Forum Post: All is well in America...
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 9, 2012, 10:44 p.m. EST by opensociety4us
(914)
from Norwalk, CT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The economy is recovering and everybody has a fair shot at the American Dream.
Those who say otherwise are lazy and just want to take our "stuff" and get free "stuff" from the government.
Everybody should just get back to work (if they have a job or business) and then go buy shit.
If one's job or business doesn't pay them enough money to buy shit, then they should just go to a bank; banks are approving loans and giving money to people.
no banks aren't approving loans, cause we are in default, thanks to them raising the interest rate even when we were paying them regularly and on time!
the absurdity of the post should've clued you in to the sarcasm. furthermore, what does it mean that banks approve loans and give money to people? i thought that reckless borrowers and spenders go into the bank, take the money at gunpoint and enter it as a loan on the bank's books.
oh it was sarcasm, i get it now, ha ha, i was wondering
We got ourselves into this mess with that mentality. Therefore, it will not get us out of this mess, only deeper in.
the absurdity of the post should've clued you in to the sarcasm
ah, sorry. Some people believe it wholeheartedly, I did not even question the sincerity of the statement.
easy to do in today's America
and your brilliant solution is?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you don't like where your are at, you need to stop doing the things that got you there in the first place.
"you need to stop doing the things that got you there in the first place."
Duh! at the very least.
they still won't get it
I'm not complaining.
hey, my comment just brought up an interesting question.. why do we use 'screw you' as if it is a bad thing? What's up with that? Do we collectively not like sex?
good question. i kind of like getting screwed (when it's consensual, of course - maybe that's what it's about, con-sensuality, i don't know)
So, you are happy with the way things are.. and you are afraid that if other people are not happy with the way things are, they will act to change the situation and this might screw you in the long run? Do I have this about right?
I'd like to see a repeal of Obamacare, and the threat of increasing taxes stop and I'd like to see the government stop spending more than they take in. We are taxed enough already. Stop social engineering.
Is it the cost of Obamacare that you do not agree with? Or the principle? (should the government help protect people from rising health care costs).. What do you mean by Social Engineering?
i have yet to hear a single compelling argument why a great nation such as ours for the sake of it's economy and standard of living should not, at the very least, invest heavily in it's human capital - the intellectual and physical health of it's human participants, education and healthcare.
never, not one
The redistribution of wealth via Obamacare for starters. The reason costs are so high in the first place is because of government intervention. Then they come in and want to continually intervene more until they take over the whole thing. The housing crisis was also caused by government forcing banks to loosen lending standards so minorities could own homes and shrink the "Inequality" gap as usual - social engineering for desired outcomes.
Ok. So, in your view, is the inequality gap a problem that needs to be fixed? Or does it need to be there? (some people must be poor for others to be rich).. or will it fix itself if the government stopped interfering? Also, is it just federal government that engages in social engineering or all government (state and local too)?
inequality is of no concern to me. I could care less if someone makes 10 million dollars while I am making 50 grand. It has no bearing on my life whatsoever. That doesnt mean I want to see people starving in the streets. However that is not the case. We have more than ample safety nets in the U.S., I am not for subsidizing people so they can have a comfortable lifestyle without earning it.
So inequality is not an issue, because it doesn't affect you. That is understandable. So what do you think OWS is about? What about this forum interests you?
Just trying to educate the children on how the world works. OWS is simply a collective temper tantrum.
So, if you were not you, but someone else. Born into a different situation, raised with different people, and faced with different circumstances, do you think you would end up with the same exact view of how the world works, as you have right now? Is there any possibility that your view of the way the world works, is based on just a single perspective? If so, in your view of the world, should other people be allowed to create their own view of the world, based on their own perspective?
Did the government guarantee the Banks loans via Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae? Is not Tarp that guarantee? Did not the government pressure banks to loosen lending standards via CRA so more people could become homeowners? The governments meddling & social engineering is what caused the crisis. Get the government out of the way!
If you are self sufficient go ahead who's stopping you? The 1% isnt' the source of Tyranny - the government is. If you want less investment, fewer jobs available keep villianizing the 1%.
I am asking questions, that is all. Did you really think the banks should have been bailed out by the taxpayers? Did this happen because government had tyrannical control over big banks? Or was it the other way around? Likely the two are so intertwined, it would be impossible to separate them.
because aiming at the 1% is futile at best. At worst the 1% will just move their investment elsewhere to less hostile territory.
so what if they do? what exactly are they holding over our heads? are we not self sufficient enough to live our lives peacefully without tyranny of any kind?
