Bailout Alternative???

[Vladimir Eugene]

I keep hearing if the 700 Billion bailout doesn't go through

1. The Credit market would freeze up, no more lending- or difficulty lending,

2. that would lead to loss of jobs,

3. foreclosures, and

4. no economic growth and financial system collapse.

A some are concerned that this 700 billion might not work and the economy can still plummet.

No loans, job-loss, foreclosures, no economic growth.

It would seem to me that to stimulate the economy directly and to extend credit participation- a 25K credit to every citizen and resident over 18 would cost less than 50 Billion and would directly stimulate the economy

What are your Alternative Plans for the Bailout? Do you think it's necessary? I'm also interested in hearing international opinion that can see the situation in the US from a different prospective.

vlad

[Curran Giddens]

I think they should spend the 700 Billion on anything green in the USA.

Companies with alternative energy products will create more jobs with the money in order to scale up the production and lower the cost of their products.

Grants and tax breaks for businesses and individuals to purchase these new american-made products.

Build some kind of infrastructure to support the new technology. Nobody wants to buy a car that runs on hydrogen if there is nowhere to fill up. Kind of like the chicken and the egg.

[Graeme Nattress]

Building windmills sounds great to me!

Graeme

[Kevin Wild]

I keep hearing if the 700 Billion bailout doesn't go through

1. The Credit market would freeze up, no more lending- or difficulty lending,

2. that would lead to loss of jobs,

3. foreclosures, and

4. no economic growth and financial system collapse.

A some are concerned that this 700 billion might not work and the economy can still plummet.

No loans, job-loss, foreclosures, no economic growth.

It would seem to me that to stimulate the economy directly and to extend credit participation- a 25K credit to every citizen and resident over 18 would cost less than 50 Billion and would directly stimulate the economy

What are your Alternative Plans for the Bailout? Do you think it's necessary? I'm also interested in hearing international opinion that can see the situation in the US from a different prospective.

vlad


Hmm...I'm not used to doing big math like that, but I think your numbers are off my miles. I calculate 200 million people would only get around $3,000 back if you gave out the ENTIRE 750 billion dollars. This is not even close to the number you are saying...but I could be off. too many zero's for me...

[Andrew Walker]

Ever since the Federal Reserve has been ingrained into this country it has sought to bring it down. They have to make everything so bad that most of the sheep will be begging for the North American Union. This is all history repeating its self and the process of getting rid of any competition to the Federal Reserve. Then next thing that's going to happen just like in 1933 is the seizing of all the privately owned gold.

[Andrae Palmer]

Hmm...I'm not used to doing big math like that, but I think your numbers are off my miles. I calculate 200 million people would only get around $3,000 back if you gave out the ENTIRE 750 billion dollars. This is not even close to the number you are saying...but I could be off. too many zero's for me...

Spend a 100 billion on increasing math comprehension.

[Hans von Sonntag]

An international perspective:

Germany is has a third of the US-population, Germans are not poor either. If our gouverment would tell us taxpayers to spend 200 billion USD to support German banks we (the tax payers, political oposition, who ever) would never let them do this. Actually, they would never ask for such a unreasonable amount of money. Sounds like a big deception - there must be much more into it.

Expecially the fast aspired transaction and the consequential super-power of the financial minister (who needs many private executives to dispose such a big sum) would make everyone distrustful.

In this issue one cannot be suspicious enough.

For many who can barely pay their mortgage the goverments request is even more absurd. It's very bad for a democracy if people get tought the hardway that the very rich can get away with their mismanagement while the average pap and mom bite the dust. And this is not the self healing power of capitalism but just stupid, normal inequity.

Obviously free floating financial markets are not the perfect happy-maker. A new legal approach is neccessary.

This US goverment is very unhappy to say the least. They screwed up a lot of things which all affected us in Europe as well. And no, this is not 9/11 this is by the goverment tolerated self-enrichment that now becomes obvoius. Time for a change.

Hans

[Tai Wah Lim]

If nothing is being done to buy and give a value to non-performing mortgages out there - who know how much, the market will continue to spiral down and more banks will be bankrupted as nobody know what the bottom is. If the politicians in Washington still do what they best do - politicking and not act now - as Buffet said it is Pearl Harbor again - God Bless not only America but the economies worldwide - Lim

[Kevin Wild]

Spend a 100 billion on increasing math comprehension.

Do you get different numbers?

I've seen posts like Vlad's all over the place. I got an email yesterday that said the 700 billion could instead put $250,000 in every American's pocket. It was ridiculous!

So...where are my numbers wrong?

700,000,000,000/300,000,000=$2,333 per citizen (edited to 300m...for every citizen...typo)

Am I off?

[Greg M]

its not as much about stimulating the economy as it is about fixing the mess created my lending money to unqualified home purchasers (to simplify the problem). If all these large institutions fold due to their greed we all lose, so its really not as simple as just stimulating the economy.

[Jaime Vallés]

Hmm...I'm not used to doing big math like that, but I think your numbers are off my miles. I calculate 200 million people would only get around $3,000 back if you gave out the ENTIRE 750 billion dollars. This is not even close to the number you are saying...but I could be off. too many zero's for me...
You are correct. $700 Billion split between 200 Million US adults 18+ translates to roughly $3500 per person.

Hey, that's the price of a Scarlet right there!

[N_Villers]

the bush administration to do anything worthwhile in their last (finally) few months considering all the disastrous decisions made in the last eight years. The fact that we are in this mess in the first place can be squarely put at their feet to begin with. Does anyone remember how they started with a 300 billion surplus. Deregulation has been the mantra of the republicans for so long - see where this has gotten us now? Their incompetence is truly staggering. BTW McCain until recently has been one of the more vocal proponents of deregulation himself. VOTE OBAMA!!!!!!!!

[Darren Orange]

Vladimir said 25,000 to those over 18.

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

1. The Fed takes over ownership of the commercial paper as originally planned.

2. A constitutional amendment eliminating the income tax - both individual and corporate.

3. Impose in it's place a 17.5% consumption tax, with a Pre-Bate, as per the "Fair Tax". This tax is not imposed on the sale of used equipment or other items were the tax was paid by the original purchaser (in other words, it's not a VAT style tax, just a plain sales tax). Those living at or below the poverty level pay 0% tax. The gasoline tax is eliminated, and replaced with the 17.5% tax

4. Increase customs tariffs on foreign goods coming from countries with unfair trade practices (such as China refusing to allow their currency to float).

5. The economy booms. A massive inflow of capital owned by US corporations but held overseas, begins to flow into the U.S. almost immediately following the elimination of the income tax. This stabilizes the banking system. The US Dollar returns to parity with the E.U. Euro. This reduces gasoline prices by 33%.

6. Former IRS employees are still have their jobs - they either administer the consumption tax collected by the states, or they work collections on the commercial paper owned by the Fed.

7. Tax revenue is greatly increased because now the "underground economy", people living off their wealth, and illegal aliens are all contributing.

8. Small business owners have a lot more time to attend to business instead of having to track every transaction and spend hours complying with the tax code. States with income tax begin eliminating it because they are at a competitive disadvantage against states with no income tax.

9. Manufacturing in USA becomes more profitable because the producer of goods pays no tax. Exports greatly increase and the trade deficit is reduced.

10. We live happily ever after, in peace and freedom from fear, and the purity of our natural fluids...

...sorry couldn't resist that last one!

Doktor Merkwurdigliebe

[C.H.Haskell]

Embrace yourself America...total economic meltdown.:waaa:

[Adrian Van Rossum]

What gets me is the outlandish salaries these bank executives have been on for years, and the huge bonuses they get paid even when the company does poorly. Then when the day of reckoning comes, who has to stump up to bail them out - mom 'n' pop taxpayers. All the while the execs keep their mansions and luxury yachts. If mine, or most of the other production companies on these boards were at risk of going under, there's no help for us - we just disappear into the ether. I just see this as a desperate move by politicians to prop up the prices of the shares they own.

[Greg M]

This is a funny piece, but a very accurate description of the root of the problem we face. (PLEASE SAVE AS)

warning: bad language

http://digitalfilmgroup.tv/images2/Sub_Prime_Expl.pps

[Tom Lowe]

Ever since the Federal Reserve has been ingrained into this country it has sought to bring it down. They have to make everything so bad that most of the sheep will be begging for the North American Union. This is all history repeating its self and the process of getting rid of any competition to the Federal Reserve. Then next thing that's going to happen just like in 1933 is the seizing of all the privately owned gold.

The Federal Reserve debasing our Dollar, keeping interest rates ridiculously low (causing unwise lending), plus out-of-control federal spending are to blame for our mess - not to mention a lack of common-sense regulation. We are spending ourselves into oblivion, literally.

Here's my solution:

Shut down the federal reserve.

Cut spending.

Start paying off our 10 trillion dollar national debt.

[Andrew Walker]

That was a nice little power point slide show.

[Andrew Walker]

The Federal Reserve debasing our Dollar, keeping interest rates ridiculously low (causing unwise lending), plus out-of-control federal spending are to blame for our mess - not to mention a lack of common-sense regulation. We are spending ourselves into oblivion, literally.

Here's my solution:

Shut down the federal reserve.

Cut spending.

Start paying off our 10 trillion dollar national debt.

I totally agree in shutting down the FED but the problem is we can't. Well at least with any legal means. With nothing short of burning those people at the steak is the only way to shut it down...and I mean literally burning them at the steak...no jail time, no multi-million dollar retirement. People need to be shown that destroying our way of life is not something to be taken lightly.

[Jaime Vallés]

Vladimir said 25,000 to those over 18.
Do the math again. $25,000 has one zero too many.

[Tom Lowe]

I totally agree in shutting down the FED but the problem is we can't. Well at least with any legal means. With nothing short of burning those people at the steak is the only way to shut it down...and I mean literally burning them at the steak...no jail time, no multi-million dollar retirement. People need to be shown that destroying our way of life is not something to be taken lightly.

Ha ha!... let's send Fed Chairman Bernanke to the Sizzler and cook his steak, then feed him to the seniors on Tuesday night Buffet!!!

[Siva Kollipara]

I am an Indian and but work in New York City, so little aware of both the sides.
The first and foremost thing to solve a problem is to admit it...
Understand what the problem is and where the problem is.
Till Bush,Bernake and Paulson trio neither know what the problem is nor admitted that there exists a problem.

Looks funny, but true, they are always threating American Tax Payers with horrible consequences if bail-out plan is not passed.

Whether you put $700 billion or $7 Trillion, writing on the wall, patient is already in ICU, the doctors are not letting you see the patient so that they can act if they are treating him with expensive medicines.
During war do not worry about the dead soldiers, try to save the rest.
When patient was attached with Cardiac Arrest, instead of taking him into hospital Investment bankers(IBs) put him on 100m running race. IBs put heavy bets on commodities and crude oil, eventually it went to $147/barrel. thinking that they can short it and eventually cover the losses. This was game played by US/US companies in 70s/80s and made everyone fools, but now Arabs understood the game, ball is in their court, they are playing smart game now.
What happens now..?
1) If Arabs cut oil production as little as 2 million barrel/day, whole world has to go and beg them at their feet.
2) If China says to America, "settle my trade account today" . US cannot pay.

In the above two scenarios are catastrophic not only to US, but to entire world . With rise in oil price, the third world countries suffer extremely.
What are options to US?
a)Declare Bankruptcy, dollar is thrown out of bank and Gold will soar to $2000 or more
b)Go to the feet of Arabs/Chinese
c)Provoke every country and dictate American Tax Payers to fund the WAR.

If US can declare $25 million on Bin Laden, why can't they declare $100 million to experts, who can provide solution..?

[GlennChan]

To me, it seems like the bailout would only delay a financial collapse (and make it a lot worse).

The problem with banking is that banks lend out money they don't have. (Fractical reserve banking.) This is fine as long as the economy is growing (or rather, the people borrowing can generate wealth and pay their loans back). If people can't pay these loans back, then there is a big problem. e.g. what happened in the great depression, when a whole number of banks went under. People thought that their money would be safe in their bank... only to discover that when they wanted to withdraw their money, the bank didn't have it.

What the bailout looks like is getting all American taxpayers to foot the bill. So essentially, money is being taken from every American taxpayer to prop up these failing banks. Should the American taxpayer pay for the irresponsibility/bad business practices of others? Probably not IMO.
The argument for a bailout is that confidence in the banking system is restored and that we can continue to play this game of musical chairs. As long as economic growth outpaces aggressiveness/soundness of the banks' lending, things would be ok. I don't think this is a good plan at all because there are moments where the economy doesn't grow fast enough to support lending levels. e.g. great depression, the savings and loan crisis, the LTCM bailout, etc.

2- Derivatives allow for a variation on the fractional reserve banking problem... under derivatives, you make promises to do something if certain conditions are met (e.g. pay $___ if Y happens). The magnitude of these promises can greatly exceed your ability to pay. For example, Long Term Capital Management at one point was leveraged 30:1. i.e. For every $1 they had, they were borrowing $30 and promising to pay that back.

The US government, if it were responsible (yeah right), would regulate the use of derivatives and make sure that they don't get out of hand. Right now, they regulate fractional reserve banking to make sure that the banks don't overlend to prevent something like what happened in ~1929 (where a series of banks went under). Back then, people lost their life savings because they stuck it in a bank and the bank went under on them. So the government stepped in to make sure that something like that wouldn't happen again (but then it did in the savings and loan crisis, and taxpayers bailed that out).

The government should, IMO, definitely regulate derivatives more to prevent future financial disasters. And they should have done that after the LTCM bailout. But they didn't. So there's another potential disaster.
The financial institutions would prefer to have less regulation, since riskier lending practices can mean more profit. Riskier lending (e.g. lending out even more money you don't have) absolutely leads to short term profits... which has a short-sighted appeal. In the long run, risky lending is a bad thing as eventually the business will blow up and go bankrupt. When CEOs get paid with options, then it definitely encourages them to go for short-term gains (they won't lose money if their company goes bankrupt or loses a lot of money... unlike shareholders; compensation via options is a bad idea in general because the CEOs interests aren't aligned with shareholders).

[GlennChan]

On the other hand... there is a lot we don't know about economics. And a lot of economic theory is wrong. e.g. the efficient market hypothesis, taught in practically all universities, is wrong IMO.

The laws of supply/demand probably also isn't true... there are some situations where raising prices *increased* volume of sales.


“We will not have any more crashes in our time.” - John Maynard Keynes in 1927.

[Andrew Walker]

Ha ha!... let's send Fed Chairman Bernanke to the Sizzler and cook his steak, then feed him to the seniors on Tuesday night Buffet!!!

I like your thinking Tom.

[Rick Darge]

Wait a minute.. I thought the economy was fake?

You guys are telling me now that it's real?!?!

[Joel Kaye]

Shut down the federal reserve.


And end up like JFK. :alien:

My plan -

1) Take the money from defense contractors and bankers who've pilfered/profited from all this corruption and throw them in jail.

2) Cut Spending and when we do spend require the CEO's of any U.S. government contractor to make a maximum of 15 times the wage of their average worker. Require 90% of the workers employed by American Tax Dollars to BE US CITIZENS.

Spend money on green oil alternatives so we can stop paying royal families in oil countries so we can drive to work.

[Clint Johnson]

The largest underlying problem for this meltdown was the banks loaning out massive amounts of money to people who were not eligible for the loans. This was caused by the government created Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac buying up of these bad loans - and government regulations that allowed these entities to have a capital/asset ratio of less than 3% . The regulations on the other banking and lending institutions were placed there to keep them from becoming insolvent... but solvency was considered a liability to achieving the goals placed on the “Government Sponsored Enterprises” Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. So the other institutions simply took the profits from these bad loans and passed the liability on to the GSEs – using the inconsistant regulations to bypass the regulations on themselves.

So the meltdown was precipitated by the “government sponsored enterprises” buying up bad loans and - the government solution is to spend tax dollars... to buy up bad loans? The phrase “good money after bad” has never been more appropriate.

I'm a capitalist pig and I believe the government that regulates the least, regulates the best... but those regulations have to be rational and consistent. They can't be rigged to give a result that is politically or philosophically expedient but economically infeasible.

One thing could be the elimination of businesses as entities that can take the blame for the actions of individuals. Individuals who have unprecedented economic power need to be held accountable for the results of their actions and walking away with multi-million dollar payouts isn't what I consider being held accountable. If the management and stock holders can be held accountable for what the company does, the management will be far more careful about what they do and the stockholder will keep a much sharper eye on them. There is some responsibility already there but an insane amount of it can be offloaded to a piece of fiction called a corporation.

In my opinion, that apportioning of responsibility should carry over to the politicians as well. The politicians make whatever promises it takes to get people to give them hundreds of millions of dollars that they then use to tell the largest percentage of the population what they think they want to hear. So the primary qualifications to be the most powerful people on the planet is the ability to sell themselves to business for money and to the population for votes. That doesn't mean that they can't have any other abilities, such as understanding economics or waging military campaigns, but gaining these abilities takes time and if they waste too much time on those unrelated pursuits they will have less time for their essential work of getting and holding power.

Maybe if they were held responsible for their actions while in office they might actually tailor their actions to something other than the next round of fund raising and electioneering. They also may be less likely to hold to political actions that fail repeatedly whenever tried.

But how far back to do you go? It would be kind of hard to go after Franklin D. Roosevelt for the New Deal and the creation of Fannie Mae... but how about Franklin Raines who, under direction of the Clinton administration, relaxed the lending standards of Fannie Mae for ridiculously subprime borrowers? And how about the Bush administration who allowed that to continue?

Anyone want to hold there breath for Clinton or Bush to take responsibility for their part in this economic crisis?

Didn't think so.



In addendum, the latest numbers from the census bureau show that the current population of the United States is about 305,256,000 people. The age related breakdown I could find with a quick Googling show that 72.6% of the USA population is 20 years of age or older. I could look further to find the more precise “18 and over” but this will do for a back of the napkin calculation.

Apportioning $700 billion to these 221,615,856 people would give them $3,158.62 each.

This math brought to you by a Canadian high school dropout.:whistling:

[ZeissUser]

One thing could be the elimination of businesses as entities that can take the blame for the actions of individuals. Individuals who have unprecedented economic power need to be held accountable for the results of their actions and walking away with multi-million dollar payouts isn't what I consider being held accountable. If the management and stock holders can be held accountable for what the company does, the management will be far more careful about what they do and the stockholder will keep a much sharper eye on them. There is some responsibility already there but an insane amount of it can be offloaded to a piece of fiction called a corporation.

In my opinion, that apportioning of responsibility should carry over to the politicians as well. The politicians make whatever promises it takes to get people to give them hundreds of millions of dollars that they then use to tell the largest percentage of the population what they think they want to hear. So the primary qualifications to be the most powerful people on the planet is the ability to sell themselves to business for money and to the population for votes. That doesn't mean that they can't have any other abilities, such as understanding economics or waging military campaigns, but gaining these abilities takes time and if they waste too much time on those unrelated pursuits they will have less time for their essential work of getting and holding power.

Maybe if they were held responsible for their actions while in office they might actually tailor their actions to something other than the next round of fund raising and electioneering. They also may be less likely to hold to political actions that fail repeatedly whenever tried.

But how far back to do you go? It would be kind of hard to go after Franklin D. Roosevelt for the New Deal and the creation of Fannie Mae... but how about Franklin Raines who, under direction of the Clinton administration, relaxed the lending standards of Fannie Mae for ridiculously subprime borrowers?

I'm a US citizen who does not have a political affiliation and have never cared about politics, but I agree with everything you just said. Does that make me a Rep, Dem, or Lib? I'm registering to vote next week...

[Joseph Ward]

Mark my words people will be made(direct or indirect), to make a choice of having an ID on/in their bodies, that will make them a slave. My mission in life is to help, have the US make its own money. I am willing to die and live for it because I believe in the freedom of the US citizens and the rest of the world.

[Steven M. Bailey]

I am one of those poor smucks that is losing my house, business, assets ect...

Last year my house appraised for 1.2 mil, this year I can't sell it for $699.000

There are so many foreclosures on the market that I can't even find work in the construction field. I can't liquidate my assets and I can't make money in my field. Its a real cluster.

I had one more house to build before I started my feature film. If I don't get bailed out personally I will be paying on this mistake for the rest of my life. I don't want anything for free, I would settle for selling my house for half its value.

It just happens that right now it is more beneficial to the upper end market to wait for you to crash, then buy your house from the bank.

If you know anyone looking for a 5400 sq ft vacation home near Shasta lake let me know. The third floor is a 1500 sq ft bar and grill

pics @ http://www.blownapartstudios.com/house/index.php?page=pictures

[Pawel Achtel]

...This math brought to you by a Canadian high school dropout.:whistling:

I think you are on to something, Clint. Maybe the problem with US economy is in fact a problem with elementary education, especially up at the decision-making level :gun:

I think G.W.B. would drop out of primary school in any civilised country... :whistling:

[Steve Sherrick]

Honestly, we're probably screwed either way. I see Washington as a bunch of people who are out of touch with reality right now. Not all of them, but unfortunately, a good amount of them. I don't favor either of the political candidates right now, and was not convinced after tonight's debate either. But Mccain is right to a certain degree. We have to hold people accountable for their mistakes. The average person in this country is held accountable. Don't pay your mortgage, they'll take your house. Don't pay your car loan, they'll repossess it. Break the law, go to jail. The only difference between us and the high powered executives and politicians - lawyers.

With lobbyists and high powered attorneys involved, politics will probably always be susceptible to corruption. If McCain is for real and would truly embark on a mission to clean up washington, stop the irresponsible spending (if you want to see where your hard earned tax dollar goes, check out the deserted prisons we started to build in Iraq, only to abandon the projects due to construction overages and corruption) and bring a sense of responsibility back to government and the citizens of the US, it could be a step in the right direction. Problem is, I'm not sure his economic policies are going to get us out of this mess anytime soon, nor do I think Obama will be able to do everything he talks about if the economy takes the kind of hit we expect it will.

Is this gloom and doom? Well, the US has been resilient in the past. We do seem to step up when challenged. But if this turns into the Great Depression, the world gets screwed up because it's all tied together now, a global economy. And that can only lead to tension, possibly more conflict throughout the world, and maybe even more wars.

It's an understatement to say this is a critical juncture. Lawmakers need to step up and do what's right. How "right" is defined is up for debate and I'm not optimistic they are going to do the right thing, at least not in the long run. But maybe they will come together and come up with a brilliant plan that will surprise us all. It's the brilliant part I worry about.

[Clint Johnson]

I am one of those poor smucks that is losing my house, business, assets ect...

Last year my house appraised for 1.2 mil, this year I can't sell it for $699.000

There are so many foreclosures on the market that I can't even find work in the construction field. I can't liquidate my assets and I can't make money in my field. Its a real cluster.

I had one more house to build before I started my feature film. If I don't get bailed out personally I will be paying on this mistake for the rest of my life. I don't want anything for free, I would settle for selling my house for half its value.

It just happens that right now it is more beneficial to the upper end market to wait for you to crash, then buy your house from the bank.

If you know anyone looking for a 5400 sq ft vacation home near Shasta lake let me know. The third floor is a 1500 sq ft bar and grill

pics @ http://www.blownapartstudios.com/house/index.php?page=pictures

And that is the worst part of the whole thing. Tens of thousands of perfectly reasonable loans are being made untenable by the mess created trying to give unreasonable loans to people who could not possibly pay them off. With thousands upon thousands of foreclosures, the equity that a lot of solid middle class people built into something that should have been a good bet, homes, has been pulled out from under them by a flooded market.

The politicians will spin it so that they are the heroes come to rescue the economy (never mind that they're the ones who's oversight and regulations caused this), the companies and managers will get billions of dollars in bailouts and golden parachutes if they have to leave (never mind that they took advantage of the governments oversight and regulations to cause this) and thousand of people got to live above their means for years (I can't build up animosity toward these folk since they are in bad financial straights and tend to work hard at physically demanding and low paying jobs... they just shouldn't have been able to get loans for those homes).

While folks like you, who should have been on solid financial footing, get hammered by all of them. I checked out the link to the house and it looks like an interesting design with some nice unique touches- it's a shame that it sits there while people wait for you to go under.

[Mark B.]

Well, speaking from the extremely poor perspective, if house prices don't drop then there's no way the lower class can ever afford to buy a place of their own.

My thought on the issue is that it's cruel to allow life's fundamental necessities to be subject to the capitalist system. Capitalism is based on the concept that there is profit to be made when demand exceeds supply... so to make money on food, water, housing, clothing, and medical care, requires that there be an intentional limitation of those items, in order to create a profitable state of demand. If houses AREN'T built, then people will pay more for the few that exist. If medical training is withheld, and fewer hospitals are built, then the few hospital owners will make lots of money from the higher demand.

We have the machines and the resources to provide housing to everyone in the country (albeit not all at once, there will have to be a roll-out period). The houses might be basic little condos, but they'd keep people warm and meet basic needs. We can plant enough food and provide water for everyone, if the government simply allocates resources to meet demand. Basic clothing could also be provided to everyone, although the bulk of clothing sales would probably remain in the capitalist realm as most people would want something more stylish than the government standard issue clothing.

Power (electricity... not that carbon burning junk) is another thing that should be readily free to people. Green technologies are enough to power the country, if we'd simply implement the infrastructure. It will cost some money initially, but with the entire country backing it we would have it finished and paid for in no time.

The remaining luxury items would be left to the capitalist system... nicer places to live, boats, cars, video cameras, toys, etc. would all be earned using money that comes in from jobs.

Key to getting the money problem fixed is to take money from the rich (corporations in particular) to pay for the country's debts, instead of taking it from the poor working class. Restrictions should be put on the total wealth any one person can have during their lifetime. If they hit that cap (say, $500m), then any other money they make should automatically go to the government to pay for the infrastructure. When the greedier members of society (Wall Street execs for instance) hit the cap, they won't be able to earn any more money, and so they'll stop trying to profit off the other people in society. Maybe they'll be replaced by another greedy person, but at least some of the money will be spread around that way.

[Andrew Walker]

This whole thing is a farce. In that the FED and the GOV, which are two separate things but still very much connected in their plans, have been planning this for a while. Its not like they woke up one day and there was a huge problem with the economy. And if anyone thinks that they just made a mistake and this whole thing happened you have been mislead. The FED knows exactly what its doing. When your dealing with trillions of dollars people don't just do a quick night study session on our economy...they make a life out of being able to know what the effect will be when they cause something.

This country and its economy aren't the problem. Its the greedy and power hungry that have destroyed this country and turned it into a socialist country. I want my hard work to count for something. People that just sit on their asses all day long shouldn't get nothing for me. There's always work to be had. If its not in your area move to where it is. I'm only in LA because of the work. If the studios weren't here I wouldn't be.




Key to getting the money problem fixed is to take money from the rich (corporations in particular) to pay for the country's debts, instead of taking it from the poor working class. Restrictions should be put on the total wealth any one person can have during their lifetime. If they hit that cap (say, $500m), then any other money they make should automatically go to the government to pay for the infrastructure. When the greedier members of society (Wall Street execs for instance) hit the cap, they won't be able to earn any more money, and so they'll stop trying to profit off the other people in society. Maybe they'll be replaced by another greedy person, but at least some of the money will be spread around that way.

I think this is a horrible idea. Not everyone that makes $500M in their lifetime is as evil as you seem to think the Wall Street Execs are. People that are billionaires can do great things for other people. Look at Jim and RED. I truly believe Jim is passionate about what he does and looks to revolutionize the industry and to give us people that would have never had a chance to get those big price cameras. A chance to have a camera that is way better and a fraction of the cost. People can be good. No need to punish the rest of us for greedy assholes that are running a muck.

[Clint Johnson]

Well, speaking from the extremely poor perspective, if house prices don't drop then there's no way the lower class can ever afford to buy a place of their own.

My thought on the issue is that it's cruel to allow life's fundamental necessities to be subject to the capitalist system. Capitalism is based on the concept that there is profit to be made when demand exceeds supply... so to make money on food, water, housing, clothing, and medical care, requires that there be an intentional limitation of those items, in order to create a profitable state of demand. If houses AREN'T built, then people will pay more for the few that exist. If medical training is withheld, and fewer hospitals are built, then the few hospital owners will make lots of money from the higher demand.

We have the machines and the resources to provide housing to everyone in the country (albeit not all at once, there will have to be a roll-out period). The houses might be basic little condos, but they'd keep people warm and meet basic needs. We can plant enough food and provide water for everyone, if the government simply allocates resources to meet demand. Basic clothing could also be provided to everyone, although the bulk of clothing sales would probably remain in the capitalist realm as most people would want something more stylish than the government standard issue clothing.

Power (electricity... not that carbon burning junk) is another thing that should be readily free to people. Green technologies are enough to power the country, if we'd simply implement the infrastructure. It will cost some money initially, but with the entire country backing it we would have it finished and paid for in no time.

The remaining luxury items would be left to the capitalist system... nicer places to live, boats, cars, video cameras, toys, etc. would all be earned using money that comes in from jobs.

Key to getting the money problem fixed is to take money from the rich (corporations in particular) to pay for the country's debts, instead of taking it from the poor working class. Restrictions should be put on the total wealth any one person can have during their lifetime. If they hit that cap (say, $500m), then any other money they make should automatically go to the government to pay for the infrastructure. When the greedier members of society (Wall Street execs for instance) hit the cap, they won't be able to earn any more money, and so they'll stop trying to profit off the other people in society. Maybe they'll be replaced by another greedy person, but at least some of the money will be spread around that way.

Their meddling in (what was supposed to be) a small sector of the mortgage market lead to a financial disaster that will take years to dig out from under... and you want to hand them the reins to pretty much every market sector?

Socialism and collectivism may infatuate you with an idealized vision where the people in charge always make the right decisions and only with the best intentions... in the real world you end up with the Soviet Union, East Germany or North Korea.

Those aren't anomalies, they are inevitabilities.

Capitalism isn't perfect by any means and the state has a legitimate role in making sure that individual rights aren't trampled by money... but what you are calling for has, every time it has been tried over the last hundred years, lead to abject poverty for everyone but the politically connected and powerful.

Please, forget what your heart insists is real- emotions and wishful thinking sometimes have to take a back seat to what happens in the real world outside of coffee house discussions, musty books and philosophical table thumping.

What would be cruel is to put the fundamentals of life into the hands of the ruling class that has historically mismanaged everything they touch... let the government handle the police, judicial system and the military and leave the market to the market. The state's role is to have a near monopoly on the threat and use of extreme violence... but that means the also need to be tightly regulated in how they are allowed to exercise that violence.

If you insist they control anything in the market, please let it be luxury goods. People don't starve to death when there is a shortage of $80 million dollar yachts.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I hope that the US manage to solve this, cause the chain reaction would be rather bad for pretty much everybody. :umm:

[Priyesh P.]

...and leave the market to the market...

Your ideas are also not really based in reality either. Big corporations have greater power than most governments, and they aggressively exert influence. You`re against regulation of markets, but that leads to perverse excrescences like tvs running advertisement in schools, so called "press" to promote views and surreptitious advertisement for affiliated corporations. The list goes on and on. You`ll probably say "shit happens". But this is the exact shit that also led to the iraq war.

[Clint Johnson]

Your ideas are also not really based in reality either. Big corporations have greater power than most governments, and they aggressively exert influence. You`re against regulation of markets, but that leads to perverse excrescences like tvs running advertisement in schools, so called "press" to promote views and surreptitious advertisement for affiliated corporations. The list goes on and on. You`ll probably say "shit happens". But this is the exact shit that also led to the iraq war.

I most emphatically do believe that the government should regulate the markets. I just believe that those regulations should be based on how real humans behave an not how Karl Marx thought they could be re-educated to behave.

Most of the undue power that these corporations exercise is through buying influence with the politicians. The more power the politicians have, the more unearned power the corporations can buy. The state needs to leave the market alone except where it impinges on individual rights.

Things like companies running advertisements in schools should be a municipal decision. Advertisement is not in and of itself evil. It is simply someone letting someone else know that they have a product or service that they are offering. If you believe it to be a "perverse excrescence" rather than a legitimate way to increase funding for the school, then it is up to you to convince the school board of this, it isn't the governments role to enforce your personal value judgements. The state should step in if the advertisement is false or misleading- that is their regulatory roll.

Ask yourself where the advantage lays for the politician and then ask yourself what would be more likely to happen if you give the federal government the power to control the schools in this way?

A) The politicians uphold your values and push all advertisement out of the schools - losing revenue stream for the schools, largely offsetting any philosophical gains in voter support as either their taxes go up or school activities are cut.

B) The politicians accept the contribution and force every school in the union to show Nike advertisements five times a day - thereby gaining campaign funds and allowing them to tell the public that they are going to lower taxes because of the new revenue stream.

I admitted that capitalism is not perfect but if you want to say that Nike running advertisements in schools is as bad as the Soviet Union starving 20 million Ukrainians to death... I gotta disagree with that.

I'm also pretty sure that a large standing army and not enough restrictions on federal powers had a lot more to do with the Iraq war than duplicitous marketing practises by Wal-Mart.

[Mark B.]

Their meddling in (what was supposed to be) a small sector of the mortgage market lead to a financial disaster that will take years to dig out from under... and you want to hand them the reins to pretty much every market sector?

Socialism and collectivism may infatuate you with an idealized vision where the people in charge always make the right decisions and only with the best intentions... in the real world you end up with the Soviet Union, East Germany or North Korea.

Those aren't anomalies, they are inevitabilities.

Capitalism isn't perfect by any means and the state has a legitimate role in making sure that individual rights aren't trampled by money... but what you are calling for has, every time it has been tried over the last hundred years, lead to abject poverty for everyone but the politically connected and powerful.

Please, forget what your heart insists is real- emotions and wishful thinking sometimes have to take a back seat to what happens in the real world outside of coffee house discussions, musty books and philosophical table thumping.

What would be cruel is to put the fundamentals of life into the hands of the ruling class that has historically mismanaged everything they touch... let the government handle the police, judicial system and the military and leave the market to the market. The state's role is to have a near monopoly on the threat and use of extreme violence... but that means the also need to be tightly regulated in how they are allowed to exercise that violence.

If you insist they control anything in the market, please let it be luxury goods. People don't starve to death when there is a shortage of $80 million dollar yachts.
It was the lack of government involvement that got us into this mess... the lack of oversight into the activities of greedy capitalists in the private sector.

Soviet Union, East Germany, and North Korea were all isolationist communist countries that utilized absolute socialist economic principals backed by static dictatorial leaders. That's far removed from what I'm proposing... which is a democratic government with only partial socialist economics. We'd keep our individual freedoms, politicians wouldn't maintain power for more than their term, and the supply/demand for luxury goods would still exist, creating incentive for people to labor and create. If men want to impress women in that system, they're still going to have to go out and get jobs. If you want to buy a RedOne in that system, you're still going to have to toil at a job to save up for it.

Political graft has always been active, especially in a capitalist system. It doesn't mean that a socialist undertaking wouldn't work, just that it might not be as efficient as it otherwise could be. If you want to get rid of graft, perhaps a law should be passed that says anyone holding political office must get rid of all their assets and savings at the beginning of their time in office. They would then receive a small stipend to keep them well situated while in office. Then, once out of office, they would be disallowed from getting any gifts that exceed a small monetary value each year, and they would be restricted from earning a yearly income beyond the median salary of the average worker. The people running for political office, given those conditions, would not be the corrupt types that are currently elected into office.

[Priyesh P.]

Clint, before you misunderstand me. I deeply believe that the human nature is (like I call it) Pittbull-capitalistic. Socialism is (like you correctly said) a philosophical idea that crumbles as soon as it exits the mind. But once again referring to my example with advertisement in schools - I can honestly say that I`m nearly totally immune to advertisement and propaganda or at least try have my own thoughts and researches before making judgements. But most of the average or ill-educated people are not able to make proper decisions due to their lack of education or (even simpler) interest - and those at power, whether in politics or (even worse) in the economy know this very well and simply refer to the the "free mind" of grown up citizens when they decide that having Mc Donalds muck three times a day is proper food.
We always assume that each person is equal (which may, in juridical terms, be correct). But from the perpective of intellect this is absolutely not true. You just stated this point yourself indirectly by saying that poor people should not have been granted loans - those who took the loan thought they`ll be able to amortize them, the banks knew about the incredibly high risk that they can`t make it. So who had the proper foresight?

But don`t mistake me. It is correct that those at charge should not make each and all decisions for the uneducated and / or poor, but at the other hand there are things we cannot leave unrestricted to the hands of unresponsable "money collectors" either (I prefer to call people who sit on their accumulated = dead money exactely this - money collectors)

[Matt Gottshalk]

Well, as long as this so-called bailout has stupid riders attached to it, such as 100 MILLION dollars to ACORN, which has been convicted of voter fraud in several states, and an outright ban on oil shale field development, then it should die.

[GlennChan]

Mc Donalds muck three times a day is proper food
IMO I think this attack is misguided. You can buy salad at Mcdonalds (or if you got a meal, you can switch salad for fries). You can buy proper food at McDonalds. But most of us don't.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Here are a few websites for good info:

http://www.survivalblog.com/

http://bailoutscorecard.blogspot.com/

[Priyesh P.]

IMO I think this attack is misguided. You can buy salad at Mcdonalds (or if you got a meal, you can switch salad for fries). You can buy proper food at McDonalds. But most of us don't.

And that`s just another trick. But let`s take mercedes as an other example - for an extremely long time they didn`t care that much about fuel consumption on their fat cat cars, but now, being forced by rocketing gas prices and global warming (and bad image they`ve acquired by not caring) they introduce the hybrid S-Class, the bluemotion. It´s not much different with Mc Donalds. How long did "Mc" and everyone else know that junkfood ain`t healthy (at least in higher "doses") until they promoted their salads (which, by the way, was already there as long as I remember).

But I was not into bashing specific companies, I just want to express my concern that those in charge at big corps do exactely know when they are doing wrong and always recess into shelter by telling them: "as long as it`s not illegal it`s totally ok, whether it does damage to the society we or others are living in".

I`m a capitalist, too. I love money. But I never (never!) would go for it in favor of other people`s damage.

[GlennChan]

I think your blame is misplaced here... for the most part, we the consumers have free will. Some of us choose to drive gas guzzlers when we could have bought fuel efficient cars. And many of us choose to eat junk food instead of the healthier items on Mcdonald's menu. Should we not be responsible for our own actions??

2- For the most part, capitalism has greatly improved the quality of our lives. We live *a lot* longer, are much healthier (even after junk food ;) ), and live in much safer environments.

3- There are corporations that engage in ethical business practices and there are corporations that engage in unethical business practices... but I don't think that corporations are significantly more (un)ethical than you or me. People do unethical stuff too... tax evasion (esp. among waiters and bartenders), software piracy, etc.

4- If anything, I'd argue that mcdonald's is fairly ethical in its business practices.
They are transparent: You can get nutritional information on their menu items.
They give you choice: You can eat healthy if you choose to do so.

And compared to Subway, they don't engage in deceptive marketing. Subway advertises that their subs have less than 6 grams of fat. Most people end up thinking that they are eating a sub with less than 6 grams of fat when they aren't, because they order subs with cheese and sauce.

[PatrickW]

And compared to Subway, they don't engage in deceptive marketing. Subway advertises that their subs have less than 6 grams of fat. Most people end up thinking that they are eating a sub with less than 6 grams of fat when they aren't, because they order subs with cheese and sauce.
Instead of deceptive advertising McDonald's goes for the long term marketing strategy of selling to kids. No need to deceive anyone about their filthy food, get the kids addicted to it early, and make them consumers for life. (That and the addicting caffeinated Coke and the cheese that I swear they put heroin in).

[Zakaree Sandberg]

everyone better stock up on munitions.. we might have to fight the "government"

[BigLu]

Elite / Power / Control /

How do you get rid of the middle class and gain more control.

Make 2 classes and only allow 2 classes to exist.

Get rid of the American dollar.
Take everything away from the middle class or those who own anything.
Raise the cost of living in all areas.
Give un-payable loans to the working class.
Reposes their belongings.
Re give those belongings to new loans who will ultimately loose in repositions.
Create fear by creating terrorism.
Force debt to the point of no return large and small loans.
Crush all hope and moral.
Get the public to "vote" and give in to anything those in charge say.
Open the Canadian and Mexican border.
Create 1 large country between the 3 making that a New Country. nwo if you will.

Bring the American living down to Mexico's control and level.
and
Create a new currency in order to replace the worthless Dollar bill which was made worthless not an accident, it was made to be this way.
At this point there will be the introduction of the AMERO similar to the EURO.
With an entire design from the begining.
Mexico has done this time and time again with the Peso just recently in the last 25 years.
Jamaica has done this with their currency and in both countries the super rich gained amounts of riches/land/power one can never imagine without being there.


You dont have to believe me.
Look it up.

[Priyesh P.]

everyone better stock up on munitions.. we might have to fight the "government"

lol, you`re right, zak. not terrorists nor criminals are those we need to be afraid of, but the "EVIL GOVERNMENT"

[Priyesh P.]

Elite / Power / Control /

How do you get rid of the middle class and gain more control.

Make 2 classes and only allow 2 classes to exist.

Get rid of the American dollar.
Take everything away from the middle class or those who own anything.
Raise the cost of living in all areas.
Give un-payable loans to the working class.
Reposes their belongings.
Re give those belongings to new loans who will ultimately loose in repositions.
Create fear by creating terrorism.
Force debt to the point of no return large and small loans.
Crush all hope and moral.
Get the public to "vote" and give in to anything those in charge say.
Open the Canadian and Mexican border.
Create 1 large country between the 3 making that a New Country. nwo if you will.

Bring the American living down to Mexico's control and level.
and
Create a new currency in order to replace the worthless Dollar bill which was made worthless not an accident, it was made to be this way.
At this point there will be the introduction of the AMERO similar to the EURO.
With an entire design from the begining.
Mexico has done this time and time again with the Peso just recently in the last 25 years.
Jamaica has done this with their currency and in both countries the super rich gained amounts of riches/land/power one can never imagine without being there.


You dont have to believe me.
Look it up.

Eh, did I miss anything? Isn`t this the current state? ;-)

[Clint Johnson]

Those with a philosophical axe to grind eliminate the middle class through redefining what the middle class is.

The middle class was minuscule before it started to slowly climb under capitalism during the industrial revolution. Then, about a hundred years ago it started a real growth spurt when the technological revolution allowed the productivity of the worker to rapidly multiply and unionization started to give them the power to demand a more equitable share of that productivity increase.

This created an unprecedented situation over the later half of the last century where the majority of the population was suddenly (historically speaking) elevated into the "middle class".

Capitalism + Technology + Unions = Most of the population is "middle class"

But what is considered "middle class" has been pushed ever upwards over that time. Fifty years ago you were middle class if you rented a 950 square foot home, took the bus to work while you saved up for ten years to buy a second hand car, where able to buy new cloths for all your children - not just the oldest child and then handed them down... today, the standard has been pushed ever upwards to the point where that is now considered below the poverty line.

If the middle class is shrinking, it is our expectations and demands for an ever higher standard of living that is causing it. The low hanging fruit of productivity increases is long behind us now and the only way that people can get a true higher wage is if they can do more work in a given time. Wage increases without productivity increases simply means that the cost of living goes up as the cost of goods and services is increased to compensate for those higher wages that can no longer be subsumed into productivity increases.

The expectation of the 2100 foot home with two cars in the garage has to be reigned in a little bit. We expect this standard of living to be easy and we expect it to increase every year... that is what is shrinking the middle class.

[Priyesh P.]

A german economics professor said it directly and clearly : the western countries have to accept that their standards of living will fall since a couple of former third world countries are on the rise - not everyone on the planet can have everything, we have to accept it...

[Joseph Ward]

What gets me upset or sad is why does the middle class/public give away their rights/power to the people who want to steel it from them? Rhetorical.:excl:

[Steve Sherrick]

Without the US, the global economy fails. Without the global economy, the US fails (as it's setup right now). They depend on each other now.

There is no doubt that greed in the US and other places as well, has created a reliance on the almighty dollar. Capitalism is a great system - until greed and corruption enter the mix and then well, we end up with the situation we're in. I also think the US is going through a bit of an identity crisis right now. We don't know who we really are because we try to be so many things to so many people. One day it's the world's policeman, the next it's "securing" the world's oil. We are defined by our politicians, some spoiled celebrities and athletes, and Wall Street. And the media has a lot of responsibility in creating this.

Honestly I don't have all the answers. All I know is that I try to see the good in everyone, and try very hard to give people benefit of the doubt because a lot of us make mistakes. We make decisions that in retrospect are the wrong ones. It's just frustrating that corruption has had such an impact on our world. And it seems like a problem that has become so big, it's almost impossible to solve. I guess the best place to start is with our kids. If they're not brought up with a strong sense of right and wrong, we have a long road ahead.

I just hope for all of our sakes the country gets back on track so we can run honest businesses that provide a living for ourselves and our families. Let's hope this financial crisis is not a long term trend.

[jpp]

If the middle class is shrinking, it is our expectations and demands for an ever higher standard of living that is causing it.

So it couldn't possibly have anything to do with declining real wages and benefits over the past 40 years, or the regressive tax policies which came in with Reagan, or anti-labor legislation, or failure to enforce the few labor laws still on the books or the general propaganda and policy assault on New Deal policies which has been going on since the 1970s, mounted by big business?


The low hanging fruit of productivity increases is long behind us now and the only way that people can get a true higher wage is if they can do more work in a given time. Wage increases without productivity increases simply means that the cost of living goes up as the cost of goods and services is increased
to compensate for those higher wages that can no longer be subsumed into productivity increases.

You're omitting some crucial facts here. There have been huge productivity gains since 1970, and corporate profits are up enormously in the last 40 years. But real wages are still at 1970s levels for most American workers, and in recent years wages have actually been dropping despite continued productivity gains, creating in the U.S. the largest disparity between rich and poor in the industrialized world.

This is a system which doesn't pay off for most Americans, no matter how rich the corporate sector gets. Then again, if by "free market" we mean the richest and most powerful interests in the world are free to write their own rules and structure the system however they want, it's been a great success.

Are we doomed, Clint, to have these arguments, across threads, forever?

[GlennChan]

In a capitalist economy, of course you are going to have inequality. If you allow people to work hard for their money, then of course some people are going to have more than others.

2- A large disparity between rich and poor is due to the scalable nature of many of the products/services in a capitalist economy. Take web search for instance. Google has 90%+ of the market share and (probably) has at least 9X the profits than its competitors in web search. In many cases, a small number of people will hold vastly more wealth than everybody else. It's also the case in pro sports, acting, etc. Superstar athletes and actors get paid a lot more than the rest.

3- Personally, I would worry about those at the very bottom of society. Should we not ensure that everybody meets a certain standard of living? There are people living without proper shelter... that, to me, is inequality we should worry about and fix.

[jpp]

In a capitalist economy, of course you are going to have inequality. If you allow people to work hard for their money, then of course some people are going to have more than others.

So, by your definition, the CEOs who made hundreds of millions on unsound mortgages have earned their wealth, while burger flippers, who get no bailouts, deserve to be poor?

The trouble with this approach, even if we're prepared to accept extreme levels of inequality (a dubious proposition in a democracy), is that it assumes that the free market is actually free. Which of course is a myth. The system is fixed, and inherited privilege has a great deal to do, in modern America, with who's rich and who isn't, and who's comfortable and who isn't.

The fact that the economy does reward innovation and hard work (some of the time) doesn't mean that the system is either sound or fair. And not everyone can be an entrepreneur. If there aren't decent wages for a day's work, the society has no future.

[Joe D'Arcy]

The markets rely on consumerism or the country will fall into recession/depression yet we are consuming at a rate that is not sustainable for the planet, creating exponential levels of destruction, with seemingly little regard for this incongruency. In the planet's bid for homeostasis, 'somethings gonna give.'

[Stephen Williams]

So, by your definition, the CEOs who made hundreds of millions on unsound mortgages have earned their wealth, .

Hi,

The amount of money CEOs made on the unsound mortgages is rather less than you believe.

Stephen

[jpp]

Hi,

The amount of money CEOs made on the unsound mortgages is rather less than you believe.

Is that so?

"Angelo R. Mozilo has pocketed $410 million in salary, bonuses and stock-option gains since he became executive chairman of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial in 1999, according to the executive compensation company Equilar.

"Now, the man at the center of the national mortgage crisis stands to collect an additional $112 million in severance when Bank of America buys the company he helped found. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103673.html

Half a billion isn't bad for driving a company into ruin, even as American CEO pay goes.

