That's the thing about that act - if it wasn't for that act, then the big banks would have never been able to buy Morgan Stanley or the other "investment bank".
And i completely agree that poorly thought out regulation is in fact, one of the biggest problems we face.
Too little or too much regulation are both bad things.
Do you also care about the billions being wasted on programs that don't work? How about the billions spent on earmarks?
Or the $147 billion tacked onto an already expensive $700 billion bailout package?
The government spends too much. And while i do think the rich should pay a little more in taxes, i also believe the federal government has ALOT of fat it needs to cut.
OK I got ya.
I think it's excellent for people to start their own business. But they better know their market. For example, it might be hard to start a lawn mowing business right now considering people are cutting back on expenses.
So the thing to do is this:
1. think about what people need during an economic downturn.
2. think about how you can supply that to them
3. start slow. you don't want to quit your job unless you're 100% sure the side business is bringing in the dollars.
Some ideas that might work are...
- computer repair (people would rather fix the old computer then buy a new one)
- car repair (more people are repairing their cars instead of buying new ones)
- selling information products online ( it just takes awhile to build the list, etc... but a good idea is anything GREEN related)
- become a drug dealer: as people lose their jobs, they buy more drugs! ok this is a joke > : )
I'd love to see where your facts come from, because every medical journal i've ever read (including the British government) have said that pot is LESS HARMFUL than alcohol.
Just do a google search and you'll find plenty of proof to show that.
It's also obvious you've never smoked pot. I know plenty of potheads, and none of them "stopped caring about their lives and only wanted to get high".
You are obviously confusing pot or crack or heroin.
"Drama Queen? EVERY Democrat has played the same lying horseshit."
Because republicans don't lie, right? Every politician lies. It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal.
"Trickle down economics DOES work. You just use the wrong yardstick just like all liberals."
And which yard-stick should we use? the one created by conservatives?
Trickle-down does work - but only to an extent. It's obvious that it didn't work too well over the last 8 years, though. The average household earnings have stayed flat that entire time.
I don't believe in a cure for poverty, because there is no cure for human nature. But i believe that we can take more care of middle-class Americans then we currently do. we just went through an administration that helped the rich a great deal. Whats the problem with helping the middle-class go to college for free? or having a little more money left-over in their paychecks?
I agree - thinking that Obama will do everything he's promised is foolish, especially considering what has happened over the last two to three months.
But I bet Obama will do more for the middle-class in this country then any president has in a long time. That's because democrats are expected to gain a 60 member majority in the senate... and a huge one in the house too.
Think about - who is hurting most right now: the rich or the middle class? The answer should be obvious.
So you don't think, not even for a second, that it was the financial industry that lobbied the hell out of our politicians for relaxed rules?
You don't think that leveraging by 30 times... would eventually lead to chaos? You don't think that banks and the financial institutions did absolutely nothing wrong? That it was all a cause of legislation?
Last time I checked, legislation typically comes about because the industry lobbies politicians for new rules and regulations. And let's not forget that our entire Federal Reserve system is bought and owned by the biggest bankers in the nation.
It seems to me, that Wall Street has a little too much power on capital hill. And that greed, more than anything else, drove their decisions and got them into the mess they are in today.
If the industry didn't agree with what congress was saying, wouldn't they have lobbied against that? And somehow, i bet they didn't lobby against it at all. In fact, they got in deeper and deeper even recognizing the serious risks of it.
Anyone who paid attention to the financial markets saw this coming years ago. So why weren't the big banks and institutions prepared for it? Greed and stupidity.
As far as Mark to Market rules, I don't think they are bad at all. The only time they are bad is when big banks put too much of their worth into one group of assets that all go bad at the same time (like right now).
Lesson? Maybe some diversification would have done the trick, don't ya think?
Also, these rules had been around long before Sarbanes Oxley. One thing Sarbanes did was eliminate mark to model or mark to fantasy accounting (you know, what Enron did).
Either way, it looks like the SEC temporarily haulted Mark to Market accounting. Mainly because real estate assets are worth dick and banks would have been trully exposed for the frauds they perpetrated.
A classic case of insiders helping insiders, no doubt.
I just don't know why you don't understand that. Or why you give off the impression that in an unregulated market, worse frauds than happen today would be the norm.
I agree with everything except your last statement.
Did you know that Barack Obama signed a bill that prevented reform of Fannie and Freddie back in 2005? Had that bill passed, Fannie and Freddie would have been fixed then, and not bailed out (Causing the mess it did) now.
From a recent response...
"A bill passed the Senate Banking Committee that would create a regulator that would cause Fannie and Freddie to rid their investments in high risk paper as well as additional oversight. Too bad the bill didn't pass, because things would be a lot different today. The bill never made it to the Senate floor because the democrats blocked it.
It was Senate Bill #190 and was, incidentally, co-sponsored by Senator John McCain, blocked by Senator Chris Dodd (who received over $125,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie), Senator Barack Obama (who received over $165,000 from Fannie and Freddie), Senator Hillary Clinton (who received over $75,000 from Fannie and Freddie). You can throw Barney Franks in there too."
I don't trust Barack because I don't trust any politician. They are all opportunists who are bought out by the elite.
Congress is the problem?
I don't think that's the case at all. I think who bears responsibility are the banks who ignored risk and started lending in this manner. I also blame the last 20 years of financial deregulation which led us right into the mess we're in today.
I agree, we have a problem of confidence. I also think FDIC reserves should be boosted (wait, isn't that Congress who does that?!?).
And Lastly, i think the president, fed chairman, and treasury secretary should go in front of the nation everyday and remind people that there is plenty of cash in the system and that nobody is going to lose their accounts.
With that said, as long as banks are holding on to bad assets and hoarding cash to anticipate future losses, then the credit markets will not function normally.
Have you seen what's happening in the commercial paper and credit default markets? It's crazy. Margin calls of well over $150 billion were made last week alone.
What happened today, was nothing more than politics. It's an election season and certain republicans want to keep their "Free market" credentials before re-election.
I can nearly guarantee that if this crisis had occurred after the elections, the bill would have made it through congress just fine.
By the time all is said and done, the taxpayer won't lose a dime.
The government will buy these assets for dirt cheap. In two to three years, when the market is better, these assets should be worth more than the government bought them for.
And if they aren't, then the bill has a clause that says "any losses will be assesed to the banks" so that taxpayers don't lose any money.
We need a big bailout to get credit moving. If it doesn't happen, we may see another great depression.
Like I said before, this bill is not finalized. Right now you are simply speculating that there would be no accountability, etc...
Hot off the press...
"The bill gave the Secretary (Paulson) much too much authority," Mr. Frank said. "We restored the notion of judicial review and accountability; we have created in our legislation...a very tough oversight board independently funded to check" the program's operation.
Now, neither you nor I know specifics. But it looks like congress is working to make sure there are some checks and balances in this bill.
The purpose of this bailout isn't to help CEO's. In fact, CEO's may take a pay cut and never be eligible for exit bonuses.
And another thing which may be in there would be for judges to have the power to adjust mortgages downwards to help people avoid foreclosure.
You believe confidence IS the entire problem?
You have to be kidding me. The problem of "confidence" stems from another problem. And that problem was the credit-orgy perpetrated by the government during the late 90's and for the past eight years.
The problem is in the bad loans made by stupid banks to people who couldn't afford the loan to begin with. The problem is not just one of the banks, but of the consumers who forgot that they should save money.
To try and minimize this entire thing into a "crisis of confidence" is just wrong.
It doesn't matter how confident you are, a bad investment is a bad investment.
Renewed confidence doesn't take away from the fact that banks are holding trillions in junk assets. And thus, it would be in the best interest of an opposing bank to not lend to the bank who has the bad assets.
How do you take away that fear? By minimizing the bad assets on various banks balance sheets, that's how.
Oh - as far as trying things over and over again - this type of bailout has never been done. The bailout in 89 was different in many ways from this one. And the problem was very, very different from the one we have today.
The bailout in the great depression was also very different, as was the cause of the great depression.
We are in a very unique circumstance, and lawmakers are looking for a unique approach to possibly fix the problem. It won't be cheap and there will be alot of political haggling, that's for sure.
The bailout package isn't final.
It won't be a final for who knows how long. So jumping to conclusions based on what the package says right now is a little premature.
The package could change significantly by the time everything is agreed upon and signed. And I wouldn't doubt that it was a different beast.
For example, a provision being argued upon is that any bank who accepts this package, must cut their executive pay. I totally agree that this should be the case.
That's just one major point of debate. There are many others - including the one you highlighted of the Treasury having no checks (Which i disagree with).
This isn't as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be.
Throughout history, this nation has crafted various "Rescue" packages to help rid banks of bad assets.
It happened during the great depression. And it also happened during the credit crunch in the 80's and early 90's.
The important thing to consider when looking at this is the alternative. As of now, a big bank goes down nearly every week. 12 banks have gone under. And let's not forget about mortgage institutions like fannie and freddie, or even countrywide.
If this isn't done, we'll continue to see more and more banks suffer the same fate. This could squeeze so muhc money out of the market, that unemployment would rocket, wages would be cut, economic activity would scale back massively, and, well, we would have another situation which could be as bad as the great depression.
I wish i was over hyping this or joking. But it's true.
I've studied finance for years now. I'm a writer and well published. And from what i've seen, if this doesn't get controlled, the repercussions are far worse than a $700 billion bailout package.
"hat do you want them to go to jail for? The games played, like mark to market tricks and related bookkeeping aren't illegal. Shorting and speculating isn't illegal. Responding to greedy people too stupid to know if it smells too good to be true it probably isn't or that there is no way to buy a house you cant afford without it biting you in the butt eventually isn't illegal. Stupidity is endemic. We cant legislate against it and can't afford to protect people from it."
MY TAKE: How about for blatant fraud? everyday they go on cnn talking about how they have "sufficient liquidity" then two days later, they go bankrupt. So, you're telling me the ceo didn't just completely lie in what he said?
So you think it was fine for banks to issue loans to people who didn't prove their income? Or how about to less than credit worthy borrowers on adjustable rate mortgages? These banks didn't think of the repercussions and consequences. And the consequence is the entire economy, on the brink of collapse. You don't think somebody should be held responsible? It's about time corporate America realized there are consequences when you have that much power.
You seem like a very responsible guy. That's great that the loan worked perfectly for you. But enough of America isn't like you, to the point where these assets are being written off.
Who's fault is it? it's the banks! they loaned the money and knew there was alot of risk. and because of their mistake, the economy is in the crapper.
Banks aren't supposed to take on risk. It was the Fed's fault for not better regulating that.
all the companies put under conservatorship saw their ceo's kicked out.
also, the ceos for freddie and fannie were even denied their "exit" package.
It's the ceos fault as much as the governments for not properly regulating. thus this is a failure of not just private industry, but the government as well.
Also, the stockholders lose their ass. it's the bondholders (you know, foreign government, pension funds across the us, etc..) that get saved.
Now imagine if every pension fund in america suddenly took a huge hit, and people weren't able to access their retirements again? what kind of mess would that cause?
Just to clarify, i think these ceo's should go to jail. that's how upset i am with them. and i am also upset that this is what has to happen. But i dont want to see a great depression. i dont want to see how it would destroy familes and lives. i dont want to see how badly the world would be screwed if it happened.
it's easy to say we shouldn't do this, but to deal with the great depression instead is far, far worse.
I don't think any of the ceos or chiefs of the company's taken over should have any benefit.
But i think the consequence of not doing some of these bailouts is far far worse than anyone can imagine.
And in fact, would be worse to the taxpayer should they opt for the route you suggest.
What would you rather see.. some greedy guys make out ok. or another great depression? Think about how a depression would impact you, and the people you love.
And then tell me what would have been better.
let me count the ways in which you are wrong...
First, the fed banks an 11% interest on that short-term AIG loan. PLus they own 79% of aig shares at a dirt cheap price. AIG will sell some assets, pay the Fed back, and then their share price will move higher.
The Fed sells their shares of AIG and make out huge.
This disaster you speak of, you have no idea just how bad it could be. It's easy for most people to say we need the disaster because they never went through the Great Depression. Ask anyone alive in those days if the world should ever see a time like that again and you'll get a resounding "no".
The US government will notgo bankrupt. you can count on that. And in five to ten years, when you look back you'll notice that tax payers may have even made money from these events.
"Never. You let the market correct itself. The Government should never interfere in the free-market unless it invades other people's rights and only to lower taxes/deregulate."
MY TAKE: What free market are you talking about? Because the one we're in today has never been free.
---
"We never would have these bailouts if the Federal Reserve wouldn't give these line of credits away. What's interesting to me, and people don't seem to talk about, analysts anyway, the Price Purchasing Power of the U.S. Dollars now. It amazes me that all the Stock Market Channels like CNBC or FBN never disclose how much our dollar is really worth. We can bet our bottom dollar, literally to, that our dollar will be worthless by Christmas (not that it's worth something these days)."
MY TAKE: Have you seen the dollars rally lately? All indications point to a strengthening dollar, not a weakening one. You see, the whole world is behind the US about a year (when it comes to the market) So we've been slowing for a year, but now so is europe, china, japan, etc... This is slamming the value of their currency and increasing the value of the dollar.
---
"So the Federal Reserve, this year alone, has printed half a trillion dollars to bailout companies. That bailout money is not through taxpayer money, earmarks, etc. it's through creating money out of thin air."
MT TAKE: The Fed didn't create money out of thin air. they had a huge nearly trillion dollar bank account. and they are using it to LOAN not CREATE money. In essence, they are adding no liquidity, meaning the funds are sterilized against any inflationary pressures. Just read up a little bit more about it and you'll see for yourself.
---
"If these companies fail it would be devastating at first but time would eventually pass and, again, the market would correct itself. I agree with Peter Schiff when he said that we need a hard-line recession to people get a grasp of what is going on: "People need to spend less, save more and produce more."
I agree, we do need a recession, but we don't need another Great Depression. But Peter Schiff also thinks we don't need any market regulation either. Last time i checked, we're in this mess because the Fed never regulated banks lending practices properly. And in fact, this whole mess is due to less regulation in the financial industry over the course of the past 20 years (think graham,leech act).
---
"This is just the beginning of the economic storm. Just think about our national debt now and our monthly budget. We're not even through September and look at what we have to spend: $85 Billion AIG, $225 Billion War on Terrorism, $10 Billion to Georgia, $10 Billion to Texas (I think that's correct) and we are going to have a new war going on with Pakistan (As Obama has promised and guaranteed us)."
MY TAKE: That $85 billion to AIG will be paid back.. at an 11% interest rate. It seems to me the government is making out like a bandit. And should AIG stock move higher, the government can sell their 79% stake and make even more money.
