The one word politicians don't use anymore

[punisher73]

Why don't we start with guys like Richard Fuld, worth some 350 million dollars, in charge of now bankrupt Lehman brothers, destroyed billions of dollars in wealth and plunged the entire world into an economic crisis. It seems to me all the upside of his risky decisions were privatized and the losses socialized.

I get tired of hearing about the "welfare" queens the real welfare is in the corporate boardrooms.

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/


I doubt all that welfare you are talking about is any where near the 750 billion that Wall Street just got or the 135 billion that AIG took in...all US taxpayer money that could well be lost completely.

Yes, he was part of the problem, but take a step back and look at why Fuld and others did what they did. Democrats wanted more minorities and lower income families and people with not-so-good credit to own houses. They deregulated alot of the process and had banks and mortgage companies take on LOTS of high risk loans to people who wouldn't qualify previously. There were attempts made before we got into this mess to try and reregulate the process and put in some checks and balances but those were blocked. Guess what? Most defaulted on the loans and left the companies holding the bag. It started with people wanting handouts that they weren't qualified to handle, and people trying to get something for nothing by agreeing to ADJUSTABLE rates and then were surprised when they went up!

I agree that there is alot of corporate bailouts and I don't agree with those either. If a company is deregulated like the airlines and everyone goes into the business then those who fail deserve to do so. Same with the automakers. They need to figure out how to run a successful business or fail. We should not reward a bad business model.

People need to be responsible for their own success or failure and stop depending on the government to come down and kiss their boo-boo and make it all better (I'm am NOT referring to people who need a hand UP to get back up on their feet, I am talking about people who want a hand OUT and expect to be taken care of).

 

[BrandonLucas]

Yes, he was part of the problem, but take a step back and look at why Fuld and others did what they did. Democrats wanted more minorities and lower income families and people with not-so-good credit to own houses. They deregulated alot of the process and had banks and mortgage companies take on LOTS of high risk loans to people who wouldn't qualify previously. There were attempts made before we got into this mess to try and reregulate the process and put in some checks and balances but those were blocked. Guess what? Most defaulted on the loans and left the companies holding the bag. It started with people wanting handouts that they weren't qualified to handle, and people trying to get something for nothing by agreeing to ADJUSTABLE rates and then were surprised when they went up!

I agree that there is alot of corporate bailouts and I don't agree with those either. If a company is deregulated like the airlines and everyone goes into the business then those who fail deserve to do so. Same with the automakers. They need to figure out how to run a successful business or fail. We should not reward a bad business model.

People need to be responsible for their own success or failure and stop depending on the government to come down and kiss their boo-boo and make it all better (I'm am NOT referring to people who need a hand UP to get back up on their feet, I am talking about people who want a hand OUT and expect to be taken care of).

What bugs me about this is that everything is made to look like the ball should be in our court to sacrifice...with the bailouts, it looks like we're so dependant as a country on these companies that we "can't survive without them". And, in a way, that's true. There would be a great many jobs lost because of the failure of the Big 3.

But here's how I see it: why should I, as an American, be expected to sacrifice the money that I can barely keep in the bank to take care of my family for anyone? I can certainly sympathize and empathize with the people who would be laid off from the companies, and I really do think it sucks. But I'm barely able to make ends meet as it is. I really can't justify sacrificing the money that I earn myself to help those who can't manage their own business.

The whole situation sucks all the way around. We've become too dependant on these companies to supply us with jobs and to hold up the economy. It would be a different story if the companies in question were not blantantly mismanaged, and the money was just not coming in...but even then, that really doesn't justify a bailout for them, either. That's the reality of owning a business...it's a risk that you might fail...and business owners accept that risk when they open their business.

Really, there shouldn't be this kind of "safety net" for owners of businesses that fail...that's why I partly disagree with filing bankruptcy (sp?)....all the debts are wiped clean and you get a slap on the wrist in the form of no credit lines for a period of time and a big black mark on your "permanent record". Kinda makes you wonder why the country just can't go bankrupt....

Anyway, back to what I started of saying...it's my opinion that we sacrifice plenty...that's what taxes are, if you ask me. Sure, taxes started off as being payment for being allowed to work in this great country...but we all know that the current taxes have strayed far, far away from their original intent, and so we pay for whatever someone else tells us to pay for, whether we like it or not. I didn't receive any notification in my mail saying that the money that's taken out of my paycheck was going to be used to bail out the banks that don't know how to stay afloat...I never got a message saying that my tax money could possibly be used as a "loan" to people who make more in 1 year than what I'll see in 10...it's just an understood thing now.

If Ford, GM, and Chrysler are going under, then don't take my money and give it to them so they'll stay afloat...let the owners of the company use their personal money to keep the company going...that's what a "mom and pop" business would have to do. I don't see the difference, except that we're talking a wider margin of jobs lost due to a larger company folding...but it's not like there aren't other places to work out there. And I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here, but...

I work paycheck to paycheck...my wife is at home, pregnant, unable to work due to complications with the pregnancy (by the way, we got pregnant before we knew all this crap was going down...otherwise, we probably would have waited...but so be it). We may have $30 at the end of the week to get the groceries that we need...and I'm presently trying to get a 2nd job to earn more money. I don't see anyone from the government bailing me out...all I see is the government giving the money that I'm forced to pay to them to these businesses that, even after going under, the owners are still able to purchase a car outright, without having to use credit. How fair is that?

The point of this thread is sacrifice, right? My question is how much more am I expected to sacrifice to keep this country afloat when the country's financial problems are pulling me under like a cement block tied to my feet?

 

[punisher73]

Really, there shouldn't be this kind of "safety net" for owners of businesses that fail...that's why I partly disagree with filing bankruptcy (sp?)....all the debts are wiped clean and you get a slap on the wrist in the form of no credit lines for a period of time and a big black mark on your "permanent record". Kinda makes you wonder why the country just can't go bankrupt....

The point of this thread is sacrifice, right? My question is how much more am I expected to sacrifice to keep this country afloat when the country's financial problems are pulling me under like a cement block tied to my feet?

Yep, that is kind of what I was getting at. Certain parties are given special treatment while the rest of us are working hard to get ahead. I knew a guy who has a VERY nice big house, he has filed bankruptcy either 2 or 3 times ( I know it was more than once but they were really spaced out). But, he runs up all this debt buying bigger and better things and then all the debt was forgiven and he still has the toys for it. How is that right?

 

[Ramirez]

It started with people wanting handouts that they weren't qualified to handle, and people trying to get something for nothing by agreeing to ADJUSTABLE rates and then were surprised when they went up!

You think those mortgage buyers given their socio-economic status were sophisticated enough to realize that or were they taken advantage of by greedy mortgage lenders? Who then enabled upstream Wall Street companies to take further risks with money that wasn't theirs , garner the profits and then leave the US taxpayer holding the bag.

 

[punisher73]

You think those mortgage buyers given their socio-economic status were sophisticated enough to realize that

That says it all right there. Why were things deregulated to allow for this in the first place?

Don't get me wrong, I blame the federal gov't on this one for allowing this circumstance to happen. If your job is to make money for your company through investments and the gov't opens the door for a way to make money and you are told to do so, who do you really blame? You can't keep blaming "big business" for everything that is wrong in this country when you keep having the gov't make and pass laws that allow for thing to get out of control.

We get the gov't trying to get unqualified people to take on loans that are responsible enough to have.

We get the gov't trying to get "free trade" and that opens the doors for companies to easily leave and operate in other countries instead of here.

The more the gov't has tried to "make things fair" for everyone, the more people are getting taken advantage of. Let people take care of themselves and stop interfering with everything.

I recognize that there are some in our society that NEED help, and I am not opposed to that. I AM opposed to the gov't telling me I can't do thing on my own and that I need them OR I work hard for what I have and the gov't just gives it to someone else because "that's fair".

 

[BrandonLucas]

That says it all right there. Why were things deregulated to allow for this in the first place?

Don't get me wrong, I blame the federal gov't on this one for allowing this circumstance to happen. If your job is to make money for your company through investments and the gov't opens the door for a way to make money and you are told to do so, who do you really blame? You can't keep blaming "big business" for everything that is wrong in this country when you keep having the gov't make and pass laws that allow for thing to get out of control.

We get the gov't trying to get unqualified people to take on loans that are responsible enough to have.

We get the gov't trying to get "free trade" and that opens the doors for companies to easily leave and operate in other countries instead of here.

The more the gov't has tried to "make things fair" for everyone, the more people are getting taken advantage of. Let people take care of themselves and stop interfering with everything.

I recognize that there are some in our society that NEED help, and I am not opposed to that. I AM opposed to the gov't telling me I can't do thing on my own and that I need them OR I work hard for what I have and the gov't just gives it to someone else because "that's fair".

This is exactly the problem. If you make things fair for one person, then it'll end up being unfair for someone else.

I'm not qualified to buy a home. I'm not going to start screaming and crying to the gov't to qualify me so that I can get what I want instead of what I need.

That's why the option is there to rent homes as opposed to buying them...sure, the homes for rent may not be what you want, but they will give you what you need, which is shelter.

I still don't think the gov't needs to get involved in giving money to some Americans and not others...banks and businesses included. If they can't give each and everyone of us the same amount, then no one should receive any incentive.

In the interest of fairness and all.

 

[Ramirez]

That says it all right there. Why were things deregulated to allow for this in the first place?

On one hand you argue for less government intervention, now you argue that they didn't intervene enough. In fact the global crisis now at hand is due to the fact the government stopped interfering with the mortgage market.

The two countries that have the most solid financial systems right now are Spain and Canada, purely do the the heavy regulations that they put on their financial institutions. Spain required heavy capital requirement for sub-prime mortgage instruments so their financial institutions stayed away from them. Canada put a quick end to 40 year mortgages and kept their traditional heavy required surplus requirements which is why their banks are now in the top 10 in the world due to no more than the failure of their international rivals.

You can't keep blaming "big business" for everything that is wrong in this country when you keep having the gov't make and pass laws that allow for thing to get out of control

In fact "big business" has been lobbying for deregulation (with highly paid lobbyists) with a complacent government has been allowing it for the better part of two decades, so yes I can put the blame on big business and their complacent accomplices the government.

So which is it? Do you want government intervention or not?

If your job is to make money for your company through investments and the gov't opens the door for a way to make money and you are told to do so, who do you really blame?

The job is to make money for the shareholders, not take wild risks with money that isn't theirs so they can get incredible bonuses on what is basically a Ponzi scheme. As you can tell from the financial section of the paper....money wasn't made it was risked foolishly and investment banks no longer exist and now quite a few retail banks might not.

The truth is if government doesn't regulate the financial field then these type of financial crisis will happen because of the greed and hubris of the financial sector.

 

[Ramirez]

We get the gov't trying to get "free trade" and that opens the doors for companies to easily leave and operate in other countries instead of here.

You seriously think the government wanted free trade and "big business" were innocent by standers in all that? In fact free trade is less government intervention which is what you have been arguing for.

 

[Gordon Nore]

You think those mortgage buyers given their socio-economic status were sophisticated enough to realize that or were they taken advantage of by greedy mortgage lenders? Who then enabled upstream Wall Street companies to take further risks with money that wasn't theirs , garner the profits and then leave the US taxpayer holding the bag.

I wonder, Mark, if the sub-prime market was also enticing to better-heeled buyers who could get a smaller mortgage from a regular bank.

Even in our more regulated banking system here, I was shocked at how much money the major banks were prepared to lend Blanche and me when we bought our first home in 1994. We were earning maybe $65K pre-tax between us, paying out darn close to a grand a month in daycare. The bank formulates eligibility based on income and debt, not living expenses. the officer looked us dead in the eye and said we could get $395 000.

She was quite insistent about it, as I recall.

We bought a modest bungalow for $140 000 and held on for dear life. Within three years we were both laid off, but with a lot of luck, unemployment insurance, part time jobs, family help, and eventual re-employment, and an inheritance, we kept the house. Had we done it the bank's way, we never would have climbed out of it.

 

[Ramirez]

I wonder, Mark, if the sub-prime market was also enticing to better-heeled buyers who could get a smaller mortgage from a regular bank.

Even in our more regulated banking system here, I was shocked at how much money the major banks were prepared to lend Blanche and me when we bought our first home in 1994. We were earning maybe $65K pre-tax between us, paying out darn close to a grand a month in daycare. The bank formulates eligibility based on income and debt, not living expenses. the officer looked us dead in the eye and said we could get $395 000.

She was quite insistent about it, as I recall.

We bought a modest bungalow for $140 000 and held on for dear life. Within three years we were both laid off, but with a lot of luck, unemployment insurance, part time jobs, family help, and eventual re-employment, and an inheritance, we kept the house. Had we done it the bank's way, we never would have climbed out of it.

You are absolutely right Gordon, I am tired of the blame being laid at the doorstep of the "minorities and low income" when in fact every strata of society is in debt way over their head and borrowed against the value of their houses to finance their life style...in fact I don't blame the borrowers but the enablers at the financial institutions as you point out.

In their drive for short term profits they put the future of their corporation and in fact the entire global economy at risk.

 

[Gordon Nore]

I don't blame the borrowers but the enablers at the financial institutions as you point out.

All borrowers need to be need to be informed about what they're getting into. You're not going get that information from the person who is selling you.

In their drive for short term profits they put the future of their corporation and in fact the entire global economy at risk.

Gangstas in suits.

 

[Ramirez]

AYou're not going get that information from the person who is selling you.

But they should be required to divulge that and in fact reject anyone who doesn't qualify, they are in the business of underwriting risk, unfortunately the system has been gamed so they get the upside of the risk and none of the downside.

There is a reason AIG is going **** up...they sold an insurance that wasn't classified as an insurance...if it had been classified as an insurance they would have had to put up required surplus for it, since they didn't they now have a solvency crisis.