BS: You and the stimulus plan

Subject: BS: You and the simulous plan
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:39 PM

Don's opinion piece:


What Republicans want are tax cuts that are issued as tax returns.

Democrats want the the stimulous package to get spending on large projects, programs and job creating.


What do Americans get if larger tax return checks ( "spending your own money plan" ) are sent out?
ans. People get another Bush stimulous check UNLESS...
they owe on a credit card or a bank loan of some kind...then the banks intercept the check for themselves.

You see back in 1994 the Republican Banking commitee revamped the law so that not only bankruptcy was overhauled in favor of the banks and at the total loss for consumers in both chapter 7 and 13.
ALSO laws that allow banks to put tax return leins on the American people became even stronger

So with the tax break scheme the money will really go directly to the banks - do not pass, go directly to Banks - IF YOU OWE MONEY.

So far I have not seen the ultra wealthy private sector or banks provide any meanigful relief, loans or gifts to anyone - including between themselves.


_________________________the partisan divide---------------------------



The Democratic scheme is a grand Cainsian experiment that - if implemented - would buy time for the economy to fall slower since less than half the maney required by the Cain's formula is being injected.

Even if the experiment works the country will continue to cannabalize itself with State goverments trying to eat anything the citizens have and the citizens trying to take anything they can get from the goverment.

Corporations aka the private sector, continue to lay off Americans and hire overseas. Shameful as it sounds, they could even use tax payer bail out TARP funds to do so. Buy American rhetoric is being suprressed in fear of a trade war so expect to see Chinese goods continue unabated.

Energy and energy saving companies along with construction and infrastructure projects will see a rise in domestic employment.

California goverment employees are now laid off every other friday.
IF someone has to get a goverment service on those days they will have to wait till monday or tuesday.







The next 5 years will be rougher and more contentious than even the most pessimistic of us expected. Yet a hopeful wisdom from the White House will make the bitter medicine go down easier.

Now that Wall street with all their ex Enron accountants have eaten the lion's share of the world wide economy, it is left to the rest of us to canabalize what's left.

The examples of the intelligent and generous act by either government or corporations during this "grand" recession will probably be few and far between.

So far I am proud of the president finally funding childrens health insurance (SCHIP) and end cruel and unusual treatment by the CIA and military. Any action in keeping with the spirit of our Constitution is a welcome relief.




In short the great debate continues with the Corporate Limbaugh machine calling for trickle down tax breaks and the economists calling for watering the roots of the economy directly.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the simulous plan
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:43 PM

You've been listening to NPR again, Don. :)

Subject: RE: BS: You and the simulous plan
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:52 PM

Not true lately.

Actually I spent the last 2 days listening only to Levin, Hannity and Limbaugh.


Instant gratification in fixing the state of our nation after 30 years of abuse, is too much to ask.

Take heart in any small act of kindness and savor it.
It will be the the greatest thing we can create orselves.


"The risk takers have run across the ice with heavy bags of gold that they robbed from all of us. Despite their crimes we have tried to rescue those that have fallen through the ice despite their great weight.
It is now time to start rescuing each other."

quote by DAH

Subject: RE: BS: You and the simulous plan
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 05:05 PM

Admin cold you please add a T to stimulous?




The whole country seems to be in some form of arrested development.

The obvious difference between npr and AM talk raidio is that npr guests often have degrees of higher education and have strong tools of research and history, while AM talk jocks spend most of their time making fun of people's genitals. (actual examples - Barney's Frank and Pelosi's pussy.)

Subject: RE: BS: You and the simulous plan
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 05:07 PM

Here is my stimulus plan.

And some things in economics are contrary to logic and common sense. And finally I have heard the phrase "the parodox of thrift." Good phrase. Explains a lot.

Anyway, I would start with two things...failsafe measures..three actually.

1. Keep the farms and food supply going. And sooner or later some unemployed people are going to have to work on farms or produce food some way.

