What do you think about Obamas Plan to stop foreclosures?

Winex



I know. Fiscal Conservatives have nothing to do with this situation.

You can backtrack this to Bill Clinton and a Democrat in all ways.



Personally its all the fault of having a Central Bank and with it

ever increasing debt and interest. Everything else is just a symptom of the disease

that began almost a Century ago when Woodrow Wilson signed the law.

And dont forget Alan Greenspan. We can thank Ronald Reagan and Voodoo Economics

for some of his antics. So where is that good old supply side economics now ?



Nothing is going to fix the foreclosure mess. Especially if nobody is buying

homes and the asset class known as Real Estate continues its spiral down.



Lets Blame Obama. He has had 5 weeks to fix this. Whats his problem ?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235099136][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235098936]And at the end of the day, it's all whistling past the graveyard isn't it?



The hows and whys aren't important. What is important is it's a sad day to be an American.</blockquote>


You are dead wrong.



If we ignore the "hows and whys", then there is no hope of fixing the problem.</blockquote>


You really want to recognize it's all you and your NeoCon ?Deficits don?t matter? brethren?s fault? Okay, I can play that one.



<blockquote>O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired. </blockquote>


<a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm">http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm</a>



I read Paul O'Neil's book when it came out. The NeoCons called him a traitor at the time. He looks like a patriot now.



Or that Weekly Standard on deficits:



<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp">http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp</a>



<blockquote>Do Deficits Matter?

It depends on where you sit--and on which type of deficit you're talking about.

by Irwin M. Stelzer

02/15/2005 12:00:00 AM



WHEN DICK CHENEY SAID, "Deficits don't matter," economists took that as proof of the economic illiteracy of the Bush administration. But it turns out there is a case to be made that Cheney was onto something.



On the deepest level, the vice president was echoing, in slightly exaggerated form, an idea put forward a few years ago by Irving Kristol, the Godfather of the neoconservatives who have had such a wide-ranging effect on Bush administration policy. Kristol wrote then, and still believes, that "We should figure out what we want before we calculate what we can afford, not the reverse."



On the political level, treating deficits as a non-issue also proved a successful strategy. After all, despite the torrent of red ink that splashed across the national budgets during his first term, George W. Bush was reelected by a substantial margin. Among John Kerry's other failures was his attempt to saddle the president with the label "profligate."



<em><strong>Which brings us to the economic level. The deficits that Bush ran up in the years in which the country was teetering on the verge of a serious recession had the beneficial effect of righting the economy. In that sense, deficits not only didn't matter, but were a force for economic good. </strong></em>

</blockquote>


Even Newsweek got in on the act.



<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_52/b3914021_mz007.htm">http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_52/b3914021_mz007.htm</a>



<blockquote>Last month, I posed a rhetorical question: Whatever happened to fiscally prudent Republicans? The question deserves a proper answer. In the early 1990s the bipartisan, business-led Concord Coalition made the accumulated Reagan-Bush deficits a major public issue. George H.W. Bush had to break a pledge and raise taxes because of mounting concerns in financial markets. H. Ross Perot put the deficit center stage in the 1992 election, helping to defeat Bush I and elect Bill Clinton. He made fiscal responsibility his signature issue.



A decade later, Republican deficit hawks have all but vanished. "It's pretty astonishing," I was told by Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition. "We used to get a lot of Democrats saying: 'You're just a Republican front group.' Now it's almost the reverse. The change in the Republican Party has been astounding." Are we on the record? I asked. "Absolutely," he replied. <em><strong>"The Republicans are now the ones making excuses for big deficits."</strong></em>

</blockquote>


What you GOP apologists REALLY mean is "Deficits don't matter as long as the GOP is running them." Winex ability to demagogue about deficits and taxes is truly remarkable.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235119311]bltserv, let's (for the sake of argument) say that Bush was responsible for EVERY part of the economic problem we face. That does not abrogate Obama's responsibility for the actions taken and bills signed and plans announced since he took office.</blockquote>


8 years > what, a month?



I don't blame Bush. The GOP lost their way when they forced Newt off the reservation.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235120993][quote author="Oscar" date=1235119311]bltserv, let's (for the sake of argument) say that Bush was responsible for EVERY part of the economic problem we face. That does not abrogate Obama's responsibility for the actions taken and bills signed and plans announced since he took office.</blockquote>


8 years > what, a month?



I don't blame Bush. The GOP lost their way when they forced Newt off the reservation.</blockquote>
But what a month! "Gimme that unused $350B from TARP, just in case!" "We need $770B in Government Stimulus, Nancy... get a move on girl!" "Hey, I want to spend $275B on a home owner rescue plan that subsidizes greed and stupidity, aight?" He's burning cash at a rate of $1.2 TRILLION per month. If he keeps this up, he'll DOUBLE the national debt in his first year; it took GWB two full terms to accomplish that and he had a war to help do it.



But you know what the scary part is? Congress hasn't even gotten started on the budget yet.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1235119774]Winex



I know. Fiscal Conservatives have nothing to do with this situation.

You can backtrack this to Bill Clinton and a Democrat in all ways.



Personally its all the fault of having a Central Bank and with it

ever increasing debt and interest. Everything else is just a symptom of the disease

that began almost a Century ago when Woodrow Wilson signed the law.

And dont forget Alan Greenspan. We can thank Ronald Reagan and Voodoo Economics

for some of his antics. So where is that good old supply side economics now ?



Nothing is going to fix the foreclosure mess. Especially if nobody is buying

homes and the asset class known as Real Estate continues its spiral down.



Lets Blame Obama. He has had 5 weeks to fix this. Whats his problem ?</blockquote>


<img src="http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1999/1101990215_400.jpg" alt="" />
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1235119774]Winex



I know. Fiscal Conservatives have nothing to do with this situation.

You can backtrack this to Bill Clinton and a Democrat in all ways.



Personally its all the fault of having a Central Bank and with it

ever increasing debt and interest. Everything else is just a symptom of the disease

that began almost a Century ago when Woodrow Wilson signed the law.

And dont forget Alan Greenspan. We can thank Ronald Reagan and Voodoo Economics

for some of his antics. So where is that good old supply side economics now ?



Nothing is going to fix the foreclosure mess. Especially if nobody is buying

homes and the asset class known as Real Estate continues its spiral down.



Lets Blame Obama. He has had 5 weeks to fix this. Whats his problem ?</blockquote>


There are two things that will fix this situation. One is time, and the other is price discovery. Trying to fix this will only make things worse.



As has been said often in this forum, you can't fix a monetary illness caused by over consumption and lax credit policies by encouraging more consumption and more lax credit. We tried that throughout Greenspan's entire tenure, and look where it has gotten us. The fact is that the business cycle is a cycle. Without down periods, it wouldn't be a cycle, it would be a permanent uptrend.



You can't finagle yourself out of this situation, and the more you try, the worse things will be.



Of course what we are trying won't help anyway. The latest trillion dollar attempt to subvert the business cycle can't properly be called a stimulus package. The fact is that it's a social policy package with an Orwellian name applied to it. And there is already talk of another stimulus package while the ink is still drying on the latest fiasco.



I don't blame Obama for not fixing a problem that he inherited.



I DO blame Obama for taking advantage of the American public under the guise of trying to fix a problem that can only be solved by market forces.
 
Could be worse, we could be in the UK ...

<A href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/uk-homeowners-mortgage-support-scheme.html">http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/uk-homeowners-mortgage-support-scheme.html</A>
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1235119774]Winex



I know. Fiscal Conservatives have nothing to do with this situation.

You can backtrack this to Bill Clinton and a Democrat in all ways.



Personally its all the fault of having a Central Bank and with it

ever increasing debt and interest. Everything else is just a symptom of the disease

that began almost a Century ago when Woodrow Wilson signed the law.

And dont forget Alan Greenspan. We can thank Ronald Reagan and Voodoo Economics

for some of his antics. So where is that good old supply side economics now ?



Nothing is going to fix the foreclosure mess. Especially if nobody is buying

homes and the asset class known as Real Estate continues its spiral down.



Lets Blame Obama. He has had 5 weeks to fix this. Whats his problem ?</blockquote>


BLT do you agree with what Obama is doing today? No Bush comments. Lets just focus on the second installment of TARP, the Stimulus Bill and the Foreclosure Bailout.



That is an awful lot of money to be throwing out there.



So instead of bashing Bush can you please explain why you feel all of this money that Obama is spending is going to move us in the right direction?



If McCain was elected and he proposed to spend this much I am sure you would call him a dumb a55. I know I would.
 
Question for the conservatives.... what I've heard from this side is that none of the new deal spending did anything for getting us out of the depression, rather it was WWII. Do you guys/gals believe that?



Here's a little story the cons will like. I've asked my mom to tell me what it was like during the depression, but the only thing she really remembers much is her grandma pointing to the public works guys and saying "there they are, leaning on their shovels." She was very young, but also very insulated from what was going on because her family had money and her dad worked for the railroad and of course, communications wasn't what it was today.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1235211880]Question for the conservatives.... what I've heard from this side is that none of the new deal spending did anything for getting us out of the depression, rather it was WWII. Do you guys/gals believe that?



Here's a little story the cons will like. I've asked my mom to tell me what it was like during the depression, but the only thing she really remembers much is her grandma pointing to the public works guys and saying "there they are, leaning on their shovels." She was very young, but also very insulated from what was going on because her family had money and her dad worked for the railroad and of course, communications wasn't what it was today.</blockquote>


Yes and no.



http://ingrimayne.com/econ/EconomicCatastrophe/Figure5.4.gif



The New Deal was 1933 to 1935. The 2nd New Deal including the WPA was 1935 to 1938.



From the unemployment chart, the first may have help or maybe not. Maybe 25% was about top out, nobody knows. And if anybody did really have the answers, they probably have Bernake's personal cell number.



Between the two, they put about 10% of the unemployed to work, but it doesn't appear to have been any self sustaining effort.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1235211880]Question for the conservatives.... what I've heard from this side is that none of the new deal spending did anything for getting us out of the depression, rather it was WWII. Do you guys/gals believe that? </blockquote>
I wouldn't say that it had no effect. I would say that FDR had a cult of personality that served him well, even after his death, during a time when this country was truly becoming homogenous. Film and radio served to bring the country to one place at the same time. Perception of the New Deal and the actual record aren't the same thing.



Looking at the charts of unemployment and GDP, it looks like everything bottomed in 1933 and began climibing from there (with a slight recession in '37) and eventually both GDP and employment reached the levels they were at pre-crash. From those two stats alone, one would assume the New Deal was a success. However, the country in 1938 was far worse off than it was in 1928. Deflation had set in and while the dollar was nominally worth more, fewer people had them, no one was spending them for fear of a future need, and companies saw no need to invest for growth. There was such a prolonged drought that overworked farm land literally blew away, causing famine and migration from the plains to California and Oregon.



Another pair of issues (two sides of the same coin really): so many things were being done, in so many different areas, and over such a long period of time, that it is very difficult to point to one program or action and show clear cause and effect. On the other hand, it is flat out impossible to say what would have occured if FDR and simply let market forces play themselves out because it was never tried.



Wait, don't say it... A favorite meme from Democrats is that Hoover tried doing nothing and it failed miserably, but the record is different than the popular belief. Hoover had been in office for 8 months when the stock market crashed, and he reacted by calling for more volunteerism (hmm...), more co-operation between govenment and business (uhh...), and of course he signed the Smoot-Hawley Act. According to Wikipedia, Hoover did the following in his <em>one</em> term:

<blockquote>As President, he helped push tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress. Hoover expanded civil service coverage of Federal positions, canceled private oil leases on government lands, and by instructing the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service to go after gangsters for tax evasion, he enabled the prosecution of gangster Al Capone. He appointed a commission which set aside 3 million acres of national parks and 2.3 million acres of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy (wha?); doubled the number of veteran's hospital facilities; negotiated a treaty on St. Lawrence Seaway (which failed in the U.S. Senate); wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender; built the San Francisco ? Oakland Bay Bridge; created an antitrust division in the Justice Department; required air mail carriers to adopt stricter safety measures and improve service; proposed federal loans for urban slum clearances (like ACORN?!?); organized the Federal Bureau of Prisons; reorganized the Bureau of Indian Affairs; instituted prison reform; proposed a federal Department of Education (not enacted); advocated fifty-dollar-per-month pensions for Americans over 65 (not enacted); chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and homeownership; began construction of the Boulder Dam (later renamed Hoover Dam); and signed the Norris-La Guardia Act that limited judicial intervention in labor disputes.</blockquote>


You know... after reading all that I'm not so sure Obama isn't the next Hoover. But I digress.



