Did the financial sector deserve their "stimulus"?

Want to bet the already spent it!

um.....i think that was the idea.

just sayin'.

Oskar... I believe I already covered that piece of insanity... "The government has proved again and again, that it is incapable of running anything efficiently.. the military is a required government evil, but owning car companies, train companies and financial institutions is plain INSANITY. " (message #40). The government owns the financial institutions by way of "stimulus" spending.. afraid it did nothing to stimulate me.

Correct Macro.. but it also means that they now have none to pay back the government, which means that Obama will have to have ANOTHER stimulus package top assist people in paying back the last stimulus package that they could not afford, kind of like the houses they bought on mortgages they could not afford, from companies that could not afford to give mortgages, for houses that were not worth the money that they paid for them... .. did ya follow all that there friend?

i understand. my point was that i thought the stimulus money was supposed to help businesses, not be a form of welfare. yay or nay?

just out of curiosity, Bobs, would you advocate discorporating Social Security and Medicare?

So the big banks that were in trouble should have been allowed to fail, bankrupting the FDIC which in turn would have likely caused a run on the remaining banks causing them to fail.
Seems to me that the downside of the petro-dollar is coming home to roost.

You know what, I really do not believe that the big banks were going to fail... but, if they were dumb enough to give out the mortgages they did, then jack the rates.. tough! They failed in 1927.. and the earth is still spinning, we are still breathing... and the dinosaurs are not yet ruling the lands... I have been on this earth to long, I have seen real poverty, real destruction... I do not scare easily. what I saw was a bunch of people in three piece suits that were afraid of loosing their shirts, I saw a lot of people that bought STUFF.. houses, cars, boats, etc., that could not afford them, crying it was some else's fault. I never heard ANYONE admit they screwed up.. so yes.. there is NO business that is to big to fail. One dictator (big business) falls, there is always another to take his place.. 'so Oskar.. in answer to your question, I think it was a question.. YES.. let them fail. I see nothing here that has ANYTHING to do with the petro dollar. It did not make bad mortgages, it did not overprice real estate, it did not make people stupid...

Macro... I believe the stimulus act was a "feel good pill", kind of a placebo.. I see no reason for government to "help business" by giving money away to a company that is not capable of running a profitable business. If the government would like to help business (big and small), it could do so by cutting taxes, not handing out money.

cutting taxes won't work if a company is not making money. but stimulating demand will. and this is not a small problem. if you look at the PE ratio of the S&P500, it becomes pretty clear than a fairly LARGE percentage of those companies (i am guessing 1/3) are losing money. is it because they all suck at running business? no. it is because a down economy adversely affects the ability of a business to profit.

again, i am not sure that the idea of stimulus is to improve spirits. my impression is that it is to engender consumer spending, which in turn will stem job losses.

By discorporate (which means beheading),

actually, it means "to leave your body" -vs- "incorporate", which means to "bring into being" or to "embody".

do you actually mean privatizing?

i mean "getting rid of". are you in favor of it?

I would be in favor of privatization.. to many people have been lead down the rosy path of the government will take care of you. That was not the original reason for social security... As far as Medicare.. yes, get rid of it... it is horrible, and while you are getting rid of Medicare, take out the lawyers that have made medical care so expensive!

discorporate
adj : not having a material body; "bodiless ghosts" [syn: unembodied,
bodiless, unbodied, disembodied]


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Discorporate \Dis*cor"po*rate\, a.
Deprived of the privileges or form of a body corporate.
[Obs.] --Jas. II.

WOW.. we have added a full page + since I jumped in, and I have only done 200 images... got to get to work... I photographed Lady Antebellum this weekend and I have to make my $$$..

HAHAHAHA

okey dokey. no further questions.

My thoughts on the privatization of the individual's "retirement funds," in lieu of government collected Social Security is I think there is ample evidence that a great majority of Americans know absolutely nothing about investing money, if they have the money to invest. A great many more Americans live on a paycheck to paycheck basis, especially those with children, or medical problems, and they would be the ones who need a "secure" retirement fund the most.

Those who do invest would most likely invest foolishly, looking for high returns from high powered financial management firms that are of the Bernie Madoff type, and end up at the end of their working lives destitute and STILL requiring help from "someplace" or we will have bodies pilling up in the streets, without medical care, without food, without burial money, and without any family member able to supply their needs.

What do we do then?

It is perhaps insulting to suggest, or presume, that most American citizens are too ignorant of the process of investing to be trusted with their own money, but the deregulated/unregulated/greed driven private governmentally accepted and approved entities, such as those banks, savings and loans, investment firms, financial agencies, etc. that have been screwing the tax payer for decades are obviously quite willing and able to hoodwink even those who think they know what they are doing. A la Madoff and AIG and the other Wall Street gangs. And, of course, we have Alan Greenspan shaking his undeservedly respected head and saying he doesn't really understand what happened either.

We seem to h ave reached the point where the financial sector, that which is the essense of capitalism, has become so distorted that only the criminally minded are capable of understanding what has happened and what is continuing to happen.

I certainly thought the "stimulus package" for the financial institutions was for the purpose of them lending the money out to the smaller, subsidiary banks, thus freeing up credit for small business and the home owners who wanted to buy houses or refinance existing mortgages. Instead the major recipients sat on the taxpayer's money with the exception of what they spent on bonuses and recreational/business conferences of further acquisitions. Note the guys from the auto companies who were a tad red faced at taking their private jets to come with their tin cups asking folks who couldn't afford to buy one of their tires to save their butts from their indiscrete spending.

No, I don't think the government should be running businesses. But I do think they should be monitoring those individuals and conglomerates that are running businesses to see to it that they are not simply stealing the money from those who are trusting them with their, and their family's, futures. I believe the government needs to regulate what folks put in our food in the way of chemicals, preservatives, fibres, and other substances to be ingested in our, and our children's diets. I believe the lead content should be monitored. I believe our water supply should be monitored. I believe that business that pollute our water and our soil should be monitored and compelled to refrain from poisoning us, and/or clean up their act if they have been doing so.

It is all well and good to say that the only thing the government is supposed to do is to provide us with a military and international diplomats. No income tax? Great. How about no air traffic controllers? How about no bridge repairs? How about no rail maintenance? How about no weather service? The Constitution doesn't require that the government warn us when a tornado or a hurricane is coming. The Constitution doesn't require us to rescue Americans who have become buried alive under the rubble of an earthquake. The Constitution doesn't require that we use taxpayer money to make low cost loans for millionaires to rebuild their beachfront and mountain top homes when they meet with a hurricane or a forest fire. The Constitution doesn't require that we cover the loss of farmers to floods or droughts. If they don't have enough seed to start next year's crop, tough. Let the land lie fallow or sell it to a big agri business for pennies. Remember why we had an anti-monopoly law?

The Constitution doesn't require us to license doctors. The Constitution doesn't require that we bury our dead in a grave yard, after their bodies have been embalmed. How about if everybody just takes their dead and buries them in the front yard? Is that okay? The Constitution doesn't require us to bury horses, or to treat animals decently. Would we like to live in a land where animals were worked or starved to death, allowed to suffer contagious disease, and be permitted to lie and die beside the roadway or in the field?

Do we want unregulated lending with usurious rates? Do we want there to be no consumer protections? Do we want no public schools, but only private educational institutions that are funded by the wealthiest of interest groups, which may teach it's young people that only white people are deserving of a paid job, or an education, or to own their own home? What about schools that teach that only Jews, or Catholics, or Baptists, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Jehovah's witnesses can teach, and only if you are willing to accept their religion are you permitted to pay them to educate you?

No. Government doesn't belong running a business. But they sure as heck do need to be providing humane services and protections to the citizens of their country. The government cannot provide these services without money. The money can only be obtained from the governed. And unless we want plutocracy of utter self absorbed and self indulged regional dictatorships, we need a federal government, with a federal budget, to provide such simple things as the medical care which is necessary for the 'RIGHT' to life. And, without life, there is, indeed, liberty, but no pursusit of happiness.

