Senate passes stimulus package...

[Master Mason]

Again, this is way right generated nonsense. Please prove to me that the Government forced lenders to issue shaky loans.

How is this any different then giving a minority a job over someone who is double qualified? Or giving a minority education at a pristine university if their grades were lower then others? This bill was established because of the country's political correct attitude. They were not forcing lenders to hand out shaky loans because of their own greed which has been afformentioned. This subject has been debated through congress and economic conventions for a number of years and it could be a catalyst but no one knows for sure. I actually have been stating that the 0% down loans were a major fault of this, but the blame also has to be put on the people asking for these loans which was my point with the right wing talk. It's always the government and never the people.

You stated above that it was a right wing generated nonsence that governement programs created/added to the problem. It was proven to you that the governement did infact do this by multiple sources.

But now it is a left wing issue?? I'm confused here.

 

[Jennasis]

OK. What's your idea? Why are you convinced this stimulus package is the best plan?

I'm not. I just fall into the "something is better than nothing" category. I'm stymied.

 

[Geoff_M]

Well, we have history as a guide. Government spending during World War II got us out of the Depression, right? It worked before, it'll work again.

You're overlooking a few "minor" details that contributed to the primary part of the "boom" that took place after WWII. The first was the psychological impact of the national euphoria on the economy after the war was over. Secondly, rationing during the war bottled up serious demand for durable goods and when war-time factory capacity was returned to civilian use, sales of cars and such exploded.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

Well heck. If massive government spending works to make lean times better, would it also make fat times better? Is there some inverse relationship I'm missing here?

Well, deficit spending has to be paid back at some point in time. The fat times are when deficit spending gets paid back. During the good times, when the economy overheats, decrease spending, pay down debt, as a way to avoid inflation. During the bad times, as the economy slows, increase spending as a way to increase GDP. It's simple really. And don't forget, government spending during WWII took us out of the Depression, so we know this can work.

 

[Master Mason]

You're overlooking a few "minor" details that contributed to the primary part of the "boom" that took place after WWII. The first was the psychological impact of the national euphoria on the economy after the war was over. Secondly, rationing during the war bottled up serious demand for durable goods and when war-time factory capacity was returned to civilian use, sales of cars and such exploded.

And those were american cars built by americans as well, don't forget that part.

 

[Anewman]

How is this any different then giving a minority a job over someone who is double qualified? Or giving a minority education at a pristine university if their grades were lower then others? This bill was established because of the country's political correct attitude. They were not forcing lenders to hand out shaky loans because of their own greed which has been afformentioned. This subject has been debated through congress and economic conventions for a number of years and it could be a catalyst but no one knows for sure. I actually have been stating that the 0% down loans were a major fault of this, but the blame also has to be put on the people asking for these loans which was my point with the right wing talk. It's always the government and never the people.

Yes they were forcing lenders to hand out shaky loans...

Let me break it down, lets say you sell TVs for a living. If the GOV starts offering 50inch plasma tvs for $400, it forces BESY BUY and SEARS to sell them for $350. It applies to anything the GOV gets involved with.

If the GOV lowers lending standards on their loans, what did you think was going to happen?

 

[bsnyder]

How is this any different then giving a minority a job over someone who is double qualified? Or giving a minority education at a pristine university if their grades were lower then others? This bill was established because of the country's political correct attitude. They were not forcing lenders to hand out shaky loans because of their own greed which has been afformentioned. This subject has been debated through congress and economic conventions for a number of years and it could be a catalyst but no one knows for sure. I actually have been stating that the 0% down loans were a major fault of this, but the blame also has to be put on the people asking for these loans which was my point with the right wing talk. It's always the government and never the people.

Did you even bother to click on the link I provided? It's a press conference with then-HUD Chairman Andrew Cuomo. He was announcing, wtih great fanfare, the multi-billion dollar settlement the government wrangled from the banks they sued under the Fair Housing Act.

In his own words, he says the banks would be required to agressively take greater risks, to people who would not otherwise qualify, and that he's sure there will be a higher default rate on those loans.

And the people in Congress who are mapping out this stimulus bill right still haven't said a word about any of this, and how it might not have been such a great idea. Most of them, like Barney Frank, still think it was a PEACHY idea. Because their intentions were good. At to them, that's so much more important than the actual outcome of any of their bone-headed policies.

 

[eliza61]

Sometimes doing nothing IS better than doing something. I think this is one of those times.

Actually doing nothing IS what got us into this mess.

 

[NYDisGuy]

You stated above that it was a right wing generated nonsence that governement programs created/added to the problem. It was proven to you that the governement did infact do this by multiple sources.

But now it is a left wing issue?? I'm confused here.

Originally Posted by moburg
It wasn't about forcing the borrower. It was about government forcing the lender into giving risky loans they otherwise would not have.

This is what I was referring to. It wasn't about forcing the borrower is what was originally wrote. That's been my arguement throught this entire thread is how the borrower needs to be at fault as well. Saying the Government is at sole responsibility is ridiculous.

 

[bsnyder]

Yes they were forcing lenders to hand out shaky loans...