Or how about asking Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and under whom the subprime business at Goldman Sachs boomed, what his net worth is? Last estimate I saw was well over $700 million.

[Steven M. Bailey]

A lot of the people that I know are poor because they are lazy, stupid, or strong combination of both. I have seen people land good middle class jobs with health benefits and lose them for not showing up to work all the while crying about how life was unfair. Ive tried as a business owner to hire people that needed a hand up and found that too many hands up can drag you down. Many people will be poor no matter how much you give them.

I worked the docks for a local Wal~mart distribution center about ten years ago. The place was hell, but it was a job. While working there I had invested in walmart stock and was able to cash out to build my first house. After three years of unloading trucks with my back, I got an opportunity to work in one of the best middle class jobs ever, "a paper mill".

The people at the paper mill had seen little turn over and many of them had been there for the last 30-40 years. It was a union company full benefits, high pay the works. The American working mans dream. My dad had been there for twenty five years and had started in the same position I was in and was now the head of the maintenance department.

I had gone from the slave labor camps of wall~mart to babysitting a machine for more money than I thought I would ever make. The old timers would sleep through their entire shift and tell you to wake them up if the machine did something funny. I couldn't believe my ears. Those guys would piss and moan and belly ache about how terrible they were treated and how they should all just quite their jobs rather than face the injustice's brought down apon them. These guys actually slept through their shifts, got paid really well, then whined about being screwed by the man.

One year after landing this cool job, the Koreans flooded the paper market and due to an inability to compete the mill was closed. Those same guys that thought they were getting screwed before now learned what it really meant.
that was about seven years ago. Most of the workers from the paper plant took a huge cut in pay and went to work at a new fiberglass plant that was being built when the paper machines stopped. Last week that plant announced that they would be shutting down due to lack of demand. Again they learned what I means to be screwed.

I went to work for myself Cashed out on my house and found myself investing in larger and larger projects all the while amassing a nice credit score and freedom that came with large amounts of equity. but that's all gone now. The foreclosure crisis has killed the entire construction market. I had to say goodbye to my favorite truck today, but at least it was sold before it got repossessed. My house is next. I had my sixth open house this weekend without any lookers.:help:

America is poor because its people are too poor in general to buy products we produce. We had good jobs in steel(went to brazil). We had good jobs in paper, textiles, agriculture. even our most coveted commodity (forest products) Are taken by the Japanese sawed up on ships and sold back to us. Its cheaper to get it from somewhere else but who's going to pay for it if there are no real jobs here to produce capitol. There is no easy fix. If we send capitol to poor countries for product that we consume we will become poorer as they become richer. It may take some time but it will happen.

I agree with Clint on a lot of points in practice as well as theory, but free market will only work when people have the basic morality to work within the constraints of what they are producing in regards to personal greed. I have no problem with the rich getting richer as long as it can be done without oppressing the people. I have no respect for company's like Walmart who build there empire on the backs of slaves and setup brainwashing programs to make them believe that it isn't so. I've been there

The credit card company's are as much to blame for the crisis as the mortgage brokers. Someone like me who is already struggling to make all the payments doesn't need for them to change the interest rate on his cards from 5 to 30+ percent without reason. How can you keep making that house payment when the business card payments have multiplied times six. They have driven people passed the point of hope and when the people don't care anymore everyone loses.

WoW This was a longer post than I intended. I could rant for another week but whats the point. I have an awesome screenplay to write. So chow for now.

just my 2/5 of a nickel

[Mark B.]

A lot of the people that I know are poor because they are lazy, stupid, or strong combination of both.
Most of the poor people I know are poor because they have ethics and compassion for others. Look at the salary of teachers versus people working sales and marketing. It's easy to make money if you only care about your bank account, with no regard towards other people, the environment, or the future well-being of the world.

[Joel Kaye]

just my 2/5 of a nickel

Helluva post.

I know some very hardworking people that did "everything right" and are losing everything right now. I'm not one of those that's going to blame mortgage crisis on the borrowers.

Some people seem to think the single mother or construction worker that wants a house is in the same negotiating position as Goldman Sachs in a mortgage transaction. That's ludicrous - though that's the trash a lot of pundits are shoveling. Well now we're seeing more of the truth. These institutions were gambling casinos at best (250-1 margin bets with no oversight) and criminal enterprises at worst.

President Bush himself urged Americans to buy as much home as they possibly could. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo

And now they want a bailout. Tough, pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps. That's a Republican mantra, right?

[Steven M. Bailey]

Most of the poor people I know are poor because they have ethics and compassion for others. It's easy to make money if you only care about your bank account, with no regard towards other people or the environment. I think ethics and morality are directly tied towards intelligence, and none of those are proportional to money earned. Hard work doesn't equate to gaining more money, it just equates to exhaustion and physical pain.

This is true and I wont argue it. Many people make sacrifices for others and live very modest lives because of it. No problem, I know a few people like that.

But they aren't in the same class of poor as the meth addicted /"I wont come to work today cause I drunk the bar dry last night". We affectionately refer to Tuesday as "tweeker Tuesday". Tweek all weekend, show up smashed on Monday, skip Tuesday because Monday was a disaster start the workweek on Wednesday. Thursday is productive but Friday is spent planning the weekend.

I didn't mean to imply that all poor people were dumb. I just happen to know a lot of people that sabotage their own lives at every opportunity. I'm pretty poor myself right now.

[Steven M. Bailey]

Helluva post.



Some people seem to think the single mother or construction worker that wants a house is in the same negotiating position as Goldman Sachs in a mortgage transaction. That's ludicrous - though that's the trash a lot of pundits are shoveling. Well now we're seeing more of the truth. These institutions were gambling casinos at best (250-1 margin bets with no oversight) and criminal enterprises at worst.

And now they want a bailout. Tough, pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps. That's a Republican mantra, right?

I actually have a pretty good loan. My problem stems from the total destruction of my whole industry. If I could work I could pay my bills. There is no work. Ive applied for every job in town.

I am currently thinking of going to Texas to help with the rebuilding process. I have mad building skills.

we'll see how things go

[Joel Kaye]

I actually have a pretty good loan. My problem stems from the total destruction of my whole industry. If I could work I could pay my bills. There is no work. Ive applied for every job in town.



Right. I was commenting in general and not about you. But your story is a great example of how good, hardworking people are getting stuck in this mess - and it's not just meth addicts etc. Are there some lazy Americans out there? Sure. But go to any other country and I'm sure you'll find some "lazy" drunks and druggies.

The key here is we've outsourced our jobs. We've been invaded by Chinese products. America has almost always had tariff protections. But in the past 30ish years those protections went away and the rules were changed. Corporations (legally bound to benefit their shareholders) simply outsourced everything because that provided the maximum profit.

That's where Reagonomics failed. Trickle down didn't. It trickled out of the country. And you're seeing it first hand.

The solution is to change the rules. How about starting with not making American Military boots in China?

Then how about not spending tax dollars with any company not HQ'd in the U.S.? How about no defense contractor millionaires? How about no gov't contracts to any company that doesn't employ 80% American citizens? How about raising taxes on billionaires since they didn't honor the trickle down promise?

There are a lot of things we could do before taxing you and me to pay for a Bank CEO's butler.

[Michael Schrengohst]

I actually have a pretty good loan. My problem stems from the total destruction of my whole industry. If I could work I could pay my bills. There is no work. Ive applied for every job in town.

I am currently thinking of going to Texas to help with the rebuilding process. I have mad building skills.

we'll see how things go."

"The solution is to change the rules. How about starting with not making American Military boots in China?"



Yes and Yes. I live in Texas and see massive amounts of license plates from CA, Michigan, New York, Florida.... We are growing, it's clean, cheaper than California. You can always come for a few years and then go back. I have lived here 40 years. I traveled quite a bit from 1984-2000. I had a video production company doing almost One Mil a year from about 1987-1991.
That is as big as I wanted it to get. I had about 10 employees at the height of the business. Some were good and eventually went out to CA and worked in TV news or entertainment. But most of the employees were pretty spoiled whiners. It's ironic but by 2001 I had had enough. I sold my part to my ex-business partner and by July 2001 I was working from home on my own. It's was incredible. I got to keep most of the money I made and had not a care in the world. I was at home on 9-11 and saw it all. It took about 6 months and the clients came back. I actually started free-lancing for my old partner,
got to stay at home and raise two boys and made more money than I ever did even when I grossed One Million a year. So today watching the fireworks in Washington, the sinking in NYC and the general panic & confusion of everyone on the net it is a wonder we were not invaded by China.
It's time for Washington to get the hell out of the business of running business. They suck at it. Just keep the terrorists off my back and don't take too much of my money and I will be fine. I don't need any government programs to save me. I don't need any government program to help me. I don't know how to get anything from the federal government because I have never had to. Sure, I know they are there if my house gets blown away in a storm but that's about it. I have been self reliant for almost 50 years. I am pretty sure I can make it another 20 or 30 without any help. Just get out of my way. Let me make money the way I know how to and I will send you my taxes. if you want to slow me down I may just stop and then you won't get anything.

[GlennChan]

So, by your definition, the CEOs who made hundreds of millions on unsound mortgages have earned their wealth, while burger flippers, who get no bailouts, deserve to be poor?
The CEOs are lucky to be compensated so handsomely in my opinion. If the shareholders were smarter, they would demand a more reasonable compensation structure so that the CEOs' earnings are tied to the interests of the shareholders. e.g. pay them in stock and don't give out options; and force them to hold a certain amount of their personal wealth in their company's stock.
Warren Buffet I believe does this for companies under his control (e.g. for Ken Chace at Berkshire Hathway's textiles factory).

2- In capitalism, yes some people will get paid extraordinarily well. Kobe Bryant will be paid a lot more than teachers, nurses, etc. Is this fair? It's up for you to decide (ok, it's probably unfair if you want to be an actor, author, athlete, etc.).
But I would argue that nothing extremely nefarious is going on- it's not like the upper class is artificially abusing their position of power to create such disproportionate distributions of wealth. For the most part, these distributions will naturally occur.


The system is fixed, and inherited privilege has a great deal to do, in modern America, with who's rich and who isn't, and who's comfortable and who isn't.
If you look at the richest Americans (e.g. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet), they are not old rich. They started with very little (relative to their current wealth) and built up their wealth.

[GlennChan]

The key here is we've outsourced our jobs.
I don't think it's the right way to look at it. Trade is a 2-way street... you want to trade with other countries because your country is good at doing X and the other country at Y.

American companies are good at making digital cinema cameras*, web search (e.g. Google), making TV shows (other countries subsidize their TV and their citizens still prefer US shows), etc. etc.
The US is losing manufacturing jobs but it is gaining jobs in other sectors. And for the most part, the US is a lot richer because of this.

*Red does hire non-Americans like Graeme, Rob, etc. So to force protectionism onto American companies (or government agencies) is probably a really bad idea. It might seem like a good idea... but I don't think you would really want it.

2- In a capitalism system, hardworking people will become unemployed and that can suck. Innovation can/does cause competitors to go out of business.

[jpp]

2- In capitalism, yes some people will get paid extraordinarily well.... But I would argue that nothing extremely nefarious is going on- it's not like the upper class is artificially abusing their position of power to create such disproportionate distributions of wealth. For the most part, these distributions will naturally occur.

Have you looked at U.S. tax policy over the last 30 years? At cuts in social services which primarily affect the poor and middle-class? At how tax money is spent? At corporate and wealth subsidies? At the legislative war waged against unions? And you really don't find anything "nefarious" about the huge push to give the super wealthy tax cuts, when those cuts require borrowing, which effectively socializes the costs over generations?

There's a class war going on in the U.S. If you don't see abuse, you're either not looking or don't want to find anything.



If you look at the richest Americans (e.g. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet), they are not old rich. They started with very little (relative to their current wealth) and built up their wealth.

What you need to do is look at social mobility figures in this country. You'll find that most Americans barely move out of their social stations. Born rich, die rich. Born poor, die poor. Citing two self-made billionaires doesn't prove there's high social mobility, any more than Steve Forbes and Mitt Romney are proof that the only rich people in America are those who inherited fortunes.

[Anthony Gratl]

Ever since the Federal Reserve has been ingrained into this country it has sought to bring it down. They have to make everything so bad that most of the sheep will be begging for the North American Union. This is all history repeating its self and the process of getting rid of any competition to the Federal Reserve. Then next thing that's going to happen just like in 1933 is the seizing of all the privately owned gold.

Drew, we've disagreed in the past, but you are spot on the money with that one. Notice JP Morgan Stanley's buy this week? Washington Mutual, a bank with 300 billion in assets and 20 billion in cash....cost: 1.9 billion. That's like buying a brand new red for a hundred bucks. The regulator: approval in an afternoon! The media: not a squeek of questioning, exploring...nothing.....everyone's watching the show, while the orchaestrators do their thing swiftly, efficiently, and in full view.
This is all orchaestrated people. The federal reserve act needs to be squashed like a bug. The national mint of any sovereign nation belongs to its people, not a private company. The bank, like in monopoly, always wins. This ain't no free market...it's a highly controlled one, just not by the people.....and a strong agreement with what curran said too.

[Anthony Gratl]

The CEOs are lucky to be compensated so handsomely in my opinion. If the shareholders were smarter, they would demand a more reasonable compensation structure so that the CEOs' earnings are tied to the interests of the shareholders. e.g. pay them in stock and don't give out options; and force them to hold a certain amount of their personal wealth in their company's stock.
Warren Buffet I believe does this for companies under his control (e.g. for Ken Chace at Berkshire Hathway's textiles factory).

2- In capitalism, yes some people will get paid extraordinarily well. Kobe Bryant will be paid a lot more than teachers, nurses, etc. Is this fair? It's up for you to decide (ok, it's probably unfair if you want to be an actor, author, athlete, etc.).
But I would argue that nothing extremely nefarious is going on- it's not like the upper class is artificially abusing their position of power to create such disproportionate distributions of wealth. For the most part, these distributions will naturally occur.


If you look at the richest Americans (e.g. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet), they are not old rich. They started with very little (relative to their current wealth) and built up their wealth.

I would argue that you haven't been anywhere and seen the results of the upper class abusing their positions of power. You don't seem to have a clue as to how our political system operates, and you're either extremely young or extremely naive.

[Anthony Gratl]

I don't think it's the right way to look at it. Trade is a 2-way street... you want to trade with other countries because your country is good at doing X and the other country at Y.

Right....and why do goods come from China?



American companies are good at making digital cinema cameras*, web search (e.g. Google), making TV shows (other countries subsidize their TV and their citizens still prefer US shows), etc. etc.
The US is losing manufacturing jobs but it is gaining jobs in other sectors. And for the most part, the US is a lot richer because of this.

This is just nonsense. America is richer for losing manufacturing jobs? You have your head firmly planted Glenn....that's about the most outrageous shit i've ever read on this site. Pity you're from my hometown.


*Red does hire non-Americans like Graeme, Rob, etc. So to force protectionism onto American companies (or government agencies) is probably a really bad idea. It might seem like a good idea... but I don't think you would really want it.

Glenn, some of the best and brightest there are immigrants. Think the space program engineers, microsofts software engineers. But you think it's a bad idea because Red hires non-americans? I think that you took a course in economy in high school and decided to apply it to everyday life and draw conclusions that way.......thats a very bad idea.


2- In a capitalism system, hardworking people will become unemployed and that can suck. Innovation can/does cause competitors to go out of business.
And this is where i think you're literally a child, both in body and in economic rationale. Only someone who has never struggled and has had little exposure to the harsh world of losing jobs and the impact on families could write something as insensitive and boorish as that.
EDIT: I guess we should just apply that last quote of yours to your signature story eh? jeez, fx artists lose their pay because of a greedy company? ....oh....that sucks.

[OptiTek]

http://nowallstreetbailout.com/
If you support this join and forward
Jacek Zakowicz, Optitek

[Priyesh P.]

The key here is we've outsourced our jobs. We've been invaded by Chinese products. America has almost always had tariff protections. But in the past 30ish years those protections went away and the rules were changed. Corporations (legally bound to benefit their shareholders) simply outsourced everything because that provided the maximum profit.
cough. Red?




How about no gov't contracts to any company that doesn't employ 80% American citizens? How about raising taxes on billionaires since they didn't honor the trickle down promise?

another cough. Red...Jim Jannard...

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

This is getting worse... :sad:

[Priyesh P.]

This is getting worse... :sad:

Don`t know if you meant my remarks, but some of the utterances here show the blindness people develop. If all stuff was built in the U.S. you would still pay a fortune on computers and other highend appliances. And Mr. Jannard would not have made the fortune to found Red. And a Red One would be around a million dollars if possible at all.

[Joel Kaye]

But I would argue that nothing extremely nefarious is going on- it's not like the upper class is artificially abusing their position of power to create such disproportionate distributions of wealth.

That's completely wrong. I don't even want to get into it... but I can promise you the wealthy use their influence to benefit themselves and their corporations.

A little education for you:
Forbes 400. Add up the gains over the last 8 years. Right now the 400 wealthiest American control over a 1.57 trillion in wealth.



http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/09/16/richest-american-billionaires-lists-400list08-cx_mm_dg_0917richintro.html



Look at this article from 2004 when their wealth hit 1 trillion for the first time:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2004-09-23-forbes-richest-list_x.htm


So that’s a 570 billion dollar gain in 4 years alone. The very rich are getting much richer while the middle class has been getting poorer. And if you don't think they didn't use their influence to buy the media and politicians to drive home the idea of deregulation you're not connecting dots very well.


"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004)."

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Yes. 80% of Americans own 16% of the wealth. I don't buy the idea that 80% of the people are so lazy that they only create 16% of the wealth. If that's capitalism then I'm not a fan.

[Clint Johnson]

So it couldn't possibly have anything to do with declining real wages and benefits over the past 40 years, or the regressive tax policies which came in with Reagan, or anti-labor legislation, or failure to enforce the few labor laws still on the books or the general propaganda and policy assault on New Deal policies which has been going on since the 1970s, mounted by big business?

As for your complaints about "regressive" tax policies- the top 1% of the richest people in the US, after all that the best accountants can do, pay 29% of all the income tax collected. The top 5% pay fully half of all income taxes. Then, whenever they buy something with the money they get to keep, they pay billions more into the system through sales tax. The bottom 20% actually get returns in excess of what they pay and their "share" of the income tax is -2%.

For the last half century, the labour movement has demanded wages and benefits that outstrip the increase in productivity by a wide margin. This causes an increased cost of product which has to be passed on and is one of the primary causes of inflation. This makes the North American worker less competitive world wide. The last 50 years, the labour movement has been by far the biggest promoter of job growth in developing countries and more effective in moving jobs out of the country than any loosening of trade relations could ever be.


You're omitting some crucial facts here. There have been huge productivity gains since 1970, and corporate profits are up enormously in the last 40 years. But real wages are still at 1970s levels for most American workers, and in recent years wages have actually been dropping despite continued productivity gains, creating in the U.S. the largest disparity between rich and poor in the industrialized world.

Between 1961 and 2003, labour productivity in North America had an average increase of less than two percent a year. This is to be expected. To go from a hand shovel to a steam shovel would have given something like a 10,000% percent productivity increase where moving from that big old steam shovel to the most modern diesel-electric, computer controlled shovel would give less than a hundredth of that gain.

"Real" wages can't outpace increases in productivity and a lot of the slow increase in productivity has gone into lowering prices and rising standards for those products. Take automobiles for example. The most basic and cheapest car you can buy in 2008 is not as basic and crude as the car of the 70s. The 2008 Toyota Yaris sell for $12,000 which when adjusted for inflation is the same price as the 1979 AMC Pacer.

The hue and cry over a disparity of incomes is a rank display of greed. It doesn't matter what the richest people make compared to the poorest... what matters is that what the poorest make is far higher than it would otherwise be. This envy and greed leads to the poor being shoved into a state of starvation just to drag the rich down with them. Is it a better world if everyone is starving to death equally?

Sure the poverty rate in the US may be 12% compared to only 8% in China... but what we have to keep an eye on is the actual living conditions of those people. The poverty rate in the US is currently at $10,400 per year for an individual while in China the poverty rate is set at $90 per year for an individual. Think about that, 115 Chinese poor can live on the wage of a single "poor" American.


This is a system which doesn't pay off for most Americans, no matter how rich the corporate sector gets. Then again, if by "free market" we mean the richest and most powerful interests in the world are free to write their own rules and structure the system however they want, it's been a great success.

Are we doomed, Clint, to have these arguments, across threads, forever?

The standard of living for everyone in the countries with a freer market is hugely greater than in the socialist and fascist countries. We don't have to sell our children into prostitution to keep them from starving to death and the poor don't die in the ditch unless they wilfully avoid support. Our poverty is an unattainable dream for half the worlds population and I say that is a good pay off.

It does seem that we keep stumbling into each other doesn't it?

[Joel Kaye]

Our poverty is an unattainable dream for half the worlds population and I say that is a good pay off.

Because they have slave labor - and we can never compete with that at any price therefore tariffs are the best solution.

If you think a CEO earns his wage in productivity you've totally lost your mind. That money can and should be redistributed back to the rest of the population. Why? Because I think people band together via structured Gov't to SHARE the wealth and resources.

But some people think our country should be more like Texas Hold 'Em. Winner take all. Well that's what we've got. And the deck is stacked.

[Matt Gottshalk]

Because they have slave labor - and we can never compete with that at any price therefore tariffs are the best solution.

If you think a CEO earns his wage in productivity you've totally lost your mind. That money can and should be redistributed back to the rest of the population. Why? Because I think people band together via structured Gov't to SHARE the wealth and resources.



Wow, just wow.

This guy agrees with you.

http://esoriano.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/marx.jpg

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

So you're saying they have been selling unsound mortgages since 1999, if that was so they would have gone bust long ago.

I know Goldman's reduced their risk to mortgage debts swop's about 10 years ago after loosing over $20 million in day, wiping out the profits from that trading desk for the year.

Bear in mind most of Paulson's wealth (and all the ex partners) comes from the flotation of Goldman Sachs and not salary or bonuses, up till floatation partners were personally liable for all debts incurred.

Stephen


Is that so?

"Angelo R. Mozilo has pocketed $410 million in salary, bonuses and stock-option gains since he became executive chairman of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial in 1999, according to the executive compensation company Equilar.

"Now, the man at the center of the national mortgage crisis stands to collect an additional $112 million in severance when Bank of America buys the company he helped found. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103673.html

Half a billion isn't bad for driving a company into ruin, even as American CEO pay goes.

Or how about asking Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and under whom the subprime business at Goldman Sachs boomed, what his net worth is? Last estimate I saw was well over $700 million.

[Joel Kaye]

Wow, just wow.
This guy agrees with you.


Great. A Sarah Palin supporter shows up.

EDIT:

Oops I forgot. Sarah Palin is Marxist too.

The Alaska Consitution requires State resources benefit the residents.

"And Alaska residents are getting their cut. Starting this week, every Alaskan who has lived in the state more than a year will receive $1,200 from the state, a total of about $756 million in rebates to offset high energy costs in the 49th state. That's on top of the perennial check each will receive from the state's oil revenue-endowed Permanent Fund, this year a record $2,069 per resident. The large Palin family is eligible to receive more than $19,000 from the combined payments."

friggin' commies. Probably the Russians infiltrated by walking across the ice when Sarah wasn't looking.

[Steven M. Bailey]

There are no easy answers In and economy that is globally affected and locally controlled. I can see the benefit of farming out labor for certain jobs but As I sit here and think about it, it is mostly because of the American attitude toward work that has caused a lot of the outsourcing .

Down the California valley from me is Watsonville, Salinas, Solidad, all in the Santa Cruz mountains. This is some of the most fertile farm land anywhere. Almost all of the farm labor there is immigrant from Mexico. No one I know, (including myself) wants to stand in a field all day picking strawberry's for a wage that keeps the food price artificially low.

Its outsourcing without outgoing. Just like we could not afford American picked strawberry's we also could not afford a fully American made red. It would be better for our economy as it is drawing money in from around the world, but the overall appeal would be lost on the point of price. Therefore making red solely in the US would not benefit anyone really. This is also speculation As I am not sure entirely as to Jim's manufacturing process.

One thing I saw happening here in my hometown was speculation buying of homes. Houses were selling two or three times in a year from one speculator to another. Large corporations sent in teams of lawyers to buy every usable lot of land available. Consumers panicked as the availability of homes became scarce and bought into the first thing that they could afford. A lot of the problem was that there was a very founded belief that if they didn't get into a home now, the market would leave them behind and the never would. I saw people bidding in the lower markets over houses and paying tens of thousands more than the original asking prices.

People who were so desperate to get into their homes, are now not able to keep them. If they had known that it was all a gold rush ploy by speculators they may have waited for the foreclosures to start so that they could pay a reasonable amount for a home. The speculation driven price of homes has exceeded the wages of the average person by so far that a housing crash is eminent and needed. The taxpayers should be bailing themselves out and not the investment company's that caused the problem in the first place. As contractor I saw every one in on the deal. Lumber company's, county permits, steel, roofing, copper, plumbing fixtures, and workman's comp insurance, every thing went through the roof in cost. I wasn't even worth bidding a job out anymore. By the time the housing run was over you you could barely make payroll.

Weather I'm right or not I don't Know as I am too close to the issue, but Middle man speculation on housing should be illegal. The person who built it should be able to ask a fair price for his labor. but the investor with enough money to choke out the market should not be allowed to.

just another 2/5 of a nickel

[Clint Johnson]

Because they have slave labor - and we can never compete with that at any price therefore tariffs are the best solution.

If you think a CEO earns his wage in productivity you've totally lost your mind. That money can and should be redistributed back to the rest of the population. Why? Because I think people band together via structured Gov't to SHARE the wealth and resources.

But some people think our country should be more like Texas Hold 'Em. Winner take all. Well that's what we've got. And the deck is stacked.

There is slave labour in the world. In that I mean there are still hundreds of thousands of people bought and held against their will to perform labour. I think that you are confusing harsh working conditions with slave labour. I assure you that there is a very big difference.

The jobs that move overseas tend to be some of the most sought after jobs in those markets because they are almost always better than the alternatives... which often is actual slave labour.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 of was opposed by almost every economist at the time and when the other countries retaliated with their own tariffs, US exports were halved. This act of tariffing was the primary cause of a recession becoming the Great Depression. If you want to bring the US economy to its knees, savage the world economy and have tens of thousands of women and children sold as sex slaves... yeah, I suppose tariffs are a good idea.

Without the reward of greater wealth for greater value in contribution, there would be a race to the least work possible. Without the creative work of the people conceiving ideas and building companies around them, there would be nothing for the majority of the population to do other than starve to death. I mean that literally, the contribution of these innovators and creators is the only reason that hundreds of millions of people are able to make a good living rather than a tenth that number scrapping by as serfs to nobility or state.

Bill Gates' contribution to the wellbeing of people in the United States is a million-fold more than any one of the tens of millions of people in the lower rungs of the "working class". There is no fault or blame in this, but if you punish those creators you will always end up with the majority of the population in grinding poverty ruled over by the political class with an iron claw.

Just remember, that without the outlet of business and capitalism, even more power hungry and immoral people will gravitate to politics. While in business, there is hope that the state can keep these people under some control... when they become the state, they regulate themselves and then there is no hope.

[Steven M. Bailey]

down with the rich until I become one.:angry03:

[Matt Gottshalk]

Great. A Sarah Palin supporter shows up.

EDIT:

Oops I forgot. Sarah Palin is Marxist too.

The Alaska Consitution requires State resources benefit the residents.

"And Alaska residents are getting their cut. Starting this week, every Alaskan who has lived in the state more than a year will receive $1,200 from the state, a total of about $756 million in rebates to offset high energy costs in the 49th state. That's on top of the perennial check each will receive from the state's oil revenue-endowed Permanent Fund, this year a record $2,069 per resident. The large Palin family is eligible to receive more than $19,000 from the combined payments."

friggin' commies. Probably the Russians infiltrated by walking across the ice when Sarah wasn't looking.

Wow if that's your version of a debate then you need to go back to school and learn how to do it right.

Your powers of deductive reasoning leave much to be desired.

Since when is the idea of CAPITALISM a REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRATIC idea?

Incredible.

[jpp]

This enthusiasm for crony capitalism, a rigged tax code and corporate welfare is remarkable at a moment when the whole thing is coming apart. Once upon a time, the U.S. economy did provide enormous gains to ordinary people. But those times are over. While residual wealth ensures that no one starves and that even poverty in this country is far beyond the standard of living in third world countries, we're fast moving toward a third world model.

On most objective measures, northern Europeans live far better lives than we do. They're healthier, they have more leisure, they grow taller, their air and water are cleaner, they don't devote vast resources to the military, medical care doesn't bankrupt them and their governments are at least minimally responsive to the national will.

But by all means, keep playing this tune. We're the greatest. This is the best of all possible worlds. The [mythical] free market is the solution to all ills. If you shut your eyes and ears to reality, you can almost convince yourself it's true.

[Cameron Preyde]

I think that the $700 billion should be used to outright purchase a number of banks to be merged into a single federally managed bank. Centralization of banking and lending agencies has the potential to hedge the collapse of global economies as well as create medium-long term profit making federalized corporations. The only problems is that centralization of corporations is a little too socialist for the US. Then again...maybe a little socialism is what the US needs right now.

Socialism...root word, Society - meaning, a group of people working together for a common goal.

Capitalism...root word, Capital - in this sense, meaning money, wealth, assets, etc.. Something that very few people have anymore.

[Steven M. Bailey]

The government can do almost anything it wants to with all of the social programs in my book as long as it would please abolish all forms of property tax.

government is designed to control regulate and tax interactions between parties, on a global, federal, and local basis. Weather these referee'd interactions are deemed fair or not is always up for debate. But regardless of my venturing out to get money, goods services, etc.etc.etc, being taxed forever and ever and ever on my home and basic shelter is absolutely immoral.

I agree with a flat 18% sales tax on all goods and services. 6% to the feds 6% to the state and 6% to the city/county. This may not work perfect and require some tweeking, but look how good things are working now. This could eliminate the property tax and you might actually get some freedom in your own home.

yet another 2/5 of a nickel:gun:

[Joel Kaye]

Wow if that's your version of a debate then you need to go back to school and learn how to do it right.


You're the one who posted a Marx poster... and now you're saying I need to learn to debate? Look in the mirror before you post crap like that. If you want a serious debate don't start by posting a picture of Marx.

[Joel Kaye]

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 of was opposed by almost every economist at the time and when the other countries retaliated with their own tariffs, US exports were halved. This act of tariffing was the primary cause of a recession becoming the Great Depression.

Untrue. That was a smaller contributing factor after the depression began. And it didn't happen in a vacuum. Wilson had lowered tariffs prior to the 20s. Foreign countries raised their tariffs against us.

The U.S. has a long prior history of using tariffs to protect key industrys.

A much bigger cause was the consolidation of wealth into very few hands combined with the great debt of the average American. Kinda like now.

Causes of the Great Depression
1. False Prosperity
overdependence on mass production, consumer spending, advertising, welfare capitalism, high tariff, "invisible hand"

automobile was the leading industry

chemicals, appliances, radio, aviation, chain stores

overproduction in textiles, farming, autos

real wages increased only 11%

60% population less than $2000 poverty minimum

top 5% earned 33% income - spending by the rich essential

Andrew Mellon cut taxes

2. Speculation
Fed loaned at 3.5%, gold inflow 1927, Great Bull Market 1928

broker loans on call rose from $3.5b in 1927 to $8.5b in 1929

Goldman Sachs investment trusts, 50% margin trading at 5% interest

only 1.5m of 120m population were investors

pooling tactic of "anglers" - John J. Raskob

Charles Mitchell of National City Bank: "I know of nothing fundamentally wrong with the stock market." (Oct. 21, 1929)

Joe Kennedy: "Only a fool holds out for the top dollar" (sold after RKO merger in October 1928)

3. Stock Market Crash
Sep. 3 Dow high of 381

Sep. 6 Babson break - market became erratic

Sep. 20 - collapse of Hatry in Britain

Oct. 23 - J.P. Morgan buys to stop price decline

Oct. 24 - panic selling began - 12.8m shares

Oct. 29 - "Black Tuesday" - 16.4m shares

prices decline to Dow low 41.22 on July 8, 1932

4. Banking Crisis
deposits withdrawn, deflation

9000 banks fail in 1930, 1932 waves

Austria's bank failed May 1931

5. Unemployment
ripple effect as leading factories close

rose to 25-35% of total labor force, 80% in Toledo

farm income declined 60%; 1/3 lost land

6. Trade Collapse
foreign countries retaliate with high tariffs

Weimar Republic unable to pay reparations or U.S. banks loans

U.S. had been creditor with $638m annual surplus

7. Republican Policy
"The Ordeal of Herbert Hoover"
laissez faire, balanced budget, trickle down, voluntarism

no use of monetary or fiscal policies

Agricultural Marketing Act, Hawley-Smoot tariff, RFC of Jesse Jones
Three Little Pigs


"Woodrow Wilson made a drastic lowering of tariff rates a major priority for his presidency. The 1913 Underwood Tariff cut rates, but the coming of World War I in 1914 radically revised trade patterns. Reduced trade and, especially, the new reveues generated by the federal income tax made tariffs much less important. When the Republicans regained power after the war they restored the usual high rates. When the Great Depression hit, international trade shrank drastically. The crisis baffled the GOP, and it unwisely tried its magic one last time in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This time it backfired, as Canada, Britain, Germany, France and other industrial countries retaliated with their own tariffs and special, bilateral trade deals."

[Steven M. Bailey]

Can I be:bye2: :ranting2: :gun: on the debate team?

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Don`t know if you meant my remarks


No, I was talking about the general situation.

[michael zaletel]

The amount we do not know about this crisis and the extremely complex economic models so far exceeds the amount we do know that $700 Billion has nearly the same odds of fixing the mess as doing nothing at all. That's not to say we should do nothing at all, just pointing out that the odds of a positive outcome are not increased by action alone.

Oh, and did I mention the economic models are changing every hour of every day. Solving this problem is like trying to hit a target 1 mile away that is moving at high velocity in a completely unpredictable path.

-shooter

[Andrew Walker]

I think that the $700 billion should be used to outright purchase a number of banks to be merged into a single federally managed bank. Centralization of banking and lending agencies has the potential to hedge the collapse of global economies as well as create medium-long term profit making federalized corporations. The only problems is that centralization of corporations is a little too socialist for the US. Then again...maybe a little socialism is what the US needs right now.

Socialism...root word, Society - meaning, a group of people working together for a common goal.

Capitalism...root word, Capital - in this sense, meaning money, wealth, assets, etc.. Something that very few people have anymore.

First of all this is what the Federal Reserve wants. Because who do you think the central bank is going to be. Even for the US is going to be the FED...what am I talking about, it is already the central bank. One of the major reasons why we had the American Revolution was to have a free economic society. Not where a bank...or even worst, a group of people controlling the economy.

Second, socialism does not work. Yes I understand the idea of everyone being equal and all that hippy crap. But I'm sorry to break it to everyone that wants to go that way, people are not created equal. Its just a fact of nature that will only go away if we are all just genetic clones of one person. Then everyone would really be born equal. But people are born smarter, dumber, faster, slower, taller, shorter...than the next person. Equality is a joke.

[Anthony Gratl]

First of all this is what the Federal Reserve wants. Because who do you think the central bank is going to be. Even for the US is going to be the FED...what am I talking about, it is already the central bank. One of the major reasons why we had the American Revolution was to have a free economic society. Not where a bank...or even worst, a group of people controlling the economy.

exactly. that's why the federal reserve needs to be owned by the people, not by a private company. you currently allow a private company to set economic policy


Second, socialism does not work. Yes I understand the idea of everyone being equal and all that hippy crap. But I'm sorry to break it to everyone that wants to go that way, people are not created equal. Its just a fact of nature that will only go away if we are all just genetic clones of one person. Then everyone would really be born equal. But people are born smarter, dumber, faster, slower, taller, shorter...than the next person. Equality is a joke.

I dunno, that's pretty dogmatic. What kind of socialism do you mean? Textbook socialism defined? Or real life socialism?
Cause if you mean real life, i've got plenty of examples for you mr. drew....and if i was rich, i'd even send you there to see for yourself:meh:

EDIT: btw, socialism doesn't hold that everyone is equal.....but it does seem to equate that those with the most ensure that those with the least are at least at a relatively high standard.....i'm hard pressed to see what's wrong with that.....it makes everyone relatively happier no?

[Andrew M.]

Economy is very complex science.
Very few individuals during one lifetime have enough time to make contribution to better the systems. Computers and Internet contributed in much better gathering of information thus improving the understanding of the mechanics of economy.

Some people though seems to know very well what to do.
So far the global economy is like the weather, we are better and better in predicting it few days ahead of time but we can't change it much but we can control the temperature and humidity in the buildings (corporations).

Should we thus compartmentalize economy in too sub disciplines, create specialists? Looks like science of micro economy made the big progress recently.

[Matt Gottshalk]

You're the one who posted a Marx poster... and now you're saying I need to learn to debate? Look in the mirror before you post crap like that. If you want a serious debate don't start by posting a picture of Marx.

Don't spout communist redistribution of wealth claptrap as economic policy and I won't post a pic of the man who invented it.

[GlennChan]

And this is where i think you're literally a child, both in body and in economic rationale.
Evolve, really... do you have to pollute this forum with personal attacks on other people? (And they don't even make sense.) There's no need to make personal attacks on other people.

[Matt Gottshalk]

http://www.markgerber.com/images/road_to_serfdom.jpg



$700 Billion won't save the whole banking system. That's the real problem. We are going to give away a bunch of money and still be in the same problem afterwords. Until we fix the problem and adjust the market were it needs to be, this is nothing but a bandage on an ax wound.

The moral hazard created by this bailout will induce financial institutions to keep doing what they were doing, but more of it... why not, because Uncle Sugar can be relied upon to come save the day! On top of that, confidence in our capital markets will be eviscerated... no longer will loses be handled in a predictable manner, but every investor will have to worry that the government will step in and hand him the shit sandwich, even if he's first in line to be made whole.

[Matt Gottshalk]

You want this mess fixed?
1. Force all off-balance sheet "assets" back onto the balance sheet, and force the valuation models and identification of individual assets out of Level 3
and into 10Qs and 10Ks. Do it now.

2. Force all OTC derivatives onto a regulated exchange similar to that used by listed options in the equity markets. This permanently defuses the derivatives
time bomb. Give market participants 90 days; any that are not listed in 90 days are declared void; let the participants sue each other if they can't prove
capital adequacy.

3. Force leverage by all institutions to no more than 12:1. The SEC intentionally dropped broker/dealer leverage limits in 2004; prior to that date 12:1 was
the limit. Every firm that has failed had double or more the leverage of that former 12:1 limit. Enact this with a six month time limit and require 1/6th of
the excess taken down monthly.

Once 1-3 are put in place then send in the OTS and OCC examiners and look at every financial institution in the United States. All who are insolvent and
unable to raise private capital immediately are forced through receivership where the debt is converted to equity and existing equity is wiped out. With the
CDS monster caged the systemic risk is removed, the bondholders provide the cushion for recapitalization (as it should be) and the restructured firm emerges
with no debt while the former bondholders are now the owners (of the equity) in the resulting firm.

With a clean balance sheet the restructured firms remain in business and open the next morning able to raise and attract capital.

For the few firms that have an insufficient debtholder capital cushion to successfully complete this process, they are liquidated instead. There will be few of
these and in fact each of those firms is a regulatory failure, as we should have never permitted a firm to become so far "underwater" that the bondholder's
capital is insufficient to capitalize a restructuring.

Finally, drop the silly shorting restrictions. Liquidity in the market right now stinks and this is a big part of why. Start prosecuting aggressively the rumors and
other manipulation that leads to stocks both rising and falling.

This plan will work, it will instantaneously stabilize the credit markets as balance sheets will be transparent, the CDS monster will be permanently de-fanged,
leverage will be returned to reasonable levels and the forcibly restructured firms will have no debt on their balance sheets and be able to immediately access
the capital markets.

Best of all, it will require exactly zero taxpayer dollars.

[Joel Kaye]

Best of all, it will require exactly zero taxpayer dollars.

More oversight, tightened regulations and no tax dollars? I'm in.

(and I'm a communist. :tongue: )

[Matt Gottshalk]

More oversight, tightened regulations and no tax dollars? I'm in.

(and I'm a communist. :tongue: )


Excellent! Peace!:w00t:

[Anthony Gratl]

Evolve, really... do you have to pollute this forum with personal attacks on other people? (And they don't even make sense.) There's no need to make personal attacks on other people.

What part didn't you get? The part about how your writing indicates that your fairly young, as your ideas lack depth, or the part about how your economic theories are like that as well?

If you are unwilling to do any serious research or reading on the current global economic system, and yet post opinions laden with blatant falsehoods and myopic dream-like economic theory on a situation that has a massive impact on peoples lives and wellbeing in general, and then further make comments to trivialize the devastation that happens to people when they lose everything, be prepared to have others fire on you.



The US is losing manufacturing jobs but it is gaining jobs in other sectors. And for the most part, the US is a lot richer because of this........In a capitalism system, hardworking people will become unemployed and that can suck.

Wake up Glenn.

[Priyesh P.]

Clint and some others speak like they were millionaires or billionaires. But ironically those who are at the lower part of the food chain defend the system most.

But most of us are middle class at best, and getting filthy rich is not my primary objective. I understand that the capitalist way is which humans seem to prefer - but the way capitalism now went is outright perverse. People like Paulson, owning 600 millions and keeping most of it locked up somewhere (let`s face it, most rich people don`t behave like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates) keep the money from floating in the system - that means less and less money for the same amount of people (that`s what the whole pareto distribution schemes of 80:20 ratios (80% of the dough is owned by 20%) mean) - do you really think this will go on forever?

[GlennChan]

Evolve, no offense intended but you're engaging in troll-like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)) behaviour. If you wish to misinterpret what I say and continue to make ad hominem attacks then go right ahead. Regardless, I'll not feed troll behaviour by replying any further. That's all I'm going to say... no offense.

[Priyesh P.]

Just read a funny little story about Lehmann bankers whose last actions before leaving their sinking ship was to loot vending machines with mars and snickers bars...

yeah, that`s how much different those greedy upperclass assholes were from average joe and jane...

[Andrew M.]

Just read a funny little story about Lehmann bankers whose last actions before leaving their sinking ship was to loot vending machines with mars and snickers bars...

yeah, that`s how much different those greedy upperclass assholes were from average joe and jane...

I will not call upper-class a..holes. Most of upper class people are business people. If you were thinking about so called Wall Street fat cats, well even parasites are very useful in your intestines. Without them you will get indigestion.

The question is all about balance.

You take more taxes from the people, (as we nicely call it but actually it is nothing else but confiscation of the income) you will be mixing communism in to capitalism.
Call it economic system cocktail.

In Canada you pay 50% income tax and 14% sales tax. Well 64% of your income is confiscated there. Communism confiscates about 98% of all people income. So where is the balance? 30-40% like in USA?

[Michael Schrengohst]

New Senate Bail Out Bill even has something for Video Producers.
Take a look at Page 298
And look at all the other stuff in it.
http://www.cuial.com/Senate_BailOut_Bill.pdf

[PatrickW]

In Canada you pay 50% income tax and 14% sales tax. Well 64% of your income is confiscated there. Communism confiscates about 98% of all people income. So where is the balance? 30-40% like in USA?
In Canada your income tax is determined by brackets, make more money and pay more tax, make less pay less.

[Joel Kaye]

30-40% like in USA?

When you add State and all the different usage taxes we have most people are taxed over 50%. Rent a car in my state? 25% tax on the deal. Look at your phone bill. I have $20 tax on a $40 bill. Don't forget to add what we pay for health insurance vs. what we get in return. That's part of our tax too and most people don't factor it in. But here in America A LOT of people work simply to pay for their insurance. You add our insurance bill to our total tax bill and we pay a ton but we don't get near the social benefit because we spend our tax money on WAR and they spend their money on windmills.

We take more than enough tax from people - we just give it straight to very wasteful and corrupt defense contractors... and now banks.

How the Congress keep getting us to accept that state is mind boggling. But they do, because a few beneficiaries of the policies own the media. For instance, the Dept of Defense spent more money on advertising under Bush than ever before. Gee thanks.

[Priyesh P.]

I will not call upper-class a..holes.

Andrew, I`m just calling them assholes because it`s the way it feels being anything less then the "cream of the crop" over here in Germany. They`ve got the biggest tax cuts ever and still moan and whine via their organizations and keep telling their filthy lies about poverty and unemployment when the awfully poor bastards dare to ask for more money - even minimum wages are out of the question, instead they promote combi-wages where people get paid a few bucks and government has to shell out the difference between that and the minimum wage. This is getting more and more hilarious.

[Matthew Rogers]

When you add State and all the different usage taxes we have most people are taxed over 50%. Rent a car in my state? 25% tax on the deal. Look at your phone bill. I have $20 tax on a $40 bill. Don't forget to add what we pay for health insurance vs. what we get in return. That's part of our tax too and most people don't factor it in. But here in America A LOT of people work simply to pay for their insurance. You add our insurance bill to our total tax bill and we pay a ton but we don't get near the social benefit because we spend our tax money on WAR and they spend their money on windmills.

We take more than enough tax from people - we just give it straight to very wasteful and corrupt defense contractors... and now banks.

Why do many Americans believe that social programs are more important than defense? The preamble of the constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble) says provide for the common defense before it says promote the general welfare (which had a different meaning than the word has now.) As much as I don't like wasteful spending, our defense is VERY important right now. There are crazy people out there that would love nothing more to bring us (the USA) down. The government should only provide defense, infrastructure (although, private companies are always the ones who build it), and court of justice. If your neighbor is in need, then go help them. Don't just expect the government to do it. That's the biggest change I've seen in America over the last 100 years. Instead of people helping people, they expect the government to fill the job.

Here's a really good idea instead of the current plan: http://www.daveramsey.com/media/pdf/the_common_sense_fix.pdf

Matthew

[Meryem Ersoz]

provide for the common defense"

which, like the general welfare, also had a very different meaning to this country before GWB got in office and crushed the entire legacy meaning both in the USA and around the world in just eight short years. With the once-respected concept and noble idea of a "common defense" transformed into a ludicrously expensive, failed crusade by a pack of wingnuts.

Just sayin'--

[Joel Kaye]

Why do many Americans believe that social programs are more important than defense?

I didn't say that.

We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense. How much money is enough?

What I don't understand is why so many Americans are so scared of their own shadows that they think we need to spend so much to be reasonably defended.

The truth is the people who want your tax dollars have hoodwinked citizens into thinking we are much less safe than we are. There's a book called The Science of Fear you might consider checking out if you're open to understanding how societies are and have been maniplulated for ages.

[Todd Folts]

our country spends more money on defense than all the rest of the world combined... this IMHO goes beyond providing from the common defense, and since the development of the military industrial complex, common defense has morphed into common offense. if americans really believed that social spending was more important than defense spending, we would be spending more on social programs.

our defense is very important, but where has all this money got us? Those crazy people that 'want to bring us down' really just want us to leave them alone: politically, economically, and religiously. unless you include the individuals in business and in government that are bringing us down. we wont be able to "fight them over there" if we cant feed us over here, we wont be able to shock and awe them if we cant drive down our own roads much less afford the fuel to do so.

people don't expect the government to help people (raise the money going into social programs and watch folks freak)

common defense isn't about just bombs and tanks and guns... anyone can shoot a gun, march in line, launch a missile. common defense also means that we have an economic structure that provides for the common good as well as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. a structure that provides equal opportunity for everyone, not just the well funded....

ok off my soap box now....

[Priyesh P.]

"Why do many Americans believe that social programs..."

Matthew

First I thought this was a joke. jesus f... christ. If more people think like this then: good night America, you`re in deep, deep trouble...

[Andrew M.]

In Canada your income tax is determined by brackets, make more money and pay more tax, make less pay less.

Yes, but this bracket gets at its maximum tax rate at $68,000 and than the tax rate stays flat at its maximum rate of 50% (some provinces like oil reach ones at 45%).
In US the bracket tops at more then $350K at 45% or so.

Well most countries try to redistribute wealth in some mix of Communism and Capitalism. I think US is trying to infuse a bit of Socialism in the banking system now.

No system is perfect and most of them need some tweaking from time to time to work.

