It's time for you to be stimulated........

[Kevin A]

Just a friendly reminder to keep this thread civil. If it becomes heated, it's gone.

[Gary and Cheri]

CaseyDog, good points.

To paraphrase the old saying "It takes money to make money" I believe what should be said is "It will take an investment before we can erase a deficit".

I may be reading to fast to catch it, but has anyone mentioned the promised reducing the deficit by half before the ending of this presidency. Surely nobody expects America to do well if we continue in the direction we have gone for the last eight years.

I support the man and apparently so does the majority. It's to bad that so many, in government, appear to be fighting the next election when we have not even gotten 2 months into this 4 year term.

Gary

[caseydog]

CD, you are railing against the Bush administration for spending like drunken sailors, but it's ok for the next administration to do the same? I really don't see much difference. The only difference is that the current administration is willing to raise taxes on high incomes and to give more free ice cream to lower incomes. Of course you can get elected when you offer more free stuff to the larger population. Higher taxes on the rich will not solve the significant problem of unequal wealth distribution in the country. Maybe in addition to a minimum wage we need a maximum wage (not just salary include stock options etc) that is linked as percentage of the minimum wage that particular employer pays. More equal distribution of wages will put more taxes in the government coffers at lower rates on all taxpayers. It is a big talking point of how the rich pay 50% of the taxes - well that may be true because they make 80% of the wages!

It is a shame that people in this country can be so greedy to take a lottery jackpot size salary while paying people in their company minimum wage. I've sat in too many sales meetings hearing how wonderful the policies the CEO is implementing are making everyone successful, while he has no clue that without the hard work of the minions his decisons are meaningless.

It's not just the Bush administration, but I do feel they played a big part in causing some of the mess we are in now. His approval rating was in the twenties, so I'm guessing a lot of other people agree.

Even though I voted for Obama this time, and I'm willing to give him a chance, he's not guaranteed my vote in the future. I have split my votes between Republicans and Democrats for president since my first presidential vote in 1980 -- for Reagan.

I do think we will come out of this deep recession, and things will be different. They will have to be different. I think we will all need to change the way we live, work, and most of all, consume. We have been living pretty well the last twenty years, but we've been living on credit.

When I was a kid, my family of four lived in a 1,440 square-foot house with three bedrooms and one full bathroom. We had one TV, one telephone, and all my toys fit in a wooden toybox. We were middle-class. Today, that lifestyle would describe the working poor.

Here in the Dallas burbs, a family of four is more likely to live in a 3,000 square foot home with a bathroom for everyone. The family would probably eat out at least a couple times a week, and get to the restaurant in a suburban with Separate DVD players for each kid.

The suburban payments are 600 bucks a month, and the mortgages on the house combine for 100 percent of the home's value -- the family added a home equity loan to remodel the kitchen, with granite countertops, of course.

I think the American Standard of living is going to be changed by this recession. And, that's not necessarily a bad thing. We may find ourselves a lot happier if we get off the over-consumption train.

CD

[martha24]

Americans DO spend like the government does, and we DO run up debt like the government does.

One of the biggest reasons that we are in a deep recession right now is because the well has gone dry. We have been using easy credit and the equity in our homes to consume like there's no tomorrow.

Whether people want to admit it or not, the US Government is a lot like the American people.

With this I do not disagree with you at all.

An average citizen does not have the ability to print money legally or to borrow billions of dollars at one time, but government does and there will be consequences for doing it. Time will tell what the consequences will be, but it is far from certain that they will be pleasant.

In California, the state has been on the edge of bankruptcy. In fact the problem the state is now facing has been foreseeable for a number of years, but Sacramento goes on spending and spending as if there were no money problems at all until the recent huge crisis.

Especially in this economic mess, politicians need to take a closer look at what money is being spent on. Things like roads and bridges should last for a long time. There are other things that are much more questionable. When a bill is a thousand pages long and is quickly passed and signed, the individuals who voted for it couldn't actually read it themselves and know what all is in it.

Individuals and government need to spend responsibility.

[Miriam C.]

This thread was about the stimulus not the Presidents, past or present. Why don't we stay on subject and not let this drift into a Bush/Obama bashing session.

[caseydog]

I've read some comments about the stimulus not effecting the writers individually. For the most part, if you are currently employed, the direct benefit will be an extra fifteen bucks or so in your monthly paycheck, if you are a middle class worker.

Since I am self-employed, there is not much in it for me -- directly. However, I benefit indirectly from construction workers who get new work when school and highway projects are started, and from the better roads and schools in my state.

And, families living from paycheck to paycheck will spend that extra money in their paychecks, even if it is only fifteen bucks a month, which will have some effect on the economy I live in.

I don't get too worried about a short-term spike in the deficit during a recession. It is when I see a budget deficit for eight years in a row, with no signs of diminishing, that I get worried -- especially when we are in a time of economic growth. We saw that in the eighties, and again in this decade.

Once we get past this economic crisis, I want to start seeing some progress like we saw in the nineties on reducing the deficit. But for now, I'm cringing, but I agree that we needed to do this kind of thing.

CD

[Dixie Flyer]

I agree, lets discuss the stimulus .........As far as the stimulus for infrastructure, I basically have no problem with that. That does need to be addressed. But in reality, I'm against the stimulus. (I know that sounds like a contradiction since I stated support for infrastructure)

But the stimulus as a whole is an Albatross around future Americans neck. (Ours too for that matter)

We are in hock beyond our eyeballs. China doesn't want to keep buying anymore of our debt. The gov't is only going to print more money which will increase and drive inflation.

Gov't has caused this. Sure, there have been some greedy CEO's who have absconded with a bunch of dough. But it has been govermental policies that have allowed it. The Community Reinvestment Act by Carter in '77 is one of the biggest culprits you can point to.

What has happened since September is that the giant pyramid scheme set in motion by non market gov't policies finally caught up and collapsed. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (quasi-gov't agencies both) were the fuses that lit this whole thing. Lending money to people who can't pay it back, is that sound business sense? Everyone knows it's not. (Except the gov't)

Barney Frank is one of the biggest culprits in this whole mess. I'll even throw in Alan Greenspan too. Both of these guys should (but won't) take the bulk of the responsibilty. Particularly since it was their job regarding oversight.

You want to really fix this thing? Get rid of the Federal Reserve, cut payroll takes by 50%, cut capitol gains, eliminate idiotic spending by the gov't. Basically, gov't just needs to get the hell out of the way.

It may hurt a bit, but we'll find the bottom and then market forces will start to sort to this thing out.

And PLEASE, lets get back to the CONSTITUTION.

[Gary and Cheri]

[quote="Dixie Flyer"]
Gov't has caused this. Sure, there have been some greedy CEO's who have absconded with a bunch of dough. But it has been govermental policies that have allowed it.

We appear to currently be walking a fine line with what out govenment can do while offerring a stimulus package. Should our government take partial ownership (some sort of control) for any bank (whatever) that takes stimulus money? Does that not risk us becoming a socialist type of government?

I would hope that we don't give away money without over sight of some sort. Control and/or ownership is only a step away. I hope we are careful.

There has been some suggestion that should the government assume even temporary control of some of our major banks (those accepting stimulus money) may undermine the entire system and cause a meltdown.

Gary

[Dixie Flyer]

I agree Gary. Any company that takes tax payer money needs to have some oversight. If you're going to take gov't money (ours) then you will have to run your business by different rules.

Of the Big Three automakers, it was pretty funny when Ford said, "Thanks, but no thanks." They knew they didn't want gov't involved in their business. Particularly after they faced Congress.

All business's want to succed and then reap the rewards, as it shhould be. But if you cannot succeed or you run your business incorrectly or can't compete, then you deserve to go out of business.

Interesting thread for the most part. Thanks to all who "played".

[Miriam C.]

I split the flame out of this thread. There is no reason why some people can voice their opinion and turn around and criticize others for doing the same.

If your goal is to put others down or insult please don't bother posting.

[Miriam C.]

Gov't has caused this. Sure, there have been some greedy CEO's who have absconded with a bunch of dough. But it has been govermental policies that have allowed it.

We appear to currently be walking a fine line with what out govenment can do while offerring a stimulus package. Should our government take partial ownership (some sort of control) for any bank (whatever) that takes stimulus money? Does that not risk us becoming a socialist type of government?

I would hope that we don't give away money without over sight of some sort. Control and/or ownership is only a step away. I hope we are careful.

There has been some suggestion that should the government assume even temporary control of some of our major banks (those accepting stimulus money) may undermine the entire system and cause a meltdown.

Gary

When banks fail the FDIC comes in and takes over.........that is not socialism it is protecting the American people. We have a strange system where we let others hold our wealth to "keep it safe." They take our money and loan it out to make themselves rich....We have a whole government agency to be sure the Bankers don't abuse that trust and destroy the principle.

