My grandpa's heavily invested in the stock market, until now he's made a lot of money.

 

Bush's wild spending and democrats forcing banks to give bad loans is why were in this mess. If Bush would have saved the money instead of wasting it, this wouldn't be as bad, but he had to waste the surplus Clinton had and spend us deep into debt. Both sides are to blame.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiXwZI_YqHY]YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?[/ame]

It's all going down baby! :dance:

We all go down together. Don't get too happy.

And the process is the problem. Did you get a chance to look at the Constitutional Amendment I'm suggesting? Maybe or maybe not the answer, but it seems to me that when politicians become the purveyors of a gambling racket run amok, and they're always going for the short-term re-election game, then we all loose in the end. I feel that we need to change the terms for office - longer terms, and term limits - so they're not constantly running for office, and they're not career politicians for life. Some might say they would then have too little experience, but there would be more upward mobility in government, and less control issues on key committees, since the power brokering wouldn't be so long-lasting (no hogging the control of key committees). That's one part. The other part is to open up the airwaves (the new public commons) so every candidate with signatures to get on the ballot has equal access to them, and there are sufficient debates of real substance. Also, cap the limits on campaign donations to 2 days wages for the median income group (around $250 max.), and no more. Otherwise, the gamblers and schemers will keep buying the legislation they want, that hurts the majority of citizens. Maybe there is no perfect fix, but that's my best guess.(?) I think capping it and tying it to the median income gives the representatives reason to respond more to the needs of the country as a whole, and to be responsive to improving the economy, as that would increase the contribution level allowable.

I agree with you. But we cannot achieve this without throwing out both parties.

An eventual global meltdown was always on the cards as soon as Bush was elected..is anyone who is a serious student of politics really surprised?

Well the seeds were planted before Bush was even elected. He took a bad situation and made it worse but did not cause the original problem. So Clinton and the dems are just as much to blame for this mess. Thats what we get when both sides are corrupt morons. Now we just need people to realize both sides created this mess.

Well the seeds were planted before Bush was even elected. He took a bad situation and made it worse but did not cause the original problem.

 

He's had two full terms to fix it, and has only made things worse both within the US and without. Many people could see it coming years ago. He's to blame for this present crisis.

He's had two full terms to fix it, and has only made things worse both within the US and without. Many people could see it coming years ago. He's to blame for this present crisis.

 

And the democrats and some republicans blocked every bill to fix it.

 

He's to blame along with Clinton and most our politicians. The events that started the crisis started in the mid 90's under democrats. Both parties started this and failed to fix it. Clinton is just as much to blame for starting it, and Bush for spending our surplus and wasting most our money.

 

To blame one side is beyond stupid when the policy that initiated this mess was enacted over 10 years ago by a different administration. Sorry but this one does not fall under blame Bush for everything.

We all go down together. Don't get too happy.

I intended to throw in a bit of sarcasm there with my post. But however, I don't see why I/we shouldn't be happy or for anything be excited about this because, as I see it, only good could come from it all eventually. And who knows, maybe you guys will finally get that "change" Obama and McCain have been blurting about everywhere.

I intended to throw in a bit of sarcasm there with my post. But however, I don't see why I/we shouldn't be happy or for anything be excited about this because, as I see it, only good could come from it all eventually. And who knows, maybe you guys will finally get that "change" Obama and McCain have been splurting about everywhere.

 

Change yes, but I'm not sure if it'll be good or bad. But one thing is for sure, America's empire will crumble which is a good thing for most the world. We'll hopefully finally leave the rest of the world alone because we won't be able to afford our massive military anymore. Maybe if we come back from this, we'll treat other nations better and people will like America again.

 

If we didn't have an empire we'd have more money, more allies and more likely be able to handle this problem.

And the democrats and some republicans blocked every bill to fix it.

 

Bush presided over that. A strong, decisive and/or intelligent President could have persuaded Congress to back him (and should have!)

 

Bush didn't/couldn't - he's to blame for the start of the global meltdown we're seeing here.

Bush presided over that. A strong, decisive and/or intelligent President could have persuaded Congress to back him (and should have!)

 

Bush didn't/couldn't - he's to blame for the start of the global meltdown we're seeing here.

 

Yeah you could have argued a strong intelligent president wouldn't have enacted the policy that lead to this(Clinton).

 

Bush it to blame for the mid part of the global meltdown, the start was started by democrats in the 90's, you know the policies that started the housing problem.

 

Bush is more a idiot who inherited a bad policy and fucked up the economy, but to blame only him is to misunderstand the politics and economics of the 90's and 2000's.

 

PS in America Congress has way more power then the President. So it falls on the shoulders of congress more when policies mess up this badly.

I'm not 100% sure on the solution. Either let the market be and it will eventually work itself out or if were going to spend this much money, buy up the houses that were foreclosed on and that are about to be.

 

One things is we need to change our economy and our life style. And the bail out will continue this fake life were living causing the problem to worsen.

I agree with you. But we cannot achieve this without throwing out both parties.

If we amend the Constitution, the players will have to play by honest rules, and the contest winners would be chosen based on legitimate ability - their voting record, their ideas, how responsive they are to the real needs of the country and the world, and if they work well together when essential, but stand out when bad ideas are afoot, they will be rewarded. Given equal access to the commons, then all legitimate candidates - Libertarian, Green, Democratic, or Republican candidates would have equal access and debate on equal terms; limiting contributions to the 2/365th of median income would make their job of representing a broad base of support legitimate and then what matters is ideas and strengths, not payoffs and promos. It's time to level the playing field, and then parties and candidates can truly represent the best interests of our nation, with the marketplace of ideas being the principal mover, and the respect for the Constitution restored to it's rightful place.

i was only for this plan because i felt that we needed a "band-aid" if you will to relieve the stress on the stock market in the short term, providing less pain while fixing the PROBLEMS for the long term. Alot of people who were anti-bill were so strictly out of ideology, which is rediculous.

 

Too many people dont understand that this isnt a "punish wall st for their greediness" scenario, this is regular tax paying families losing thier retirements, houses, everything scenario. THAT is why i was pro-bill. Plus the actual projected cost to FIX the problem was 14 trillion so 700 billion was always going to be short term.

 

However the bill had ALOT of problems with it, one of the biggest being that there, again, were no regulations on anything, and that Paulson had complete discretion on which "toxic debts" he chose to buy, AND would not be held accountable if things worsened.

 

What needs to be done is a full scale FIX of what caused the housing bubble. And we have to get away from the "American dream that EVERYONE can own a house and not afford it" mentality. Many feel as though this free fall we are in right now will actually level out once the NASDAQ hits around 1,000, (where it was when the housing bubble first started). Letting these companies go into bankruptcy punishes those who deserved to lose everything in the first place, instead of a majority MAKING money (as they would have under the proposed bill)

 

 

Dont get me wrong, SOMETHING must be done to relieve the stress on the stock market and restore investor confidence. That is one of the biggest problems here, is that its not JUST the high risk investors who are on track to lose everything, its also regular joes with their 401(k)'s tied into the stock market....It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the government to do something to help those innocent Americans caught in the middle of this. I will await the second bill that looks to be in the making. Hopefully it is better because we need one hell of a band aid if we are going to get out of this without some serious pain.

This is the non-bailout solution, as proposed by a Harvard economist:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

I just hope the crazies who hate the states are not conspiring right now because we are in a weak financial spot right now and with the election coming up. another attack would be totallly fucked up

If we amend the Constitution, the players will have to play by honest rules, and the contest winners would be chosen based on legitimate ability - their voting record, their ideas, how responsive they are to the real needs of the country and the world, and if they work well together when essential, but stand out when bad ideas are afoot, they will be rewarded. Given equal access to the commons, then all legitimate candidates - Libertarian, Green, Democratic, or Republican candidates would have equal access and debate on equal terms; limiting contributions to the 2/365th of median income would make their job of representing a broad base of support legitimate and then what matters is ideas and strengths, not payoffs and promos. It's time to level the playing field, and then parties and candidates can truly represent the best interests of our nation, with the marketplace of ideas being the principal mover, and the respect for the Constitution restored to it's rightful place.

 

No one will amend the constitution. To get it amended we'd need a whole new congress.

 

THis would be shooting themselves in their foot, and no one we elect right now would do this. To accomplish this, we'd have to throw out our government.

i was only for this plan because i felt that we needed a "band-aid" if you will to relieve the stress on the stock market in the short term, providing less pain while fixing the PROBLEMS for the long term. Alot of people who were anti-bill were so strictly out of ideology, which is rediculous.

 

Too many people dont understand that this isnt a "punish wall st for their greediness" scenario, this is regular tax paying families losing thier retirements, houses, everything scenario. THAT is why i was pro-bill. Plus the actual projected cost to FIX the problem was 14 trillion so 700 billion was always going to be short term.

 

However the bill had ALOT of problems with it, one of the biggest being that there, again, were no regulations on anything, and that Paulson had complete discretion on which "toxic debts" he chose to buy, AND would not be held accountable if things worsened.

 

What needs to be done is a full scale FIX of what caused the housing bubble. And we have to get away from the "American dream that EVERYONE can own a house and not afford it" mentality. Many feel as though this free fall we are in right now will actually level out once the NASDAQ hits around 1,000, (where it was when the housing bubble first started). Letting these companies go into bankruptcy punishes those who deserved to lose everything in the first place, instead of a majority MAKING money (as they would have under the proposed bill)

 

 

Dont get me wrong, SOMETHING must be done to relieve the stress on the stock market and restore investor confidence. That is one of the biggest problems here, is that its not JUST the high risk investors who are on track to lose everything, its also regular joes with their 401(k)'s tied into the stock market....It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the government to do something to help those innocent Americans caught in the middle of this. I will await the second bill that looks to be in the making. Hopefully it is better because we need one hell of a band aid if we are going to get out of this without some serious pain.

 

The government isn't smart enough and is too corrupt to fix this problem. You saw them yesterday they couldn't get their acts together with the partisan politics and childish anger. The politicians most of them will vote for what's best for them and their friends on wall street, not for main street. No solution they come up with will do much good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

 

Watch.

Obama isnt the only one in bed with these guys you know

Obama isnt the only one in bed with these guys you know

 

Obamas, Chris Dodd, Hilary Clinton are all in bed with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and supporters of the CRA bill that helped create this.

 

the CRA is the main cause of this problem.

 

The Community Reinvestment Act passed in the 70's, reformed in the mid 90's by dems forced banks to give loans to low income and people with bad credit. The dems who received by far the most from Freddie and Fannie got them to back these deals. Freddie and Fannie told banks they would secure the loans, and lied about their money and assets because they could not.

 

"'We've used every means at our disposal to end

discrimination & end it as quickly as possible'

Clinton's comptroller of the currency, E.Ludwig, told

Senate Banking Committee in 1993 & they meant it.

In the name of diversity, banks began making huge

numbers of loans that they previously would not have

& opened branches in poor areas to lift CRA

ratings.

 

Then Congress gave Fannie/Freddie the go-ahead to

finance it all by buying loans from banks,

repackaging & securitizing them for resale on the open

market.

 

That's how the contagion began. With those changes,

the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in

loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008."

 

 

 

Here's a easy explanation for this mess; Democrats started the fire, Republicans added fuel and threw away all the water so we can't put it out well enough. Democrats forced this bill onto the nation, republicans most didn't want to stop it becuase it would hurt their image. Thanks to the bad idea's of democrats, and no backbone and corruption of Both parties were in this mess.

"Banks were required under the Community Reinvestment Act to give home/business loans to people who would not of qualified before. Fannie and Freddie than either bought or backed those loans. When the down turn in the economy started after 9/11, instead of being prudent and slowing down the buying they bought more and backed more. They used all their assets just to keep buying more. This lead to a shortage of liquid funds to pay when foreclosures began. "

 

Too much corrupt regulation GOT US INTO THIS MESS.

 

This would have NEVER happened if the CRA was never passed. Funny how they claim this mess shows we need more regulation and fail to mention regulation that were too extreme were to blame for the whole crisis. Always looking for a vote and buck, we need new politicians.

It was probably dreamed up as another way of controlling the population through the back door.

By taking advantage of people's greedy natures and encouraging them to borrow money to buy things they can't actually afford (including property), you have them on a treadmill which consumes all their time and energy with no hope of escape.

The public have been brainwashed for decades in the same way the media cons them into believing image, fame and wealth are the most important things in life.

Well now the financial bubble has well and truly burst, and it's time for a major reality check !!;)

 

well let's not go victimizing the people who takes these loans out. So many are quick to blame the banks who "are taking advantage of these poor people who don't know any better...". While there's blame to be given on several sides, these people wouldn't be in this mess effecting themselves and the economy if they simply had enough common sense to not try to buy things they'll never be able to afford. Pointing a finger at the media and society is like an obese person blaming mcdonalds.