2. Set up simple, safe, spartan shelters for single men and women, (separate shelters), where they can be sorted out into regular people down on their luck (probably separate shelters for different categories, as they need different levels of security, support etc.), mentally ill, violent (highest security and let them take on each other). There should be no victims in this process. This could provide jobs for plumbers, electricians etc. rehabbing unused properties.

3. Set up many many health clinics staffed by nurses, again employing nurses (hope we have enough..start right now with free tuition for public health nurses)...jobs for people rehabbing buildings etc., medical records people, janitors etc., nurses.

4. Look at food stamp programs. Lots of people need them for sure, but they should be primarily (90% or so) for healthy foods, like WIC says you can buy this but not that. Use agricultural surplus and actually grow surplus and pass it on. Look at agricultural subsidies being abused and get tobacco farmers to start growing other things right now.

5. Get going with windmills. Use them as they used them in Grayland, WA to subsidize heat and electricity for low-income people.

6. Set up shelters in advance for weather emergencies..too hot, too cold etc., especially for elderly.

7. Send the message out right now that there is not enough money for teenagers to get pregnant, so knock it off. Bully pulpit has not been used nearly enough and this would save a huge amount of money down the line.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: You and the simulous plan
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 05:12 PM

Agrarian shift
poor houses
population control


all good points

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulous plan
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 09:29 PM

but it sounds Chinese


MSNBC:

for every $1 of non refundable tax rebate money, a $1.02 is generated in economic activity.

for every $1 of infrastructure spending $1.59 is generated.

for every dollar in food stamps spending a $1.73 is generated in economic activity.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulous plan
From: GUEST,Susu
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 09:34 PM

You know...I'm not opposed to the fact that Obama got new airplanes and helicopters and cars. That's what presidents are afforded.

I've got no problem with the money, however much it was, for the first lady to re-decorate the White House. It will be their home for the next four years. They should decorate it however they want and it should be at taxpayers expense.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that there is an $800 BILLION package sitting before the senate that is trying to be sold as a stimulus bill when anyone with half a brain can read through the lines and see that's it's nothing more than construction paper smeared with fecal matter of the democrats that dream this crap up.

Someone explain to me, please, how giving $50,000,000 to the National Endowment for the Arts, $400,000,000 for global warming research will make life better on a day to day basis for a family of four in middle America with the parents out of work. At the same time, please tell me how giving the Smithsonian Institute $150,000,000 is going to help purchase clothes for the kids during the rest of the winter.

Please show me the genius in providing $650,000,000 on top of what's already been spent to help in the switch from analog to digital TV.

And certainly, last but not least, how is spending an additional $600,000,000 on top of the $3 BILLION that is currently being spent by our federal government on official vehicles going to help John and Jane pay for their home, while trying to put their 2 kids through college?

This is shaping up like a bad mastercard commercial.....

I can hear it now.....


.....and bankrupting America for the next 80 years......priceless.



Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulous plan
From: GUEST,Susu's Hubby
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 09:36 PM

The above is actually the same post from another topic but it's more appropriate for this one....sorry for the repost.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulous plan
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:20 PM

Susu's Hubby:

If you look into the facts you may find that (a) the vehicles were all ordered by Bush's team and delivered before the Inauguration and (b) your spitting generalized negativity somehow didn't make anything any better.

One per cent of the stimulus plan was slightly dubious---reseeding the Washington Mall for example.

A

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulous plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:37 PM

Frankly, I could never see how tax cuts would help the economy. They did with Kennedy, but it's kind of a one-off proposition. Under Reagan, tax cuts drove the economy into the ground.

               But if Donuel is right, and there's money in there to reduce population growth, that's probably the most constructive thing Congress could come up with.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulous plan
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 11:58 PM

"Someone explain to me, please, how giving $50,000,000 to the National Endowment for the Arts... will make life better... for a family of four in middle America...."

Of course, some of the breadwinners for those middle-American families are people who make their livings in the arts. The arts have been severely affected by the economic mess. Orchestras, theaters, and museums that have been very dependent on corporate contributions for years are having to close their doors as those funding sources dry up. A violinist whose symphony has closed its doors is just as out of work as a car salesman whose dealership has gone out of business.

Some people say that the arts are a luxury, not a necessity, so people employed within the arts should just go out and find "real" work. Well, there's a helluva lot of jobs that fall into that "luxury, not necessity" category. Restaurants, sports, movies, television, computers, telephones, travel, tourism, new cars, boats, airplanes, and probably about half of what's sold in most retail stores are all things that we could live without. I suppose all the people involved in those industries should find "real" work digging ditches or something.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 01:09 AM

Bravo, BWL!!!

Lift up the Arts and the Culture and the Museums, etc. all of those things which lift the spirits and give life hope even in darkest days. Their effect is immeasurable and positive in so many ways, not the least of which is the employment of many as BWL pointed out.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 01:42 AM

Why is it that people always see arts & education as the 1st items to throw overboard when the cutting comes about. You can't really seperate the two, they're twins. How about drop the idea of building a fence/wall from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Arts & education can't afford the cuts after being surgically diced & sliced after the past 8 yrs.

The switch on the TV's has been delayed, for now.

The fed's switching to greener vechicals makes more sence in many ways. Just try ti give it soom deep thought or maybe if you heard what Obama had to say about that you' have figured it out, then again, maybe not.

The tax cut issue is not an issue it's a barginbasement chip.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: bald headed step child
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 02:08 AM

Riginslinger, if you look at what Kennedy did it was not really a tax cut, although that is what Reaganomics wants you to believe.

At the time Kennedy made those cuts the nominal rate was around 74%?, but through loopholes those people were only paying around 28-30%.

Kennedy dropped the nominal rate, but at the same time he closed the loopholes, so the net effect was actually a tax increase on the ultra rich. That is what is needed now to bring things back around.

Put simply, if you know the money in excess of say $3.5 million is going to be taxed at a rate of 74% would you take the money to buy a new car or boat, or would you invest it back into your company, maybe create a job or two, to avoid paying the heavier tax? That is how you build a sustainable economy, instead of a get rich quick, screw anyone who gets in your way economy.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 02:49 PM

"mentally ill, violent (highest security and let them take on each other). There should be no victims in this process." mg 05:07 PM


mg, I doubt that you mean it that way but that is one of the most noncomprehending, cynical, vicious statements I have ever seen. To follow it up with: There should be no victims in this process." is an amazing piece.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 03:47 PM

If the government could get the banks back in shape so that they can give loans again, the plans might have some value.
However, it seems to me that international cooperation on all these stimulus-bailout-support plans is necessary for them to have major effect.

All major countries are using the same stimulus plans, but nothing is coordinated.
All, especially the U. S., pay attention to local difficulties, but the problem and its resolution is global. No country can survive on its own (No major power ever did).

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: mg
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 05:30 PM

Well, what I was trying to say is that no one should be preyed upon in a shelter by a violent person. The violent ones should be segregated and have very high security. Fear of violence and theft is something that keeps people on the streets and out of shelters. mg

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 06:09 PM

The reason my button got pushed so violently is that I have known/loved mentally ill persons. Without exception, I believe, the thing they most fear is violence from others.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,Susu's Hubby
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 07:14 PM

"Why is it that people always see arts & education as the 1st items to throw overboard when the cutting comes about. You can't really seperate the two, they're twins. How about drop the idea of building a fence/wall from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Arts & education can't afford the cuts after being surgically diced & sliced after the past 8 yrs."

Barry,

Here is where your logic is way flawed.

1. The bill is to STIMULATE growth. Not put things back to where you think they need to be. Besides, how much growth can one really expect with the NEA?
2. There are no CUTS to anything here. It's only throwing additional money that could be better spent elsewhere at something that has no real hope of helping 300 million hurting Americans.

And on the education front, I'm for giving money to education. As long as it goes towards the students and not into the pockets of the Union thugs that think they need to be re-payed for getting dems elected this past November.

And while we're at it...let's give some of that education money to private schools as well. That's something else that is not in the education "stimulus" section. Do the research....not a penny is there for private education. Could it be because there is NO UNION REPRESENTATION in the private schools? There should be no "pick and choose" when it comes to education. It's our children that we're talking about here.

This bill was doomed from the start.

President Obama says that a stimulus bill is a spending bill. But not all the spending in this bill will create the stimulus needed to get people back to work. A lot of trimming is needed on this monster. And it's needed now, more than ever.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: DougR
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 07:20 PM

Riginslinger: I don't know where you are getting your information about the economy during the Reagan administration. What you have been posting are simply not facts. I think you must be getting your information from bloggers or maybe the New York Times.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 07:39 AM

No, Doug, I get my information from personal experience. Maybe you weren't around in the early 80's, but who ever was running Ronald Reagan introduced what they called "supply side economics," and the result of this was the most devastating economic collapse the country had seen since The Great Depression. It combind high interest rates with tax cuts for the very wealthy. It also imposed much higher employment taxes, that drove many small business--of which I was one--into the toilet.
          The real devastation of the Reagan folly didn't take full effect until the dumb bastard introduced his first budget to Congress. He campaigned on a promise to balance the budget, but it soon became clear that he intended to ignore that promise altogether for the purpose of rewarding his defense related buddies.

          He didn't bring you the "General Electric Theater" all those years ago for nothing.

             A little investigation into the current economic problems will show you that things have not yet sunk to the levels of the disaster of the Reagan Administration.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Louie Roy
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:13 AM

Did anyone ever wonder how much 850 billion dollars is. If it was possible for a person to be able to sit on a high enough cliff with 1 billion silver dollars and toss a silver dollar over the cliff every second how long it would take to throw away 1 billion dollars. It would take 31 plus years now multiply this by 850.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: bald headed step child
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 12:14 PM

Hubby, maybe the money isn't in there for private schools because they are PRIVATE schools.

If you want to send your children to a private school then you can pay for it.

The public education system has been systematically destroyed by the republican party for the last 30 years. Reagan started it in California when he was governor with the theory that educated people would not vote for him. I guess he had that part right.

All improvements to schools will stimulate the economy, whether it is building new schools or simply getting some new books, or hiring new teachers.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 01:56 PM

B. H. Step child, I agree wholeheartedly. The growth of private primary schools has become divisive, segregationist and certainly anti-democratic. The system of public schools should be supported in every possible way, and separate private schools discouraged.

The private school movement is strong in my city (Calgary) in western Canada, as it is in much of the U. S.

Kids whose families are well-to do are segregated from the unwashed who can only afford public schools.
Kids whose parents are members of the far right bigoted and ignorant religious sects have their own schools; they have no contact with other beliefs. So we have segregation by belief as well as financial status.
Some schools are exclusively for girls. Home schooling is also permitted in this province.

The disintegration here has two main causes.
1. The inclusion of mentally handicapped into the main public school stream, essentially giving teachers the parallel job of caring for two groups, to the detriment of those who are able to learn and advance.
2. The influx of immigrants (20% plus in Calgary's population), many of whom know little English. ESL (English as second language) teaching is strong in the public system, as it should be. Many parents who were born here, however, are wary of "foreign ways," and have elected private schools as a way of avoiding contact.

Of course, the way towards privatization was paved by Canada's system of separate schools, Catholic and non-Catholic, both publicly funded. The beast had two heads from the time of Confederation.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 06:20 PM

Aside from the public school issue Hubby, which those above have explaned well, my only disagreement is that the package doesn't need trimming but I don't at all support any faith based supports, it's again to supporting priavet schooling.

Reagan economics = "trickle down". We got crumbs while the rich eat cake. Reagan sent us to the Guillotine. We bled for a long time & we are still bleeding due to his failures& many lost not only their heads.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Art Thieme
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 07:25 PM

I saw an ad recently for a stimulus package. It was made up of ten different kinds of vibrators!!!!!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 08:39 PM

Q - America's schools have the same problems you describe for Canada. It seems like once they determined what the probem(s) was, they'd try to do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 10:30 PM

Public schools operate under a set of rules established by law. Most private schools exist because they don't want to operate under one or more of those rules.

We don't let people who don't abide by the rules use our public parks and athletic fields. Why should we give public funds to schools that don't abide by the rules we've established for education?

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:05 AM

bwl

States like Louisiana have been run by people who create a permanent underclass which does not fund schools like the rest of the nation. Specificlly The oil companies do not share any revenue with LA state citizens as does Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada etc.
Inequities are planned and deliberate.
Giving religious schools public money was a pet progect of Bush's faith based initiative.


also in answer to how a family of four could benefit from arts and humanity projects. Some family of four may have an electrician or a set builder or janitorial services etc. No one program will employ all families of four but enough different programs will reach more by doing somthing rather than nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:55 AM

The stimulus plan as now compromised will lower the unemployment rate by 1/2 to 1% by the fourth quarter of this year.
(8% unemployment instead of 9% ~ 1.5 million new jobs)

The worst numbers could be seen in 2010
An obvious turnaround will not emerge until 2011

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:12 PM

"Giving religious schools public money was a pet progect of Bush's faith based initiative."


                  So why is Obama continuing with it?

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:19 PM

Listen to his address at the National Prayer breakfast and his version of faith based inititive.

Keeping the best ideas and discarding the bad under his new credo that religion shall not be used to divide us, makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:44 AM

The worst idea is the concept of "Faith Based Initiative," to begin with...

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 03:19 PM

Tired of the old singsong 8 years of failed policy that "got us into this mess"-Try 38 years

There is an article in the Jan 31 Time Magazine that explains how we "got into this mess" in easy to understand terms.

....Starting in the early 1970s, banks began funding less of their lending with old-fashioned deposits. Bank deposits backed 90% of all loans four decades ago; today they back 60%. Where does the rest of the loan money come from? From the bank's past earnings and the money given to it by its investors. Using the house's money has generated higher profits — with significantly higher risks.

Regulators have long had a lower capital requirement on loans that are not backed by deposits. But in 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) removed rules that capped leverage at 15 to 1 for investment-banking firms like Goldman Sachs. That allowed the firms to vastly expand their lending activities without raising a single new dollar of capital. One big backer of the rule change was reportedly former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was then Goldman's CEO. By that time, the regulatory separation between investment banks and traditional banks had long since been removed, so traditional banks such as Citigroup and Bank of America shifted more and more of their lending operations to their investment-banking divisions, and leverage took off. By the end of 2007, many banks were lending $30 for every dollar they had in the vault. "Changing the net-capital rule was an unfortunate misjudgment by the SEC," says former SEC official Lee Pickard. "It's one of the leading contributors to the current financial crisis." (See who else is to blame.)

Another way banks sought to boost their profits — at least those available to shareholders — was through stock buybacks. Investors cheer buybacks, because they shrink the number of outstanding shares, boosting a company's profits per share and usually its stock price. But corporate stock purchases also decrease banks' capital, because their earnings are used to purchase shares rather than being retained as cash. Worse, sometimes banks borrow money in order to buy back shares, upping their leverage and lowering their capital at the same time. In the past four years alone, the nation's largest banks, as defined by Standard & Poor's, have spent $300 billion buying back stock.

TARP does nothing to patch the hole in the banking system. And it certainly doesn't do anything to encourage banks to make more loans. Yes, banks have gotten nearly $300 billion in money from the government, and that's a lot of dough. But it's not free dough. In return for federal cash, the government has taken preferred-stock shares as the firm's markers. Unlike common stock, which is the kind you or I would buy from a broker, preferreds have to eventually be paid back, so they are really loans, not additional capital. (See which country has the best bailout plans.)

Say a bank has $5 in capital and $100 in loans. Now the government gives the bank an additional $100 in preferred shares and says, "Go make more loans." Well, the bank might then have $200 in loans, but it still has only $5 in common shareholders' equity. The result: if just 2.5% of its loans go bad, the bank's shareholders are wiped out. Wisely, the largest banks in the nation lent less in the fourth quarter of 2008 than in the previous three months — a strategy that has drawn some complaints. But that hasn't removed the pressure on their shares. That's because the banks have had to continue to take loan losses. And banks don't have the option to pass those losses off on the new money they got from the government. They have to write down their common stockholders' equity first. And as that capital falls, so go the bank's shares. Some are alarmingly close to zero.

No bank's stock has fallen more in value during the past four months than Bank of America's. The combined value of its shares is now $37 billion. That's $123 billion less than they were worth at the end of September. In the third quarter, BofA was forced to write down $4.4 billion in loans, or about 1.8% of its loan portfolio. Compared with what some of its competitors wrote down, that wasn't a heck of a lot; Citigroup, for instance, had a $13.2 billion charge in the same quarter, primarily related to loan losses. But the relatively small loss took BofA's thin tangible equity, the type of capital that matters most to shareholders, down to a ratio of just 2.6% of loans, according to FBR. By that measure, Bofa was a weaker bank than any of its rivals, including Citigroup. But since the market was so focused on bad loans and the charge-offs banks had to take, no one seemed to notice BofA's faults.

That is, until the fourth quarter. In mid-September 2008, in a deal pushed by regulators, BofA agreed to buy Merrill Lynch. The acquisition actually boosted BofA's capital ratios, but it also added losses to an already fragile capital structure; Merrill Lynch lost $15 billion in the fourth quarter alone. Knowledge of the impending losses forced BofA CEO Ken Lewis to ask the government for an additional $20 billion in TARP funds — on top of the $25 billion it had already received — as well as about $100 billion in loan guarantees. Without the government assistance, BofA says, it couldn't have closed the merger.

The Merrill losses, which weren't publicly revealed until early January, have angered shareholders, some of whom have sued the company for not informing them sooner. And last week, the losses also led Lewis to ask Merrill's top executive, John Thain, to resign for failing to keep BofA officials apprised of his firm's bottom-line problems. Thain says Lewis knew all along. (See pictures of TIME's Wall Street covers.)
more Here

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 03:26 PM

The popular Democratic refrain that "Bush-era deregulation" is to blame for our troubles is a little hard to square with the evidence. What is true is that most Bush-era financial regulators were less than enthusiastic about the very act of regulating, and that Bush's [Barney Franks & Clinton's] "ownership society" push, glossed over a lot of potential dangers. Bush didn't cause the financial regulatory breakdown, but he didn't jump in to fix it either.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:09 PM

For the past 20 years, banks have been piling up risk, making more and more loans based on less and less capital. Years of economic growth, shallow recessions and record-low default rates lulled bankers into thinking that the future would resemble the immediate past, at least as far as risk went. Turns out it didn't. All it was going to take was a worse-than-average recession — and it looks as though we've got one — and many banks, including a number of the biggest ones, were bound to fail. The shockingly poor lending standards — housekeepers being approved for million-dollar mortgages — have only hastened their demise. "This crisis needs to be understood as something that has developed over the past decade," says Joseph Mason, a finance professor at Louisiana State University's E.J. Ourso College of Business.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:17 PM

Sawz - I think by now pretty much everybody is aware that the financial disaster we find ourselves in now was started by Reagan--one of the many stupid things that he did--all George W. Bush did was to make the situation much, much worse.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 12:03 AM

Try Carter

The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers. Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: DougR
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 12:30 AM

Riginslinger: It's difficult to define a current economic problem based on one person's experience at any particular time.

The tax forgiveness legislation during John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and GWB's times brought us out of recessions. That's fact, not opinion.

I think the terminology you use to describe the Reagan economic policies is "trickle down" not "supply side" economics, though I admittedly may be wrong.

Anyway, I think we are in deep shit, and I don't think it's going to get better with the "so called" stimulus legislation.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:14 AM

It's the banking system itself which has created this catastrophe, not the government. The government merely aided and abetted the banks by not more stringently regulating their irresponsible lending policies (and their creation of vast amounts of fictional money through the process of lending). It's been happening for several hundred years. It began long before the USA even existed as a political entity. It began as soon as banks started lending out more money than they had in real deposits...and the governments let them do it. Why? Well, because the governments themselves were usually deeply in debt to those same bankers, that's why.

You thought the government made the money we use? Ha! Sure, they make the physical bills and coins that are in circulation, yes...but that's only a very small amount of all the supposed money that is in play in the economy. Most of it exists only on a computer screen or a balance sheet, and it was never minted or printed by the government. It was created by a bank making a loan...it appeared out of thin air...and then went straight back into the banking system...and even drew interest charges, creating even more money from nowhere....all of which greatly enlarged the national money supply with money that was never real, made bankers rich, and it all came from nowhere.

The government didn't create that money. The banks created it out of thin air every time they made a new loan to somebody.

That's a gigantic pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes always work for awhile, but in the end they collapse, because they are based on a fiction.

We are now seeing such a collapse, and it's occurring on a worldwide basis.

Yes, as Doug said, we are in deep shit.

Gold is real. Food is real. Oil is real. A printed bill is real (albeit merely symbolic of value). A minted coin is real. Most of the money that the banks supposedly have on deposit isn't real.

This would very quickly become evident if the general public all panicked at the same time and tried to withdraw their money from the banks and get hard cash. It ain't there. The entire system would then collapse, and you'd have something bordering on anarchy.

I'm sure the government is quite concerned about avoiding such a possibility. I'd be concerned if I were them.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 07:52 AM

"...the Reagan economic policies is "trickle down" not "supply side" economics,..."

                Art Laffer and the people who set it up called it "supply side" economics, because the monitary policy was determined by what they calle "the M-1 money supply," (liquid capital on hand in banks).
                Reagan himself called it "trickle down," because he was too stupid the understand the theory behind it.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 08:25 AM

OK Riginslinger,


We understand that you believe Reagan to be the spawn of Satan. You've made yourself more than clear on the subject.

But why are you still living in the past?

Can't you grow up and start living in the now?

Much like Pres. Obama said he is going to do?

But since you're there, here's a tidbit for you. Supply side or trickle down or whatever you want to call it didn't do near as much as you think to get the economy in the shape it's in today. That was done by your boy, Clinton, in ordering Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae to loosen their standards in order to let "all" Americans have some home ownership. It all started there.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 08:36 AM

I will admit, Hubby, that ACORN and the push to finance unworthy buyers played a large part in what is happening now, but I don't think any of this could have gotten as bad as it is if it hadn't been for the failed policies of Reagan.

                And living in the "now" has nothing to do with growing up. If we don't understand the mistakes that were made prior, how you one expect things to improve?

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:19 PM

Why can't they just give me my (approx.) $2,500 and let me stimulate the economy in my own way?

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:25 PM

As long as you promise not to spend the money on substances that are not taxed.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:46 PM

How aboutcommunity type jobs in nursing homes, parks, schools, libraries...

How about rebuilding some of these hurricane places and New Orleans with sensible building materials and stringent guidelines, at least against the most likely natural disasters, fire, flood, hurricane. Lots and lots of cement or stone or ceramic or something...and it can be made to withstand earthquakes with proper design...mg

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:07 PM

"And living in the "now" has nothing to do with growing up. If we don't understand the mistakes that were made prior, how you one expect things to improve?"


My point exactly!

But that's not what Pres. Obama is doing now is it?

At least that's not what he is saying.

He jumps back and forth at the very least. Saying things such as "We can't keep looking back to the past. We need to look forward to the future."


So how can he fix it when he's not doing the very thing that you say must be done?

At the very least.......naivety.

And at most.......just plain untruthfulness.


Sad in either case.


Hubby
Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:39 PM

They don't give it to you, Rapaire, because you don't move in the right circles. You need to already be very, very, VERY wealthy. Then you would get the help you are seeking.

Subject: RE: BS: You and the stimulus plan
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 06:03 PM

If I send them $2,500 can I buy my way out of my share of the debt?