I just hate to be caught leaving in the country that undergo active experiments of its system. It may last in some bad cases 75 years like in Russia.

[Steven M. Bailey]

what if the federal government bought all the houses that they could buy for $700,000,000,000.00 Let an independent appraiser determine the value of each individual buy out. That would help consumers as well as the banks who are going under. I guaranty that the banks wont pass on the love. If the government bailed out all of the people that are losing their houses first, then bought out the recent foreclosures the bank problems would level out without it looking like the government was funding crooked CEO's. Then as the demand for houses increases the government can sell off the houses at a profit to the taxpayers. The government already subsidies some low income housing. Why not use some of the houses for programs that already exist.

Obviously not going to solve all of the problem, but better than just handing it to the big banks. Call it trickle up theory.

another 2/5 of a nickel

[Matthew Rogers]

First I thought this was a joke. jesus f... christ. If more people think like this then: good night America, you`re in deep, deep trouble...

Actually, there are plenty of people who think this way. Social programs are not the answer when done by the government. Welfare, SS, Medicare, you name it, are all worthless. These programs don't really help people, they just make them more of a victim. People need to stand up and take control of making sure their retirement is financially secure--instead of saying "I'll just live on social security" It's great if the government wants to make that program optional, but some of us know how to manage our money and could make ALOT more money for retirement if we could not send it to SS. Welfare, instead of graduating people off of it, you earn a penny to much one month, boom your off of it entirely. That's a system that doesn't work and just causes people NOT to work. A better option is supporting programs like Habitat that helps people grow financially through responsibility.

I am just a believe in teaching a man to fish instead of just giving him the fish.

Matthew

[Cameron Preyde]

I think they should take the $700b and give it all to Canada. We would use the money to ensure every Canadian is given gov't issued plaid jackets, mountie hats, rubber boots, and $17,000 in cooooold haaaard cash.

[Cameron Preyde]

Social programs are not the answer when done by the government. Welfare, SS, Medicare, you name it, are all worthless.
Matthew

They're only worthless in the States. Look at countries that have successful nationalized healthcare policies. Scandinavian countries are some great examples. They have a highly socialized system, high taxes, and some of the highest standards of living in the world. As far as the retirement savings issue goes, it's damn near impossible for most people to adequately save for retirement. Cost of living is too high and income is too low, especially for those with children. Social Security is meant to be just that, but if it's not supported by it's own government then it's bound to fail.

[Steven M. Bailey]

I think they should take the $700b and give it all to Canada. We would use the money to ensure every Canadian is given gov't issued plaid jackets, mountie hats, rubber boots, and $17,000 in cooooold haaaard cash.

Make that $17500 so that every Canadian can buy a red one to make a documentary on the diversity and uses of the word eh?

a movie eh?

Whats It all a boot eh?


I'm Joe king eh?:)
(I have visited Canada many times and found the country to be very beautiful, as well as many of its people very gracious and hospitable.) eh

[Joel Kaye]

They're only worthless in the States. Look at countries that have successful nationalized healthcare policies. Scandinavian countries are some great examples.

And some of the lowest depression rates. Generally they are the happiest people in the world. Much happier than the average American.

A well educated and cared for populace IS SECURITY. A bigger police force, jail system and army is NOT. Last I checked America was the most incarcerated country on the planet. Yeah, our system is just great the way it is.

[GlennChan]

Make that $17500 so that every Canadian can buy a red one to make a documentary on the diversity and uses of the word eh?
The doc won't look very good without a lens. ;)

(And it won't sound very good if you don't have a microphone either... eh)

[Joseph Ward]

These bankers already get interest for loaning out other peoples money now they want people who didn't even cause this situation to pay for there screw ups?!

[number6]

And some of the lowest depression rates. Generally they are the happiest people in the world. Much happier than the average American.

A well educated and cared for populace IS SECURITY. A bigger police force, jail system and army is NOT. Last I checked America was the most incarcerated country on the planet. Yeah, our system is just great the way it is.

Move.

[number6]

I am just a believe in teaching a man to fish instead of just giving him the fish.

Matthew

It's o.k. to teach him (or her) how to fish... just don't tell him (or her) where all the good fishing spots are. After all, life is just one big fishing tournament. Biggest fish wins.:devil:

[Joseph Ward]

I wish reformation through peaceful means can change things but I think when people awake to the truth of the centralize banks around the world they will start to revolt.

[Priyesh P.]

Actually, there are plenty of people...
Matthew

Matthew, I was referring to your comment that defense is more important than social welfare. I mean, just look where the U.S. have arrived so far, the so-called defense did primarily make the situation more fucked up than it ever was, for both the whole world and even more the U.S.

And btw, leaving people on their own, without any "safety net" like welfare, will destabilize society itself - THEN you`re better on with stocking up your inner defense as much as you can as well - that`ll lead to a country which wages war on the outer AND the inner...

[Steven M. Bailey]

hey Kalone

No offense meant by this, but its really hard to take anything you say seriously when I see that avatar of yours. It cracks me up to hear you sound so invested in the world.:clown2:

[Fredrik Harreschou]

Move.

Or express what you feel is wrong with the society you live in. If every American not happy with the current situation should move, that would mean a LOT of people moving.

[Priyesh P.]

hey Kalone

No offense meant by this, but its really hard to take anything you say seriously when I see that avatar of yours. It cracks me up to hear you sound so invested in the world.:clown2:

Hey Steve.
Yes, you`re probably right...initially it was not my intention to be political and dead serious at this place. I think I`ll take good ol` "Gunther von Hagen" down as long as I contribute to this thread...

BTW, really sorry to hear about your situation.

[number6]

Or express what you feel is wrong with the society you live in. If every American not happy with the current situation should move, that would mean a LOT of people moving.

Just tryin' to help... the guy is in an unhappy place. He thinks he knows where there is one. His moving would be like water finding its level. He would make the place he moves to unhappier (he's gonna be unhappy wherever he's at) and it would remove some unhappiness from here.

All silliness aside, he is cherrypicking data. The data he refers to says that Scandanavia (I think the 60 Minutes piece said Norwegians in particular...may have been the Danes) are happiest because they have the lowest expectations. That is, they expect nothing so anything that is a positive result makes them happy.

On the other hand, he implies that we should do away with incarcerations and I suppose parole everyone in prison (see link below)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_go_ot/gang_arrests&printer=1;_ylt=AtI95AKwrP4m21KBUyGbRgN2wPIE

and give everybody everything and this would be a great country. I just think that anyone with such a narrow focus is not going to ever get it and so should just move to the Utopia he seeks until he realizes he may have already been there, and it just wasn't as perfect as he always imagined Utopia to be.

[Priyesh P.]

The data he refers to says that Scandanavia (I think the 60 Minutes piece said Norwegians in particular...may have been the Danes) are happiest because they have the lowest expectations. That is, they expect nothing so anything that is a positive result makes them happy.


I think Anders Holck is from denmark, he is a regular contributor to this forum - maybe you should confront him with your amazing obervations...

[number6]

I think Anders Holck is from denmark, he is a regular contributor to this forum - maybe you should confront him with your amazing obervations...

These amazing observations are from the American TV program 60 Minutes. It is a respected program and they actually did it from the country and talked to the people in the country about these very same amazing observations. The question was put to the panel about the low expectations theory and many if not all of the panel agreed. So there!

[jpp]

The odd thing here is, both number6 and macville come from states which are heavily dependent on Federal subsidies -- they get back far more in Federal money than they pay in taxes.

So number6 and macville are, in fact, welfare recipients. And big ones: this has been going on for 80 years.

How can you guys endure this state of perpetual welfare dependency? The damage to your characters and sense of self-worth must be incalculable -- entire regions of the country and whole peoples pauperized by Federal hand-outs.

If you guys really believe your rhetoric, why aren't you demanding to pay more federal tax, so liberal, blue-state America doesn't have to carry you forever? Don't you want to be saved?

[Joseph Ward]

If anyone hasn't seen Aaron Russo's AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM maybe this can help explain some things related to the bailout?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ueEfRXZCVA

[number6]

The odd thing here is, both number6 and macville come from states which are heavily dependent on Federal subsidies -- they get back far more in Federal money than they pay in taxes.

So number6 and macville are, in fact, welfare recipients. And big ones: this has been going on for 80 years.

How can you endure this state of perpetual welfare dependency? The damage to your characters and sense of self-worth must be incalculable -- entire regions of the country and whole peoples pauperized by Federal hand-outs.

If you guys really believe your rhetoric, why aren't you demanding to pay more federal tax, so liberal, blue-state America doesn't have to carry your posteriors forever? Don't you want to be saved?

Don't know where you get your info, but watch it! or we'll shut off your gasoline supply:)

But let me tell a tale of two Hurricanes to make my point. Hurricane Katrina hit good ol' Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez! Nue O'leans and the nation was transfixed for weeks and NBC would come back for a week every year to plead for more money for those poe' poe' NuO'lineans.

Hurricane Ike levels Galveston and floods something like 100,000 homes in Houston and leaves MILLIONS without power for a long, long time. A week and a half after the devestation, NBC finally went to Houston, and being unable to find anyone cryin' "poor, poor, pitiful me", spent most of the program talking about the credit crisis on Wall Street, and then promptly went back where they could find someone asking for a handout.

JPP, Toss all that mud you want, but it just don't stick doun here.

[jpp]

JPP, Toss all that mud you want, but it just don't stick doun here.

"Mud" is a funny way to refer to "facts". But as a former red stater myself (and with family still in Texas), I know full well that facts don't stick in that part of the world, either. It must be the fault of all those corrosive Federal subsidies, diminishing cognitive function.

[number6]

"Mud" is a funny way to refer to "facts". But as a former red stater myself (and with family still in Texas), I know full well that facts don't stick in that part of the world, either. It must be the fault of all those Federal subsidies. Very bad for you.

I really am unfamiliar with what Federal Subsidies you are talking about. Is this some secret information you have that you cannot reveal? I've racked my brain trying to think of any Federal money I personally am getting and can't think of a thing. I thought maybe you were talking about milk subsidies, but I don't buy or drink milk. Or maybe grain subsidies but I only eat WASA Light Rye Crispbreads and since they are a brand originated in Sweden, could actually be imported from there.

Windpouer is being subsidized but we are going to export that, along with our vast petroleum products, to the rest of the country so you couldn't call that a Texas subsidy. It's just keeping the rest of the country supplied with cheaper energy.

You're gonna have to help me out here. What subsidies do we get that are exclusive to this state. You've piqued my curiosity.

[Steven M. Bailey]

Hey Steve.
Yes, you`re probably right...initially it was not my intention to be political and dead serious at this place. I think I`ll take good ol` "Gunther von Hagen" down as long as I contribute to this thread...

BTW, really sorry to hear about your situation.

I googled Gunther von Hagen and found that you can learn something even from a goofy avitar. My post about your avitar was more a point of levity. That look on his face is priceless an I had no idea that he is a serious figure. That makes the expression on his face all the better.

I think some of us get too serious about politics and forget that we have a common interest in more creative endeavors. Now that the "walleyed" Doctor is down I KINDA miss him.

As far as the other goes, things will work out they always do. You have to work pretty hard to starve around here. I appreciate the concern.

[Priyesh P.]

I googled Gunther von Hagen and found that you can learn something even from a goofy avitar. My post about your avitar was more a point of levity. That look on his face is priceless an I had no idea that he is a serious figure. That makes the expression on his face all the better.

I think some of us get too serious about politics and forget that we have a common interest in more creative endeavors. Now that the "walleyed" Doctor is down I KINDA miss him.

As far as the other goes, things will work out they always do. You have to work pretty hard to starve around here. I appreciate the concern.

Gunther will be back soon, he just took a timeout to his home-planet ;-)
But I think he`s one of the strangest figures around here in Germany (that hat is priceless). My brother did the walleye look in photoshop after some rounds of teasing with stupid e-mails containing even more stupid images.
And btw, Gunther has an avidity for corpses that makes one shiver...

But again, you`re right, there`s no sense to take all this too seriously, after all we`re just little fishes, like we say in Germany...

[jpp]

I really am unfamiliar with what Federal Subsidies you are talking about..... You're gonna have to help me out here. What subsidies do we get that are exclusive to this state. You've piqued my curiosity.

It sounds like too many years of welfare have robbed you of initiative. The subsidies aren't exclusive to Texas, Texas just gets more them. To take the most glaring example, Texas is No. 1 in farm subsidies, which amounts to billions. The same occurs in a host of other industries, in addition to infrastructure subsidies, thanks to the power of your Congressional delegation and certain presidents (though the subsidies long preceded GWB).

There's a simple way to do this: examine the Federal money which flows into the state, and compare it to what goes out of the state in tax revenue. You'll see that Texas is a welfare basket state.


Windpouer is being subsidized but we are going to export that, along with our vast petroleum products, to the rest of the country so you couldn't call that a Texas subsidy. It's just keeping the rest of the country supplied with cheaper energy.

Unless you're talking about the Socialist State of Texas, the energy will be privately owned and sold at market prices, same as if it came from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Beyond any local or state tax revenues energy production may generate, the revenues won't be shared with the State of Texas or the people of Texas, and won't pay for the services and subsidies currently bankrolled by the Feds. Private energy production has nothing to do with what the state gets from the Feds.

[Joel Kaye]

There's a simple way to do this: examine the Federal money which flows into the state, and compare it to what goes out of the state in tax revenue.

Can you get that info from a bumper sticker? 'Cause that's all the info about 3/4 of our population can digest at any one time.

For instance, last time I looked the U.S. is EXPORTING more oil than ever and domestic oil demand is down year over year and drilling more now will result in a 5 cent per gallon decrease in gas prices in 10 years. But that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker either.

Drill Baby Drill does though.

[Steven M. Bailey]

It sounds like too many years of welfare have robbed you of initiative. The subsidies aren't exclusive to Texas, Texas just gets more them. To take the most glaring example, Texas is No. 1 in farm subsidies, which amounts to billions. The same occurs in a host of other industries, in addition to infrastructure subsidies, thanks to the power of your Congressional delegation and certain presidents (though the subsidies long preceded GWB).

Farm subsidies result in lower prices at the grocery store for everybody making us all Dependant on welfare of sorts. If we had to pay full price for food we'd be pretty unhappy.

I grow a lot of my own food so most years My dependence on the state is less. This year the orchard took a late freeze and all of our fruit was destroyed. I guess (according to your thinking)that makes me welfare trash. Except for the fact that I get a lot of my produce from local, non subsidized, organic farms. :unsure:

9X% of Americans live on 2% of the land. Its no wonder we're all on welfare.

[number6]

It sounds like too many years of welfare have robbed you of initiative. The subsidies aren't exclusive to Texas, Texas just gets more them. To take the most glaring example, Texas is No. 1 in farm subsidies, which amounts to billions. The same occurs in a host of other industries, in addition to infrastructure subsidies, thanks to the power of your Congressional delegation and certain presidents (though the subsidies long preceded GWB).

There's a simple way to do this: examine the Federal money which flows into the state, and compare it to what goes out of the state in tax revenue. You'll see that Texas is a welfare basket state.



Unless you're talking about the Socialist State of Texas, the energy will be private owned and sold at market prices, same as if it came from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Beyond any local or state tax revenues energy production may generate, the revenues won't be shared with the State of Texas or the people of Texas, and won't pay for the services and subsidies currently bankrolled by the Feds. Private energy production has nothing to do with what the state gets from the Feds.

Thought you might have trouble backing up your claims, and I was right. Farm subsidies? Iowa, Nebraska, New York, California...ALL 50 STATES! And who benefits? ALL 300 MILLION AMERICANS!

Energy? Same thing whether it applies to coal, nuclear, oil shale, solar, wind, geothermal, tide, etc.

Infrastructure? Federal Highways need repair so the goods can get from the Houston Ship Channel to all points in the lower 48. Plus, they make a nice conduit for goods to get from the east coast to the west coast and vice versa. There was some talk about building a toll road across most of the state paid for by the State so we could charge all that traffic passing through. Not sure but I think we decided to give the rest of you a break and continue letting you pass for free.

As for getting more subsidies than other states, well I guess when you go to comparing Texas's to Delawares, you have inequities. Same with comparing Californias to Rhode Islands. But at the same time, you have to balance that inequity with what a state like Texas or California supplies to the rest of the nation. In California's case...Yummie food! (Love their avocados!)

Trust me on this jpp, if Texas were to secede from the Union (and legally I think there is a provision for that) you would miss us MUCH more than we would miss you.

afterthought: Not sure if there is a provision for secession or just to split into 5 separate states, but the original point still stands.

[Joel Kaye]

And who benefits? ALL 300 MILLION AMERICANS!

So... you're a socialist now too? So now you're defending redistribution of wealth?

You think there should be FEDERAL highways? You know they were created as a federal works program by that liberal Franklin Roosevelt. That's socialism. Does anyone think the government (that can't do anything right) should hand the Fire Department over to Halliburton?

[Matthew Rogers]

Does anyone think the government (that can't do anything right) should hand the Fire Department over to Halliburton?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but our Fire and Ambulances here are actually privatized. You can either pay per trip or you can pay a yearly premium. It actually works much better (and faster) than the surrounding counties that have government based Fire/Ambulances.

I actually know that the government can do very little right (in it's current state.) I filled out some tax form for my business this year that had us pay less in tax than it probably cost them to send it out when you figure in paying someone to process it and mail it.

Matthew

[number6]

So... you're a socialist now too? So now you're defending redistribution of wealth?

You think there should be FEDERAL highways? You know they were created as a federal works program by that liberal Franklin Roosevelt. That's socialism. Does anyone think the government (that can't do anything right) should hand the Fire Department over to Halliburton?

Joel, you slugabed... have some coffee and wake up. You're rambling.

Socialist? I don't know. I don't have a slot. I just try to be practical. But to answer your point, I was talking about redistributing GOODS.

Yes, I guess socialism is creeping in more and more. But you know, as long as my life is free, relatively speaking, and I have choices, then I don't care what you call it.

[jpp]

Thought you might have trouble backing up your claims, and I was right. Farm subsidies? Iowa, Nebraska, New York, California...ALL 50 STATES! And who benefits? ALL 300 MILLION AMERICANS!

Huh? Wasn't the discussion about "welfare"? Meaning states, like Texas, which get back far more than they put in, at the expense of other people in other states? Remember the "bridge to nowhere"? Like a lot of Alaskans, you Texans love your welfare. You just don't want it called welfare.

'Who benefits"? In your case, private interests in Texas, primarily. But as Joelnet notes, sounds like you're turning into a socialist, if you're now invoking the supposed well-being of 300 million Americans to justify outsized Federal subsidies to red states, which in turn elect politicians who routinely denounce -- socialism?

[Joel Kaye]

but our Fire a

Your fire department is private? What, you pay per per fire? Paramedics provide for emergencies here and privately owned ambulances transport people. Though I don't think they work any more efficiently than if the Fire Dept were to operate ambulances as well.

Certainly your police dept isn't private too.

I don't mind the free enterprise system. It's just that our system has been corrupted to favor the very wealthy. If you can't see it right now before your eyes with this bailout then nothing will convince you of that. Reaganomics has favored the very wealthy by letting them regulate themselves without real oversight. And both Dems and Repubs are complicit.

[number6]

Huh? Wasn't the discussion about "welfare"? Meaning states, like Texas, which get back far more than they put in, at the expense of other people in other states? Remember the "bridge to nowhere"? Like a lot of Alaskans, you Texans love your welfare. You just don't want it called welfare.

'Who benefits"? In your case, private interests in Texas, primarily. But as Joelnet notes, sounds like you're turning into a socialist, if you're now invoking the supposed well-being of 300 million Americans to justify outsized Federal subsidies to red states.

Again with the irresponsible use of the welfare word...

Granted, this isn't the LA Times (more like the New York Times:usd: ) and while we are not real journalists, I think we should try and at least attempt to play-a-journalist-on-the-Internet while making these posts.

Instead of just doing commentary all the time, occasionally do some actual reporting and back up a statement--if not with hard facts, at least put up something that passes as potentially a fact.

[Joel Kaye]

and I have choices, then I don't care what you call it.

Fair enough. They have a lot of choices and free speech throughout most of Europe.

If I have to choose between a very few very wealthy people owning everything and a population of serfs beholden to them OR a more even ownership of resources via regulation of the markets I'm taking the latter. Maybe that's social interventionism.

It's clear that unmoderated capitalism results in a consolidation of wealth and power. That's whats been creeping here in America. It's turned into a brisk walk under Bush.

[number6]

Your fire department is private? What, you pay per per fire? Paramedics provide for emergencies here and privately owned ambulances transport people. Though I don't think they work any more efficiently than if the Fire Dept were to operate ambulances as well.

Certainly your police dept isn't private too.

I don't mind the free enterprise system. It's just that our system has been corrupted to favor the very wealthy. If you can't see it right now before your eyes with this bailout then nothing will convince you of that. Reaganomics has favored the very wealthy by letting them regulate themselves without real oversight. And both Dems and Repubs are complicit.

Joel, Macville, Pardon me for butting in to you guys discussion but this reminds me of a story. There was this guy who was a son-in-law to a pretty well-to-do farmer, and his cousin-by-marriage, a friend of mine, would try and get his cousin's goat by saying that the father-in-law was going to cut him out of the will when he died. Now it was well known that the other three kids the farmer had... all sons, were not well-honed in the thinking dept. (Probably didn't get enough acetylcholine in their diets as kids)

Anyway, the son-in-law would just smile and say, "That's all right... that's all right. After he dies I'll have it all in three years time."

point is, redistribution of wealth just doesn't work. It just sets things back.

[Joel Kaye]

point is, redistribution of wealth just doesn't work. It just sets things back.

No, no. Consolidation of wealth just doesn't work. It just sets things back.

America was created, in part, to flee from aristocracy. Jefferson believed that no or little wealth should pass from generation to generation in order to create an "Aristocracy of Talent". Now that's a very capitalistic, free market idea... but it does require wealth return to common ownership.

The founding fathers had a very great fear of entrenched wealth, power and artistocracy as they knew it very well. I think they were right.

Even in the Bible there is the concept of Jubilee. Every 50 years all debts are forgiven. Again - a redistribution of wealth that worked. Jesus certainly was in favor of it. Now I know God doesn't impress some people much, but that makes an impression on me.

[number6]

Even in the Bible there is the concept of Jubilee. Every 50 years all debts are forgiven. Again - a redistribution of wealth that worked. Jesus certainly was in favor of it. Now I know God doesn't impress some people much, but that makes an impression on me.

Oh good gravy! Now Wall Street has the god argument for the bailout!:angry03:

[jpp]

Again with the irresponsible use of the welfare word...

Granted, this isn't the LA Times (more like the New York Times:usd: ) and while we are not real journalists, I think we should try and at least attempt to play-a-journalist-on-the-Internet while making these posts.

Instead of just doing commentary all the time, occasionally do some actual reporting and back up a statement--if not with hard facts, at least put up something that passes as potentially a fact.

I realize I'm wasting my breath, but if you're determined to regard largesse payments and wealth transfers to Texas from the citizens of other states as either 1) for the public good (which makes you a socialist), or 2) somehow earned or deserved (which makes you monarchist), I can't stop you.

In my book, anyone who takes in more public money than he contributes in taxes is on welfare, but you can call it Divine Grace instead, if you want. After all, you're the guy who thinks the Chinese are drilling for oil off the Florida coast, so who am I to argue with you? In fact, why argue here at all? Between the 17-year olds and the wingers on the boards, these discussions are really a fool's errand.

[number6]

I realize I'm wasting my breath, but if you're determined to regard largesse payments and wealth transfers to Texas from the citizens of other states as either 1) for the public good (which makes you a socialist), or 2) somehow earned or deserved (which makes you monarchist), I can't stop you.

In my book, anyone who takes in more public money than he contributes in taxes is on welfare

Or I could easily turn your argument against you and say any state (or person) that takes in more goods and services than they produce are freeloaders who are living off the largess of the ones doing the work.

But I won't. I'll agree to stop here if you will.

[Steven M. Bailey]

It's clear that unmoderated capitalism results in a consolidation of wealth and power. That's whats been creeping here in America. It's turned into a brisk walk under Bush.

True unmoderated capitalism hasn't existed since the signing of the current constitution. Elitists found that the Articles of Confederation were too weak to take money from the people. One of the first requirements of the new federal government farm subsidies came down from George Washington himself. The MANDATORY crop of marijuana. I believe it was eight acres per section. Now eight acres could get you life.:watsup: :matrix:

[PatrickW]

True unmoderated capitalism hasn't existed since the signing of the current constitution. Elitists found that the Articles of Confederation were too weak to take money from the people. One of the first requirements of the new federal government farm subsidies came down from George Washington himself. The MANDATORY crop of marijuana. I believe it was eight acres per section. Now eight acres could get you life.:watsup: :matrix:

hemp and marijuana are different things.

[Andrew M.]

True unmoderated capitalism hasn't existed since the signing of the current constitution. Elitists found that the Articles of Confederation were too weak to take money from the people.

The good thing is that you can go and vote for more moderation in capitalism by picking less conservative government. Did you register for the vote BTW?

And in turn when there is too much Socialism in the system you can always go back and vote for Conservative Government.

We need third party though, Liberal like they have in Canada.
Conservative, Liberal, and Democratic party, otherwise you end up with hot/cold water shower effect. Constant yoyo.

Talking about how happy the Scandinavians are, maybe they are most happy but Canada is voted the best country to live in, year after year, by UN.
I guess 50/50 mix of Capitalism and Comunism (50% confiscation of the income) there and Conservative, Liberal, and Democratic adjusters works the best for this geographic latitude:-)

[Joel Kaye]

If you guys haven't seen this check it out. This is pretty much my view of what's going on and why I'm so skeptical of the bailout and many other policies.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

You have to watch the whole thing to truly understand the whole puzzle.

[Priyesh P.]

hey joelnet - it`s a bit long, but interesting!

[Steven M. Bailey]

Kalone I see that the good doctor has returned.:gun:

Joelnet:I can't believe I watched that for two hours. I see and agree with most of it in spirit. The world would be a much better place if everyone could share the overall vision. But alas I don't see it as a potential reality.

I sat down and sketched a bullet continental transit system years ago. It looked just like their drawings, and Geothermal is by far the way to go. Ive been advocating that for years.

The Utopian dream is not a new one and even shrink wrapped into the Shiny, pretty, new box of "technology" It still lacks the admittance of one important fact. There are evil men afoot, and where evil men are, evil deeds. A recent study points to one in twenty-five as a psychopath. That means that in the us alone there are 8,120,000 psychopathic people. How will they exist in this purist climate.

I like the part in the matrix where the matrix is being described and the point is made that man didn't flourish in utopia, so they built a world full of struggles and adversity. :gun: :ninja: :help:

Just my 2/5 of a nickel

[Vladimir Eugene]

If you guys haven't seen this check it out. This is pretty much my view of what's going on and why I'm so skeptical of the bailout and many other policies.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

You have to watch the whole thing to truly understand the whole puzzle.

It is a fascinating video, I'm forwarding to my friends- not because I agree with everything it says, but it can start critical dialog, and that's a great step.

vlad

[Joel Kaye]

There are evil men afoot, and where evil men are, evil deeds. A recent study points to one in twenty-five as a psychopath. That means that in the us alone there are 8,120,000 psychopathic people. How will they exist in this purist climate.

Maybe they won't exist in as great a number because the main causes of the behavior have been changed. Clean up the air, the messages of the media, the food and I think you'll have a lower occurrence of nutjobs.

I can't remember the exact quote, but someone once said that a natural response to living in a crazy world is to become crazy.

But that doesn't solve the problem of truly evil people... the ones the are at home in chaos and feel uncomfortable when confronted with peace and a more egalitarian society.

[Priyesh P.]

Steve, glad to see that you noticed :-)

[Andrew Walker]

I like the part in the matrix where the matrix is being described and the point is made that man didn't flourish in utopia, so they built a world full of struggles and adversity. :gun: :ninja: :help:

Just my 2/5 of a nickel

Just so you know, that is how people evolve and move forward. Not just as a person but as a species. If life were perfect and we had nothing to work for then we would become stagnant. Personally I like the struggle in my life, I like the payoff for all that hard work that I've done.



There are evil men afoot, and where evil men are, evil deeds. A recent study points to one in twenty-five as a psychopath. That means that in the us alone there are 8,120,000 psychopathic people. How will they exist in this purist climate.

There is that saying, when good men do nothing evil prevails. There are good people in the world, they just lack the will to change the world because the world would label them as monsters for what they would have to do to stop evil. Mainly because what people think is good and pure in this world is just a system of control that has most people fooled into believing that being without morals and without a conscious is normal behavior. People have been taught not to take responsibility for their actions and that its other peoples' fault for not telling them that it was right or wrong. When people can sue a company for spilling hot coffee on themselves you know something is insanely wrong with at the very least people in America or more so with our justice system.

[number6]

Just so you know, that is how people evolve and move forward. Not just as a person but as a species. If life were perfect and we had nothing to work for then we would become stagnant. Personally I like the struggle in my life, I like the payoff for all that hard work that I've done.



There is that saying, when good men do nothing evil prevails. There are good people in the world, they just lack the will to change the world because the world would label them as monsters for what they would have to do to stop evil. Mainly because what people think is good and pure in this world is just a system of control that has most people fooled into believing that being without morals and without a conscious is normal behavior. People have been taught not to take responsibility for their actions and that its other peoples' fault for not telling them that it was right or wrong. When people can sue a company for spilling hot coffee on themselves you know something is insanely wrong with at the very least people in America or more so with our justice system.

Drew599, I agree with what you say here, and not just because your avatar is pointing a gun at my head:gun: :) .

I would have said the same thing if you were handing me an avacodo, palm up. (Love those things!)

[jpp]

People have been taught not to take responsibility for their actions and that its other peoples' fault for not telling them that it was right or wrong.

I guess you're referring here to the people who run the American financial system and corporate America in general --- the ones who refuse to take responsibility for their actions and rely on the taxpayer to bail them out?


When people can sue a company for spilling hot coffee on themselves you know something is insanely wrong with at the very least people in America or more so with our justice system.

Do you actually know the facts about that widely derided case? The settlement involved a gag rule insisted upon by McDonalds, so the woman who won suit was not at liberty to explain what really happened when she was ridiculed by late night talk-show hosts and so-called "conservatives". So let me tell you:

This woman was seriously scalded, and her accident was not the first one: McDonalds was already on notice that the temperature of the coffee posed a significant burn hazard.

The woman incurred significant medical costs. She approached McDonald's corporate management, and asked for help paying the bills, since she was uninsured. McDonalds refused. Only then did it go to court. The size of the settlement reflected the fact that McDonalds had been negligent over a long period of time; this was not the first instance of serious burns.

Satisfied? You're the guy, after all, who wants people (and corporations?) to accept responsibility for their actions.

[Cameron Preyde]

This woman was seriously scalded, and her accident was not the first one: McDonalds was already on notice that the temperature of the coffee posed a significant burn hazard.



Doesn't all fresh coffee pose a significant burn hazard??

Life is so much simpler than we make it out to be. Why do we not look to those with whom we share our home for inspiration? The Ant works diligently for all the colony and it's reward is safety. The Squirrel gathers food when the season is right and uses it for winter. We have complicated our lives with luxuries.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the most time and money on the needy, is by his mode of life causing the very strife which he in vain strives to relieve."

Henry David Thoreau

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds."

Bob Marley

These are my prophets...who are yours?

[Joel Kaye]

Doesn't all fresh coffee pose a significant burn hazard??

Yeah, but that case is more complicated than Rush Limbaugh makes it out to be. Typical... if you get your talking point from him or Hannity you're probably wrong.

"The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years."


If McDonald's and all their lawyers lose anything it's because they really messed up.

Having said that, I'm totally in favor of tort reform and loser pays... and even limits on medical lawsuit awards provided health insurance rates drop drastically.

[Andrew Walker]

If a McDonald's employee threw the coffee on her then I could see the reason for the lawsuit. But the FACT is she spilled it on herself. The problem with this lawsuit is that it sparked so many others like it. Like the robber that hurt himself by falling through that skylight and then sewed the owners. Now how is that fair? Come on, try and spin that one.

http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/

[jpp]

If a McDonald's employee threw the coffee on her then I could see the reason for the lawsuit. But the FACT is she spilled it on herself.

This is nonsense, but if you insist.... Spilling of the product is/was so a common an eventuality that ignoring the consequences of doing so was gross negligence under any reasonable interpretation of liability law. I believe the term is "reckless endangerment", particularly after 700 prior bad outcomes, and for a corporation with the resources of McDonalds.


The problem with this lawsuit is that it sparked so many others like it. Like the robber that hurt himself by falling through that skylight and then sewed the owners. Now how is that fair? Come on, try and spin that one.

The only real "problem" with this lawsuit were the foolish charges made against it by the business lobby, their propagandists in the media, and audiences who repeated those absurdities. You really do need to look beyond Hannity, Jay Leno and Limbaugh for your information.

I know nothing about your other lawsuit, and, in any case, am under no obligation to "spin" or defend it. One absurdity -- if that's what it is, I haven't studied the matter -- doesn't invalidate tort law or the age-old notion of liability. But by all means, change the subject, when you have nothing left to stand on.

[Andrew Walker]

I'm just talking about responsibility is all. Coffee is suppose to be hot and should be treated as such. If I shot myself in the foot, by accident, should I go after the gun and bullet manufactures because they make firearm that works when I pull the trigger or because the bullet moved to fast and caused so much damage to my foot. I should do neither because it was an accident and it was my fault. People just need to claim responsibility for what they do, even if it makes them look stupid.

[Tom Lowe]

Drew, you actually believe in personal responsibility??

We need you in the libertarian movement, my friend!

[Andrew Walker]

Drew, you actually believe in personal responsibility??

We need you in the libertarian movement, my friend!


That does seem to be the only place I fit the most in this jacked up political system.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I try to avoid political discussions... Not worth it. But I just have to say that the whole McDonalds Coffee incident, preceding accidents of the same nature, subsequent cases of similar tone, etc.. All bullshit.

Coffee is supposed to be hot. It's supposed to burn your ass if it spills on you. If you're a klutz whose prone to spilling hot beverages, then request that the coffee you're ordering be made less hot, have them throw an ice cube in it, whatever.

So now, when my wife drags my ass into Starbucks (oh, how I loathe that place), I have to request they make my coffee extra hot because they're not supposed to hand over any drink hotter than 177 degrees or some crap like that. Or at least that's what my wife informed me of, after I had been there a few times and I vocalized my displeasure with getting coffee that is barely "hot".

In actuality, I'm more of a tea person. I pour the water out of the pot while it's still boiling and I let my tea steep for about 90 seconds or so until it's just done. Then I drink it. None of this waiting around for it to cool off stuff.

While I'm feeling political, did anyone else watch the debate tonight? Well, I think this link (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154584) says it better than I ever could.

Edit> Ooops. Actually meant to link this one (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154582), but the above one is good too. :)

[Tom Lowe]

LMAO.. my new camping chair, one of those nylon regular camping chairs, literally has three huge "warning" labels on it, telling me not to use it as a ladder, telling me not to put "hot drinks" in its cupholder, and telling me not to stand on the chair... haha..

Is this really necessary?

BTW, Jeff, I feel confident that we are going to be able to recruit you to our libertarian cause. :)

[Andrew Walker]

I try to avoid political discussions... Not worth it. But I just have to say that the whole McDonalds Coffee incident, preceding accidents of the same nature, subsequent cases of similar tone, etc.. All bullshit.

Coffee is supposed to be hot. It's supposed to burn your ass if it spills on you. If you're a klutz whose prone to spilling hot beverages, then request that the coffee you're ordering be made less hot, have them throw an ice cube in it, whatever.

So now, when my wife drags my ass into Starbucks (oh, how I loathe that place), I have to request they make my coffee extra hot because they're not supposed to hand over any drink hotter than 177 degrees or some crap like that. Or at least that's what my wife informed me of, after I had been there a few times and I vocalized my displeasure with getting coffee that is barely "hot".

In actuality, I'm more of a tea person. I pour the water out of the pot while it's still boiling and I let my tea steep for about 90 seconds or so until it's just done. Then I drink it. None of this waiting around for it to cool off stuff.

While I'm feeling political, did anyone else watch the debate tonight? Well, I think this link (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154584) says it better than I ever could.

Edit> Ooops. Actually meant to link this one (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154582), but the above one is good too. :)

Glad to see there's another responsible person around here.


LMAO.. my new camping chair, one of those nylon regular camping chairs, literally has three huge "warning" labels on it, telling me not to use it as a ladder, telling me not to put "hot drinks" in its cupholder, and telling me not to stand on the chair... haha..

Is this really necessary?

BTW, Jeff, I feel confident that we are going to be able to recruit you to our libertarian cause. :)

On the no standing warning does it say not to use it as a chair to hang yourself with...come on we have to cover all the bases here. Someone could fail at killing themselves and then fill a lawsuit against the chair and rope manufacture. I mean how are people suppose to know not to hang themselves with a camping chair...you need a nice tall bar stool to do the job:)

[Priyesh P.]

The unresponsible actions of big corporations can`t be compared to those cases of injury. The one thing has it`s roots in pure greed, the other ones are accidents that were results of carelessness or stupidity - I, for example drank boiling hot water directly out of a thermo flask when I was 5 years old - who would be so dumb of suing the flask`s manufacturer?
BTW, I was not seriously wounded, just lost my sense of taste for weeks - so I don`t understand how these serious injuries happened.

[jpp]

But I just have to say that the whole McDonalds Coffee incident, preceding accidents of the same nature, subsequent cases of similar tone, etc.. All bullshit.

Coffee is supposed to be hot. It's supposed to burn your ass if it spills on you.

You're confusing actual personal responsibility -- for example, you make coffee that's too hot and spill it on yourself -- and the obligations of multi-billion dollar corporations to society, which derive from the special and very particular rights and privileges corporations enjoy.

A company the size of McDonalds, serving up coffee in all its franchises which is hot enough to cause third-degree burns when spilled, is just plain idiocy: kids buy that coffee, seniors buy that coffee, etc.. So fine: McDonalds can make the coffee as hot as it wants, in order (in its view) to enhance its profits. But, if so, it has to accept the legal consequences of its recklessness. If that's not taking "personal responsibility", what is?

Now, as to this whole "personal responsibility" mantra, you guys bring to mind the case of Trent Lott, former Republican majority leader of the Senate, and another big one-time opponent of tort lawyers. Here was a guy who defeated Congressional provisions which would have mitigated Katrina-like damage, and then sued his insurance company when it refused to cover damage to his coastal Mississippi vacation house (after Katrina).

It's easy to bray about one's own virtue and self-reliance, but it's a little silly to do so, until the matter actually gets tested. If Tom's lounge chair folds on his hand and crushes it, thereby significantly and permanently reducing hand function, we'll see how much longer he hates trial lawyers.

It's also a little aggravating when the richest, most powerful and most privileged people in America (GWB, for one?), push this line. As we're seeing now, our corporate masters aren't so big on personal responsibility, after all.

[Priyesh P.]

jpp, we`ve gone OT, but nonetheless, McDonalds (as evil as they are ;-) didn`t sell liquid uranium that was declared as a beverage, but a none chilled drink called coffee (ok, maybe it`s a fault of the perfectly isolating cups that makes one believe that the content is warm - not hot, but nonetheless it IS a hot drink by definition).

If you go this far then nobody could produce anything because ANYTHING can be harmful in one or the other way, could fail or idiots could misuse it...

[jpp]

If you go this far then nobody could produce anything because ANYTHING can be harmful in one or the other way, could fail or idiots could misuse it...

What's "this far"? Asking a mass-market retailer like McDonalds to accept liability if it insists on selling millions of cups of coffee at a temperature sufficient to produce 3rd degree burns -- and which has produced 3rd degree burns, 700+ times?

In any event, we have gone "this far", and business proceeds merrily along anyway. Certainly McDonalds has.

Nonetheless, I'll make a deal with you guys: we'll do away with all these frivolous lawsuits (in your eyes), if you can get the CEOs of the investment banks and the mortgage companies to accept personal responsibility for what they've done to the American taxpayer, and return 98% of their compensation for the last ten years, which will still leave them very rich men. The money should of course go to the U.S. treasury, but for the sake of the argument, we'll let them pay it to their bankrupted shareholders. Then again, the shareholders also need to shoulder personal responsibility, for their own stupidity and lack of due diligence, and their trust in the ratings agencies. So, it goes to the Treasury.

But of course, you won't get 98%. Or .98%. In fact, you won't get a dime, or even an apology, or an even acknowledgment of error.

So really, guys, who wants to hear about the so-called abuses of an 81-year old burn victim, suing McDonalds to recover her medical costs?

If you really think liability lawsuits are what's wrong with the U.S. today, I can only suggest you start reading the newspaper. Or, if you're a capitalist and have a brokerage account, look at your last statement, and rejoice.

[Curran Giddens]

We need you in the libertarian movement, my friend!

I registered as Libertarian when I turned 18. I would love to vote for the party. But this country just isn't ready. Until more people wake up, I think it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils. My vote was wasted on Nader back in 2000. Not gonna let that happen again....

I am going to vote via absentee ballot since I will be in Brazil during the first week of November.

[Priyesh P.]

JPP, you`re misunderstanding me. I`m aggressively condemn the whole deregulated mess we`re currently in.

But the McDonalds issue is different. It actually makes me frightened to know that there are people who can`t handle a cup of coffee. On the other hand - if there really were 700 people who scald themselves out of hundreds of millions of successful drinks worldwide then it`s more safe to drink coffee than fly with the 737... :-) just joking!

BTW...there was an hilarious lawsuit here in Germany where a former judge (!) tried to sue the Mars Corp. and Coca Cola because he went obese and developed diabetes...his case was rejected...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

You're confusing actual personal responsibility

Am I? At which point does responsibility shift from individual common sense to the responsibility of corporations or government agencies?

I don't know if it's your intent, but it sounds like you are spinning this to say that "multi-billion dollar corporations" have additional responsibility to society or should have the burden of additional blame and responsibility because they're big and therefore presumably have lots of surplus money.


the special and very particular rights and privileges corporations enjoy.

Which are? Two of my companies are corporations. Would you care to elaborate on what special and particular rights and privileges I enjoy? Which of these privileges, in turn, saddle me or my companies up with extra liability vs. the common man or other types of companies?


A company the size of McDonalds, serving up coffee in all its franchises which is hot enough to cause third-degree burns when spilled, is just plain idiocy:

Is it any more idiotic than general operations of a business like a liquor store? Every day, liquor store owners knowingly sell a substance that is known to affect human behavior. It's known to induce conditions that lead to fatal accidents, domestic violence, long-term illness and other less popularized occurrences.

Or is the coffee scenario different because it was sold by a "multi-billion dollar corporation"? We don't have any "multi-billion dollar" corporate liquor store chains in this country. If we did have such a thing, would that set a precedent for something more?


It's easy to bray about one's own virtue and self-reliance, but it's a little silly to do so, until the matter actually gets tested.

True. But the same can be said for braying over one's own success, failures, misery, whatever.. All we can do is state our opinions. Most opinions are biased anyway. I know where I stand with my own principles and outlook on responsibility. I'm sure Tom knows where he stands as well.


If Tom's lounge chair folds on his hand and crushes it, thereby significantly and permanently reducing hand function, we'll see how much longer he hates trial lawyers.

Perhaps, but like you said, we won't ever know unless this scenario is put to the test. That was outside my point anyway. I subscribe to an ideal of where everyone stands up and takes responsibility for their own actions, right or wrong, intelligent or stupid. If the chair and Tom's hand scenario ever came to pass, I would hope that the chair manufacturer would have the decency to investigate the matter thoroughly. And if it were determined that the incident occurred due to a defective chair and not Tom being an extreme dumbass (or fatass?), that the manufacturer would take appropriate action to meet all of Tom's legitimate needs pertaining to the accident.

I know our society isn't going to work this way. Just like world peace and widespread ethical business practices, it's not going to happen. In my own opinion, I like to believe that when a business sells a customer a well-established product, like coffee or beer, that it becomes the customer's sole responsibility for any actions and risks that may arise from the use of that product. Coffee is supposed to be hot, beer contains alcohol, use at your own peril. Certain responsibilities should be in place, yes. The coffee vendor should ensure that there is no bacteria or harmful substances in the coffee (oxymoron?), likewise the liquor store should not knowingly sell the beer to an under-aged purchaser or someone who appears to already be intoxicated.

As Kalone pointed out, coffee is by definition a "hot" drink. It even warns on the side of the cup, in more than one language, that the contents are hot and to use caution. These cups have done so since more than a decade before this whole spilled coffee legal circus came into being. In this case, a line has been drawn to establish where personal responsibility ends and corporate liability begins. To me, it seems the line is entirely in the wrong place. Obviously you disagree...

...Coffee is a hot drink. Hot drinks can burn you. I've known that since as far back as I can remember. My 3 year old knows his hot cocoa can burn him. But apparently some people in this world never got that memo. In a free, democratic society, I believe that everyone has the right to be as stupid as they choose. But they have no right to hang their stupidity onto the burdened shoulders of our judicial system or the taxpayers who support it.

Coffee is hot... Knives are sharp. Do I sue a knife company if I accidently bump a knife off a table and it slices my foot and severs a toe? Or do I sue the store where I bought the knife because they were selling knives that were sharper than knives sold at most other stores?


It's also a little aggravating when the richest, most powerful and most privileged people in America (GWB, for one?), push this line. As we're seeing now, our corporate masters aren't so big on personal responsibility, after all.

Yep... That's exactly where I thought you were heading with all of this. I'm not even going to get into that discussion.

For the record, I hate McDonalds -- the food is vile and the environment just plain sucks. IMO, the selling of the Big Mac is far more a crime than coffee that is "too hot".

[Andrew Walker]

What's "this far"? Asking a mass-market retailer like McDonalds to accept liability if it insists on selling millions of cups of coffee at a temperature sufficient to produce 3rd degree burns -- and which has produced 3rd degree burns, 700+ times?

So just because McDonalds is a mass-market retailer you think they should bend-over and pay people money that are STUPID and/or CLUMSY.



Nonetheless, I'll make a deal with you guys: we'll do away with all these frivolous lawsuits (in your eyes), if you can get the CEOs of the investment banks and the mortgage companies to accept personal responsibility for what they've done to the American taxpayer, and return 98% of their compensation for the last ten years, which will still leave them very rich men. The money should of course go to the U.S. treasury, but for the sake of the argument, we'll let them pay it to their bankrupted shareholders. Then again, the shareholders also need to shoulder personal responsibility, for their own stupidity and lack of due diligence, and their trust in the ratings agencies. So, it goes to the Treasury.

See the problem with this is that you think that the CEOs of the investment banks and the mortgage companies are to blame. They have a hand in it that's for sure but the one that started it all is the FED. They gave the greenlight on all these bullshit loans because they knew exactly what it would do and here we are. Oh and just for your info I don't get my thought process from watching other people give their opinions on the TV. I look at what's happened in the past to see what old bullshit they are trying to repackage and tell us its a new problem.


If you really think liability lawsuits are what's wrong with the U.S. today, I can only suggest you start reading the newspaper. Or, if you're a capitalist and have a brokerage account, look at your last statement, and rejoice.

Its one of the things that are wrong with the US. The biggest problem is that most of these lawsuits reward people for being stupid. Its the state of mind that it puts most people in...that they don't have to take responsibility for the mistakes they've made and that its always someone else's fault.

[jpp]

This has gone on too long, but if folks here don't understand why McDonalds, by virtue of its size and power, has special social responsibilities, I won't convince you.

The liquor store analogy is an interesting one, to which I have no answer, other than that selling liquor is, by custom, socially acceptable. And it's a product whose sole purpose is to induce intoxication, which is why people buy it. I doubt McDonalds patrons buy coffee to get scalded.

For corporate privileges under the law, I'd refer doubters to, appropriately enough, a documentary called "The Corporation". One might also ask Jay why, if there aren't special privileges, he chose to incorporate, since a small corporation can be costly to open and sustain. But that's neither here nor there.

I know that all our problems, according to you guys, are caused by government. There's some degree of truth to that -- Alan Greenspan could have instantly stopped subprime lending, instead of going on TV to promote it, and GWB's Dept. of Treasury actively prevented states from regulating subprime lending -- but I doubt that's the kind of government you're referring to.

Finally, this whole "personal responsibility" line doesn't go down well, because its loudest proponents are the biggest whiners in the country. Listen to 3 hours of Limbaugh and what do you hear? It's all someone else's fault. Republicans controlled all branches of government for nearly 8 years but when things go wrong, it's always someone else's fault.

After a while, you have to wonder whose "personality responsibility" these people are talking about. From what I can tell, it's never yours if you're a right-wing Republican, because liberals are always to blame for everything, even if there are no real liberals in American government, and even if the phony ones aren't even in power.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

See the problem with this is that you think that the CEOs of the investment banks and the mortgage companies are to blame. They have a hand in it that's for sure but the one that started it all is the FED. They gave the greenlight on all these bullshit loans because they knew exactly what it would do and here we are. Oh and just for your info I don't get my thought process from watching other people give their opinions on the TV. I look at what's happened in the past to see what old bullshit they are trying to repackage and tell us its a new problem.

Exactly. No new problem here. This situation has been building and building for over 30 years. Both the GOP and Dems had their hands in this one and either party can try to spin it any way they choose. Sadly, many of the events that led up to this current financial mess actually seemed like good ideas at the time, or at least to enough people to get proper legislation passed... The Carter administration's extensions to lending fairness, Reagan administration's broader allowances for debt consolidation and classifications, Bush (Sr.) Administration's lowered interest rates and extended service operations for Fannie and Freddy, Clinton Administration's lowering of minimum credit score approval lines and HUD policy extensions... W's Administration keeps cutting interest rates in an attempt to stimulate new business. It had the effect initially, but did not address the core problem. So they slashed again and again and ended up in a downward spiral. Now we're at the point where money is practically free, it's killing investors and lenders looking for decent returns and forcing money to go overseas. Low interest rates for too long accelerates inflation and right now the rate of inflation is far outpacing business revenues and earnings. Small businesses are getting killed.

Before W. even entered office, we already had a housing bubble starting to build and thousands and thousands of "homeowners" nation-wide who legitimately should not have been allowed to finance a couch were out there taking out loans to buy a $200K house and rolling $60K of credit card and auto loan debt into that. Now the economy hits a skip, people default on their loans and lenders are stuck holding a bunch of toilet paper where many squares are I.O.U's for $250K or more and the property in question is worth only 70-80% of that.

The bigwig CEOs and corporate lenders are at fault because they didn't scrutinize carefully when lending money. They simply handed out the money to anyone that fell within the established parameters of acceptable borrowers. Most of those parameters were established by the FED and past administrations. On the other hand most lenders faced serious fines and other reprisals from the FHC, HUD, the IRS and others if they did scrutinize to carefully when lending due to all the fairness policies. And while it should have been a perfectly acceptable reason for a lender to turn someone down, suddenly for the last 15 years or so, "we don't think you can afford this loan, even though your credit score is high enough" was no longer acceptable. Larger lenders like AIG faced tighter scrutiny and fear of fines due to their size and profile. Additionally, they got themselves into bigger trouble not only with their own products, but they also had been buying up portfolios from smaller lenders, many at a loss. They had bought thousands of junk notes that exceeded the value of the secured property, under the assumption that most of these notes would eventually pay off and money would be made. Now they're stuck holding vast portfolios of bad paper. And thanks to the powers that be, the taxpayers are the ones who get to wipe their ass with it.

Now we're coming up on the big election and we get to listen to pious candidates who self-righteously claim they saw this coming two years ago, as if they were blessed with great prognosticators of the divine. ...To which I only have to say, "No shit, dumbasses. You're slow, I saw it a few years before that." ...And so did everyone else I know who runs a responsible business pertaining to the highly-affected markets. Most responsible accountants, bankers, land developers and realtors I work with all saw this coming. We would casually talk about the housing glut and the overbuilding, bad loans, etc.. over the past 5 years or so.

This country needs a wake-up call. People need to take responsibility. People need to put that credit card away and get used to their bank telling them "NO!". Everyone wants it all now, no one ever asks "how much does it cost", they only care "how much is it per month?". Until we learn to save our earnings, live within our means and finance nothing more than a portion of our homes, this problem won't be fixed. Of course, that's highly generalized, but once again, that's the way I was taught... Don't spend money you don't have. I would rather live under a bridge than owe every penny I have now, and will have for the rest of my life, to someone else.

[number6]

Yeah, What he said!

[Joel Kaye]

Republicans controlled all branches of government for nearly 8 years but when things go wrong, it's always someone else's fault.

That's my problem with the Bush administration. They say one thing and do another. And they never take personal responsibility for anything they mess up.

I have some empathy for disappointed conservatives who supported them because the Bush adminstration has been anything but conservative and may have harmed the movement by association.

In the same way, Bush (as is pointed out in this thread) misused the government and corporate CEOs abused their positions.

When corporations have undue influence over the Gov't a consolidation of wealth... stealing from the taxpayer and giving to those who are exerting influence is the result.

So it's overly simplistic to just blame "BIG Gov't" or blame "Corporations". Both can be good. Both can be bad. There's a balance that needs to be reached - and only honest regulation can do it. But regulation has been corrupted - which is why some of you here sincerely believe Gov't is bad. Yes, it sure can be. But monopoly is bad too... and you can't prevent that without Gov't.

So what's the real solution to our current problems? My contention is (at least in America) it has to be an educated workforce that has an honest, good paying job available that's not going to be outsourced. All the credit in the world doesn't matter if there aren't good jobs being created. That's what got us into this mess. Easy credit but mediocre jobs. People have been pulling money out of their houses to pay the bills... and now here we are.

[Priyesh P.]

That's my problem with the Bush administration. They say one thing and do another.

But which of them do? They`re politicians...

[jpp]

The bigwig CEOs and corporate lenders are at fault because they didn't scrutinize carefully when lending money. They simply handed out the money to anyone that fell within the established parameters of acceptable borrowers.

What established "parameters" of "acceptable borrowers"? These guys lent to anyone -- regardless of income, and with no proof required of any claims on the application, and no due diligence performed by the lender. And why? In order to collect origination fees and then sell the mortgage to a third party.

"Didn't scrutinize carefully"? You mean to say they really thought these people could pay the mortgages, and it was just a lack of scrutiny which did them in? That's why, for instance, they offered ridiculously low teaser rates? No chance they were trying to deceive the borrower into thinking that he could carry the mortgage?

For a guy who's big on personal responsibility, sounds like you're making a lot of excuses for people who not only should have known better, but did in fact know better. In fact, it sounds like you're trying to defend fraud.


On the other hand most lenders faced serious fines and other reprisals from the FHC, HUD, the IRS and others if they did scrutinize to carefully when lending due to all the fairness policies.

There's absolutely nothing on the books which forces lenders to give mortgages to unqualified buyers, whatever their race. This is pure Republican talking points, blaming the crisis on the victims.

[number6]

What established "parameters" of "acceptable borrowers"? These guys lent to anyone -- regardless of income, and with no proof required of any claims on the application, and no due diligence performed by the lender. And why? In order to collect origination fees and then sell the mortgage to a third party.

"Didn't scrutinize carefully"? You mean to say they really thought these people could pay the mortgages, and it was just a lack of scrutiny which did them in? That's why, for instance, they offered ridiculously low teaser rates? No chance they were trying to deceive the borrower into thinking that he could carry the mortgage?

For a guy who's big on personal responsibility, sounds like you're making a lot of excuses for people who not only should have known better, but did in fact know better. In fact, it sounds like you're trying to defend fraud.



There's absolutely nothing on the books which forces lenders to give mortgages to unqualified buyers, whatever their race. This is pure Republican talking points, blaming the crisis on the victims.

jpp, give it a rest. The horse is dead. Enough with the flogging.

[jpp]

jpp, give it a rest. The horse is dead. Enough with the flogging.

Fine. Then put the Republican talking points to sleep. Since you're the prime offender here, and never miss an opportunity, I trust you'll set a good example.

[number6]

Fine. Then put the Republican talking points to sleep. Since you're a prime offender here, and never miss an opportunity, I trust you'll set a good example.

Your trust is well placed.:holloween:

[Adrian Van Rossum]

Ramblings of a disgruntled taxpayer: I'm simply scratching my head at the situation here in the UK at the moment. For years the banks have been loaning money to taxpayers and the taxpayers have been paying hefty interest on these loans. The banks demanded a free market, got greedy, mis-managed and now the taxpayers (via the British Government) are forced to loan half a trillion pounds to the banks and taxpayers get to pay interest a second time on the money that must be borrowed to fund the bailout. All so the banks can loan taxpayers money back to taxpayers, so taxpayers can relish the burden of paying interest a third time. Just seems like Robin Hood in reverese to me. Surely this can't go on forever ... when does the house of cards collapse?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This has gone on too long, but if folks here don't understand why McDonalds, by virtue of its size and power, has special social responsibilities, I won't convince you.

I don't think we're looking to be convinced. I just want to know why you say that. At what point does a company suddenly become obligated to a higher level of social standards and responsibilities? What is this based on? Net profits? Gross revenue? Number of locations? Ability to advertise the crap out of the shit food they sell? Or is it just popular uber-liberal opinion that labels large companies, primarily corporations, as the evil hell-spawn that fleeces the American people? I detest McDonalds and Starbucks because of their crap product, but obviously a great many people gladly spend their money there and enjoy it.


The liquor store analogy is an interesting one, to which I have no answer, other than that selling liquor is, by custom, socially acceptable. And it's a product whose sole purpose is to induce intoxication, which is why people buy it. I doubt McDonalds patrons buy coffee to get scalded.

No, but people buy coffee to enjoy a hot beverage, which in itself carries risks. Same as people buying alcohol to inebriate themselves. Both are socially acceptable by custom... Hot beverages have been enjoyed ever since mankind learned how to make fire. So why is alcohol and its effects accepted socially, but the drinking of a hot cup of coffee becomes a seriously idiotic idea with widespread social and legal ramifications?


For corporate privileges under the law, I'd refer doubters to, appropriately enough, a documentary called "The Corporation". One might also ask Jay why, if there aren't special privileges, he chose to incorporate, since a small corporation can be costly to open and sustain. But that's neither here nor there.

I'll have to go look at "The Corporation". I think I have read it before, but will look to make sure. Seeing how I have two companies that are formed as corporate entities, I have a fair bit of knowledge as to the advantages and disadvantages of such. It is common misconception that a corporation gives a lot of the free reign or special privileges. Most of the negative light on "corporations" these days occurs just because the companies who get themselves in big trouble and are big enough to merit a spot on the national news, are typically corporations. It's very hard to grow any other type of business to a large size... Corporations are the only sort of business that allows for both public stockholders and management that can be independent of ownership and elected by the stockholder base. But when it comes to liability, protection of ownership from legal ramifications, tax considerations, etc.. a corporation actually offers little to nothing more than a business would get if they were a Limited Liability Company or Partnership.

The last company I formed as a corporation was merely for image. It's no more expensive or different to run than an LLC (or at least not compared to the LLC considered for comparison) and I will probably convert it to an LLC next year or so when I get some more time to work with such things. The image part was to carry more weight with a domain name and trademark dispute... It worked. For some reason, the court wasn't so inclined to take XXXXXX, LLC seriously, even though it was the trademark holder. But as soon as I filed the state paperwork to make it XXXXXX, inc., that trademark suddenly had meaning. No different laws apply in that regard, it was a matter of perception in the eyes of the DA and attorneys involved. ...Whatever.


I know that all our problems, according to you guys, are caused by government. There's some degree of truth to that -- Alan Greenspan could have instantly stopped subprime lending, instead of going on TV to promote it, and GWB's Dept. of Treasury actively prevented states from regulating subprime lending -- but I doubt that's the kind of government you're referring to.

Actually, that's exactly the kind of government I'm referring too.


Finally, this whole "personal responsibility" line doesn't go down well, because its loudest proponents are the biggest whiners in the country.

Listen to 3 hours of Limbaugh? I'd rather get kicked in the nuts...

Who's fault is it? It's your fault. It's my fault. It's the fault of everyone in this country of legal age to have a say in how this country operates. It's the fault of all those generations before us, who allowed everything to get this bad. Why do we sit here and hotly debate the outcome of some old lady who spilled her coffee nearly 25 years ago? Probably because it's a round-about way of discussing current issues or how we perceive them on the surface. No one really discusses the true problems that affect our country. It doesn't seem socially and politically acceptable to just stand up and say that every generation since our founding fathers has faltered in some way, some more than others, they and we fucked up, the system is broken and enough is enough.

Our government is an assembly of the people of this nation. Composed of elected officials, appointed by the people. As a nation, we have the right to tell our government and elected officials they're all fired and we're starting over. Our country's constitution gives us this very right. IMO that is what needs to be done at this point, because I frankly don't see any major improvements happening within our currently broken system. The founders of our nation came together and created one of the most impressively conceived documents in the history of man, perhaps the greatest document ever. The foundation of our society is within the words of that document and so is the power to reinvent our governing body and how it works and oversees our daily lives.

The problem we have today is there are far too many laws, programs and policies that are haphazardly put in place to change or fix an issue with a previous law, program or policy. Too much extra baggage, too much pork in the beans.

I think the change we need in Washington is a major housecleaning. Start from the ground up and rebuild all federal laws, regulations, programs, budgets, etc.. from scratch. A new government for a new age. Hell, let's make an event out of it that we could repeat every 100 years or so.

But we won't get this... We're going to get 4 more years of the same old shit, regardless of who gets elected to office. Because, let's face it, at this point you're not voting for the man. You're voting for the party that backs him and their underlying policies. Neither of which serve Middle America in a best-interest sort of way. We get to cast a vote to shuffle tax burden from one group of rich elite to another while middle to upper middle-income americans, who account for most small business ownership, continue to get raked over the coals. And low-income families are continuously denied basic services they should be guaranteed in a society like ours, while welfare and other government aid funds are misappropriated and squandered.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

What established "parameters" of "acceptable borrowers"? These guys lent to anyone -- regardless of income, and with no proof required of any claims on the application, and no due diligence performed by the lender. And why? In order to collect origination fees and then sell the mortgage to a third party.

Yes, some did go that far. But look at the majority of lenders on a national whole. A great many of them did the due diligence, many borrowers did check out and many still faltered.


"Didn't scrutinize carefully"? You mean to say they really thought these people could pay the mortgages, and it was just a lack of scrutiny which did them in? That's why, for instance, they offered ridiculously low teaser rates? No chance they were trying to deceive the borrower into thinking that he could carry the mortgage?

I never said any of that. I never even got into the slimy business practices aspect of it. I was pointing out that over the past 2+ decades, changes were made at various times to federal policies, HUD policies, operations of Fannie and Freddie, etc..


For a guy who's big on personal responsibility, sounds like you're making a lot of excuses for people who not only should have known better, but did in fact know better. In fact, it sounds like you're trying to defend fraud.

WTF? I am making no excuses for anyone. You want to know what my personal thought is on the bailout? I wish the government let it go. I want AIG to crash into a flaming heap. If it takes our economy with it, then so be it. I'm not making any excuses, I'm pointing out isses on a federal level that helped set the ball in motion for all of this to come crashing down. 30 years ago, the sub-prime mortgages and predatory lending didn't happen to the extent we have seen over the past 10 years, too many restrictions on loans, no federal lending polices.


There's absolutely nothing on the books which forces lenders to give mortgages to unqualified buyers, whatever their race. This is pure Republican talking points, blaming the crisis on the victims.

ONCE AGAIN, WTF? No, there is nothing that "forces lenders to give mortgages to unqualified buyers". But the Truth in Lending Act swings both ways, FHC policy and Fed EOL policies dictate acceptable credit score ranges, income and debt burden benchmarks, etc.. These are all parameters by which lenders can scrutinize or judge applicants. When applicants apply for a loan and their credit score is (arbitrarily) something like a 620 and FHC allows for anything above a 600 to be considered for approval for that type of loan, this applicant fits within an established parameter. If the lender were to deny that applicant such a loan and claim their credit score were too low, they can face reprisals from a multitude of sources. In the case of a large lender or underwriter who does this on multiple occasions, they can begin to lose business from subscribing banks and mortgage companies that offer their lending products. They can face discriminatory fines from the FHC. I was saying that this was additional motivation for their carelessness and failure to adequately approve potential borrowers. Slimy business ethics and the sub-prime, interest-only loans aside, there's plenty of "legitimate" loans out there that factor into this financial crisis too.

Since you're going to start pasting labels, I can do that to. Dems like to focus solely on the dishonesty and the sub-prime, interest-only, fuck the borrower loans; issued by mortgage companies and other lenders who were not only dishonest in their practices, but could even be considered truly manipulative and evil. However, we shouldn't forget that there were many, many loans that were given in good faith because all the numbers checked out. Not sub-prime or interest-only loans, but legitimate loans for homes or business or a multitude of purposes that should not have been given. Would not have been given 25 years ago, all things being equal. And many of those loans are junk now too. We're talking hundreds of thousands of bad pieces of paper to be compensated for with the $700B bailout package, consisting of all sorts of loans of all shapes and sizes, only half of which can be accounted for with predatory lending practices. But if you want to insult me and label me a Republican, go right ahead. Because on that note, I'm done with this. And this is why I don't usually get involved in such discussions.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Ramblings of a disgruntled taxpayer: I'm simply scratching my head at the situation here in the UK at the moment. For years the banks have been loaning money to taxpayers and the taxpayers have been paying hefty interest on these loans. The banks demanded a free market, got greedy, mis-managed and now the taxpayers (via the British Government) are forced to loan half a trillion pounds to the banks and taxpayers get to pay interest a second time on the money that must be borrowed to fund the bailout. All so the banks can loan taxpayers money back to taxpayers, so taxpayers can relish the burden of paying interest a third time. Just seems like Robin Hood in reverese to me. Surely this can't go on forever ... when does the house of cards collapse?

I'm not so sure that other nations are learning from our mistakes, or at least not as quickly as they should. The writing is on the wall right now with the activity in global exchanges. There is a housing bubble in Europe, similar to what we experienced in the USA -- I'm looking at you, Spain.

The global economy we all share in today is dependent on all of us. If the US economy falters, we won't go down alone, the Euro stands to lose a lot. And it works the other way too...

I think the global economy is in for a rough ride over the next year.

[Joel Kaye]

I think the change we need in Washington is a major housecleaning. Start from the ground up and rebuild all federal laws, regulations, programs, budgets, etc.. from scratch. A new government for a new age. Hell, let's make an event out of it that we could repeat every 100 years or so.

I agree with you that's what it's going to take. I think it was Jefferson who thought the Constitution should be thrown out and rewritten every 50ish years.

But what if elections were being stolen? That's my biggest fear. I think there's evidence they have been. It might take 100 million people in the streets to change anything.

Definitely check out the documentary "The Corporation". I'm a CEO capitalist pig myself (yes, of an actual "Inc.") - it's a very educational doc. I'd like to get my hands on the extended version but haven't yet. The movie is not a liberal diatribe.

[number6]

Fine. Then put the Republican talking points to sleep. Since you're the prime offender here, and never miss an opportunity, I trust you'll set a good example.

Sorry jpp... I release you from your agreement to stop flogging the horse. Continue as you will.

[Joel Kaye]

But which of them do? They`re politicians...

Kucinich, Ron Paul, Kaptur, Burgess.

It is a mistake to simply say all politicians are bad so I'll just bury my head in the sand. The Bush administration is nothing like we've ever seen before. A petty thief is not the same a mass murderer. Are they both crooks? Yes. But to lump them together as being the same is dumb. No offense, but it's such a typical smear tactic and it keeps people from thinking.

What's up next?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya9WnONk9Fw&feature=related

[Priyesh P.]

JPP, I don`t think our points are that far from each other. Actually I share quite some of yours, but I don`t belong to the "black or white" painters (or like the "you`re either with us or against us" POTUS).

[Priyesh P.]

Kucinich, Ron Paul, Kaptur, Burgess.

It is a mistake to simply say all politicians are bad so I'll just bury my head in the sand. The Bush administration is nothing like we've ever seen before. A petty thief is not the same a mass murderer. Are they both crooks? Yes. But to lump them together as being the same is dumb. No offense, but it's such a typical smear tactic and it keeps people from thinking.

What's up next?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya9WnONk9Fw&feature=related

Your point is right, but it`s so terribly frustrating to see that the exact same people who attack those in comand change their minds in the matter of seconds as soon as they`ve got the power. I`ve seen it so many times here in Germany. Leftist greens that turned into rightwinged conservatives or neoliberals or socialists that turned into conservatives. I could go on and on...

[jpp]

Sorry jpp... I release you from your agreement to stop flogging the horse. Continue as you will.

But I don't release you from your side of the contract. So one hopes we'll hear no more from you on economic or geopolitical matters(?)

For the rest, there's nothing further to say. The facts are out there, any interested party can determine who's responsible for this unholy mess and exactly how it occurred, and who profited from it. Follow the money....

[Andrew Walker]

The only way things are going to change is by another bloody revolutionary war for some kind. These people in power will be voted out...only to be replaced by a carbon copy asshole. The greedy and corrupt will never stop as it is shown to be the way to act...monkey see monkey do. So people need to be shown that those people don't get a golden parachute of some kind and get to live like kings when they retire. Instead we need to bring back the guillotine or something scarier than that because it seems to be the only thing people that have no sense of what's right or wrong can understand. You fuck-up, we fuck you up.

[number6]

But I don't release you from your side of the contract. So one hopes we'll hear no more from you on economic or geopolitical matters(?)

For the rest, there's nothing further to say. The facts are out there, any interested party can determine who's responsible for this unholy mess and exactly how it occurred, and who profited from it. Follow the money....

No, I wasn't going to rejoin the discussion here. Just wanted you to have the option to defend yourself, even though your positions are indefensible:usd:

[Joel Kaye]

I`ve seen it so many times here in Germany. Leftist greens that turned into rightwinged conservatives or neoliberals or socialists that turned into conservatives. I could go on and on...

Which is why people need to be smart enough to evaluate ideas on their own and leave personalities and political parties out of it. But that's asking for people to be informed and rational. Right now they are scared and irrational... so like sheep, they'll follow the leader of their side right off a cliff.

America needs additional political parties in the system. I'm convinced both Dems and Republicans would lose most of their support.

[Steven M. Bailey]

As a business owner and a member of the I'm losing my house club. I have to admit that the problem is both my fault and the fault of the mortgage lenders. Like Jeff stated It is better to do all of your business that you can in cash. I should have backed out when the middle man investors made that impossible.

I borrowed against the income that I had coming in at the time. That was three years ago. A lot can happen in three years. The housing market in my area is completely destroyed. I had as traditional a loan as you can get, and still I only made it for three years.

Any one who believes in job security, in any field, for any reason, is fooling themselves. The only sure thing is that you can't be sure of anything. Hedge your bets, pay in cash if you can.

In the end, after doing everything in your power, if you still fail, it is your fault. If for no other reason than not being powerful enough. Life is not fair nor will it ever be. oh well.

One of the policy's that I tried to implement on my construction crew was this; I don't care who screwed up let's just fix the damn thing. Its faster to fix most problems than to sit around arguing about who's f*&! up it is.

About the coffee thing, I can't believe anyone would try to hold someone else responsible for spilling something in their own lap. Something that is traditionally served hot.:gun: I could see a suit if it melted through the cup and burned her. My 2 year old knows if its too hot you blow on it. Don't poor it on your privates.

[Priyesh P.]

Any one who believes in job security, in any field, for any reason, is fooling themselves. The only sure thing is that you can't be sure of anything. Hedge your bets, pay in cash if you can.

well spoken, steve. and this is not a U.S. specific situation...

[Alex Coelho]

Which is why people need to be smart enough to evaluate ideas on their own and leave personalities and political parties out of it. But that's asking for people to be informed and rational. Right now they are scared and irrational... so like sheep, they'll follow the leader of their side right off a cliff.

America needs additional political parties in the system. I'm convinced both Dems and Republicans would lose most of their support.

We have 3rd parties. Ralph Nader is running as an independent and has my support. We only have to look back in 1999 when the Gramm-Leach-Biley act was enacted that stripped away the protections under Glass Stegall act of 1933. It passed a Republican congress and signed by a Democratic President. The 2 party system has become 1 corporate party.

[Curran Giddens]

We have 3rd parties. Ralph Nader is running as an independent and has my support.

I hope you aren't wasting your vote in one of the swing states.

[ericyoung]

I agree with you that's what it's going to take. I think it was Jefferson who thought the Constitution should be thrown out and rewritten every 50ish years.

But what if elections were being stolen? That's my biggest fear. I think there's evidence they have been. It might take 100 million people in the streets to change anything.

Definitely check out the documentary "The Corporation". I'm a CEO capitalist pig myself (yes, of an actual "Inc.") - it's a very educational doc. I'd like to get my hands on the extended version but haven't yet. The movie is not a liberal diatribe.

Are you sure he thought it should be thrown out and rewritten as opposed to revisited to make sure subsequent legislation hadn't lost or diluted the original intents? (I'm guessing, as I'm not from the US!)

"The Corporation" is actually very balanced. It reminds us that a Corporation originated as an instrument to enable large expensive projects to be funded and organised, and is actually very useful when in the service of improvement to a community. Originally, once the project was completed, the corporation would be dissolved.

IMHO, where it all went wrong was when, beyond a certain size, corporations were allowed to become ongoing autonomous entities with the sole purpose of making profits for themselves. The tiny percentage of their income that they allocate to "greenwashing", so-called social responsibility, and community projects is subservient to that purpose. Acruing political influence likewise. And being sued for environmental, and other crimes is a business expense as long as the cost of settling is less than the cost of not committing those crimes.

Some might say they are accountable to their shareholders - yes, but the majority shareholders are usually people or entities that have got financially richer under business as usual, and will veto any real attempts to take back control of corporations to redirect their power for the greater good.

Accountable to the government? Well only to an extent. Multinationals can dodge full accountability by various means. Threatening to take their business abroad if regulated, outsourcing their pollution, buying government insiders, etc.

So now large multinational corporations truly are monsters, with no moral conscience, only slightly affected by external forces and not really even under the control of any of it's employees. Any one of it's employees, even the CEO, is subservient to the great idol of increasing profit above all else. You and I, the little fish, haven't got a chance. :help:

In some ways, the global financial crisis hitting unheard of lows, with the immense misery and suffering that will entail, may be the only way that corporate grip on society is weakened sufficiently for an healthier alternative to emerge. But of course, no sane person would wish for such pain!

[Tom Lowe]

I don't see how voting for a third-party candidate could be seen as a waste. This corrupt, failed two-party system is at least partially responsible for our current mess. When it comes to policies, the two parties are basically in cahoots. The only debate is, "Should we drive the national debt up $500 billion dollars this year, or $550 billion? She we occupy Musilm Nation #1, or Muslim Nation #4? Should we station our military in 120 countries overseas, or 125? Should we use the US Constitution to light our cigars with, or to wipe our asses?"

[Alex Coelho]

I hope you aren't wasting your vote in one of the swing states.

Every 4 years we vote for the same 2 parties and nothing changes. I will not continue this tradition.

[Andrew Walker]

I don't see how voting for a third-party candidate could be seen as a waste. This corrupt, failed two-party system is at least partially responsible for our current mess. When it comes to policies, the two parties are basically in cahoots. The only debate is, "Should we drive the national debt up $500 billion dollars this year, or $550 billion? She we occupy Musilm Nation #1, or Muslim Nation #4? Should we station our military in 120 countries overseas, or 125? Should we use the US Constitution to light our cigars with, or to wipe our asses?"

Some good points there Tom. The last part is dead on. These people could care less about our rights. They are just looking at ways to protect themselves and line their own pockets. Because if they want to do something them of course everyone else wants to follow their lead...what a joke.

[Priyesh P.]

Just read an article about an auction in the middle east for mobile phone numbers. A woman paid 500 K for hers. And I thought 250 K for a kitchen or the same amount for loudspeakers were insane amounts.
What must have gone wrong in the minds of those rich scumbags to spend money they have pressed out of normal people for such brainsick things?

[Curran Giddens]

Every 4 years we vote for the same 2 parties and nothing changes. I will not continue this tradition.

I hear you. I voted for Nader in 2000, but this country just isn't ready to give him a chance. If he doesn't have a chance, then voting for him is a waste. I wish this wasn't the case. We need a critical mass of people willing to vote outside of the two-party system. Until then, I feel it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils.

The fact is, if the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore (at least in the swing states), Bush would never have won.

[Leo Ticheli]

Every 4 years we vote for the same 2 parties and nothing changes. I will not continue this tradition.

That is one of the most egregiously mistaken comments I've read.

There are profound differences, notably in the economy, control of Federal Agencies, and the courts.

Under President Clinton, we enjoyed relative peace, economic prosperity with budget surpluses, respect of the world, and a rational court.

After two terms of President George W. Bush and Republican hegemony in Congress, we find ourselves mired in two wars, facing the collapse of our economy, we are vilified in the eyes of the world, and our court is tilted to the right.

No difference?

What metric are you using?

Best regards,

Leo

[Priyesh P.]

Under President Clinton, we enjoyed relative peace, economic prosperity with budget surpluses, respect of the world, and a rational court.


I can only agree. The U.S. had a great reputation here (Germany) and elsewhere with Clinton in command...how things have changed...

[number6]

That is one of the most egregiously mistaken comments I've read.

There are profound differences, notably in the economy, control of Federal Agencies, and the courts.

Under President Clinton, we enjoyed relative peace, economic prosperity with budget surpluses, respect of the world, and a rational court.

After two terms of President George W. Bush and Republican hegemony in Congress, we find ourselves mired in two wars, facing the collapse of our economy, we are vilified in the eyes of the world, and our court is tilted to the right.

No difference?

What metric are you using?

Best regards,

Leo

Hey Leo! Decided to join in on the side of noise in the S/N ratio? And to think... you once were anti-noise.:biggrin:

[Alex Coelho]

That is one of the most egregiously mistaken comments I've read.

There are profound differences, notably in the economy, control of Federal Agencies, and the courts.

Under President Clinton, we enjoyed relative peace, economic prosperity with budget surpluses, respect of the world, and a rational court.

After two terms of President George W. Bush and Republican hegemony in Congress, we find ourselves mired in two wars, facing the collapse of our economy, we are vilified in the eyes of the world, and our court is tilted to the right.

No difference?

What metric are you using?

Best regards,

Leo


My metric system Sir is the corporatization of the Democratic party for which Bill Clinton started.

The WTO
NAFTA
Financial Services Modernization Act 1999
Telecommunication Act 1996

These are only a few items during the Clinton era that destroyed local economies, curbed public discourse, undermines are democracy and has put this country on the brink of being bankrupt. All received the stamp of approval from a Democratic President and Republican Congress.

Now you have a Republican President and Democratic Congress bailing out their friends in Wall Street. Wall Street has given 21 million to Obama and 19 million to McCain this election cycle. If they were really concerned about those mortgage securities, they would put a freeze on foreclosures and force banks to renegoiate loans or give bankruptcy judges authority to restructure loans but they dont, why... because the two-party system has failed to work for the people they represent. You allow these bandits to take advantage of you by continuing to vote for them and I will not be sheep.

[jpp]

Both Republicans and Democrats may be wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporate America, but after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, who in his right mind could say that it doesn't matter who gets elected?

One glaring example, to return to the actual subject of this thread: even when the current crisis hit the boiling point, it took nearly a month before Hank Paulson and George Bush recognized that a "free market" solution wouldn't work. Only in the last 2 days, of a crisis which has been going over for over a year, have they finally accepted that government, i.e., the taxpayer, is going to have to take an equity stake in these failing institutions if it wants to save them. So opposed to this power were Paulson/Bush a week ago, that they actually fought against having it put into $700 billion bailout bill. Now, it's apparently the spearhead of the plan.

Why the resistance to the one course of action which has a hope of succeeding, and which has succeeded in the past? Because this plutocratic Republican crowd so hates the idea that the taxpayer, rather than big investors, would eventually benefit, that they refused to even consider it. Besides, this capital infusion is called "nationalization", which is something only Commies do. Excepting, of course, the U.S. in the 1930s, and again in the late 80s (the S&L crisis), and again in the mid-1990s and Sweden a few years ago, and Britain, two days ago. This time, it took a 40% drop in the Dow, and a freeze in the commercial paper market, to turn them into socialists.

Sure, Robert Rubin under Clinton came from the same Wall Street culture as Paulson and served the same masters, he was hardly the savior of Joe Sixpack. But Rubin/Clinton were not ideologues. They weren't so infatuated with their crackpot theories that they didn't see reality.

Elect McCain/Palin, and we'll see lots more very bad ideas held far too long.... Enough to bury all of us alive.

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

I sincerely hope you guys in the US elect Obama, even though it would be no good for our country, in the long term I think it will. I miss the Clinton times were the news were about his oval mishap, and his saxophone playing in Cartagena with a local hat and shirt; and not about the Wall street fall while the chief in command is hunting ducks in his ranch in texas. :)

[Andrew Walker]

Both Republicans and Democrats may be wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporate America, but after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, who in his right mind could say that it doesn't matter who gets elected?

One glaring example, to return to the actual subject of this thread: even when the current crisis hit the boiling point, it took nearly a month before Hank Paulson and George Bush recognized that a "free market" solution wouldn't work. Only in the last 2 days, of a crisis which has been going over for over a year, have they finally accepted that government, i.e., the taxpayer, is going to have to take an equity stake in these failing institutions if it wants to save them. So opposed to this power were Paulson/Bush a week ago, that they actually fought against having it put into $700 billion bailout bill. Now, it's apparently the spearhead of the plan.

Why the resistance to the one course of action which has a hope of succeeding, and which has succeeded in the past? Because this plutocratic Republican crowd so hates the idea that the taxpayer, rather than big investors, would eventually benefit, that they refused to even consider it. Besides, this capital infusion is called "nationalization", which is something only Commies do. Excepting, of course, the U.S. in the 1930s, and again in the late 80s (the S&L crisis), and again in the mid-1990s and Sweden a few years ago, and Britain, two days ago. This time, it took a 40% drop in the Dow, and a freeze in the commercial paper market, to turn them into socialists.

Sure, Robert Rubin under Clinton came from the same Wall Street culture as Paulson and served the same masters, he was hardly the savior of Joe Sixpack. But Rubin/Clinton were not ideologues. They weren't so infatuated with their crackpot theories that they didn't see reality.

Elect McCain/Palin, and we'll see lots more very bad ideas held far too long.... Enough to bury all of us alive.

To try and blame everything leading up to this bailout on the Bush Admin is very small minded. I'll spell it out for you FEDERAL RESERVE, this is who has created this entire mess. To say that it was anyone else is just a finger pointing competition.

And as for McCain/Palin burying us alive, your joking right. It doesn't matter who gets in there, we are just going to be screwed in different ways faster or slower. Personally I would rather see someone in office that isn't going to try and take my 2nd Amendment right away. The 2nd Amendment was put in place so not only could we defend ourselves from criminals but from the government. During the Clinton Admin they created the assault weapons ban, which did nothing for 10 years. Other than make a lot of law abiding people have to suffer through it. Why created a ban on weapons that are involved in less that 6% of all gun related crimes, how much sense does that make. Biden was the idiot that helped write that bill in the first place. I just love how retarded these gun haters are, they can be protected by people armed with M-16s but responsible gun owners shouldn't be allowed to have them.

[jpp]

Personally I would rather see someone in office that isn't going to try and take my 2nd Amendment right away.

I think I get it now. The financial crisis, global warming, matters of habeas corpus, war and peace, foreign policy, torture, government and institutional criminality, social and economic policies, etc. are all matters of small concern, compared to your presumed right to own an M16, which evil Bill Clinton tried to take away from you.

However, you're not troubled by losing other rights (such as freedom from being imprisoned and tortured without charges, on the president's say-so), so it's fine to vote Republican.

Thank you for making that perfectly clear.

[R. Schorman]

I think I get it now. The financial crisis, global warming, matters of habeas corpus, war and peace, foreign policy, torture, government and institutional criminality, social and economic policies, etc. are all matters of small concern, compared to your presumed right to own an M16, which evil Bill Clinton tried to take away from you.

However, you're not troubled by losing other rights (such as freedom from being imprisoned and tortured without charges, on the president's say-so), so it's fine to vote Republican.

Thank you for making that perfectly clear.



Amen!

[Andrew Walker]

I think I get it now. The financial crisis, global warming, matters of habeas corpus, war and peace, foreign policy, torture, government and institutional criminality, social and economic policies, etc. are all matters of small concern, compared to your presumed right to own an M16, which evil Bill Clinton tried to take away from you.

However, you're not troubled by losing other rights (such as freedom from being imprisoned and tortured without charges, on the president's say-so), so it's fine to vote Republican.

Thank you for making that perfectly clear.

Yep the ability to defend myself is very important to me. The preservation of my life and that of my family's life is second to none. The whole thing with the POTUS being able to imprison people with out charges is something that I don't like either. I also see it as something very wrong and a preview of things to come. So with that in mind I would rather be able to put up a fight than to go quietly.

Its not just the Republicans that want this power to do whatever they want. Both sides want that power and if they say they don't they are lying. The last remaining ideas of freedom will be stripped away through the sale of fear.

[jpp]

Yep the ability to defend myself is very important to me. The preservation of my life and that of my family's life is second to none. The whole thing with the POTUS being able to imprison people with out charges is something that I don't like either. I also see it as something very wrong and a preview of things to come. So with that in mind I would rather be able to put up a fight than to go quietly.

Its not just the Republicans that want this power to do whatever they want. Both sides want that power and if they say they don't they are lying. The last remaining ideas of freedom will be stripped away through the sale of fear.

I marvel that you think you can defend yourself with an M16, in Burbank, California. Short of owning a nuclear deterrent, the state will crush you, your family and anyone else it wants, in short order.

The only protections any of us have in the end are the protections of law, and the current administration has effectively voided the Constitution, which means none of us has any protections. And yet you seem to want that reign to continue, in order to own a gun which will never do you any good.

You have a choice: either vote for the candidate who will almost certainly perpetuate those abuses, and who promises to nominate judges who subscribe to the "unitary" theory of presidential power, which includes the power to arbitrarily imprison and torture, or vote Democratic, because Democrats are at least somewhat susceptible to pressure from non-corporate power centers, and don't embrace dangerous dictatorial theories of presidential power.

It is, admittedly, a miserable choice. Obama, far from being leftist or even a liberal, is a center-right candidate, full of the usual cant and triumphalist nonsense. And his policies will be formed by the same center-right hacks who ran the Clinton administration. But that's still far, far better than the last 8 years.

[number6]

Yep the ability to defend myself is very important to me. The preservation of my life and that of my family's life is second to none. The whole thing with the POTUS being able to imprison people with out charges is something that I don't like either. I also see it as something very wrong and a preview of things to come. So with that in mind I would rather be able to put up a fight than to go quietly.

Its not just the Republicans that want this power to do whatever they want. Both sides want that power and if they say they don't they are lying. The last remaining ideas of freedom will be stripped away through the sale of fear.

Drew 599, Can't comment here

(I'm under a self-imposed gag rule because of a deal I made with the :devil: err... I meant to say jpp. I tried to play game theory for the best possible outcome by exteneding him unilateral release from his agreement to not post imflammatory comments. He did not reciprocate so I have to refrain from commenting. Might be a lesson in there that someone should not engage in game theory with a member of the Cult of Obama. They will zero sum you!)

But I think I am within my rights to say that you make a lohhhhhhhta sense!

[Andrew Walker]

I marvel that you think you can defend yourself with an M16, in Burbank, California. Short of owning a nuclear deterrent, the state will crush you, your family and anyone else it wants, in short order.

The only protections any of us have in the end are the protections of law, and the current administration has effectively voided the Constitution, which means none of us has any protections. And yet you seem to want that reign to continue, in order to own a gun which will never do you any good.

You have a choice: either vote for the candidate who will almost certainly perpetuate those abuses, and who promises to nominate judges who subscribe to the "unitary" theory of presidential power, which includes the power to arbitrarily imprison and torture, or vote Democratic, because Democrats are at least somewhat susceptible to pressure from non-corporate power centers, and don't embrace dangerous dictatorial theories of presidential power.

It is, admittedly, a miserable choice. Obama, far from being leftist or even a liberal, is a center-right candidate, full of the usual cant and triumphalist nonsense. And his policies will be formed by the same center-right hacks who ran the Clinton administration. But that's still far, far better than the last 8 years.

Really, you marvel at me being able to defend myself with a weapon in Burbank. During the LA riots the Korean shop owners were defending their businesses with handguns and AK47s and guess what, their businesses didn't get burned down or looted. I do see the government as a huge threat to the freedoms that we all like. But the other thing to think about is when things fail and break down you have to watch out for the opportunist that come rolling through the neighborhood.

I know that the government isn't a bunch of unorganized looters, they are just really well organized looters that have almost unlimited resources. But of course this only works well if I'm alone and vastly out numbered. But if people banned together it would be a much different story.

I'll try not to post anything else here because there is no forward movement in this conversation. But its still entertaining at least.

[PatrickW]

Really, you marvel at me being able to defend myself with a weapon in Burbank. During the LA riots the Korean shop owners were defending their businesses with handguns and AK47s and guess what, their businesses didn't get burned down or looted. I do see the government as a huge threat to the freedoms that we all like. But the other thing to think about is when things fail and break down you have to watch out for the opportunist that come rolling through the neighborhood.

I know that the government isn't a bunch of unorganized looters, they are just really well organized looters that have almost unlimited resources. But of course this only works well if I'm alone and vastly out numbered. But if people banned together it would be a much different story.

I'll try not to post anything else here because there is no forward movement in this conversation. But its still entertaining at least.
I think the notion of defending oneself, or family, with a M-16 against the government was questioned. They have like helicopters and tanks and snipers and stuff.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

They have like helicopters and tanks and snipers and stuff.

So do I. :gun:

[Joseph Ward]

There will never be a perfect system. I think its better to try to do something than do nothing but if someone wants to complain they should try to at least come up with some ideas of making things better.

[Andrew Walker]

So do I. :gun:

Jeff, if I'm ever out your way or vise versa I'm buying you a beer...or we could use my expensive paper hole punchers.:biggrin:

[Alex Coelho]

Not sure how this became a gun control discussion but I dont believe anyone said guns should be banned. I am not a gun owner but respect your right to have one. Does that mean any and all types of guns....I say no because there needs to be some restriction to protect society. You only have to look at the Virginia Tech tragedy to see that much more regulation needs to be enacted. It seems to me that the gun advocates dont want any kind rules or standards and that is unacceptable. Also, you can be for the 2nd amendment and for the assault weapons ban. By the standards you use, anyone could own any type of weapon no matter how lethal.

[number6]

KILGROE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

Just joking.... or am I?:calm:

[Jeff Kilgroe]

You only have to look at the Virginia Tech tragedy to see that much more regulation needs to be enacted. It seems to me that the gun advocates dont want any kind rules or standards and that is unacceptable.

Not sure how we got on gun control... Probably because this thread from hell is all over the place. But, since we're there, I think extreme examples such as the Virginia Tech incident, Columbine High School (I have family members that were very close to that one), post office shootings, etc.. are just not proper benchmarks. The media sensationalizes such events in this country and many other places and we often don't see that these tragedies are quite rare compared to typical violence perpetrated with a firearm -- armed robbery, gang violence, domestic violence, individual homicides, etc.. Even in "gun free" societies, there are fanatical outbursts like Virginia Tech... People driving vehicles loaded with toxins or explosives into building lobbies, poisonous gas on subway systems, and a multitude of other means by which someone who is mentally unstable or driven by extreme and irrational motives to cause harm on a mass scale. And yes, even in places where guns are completely outlawed and only enter through black-market channels, we still see such destructive people occasionally kill and wound a dozen people with guns. Furthermore, fanatical and psychotic outbursts are not deterred by laws or punishments to be imposed after the fact, but rather with complete disregard for potential outcome, most often the perpetrator already resigning themselves to death before even arriving at their intended target.

But for more common occurrences of gun-related crimes, better controls are indeed needed. Many gun owners, myself included, are often not too keen on more laws and regulations on obtaining firearms. Two reasons for this:

1> The amount of gun control laws and regulations already on the books in most states is simply staggering. And I have yet to hear a convincing argument for how piling more legislation on top will better the situation. The real problem is not the current laws, or any lack of such, but a problem of enforcement. We need fewer plea-bargains and tougher courts (and in many cases jurors), who are willing to impose maximum sentences as a deterrent. On the note of tougher laws or new legislation, I would definitely be interested in amended legislation that mandates maximum sentences and/or greatly restricts the ability to plea-bargain in the case of crimes involving firearms or other deadly weapons.

2> The majority of crimes perpetrated with firearms in this country (to the tune of around 80%), are done so with weapons that have been stolen, improperly or fraudulently registered or illegally obtained. Passing more laws governing the acquisition of firearms is not going to have any effect in this regard. Until our society finds a way to stop the continuous flow of illegal weapons, drugs and money that continuously crosses our borders and circulates within, this problem is not going to go away. It seems that the one real exception to this is the majority of domestic violence incidents involving firearms are crimes of opportunity such as escalated arguments that become physical or overwhelmingly emotional and a gun present in the house becomes a convenient and irrational solution. For that, I have no solution and for guns in that situation that are legally obtained and owned, perhaps we have to simply accept such incidents as an associated risk or a means of suffrage for having that 2nd amendment.

The best we can hope for is tougher enforcement and maximized sentences. Some new legislation is warranted to tighten up some loopholes... More in some states vs. others, I would presume. We need better security and property management policies in place for our own police forces. Many of the above mentioned stolen firearms are actually stolen right from police vehicles or as inside-jobs when confiscated, illegal firearms are to be destroyed, yet entire caches of them end up back on our streets.


KILGROE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

Just joking.... or am I?:calm:

HELL, NO! I wouldn't touch that job with a 20ft pole and double-thick rubber gloves.

And I really need to bow out of this discussion. As a moderator, I probably should not be involved and try to remain as impartial as possible in the eyes of the community. OOOps, too late for that now.

[Priyesh P.]

The 2nd Amendment was put in place so not only could we defend ourselves from criminals but from the government.

HAHAHAHAHAHA...!!! Yeah, go on, and defend yourself from the government, together with millions of armed dipshits and hillbillies who would rather blast their own heads off than hit the chinese wall in front of them, that`s gonna make a hell of a party. I bet the remainings of all of you can easily be put into a Coke can after your "defense" against the government (I mean, governments are meant to be evil by definition, right? that is what governments are meant to be - what a nice country you`re living in...). That was a good laugh. Must be April 1st today:clown2: Where are my nukes ?

[Steven M. Bailey]

HAHAHAHAHAHA...!!! Yeah, go on, and defend yourself from the government, together with millions of armed dipshits and hillbillies who would rather blast their own heads off than hit the chinese wall in front of them, that`s gonna make a hell of a party. I bet the remainings of all of you can easily be put into a Coke can after your "defense" against the government (I mean, governments are meant to be evil by definition, right? that is what governments are meant to be - what a nice country you`re living in...). That was a good laugh. Must be April 1st today:clown2: Where are my nukes ?

Some of us were born armed hillbilly dipshits, and unlike alot of movies, your run of the the mill, gun toting hillbilly dipshit and their families are among the most giving, hospitable and gracious people in the world. We just get a little pissed off when the city dipshits shoot up each other, then pass legislation that effects us.

Thats the problem with majority rule. If you live outside the centers of population density, your lifestyle is slowly destroyed by the masses, and they don't even see your point of view from their smog infested rat mazes. you and your way of life might as well not exist.

Long live the gun toting, freedom loving, "I can do it myself, screw the damn government", hillbilly(this includes their cousins the rednecks, the hicks and the mountain folk . :gun:

Sure we're insignificant against our massive government machine of evil, but thats nothing new. If Jeff brings the helicopters, I got the snipers. Any body wants to ride along thats ok, but I call shotgun :clown2:

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Ancient Roman plebeii [ordinary citizens without noble titles] protested against the old republican state and won their right to elect tribunus populi, which were kind of like a second government, which could veto every decision made by their Senate [legislative body] and consuls [executive power].

It was a more democratic country later on and it worked beautifully - Romans conquered much of what was worth conquering in the world. :)

But it was this very conquest that killed them in the end...

[Steven M. Bailey]

Ive got the solution. The hillbilly's don't need to fight the government they just need to make sure that as the troops are mounting against them that Macdonald's is awarded the contract for supplying the troops with coffee. Once they start spilling it on themselves, the lawsuits will be so thick that they will declare the effort to costly and forget all about us.:help: :gun:

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I think its better to try to do something than do nothing.


Not if you're a Taoist Jedi master. :ninja: