another extension?...

[layoutshooter]

I have been to Detroit, and seen those bad areas, I would not want to live there.

Detroit is in the shape it is in because of "feel good" government.

You and I want the same thing. For people to live better and prosper. We just want to do it in different ways. I prefer to hire rather than subsidize. Every time I have money taken from my pay to subsidize I am left with less to hire with. The result? Fewer people working, my home, truck etc is not in as good as condition as they can be. My families quality of life is diminished. More people being subsidized. Since subsidize are almost always less than a wage, everyone's life is diminished.

I think my way is far better. Everyone wins.

It is not the responsibility of government to provide jobs. We can do that ourselves if left alone to do so. It is government that is interfering with that process.

 

[cheri1122]

Government did too much with their "everyone must be able to own a home". Through the Clinton administration they changed the underwriting of loans through Fannie & Freddie. That forced banks to write loans on for people that didn't come close to qualifying.
You had people on tv home programs with a couple making 40k buying a half million dollar home with zero down.
Bush tried to shut it down but couldn't get a democratic Congress to go along.
"Those bad republicans forcing poor people out of their houses".
Banks were on the hook with these poor loans so they packaged the "luzer" loans together and sold them. Bad news is they weren't worth anything, thus the collapse of the banking industry.
Government shouldn't have been involved, and banks were deceptive in trying to sell investments that weren't worth anything.

I think this article basically proves that most of what you cite is a myth, or, as one learned analyst said, "a canard". It's a long and complicated read, but worth the effort. The majority of the blame for the financial collapse belongs squarely in the lap of the bankers, not the government. And what blame does accrue to the government involves either too little regulation, or not enforcing what was written. Again, we have the massive lobbying power of a powerful interest group [Wall Street] to thank.
It really is government of, by, and for the greedy.

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tennesseahawk]

If we could cut out all the fraud in Government I think we'd be far from broke.

If we could cut out all the embezzling in banking, we'd all be rich.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Like it or not, government money flowing through the economy juices the economy and costs us little. It's a point that people on tv seem to like to ignore as they talk down to us. They put it in terms like a household budget when they know darn well it ain't like that. When's the last time your household budget gave a hoot about the "velocity of money".

Yeah, yeah, I know. "It just ain't right" is what you're saying and I kinda agree. But we can't relive 1937 when the economy headed south again after perking up. I want better paying loads and a stronger national economy and if there are a few free-loaders cashing in, in the long run they're hurting themselves a lot more than they're hurting you and me.

Federal Reserve prints money, and devalues what we make in a week. I'd say that hurts everyone.

 

[WanderngFool]

Federal Reserve prints money, and devalues what we make in a week. I'd say that hurts everyone.

In a healthy economy loads would pay better so we'd still be better off.

Not saying this to you Tenneseeahawk but to the idea that common sense applies to the national economy. Cutting back on your personal expenses is a good thing, right? What if everyone did that and cut back by, let's say 10%? It would plunge the economy into recession and how much less would people in our business be making? 20% less? 30%? Worse? So if we all saved 10% it would actually cost us. (Not everyone equally though, many people profit from recessions.)

Economics isn't about common sense, it's about cause and effect on a massive scale and while there are different schools of thought, I think they all agree that above all, we need to avoid deflation, stagnation, and the hoarding of money. When coming out of a serious downturn, job 1 is to keep money moving through the economy.

We want inflation right now because it would mean we can stop worrying about deflation. We still need some economic stimulus. Infrastructure spending would be a smart move right now. Are banks and other big companies still hoarding money like they were a few years ago? I haven't read anything about that lately. Hopefully things are improving in that area.

 

[xiggi]

Savings to a point does help move money through the economy. When people save they still spend but use less credit. If I understand it correctly it also gives banks more money to invest creating more money to loan. Hoarding money I agree is past that point. I do wonder how o care will affect things because it may have the affect of less disposable income.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[xiggi]

I think this article basically proves that most of what you cite is a myth, or, as one learned analyst said, "a canard". It's a long and complicated read, but worth the effort. The majority of the blame for the financial collapse belongs squarely in the lap of the bankers, not the government. And what blame does accrue to the government involves either too little regulation, or not enforcing what was written. Again, we have the massive lobbying power of a powerful interest group [Wall Street] to thank.
It really is government of, by, and for the greedy.

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's Wikipedia not an article, I personally would not trust them as an authority on the subject. A large part of the blame must be placed on the individual
IMHO.

As I read the wiki info it seems some studies do blame government policy, others had varied findings depending on the majority party and minority party opinions. I'm am not seeing any definitive conclusion like you do?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Pilgrim]

For anyone who wants to read a REALLY good book about the 2008 financial crisis, I highly recommend Reckless Endangerment - available on Amazon and probably most libraries since it's been out for almost three years. It's very well written in an interesting style that keeps even the average reader engaged, and is replete with facts and sources relating to the corruption of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the financial rating agencies, and of course - Congress.

Reckless Endangerment | Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner | Macmillan

 

[davekc]

That's Wikipedia not an article, I personally would not trust them as an authority on the subject. A large part of the blame must be placed on the individual
IMHO.

As I read the wiki info it seems some studies do blame government policy, others had varied findings depending on the majority party and minority party opinions. I'm am not seeing any definitive conclusion like you do?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app

Within the body of the Wiki information, some (liberals) are saying it wasn't the government, and the right says otherwise.
The first clue should be that Fanny and Freddie are broke and are in need of another bailout. That is not the banking industry although they certainly do have their faults.
I'm clearing not saying they are blameless.
One can also look at Dodd-Frank and see the fallout from that mess that is continuing.

As for people and businesses hoarding money, that will continue as long as the current administration keeps passing bills that add uncertainty into the economy. The idea we need another stimulus is crazy. We do that and we will still be looking for those "shovel ready jobs". We seen how well that worked.
Every time you borrow and print money, the value of the dollar drop and hits the poorest the hardest first. That is why that .50 cent loaf of bread is now $2.00.

 

[Pilgrim]

Within the body of the Wiki information, some (liberals) are saying it wasn't the government, and the right says otherwise.
The first clue should be that Fanny and Freddie are broke and are in need of another bailout. That is not the banking industry although they certainly do have their faults.
I'm clearing not saying they are blameless.
One can also look at Dodd-Frank and see the fallout from that mess that is continuing.

As for people and businesses hoarding money, that will continue as long as the current administration keeps passing bills that add uncertainty into the economy. The idea we need another stimulus is crazy. We do that and we will still be looking for those "shovel ready jobs". We seen how well that worked.
Every time you borrow and print money, the value of the dollar drop and hits the poorest the hardest first. That is why that .50 cent loaf of bread is now $2.00.

Amen brother! For those who don't understand that concept and what's been going on for the past several years, this article by Thomas Sowell explains it best (bold emphasis mine):

One of the biggest, and one of the oldest, taxes in this latter sense is inflation. Governments have stolen their people's resources this way, not just for centuries, but for thousands of years.

Hyperinflation can take virtually your entire life's savings, without the government having to bother raising the official tax rate at all. The Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s had thousands of printing presses turning out vast amounts of money, which the government could then spend to pay for whatever it wanted to pay for.

Taxing the Poor - Thomas Sowell - Page full

Note the last sentence in the quote: does this sound familiar?

 

[davekc]

On a smaller scale, Illinois is a perfect example of out of control debt. They are spending a billion and a half per year just to service the debt. That is quite a lot of interest payments that they get nothing for. The idea to "just keep borrowing" does come with a price. At some point, those pensions for example will be worth nothing because they will be paying so much in interest.
http://watchdog.org/122841/illinois-taxpayers-paying-billions-manage-debt/
The feds borrowing the money has the same effect other than they can print money and the states can't. They just devalue the currency as already described.
Some folks need to get out of the "I need it now to feel good mentality" all the while passing debt to future generations.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

In a healthy economy loads would pay better so we'd still be better off.