My point is that there is no doubt about what happened to the country's economy, standard of living, and national mood (baby boom?) during and after WWII, but how much of that can be laid at the feet of FDR's New Deal and how much was the result of the country's natural return to productivity is fodder for debate. Clearly, things like the TVA, FSA, and REA were stimulative. However, how do you measure the economic effect of the Social Security Act? What is certain is that up to the signing of the Lend/Lease Act, America was still mending itself... despite... all of the money that had been spent over the course of 12 years. Also as certain: for most people it would have been far worse, in the short term, if we hadn't spent the money.



I don't know if that resolves the debate, but I do hope that answers your question.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1235211880]Question for the conservatives.... what I've heard from this side is that none of the new deal spending did anything for getting us out of the depression, rather it was WWII. Do you guys/gals believe that?



Here's a little story the cons will like. I've asked my mom to tell me what it was like during the depression, but the only thing she really remembers much is her grandma pointing to the public works guys and saying "there they are, leaning on their shovels." She was very young, but also very insulated from what was going on because her family had money and her dad worked for the railroad and of course, communications wasn't what it was today.</blockquote>


It is hard to say. Just like what is happening today nobody can really say what would happen if the government never intervened.



The New Deal may have started us on a very slippery slope because it set the precedent for the government to play a key role in social and economic affairs of the nation.



I would think that in another 50 years Social Security will be looked at as a total failure. There is no way for the system to stay intact.



At it's inception it was a flawed plan, The first check ever issued was issued to somone who paid in $22.45 and received $22,000 over his lifetime.



When Social Security was implemented, there were 16 workers for every Social Security recipient; today there are 3.3 workers for every recipient, and it is estimated that by 2030 there will be only two workers for every recipient.



So the short answer is I don't know. It is conceivable that the goverment intervention during the New Deal could have been the predecessor for where we are today. People expect the government to intervene and FIX the problem.
 
<em>"Expecting your life to be improved by politicians is to believe in one of the most unlikely events imaginable."</em>



-

Richard Maybury of the "Early Warning Report"
 
<em>"Yes, we did produce a near perfect republic, but will they be able to keep it? Or will they in their enjoyment of plenty, lose memory of their freedom. Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction."</em>

-

Thomas Jefferson





Benjamin Franklin's admonition as he left the final meeting of the Constitutional convention to his wife who asked what the new government would be. Franklin replied:



<em>"A republic madam, if you can keep it."</em>
 
<em>"



Why I am Optimistic , Long-Term



The timing of the economic crisis is a historic stroke of good luck. The disaster began under republican leadership, and is virtually certain to grow worse under democratic leadership.



So, most Americans will soon see that both major parties are failing them catastrophically.



Everyone therefore, is awakening to the fact that they must seek and alternative. And there, in all the libraries and on the internet, is the Constitution, waiting to be discovered.



At bottom, the present crisis is... more than anything else, a demonstration of the fact that he who expects peace, liberty, and abundance to endure, in a country with statist schools, is expecting what never was and never will be.



I remember the Vietnam War, what enraged young people the most was the betrayal. They had been taught all their lives to trust government, and now it was sending them to die for a pack of lies. They began to doubt everything, and to hate "the establishment," which meant anyone with any kind of power. Result: riots



Searching for an alternative to the conservative trust-the-government faith they had been taught, they veered sharply left. This is another stroke of luck for us today. The centerpiece of socialism was the empire of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On the day the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the credibility of socialism and everything that resembles it was smashed. Every person could now see that state control of the economy means slavery, and poverty for all but the ruling class.



So today the credibility of both the left and right of the mainstream political spectrum has been demolished, and over the next few years, as conditions worsen, millions will be looking for something that is not main-stream. A window of opportunity will open. Those who believe in what was known in 1776 as the "system of liberty" - that is, the system enshrined in the Constitution---will finally have audiences so desperate they will not be only receptive but eager to give the system a try.



America is one of the few countries to have been founded on a set of ideas, as opposed to simple loyalty to a ruler or piece of real estate.



These ideas are clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, especially the 9th and 10th amendments to the Bill of Rights. These two amendments say the



federal government is allowed to do to us only what the Constitution says it can, which isn't much. For instance, Washington is not authorized to establish the Federal Reserve, inflate the money supply, manipulate interest rates, sanction subprime mortgages, give military aid to foreign tyrants, or spend $190 million on a bridge to nowhere.



The Constitution is not perfect, but it is close enough. And, it enjoys a wonderful prestige.



This isn't to say many have read it or know what it is. But they have heard good things about it, and some can read well enough to understand its high school level language. (The reason government does not want you to discover the Constitution is, the founders did not write it in legal-ease; any ordinary person can understand it and see where it is being violated. Is this why so few Americans today have been taught to read well?)



To most the Constitution will always be just a symbol, like the Liberty Bell and the Statue of Liberty. But as long as they are desperate enough to give it a try, this will start the country back in the direction of peace, liberty, and abundance.



In short, and this is another key point in the realm of economics, there's no other ideology left to try. Fascism and its variations went down in flames in the 1940's. Socialism and its variations followed in the 1980's and 90's. Now thanks to Bush and Obama, conservatism is on the ash heap and liberalism isn't far behind.



This isn't to say power holders won't try a lot of crazy schemes. But what they do will be all tactics and no strategy. There will be no model, no ideology, just euphemisms for print money!



From all the panicky fire fighting incidents, we will experience forms of chaos never seen before. In a few years people will realize Obama's "plan" was the same as Bush's: pour all the conflicting suggestions from my advisors into a blender and hit the "muddle" button.



People will long for some sort of coherent, logical system in which they can have faith.



They won't go to the system of liberty because they like it or because they understand it; they'll go because it's the only thing left. In a few years, John Q. Citizen will regard both major parties as his enemy, and he will be so desperate he will be ready to try anything, even freedom."</em>

- Richard Mabury
 
awgee



That is very true. Except I would add the mainstream media, including cable tv talking heads, as the third leg of the stool.



They all benefit from the status quot even they constantly berate each other for our viewing pleasure. Afterwards I bet they get into limos and share $300.00 bottles of wine while chatting about who scored the most ratings.



The two parties and MSM have become a true ruling class.



Until we have a true third or fourth choice of political parties then I feel we will not have any real change since the current system totally benefits those players at our expense.



I am starting to sound like a guy with camo pants and a tinfoil hat. ;-P



Have a great weekend!
 
Last night I watched Bill Maher's opening show for the new season. Maxine Waters was one of the guests. Aside from the usual crap, I was struck by her statement that she doesn't think that the American public understands how close this country is right now to total collapse. The look on her face, the absolute seriousness of her statement was actually alarming.
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1235300191]Last night I watched Bill Maher's opening show for the new season. Maxine Waters was one of the guests. Aside from the usual crap, I was struck by her statement that she doesn't think that the American public understands how close this country is right now to total collapse. The look on her face, the absolute seriousness of her statement was actually alarming.</blockquote>
And no one will take her seriously.
 
[quote author="xsocal land merchant" date=1235299077]



I am starting to sound like a guy with a tinfoil hat. ;-P



</blockquote>


Would you care to borrow one of mine?
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235308367][quote author="tmare" date=1235300191]Last night I watched Bill Maher's opening show for the new season. Maxine Waters was one of the guests. Aside from the usual crap, I was struck by her statement that she doesn't think that the American public understands how close this country is right now to total collapse. The look on her face, the absolute seriousness of her statement was actually alarming.</blockquote>
And no one will take her seriously.</blockquote>


The price one pays for crying wolf one time too many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top