In the end i understand the need for what's happening today. I don't completely agree with the way the Fed has done it. But i think the repercussions (a worldwide depression that could start huge wars as foreign economies US debt all becomes worthless at once) if we don't do it are far worse.
I also happen to think that the government will end up profiting from most of these bailouts. They aren't just handing out free money. they are all on loans, and for the most part, the fed is buying assets at ridiculously low prices. these are assets that - although they won't do well - should mature at a higher value then what the fed paid to acquire them.
Point 1: He is certainly entitled to it, he did pay in. But, considering how much he is talking about how the system is broken, why should he contribute, even if it is a $24k a year contribution to debt? He's rich, he doesn't need the money, nor is he retired. My point is that social security lost its entire purpose years ago. McCain is proof and point.
Point 2: Of course it would. $24k a year (three to four taxpayers pay for his SS checks), $240k after ten years in deficits that have to be repaid (plus interest). Will he be responsible for the downfall of SS? of course not. But it's people like him that add considerably to the problem SS faces.
It's not a matter of whether he's entitled to it or not. It's a matter of whether it's responsible to tell your constituency one thing and do another. He talks about fiscal discpline and reforming SS.
But there he is, taking those checks willingly even though he doesn't need too.
It's just greed, really.
"Yes it may take a while to remove the millions who are here, but our nation can wait. We've endured this problem for decades, what are a few more years?"
How about, it will NEVER happen. Not unless every border was flawless and everyone in this country was implanted with a special chip. And even then, people would still find a way to skirt the law.
"Creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants flies in the face of one of this nation's founding principles -- rule of law."
If we made it legal by providing a pathway to citizenship, then it would no longer be illegal
As of now, the government has been putting people away little by little. It's entirely inneficient.
Too much money is spent on trying to send these people back home. And in the end, they just end up contributing to our economy and to the rich diversity of this country.
Hey, this country was founded by immigrants, not natives.
Why don't we show a little consideration and let immigrants who respect society and are willing to do the right thing become civilians of this great nation?
Because what you are proposing is an impossible task.
Let me start out by pointing out a big flaw to what you've proposed.
Corporate taxes.
About two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay taxes annually from 1998 to 2005, according to a new report scheduled to be made public today from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Now, just imagine what a federal sales tax would do. It would make it so that all corporations pay taxes. It also makes it so that it's virtually impossible to pass tax break to 'friendly' corporations.
Also, the rich - in general - pay LESS taxes today than the middle-class (and especially the upper-middle class). In fact, Warren Buffet (one of, if not the richst man in america) said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
Now imagine how little Buffet would have been taxed had he tried to put his money in offshore accounts and all sorts of tax gimmicks?
Under our current 'progressive' system, the rich pay no taxes on social security after about 110k. Anyone earning under that is taxed fully. Yeah, our tax code is real 'progressive'
With a Federal Sales tax, there is no avoiding it. You pay it and that's it. Not only do you pay it, but corporations pay it too. And at the present moment, corporatons are paying very little in taxes.
So when you have the rich AND corporations unable to avoid taxes, both groups pay more than they already do. How does America go broke under that situation?
Also, with a federal sales tax, even foreigners and immigrants (who add nothing to the tax base) would begin contributing to our tax base.
To say the Federal Income tax has worked 'wonderfully' for years is a pretty bold statement. Nobody, not even accountants and certified tax professionals, know all the ins and outs of our tax code.
The tax code itself, is about nine million words long. Talk about complicated. And when you dig into the breaks that are given, you realize that nearly all of them are motivated by politicians giving breaks to 'friendly' corporations in their home state.
How is that a good system that has worked wonderfully? It's worked wonderfully for the rich and big corporations already. So you're proposing a resumption of the status quo, not real change.
When you take a look at other nations that have implemented flat taxes (like a sales tax), you'll see that shortly after they implemented it, their economies began to grow by leaps and bounds. Poverty level declined as well.
Also, how am i proposing bankrupting the government? The sales tax will make up the revenue currently collected under the current system, even after accounting for the prebates.
As far as schools, they get their money via property taxes, not the federal government. Yes, the Fed's do spend some on education, but the vast majority of any schools money comes from the state. So this wouldn't affect them.
You see what makes the fed sales tax a better alternative is because it encourages savings, not spending. The US has a nearly (if not negative) savings rate. Shouldn't the government encourage people to save? Wouldn't that motivate less people to take on credit and spend until their HELOC's run out of equity and they go bankrupt? It would.
Lastly, just to use your analogy against you : )
When you see a lightbulb flickering and notice its a power hungry incandescent, wouldn't it be better to spend a little money and change the blb to a more efficient, longer lasting flourescent bulb?
Incandescent bulb = current tax system
flourescent bulb = federal sales tax system with prebates.
What you're proposing is to make the tax code even longer and more innefficient. You're also allowing corporations and rich people to avoid paying taxes they owe. To think that the rich don't spend much or would be taxed less because of their spending is just silly.
Every rich person i know spends lavishly. Either to buy a new home, car, airplane, boat, flgiht to europe, etc...
Some rich people may get taxed less. But then again, these are savers not spenders. If the whole US could become a nation of savers, we'd see a much more vibrant economy than we do today... or ever have seen.
Here are some sources for the medical numbers (and the some more stats behind them)...
http://www.businessandmedia.
Also...
The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit group often quoted in news reports, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 8.2 million and 13.9 million, far less than the mantra of 40 to 50 million.
Next, more competition typically leads to better value or lower prices. We also need to work on better disclosure, so that consumers can actually comparison shop. The way healthcare is now, this is much harder to do.
I love what immigrants do for this country. But if they want to be covered by our healthcare, they should pay in for it. If they are illegal and can't pay in, then they shouldn't have the privilege that US citizens have. Why is that unfair?
And some people are offered way too many opportunities that they continue to pass up. Either way, all i'm saying is that most people put themselves in the situation they're in.
Last but not least, I believe the government should force employers to ATLEAST offer some kind of coverage. But I don't believe in government run healthcare ala France, England, Canada, etc...
Just look at the tax base of most of the EU and tell me they aren't socialist. I mean, christ, in France its nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get fired, thanks to the social safety net.
Also, the Euro experiences growth rates about 1% under the US. They don't grow as fast as we do here. And it's mainly due to their tax system.
Just look at how taxes are done in the UK and tell me there's some semblance of spending control or logic. A big part of that has to do with their spending on medical care for the country.
Listen, this is what's going to happen (you can quote me on it) as governments get less revenue and medical care costs move higher (thanks to an aging population and a slowdown in population growth) the government will have to either tax more or eliminate benefits.
This is going to seriously change how medical care is taken care of in European and Japanese nations.
First of all, that 47 million number is completely bunk. here's why...
- 7 million are illegal immigrants.
- 9 million are on Medicaid
- 3.5 million are already eligible for government programs
- Approximately 20 million have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.
That's 39.5 million people who shouldn't be eligible for medical insurance (they are illegal immigrants), who are already on government medical, who have no clue that they could be on government medical, or who choose to not accept the medical plans their employer provides.
I admit - of those 20 million there are people who don't have it because their employer doesn't offer medical insurance or the premiums are retarded. In this case, the government simply needs to open up competition and force employers to offer medical insurance.
In the end - after accounting for these numbers, you find that only 7 million or so have no coverage - much lower than the 47 million people talk about.
Does god want illegal immigrants - who often time contribute nothing to our tax base - to be covered by people who responsibly got citizenship and work legally here? My guess is no.
Does god want people who are on medicaid or could be on government assistance, to be covered by some arbitrary universal plan that would act as a redundancy only? Probably not.
Also, while some people are dealt with crappy situations, people make their own luck. People are presented opportunities all the time. They just choose to not accept them for psychological reasons (low self-esteem, self-worth, etc...).
I think god would want Universal Health Care that wasn't riddled with inefficiencies, while still paying doctors what they deserve for taking 12 years of their life to help others.
I believe god would want Universal Health Care that wasn't paid for by taking out 25% (or more) of everyones hard earned paychecks.
>: )
I agree, too few people are in powerful positions. And it does affect the way government and corporations are run. Hopefully, something is done about it so that it doesn't get much worse.
We don't need to become like Russia or China when it comes to control of the media. But i think it's a great thing that so many people are worried about it now. Because it puts power in the hands of people like you and me.
Together, we can be aware of what's happening and make strides to stop it.
Of course, if you want to find the place in time when media corporations starting merging and becoming huge, you have to look back at when Bill Clinton was in office.
He passed the law allowing big media companies to merge - effectively concentrating power in the hands of a few. He signed laws which let banks do the same (leading to the mess we have today).
Funny thing, is that your god isn't my god.
So, maybe it's only your god who wants universal health care. But that brings up the question, if he wanted us to have it so bad, why don't we already have it? Better yet, why didn't he just make us in a way where we wouldn't need health care at all?
Ah, the cruel christian god strikes back...
I make $40k a year and let me tell you, that doesn't get you much in Florida where a home costs over $200k and a Condo costs $150k, and rent is about $800-$1,000 per month.
Sure, i can live on my own (thank god) and bought my own car and pay for everything on my own. But, even making $40k a year, i can't buy a home. I can't just take a nice vacation anywhere. I watch what I spend on food. You get the picture. If I wanted to be well-off, i'd need to make twice what I make. And really, all that would do is let me afford my own home (and the more expensive taxes and mortgage that comes along with it)
While I agree - in theory - that lower taxes are better for the economy, your proposition would bring HUGE amounts of unemployment and destroy counties and cities.
That's because government spending is the bread and butter of many industries, cities, and companies as well. You cut back government spending by that much and you'll have a lot of people with no jobs.
These is a way to cut back spending, but it can't be done all at once or the repurcussions could outweigh any future economic benefit.
The problem is the governments intervention of the tax code. The Income tax was SUPPOSED to be progressive, but strayed thanks to greedy politicians and corporations.
When you give the government the power to easily change something, they'll ALWAYS change it in their favor.
A consumption tax (which includes a prebate) is much harder to manipulate. Especially if you force a 2/3 majority in order to make any major changes.
The income tax, on the other hand, has changes made to it in virtually every bill that crosses congress. Various earmarks to give corporation A a small tax break, or corporation B, a tax credit. By the end of the year, the changes are various.
So in the end, the federal income tax is not a good design. And significant reform is needed to bring the tax code back to some form of normalcy.
Also, last time I checked the wealthy buy many expensive items, from cars, to mansions, to islands. But often times, the wealthy don't pay much taxes on any of these things. Why? Because of the way they cheated the system in the first place.
You see, a sales tax makes it much harder to evade the tax. With less evasion, tax revenues should move higher and the IRS should become smaller. That means less government spending, too, and the chance for even lower taxes for you and me.
Also, just check my earlier comment about the sales tax prebate. It pretty much takes care of the concern that lower income people would get hit hard by the tax. In fact, they would pay no taxes at all and receive a lump sum at the beginning of the tax year.
Not true. A sales tax would discourage consumption and encourage savings (since you don't get taxed on what you save, the capital gains you earn, or the dividends you collect).
So when you retire and pull money out of your 401(k) or IRA, then you pull money out completely untaxed. That can be a huge savings. This is huge. The US has a horrid ( i believe negative) savings rate. Compare that to the people of china who have a savings rate of over 20%.
A tax like this would encourage Americans to save, and not spend. This mentality would've avoided everything that's going on today. So the economic benefits should speak for themselves.
As far as the really poor people (the ones already living paycheck to paycheck) most proposals include a prebate based on the poverty level. Let's say poverty is $15,000 a year and the sales tax is 15% per year. The prebate would actually refund them that 15% up to the poverty line.
So the net affect on people who earn under the poverty line is no tax.
Everything is connected, sure, but only up to a point.
I think that you're mistaking cause and effect here. Fox is right-wing because its popular, not because of some huge conspiracy between the government and Fox.
Rupert Murdoch has been demonized into being the right-wing whipping boy. Hell, ever heard of OutFoxed? And while I think that Fox is horridly right wing, I think they are that way because its what makes Rupert the most most money.
If Rupert ran right-wing ideals and they weren't being listened to or watched, don't you think he'd change what he's showing on TV? Of course he would. He's a businessman.
Hell, i think Rupert himself said that Obama would win. If he felt that way and his station truly reflected his ideals, don't you think there'd be less Obama bashing going on at Fox?
The reality is Obama and left-wingers are bashed on Fox because that's what makes Fox money. No conspiracy needed. The media focuses on whoever they want to. And while there is some dirt out there (propoganda) it's not nearly as planted as most people believe.
Like i said before, the media tests different ideas hundreds of times every year. And if they see their ratings move higher, then they continue pursuing whatever strategy helped them do that. It doesn't matter if it was right or left wing bashing. They do what they do to affect their profits.
YOu should check out the Steve Forbes tax plan, which is basically a fair tax like you propose, except that you receive a prebate at the begining of the year (based on your income) so that lower income people offset any taxes they would have ended up paying.
There would also be a few deductions allowed. Overall, i think it was a great idea.
Also, there is something caled fairtax which is basically a consumption tax. Now, this one also includes a prebate at the begining of the year (based on income) so that lower income people don't take a huge tax hit at all (if they take any hit at all).
Both of these systems would - by leaps and bounds - improve our government. Filing taxes would become easier, so more people would do it. There would be less of a need for a huge IRS, so government spending also drops. And you'd see economic growth pick up as well.
The tax book is HUGE. It's freaking ridiculous. It's riddled with loopholes and industry incentives. Why not just simplify the tax code and make it fairer?
Coming from a media background, there is a reason why the media chooses to cover certain things. And that's because over time they've learned that the things they cover will bring them better profits.
I'm sure the media has tried to cover Nader and see what happens. But of course, if demand wasn't there then why should the media cover him again?
In the media (atleast the news media), there is alot of testing, and more testing, and even more testing to make sure that what they are showing will work.
Some good points, but I have issues with two of them...
"1. economic views are very different. democrats believe more in redistributing wealth while republicans are against that."
My Take: Republicans and Democrats both redistribute wealth. All a tax incentive or cut does is redistribute wealth from the government to a group that's being targeted.
"4. republicans tend to want to deport illegal immigrants, democrats are usually for open borders."
My Take: Wasn't it Bush himself that wanted to keep illegals here? I thought so...
They are both one in the same. Just take a look through history and see what they stood for. By the time you're done, you'll realize that they've exchanged their stance on the same issue multiple times.
For instance, wasn't it back in the 90's that the republicans were the party of fiscal discipline? They were all for controlling the budget and even instituted PayGo rules back in 1990.
But guess what? Today the democrats are the ones who are all for PayGo rules.
That's just one position. Look back further and you'll see even more flips just like that.
Both parties are one in the same. They have their own agenda for now, but next week their agenda may change (as they target different demographics for votes).
But in the end, they are both just corrupt political factions.
The American Legal System isn't what needs to be reformed.
Think about it. Drug laws exist because your president and congress made it so. Then, the appointed supreme court judges, never bothered to stop it.
Another example. Most people that go to jail are represented by public defenders. Since public defenders aren't paid as much as big law firms, the big law firms lure away all the talent. If you paid public defenders more and added more of them, they'd be able to more effectively help people avoid jail in the first place.
Who approves that funding? You city council maybe... or the governer... maybe even the white house.
You see, the American legal system isn't what needs to be reformed. Its the entire system of government which needs to be reformed. It's our politicians who need to be reformed.
"Are you serious? Not everyone is aware of every possible health issue prior to getting pregnant. I had four flawless pregnancies, but my fifth had me bedridden with sever edema and blood pressure issues."
First, i'm sorry to hear about the issues with your fifth. That type of stuff is never fun, and it's really spontaneous too.
Along those lines, I've seen two of my friends both get complications days before labor (blood pressure issues), forcing them to have a cesection (sp?). But they chose to go through the pregnancy when they found out, so they made a choice which happened to result in that.
Since they made the choice that led to that, it must've been their fault. And that's despite the fact that they were unaware of what would happen prior to making that choice.
"What if she didn't choose to have a kid. What if they used a condom and she was on the pill. Accidents do happen."
Birthing a child is an accident? It's the womans choice whether she wants to have the kid or not. I'm not saying that she chose to get pregnant...
"Dangerous situations aren't always forseen...again from personal experience...'crazy' doesn't always rear it's ugly head from the beginning."
True. I hate crazy people.
Really, all i'm trying to say here is that birthing a child should always be a womans choice. But, if she is pregnant and in any kind of relationship, she should definitely tell her partner about it, and not just secretly get an abortion without telling him (unless her life is on the line).
In the end, when you're in a relationship you should've talked about those things. If not, well then you kinda asked for the trouble it might cause.
If there are health complications or she dies, its as much the womans fault as it is the mans.
After all she made the choice to have the kid. She wasn't at gun point and she could've gotten out of any dangerous situation had there been one.
It was her choice as much as the mans. Even if she did it for the man, IT WAS HER CHOICE. Why don't you understand that?
If those teen mothers had asked the teen fathers before the child was born whether the fetus should be aborted or not, how many teen mothers would there actually be?
The teen decided to have the child, so whatever she goes through is her fault. But i bet if you ask most teen guys, they wouldn't want to have the kid. So asking what the guy thought and giving it consideration could actually help cut back on the number of teen pregnancies in the US.
Either way, if i got a girl pregnant i would hope she would at least tell me.
Regardless, this is a conversation couples should have BEFORE they ever have sex. This was a conversation i had with my girlfriend before we did. And we made sure both of us were on the same page.
Why don't all couples just do this simple thing? It avoids a lot of problems and issues later on.
In the end, a man has the right to know and the right to put his input into whatever the decision making process is. Obviously, the end decision isn't his, it's the womans.
Did you really read my entire argument? Because you misrepresented it.
I never once said a man should force a woman to do anything. I don't know where you got that bit of information from.
You also tried to say...
"What you want is two people having an equal vote but, if there is dissent, the man gets to be the tie-breaker. Essentially, this gives the man the say and the woman no say at all."
That wasn't what I said at all. Take a look at my argument and check out that last sentence.
It says a man should have a say in it but the choice shouldn't be his.
So why are YOU making things up?
As far as the 80 hour work week, you obviously have never known a man to work that much. I've known many. Maybe its because of my latin heritage (with woman more often then not, acting as stay at home moms).
Oh and the child support thing, I know a guy who lives in a suite and works 2 jobs because he pays child support for three kids. Yes, it's his fault for having three kids (i'm not saying it's not his fault). But sometimes the courts aren't as fair as you might think they are.
And you obviously aren't giving men enough credit.
Yes, woman sacrifice a lot. And when its a single mother, she really sacrifices a lot. But it was her choice to have the kid even though she probably couldn't support him. She made her choice, regardless if the man was around or not.
But you act like men never sacrifice a thing... or that there's no such thing as a single father.
I'm grateful for every sacrifice my father made for me. And he made quite a number of them, too. Arguably as many as my mother.
It seems that to you, a man should have no say at all in the matter. That his opinion shouldn't even count. Really?
So you're basically saying that a woman could pop a hole in a condom and get pregnant if she wants kids, and never once tell or consider the man. Or that if a woman is pregnant, that she doesn't have to tell the father that she is.
I guess she doesn't 'have' to, but it doesn't make it right. Of course there are situations where the woman would fear for her life if she told the man. In that case, i agree she shouldnt have to tell him.
But if this is a normal relationship, the man SHOULD know when the woman is pregnant and tell her his opinion on the matter.
He shouldn't force her to do anything - that's her choice. But he definitely should know about what's happening and at least have a say in the decision making process.
You said...
Men, however, have a 0% chance of dieing as a direct result of pregnancy, there are no health risks, no physical sacrifices, nothing.
While it may be true there are no physical sacrifices, there are numerous psychological and financial sacrifices that a man makes.
Having a child isn't easy for anyone. Not for the woman or the man. Then there's the adjustment of having a kid, and let's not forget the fact that the man may have mental problems (like bi-polar) which might make him unable to properly raise a kid.
Then there's the financial. If a woman has a child and the man leaves her, she can get child support from that man. What if the man is supporting his wife and can barely make it as it is. Having a kid will only amplify that and cause him to possibly work 80 hour weeks for years.
Of course there are other things as well. for instance, if the man is of faith, he may not want his future child to die. because the baby was made 50% from the man, shouldn't he at least have a say in what happens?
While i'm pro-abortion, i think a man should at least know and have a say in what goes on. But the final decision shouldn't be his.
The thing about globalisation is this...
There will be winners and losers. As the globe moves towards free trade, there will be countries that don't fully open up. Right now, most of the world isn't fully open. Think of the subsidies the U.S. provides to farmers. These farmers wouldn't be able to compete against the low prices overseas.
What you are looking for is a net effect across the globe. There is no arguing that free trade isnt helping india, brazil, russia and china expand quickly.
And it is doing it at the cost of the U.S.
But the US dollar has dropped 40% in the past eight years. This has made the U.S. more attractive for foreign labor. If you look at car manufacturers, they are all planning on building plants here for that very reason. And US exports have been growing faster then imports for years now.
Oh, and exports are the only thing propping up our economy right now.
So free trade works both ways. But its more popular to look at the harm is may cause then to notice the good.
In the end, free trade will help allocate resources more effectively across the globe.
Great point regarding the surge.
Obama was against the surge, but it was the surge that helped bring violence (and casualties) down all over Iraq.
Obama would have rather pulled our troops out and let havoc reek all throughout Iraq. You know, when you break something that is't yours, it's your responsibility to fix it.
I never agreed with the Iraq war from the start. I thought it was very wrong. But i thought it would be wrong to fuck the place up and not make an attempt to fix it.
Obama, obviously, didn't think the same way. And his lack of judgement got in the way of realizing that the surge might actually work.
Many would have considered the Western World screwed during the Great Depression.
Really, the Great Depression was probably much worse then what we see now. Unemployment was far worse, many more banks went under, nobody had their deposits insured, and it spread across the entire world.
What we see now will have an impact through the world economy, but not nearly as much as the great depression did.
We will feel the effects more in the U.S. But eventually, things will get back in balance and we'll start seeing growth ahead again.
So no, the western world isnt economically screwed. its just having a hard time right now.
Let me take the excerpt directly from the Wall Street Journal quoting Obama...
Sen. Obama told crowds in rural Missouri Wednesday that the McCain campaign would try to make voters "scared of me. You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name.' You know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'
You notice that last sentence there - 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'
I think it's pretty obvious that Obama is using the race card here. I mean, what else could it mean? The presidents on the dollar bill were white and older. He, on the other hand, is young and black.
But here's the kicker. It's what Obama's campaign said to try and cover it up. From Palm Beach Post...
"We weren't suggesting in any way he's using race as an issue" but that McCain "is using the same, old low-road politics that voters are very unhappy about to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign."
So not only did they use race, but they lied about it.
I thought Obama was supposed to be better than this.
I agree on your point about the FDIC but disagree with your statement that people should just be rational and leave their money in the bank.
Well, I think more importantly, if you are a business and are hearing your bank might be going insolvent, wouldn't it make prudent business sense to pull a good amount of your capital out of that bank?
I mean, if something DOES happen, how quickly would the FDIC let you have your money back? It wouldn't be the next day, that's for sure. And if the FDIC did run out of money, then it would require congressional approval (or maybe just the Federal Reserve) to give the FDIC more funds.
In the meantime, you won't be able to easily access your account. And who knows what else will happen.
I think the rational thing is to keep your money safe, not leave it in a bank which you suspect might be going under.
After all, the banks were never rational about loaning out hundreds of billions to people who wouldn't be able to pay it back.
What do you mean it's not insurance? They insure your first 100k don't they?
Yes, they do.
And you can be sure that if the FDIC ran out of money, the government would fund them. After all, they are bailing out Fannie and Freddie. Why wouldn't they help fund the FDIC if it needs it?
That means there's a very slight chance that they don't insure what they said they would.
I would say this chance is even smaller then with a for profit insurance company (which would get NO bailout unless shareholders wanted too).
You are one of the lucky - and educated - few.
Good for you!
And may it be a lesson to everyone. Pay off your credit card debt and use cash to buy things. If you need to buy something on credit, it means you can't afford it.
It's better to have the cash. Better yet, if you have extra cash buy gold and silver. It's one of the only things that will help you beat the nasty inflation going on in the world today.
When you put your money in a bank account, you actually have less purchasing power the next year because inflation eats away at it. Today, inflation is running at about 4% (atleast that's what the government tries to tell us). That means your bank account needs a 4% plus yield in order for you to have the same or more purchasing power the next year.
show me a bank account with that yield, cuz i dont know of any lol.
Gold and silver, on the other hand, have been appreciating by roughly 20% per year since the year 2000.
I agree.
When I meet a person i like to get to know them a little bit and then make a judgement.
Of course, when i first see a person i quickly make a series of judgements (everyone does). Some of those things may be considere stereotypical.
But in my mind, stereotypes derive from truth. I'm spanish. Want to know what that means? Rice, beans, and meat for dinner!
If i were mexican, i'd prolly love corn tortilla's (a staple of the mexican diet). And if i were indian, i'm sure i'd eat even more curry then i already do (i love me some curry).
But lumping all black people in as criminals is just wrong. In certain neighborhoods there may be more criminals that happen to be black, but to say all blacks are ciminal is just ignorant.
But, when i'm in those neighborhoods where i should pay attention to whats happening around me, i certainly do.
In that situation you could say that racism is nothing more than an adaptation that people go through to further their lives. You know, evolution.
If people know the things that go on 'on the other side of the tracks' they avoid the other side. Is that racist or is that being smart?
Listen, i really do believe that racism is real. But i dont think there will ever be a solution for it. If you look deep inside yourself, everybody is a little racist. It's nothing more than an evolutionary trait that people have.
It's a part of us.
If you had been scared for your life and the person doing the scaring was, oh lets say, a bunch of crazy russians... you will probably never look at russians the same again (no matter what you try to say). Especially if it happens more than once.
My brother grew up in the streets of Bronx in the late 70'. You know what, he's not very fond of black people. But can you blame him? He got chased every single day coming home from school. And it wasn't whites or hispanics doing the chasing.
Is it right? No. Does it atleast make sense why it would happen? Of course, as a self-defense mechanism.
Becuase of my brothers experience, he avoided 'black neighborhoods' and had far less problems. It's fucked up, i know, but it's true.
The problems come in when people are uneducated about things. When they don't realize that problems arise from certain neighborhoods, not certain races (for instance).
So really, racism isn't much of an issue. The real issue is in everyone being treated failry (regardless if you're gay, have AIDS, or are black).
It would be safer because the government mandates prostitutes be checked for disease.
Today, you nor I are mandated to check ourselves for STDs. And we are not mandated to tell another person that we have one, even if we did.
In a government regulated whore house, those aren't worries because prostitutes are regularly checked (weekly or bi-weekly) and they lose their job if they had any disease.
Check out the stats and you'll see the incidence of disease due to legal prostitution is extremly low... much lower then the incidence of STDs in regular society.
STDs weren't a factor. It was religion. We have sanctity of both things because the U.S. is predominantly a christian nation.
I believe sleeping with a regulated prostitute is actually safer then sleeping with someone you've met and talked to a few times.
So in reality, prostitution, when regulated, is far cleaner and safer beause there is no vested interest for the other person to lie to you about disease. Plus, they get tested.So if they have disease they get the ax.
Haven't you read up at all about how regulating prositution works?
Well let's see...
He totally blew our budget surplus, got us into a war we didnt need to be in, pulled us out of the kyoto treaty, alienated other countries, fumbled the Katrina response, fumbled the war in Iraq, totally ignored Afghanistan after getting into Iraq, underfunded no child left behind.... and those are just the problems i can think of of the top of my head.
t should be clear that Bush was NOT a good president.
JFK, now that was a good president. Reagan was a far better president. In fact, Bush is the worst president in atleast 20 years.
So tell me what was his most prudent action during the first term....
Was it going into Iraq? or maybe giving huge tax cuts to the rich and blowing the budget surplus?
Oh wait, I know!
It was pulling out of the Kyoto treaty, alienating foreign countries, and asking congress to pass the Patriot act!
No, no... It has to be when he found out about 9/11 and did absolutely nothing for like ten minutes.
I hope you sense the sarcasm.
Bush didn't do a good job in his first term. And he didn't do well in his second either.
While i totally dislike Bush, let me make a little correction to that chart above...
Bush Jr. was not the one who started socializing losses and privitizing profits.
That was Reagan and Bush Sr. back in the 80's when taxpayers were hit with over $120b in taxes just to bail out all the savings and loan institutions.
Then after that you had President Clinton helping out Citigroup by helping to pass a law which made it so that big banks could actually issue subprime and more risky loans. In essence, the root of this entire crisis comes from Clinton, not Bush. In fact, Clinton was the one who made up the whole 'ownership society' thing which Bush agreed with.
So I don't blame him for the housing crisis. I blame the entire financial system for that one (the Fed, mainly for not regulating properly).
With that said, I think Bushes biggest problem was alienating other countries and misleading the country into war.
I don't think that its the capitalist system that has made the life of the average american a little harder. I believe its the way our government has created policies and also the types of policies they have decided to create (afghanistan, iraq, oil subsidies, etc...).
You see, capitalism, when effectively integrated into a society, is far better at allocating scarce resources then would socialism. Ask any economist and they will completely agree. It's the reason why Europe is moving towards a more capitalist economy.
In my opinion, the role of the government is to offer some protections to its citizens in the form of proper regulation. I don't believe the government should tax its citizens upwards of 50% just because its innefficient at spending its money.
You see, i have no problems with socialism or socialist ideals. It's just that government can never do something as cheaply or efficiently as a private business. That doesn't mean that private business should just be left alone. It's obvious that people need protection and that's where the government steps in.
The problem in the U.S. is that the government is behind the curve in protecting the individual simply because of how our political system is set up (on lobbyists). So for the U.S., the problem isnt the fact that it's capitalist, the problem is the government itself.
You reform the way our government works and the people will have more prosperous lives. One thing is for sure, giving our corrupt, idiotic government more powers (by means of a socialist mandate) is a recipe for disaster.
Great facts on Cuba.
But in the end your definition confuses what capitalism really is.
The U.S. isn't purely capitalist. And europe isn't purely socialist. In fact, Europe is pretty damn capitalist (not as much as the U.S.).
That's because capitalism is not a form of government. It's a type of economic system that can be used within any government (socialist or democratic).
Capitalism is the way you make money. It's not how you govern.
China, for example, has opened up to a much more capitalist, free-market structure. Thanks to that, th Chinese economy is flourishing. Yet, they are still communist. Europe, is now allowing many capitalist principles in the way their economy is stuctured as well.
Let's not forget that had it not been for capitalism, industrialization may have never happened. That means we probably wouldn't even be arguing this because there'd be no computers and we'd have probably died from yet another plague.
Does anybody remember that 3d stand that Nintendo used to sell? When yu put your face up to it, everything was red and really grainy, but 3d nontheless!
What shocks me is that 3D never took off and to this day, publishers aren't trying to push '3D games. Hell, even movie theatre's are starting to push 3D movies (not just iMax).
So I think once 3D hits the mainstream (due to movie theatre's) gamers will begin being much more receptive to 3D games. And considering the technology is nearly there (and will definitely be there in a few years), this doesn't seem too far off.
Social Security is a busted system, taking in less than it pays out.
So why should a rich politician accept nearly $2,000 a month in socal security payments? He acknowledges the system is nearly boken, yet he contributes to its demise by drawing money and not doing anything to fix the problem.
McCain should not accept his social security payments and instead live off the hundreds of millions that his wife makes every single year.
If homosexuality is the disease, then what would you suppose the cure is? Women?
As i'm reading here it seems that you would like to lump homosexuality into a mental disorder, more so then a disease.
But if you'd ever seen the movie Kinsey (or read his work) you'd find that homosexuality isn't as cut and dry as most make it out to be. In fact, he made up a scale which would categorize just how 'gay' a person could be.
How are gay are you?
0- Exclusively heterosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual
Since that time alot of research has been done which scans peoplesbrains and found that a gay man has a similar brian structure to a straight woman (and vce versa). But what hasn't been proven is wether their mind ended up that way because they were homosexual or as an effect.
In other words, if a man acts and emotionally responds like a woman, is that really what changes the neurons in his head? Or would they have ended up that way simply because he is biologically predisposed with sleeping with the same sex?
That's something that won't be figured out until they can follow people throughout life and observe the development of the neurons in a persons brain.
I believe that's true.
People who are pedophiles really do have a kink for only young people. It suggests a genetic type of problem which gets them predisposed to be that way. And let's not forget about the sexual abuse most of these paedophies endure themselves.
Whil I think paedophiles should live in society, laws should be far better then they are to try and control them.
One other thing I recently found out...
You can thank a law passed in 1999 ?(for Citigroups benefit, no less) that allowed banks to dabble in investment banking and other forms of lending.
This rule was made specifically so that Citibank could get into Subprime mortgages, which is one of the biggest reasons why the housing market is crashing today.
And even Bill Clinton was the first to promote an 'ownershp society' and his aministration was the first to really hammer banks to lend to everybody.
So really, this problem has its roots in the Clinton administration. The Bush administration simply continued it.
To say that the health of europeans is due to a socialist society is pure fallacy.
The health of that nation is directly correlated to the foods they eat and the way their countries infrastructure is structured. In the states, people generally walk less and eat food of poorer qualiy. that's because alot of people live out in the burbs.
Also to say a capitalist society would put poison to preserve milk is silly. Maybe they'd do that at first. But once the population starts dying they'd realize that it may not become profitable to be known as the milk producer who poisons their milk.
I get what you're saying. Pure capitalists will sometimes cut corners to lower costs. But this is something you see more in a communist society like China, rather than anywere in the US. And if anything,the chinese society models socialism more so than capitalism.
Oh - and Cuba having a standard of living 'close' to ours? What's your definition of 'close' a million miles away? Up until recently they weren't allowed to have cell phones or internet. They also aren't allowed to show any type of dissent without being tured in. Doesn't sound close to us at all.
As far as Europe is concerned, I have no argument. I agree that Europe did alot of good things to help their citizens over the years. But now that entitlement spending is ballooning and their society is aging, you'll see changes to the way they are structured.
While i don't agree with unrestricted capitalism, I do feel capitalism - such as the type we have here in the states - is a MUCH better way to spread out a limited number of goods and resources over an entire society.
The job of the fed is to keep our currency stable. The dollar has dropped over 40% since the year 2000. I'd say the Fed isn't doing their job.
And since the dollar has dropped that much, everything we import has become more expensive. Import prices for this year are up nearly 20%. Wholesale prices are up over 6%. and consumer prices over 4%.
If the Fed keeps pushing economic growth, it will just stimulate demand. More demand causes what? More inflation.
Think back to the late 70's. What was the solution to out-of-control inflation? very high interest rates. It created a recession, and then interest rates progressively dropped or the next 24 years.
I believe we are seeng inflationjust like in the 70's. Except we have a chance to stop it before it gets way too out of control. We need to raise interest rate to over the level of inflation at the very least.
What are you talking about? Democrats take freedom away too. They are part of government and that's what government does.
Hillary clinton was upset and wanted new rules to censor video game publishers. Or how about FISA which was a bipartisan bill?
Don't forget it was the Democrats who helped filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Right now Democrats only seem to care about this country. But the truth is they only care about the democratic party. They only care about their legacy, like most politicians do.
Obama seems hopeful. Now let's just see if he's for real or not.
While I d agree that both re the flip side of the same coin, ask yourself who social programs help...
That's right - government. After all it gives them a free pass to charge more in taxes and provide services to the 'people' that are riddled with innefficiences and cost over runs.
You said it yourself - the democrats were too busy being partisan to get any real work done.
Which proves my point that the democrats interest is in themselves and what furthers their party and donors, not the people. If they were interested in the people, they would have worked with republicans to come up with bipartisan bills.
If they were interested in the people, house (or is it senate?) leader Nancy Pelosi would have given a Bush impeachment time.
The governments job isn't to prevent a meltdown in the financial system. It's the governments fault that the financial system is even melting down in the first place.
Let the free markets do their thing and kill these two weak companies that never should've been given so much power in the first place. Also, take a look at how markets work or look over my previous arguments on this to see why they should fail.
Let's just say that we are on the same pathway that Japan was on in the 80's which led to over a decade of deflation and economic stagnancy.
And do you think Obama is going to go after the 'crooks'? Yeah, just like he said no to 'FISA'.
It's in the governments interest to cover this up and perpetrate the fraud. Yes, a few people will go to jail as the public thirsts for revenge (kinda like Frankenstein!), but that's already happening.
Obama will have nothing to do with it. He'll just have to deal with the problem all of this has created.
While I agree with you, just realize if they were allowed to fail (Sadly, that won't happen) it would certainly affect you. The mortgage market is huge and these two control 50% of it.
Credit will be more expesive. Interest rates will rise. And that means it'll be tougher for anyone to buy a home.
Let's notforget to mention what happens when China and all these foeign economies realize that the government isn't backing the hundreds f billions in loans that they purchased from those two. Then you'll have a flight away from the U.S., which wold push interest rates even higher (just to fight the liquidity that would rush into this market).
If these two fail, we'll see mortgage rates move up one percent. If it causes confidence to be lost in the US system and foreign economies jump ship, then say hello to 10% interest rates.
If you have a credit card (like me) that means you'll see your payments go up about 8% (if they don't cancel your credit outright because it's not a stellar credit score).
You see, the Fed and government are bailing these two out to prevent this. But what they don't realize is tht the medicine doesn't always taste good.
Oh, and you can thank Alan Greenspan for helping to create this mess in the first place.
I admire your enthusiasm and hope or American politics. If only it were true.
These parties care only about where their money comes from. So they appeal and create tax laws and regulations that appease their donors.
For republicans its oil and pharmaceutical companies. For Democrats its the labor unions (you know, the ones that will eventually help bankrupt GM, Ford ad Chrysler).
The only reason why democrats care about the welfare of people is because htey are bought out by unions and because it helps them get elected.
Just take a look at the new FISA bill that the democratically led congress passed. So who do they care about? Big business and labor unions, that's who.
Honestly, I wish I could say neither party does, because it's true.
Both parties are paid for by special interests and corruption. Yes democrats and republicans are corrupt. They only care for themselves and how they'll get elected, not the country.
Both democrats and republicans have shown plenty of times just how 'political' they are. People voted in democrats in 2004 and 2006. What have they done since? Not much.
I put democrats and republicans in the same boat.
Is this sarcasm?
"No one in America should feel pain"
So everyone should pay for the mistakes of the greedy and uninformed? People research buying a new car more than they research the type of mortgage they'll get into. And the reason that is is because they think, wrongfully, that Uncle Same will protect them.
Uncle Sam has no business protecting people from their own mistakes. People need to smarten up and actually pay attention to the contract they are signing.
The banks that did the sleaziest mortgages should be brought to justice. But those people who signed on the dotted line and never once read through their contract should alo pay for their own mistakes. I shouldn't have to pay for their mistake.
And the fact is that by avoiding this pain now, we risk a far larger pain later. You can't have a business cycle that doesn't 'cycle'. Yet that's exactly what the Fed and US government are trying to do.
Let me add one last comment... The U.S. isn't nearly as rich as you think they are. We live on borrowed money thanks to China.
We have a budget deficit of over one trillion a year when you take into account things like social security and medicare future promises. And our trade deficit is running at over 700 billion a year.
Let's not forget that we have a negative savings rate, our manufacturing sector makes up less than ten percent of the economy,and our financial sector (which is what kept the market humming along from 2002-2007) has just gone down the toilet.
Oh, and then there's the dollar, which has lost over 40% of its value since the year 2000.
So what does America 'have' exactly? a bunch of IOU's.
If the government bails out these entities it brings about something called "moral hazard".
What that means is that investors are free to take on risk without worrying about any repurcusions because the government will take care of them.
This is very bad. The fact is risk is inherent in the market. trying to eliminate it is not very smart. These two institutions ae too large already. Bailing them out doesn't solve the inherent problem. It just patches it up for a little bit.
The fact is this - letting them fail would push interest rates up high. And that's exactly what we need right now! Inflation is out of conrol. the only way to fight it is through higher interest rates.
Plus, the very essence of this problem is that there are two mortgage players out there that control over 50% of the market. That's way too much. Thes big institutions should be split up and privitized so we can have a little compeititon. Plus, it spreads ot risk. So if anyone of them fail, the others are still around.
Listen, the fact that people are shocked that the government is going to bail out these two is just silly. They are called GSE (government sponsored enterprises) for a reason.
Now, should the government bail them out? No, they shouldn't and here's why...
First, both are far too large and present a systematic risk to the market. No two entities should control over 50% of the mortgage market.
Second, Japan went through this in the 80's. And they also bailed out banks that had bad loans. What happened? A decade of economic stagnancy.
Listen, right now theres a huge problem in our market because risk is being socialized, yet the profits are privitized. That means the rich elite make money at the expense of the taxpayers. That's completely unfair and not what it should be.
We need to let these institutions fail. Will it be painful? Extremely. But it's the only way to show the market that when you take on risk and bad things happen, you're the one who has to pay for that risk (not the taxpayer).
As of now, you can take on risk and not worry about it because politicians are using tax payer dollars to bail out those that took on risk.
In the end, bailouts (by Greenspan hen he fixed interest rates too low after ht dot com bubble) are the very reason why we are in the situation we are in today. We just need to let the bad things unwind and take the hit. If we delay it, the pain will be even greater.
the U.S. is the most olluting per capita while China is the most polluting. Then again, the U.S. lost so much of its manufacturing base which went where? You guessed it, China.
With that said, China has over 1.8 trillion that they could use to clean up their ways. Now, if only their sleazeball, opportunistic politicians would stop accepting bribes to look the other way....
Farmers certainly switch crops depending on what is more profitable. When corn prices first shot up, farmers in fact planted less soybeans and wheat so that they could plant more corn.
Now that soybeans are more expensive, farmers switched from corn to soy.
So there is certainly a switch that does occur, athough does it fully account for the triple digit percentage increases we've seen in basic food stocks? Not at all.
Growth from emerging economies is really what's constricting supply. Mix in the fact that governments place export tarrifs (which distorts supply/demand) among other misplaced strategies, and you have the food situation we have today.
It was kind of like 9/11 - a big unifying cause that everyone rallied around. Except this time it would be peak oil. Hell, I already think we're getting here. Everyone and their mother is complaining and in pain.
As far as the more poor you are the more realistic the problems are, I don't really buy it. I've been around one too many poor people to see that the problems they have are ridiculous, not realistic.
They are dealing with issues that most people never have to encounter. And it's because they never had money most of their life (Sometimes for generations) so thy become accustomed to living a certain way. Not only that, but they then encounter the 'shit' in life (more sexual abuse, drug abuse, etc...).
And rich people, for the most part, have no concept as to how much things cost.
What are you talking about? There's TONS of oil out there. Just look at the Bakken reserve, oil shale, and the canadian oil sands. Trillions upon trillions of barrels in those three areas alone.
i agree, we hit peak oil (by that i mean we havent produced more oil since 2005, atleast not yet!) but the process of running out of oil will be a long one. We should have alternative energy sources ready by then.
But, i'm not discounting a few wars. Hell, some consider our latest venture into Iraq nothing more than a war for oil.