Not saying this to you Tenneseeahawk but to the idea that common sense applies to the national economy. Cutting back on your personal expenses is a good thing, right? What if everyone did that and cut back by, let's say 10%? It would plunge the economy into recession and how much less would people in our business be making? 20% less? 30%? Worse? So if we all saved 10% it would actually cost us. (Not everyone equally though, many people profit from recessions.)

Economics isn't about common sense, it's about cause and effect on a massive scale and while there are different schools of thought, I think they all agree that above all, we need to avoid deflation, stagnation, and the hoarding of money. When coming out of a serious downturn, job 1 is to keep money moving through the economy.

We want inflation right now because it would mean we can stop worrying about deflation. We still need some economic stimulus. Infrastructure spending would be a smart move right now. Are banks and other big companies still hoarding money like they were a few years ago? I haven't read anything about that lately. Hopefully things are improving in that area.

Yes, we need inflation; but we're not going to get it. If inflation, accounted for by interest rates, go anywhere near 10%, the fed government goes belly up, due to not being able to pay the interest on the debt. They've backed themselves into a corner they can't get out of. Now all we do is wait for the pyramid scheme to collapse.

 

[layoutshooter]

We don't need inflation. We need expansion. Inflation will kill expansion. Out of control debt, taxes and spending all kill expansion. Interest rates are artificially low and are discouraging saving.

Devaluing our money by inflation will hurt the poorest harder than anyone.

 

[davekc]

That is what the (mainly liberals) can't their head around. They want the quick feel good experience, and when we continually borrow, they are stepping on the poor a little harder.
Politicians are looking for the next vote rather than 5 or 10 years down the road.

 

[layoutshooter]

That is what the (mainly liberals) can't their head around. They want the quick feel good experience, and when we continually borrow, they are stepping on the poor a little harder.
Politicians are looking for the next vote rather than 5 or 10 years down the road.

If they want a "feel good" experience they should get off their butts and do something rather than just throwing borrowed money, and other's money, at it.

IF one CHOOSES to donate to charity they should be allowed to do so, on their own, to the charity of THEIR choice, and what THEY choose to give. THAT is charity. That is how freedom works. That is NOT what we have now.

 

[WanderngFool]

You guys are funny. You put words into liberals mouths and then bad mouth liberals for the words you put there.

I haven't heard of any liberals calling for sky high inflation. I'm certainly not. I'll take Krugman's word for it that 3% - 4% would be healthy. Enough to juice the economy a little but not so much that the Fed is forced to slam on the brakes.

 

[layoutshooter]

6-8% expansion with even less inflation would be better. Inflation, ALL inflation is a devaluation of money and property. Inflation does not produce jobs either. It kills them.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

We don't need inflation. We need expansion. Inflation will kill expansion. Out of control debt, taxes and spending all kill expansion. Interest rates are artificially low and are discouraging saving.

Devaluing our money by inflation will hurt the poorest harder than anyone.

Do you know what inflation is, when speaking of depressions?

 

[layoutshooter]

Do you know what inflation is, when speaking of depressions?

I am not sure what you mean by your question.

 

[davekc]

You guys are funny. You put words into liberals mouths and then bad mouth liberals for the words you put there.

I haven't heard of any liberals calling for sky high inflation. I'm certainly not. I'll take Krugman's word for it that 3% - 4% would be healthy. Enough to juice the economy a little but not so much that the Fed is forced to slam on the brakes.

Take your latest example. They (liberals) want to extend unemployment. They again, want to borrow to do it. Nothing complicated. Yep.....it is a liberal thing.
They of course would want everyone with a job to pay for that, but oops...we are tying up their money and extra new taxes on Obamacare.