That bothers me too. I read here well before the latest crisis that there is something wrong with the financial industry becoming so powerful and important in current markets, and that they contribute nothing to society other than making themselves rich by shuffling money around, without any benefit to society. How true that turned out to be.

It also bothers me when I read about all these goods and services we are supposed to buy with our money, except that there are fewer and fewer companies left to provide them. We buy our goods from overseas, we outsource our services, and are becoming some kind of a pathetic "can't live within our means but someone else will print some more money for us" country. It's very sad to see.

AGG

I agree with all three points that Krazy offered, although not so much with "government de-regulation" as with an intentional lack of oversight on government backed/created entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.




graycloud - that's correct. It's called "Capitalism" and is what has made America great. You are advocating, in this statement, for Socialism...let the State decide and let the State control everything "for the common good of all the people."

But the State produces NOTHING. What it does is just what precipitated this crisis. The CAUSE can be summed up it one word (Liberalism/Socialism) and championed by by two words (Liberal Democrats) and shouted by Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, etc.

YEARS ago the Republicans in general, and John McCain in particular, TRIED to address this growing problem of liberal socialist Democratic "think" and put the brakes on Fannie and Freddie, only to be roundly "poo-pooed" by Democrats (led by Barney Frank). What the Democrats wanted, and what they got, was lending to people regardless of their ability to repay the loans. This was simply another attempt at their favorite ploy of "income redistribution." Take from those who have money and give it to those who don't.

It is part of their tax strategy as well. They believe in a "zero sum" concept and that they can tax their way out of any problem, all they have to do is convince everyone that they will "ONLY" tax the "fat cats."

But that has been proven a false premise over and over again, yet they keep returning to that "Well" because the general public IS ignorant of how capitalism actually works.

Tax cut after tax cut has resulted in INCREASED revenue to the government, whereas increased taxes leads immediately to reduced spending by the people and reduced revenue by the "fat cats" (read business, especially small business here) to the government. Then they couple that with rampant spending, figuring that they can always raise more taxes to pay for everything, and you wind up with an Obama-type candidate who IS THE most far-left of all the Senators, who winds up running for President with the 3rd most far-left Senator, and with NEW spending programs will cost another TRILLION dollars, with NO spending offsets.

Nationalized healthcare. Nationalized everything. That is the SOCIALIST goal of CHANGE that the Democrat party wants, and they appeal to the "ignorant masses" who don't understand that Socialist countries STIFFLE growth and the availability of good services, substituting them with govenment run "I'll get it around to it when I feel like, and by the way, you can wait 6 to 12 months to see a Doctor if you are not having an immediate emergency."

Extend that sort of "business accumen" to everything else, and you get the sort of "meltdown" that we are currently facing. Guess where the 700 Million Dollar bail-out is going to come from? NOT from the government, they don't have any money and they don't do anything to EARN any money. They are going to reach in to the pockets of everyone else and TAKE MORE to pay for THEIR idiocy in lending practices that were designed to "buy them votes."



Very plebean of you.

I say we need a revolution in manufacturing that eliminates all waste and turns the production of goods into something that actually benefits the planet.

"Benefits the planet? "Eliminates all waste?"

Better talk to the animals who don't know anything about waste management.


And we need to create a new sustainable energy economy.

Nice idea that everyone would agree with. NOW, how do ACHIEVE that objective when capital investment is curtailed and no one can afford the "new higher cost energy?"


And we need to reform the way we produce our food and the way we practice medicine.

Is that so? Maybe we should use Africa as the model for food production? Maybe we should use Canada or Great Britian as our model for socialized medicine? Oh wait, if WE do that then the Canadians and the Brits will NOT be able to come to America to get the health care they need WHEN THEY WANT IT. They will have to stand in line with all the Americans.

And while you are at it, just HOW MANY Doctors and Hospitals do you think will survive with Government controlled pricing?

IF you really want to reform the healthcare system, why not begin with the real culprit in "unaffordability," the malpractice attorneys. Why not look at TORT reform as the "biggest bang for the buck" immediately. Why do you think so many Doctors (i.e. Obstetricians and Orthopaedists) have "opted out" of practicing in many areas?


I wish those efforts dominated our economy, instead of credit default swaps and cruise missiles.

The credit problem can be solved by keeping the Barney Frank's of the world out of income redistribution efforts.

The cruise missile issue (I assume you are referring to defense spending) better NOT go away. The primary function of government IS to defend and protect our "way of life" as established by the Constitution and which has resulted in saving the "Free World" on several occasions from the nutjobs who want to impose their will on everyone else.


Those changes I listed would all benefit and give power to a skilled and growing working class,

No they wouldn't. They'd actually do the exact opposite and retard or eliminate GROWTH of business that actually DO the hiring of people (and thereby provide a paycheck rather than a government 'dole').


whereas today we are ruled by moneyed elites, who no matter how many times they fail are somehow still invited to the table to "fix" problems they had a hand in creating.

Yes, and those Moneyed elites are, for the most part, sitting on their rumps in cushy surroundings call the "Capital" in either the Senate or the House of Representatives.

IF you really want to start changing things for the better, I would suggest Term Limits on all Senators and Congressmen. Return the focus of government to a place of SERVING the people and not constantly seeking to secure their job by neverending elections. Serve, and then go back home and produce something again. STOP inviting them back to "fix things" again and again.

Nothing I wrote advocated anything you'd call a "socialist agenda". People who are pursuing the things I suggested are getting rich.

You hit the nail on the head, ForeverHers.

Yeah, ML, he put words in my mouth and then disputed them. Top notch.

lousygolfer


Your right, how it was calculated doesn't make sense, but that is a big part of the problem with all of this, the banking folks skewed their own books.


When you consider most of what they are talking about re: the number of actual mortgages is lower, that's because the only one's they are looking at are the sub-prime and Alt-1 loans, and some other type of loan they used, they are not including ALL the other home loans. They are not concerned about all the other mortgages in this, they aren't looking to bail them out.

Is that so? Just what words of yours that I quoted weren't in your mouth to begin with?




Oh contrare, everything you wrote was straight out of the liberal socialist handbook.


And you also made it clear that you don't like people getting rich, so are you now changing your mind?

Is that so? Just what words of yours that I quoted weren't in your mouth to begin with?

Oh, all right.

I wrote:

And we need to reform the way we produce our food and the way we practice medicine.

You wrote

Is that so? Maybe we should use Africa as the model for food production? Maybe we should use Canada or Great Britian as our model for socialized medicine?

followed by talking points disputing the things after your "maybes". That bizarre statement about Africa, I have no idea what it even means. The other is more straw-fighting. I didn't say anything about socialized medicine.

Later I wrote

I wish those efforts dominated our economy, instead of credit default swaps and cruise missiles.

You wrote

The cruise missile issue (I assume you are referring to defense spending) better NOT go away. The primary function of government IS to defend and protect our "way of life" as established by the Constitution and which has resulted in saving the "Free World" on several occasions from the nutjobs who want to impose their will on everyone else.

which places all kinds of words in my poor undeserving mouth.

Finally, where on earth did you get this?

And you also made it clear that you don't like people getting rich, so are you now changing your mind?

Made it clear? How?

Foolishness, this kind of online-forum debating. I regret giving my opinion.

This is a bunch of bull. You have to look no further than the latest stimulus package failure. The tax cuts came in and sales still slumped in all markets. It didn't even make a dent in our current economic slump. Don't forget though "the fundamentals are sound."

You decry the Democrats for outrageous spending yet the fact remains the Republicans are no better.

The current US national debt is:

$10,029,296,331,958

Very soon to be $12 trillion. With a population of 304,000,000 that means that each US citizen is responsible for $32,900 of government debt. Maybe the American middle class just followed the example of the Republican party's deficit spending habits.

Oh, and just in case you missed it, President Bush's approval rating just reached 26%. He did such a great job of screwing up our country.

More coming on the other points, but it should be noted that the approval rating of the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS is 18%! THE LOWEST RATING EVER RECORDED FOR CONGRESS. [that was as of August 18th, I believe it is even lower - 10% - but have to find the article]

Gallup: Approval rating for Congress matches lowest ever recorded

The approval rating for Congress is now "the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974," Jeffrey Jones of the Gallup Poll reports today.

That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress."

Gallup: Approval rating for Congress matches lowest ever recorded

Zogby had the Democrat Congress rating at 11% as of September 19:



I wouldn't be talking about Bush's approval ratings when the democrat's own approval rating is less than HALF THAT.

Bush, Congress at record low ratings: Reuters poll

Quote from Glenn Beck on :

I doubt many minds will be changed on this forum and may cause too much acrimony amongst friends. I have lived in both Canada and Texas - on both sides of the political spectrum so to speak. The socialism experience in Canada is fine for Canadians because Canada does not have the responsibilites nor challenges of the US.

In either event we will wind up with our first black president or first woman VP. So somebody start making the popcorn, this next month will look like something right out of the movies.


Anyway - have fun, be nice - the times we are living in are interesting while filled with peril.

btw - I can vote - I waited in line legally years back. Took a while though

There are still plenty of Republicans in Congress.

As far as public opinion....

there are people out there who see no problem with Palin as VP, so I take any poll with a grain of salt.

Who is the majority, Krazy? Who controls congress? Who sets the AGENDA? DEMOCRATS.

Only a moron would rate Bush's performance as better than Congress. Are you kidding me?

Bush Jr. will go down in history as the worst President ever. By a mile.

It has been clearly documented that he and his administration have been so awful, so blatantly incompetent and corrupt, that I would begin to question the wisdom of anyone who continues to blindly support him at this point.

He was bad for this country in every way, and we'll all be better off when he's gone regardless who wins.

Who gets all of their decent legislation vetoed by a president who vetoed nothing until they became the majority?

DEMOCRATS.

I think the majority of the people have a low opinion of every institution including govt, GOP, DEM, Congress, Wall Street, Medical establishment.

Not sure if anyone could muster over a 66% approval rating at this time.

I agree.

That's not the fault of just one party. Both parties have been screwing the pooch for far too long.

First, let me ask that everyone to please keep this debate respectful. I have learned a lot in the last few political threads and we are all friends as rwinger said. Everyone should be allowed to voice there own opinion whether your agree or not without it turning ugly.


Agreed, you can count me as one of those that disapprove too. I would say the reason their approval rating is so low is because of the war in Iraq. They are in a lose/lose situation. If they force the President's hand and cut funding to the troops to get the war ended people would disapprove or the people disapprove because they are seen as supporting a war the American people do not want. Either way they can't win.

You take the war out of the equation and their approval rating would be much higher.

Just to point out that Bush is an easy guy to bash around even for the GOP since he is a lame duck. There are some Bush backroom moves that we just may agree and appreciate once he is out. I would have to admit he has one terrible PR problem - prolly the main weakness of this admin.

I wanted to add another piece - I was intrigued by an interview on FOX yday AM. Just throwing it out there - the world is becoming a very dangerous place.

There is a new book out The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower by Robert Baer that I am 'fixing' to buy. It is written by a ex-CIA operative and its a study on Iran.

If you think the current financial crisis is terrible - this is nothing to the potential issues in the next few years.

He says in the book that Israel has been pushing Bush in the last year to use Iraqi flyover rights to take out the Nuke reactors in Iran. Bush has been pushing back and has repeatedly refused Israeli proposals.

The risk is that once Iran is attacked - all heck is loose. The author explains that Israel will not allow Iranian nuke to remain or go forward no matter what the world thinks. So the opportune time is during the transition from one admin to anther admin. Remember 9/11 came about in the first 9mos of Bush in office.

Iranian threat of deterrence will roll into place: Iran will certainly take out via missiles the Saudi fields, Iraqi Shia will be thrown in rebellion, attack American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Outcome would be a flashpoint in a general Mid East war with oil prices jumping to unheard prices as the Saudi fields are taken off line. Even the author thinks the US military will be drawn into the fight and will prevail - the estimated casualties will be highest since WWII.

There are problems in the world with no easy solutions. The above scenario maybe improbable (sounds like a Clancy novel to be sure) but on the other hand - Iran's persuit of the nukes and an Israeli response gives one pause to think what options the president may or may not have in the future.