Let me break it down, lets say you sell TVs for a living. If the GOV starts offering 50inch plasma tvs for $400, it forces BESY BUY and SEARS to sell them for $350. It applies to anything the GOV gets involved with.

If the GOV lowers lending standards on their loans, what did you think was going to happen?

 

[JMD]

Well, deficit spending has to be paid back at some point in time. The fat times are when deficit spending gets paid back. During the good times, when the economy overheats, decrease spending, pay down debt, as a way to avoid inflation. During the bad times, as the economy slows, increase spending as a way to increase GDP. It's simple really. And don't forget, government spending during WWII took us out of the Depression, so we know this can work.

It's not simple math. If government spending was all that was required to boost the economy and create jobs, then we would never have to worry about any recession or economic crisis. After all, the government can just spend more money, right?

It's been proven time and time again, that you cannot spend you way into prosperty. Total GDP is not as accurate a measure as government spending as % of GDP. As government spending as % of GDP increases, economic growth shrinks.

 

[moburg]

Too bad the Republicans did not see fit to be fiscally restrained during Bush's 8 year wild spending spree. Between Bush's reckless spending and now this, for once both sides of the aisle will be able to take credit for something----spending America into the ground.

Something I can agree with. Bush and the GOP Congress were FAR from conservatives on spending matters. But the solution is not MORE spending.

 

[Master Mason]

This is what I was referring to. It wasn't about forcing the borrower is what was originally wrote. That's been my arguement throught this entire thread is how the borrower needs to be at fault as well. Saying the Government is at sole responsibility is ridiculous.

The borrower will take what they can get, it's human nature, if the banks were not forced to provide bad loans, the borrowers wouldn't have been applying for them, because they wouldn't have existed.

 

[bsnyder]

Actually doing nothing IS what got us into this mess.

How so?

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

You're overlooking a few "minor" details that contributed to the primary part of the "boom" that took place after WWII. The first was the psychological impact of the national euphoria on the economy after the war was over. Secondly, rationing during the war bottled up serious demand for durable goods and when war-time factory capacity was returned to civilian use, sales of cars and such exploded.

So it wasn't real money being spent on the ground? It was just in people's heads? Gimme a break. At any rate, wasn't demand pent up during the years of the Depression all the way up to the beginning of the war? How come that pent up demand never turned into GDP. Wait, it was because euphoria had to be added to the formula, right? Is this the Haight-Ashbury School of economics?

 

[NYDisGuy]

Yes they were forcing lenders to hand out shaky loans...

Let me break it down, lets say you sell TVs for a living. If the GOV starts offering 50inch plasma tvs for $400, it forces BESY BUY and SEARS to sell them for $350. It applies to anything the GOV gets involved with.

If the GOV lowers lending standards on their loans, what did you think was going to happen?

Why did you break apart my sentence to prove a point? Try to read the whole sentence next time, when I said they didnt do it because of greed.

 

[eliza61]

They do it because of the student loan applications and the graduation list that your high school sells to lenders. They know that alot of students dorm and some parents either pay for their children or they find jobs at their schools etc. It's the earning potential that is on the loan aplication for the college, either from you the cosigner, or your child's current place of employment.

But student loan applications specifically seperate the 2. At least the FASFA form did. It was very specific in stating parents income and student income. My kid had a big fat ZERO for income. Wouldn't the smart thing be to actually send me or his dad the pre approved card?
My kid would definitely have to dorm, we live in NJ and WV would be a bit of a hike but it seems like a crazy system to knowingly give a person with no money a credit card.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

You're overlooking a few "minor" details that contributed to the primary part of the "boom" that took place after WWII. The first was the psychological impact of the national euphoria on the economy after the war was over. Secondly, rationing during the war bottled up serious demand for durable goods and when war-time factory capacity was returned to civilian use, sales of cars and such exploded.

You are correct, but the real recovery took place during the war. So here we are. If we enact the same type of protectionist policies that were necessary in WWII, we will start a global economic war. If we do not, we cannot pour enough money into our economy to help us recover. So, since we cannot do either - what to do.

What in the heck is so wrong with cutting government spending at a time like this? How much could you do with half of your taxes back for 2 or 3 years? That would turn this around. It would pour 1.5 trillion dollars per year back into the economy without borrowing a cent.

Without protectionist consumer spending, Obama's plan will fail. With protectionist spending, we might create something worse than the crisis that we now face. Danged if you do, danged if you don't (unless you go to plan R - R, as is Reduce government spending)...

 

[bsnyder]

Why did you break apart my sentence to prove a point? Try to read the whole sentence next time, when I said they didnt do it because of greed.

Who didn't do it because of greed? Congress?

Depends on your definition of greed. Some of them are beholden to special interest groups like ACORN and community activists. And some really don't understand the laws of unintended consequences.

 

[eliza61]

OK. What's your idea? Why are you convinced this stimulus package is the best plan?

Probably because the current plans have been to do absolutely nothing except walk around saying the "economy is fundamentally sound" and we can see how well that's been working.