I have no faith in the judgment of conservatives to decide what works and what doesn’t.
Correct. And private enterprise will not create those jobs until demand for products and services returns. That is why governemnt must create those jobs by increasing spending on infrastructure projects, like replacing unsafe bridges. The only thing wrong with the first stimulus bill was that it was too small. We need a stimulus three to four times as big to get people back to work in meaningful numbers. The way governement creates jobs is by spending money.
After reading an interview with Elizabeth Warren by Newsweek, I discover that
She thinks there should not be banks “too big to fail”. I’m puzzled. If she is right on that, then why did the administration that appointed her bail those big banks out? There were some of us that believed they should have gone into bankruptcy, and their assets sold to smaller, more efficient entities. It does appear that a major portion of the stimulus ended up in private pockets.
She seems to blame the banks for the mortgage bubble without taking into account the role of the Clinton administration and ACORN in forcing banks to make those “sub-prime” mortgages. So while Barney Frank diddled, the bubble burst.
(All this stuff will be brought up in the 2012 campaign, I’m sure.)
Oh, I think the intended missions of the two FMs were sound. I’d suggest a major new regulation being that no adjustable mortgage can ever have an interest rate five percentage points higher than the initial APR, to do away with the low “teaser” rates that sucked people into the subprime mess in the first place.
And as a side note, if you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop using phrases like “workin’” or “gummint”. Who are you - Pappy Yokum? It’s that kind of folksy crap that has some people thinking Sarah Palin is a viable candidate.
Don’t you think it would make a lot more sense to rebuild our manufacturing base so we will have something to sell to, say, China? What you are proposing is a minor variation on Roosevelt’s WPA, or was it PWA. We run the money around in circles and bring nothing in. It didn’t work well then and I doubt it would work any better now, and we would simply be deeper in debt.
I’m sure progressives are not going to give up their vision for a completely socialistic nation. That in spite of its utter failure in the USSR and the current failing european nations that are merely mostly socialistic. China is prospering, but even the Commies now understand that there has to be a healthy mix of capitialism. They are probably in trouble too. Maybe we can’t pay them back!
The whole world is suffering because of the idea that you can make everyone equal. It just can’t be done this side of Heaven.
Tell me that doesn’t have anything to do with the banking system, and I will say that if too many people didn’t think they could vote themselves goodies out of the public treasury, they would vote the socialists completely out of office.
Our manufacturing base will rebuild itself if we create demand. Government cannot do anything to rebuild manufacturing besides spending money.
It worked fantastically well until 1937, when conservatives prevailed and spending was cut. The Depression would have ended four years earlier if we had ignored conservatives then, as we should now.
Intent aside, the government strong-armed lenders to approve those junk mortgages. What is worse, they may be going back to that practice. At least, one person told me the other day that he was being told that he might qualify for a mortgage with payments of $800 per month. He knows that he can only afford $400. I truly hope we don’t go down that path again.
yes, Bush bailed out the banks with the bi-partisan help of Congress. That’s why I keep saying vote for the conservatives. Obama was happy to continue the bail -outs.
ACORN was an accumulation of slime bags that got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I suppose they are still operating under a different name now. Haven’t heard much lately about them.
Do you remember the checks that were sent out to individuals? I got one. Whose economy got stimulated? Well, I guess mine did a little. Did folks go out and buy something they didn’t need, or did they just pay bills? Electronics, jewelry, etc? Where were those products made? Mostly not in the USA. We stimulated economies, primariarly foreign. The same thing happened with the “cash for clunkers”. People bought Toyotas, Mazdas, & Volkswagens, with a smattering of Fords and Chevys.
The problem is that Washington has the Midas touch, only in reverse.
What worked fantastically well until 1937? My wife’s parents would have argued with you streneously were they still alive, as I suspect many parents or grandparents who lived through the Great Depression would have.
FDR 1933-1945 (Wikipedia) FDR continued the relief program for the umemployed begun by Herbert Hoover. In spite of what is called economic recovery, unemployment never went below 8% or 9% until 1941. (WW 2) As a wage-earner (retired) with a family I really do not consider the economy recovered when more than 1 in 10 workers have no jobs.
What we are doing now is moving wealth around, not creating it. The only way to create wealth is to take raw materials and turn them into products that people will buy. I refer you again to Henry Ford. Would he have been able to produce his cars and pay his people enough so that they could buy those cars if he had been saddled with high taxes and extreme regulations? Not likely.
Actually, Warren was appointed to the congressional oversight panel by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, not by either the Bush43 or Obama administrations.
Unless galveston had some other appointment of hers in mind.
What do you mean, “intent aside” ? That’s like saying “death aside, what’s the big deal about murder?”
And I remain curious about how and when (and indeed if) the government (let alone specifically Clinton or ACORN) did this.
The intent part? You have heard the old saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions? Good intentions and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee, maybe.
I’m not doing your homework for you. I would give you the proper name of the act, but it was something like “The Affordable Housing Act” (probably not exactly right) passed during the Carter administration, revived by the Clinton administration, and bore bitter fruit near the end of the Bush administration. In Fact GW tried to get congress to reign in Fanny and Freddy, but no dice. ACORN’s part was to push this for all it was worth to get loans for as many disadvantaged people as possible.
For a smart guy, you don’t seem to be very well informed.
That is why stimulus should be invested in infrastructure. Can’t be outsourced, employment increases, the money is multiplied in local economies, and the country gets physical improvements.
Yes, yes, I appreciate and admire your command of clichés.
You’re not my teacher, I’m not your student. It’s not your role to assign me homework. You’ve made a claim, I’ve asked for supporting evidence. If you can’t or won’t provide it, you take your chances on what effect this has on your credibility, if that at all matters to you, posting on a message board and such.
You mean the Community Reinvestment Act, part of the larger Housing and Community Development Act of 1977? It’s my understanding that encouraging and facilitating home ownership has been a goal of numerous presidential administrations, before and since Carter - the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development goes back to 1965 in LBJ, and the various provisions were being modified (but not abolished) under Reagan and Bush41. I’m not sure what you mean by “revived”. As far as I know, the CRA wasn’t dead when Clinton took office, and the president is not the key authority here - congress is.
Anyway, with banking deregulation and resistance to new regulation (as Brooksley Borne, a Clinton appointee and head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission through the late nineties, warned about over-the-counter derivatives), a system designed to help spun out of control. I suppose I could blame Alan Greenspan and/or the Republican Congress, if it matters.
Even granting this for the sake of argument, somewhere along the way to “the role of the Clinton administration and ACORN in forcing banks to make those ‘sub-prime’ mortgages” I keep getting lost. the dots just aren’t connecting.
If that is true, I invite you to remedy the situation. In all honesty, though, I already have significant doubts about a number of your claims.
