It's not rocket science!
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, October 18, 2009 17:26
VIEWED: 6406
PAGE 1 of 7
If the government dumps trillions into the military-industrial complex, it will do well. If the government dumps trillions into the financial sector and the stock market, they will do well. Stocks are up. CEOs are fat and happy. Meanwhile, Jane Average is having a hard time paying her medical bills, Joe Average just lost his job, their house lost 30% of its value and their credit card interest rate is at 30%.
If the US government had put its *ss behind Jane and Joe, they would be doing better despite whatever the happened to stock markets and CEO bonuses. It's not friggin' rocket science, it's all about priorites, and anyone who tells you it's too complicated to understand ... or that Jane and Joe somehow "depend" on the stock market and lavish CEO payouts... is blowing smoke. Because they're trying to obscure the fact that this really is us v. them.
Now, as to why current policy is unsound: The meltdown was caused by the BIGGEST wealth discrepancy since the Great Depression. (Yeah, funny how that happens, huh? Wealth discrepancy= economic depressions. 
) The top 1% own as much as the bottom 95% combined. And since money does NOT "trickle down", injecting money AT THE TOP will only make things worse, not better. There will be a flurry of speculation as the ultra-wealthy try to figure out "where to put their (excess) money" (I'm thinking gold). Meanwhile, since there is no demand for goods (folks are too strapped for cash) no jobs will be created and infrastructure will not be revitalized in a way that makes us more productive/ efficient. Our productive and manufacturing base will shrink even further.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
... Joe Average just lost his job, their house lost 30% of its value and their credit card interest rate is at 30%.
What better time then for some new Dem. taxes to be dumped on us? What better time for the Government to force mandatory insurance on us? What better time for Pelosi to add VATs to our lives? What better time to initiate energy cap & trade taxes on businesses and individuals? The Dems, so-called champions of the little guy, have propped up the fatcats, and are set to squash the rest of us with additional taxes and Government. I know that I cannot wait to pay them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many Dems who are NOT on the side of fat-cats- unlike Repubs, who universally are. But there are far too many bought-and-paid-for Dems whose only loyalty is to their contributors. Max Baucus and Ben Nelson, for example, are actually voting AGAINST their constituency's voiced interest and in favor of big insurance.
Ya can't get more blatant that that!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
... Joe Average just lost his job, their house lost 30% of its value and their credit card interest rate is at 30%.
What better time then for some new Dem. taxes to be dumped on us? What better time for the Government to force mandatory insurance on us? What better time for Pelosi to add VATs to our lives? What better time to initiate energy cap & trade taxes on businesses and individuals? The Dems, so-called champions of the little guy, have propped up the fatcats, and are set to squash the rest of us with additional taxes and Government. I know that I cannot wait to pay them.
Republicans would've come up with a mandatory insurance health care reform bill as well. Health care reform was in demand for the election. It's been a buzz word for a year now, even McCain had an idea for a bill, because the public was demanding one.
Any effort at drafting a bill, Republican or Democrat, would have ended up with a mandatory insurance provision because of lobbyist interests.
Both parties are running the economy into the ground, with help from corporations, because who it hurts is small business competitors. ESPECIALLY when the big companies are getting free hand-outs so they can stay afloat while everyone else goes under.
What we are seeing is the result of a liaison between government and corporate America. The results are not pretty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But you have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Feingold, for instance, has been outstanding. Kaptur is a gem. There are many Dems who at least do more good than harm. And outside of the Dem party there are good folks as well.
But a lot of politicians need some serious *ss-kicking. Preferably right out of office, starting with Max Baucus and Ben Nelson and (one hopes) the rest of the "blue dog" Dems (in the House) and "conservative" Dems (in the Senate). Given that Max and Nelson are actually voting against what their constituency wants, they should be vulnerable in the upcoming election by being branded as sellouts.
Oh, and BTW- Tell Harry Reid that we want the public option!
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/po_senreid/?r=4924&id=6318-766721-
FZUUZvx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A liaison dangeroux?
Speaking of? Wonder what percentage of that 30% interest is another tax?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You mean the 30% credit card interest rate??? Very little, if anything. Tell me... how much in corporate taxes do you think MasterCard really pays??? That 30% is just sheer out-and-out gouging.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The meltdown was caused by the BIGGEST wealth discrepancy since the Great Depression."
Hello,
As someone who manned the front lines of the meltdown, let me put in my two cents.
The banks got cheap money from the government.
Banks make money by using money. This takes the form of investment, and one of their primary investments is loans.
With large quantities of available cheap money, they made large quantities of loans at inexpensive introductory rates.
The people got (temporarily) cheap money from the banks.
People tend to use money either A) to improve their living situation or B) to invest for returns.
One of the primary investments in both cases is real estate. People either upgraded their homes, bought second homes, or purchased investment properties.
The demand for real estate caused prices to rise.
Properties were now worth more, proving them as a good investment. The additional equity also meant that more money could be borrowed.
The low initial cost of loans also meant that people who normally could not afford loans were now able to afford loans.
Many people who could now afford loans were also plagued with varying credit difficulties.
Banks, anxious to tap this ready market, loosened loan standards. The banks with the loosest standards were able to make the most loans.
With ever-increasing real estate demand in the form of home purchases, home upgrades, second homes, and investment properties, real estate prices continued to escalate. Even people who should never have gotten a home loan were not in a position to default. They could sell their home for a profit and spin the wheel of fortune again, perhaps on a more luxurient property. Perhaps more than one.
A surprising number of ordinary citizens went into the real estate business. Flipping houses threatened to become a national pasttime, with Cable TV documenting the action. For a time, it seemed almost inevitable that even the most unlearned, unmonied buffoon could get a house, make token improvements, and sell it for profit.
As the real estate market continued to boom, the real estate loans themselves became a prized investment. Loans were bundled into groups, but the individual loans in the bundle were not adequately scrutinized. With the business booming, and profit almost inevitable, they seemed on the surface to be brilliant investments. Bundles of loans began to be traded like any speculative resource in the world. As a resource in sudden demand, the bundles escalated in price, multiplying their demand.
The economy was seemingly roaring along. Inevitably, interest rates were increased.
Money became more expensive. Loans became more expensive. Demand for loans began to wane. Home purchases began a moderate decline.
ARMS, the loans with low introductory rates, began to adjust. The increasing interest rates made previously affordable loans unaffordable.
Meanwhile, construction firms and other real estate investment schemes continued to crank out housing at incredible rates, due to their previous status as can't-lose-investment-material.
Suddenly, people were defaulting everywhere. People stopped buying houses. Massive amounts of real estate became unwanted.
The real estate loan bundles, previously thought to be incredibly sound investments, started filling with holes.
The downward spiral began.
This is what I saw. I was there. Issuing loans from my job at the bank. Buying a house. Watching vast tracks of Phoenix begin conversion into new housing that suddenly no one wanted. Watching my ARM reset as my home value plummeted. Watching the bank re-claim my home. Moving out under threat of eviction.
People were greedy and were playing with imaginary money- from the richest international investment magnate to the lowest ghetto home buyer. The only people who won the game were the intolerably few people who were smart enough to recognize the problem AND posessing of enough wisdom to get out while the getting was good
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig:Quote:
Word.
But a lot of politicians need some serious *ss-kicking. Preferably right out of office, starting with Max Baucus and Ben Nelson and (one hopes) the rest of the "blue dog" Dems (in the House) and "conservative" Dems (in the Senate). Given that Max and Nelson are actually voting against what their constituency wants, they should be vulnerable in the upcoming election by being branded as sellouts.
Oh, and BTW- Tell Harry Reid that we want the public option!
The "health reform" just voted on isn't; what it is, is the "Insurance Company Profit Protection and Enhancement Act", and you can thank the Conservadems for it when you're forced to buy insurance under the "individual mandate" or pay a fine. In my opinion: No public option; no individual mandate". But the insurance companies have us by the short hairs, and have turned this whole "reform" into a free-for-all gimme that will increase their profits tenfold. I don't blame Obama; I blame the Dems for not having a pair among them to hang together, and the paid-for Conservadems for doing exactly what they're paid to do.Quote:
There's a kicker. People grouse about taxes and want tax cuts for "trickle-down", etc., when the fact is that those making the most money usually pay the least taxes--everyone seems to think they're going to get rich like them, so want tax cuts. Make the uber-rich pay THEIR FAIR SHARE of taxes and it'd be a whole other ballgame.
You mean the 30% credit card interest rate??? Very little, if anything. Tell me... how much in corporate taxes do you think MasterCard really pays???
Anthony, in my opinion you called it, word for word. Doesn't change the fact that we DO have the biggest wealth discrepancy since the Great Depression, didn't help, but what you reiterated, point by point, is what I believe.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That might be "the mechanics" but that was not "the cause".
This is it. The problem, in concrete terms. Not some ambiguous "The rich are too rich" explanation. These are the actual hard mechanics of our downfall.
WHY were interest rates so cheap?
Why, to boost consumption and expand the economy, of course!
And WHY did the economy have to be boosted with cheap credit?
Maybe.. jusy maybe... it's because Jane and Joe Average's paycheck simply didn't keep up with inflation. Maybe it's because their real wages were falling?
Real wages still falling
Michael Mandel on August 16, 2006
www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2006/08/real
_wages_stil.html.
---------------
What I find interesting is that we repeated the Roaring Twenties almost step by step, without learning a thing. Back then, the bubble was stocks and real estate. This time around, it was real estate and stocks. But underlying that speculative bubble, farmers were going out of business and wages were falling. Funny how that rings a bell...
----------
The healthiest economy in recent memory was during Clinton's administration. Now, Clinton was a scumbag and sold us down the river several different ways, but he did ONE GOOD THING for the economy: He raised the minimum wage. A LOT. He injected money AT THE BOTTOM, and made working pay.
And during that time, employment was up, the economy was humming along, Federal revenues went up, and the deficit was reduced.
Like I said: It's not rocket science.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME