It's not fair to categorize all of those citizens who took out the loans as "bad", or blaming them for the easy terms and sales pitch they were sold that made it sound fine. Someone had to convince them that is was possible to make the payments, and some of the terms were not fully discussed with those who took the loans out. But it's the lack of agency oversight, and the problem of allowing political races to be run based on money buying influence, a pure popularity/beauty contest, and short-term thinking. If the office terms were longer, and the politicians more accountable so they begin behaving as statesmen, then their efforts would reflect more long-term, wise thinking. Getting rid of the media circus and the hyped ads bought by the deepest pockets who use irrational emotional appeals to sell their candidate(s), would get us a lot further to getting good sound oversight by appointing agency heads that do their job for the best interests of the nation as a whole, and not for their political bosses, and their short-term goals of perpetual salesmanship and re-election bids, financed by the very forces that should be held in check (remember ENRON anyone?? Bush's #1 Contributors!).

Markets need checks and balances by government oversight, but the referee has to by far-sighted in the world's interests, and to get that takes an honest election and campaign process.

It's not fair to categorize all of those citizens who took out the loans as "bad", or blaming them for the easy terms and sales pitch they were sold that made it sound fine. Someone had to convince them that is was possible to make the payments, and some of the terms were not fully discussed with those who took the loans out. But it's the lack of agency oversight, and the problem of allowing political races to be run based on money buying influence, a pure popularity/beauty contest, and short-term thinking. If the office terms were longer, and the politicians more accountable so they begin behaving as statesmen, then their efforts would reflect more long-term, wise thinking. Getting rid of the media circus and the hyped ads bought by the deepest pockets who use irrational emotional appeals to sell their candidate(s), would get us a lot further to getting good sound oversight by appointing agency heads that do their job for the best interests of the nation as a whole, and not for their political bosses, and their short-term goals of perpetual salesmanship and re-election bids, financed by the very forces that should be held in check (remember ENRON anyone?? Bush's #1 Contributors!).

Markets need checks and balances by government oversight, but the referee has to by far-sighted in the world's interests, and to get that takes an honest election and campaign process.

 

The people who took the loans are just as much to blame as the government and businesses that gave them and encouraged them.

 

(remember ENRON anyone?? Bush's #1 Contributors!).

 

Remember Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?( gave the most to Obama in the last few years and 2nd total out of any politician)

 

But lets ignore one sides mess up and just blame the other side.

 

Your partisan politics are the reason america is in trouble because every thinks like you.

 

Regulations are one of the main reasons this happened.

 

You have no right talking about honest elections while openly supporting corrupt men.

some of the terms were not fully discussed with those who took the loans out.

 

Do you know why? Are you interested in learning the facts and history?

 

Banks were threatened if they didn't give out a certain amount of loans the government would and did come after them. The dems you love so much, forced them to give out a large number of these bad loans and any cost....and that cost is now our economy.

 

You want to give a free pass to the people who helped cause this crisis? *note Republicans enabled this to continue and furthered it.*

 

You come into this problem like most people without the fact and history and sling partisan politics. Government is the main cause of this, both sides. They forced most these loans to happen.(but ignore and just blame one side, its the intelligent thing to do)

True regulation can only come when we get honest representation. Lack of regulation can lead to wild market fluctuations, and the crooked scams we've seen recently. Don't blame regulation; blame the poor representation, and the the lack of reform of the elections/campaign process that allows things to develop this way.

And assuming they are the same is too simplistic. The contributions tell the story better than any one inference can say. Mostly, what's needed is to limit all contributions to a level affordable by most Americans, or else the squeaky wheels get the grease, even when they only squeak just to get grease, and not because they need any! Why is it that there's corruption?? Because someone can bend the ears farther than anyone else; because ads that persuade based on popular appeal are more effective than substantive debate in the public square.

 

I have every right to speak my mind, for freedom of the press is a right held by all of us! And I am not supporting corrupt men, only stating that equating both candidates currently in the forefront as "the same" is like saying an earthquake is the same as a tornado! Both have their flaws/faults, and the real problems neither will entirely fix, but I am merely showing that they are not quite the carbon copy of one-another that you seem to be suggesting they are.

Why regulations when they just cause financial meltdowns like this? Our government is incapable of handling the job. The markets were a lot better before the government got this involved, in 14 short years they derailed them entirely.

 

Only a uninformed person can say regulations are the answer after they caused the problem. Fire isn't put out with more fire.

 

You talk against corruption and for reform but vote and support those against it, thats rich.

 

I am not supporting corrupt men

 

So then Obama is not corrupt? Or you're just calling yourself on your own lie.

 

A earthquake is the same as earthquake just because it says it's a tornodo does not mean it is. Obama and McCain are both Earthquakes, just they both say they're tornado's. You haven't learned talk is cheap.

 

You cant fix corruption by voting for slightly less corruption.

Would you go to see a game, if there were no referee, and the rules were being constantly changed by the teams?? Our government is instituted to act as a referee on the behalf and for the best interest of all citizens.

 

I am not in 100% agreement of Obama, but someone has to balance your rhetoric in support of McCain by bashing preferentially Obama 1st, and only mentioning McCain in passing. I only support Obama in the sense that I see him as a slightly better option than McCain.

I'm calling for "referee's". But when the refs step in every 4 seconds and call a foul against the rules, would you watch the game? Referee's have a useful purpose, but they are not the players in the game changing the game all the time.

 

I want regulations, but not so many ignorant ones that causes problems like they are causing now. If a ref gets in the way and breaks the rules and ruins the game, he gets fired, not hired to referee more games.

 

I have constantly blamed McCain for the problems of today, for his corruption. You have only gone after McCain while i attacked BOTH sides.

 

I have said they are both just as bad. While you praise Obama and attack McCain, for only being a "slighty better option" it sure seems like you think one is a god and the other is satan.

 

I've posted articles and opinions of McCains evil, you are yet to do the same for Obama. Thats just a little hypocritical of you.

And so what I'm saying is that the referee must be the government working on our behalf, but with our long-term interests in mind, and to get that we must have fair elections and fair contests, and open up the commons. What we need are statesmen, not politicians. Oversight is essential, but if it's tied to the ability of some to buy off the referees, or tied too closely to the political whims of the day, then we're sunk. Unregulated markets were a roller-coaster years ago, and that's no good either.

And what i'm saying is that does not change anything nor would it ever happen.

 

The government was the ref and caused this problem, we need a new ref. Not the same one with a slightly different mind set. Oversight to a degree is essential, but you seem to think more is needed, when the too much we already have is a problem. Fires is good, but if you catch your house on fire heating it with fire, you can't say all we need is more fire next time and we'll be ok.

 

I'm not saying we need unregulated markets, just less regulated then they are now because that is what caused the problem. Too much regulation is just as bad as not enough.

 

Bottom line the cause of the problem is not the solution. Less but more effective regulation is.

And I've had enough for tonight.

Well a problem can't be fixed by more of the problem. I'd have enough too if i thought that.

this argument is becoming circular. Obviously parts of society need regulation and obviously we want some freedom from strict government jurisdiction as well...no one is arguing for either extreme. In this particular case one side is arguing that was a certain government regulation that initiated this problem...

 

There times when the government needs to step in and step out, as one with mostly libertarian leanings I feel that the government has a strong tendency to get way too involved in regulating certain aspects of modern life that either A. end up accomplishing nothing except wasting money (i.e. pork spending) or B. missing the point, exacerbating problems or solving one and creating new ones...

 

The housing crisis is a prime example. democrats attempt to benefit the lower classes by restricting the banking companies and in doing so they buried the very people they intended to help..and, consequentially, hurting the economy and most of the country.

But you're wrong. He is arguing for extreme regulation. If this amount caused the problem, he want's more, that would be extreme.

It's astounding to me how people honestly believe that if the right guy gets in office, all this stuff will be solved! Like there's an incorruptible angel we can count on to impose the correct regulations on any given industry... we just have to find him! The right man for the job!

 

Has Washington ever done anything right? No. Yet they sure try to take credit for everything that goes right. Government adds NO VALUE to society. They are merely asset reallocators. When people finally understand that, they'll see why a truly free market is the best path toward prosperity for all.

But you're wrong. He is arguing for extreme regulation. If this amount caused the problem, he want's more, that would be extreme.

 

I know that's what he's arguing. he seems to argue that the problem was caused by not enough regulation, as opposed to too much. and, like you, I disagree.

 

Perhaps I was being a bit polite...

the new bill passed last night

The Senate but it goes to the house tomorrow. The senate is more corrupt.

 

But with the House they added "sweeteners" to bribe them to vote yes. WRITE YOUR HOUSE MEMBER and tell them not to be bribed and to vote no.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/mccain-urges-bush-to-spen_n_130729.html

 

McCain urges Bush to spend $1 Trillion without congressional approval.

I am only saying that honest oversight is essential in any game, and as the economy is played out in the markets, it indeed needs Honest, intelligent oversight. With reform of the political process comes better representation on average, and with that can come better oversight. Free markets, completely unregulated, are sheer chaos in my mind, and can lead to disaster after disaster, as for example what happened with ENRON's house of cards. It's sad to see people in their 70's who have worked their lives for PGE (Pacific Gas and Electric) loose all their retirement, save for their Social Security investments, because ENRON took them over and nabbed their pensions before the implosion. Then we saw ENRON as Bush's #1 contributor in 2000 (Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling) - so, that's why I think we need more honest elections and campaigns; markets unregulated can go up and down like roller-coasters, and can lead to some pretty corrupt and cruel schemes that do no good for anyone, including the schemers.

Chuck, I agree there should be lawsuits against businesses that are engaging in fraud. But any sort of sweeping government oversight of a free market is more of a hindrance in my view. A healthy risk/reward ratio is what keeps a market in-check, not regulation. Regulation alters the risk/reward ratio so that it affects real-world supply/demand, which in turn creates inefficiencies and bubbles.

 

The oversight should be at the individual level. If you watch CNBC, you'll hear them constantly ask the question, "Do you know where your money is?" If you don't, then you're in trouble. If you do, and it's all in a single basket, then you're still in trouble. Don't let your employer manage your retirement account! Hire a good stock broker who doesn't charge a deep commission. Or just open an online account and buy a few index funds (including some foreign funds and ETFs that track commodities like oil). It's really that simple.

I believe freddie mae and fannie mac broke the law. But nothing will happen to them because of the money they gave to politicians.

Jay, I understand what you are saying - and perhaps that route would work - lawsuits vs. regulation and oversight; but I thought about that as well, and I'm wondering - it's an after-the-fact thing to go the lawsuit route. The Judiciary would have to be expanded, and the Congress still appoints the Justices.. Plus, the odds of winning a case, and the cost of trying to go that route makes it an option only for those who can afford it and who are driven enough to try it. I know regulation can be misguided, mis-interpreted (just like certain judges mis-interpret the Constitution - as a so-called "liberal" interpretation to give them all sorts of unintended leeway), or hijacked and used as a tool to further a political agenda. Sometimes, even the Bureaucracy can become a self-perpetuating monster in itself (ICE might fit that right now). But if the process were cleaned up, and the best behavior rewarded, perhaps then the regulation route would be effective, and prevent the need for litigation? And litigation doesn't always fit or get used correctly - Bush v. Gore should never have gone ahead - I think that was a state's issue, to determine the electors in the manner they chose, as per the U.S. Constitution.

 

Risk-reward and natural corrections - I would say I agree, but when the risks are cloaked, and the nature of the company is more criminal and devious than any investor can see without being part of it's internal machinery, how are the average investors, or even those privy to the so-called books, supposed to know? Part of the matter is what to do when a company becomes so large that it is a big part of the economy, and a failure so significant, that the markets can plunge like a falling stone, there's both a psychological component, and an issue of the size of the company controlling so large a sector of the economy that suddenly fails, pulling down more than just a few shares of stock.

Your advice is sound on investment, and I have to say that makes good sense.;) Yes, if the person has control of their own personal money management, and where the eggs are placed in the basket.. but in the case of ENRON, it seems that the company was pretending to be a secure investment, with steady growth, and for the retirees, the pensions were part of a negotiated plan, I think. Hmm.. And when they (ENRON) took over other companies, those sound companies suddenly lost that soundness, and many employees, hard at work, didn't even notice the "Titanic was sinking" so to speak. I have to say that few people I know have a good idea of what to invest in, how to invest safely, simply because they're busy in life, and have left it up to someone else, or their retirement package is managed for them, as through a union negotiated package. My bro lost about a third of his pension, which was in ENRON, but he wasn't aware of the shenanigans. When it all broke, and the house of cards fell, fighting it in court was futile, as the remains of the turkey were all ready picked over by the debtors ENRON owed, and the remaining assets were virtually worthless. He did keep the ENRON "E" and a few souvenirs like that.. I think, had the Congressmen and President been elected using clean money from a broad base of supporters, and there been proper banking oversight, then ENRON would have been investigated and shut down before they became the marshmallow that swallowed Manhattan. Perhaps pure markets would work, but then again I keep thinking we've tried that in the past, and problems surfaced which were not self-correcting, except through major see-saw swings in the economy (?)

The Bailout is going to pass today. It's another sad day for our nation, led by Bush into more trouble. How many times are we to let this moron hurt this nation?

 

Look up how your senator's voted and Representatives and vote them out. I am.

The Bailout is going to pass today. It's another sad day for our nation, led by Bush into more trouble. How many times are we to let this moron hurt this nation?

 

Pray it doesn't. It's minutes from a vote, turn your TV to CNBC or CSPAN.

 

I dunno about you, MrCool011, but I'm very seriously considering leaving this country for more tropical climes where they don't take your money to subsidize bad decisions by banks.

Dude, I'm watching Cspan and just heard a Rep Chris Shay just say most his voters wrote him and are against the bill, but he is voting for it. We have to rise up and purge this corruption out of the Congress.

 

Saffire, whats your real name? Sorry I forgot it. But I agree with you, I'm thinking about moving sometime in the future after this is passed, but not until after I stay long enough to vote against anyone in my state that voted for this act. I wrote My Congressmen about this yesterday, and told them to say no and I along with other voters would not re-elect them if they did.