Government of the people....we are supposed to be electing people to represent the best actions for our best interest.

Goverment for the people....we are supposed to be getting what we voted for or we should be changing our representatives.

Government by the people...we are supposed to be taking responsiblity, both to elect those who represent us, and to pay for the safety and security of our nation AND our nation's people. If we are not our brother's keeper when our brother has fallen by the roadside and is laying there dying for want of food, or shelter, or medical care, then consider the alternative. Does anyone else remember when there was a well photographed famine in Biafra, and in SriLanka? Does anyone else remember the stumbling populace as they made their way past human beings laying beside the road, bellies bloated, flies on their faces, starving to death? Doesn't anyone else remember that? Do we want that in America, only worse. In America, we would have the wealthy gliding by in their SUV's sneering at the dead for littering the street.

Depends on what you want.

Sorry for the overlong, but, ya know how I am. I stole the computer from my son tonight, because I was listening to the news and the economic forecasts being hyped by the MSNM. It really is pathetic. How America loves a winner and a positive attitude. I can understand that no one is going to stand up and say, "It's over. We reached the tilting point, but we had a positive attitude, and we went over. ...just a bit... Ooops." Maybe we should hope that either the rapture occurs or the Mayans were correct. The unemployment figures are really awful, and it's going to get worse. How long can we avoid the explosion?

Well, I, once again, appreciate your patience, and I will now give my computer back to my son who is impatiently waiting. He, bless him, does not listen to the MSNM. I took this opportunity because I am not sure how much more opportunity I am going to have. I really feel intense grief at the state of the nation. The sadness is overwhelming. Perhaps I shouldn't even say these things here, but I keep wanting someone to say it. Whatever should have been, or might have been, or could have been, has gone wrong, terribly, terribly wrong. And hating one another, or blaming one group or political party or another is not going to solve the problem. But first we have to realize just how much trouble we are in and what we are arguing about.

Luv y'all. Sorry for the long windedness, and all the typos, and all the misspellings, and, and, and...


jd

JD.. I neither have the time nor the inclination to read that epitaph.. so just lat me say this...

Most folks I know were doing real well with their 401K plans before this debacle, and will again do well when this temporary set back is over. If people understand that Uncle Sam will not be there to pick them up, for the most part, I don't believe they will fall. The world ran for a long time before Social Security and Medicare.. and it will again.

I do not believe that people who have never run a business, have ANY business overseeing business. The government is made up of professional bureaucrats.. that could not run a wheel barrow properly, much less a business.

I fail to understand why so many believe they are OK, but the rest of the world is made up of idiots who can not get along with out government oversight and help...

Now, back to making money for myself.. night all.

so, how about we hire some of the recently out of work bond traders to handle our money for us, Bobs?? or maybe some of Madoffs peeps?

incidentally, i think TARP is an act of insanity. it is kind of social welfare in reverse. it make about as much sense as giving billions to convicted felons, which is basically what they did- minus the convicted part.

Bob,

A big apology to you. That lengthy post was not intended for you to take as a personal burden. It was just an outpouring of personal thoughts brought to the fore by some phrases you happened to post.

I actually agree that government doesn't belong running a business, although for reasons other than the described government incompetence.

You simply mentioned a sequence of words that are among those that "push my buttons."

That's what this board wanted and needed. I am grateful.

However, I will not further burden you with "the rest of the story..." I will put what I have to say on other threads, because this was meant to be something of a special thread. I do not discuss things too lightly, unfortunately. I have to apologize regularly.

jd

Don't ever think you have to apologize for writing here, Jeanne, however long your post. (How was it an epitaph??) I read it all.

I appreciate the kindness. But I realized, sort of "after the fact," that this is really intended to be a welcoming thread, with a special guest, and I got kind of carried away.

Bob is a good person to stimulate the political "anti-bodies" that complacency can diminish. As I said, I am grateful, both to you, for suggesting this, and to Bob, for being willing and ably suited to challange our comfortable assumptions. One needs competent challangers to keep their focus and see if there's any adjustments to be made. Or, if they are given more reason to remain of the same convictions.
Thanks.

jd

Most folks I know were doing real well with their 401K plans before this debacle, and will again do well when this temporary set back is over.

Only if they HAVE a 401K, Bob. Not everyone does. Employers aren't required to offer it.

JD... Grampatom is 100% correct.. never apologize.. it makes you look weak (stolen from NCIS!!!). I just did not have the time to go through it.. I was trying yo get some work done. You make some good points, but I believe misplaced. The Constitution has nothing to do with making law!

"The Constitution doesn't require us to license doctors. The Constitution doesn't require that we bury our dead in a grave yard, after their bodies have been embalmed. How about if everybody just takes their dead and buries them in the front yard? Is that OK? The Constitution doesn't require us to bury horses, or to treat animals decently. Would we like to live in a land where animals were worked or starved to death, allowed to suffer contagious disease, and be permitted to lie and die beside the roadway or in the field? "

It is the job of local authority, elected by the people (remember them) to make law for local consumption. The state sets the standards and the limits of local law. The constitution sets standards and limits on the federal gevernment... it states what the government can do, and what limits are on those powers, EVERYTHING else (according to the Constitution) falls under STATES RIGHTS! Unfortunately, the government continues to exercise rights it never had... One example is unfunded obligations on states, enforced with the THREAT to withhold federal tax monies collected from the states ... highway funds is the major item used to extort states. Don't believe it, check out the 55 mph national speed limit we had for a time.. there is nothing in the Constitution about feds involved in education or anything else that does not involve interstate commerce or transportation.

Chaos... No, not everyone has a 401K, but everyone has the obligation of taking care of themselves.. that is not, and never has been the governments job. Under a privatized Social Security system, everyone would have a 401K type savings, and it would be funded by the money people now pay in SS taxes. SS earns 2%, the market had earned 10 times that for every 20 year period. It would also take away from Congress it's largest slush fund.. do you really think that SS would be bankrupt if Congress was not stealing it blind... remember the "lock box"?

Jean- i agree with gramps. your posts are uniformly passionate and excellent. keep up the good work.

Right out of the box and here we have a simple, but eloquent, statment illustrating two very different viewpoints of an identical moral issue. Both are correct, but the potential outcome is quite a bit different.

I have heard the "Never apologize...it's a sign of weakness," from some movie or other, and I remember it very well.

Have you ever heard the other suggestion, Bob? "It takes a great man to admit to and apologize for a mistake."

Actualy there's merit for both treatments, but, you see, I have no sense of being weaker or lesser a being for having acknowledged that such a lengthy post was excessive considering the nature of the post and the nature of the thread and the fact that you were invited here as a special kind of courageous guy.

I'm taking into consideration that you don't know my style, and I haven't had time to learn your style of writing, yet.

Also, at 74 years old, and ill, I AM physically weak. lol

I also make an attempt to be courteous when I realize I've been overbearing, especially to someone I want to feel welcome and respected. So I wasn't thinking about appearing weak. I was thinking about relieving tension and making an effort to tone down my intensity, until you get used to me.

I once worked for a judge who was very philosophic, soft spoken, and very considerate of those who appeared before him. On occasion I would note someone push him too far, or treat him as though he were a sucker, and he would come down on them like a ton of bricks. That judge shared with me his opinion that his was the power, and noblesse oblige was a duty of the powerful. But, he said, some people misunderstand courtesy and humane treatment, even respect, for a weakness in him. "All I can say," he offered, "is WATCH! If they abuse respect and kindness, I can deal with them their way. They won't like it." Thus I have observed that apologizing, even to a criminal, is not necessarily a sign of weakness. It can also be seen as a sign of a very secure strength.

I think it is just great that in this little interaction on this first thread you and I have managed to so clearly exhibit totally different comprehension of a human being's behavior. We've done good, don't ya think?

I have an MD appointment in 40 minutes. Gotta go.

Enjoy./

jd