The House and Senate are given oversite of the banks, finance and Freddy and Fanny.............and they have failed miserably. Now we talk of saving these "assets" and the only people who can do that are the CEO's who were in charge when they failed.

OMG we can't not pay them bonuses. They might quit.......might go somewhere else......... I guess I have come full circle huh........

Just my limited little world view.

[caseydog]

I agree, lets discuss the stimulus .........As far as the stimulus for infrastructure, I basically have no problem with that. That does need to be addressed. But in reality, I'm against the stimulus. (I know that sounds like a contradiction since I stated support for infrastructure)

But the stimulus as a whole is an Albatross around future Americans neck. (Ours too for that matter)

We are in hock beyond our eyeballs. China doesn't want to keep buying anymore of our debt. The gov't is only going to print more money which will increase and drive inflation.

Gov't has caused this. Sure, there have been some greedy CEO's who have absconded with a bunch of dough. But it has been govermental policies that have allowed it. The Community Reinvestment Act by Carter in '77 is one of the biggest culprits you can point to.

What has happened since September is that the giant pyramid scheme set in motion by non market gov't policies finally caught up and collapsed. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (quasi-gov't agencies both) were the fuses that lit this whole thing. Lending money to people who can't pay it back, is that sound business sense? Everyone knows it's not. (Except the gov't)

Barney Frank is one of the biggest culprits in this whole mess. I'll even throw in Alan Greenspan too. Both of these guys should (but won't) take the bulk of the responsibilty. Particularly since it was their job regarding oversight.

You want to really fix this thing? Get rid of the Federal Reserve, cut payroll takes by 50%, cut capitol gains, eliminate idiotic spending by the gov't. Basically, gov't just needs to get the hell out of the way.

It may hurt a bit, but we'll find the bottom and then market forces will start to sort to this thing out.

And PLEASE, lets get back to the CONSTITUTION.

1. Our CONSTITUTION calls for the free election of the President and members of the Legislature. A few months ago, a new President was elected and he is doing what he said he was going to do during his campaign. At the same time, the party in control of congress picked up even more seats. Like it or not, we are getting what the majority of Americans voted for.

2. What does Jimmy Carter have to do with the stimulus package.

3. Fannie and Freddie were not government agencies, and they were just the first of many banks to get caught up in risky lending and come crashing down. AIG, Citi, Bear-Sterns -- they are/were "private sector" entities that the government "got out of the way of" and taxpayers are having to bail them out.

I just don't accept the notion that "government is bad" and "free-markets can fix everything." That is a political ideology that is not supported by real events.

Nor do I believe that government is the answer to everything. That is an ideology that is not supported by real events, either.

If we want to abide by purely free-market idealogy, then we should have let all the banks fail, let the automakers die, and see where that gets us. Probably another Great Depression.

On the other hand, as I said before, there are some elements of the stimulous package I don't like. That's life.

I also have my doubts that bailing out Detroit will work. I'm divided in my thoughts on that. The reason I am divided is because I gave up my ideologies years ago and came to realize that there are no silver bullet solutions to incredibly complex problems, and IMO, there is no political ideology that can stand unchallenged by reality.

As for ownership of banks, the taxpayers are spending billions to rescue publicly traded corporations, why should we NOT get some ownership in the form of stocks in those corporations? That isn't socialism. That's looking out for our money. The goal is not to "take over" the banks, but to hopefully get some of the bailout money back someday. All the talk of "socialism" and "takeovers" is happening on right-wing radio and internet -- not inside the government.

CD

[caseydog]

Gov't has caused this. Sure, there have been some greedy CEO's who have absconded with a bunch of dough. But it has been govermental policies that have allowed it.

We appear to currently be walking a fine line with what out govenment can do while offerring a stimulus package. Should our government take partial ownership (some sort of control) for any bank (whatever) that takes stimulus money? Does that not risk us becoming a socialist type of government?

I would hope that we don't give away money without over sight of some sort. Control and/or ownership is only a step away. I hope we are careful.

There has been some suggestion that should the government assume even temporary control of some of our major banks (those accepting stimulus money) may undermine the entire system and cause a meltdown.

Gary

I am all for the the taxpayers getting equity in banks in exchange for the bailout money. That way, when the banks are healthy, we can get some of the money back.

We also need to have oversight in place, or greed will corrupt an otherwise good free-market system.

I don't believe that a "takeover" would be in anyone's best interest -- not the banks, nor the taxpayers, not the government.

CD

[Miriam C.]

I agree, lets discuss the stimulus .........As far as the stimulus for infrastructure, I basically have no problem with that. That does need to be addressed. But in reality, I'm against the stimulus. (I know that sounds like a contradiction since I stated support for infrastructure)

But the stimulus as a whole is an Albatross around future Americans neck. (Ours too for that matter)

We are in hock beyond our eyeballs. China doesn't want to keep buying anymore of our debt. The gov't is only going to print more money which will increase and drive inflation.

Gov't has caused this. Sure, there have been some greedy CEO's who have absconded with a bunch of dough. But it has been govermental policies that have allowed it. The Community Reinvestment Act by Carter in '77 is one of the biggest culprits you can point to.

What has happened since September is that the giant pyramid scheme set in motion by non market gov't policies finally caught up and collapsed. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (quasi-gov't agencies both) were the fuses that lit this whole thing. Lending money to people who can't pay it back, is that sound business sense? Everyone knows it's not. (Except the gov't)

Barney Frank is one of the biggest culprits in this whole mess. I'll even throw in Alan Greenspan too. Both of these guys should (but won't) take the bulk of the responsibilty. Particularly since it was their job regarding oversight.

You want to really fix this thing? Get rid of the Federal Reserve, cut payroll takes by 50%, cut capitol gains, eliminate idiotic spending by the gov't. Basically, gov't just needs to get the hell out of the way.

It may hurt a bit, but we'll find the bottom and then market forces will start to sort to this thing out.

And PLEASE, lets get back to the CONSTITUTION.

1. Our CONSTITUTION calls for the free election of the President and members of the Legislature. A few months ago, a new President was elected and he is doing what he said he was going to do during his campaign. At the same time, the party in control of congress picked up even more seats. Like it or not, we are getting what the majority of Americans voted for.

2. What does Jimmy Carter have to do with the stimulus package.

3. Fannie and Freddie were not government agencies, and they were just the first of many banks to get caught up in risky lending and come crashing down. AIG, Citi, Bear-Sterns -- they are/were "private sector" entities that the government "got out of the way of" and taxpayers are having to bail them out.

I just don't accept the notion that "government is bad" and "free-markets can fix everything." That is a political ideology that is not supported by real events.

Nor do I believe that government is the answer to everything. That is an ideology that is not supported by real events, either.

If we want to abide by purely free-market idealogy, then we should have let all the banks fail, let the automakers die, and see where that gets us. Probably another Great Depression.

On the other hand, as I said before, there are some elements of the stimulous package I don't like. That's life.

I also have my doubts that bailing out Detroit will work. I'm divided in my thoughts on that. The reason I am divided is because I gave up my ideologies years ago and came to realize that there are no silver bullet solutions to incredibly complex problems, and IMO, there is no political ideology that can stand unchallenged by reality.

As for ownership of banks, the taxpayers are spending billions to rescue publicly traded corporations, why should we NOT get some ownership in the form of stocks in those corporations? That isn't socialism. That's looking out for our money. The goal is not to "take over" the banks, but to hopefully get some of the bailout money back someday. All the talk of "socialism" and "takeovers" is happening on right-wing radio and internet -- not inside the government.

CD

Wow! I didn't know anyone really knew what was "happening" in the government.
It sounds to me like our members are trying to talk too. Oh heck, we are the internet.

[caseydog]

Gov't has caused this. Sure, there have been some greedy CEO's who have absconded with a bunch of dough. But it has been govermental policies that have allowed it.

We appear to currently be walking a fine line with what out govenment can do while offerring a stimulus package. Should our government take partial ownership (some sort of control) for any bank (whatever) that takes stimulus money? Does that not risk us becoming a socialist type of government?

I would hope that we don't give away money without over sight of some sort. Control and/or ownership is only a step away. I hope we are careful.

There has been some suggestion that should the government assume even temporary control of some of our major banks (those accepting stimulus money) may undermine the entire system and cause a meltdown.

Gary

When banks fail the FDIC comes in and takes over.........that is not socialism it is protecting the American people. We have a strange system where we let others hold our wealth to "keep it safe." They take our money and loan it out to make themselves rich....We have a whole government agency to be sure the Bankers don't abuse that trust and destroy the principle.

The House and Senate are given oversite of the banks, finance and Freddy and Fanny.............and they have failed miserably. Now we talk of saving these "assets" and the only people who can do that are the CEO's who were in charge when they failed.

OMG we can't not pay them bonuses. They might quit.......might go somewhere else......... I guess I have come full circle huh........

Just my limited little world view.

Very well put. I agree completely.