or created".

The hole is getting deeper and wider - and people in charge are playing with the numbers. The only advice that makes sense to me is "hunker down".

kay
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1856883].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Well, you talked about the banks, etc... Before 1933, the banks were in EVERYTHING! Banking, loaning(and carrying), stocks, margins, insurance, etc.... ALSO, margins were 7:1! Glass steagull said they could only be in banking, and only carry a percentage of the loans, and margins, which they couldn't do, could be 2:1. In 1984, a compliant bank on a million dollars in stock would have NO direct loss! Prior to 1933, a compliant bank on a million dollars could lose up to 7 million. That is just a TASTE of the difference.

Anyway, they started doing things in the 80s, against GS, and who knows how much of the loss was outside of GS.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1852376].message }}

Kenster

16 years ago

Yes, the DOW isnt everything. The movement of the DOW reflects more of the future outlook than day to day. Of course day to day affects the future which is why you get slight movements. But I think the dow increasing 60% is still significant.

Gary - I would have to disagree. Recessions can last many years, 5-8 years. We havent been in a recession long and its not that bad. I fear the worst is yet to come, but right now its not as bad as it could have been (in my opinion). And I agree with you that it should be survival of the fittest, but I dont think for a second that if there was a ripple effect run on banks and huge financial and semi financial related companies going under like I fear was on the brink of happening and even more frozen credit markets, that other companies would come up and fill their place within 3 years. If there was a massive collapse it would take many years to rebound.

Plus, our financial system has already been declining as a global power so letting this shakeout occurr and us going into depression or deep recession may leave our financial power dwindles on a global scale.

As I said it was a no win in my book. Let the banks fail as they theorectically should based on free market principles and we would be in depression era numbers and it would effect our global strength. Bailout the banks and the recession may not be as deep or long, but there is huge moral hazard risk.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1853878].message }}

HeySal

16 years ago

I think allowing that bailout to take place was the biggest mistake in the history of what was the USA. We now have politicians controlling private industry. Sure we would have collapsed, but if free enterprise had been allowed to reign in tandem with gold backed money not one bit of this ever would have occurred in the first place. We could have gotten things back together by now, now we just have absolutely no control over any portion of business that the gov decides to own. Others before us have learned this lesson.

All stimulus was is giving back a portion of stolen money plain and simple and anyone who can applaud that is not really thinking deeply enough - someone came in your house and stole 10,000 and you can't honestly think they are all fine and sharp because they gave a grand back.

Unemployment figures only represent people on unemployment.....many unemployed are no longer able to draw unemployment, which drops them off the figures....is that why it SEEMS that we have less unemployment while people are still losing jobs? Here in Idaho there are fewer jobs open statewide in a month than there used to be in one city in just a few days. Boise is closing up major businesses right now and people are fleeing from the state. The only real hope here is that enough 2 job families leave because they now only have one job in the house that they will open up the one abandoned job for everyone who is staying. My sister lives in Stockton, CA and says that unemployed are actually ranking at close to 33% when you figure the unemployed that don't count in the official numbers. I talked to a friend in Oregon last week and she was crying because she was the only one with a job left in a family that keeps growing because her adult kids and spouses have all been moving home after losing jobs and hers is now gone too.

We have a nation in which 1 out of every 8 people are now getting their food from food stamps and food banks -- and dumpsters.
And we can't fix our economy because it's been heisted. We are unable to go to school, pay mortgages, get help to the elderly or the young homeless but the bail out money - our money that we plainly said "NO" to them taking - is still being shelled to the corporate heads.
And that's the bottom line.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1855986].message }}

garyv

16 years ago

I agree w/ you HeySal. And what's coming is going to be much worse than what would have happened if they would have just let the market make the correction. Once the market catches on to how devalued our dollar is (because we've been printing it a record speed) our inflation is going to just skyrocket.

And you can just feel it coming. The politicians are already setting up the banks to take the blame again. When they know full well that their spending spree is setting us up for possibly uncontrollable inflation. It's no wonder banks are not wanting to lend out their money. They are bracing themselves for the obvious outcome.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1856690].message }}

Kay King 16 years ago

Sheila Bair, FDIC, and the financial crisis : The New Yorker

There were a few really smart people who tried to warn of what was coming - they were ignored. They are warning us again - and being ignored again.

I was just looking at a picture of the design for the new US embassy in London. It's an exceedingly ugly glass cube with a moat around it - and sadly I think that monstrosity is a snapshot of what what we're becoming. It will be a $1 billion (that's the estimate which means it will probably cost $3 billion) embarrassment for future generations. Wonder what people in the UK think of it.

Banks aren't loaning because they can borrow at almost 0% and can make a quick investment turnaround at 3% or so - which accounts for the "profits" being reported now. At least that's my guess - I'm no economist. Wonder what happens when interest rates start to rise....

kay
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1856812].message }}

Kenster

16 years ago

Yes, I believe we are in for some hyperinflation.

But unemployment IS NOT how many people are collecting unemployment. Unemeployment is defined as something like..."People who are capable, willing, and actively seeking jobs"

It takes out people who dont want jobs (trust fund/retired etc) but doesnt mean people who are collecting.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1857668].message }}

HeySal

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Kenster

Yes, I believe we are in for some hyperinflation.

But unemployment IS NOT how many people are collecting unemployment. Unemeployment is defined as something like..."People who are capable, willing, and actively seeking jobs"

It takes out people who dont want jobs (trust fund/retired etc) but doesnt mean people who are collecting.

That is completely faulty logic and it sounds like it was fed straight to you from your local TV.

You are making an emotional statement - You putting personal bias on something that is a very serious REAL problem of statistics, not motivation.

This economy was not set up for 100% employment - the need for 100% employment was set by the FED who has run this economy since 1917. We have been trying to run free enterprise in a system that is not set up on the foundation of free enterprise - they knew this, but when they are getting filthy rich and all powerful they don't really care about who is suffering the consequences.

Unemployment figures are NOT just indicators of who doesn't want to work. Who took that stinking poll anyhow. When people are laid off and claim unemployment they have to register with employment, too - and that is where the figures come from - your state employment offices. Anyone outside that system doesn't count even if they are beating the streets daily trying to find work. The figures are a statistical fraction and not indicators of personal dispositions in any way shape or form.

You seem to have a personal bias against people who are not well off. I know others like that. I know a person that thinks anyone who is not fairly well off is not because they are either a drug addict or a drunk. Nice fascist thinking taking over. I thought this conversation was about agreeing or disagreeing with the structural absurdity of the bailout, not about who is better than who because they have money.

Our economy was manipulated to a state that it became hard for families to live without 2 salaries, yet our economy did not expand to support that many more people in the work place, but has contracted instead. Math is not prone to alter on the basis of what people think the motives of others are.

The carrying capacity of the US is 250mil - we have 365mil so we're over what we can support by 165miil in the first place. Over-carrying capacity numbers have a snowball effect.

Our society has been losing jobs for over a decade. I lost a job to outsourcing back in 2001. That company moved half its plant To Mexico - x amount of jobs gone - not just unemployed, but jobs gone. Period - yet there were no fewer people who needed jobs again -- times that by what figure? Now add all the companies are going under. Our US of Goldman Sachs government just chose to save their corrupted little cronies and keep their little filthy rich kingdom in tact instead of letting them fold, which would have allowed many businesses to either survive or flourish.

WE the People were sacrificed for the well being of a few. The FED is NOT government -- it's a BANK. Once you get that figured out - reverse engineer every detail of this economy since 1917 ........and you will find that this whole outcome has been predictable since at least the time I was in diapers.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1860797].message }}

ThomM

16 years ago

Unemployment figures are NOT just indicators of who doesn't want to work. Who took that stinking poll anyhow. When people are laid off and claim unemployment they have to register with employment, too - and that is where the figures come from - your state employment offices. Anyone outside that system doesn't count even if they are beating the streets daily trying to find work. The figures are a statistical fraction and not indicators of personal dispositions in any way shape or form.

Like Sal said.
Even the newscasters here tell you that the unemployment figures are just those who are currently on unemployment ins. It doesn't factor in those who had their benefits run out or who can't get unemployment for any reason.
They also include people like me who get laid off in Nov. and go back to work in April.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1860869].message }}

Kenster

16 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

That is completely faulty logic and it sounds like it was fed straight to you from your local TV.

You are making an emotional statement - You putting personal bias on something that is a very serious REAL problem of statistics, not motivation.

This economy was not set up for 100% employment - the need for 100% employment was set by the FED who has run this economy since 1917. We have been trying to run free enterprise in a system that is not set up on the foundation of free enterprise - they knew this, but when they are getting filthy rich and all powerful they don't really care about who is suffering the consequences.

Unemployment figures are NOT just indicators of who doesn't want to work. Who took that stinking poll anyhow. When people are laid off and claim unemployment they have to register with employment, too - and that is where the figures come from - your state employment offices. Anyone outside that system doesn't count even if they are beating the streets daily trying to find work. The figures are a statistical fraction and not indicators of personal dispositions in any way shape or form.

You seem to have a personal bias against people who are not well off. I know others like that. I know a person that thinks anyone who is not fairly well off is not because they are either a drug addict or a drunk. Nice fascist thinking taking over. I thought this conversation was about agreeing or disagreeing with the structural absurdity of the bailout, not about who is better than who because they have money.

Our economy was manipulated to a state that it became hard for families to live without 2 salaries, yet our economy did not expand to support that many more people in the work place, but has contracted instead. Math is not prone to alter on the basis of what people think the motives of others are.

The carrying capacity of the US is 250mil - we have 365mil so we're over what we can support by 165miil in the first place. Over-carrying capacity numbers have a snowball effect.

Our society has been losing jobs for over a decade. I lost a job to outsourcing back in 2001. That company moved half its plant To Mexico - x amount of jobs gone - not just unemployed, but jobs gone. Period - yet there were no fewer people who needed jobs again -- times that by what figure? Now add all the companies are going under. Our US of Goldman Sachs government just chose to save their corrupted little cronies and keep their little filthy rich kingdom in tact instead of letting them fold, which would have allowed many businesses to either survive or flourish.

WE the People were sacrificed for the well being of a few. The FED is NOT government -- it's a BANK. Once you get that figured out - reverse engineer every detail of this economy since 1917 ........and you will find that this whole outcome has been predictable since at least the time I was in diapers.

HeySal,

This is how they calculate the unemployment rate as I got from the link above. Im not sure where you got your definition and I'm not sure if this is even the real defiintion but its what I learned as a Finance Major as well.

"The unemployment rate figures which are published on a monthly basis are actually derived from a monthly survey of 60,000 households in the United States known as the Current Population Survey. The survey is conducted by the Census Bureau on behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

...

Questions are posed to the individuals surveyed regarding whether individuals in the home have a job or if they are laid off. Other questions query whether the persons are available for work and the techniques they have used to look for work in the preceding month. These questions are posed because only those individuals which do not have a job, have actively look for work in the past four weeks and who are currently available to work are considered to be unemployed. That information is then compared as a percentage to the number of people in the labor force. It should be noted that the labor force is considered to be all individuals who are age 16 and older who either have a job or who are actively looking for a job. Individuals who do not have a job and who are not actively looking for work are not included in the labor force.

"

Im not sure what you mean that I "seem to have a personal bias against people who are not well off". That is the farthest statement from how I feel. The very farthest. The very very farthest. Perhaps you are misreading my discussion, or perhaps it was me who wasnt clear in communicating my beliefs. The second is certainly possible.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1865268].message }}

KimW

16 years ago

Unemployment also can't take into consideration those that have given up on finding a job.

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1857917].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

YEP, forget the word BUDGET before surplus. FORGET the dot BOMB. FORGET the lowering of the fed funds rate, and all the bankruptcys in 1999. dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We never truly recovered from that. JUSt as things seemed to be improving the WTC thing happened. And we all know what happened in 2007-2008. I could say more but, well..... c'est la vie

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1858059].message }}

Jay_Mueller

16 years ago

I don't think we should have given the banks the bailouts. I think our economy would have straightened out on its own without the government's interference.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Jay Mueller - JayLynne Enterprises | Making Money On The Internet | Our Green Life Biz
WP Website Design, Builder, Mentor | Internet Marketing Membership Training | Green Technology Blog and Info

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1860328].message }}

bqe1212

16 years ago

This is really interesting and open to some debate. I can see how one side feels one way and yet others feel another. Personally, it's very hard to say - you would never know.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870151].message }}

Kenster

16 years ago

Originally Posted by bqe1212

This is really interesting and open to some debate. I can see how one side feels one way and yet others feel another. Personally, it's very hard to say - you would never know.

Insightful.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870161].message }}

Kay King 16 years ago

These discussions always deteriorate into four groups.

1. one side
2. the other side
3. looking at both sides from the fence in the center
3. the clueless who can't decide
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870245].message }}

The 13th Warrior

16 years ago

Funny how nothing ever addresses the problem, only the symptoms, and even then, it does not address the symptoms properly.

JOB CREATION=USELESS...

....without job/market protection addressed 1st.

Create millions of jobs, then package, ship and outsource.

Problem back.

No one wants to look at the 10,000 pound polka dot pink Gorilla sitting in the living room.

Since honesty of the situation will NEVER be addressed, enjoy the circle dance going nowhere of useless debate , semantics, political posturing, distractions, diversions, cognitive dissonance, plausible deniability, mathematical stats that have nothing to do with life or day-to-day living, theories, pointless dead-end issues, etc.

While people die, starve and lose, they have a "new" theory ready for debate.

Fattening them and their associates wallet, hmmm, no theory at all, concrete reality and action, immediate.

So the best that economic leaders and professors can come up with is what?

Just something else for them to capitalize and cash in on that will never address the ground zero cause.

These chumps are not leaders, they have no solutions except on how to exploit the confusion for personal gain for them and their associates.

There are NO leaders, don't look for any, except in the mirror.

Unless you think a pimp is a leader or some version thereof, then keep looking, voting and hoping in vain.

Wall Street pimps, political pimps, street pimps,..... GOT PIMPS?

Street pimps create jobs for hoes to their detriment.

Not much difference with your cowardly, whore-for-sale "leaders".

Except the hoe delivers more on their product delivery than the "leaders" and the pimp is .5% more honest than your local "leader".

These clowns will continue to go in circles while cashing in until the end of the END.

Stimulus indeed.

Extremely insulting.

Enjoy Armageddon.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870291].message }}

Kay King 16 years ago

I wish I could say you are wrong - but I can't.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870333].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Very profound indeed. From the same guy who has had the movie Zeitgeist in his signature for a year like that is some sort of reality when in actuality it is complete bull sh#t.

Originally Posted by The 13th Warrior

Stimulus indeed.

Extremely insulting.

Enjoy Armageddon.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870908].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Very profound indeed. From the same guy who has had the movie Zeitgeist in his signature for a year like that is some sort of reality when in actuality it is complete bull sh#t.

NORMALLY here, SURPRISE, I would AGREE with you! HEY, I even once agreed with all the unions and almost the entire democrat party. SERIOUSLY! It HAPPENED!

Anyway, I must say you are wrong HERE! The 13th warrior made some good statements. Basically, the stimulus has no strings about WHERE it will be spent, so it goes abroad. People do that to create garbage and claim it APPEARS good. In the end, it makes things WORSE!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871878].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

I guess that is as close to an agreement I'll get from you: "Normally I would agree with you....you are wrong" 8-/

Yeah, he made some good statements and some sense. But I just don't see the stimulus as some plot that will lead to Armegeddon.

Originally Posted by seasoned

NORMALLY here, SURPRISE, I would AGREE with you! HEY, I even once agreed with all the unions and almost the entire democrat party. SERIOUSLY! It HAPPENED!

Anyway, I must say you are wrong HERE! The 13th warrior made some good statements. Basically, the stimulus has no strings about WHERE it will be spent, so it goes abroad. People do that to create garbage and claim it APPEARS good. In the end, it makes things WORSE!

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872725].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I guess that is as close to an agreement I'll get from you: "Normally I would agree with you....you are wrong" 8-/

Yeah, he made some good statements and some sense. But I just don't see the stimulus as some plot that will lead to Armegeddon.

Technically, armageddon speaks of the battle on megiddo. In a context such as this, it generally refers to total ruin. So what level is total? By old measures, we have certainly met that. We just don't see that NOW, because things are so SKEWED! It is like the "once upon a time" episode of the twilight zone. The person from the past has seen prices increase so much and is upset, but appreciates the past once he sees the future. The guy from the future is just somehow an idiot that never considered that there was no ability for him to work exactly as he had. He SETTLES for the present because of the lack of technology in the past.

Heck, I lived in the 60s, and with things that were probably more like the 50s. I still remember going to the grocery store for tubes, using manual tools(when I was like 6, most didn't want me uing power tools 8-(), using record players, TVs were mainly B&W and film was B&W unless you REALLY wanted color.

I was into electronics, and started with chassis based construction. I also did woodworking, and metal work. If I had to go back, and take the good of that time WITHOUT the internet, computers, CDs, etc..., SO BE IT!

Still, more and more of everything is leaving the US. In theory, given the current choices, the level of ruin is likely to be "total" in ANYONE'S book in relatively short order. It is incredible that the government would do what it has. Maybe if they had to suffer through the symptoms of their failures, they would never even consider such things.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872824].message }}

HeySal

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I guess that is as close to an agreement I'll get from you: "Normally I would agree with you....you are wrong" 8-/

Yeah, he made some good statements and some sense. But I just don't see the stimulus as some plot that will lead to Armegeddon.

No it isn't - it's just another little piece of a coup. What exactly is the correct term for a government forcefully taking money from the unwilling to fund an unsupported and unwanted take-over of private corporations? I think the term is fascism - all the truths and all the BS only needs to revolve on that one FACT alone. Our gov now owns our wallets and will take from us as they please - and they now have control of private industry. This is a fact.

Figure out as you please from there. It all comes out to the same thing in the long run.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872837].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

The stimulus wasn't/isn't used to take-over any private corporations so there goes your FACT out the window.

Originally Posted by HeySal

No it isn't - it's just another little piece of a coup. What exactly is the correct term for a government forcefully taking money from the unwilling to fund an unsupported and unwanted take-over of private corporations? I think the term is fascism - all the truths and all the BS only needs to revolve on that one FACT alone. Our gov now owns our wallets and will take from us as they please - and they now have control of private industry. This is a fact.

Figure out as you please from there. It all comes out to the same thing in the long run.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1875738].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

The stimulus wasn't/isn't used to take-over any private corporations so there goes your FACT out the window.

Yeah, you're right. Some people just don't understand finances, etc.... GM was **********STOLEN***********! They didn't use any money to buy it.

HECK, they EVEN stole BONDS! Do you understand how chilling that is? Mortgages, corporations , student loans, banks, cities, THE *******UNITED STATES******* are financed THROUGH BONDS! If the US doesn't honor CORPORATE bonds, WHY should they be trusted with municiple or even COUNTRY bonds! T-bills and savings bonds are basically bonds. They say they are backed by "The full faith and credit of the U.S.". WHAT FAITH? WHAT CREDIT?

Then again, if they didn't APPEAR to have the money to buy it, it would have been more obvious that they stole it. SO, in a way....

Still, WHAT is your point? I would havee PREFERRED it if they bought it, like they CLAIMED to have. I lost very little money DIRECTLY there as I only happened to have like one share. Indirectly, it may have cost us a LOT!

A note to those living with their parents now! I can only pay a VERY tiny piece of the debt. It is but a FRACTION of a drip in the bucket. *****YOU***** will have to pay for OUR subsistance, the portion of the debt we don't pay, and all the interest on top of that. FURTHER, since YOU can't pay for it, your kids and grand kids and great...grand kids will!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1876128].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Stolen? HUH? Here's what happened: GM went *************BANKRUPT********** just like Chrysler did years earlier. GM had a reported debt of $172.8 billion which was twice the size of it's assets. It's that simple. It wasn't stolen and it isn't fascism.

Originally Posted by seasoned

Yeah, you're right. Some people just don't understand finances, etc.... GM was **********STOLEN***********! They didn't use any money to buy it.

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1876970].message }}

Kay King

16 years ago

Instead of rehashing what was done and can't be changed it's better to look ahead at the mountains in front of us. The recent warning about ratings from Moody had a different tone than previous warnings - it's a real danger to the economy and a clear flag to stop the massive spending we've had for the past 8-9 years.

Several statements from China recently indicate a potential reluctance to continue buying our debt - or at the least to make it harder for us to do anything to irritate that huge competitor.

It's often said history repeats itself - but in truth it doesn't repeat itself in the same way. While people are looking for the warning signs that were (in hindsight) present in a past crisis, they tend to ignore new warning signs of an impending crisis.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877113].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Well, we could be discussing the bank reform bill in congress now. Mike, do you have an opinion on that? I see you lurking here. ;-)

Originally Posted by Kay King

Instead of rehashing what was done and can't be changed it's better to look ahead at the mountains in front of us. The recent warning about ratings from Moody had a different tone than previous warnings - it's a real danger to the economy and a clear flag to stop the massive spending we've had for the past 8-9 years.

Several statements from China recently indicate a potential reluctance to continue buying our debt - or at the least to make it harder for us to do anything to irritate that huge competitor.

It's often said history repeats itself - but in truth it doesn't repeat itself in the same way. While people are looking for the warning signs that were (in hindsight) present in a past crisis, they tend to ignore new warning signs of an impending crisis.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877383].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, we could be discussing the bank reform bill in congress now. Mike, do you have an opinion on that? I see you lurking here. ;-)

Not yet, really. The only thing I have heard about "reform" for banking is, in the form of additional taxes and/or penalties to the big bad banks. As if this will help the little guy. You know very well how the banks will pay for those extra taxes...

Yes, more fees, higher fees, etc.

So, more taxes for big business = an indirect tax on the consumers of the world - you and me included.

If I am misinformed, let me know. This is not a subject I spent any time on. When I have time... har

Mike

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877836].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Mike, I was referring to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 written by Sen Chris Dodd. It was released a few days ago and is about regulating the industry. It seems to be similar to the health care bill in that the progressives think it doesn't go far enough and the conservatives think it goes too far.

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Not yet, really. The only thing I have heard about "reform" for banking is, in the form of additional taxes and/or penalties to the big bad banks. As if this will help the little guy. You know very well how the banks will pay for those extra taxes...

Yes, more fees, higher fees, etc.

So, more taxes for big business = an indirect tax on the consumers of the world - you and me included.

If I am misinformed, let me know. This is not a subject I spent any time on. When I have time... har

Mike

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1889653].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Mike, I was referring to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 written by Sen Chris Dodd. It was released a few days ago and is about regulating the industry. It seems to be similar to the health care bill in that the progressives think it doesn't go far enough and the conservatives think it goes too far.

So what else is new?

I haven't read it or heard anything about it. Reading stuff like that in the wrong frame of mind burns me out. After I finish paying my taxes perhaps I'll spend some time reading it.

Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1891396].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Stolen? HUH? Here's what happened: GM went *************BANKRUPT********** just like Chrysler did years earlier. GM had a reported debt of $172.8 billion which was twice the size of it's assets. It's that simple. It wasn't stolen and it isn't fascism.

OK, so NOW you are claiming that they long had nothing, and that all they now have came from the federal government. WOW, you can't win! DAMNED if you do, and DAMNED if you don't! Besides, the bond holders are supposed to be paid off first. If GM stock was worth nothing, WHY did the UAW accept it?

One site said something interesting:

The same government that couldn't run a cafeteria without going millions of dollars into the red; the same government that still can't run a successful post office in spite of the numerous successful businesses that have sprung up all around it; the same government whose model for successful customer service is the Department of Motor Vehicles, is going to be teaming up with the very unions who ran the auto manufacturing industry out of business in the first place to build cars.
Ever heard of the Soviet government-produced Lada? You haven't? Don't worry; you'll be getting a chance to own its American equivalent in just a few years.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877405].message }}

The 13th Warrior

16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Very profound indeed. From the same guy who has had the movie Zeitgeist in his signature for a year like that is some sort of reality when in actuality it is complete bull sh#t.

Well, since hardly any media, pundits or whatever will actually address what the cause is or what the solution is or pragmatically kill the source of the problem in a realistic, timely fashion, some merit to your statement.

But COMPLETE bull sh#t.....???

As opposed to WHAT??

Now we GOTS to know what you consider to be other than bull sh#t.

Since there are barely few , non-political, uncowardly, unbought, agenda-less sources of information that are fearless against any reprisal, leaders, agencies, consequences, monetary and other hidden sell-out agendas in favor of simply stating the facts to wake up the masses....,

..........I am going to guess that :

1) You will not answer

2) Your bull sh#t-FREE source is full of holes and sell-out agendas more than my zeitgeist signature

You most likely believe this(videos below) is bull sh#t , too , which is what gives oppressors their power.

I am supremely confident in my statement here of YOUR statements simply for the fact that Ronald Reagan is in your signature, tells me ALL I need to know.

Your very assessment of what is bull sh#t is why the confused masses of us will find out too late:

YouTube - Money As Debt 1: what money is & why we...

YouTube - Money as Debt II Promises Unleashed (1...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872574].message }}

TimPhelan

16 years ago

Well, I wasn't and am not now much of a fan of Reagan as a President, so I don't think it says much about me actually.

OK, maybe "complete" was overstating it. There's some truth in those Zietgeist movies but it's surrounded by the conspiracy BS.

Is any source free from some sort BS? I would say no, but usually I try to stay away from videos filled with half truths and downright lies as my sources. Especially the first Zeitgeist movie. That movie only confuses the masses more.

Originally Posted by The 13th Warrior

I am supremely confident in my statement here of YOUR statements simply for the fact that Ronald Reagan is in your signature, tells me ALL I need to know.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872700].message }}

The 13th Warrior 16 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

There's some truth in those Zietgeist movies but it's surrounded by the conspiracy BS.

Perhaps, but the only chance to piece truth together is to get sources telling more truth and less bs than other mainstream sources.

Theres nothing you can really trust, thats the first chance at filtering the facts and truth.

Take the facts, the truth, leave the rest.

Conspiracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cabal, an association between religious, political, or tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by intrigue

Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage

Conspiracy (crime), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement

Conspiracy (political), the overthrow of a government

==========================

Hmmm, its quite envouge to put everything into a "conspiracy theory nuts" category and dismiss and forget about it.

No conspiracy by the definition of the word?

So when the religious organizations simply relocate pedophile members to other geographic locations, that is not something conspired?

Since the Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor a Government entity but is simply a group of private bankers NOT listed in ANY government pages but in BUSINESS section, that term "Federal Reserve" is not alluding to conspire an accepted/trusted legality that is a necessary entity for governments and the civilians?

The majority of businesses that get a "slap on the wrist" when caught using illegal aliens is not a conspiracy against legal, citizen workers of this country and labor as to avoid paying them an honest wage?

Companies that relocate to other countries with the government not presenting ANY counterbalance of measure to offset their un-american DIS-loyality to the citizens of the U.S. is not conspiring against the labor forces here?

Guess the government can't do anything, we are simply at the mercy and behest of the banks and corporations, hell, why have politicians in the first place, let WalMart or Union Oil run everything, they do anyway, politicians are simply another flavor of lobbyist loyal to their corporate masters.

Companies that fund campaigns of both parties, not conspiring to something?

Yeah, lets dismiss the whole lot, and wait for CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC to bring us something we can use and is factual..., hasn't happened yet,........and wait for our vote, to one day, count for some messiah political candidate in the future that is going to chop down government heavily, not owe or be on the dole to bankers and big corporations....

.....now believing that is a willful conspiracy of insanity.

I would'nt go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers.

There are only two things we should fight for.

One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.

War for any other reason is simply a racket."

-Major General Smedley Darlington Butler USA (1881-1940)
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872848].message }}

hariklia

16 years ago

In my opinion, everybody is very quick to judge banks for getting us in this trouble, but everybody forgets that we contributed to that sort of behavior. When they were giving loans and mortgages to people who can't afford them no one said "no", people actually took the money the can't afford to pay back, so it's only right that we all take some part of responsibility for that reckless behavior.
And to let them fail? Much easier said then done.
I don't think governments bailed out banks because they love them so much.
I don't work for any bank btw, lol

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877360].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

Originally Posted by hariklia

In my opinion, everybody is very quick to judge banks for getting us in this trouble, but everybody forgets that we contributed to that sort of behavior. When they were giving loans and mortgages to people who can't afford them no one said "no", people actually took the money the can't afford to pay back, so it's only right that we all take some part of responsibility for that reckless behavior.
And to let them fail? Much easier said then done.
I don't think governments bailed out banks because they love them so much.
I don't work for any bank btw, lol

I wasn't one that took the money without the ability to pay, etc... I only got a mortgage, and was never even LATE on a payment. ALSO, at one point, I was about 10 years ahead! My next mortgage payment isn't even due until about JUNE!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877425].message }}

seasoned

16 years ago

kenster said:

But unemployment IS NOT how many people are collecting unemployment. Unemeployment is defined as something like..."People who are capable, willing, and actively seeking jobs"

He forgot ONE minor thing. The fact is that it is REALLY....

People who are on unemployment insurance.

If 30% of all people SUDDENLY lost their jobs, the unemployment would jump 30%, and eventually decrease to ZERO, assuming the employment status of NOBODY changed! WHY? Because the insurance will run out and, as it runs out for a person, they will NO LONGER COUNT!

That does NOT mean they are really looking for work, etc... AND, the government is EXTENDING benefits which MIGHT be inflating the numbers a bit, but it is also increasing the debt and uncertainty which can hurt employment.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1860946].message }}

Kenster

16 years ago

I sort of regret making this thread now because it has gotten political, which is what I didnt want. Looking back I should have known it would, but that was not the intent.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1865291].message }}

studio52

16 years ago

There is a good argument for the bailouts. In the long term I think many people were saved a lot of problems with their banks. But giving the money to the banks with no controls was pretty stupid in the long run.

We do not have the capacity to be involved in major military conflicts and help every country that has an emergency AND bail out every major company that has financial issues. We are trillions in debt and losing benefits and educational needs every year. If we dont stop spending like this we are heading down the road to financial ruin.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870400].message }}

Kenster

16 years ago

I think we should all keep in mind that there is no perfect answer. Every proposition we make is going to have awful consequences. Every decision that will be made will have horrible consequences. There is a "better" solution but not a "great" or "perfect" solution.

The world of government and decision making isn't necessarily a zero sum game but there will inevitably be some people or groups of people that suffer as a result of every decision that is made.

And further, we live in a world where we all have different perspectives and ideologies. This is the wonderful thing about life. Its important to keep an open mind of other peoples perspectives and ideologies. Just because we don't agree with somebody about the bailout or anything else, doesn't mean they are wrong. They are most likely right in according to their personal philosophy.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1878013].message }}

Bailout?

Trending Topics

Not sure how I should price my new product for existing members...any suggestions?

Is that me or is Christmas getting sadder as time goes by?

Is Digital Marketing Still Worth Learning in The Age of AI?

How to add Backlink ? I am under thread of losing the job

Christmas Eve....