David against Goliath was considered futile too.
David won.
Yes ithink there is common ground. It's just that OWS is aiming at the wrong target. They should be occupying the government since they are the ones accountable to the people.
Shooz want's to cut his nose off to spite his face lol!
again with this.. yeesh. How can you abhor force when it comes from government, yet insist everyone must look at the things the same way when it comes to your views? What is wrong with aiming at multiple targets eh? why not let OWS be the social force for change, and Tea Party (or whatever group wants the job) be the political force?
you can have your own world view all you want. Just dont impose it on me. All liberal policies require the use of force. Social Security = force, Medicare = Force, Obamacare = Force, public education = Force. Leave me the choice if you want to consider this a free country.
Spoken like a true anarchist.. Perhaps you have more in common with OWS than you think. And you are all in very good company:
From Thoreau's Civil Disobedience:
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
Actually my world view has evolved over the past 20 years. I use to think like OWS because I was indoctrinated by the education system, Hollywood, Union representation etc. Since I've been reading & open to alternate ways of thinking, my life has improved dramatically. Churchill was right. If you are 20 & not a liberal you have no heart. If you are 40 & not a conservative you have no brain.
I grew up working poor in the Bronx and am currently at MIT thanks to a crazily determined mother and a strong, supportive working class community. Simply speaking from my experience and from what I've seen, poor choices may be a part of why people are poor, but they're hardly enough of the picture to explain why rags-to-riches stories are so rare and to just be able to point the finger at an entire population and brand them as lazy, stupid, and useless.
I'll be the first to admit that what I did was hardly in a vacuum. Not everybody has a mother who is a licensed teacher who was willing to quit her job to live as a poor housewife so that she could homeschool her children to keep them out of a failing school system. Not everybody has a father who could find and hold onto a union job with good benefits up until his son's sophomore year of high school, weather an eleven-month strike and a plant closure, and manage to get another union job within a few months of being laid off. Not everybody has a landlord willing to hold off a rent increase for a year longer than he had to to cut us a break. Not everyone knows an incredibly kind nun who just dropped off $500 at our doorstep one month when we couldn't fully make rent on time.
It is theoretically possible to bootstrap oneself out of poverty, but damn near nobody who truly got anywhere satisfactory in life came from absolutely nothing. There is always the one that does, and that person is so many different kinds of amazing it's not funny, but usually there are support systems there that you didn't see that your average bootstrapper was able to take advantage of. There are also whole communities in which the resources don't exist for those kinds of support systems to develop organically and therein lies the trap. When you have someone who comes from a broken home, spends his days in a school that doesn't teach him and where large chunks of the student body punish success, in a community where few people care and the ones that do truly have no support to offer, you've essentially spent his whole life teaching him that success is out of his reach and he'd be a fool to reach for it.
The whole point of discarding this ugly attitude about the economically less fortunate is because only then are you going to watch the kind of change that you're hoping for. Give the poor real economic support for things like going to college and/or vocational training so that they can ditch their minimum-wage job for something they can actually live on. Send their kids to strong, high-performing schools where success is expected and rewarded. Truly offer them opportunity and you'd be amazed at how fast they would take it. Now, if you give someone every opportunity in the book and they still blow it, then feel free to dump them on the roadside; I won't stop you. But until that's been done your attitude is simply part of the problem.
So, does your evolved world view allow room for everyone else to have their own world view? Or does it depend on everyone having the same beliefs and opinions regardless of their circumstances.
Teabagge(r)s raised my taxes.
They lie like all the (R)epelicans!
" I am not a crook", was once uttered by Nixon.
Yes he was, as well as all (R)epelicans that have followed him.
Therefore teabagge(r)s are also crooks.
how did the Tea Party raise your taxes?
The fact that you don't know this, shows how well you really follow politics.
It demonstrates how little you watch those you help to election.
Not much.
They raised them, by legislation.
what legislation? get me the reference # so I can look it up. They meaning who? Did the President sign a tax increase? How did it pass the dem controlled senate?
How little do you really understand about politics?
There are 50 States in the Union.
Use your self professed investigative skills to figure it out.
Teabagge(r)s are some of the laziest legislators ever.
So too, are their adherents.
so you are talking about on the local level I take it. what State? so far you are coming up with zero specifics just rhetorical nonsense. Back it up.
You really are that lazy.
You really don't keep an eye on those you back for election.
I've given you all the info you need to figure it out.
But, you're just lazy.
You just want to claim deniability.
It won't work on me.
I know who raised my taxes.
I will add that it was done to offset yet another cut to corporate interests.
Do your own homework, lazy teabagge(r).
hahahaha! you have given me nothing. You make an accusation, don't back it up & then call me lazy for not looking it up? look what up? If you answered a question like this on a college exam without supporting your statement you'd get an F and you know it LOL. Who's the lazy one hahaha!
Your thinking is screwed up.
I made an accurate statement.
Teabagge(r)s raised my taxes.
The real hidden question is, why don't you know that too?
So far, the only answer I can deduce, is that you are politically lazy.
You're not alone though. no teabagge(r) supporter yet, has induced, or deduced, what State I live in.
They just claim deniability, just like you.
Just like they deny that Bush had anything to do with crashing the Worlds economy.
BTW, I carried a B+ average in college, and as of a few years ago still qualified for university, and I'm 60 years old.
Plus, I keep an eye on those I back for election.
You don't.
Spoken like a true Libtard
Spoken like an ignorant (r)epelican.
A junior high one at that.
Deny the truth at all times.
Got any quotes from Ann Coulter?
Yeah! Now let's get to the mall and buy some shit! Man now I can get those ceramic knifes I've wanted from QVC! Thanks for the good news!
Getting a loan from the bank for useless spending is what got most people in the mess they are in too start with.
Be careful with your finances.
approving a loan and giving money to a borrower for useless spending is what got most banks in the mess they (and we) are in to start with.
lenders, not borrowers, determine what debts enter into our economic system.
But the people determine the debts of their own finances, which also enters into our economic system.
Both sides played a hand, some more than others.
"But the people determine the debts of their own finances, which also enters into our economic system"
regardless of what a person wants, it is ultimately up to the bank to approve the loan, disburse the money and enter the debt into our economic system. they are the gatekeepers of debt in our society. people cannot go into a bank and force them to make a loan.
They are not a government entity though, they are not required to.
Yes, ethics wise they should, but there is no law or regulation that says they have to. That is the problem.
"They are not a government entity though, they are not required to."
Banks should be heavily regulated by the people through a democratic government because the banks' behavior and decisions have the potential for a wide negative impact on the innocent
That is what I am trying to say. Banks should not be able to loan more money than they PHYSICALY have.
Yes and alot of banks screwed themselves over, but a bank makes money off interest on loans, so the more they give out the more they make.
It's not the banks responsibility to decide what you take a loan out for.
but it's the banks responsibility to approve the loan. they can always say no. they determine if the loan enters our economic system.
They are not allowed to say "no" to housing loans. Hence the 1998-08 housing bubble (and eventual bust of that bubble)
.
government induced incentives are a huge factor in this mess. the government and the large banks are one in the same. i make very little distinction between them when assigning blame.
Pretty much.
Except banks don't own an army or police force to throw me in jail. So that's why I fear the government while I don't fear banks.
unless the banks have undue influence in the government
Yes but when there is a profit why would they say no?
They can't predict if the loanee will pay back the amount on time or back at all, the only thing they can do is check their credit score and history and make an educated guess.
Unfortunatly with the turn in the economy they lost alot of money.
"Unfortunatly with the turn in the economy they lost alot of money."
They did a hell of a lot more than that
[Removed]
"Yes but when there is a profit why would they say no?"
especially when the banks know that the taxpayer will bail them out when the loans go bad.
...and there lies the problem.
Yes but the problem is on both sides
the bankruptcy of a large number of individuals does not carry anywhere near the negative economic impact that large financial institution bankruptcies do. in fact, the bankruptcy of individuals allows the individuals to re-enter the economic system and begin spending again.
banks have the greater responsibility to keep these loans out of the economic system in the first place.
I agree, but in my oppinion is if the business is going to fail let it. No need to save a sinking ship. (Bailouts)
The banks are bankrupt because of their own doing, but as far as the situation of the loanees, that is their responsability.
"as far as the situation of the loanees, that is their responsability."
the borrower can go bankrupt and start over again - has little impact on me or you.
The borrowee can claim bankrupcy as well and start over. Again im not saying you are wrong, but there are two sides to it.
"The borrowee can claim bankrupcy as well and start over"
The bankruptcy of large banks have an impact on the entire economy (you and me), whereas the bankruptcy of the individual does not.
yes but when (you and me) claim bankrupcy we hurt the banks. Then when they go bankrupt it hurts us. It's a vicious cycle.
the banks made the decision to loan money. the fact that banks are hurt because of the risks they took is to be expected. that's capitalism. however, their subsequent bankruptcy from the risks they took should NOT hurt us and that's the point. That is why banks are regulated (or were regulated until the 90's). That has been the purpose of bank regulations since the Great Depression. Since the late 80's, early 90's, banks have been lobbying government officials to have those regulations dismantled. and they have been enormously successful in doing so with the peak of the dismantling occurring with the repeal of Glass Steagall.
In the ideal economy, we would have many many banks in the system with many failures, which do not effect depositors and innocent bystanders, occurring all the time. This is entirely possible and it was the norm since the end of the Great Depression through the Savings and Loan scandal.
yes, there are two sides - one side does not impact the innocent (you and me), the other does
"in my oppinion is if the business is going to fail let it. No need to save a sinking ship. (Bailouts)"
in general, yes. but when you're talking about large banks, their failure can wipe a lot out of the economy, not just their business, which is why they were bailed out. this is also why banks have a greater responsibility to make sure they do not approve too many loans for "useless spending", which increases their risk of bankruptcy. the borrowers themselves have little to do with increasing systemic risk, which is the risk when gone bad that devastates an economy and effects innocent people.
But a bank is not a government entity. They do not have the forced responsiblility to protect the economy. We can't just keep saving people because we think they will be a threat to the economy, the bailouts did not better anyone anyway. There are many banks here in the United States, the chances of all them going out of business is slim. When one sinks another buys them out and takes their place. Things move in a cycle, if it is let take its natural course, for the most part it is ok.
are you saying that several large bank failures would not have a severe negative impact on the economy?
They would, but not devistating enough to cripple the economy completly. Not even enough that it is worth it to bail them out.
do you feel that large banks should have the freedom to put us and our economy at risk like that? what if you're wrong and the devastation is enough to cripple? how much devastation should they have the freedom to cause?
They are a private business, if the government allows it there is not much that ca be done unfortunatly.
Well for one, the Investment Banks which dealt in those MBS did not know who those loans were made to, they were way high up the chain. The loans were made by local, regional or national mortgage firms and they should have been a little more careful. Then again, housing loans were seriously encouraged and saying no was not all that possible. Besides, it is NOT the job of a bank to advice you on financial prudence. You are grown up responsible adult and you should know to live within your means.
i'm not concerned about the borrower - they can go bankrupt without effecting me or you.
i'm concerned about the lender and the debt that enters our economic system - their bankruptcy does effect me or you
Did I hear you right when you said "I am not concerned about the borrower - they can go bankrupt without effecting me or you".
Where have you been for the last 5 or so years. Do you really think that the "foreclosures" in this country "didn't" have a drastic effect on the housing market because people went bankrupt.
Oh wait, it wasn't the people who went bankrupt it was the lender - yar, right.
personal bankruptcies are a slow unwind in the system, which is why our banking system can extend a reasonable amount of unsecured debt
large bank failures are shocks to the system
So what you are saying is that with over 1 million foreclosures within the past several years, those bankrupcies shouldn't have much of an effect on the economy. Am I correct in making that statement based on what you stated?
Yes, you are correct in making that statement. They are already bankrupt and have been for a long time now. they just need to do the paperwork and get back into the economy spending, which would benefit us all
the lender is the one who approved the loan, disbursed the money and allowed the debt to enter the economic system. it all begins with the lender. had the loans for "stuff" people couldn't afford never been approved and money disbursed, there never would've been subsequent personal bankruptcies.
as the gatekeepers of debt in our economic system, the lenders have a greater responsibility to our economic system than the borrowers.
And if the borrower never went into the bank to borrow the money he wouldn't have a financial problem either. It's a two way street.
Let me ask you. If what you say is true about the "loan companies being sharks" why is it that the interest rates are at an all time low and people aren't flocking to the banks to get loans?
Housing prices are the lowest they have been since the 80's.
I mean, the hook and bait is out there for them to do so, why aren't they donig it?
I am not concerned with the borrower, let them go into personal bankruptcy for all i care. in fact, that is a good thing for the economy because they can get back out there and spend.
"I mean, the hook and bait is out there for them to do so, why aren't they donig it?"
At the moment, banks can make loans to two types of people, a person with bad credit and a person with good credit. Today, bankers can't consciously extend a loan and give money to people with bad credit. Most people with bad credit are aware of the environment today and don't even bother demanding a loan. On the other hand, the people with good credit don't want to take on additional debt because they are concerned about their job or business and don't want to risk a future personal bankruptcy.
Until the bad credits clean up their balance sheet or declare bankruptcy, they're not getting any money from the banks. Bad credits know this and don't even bother demanding a loan. The good credits want to feel more secure about their job or business before they demand a loan and they're not getting that secure feeling right now. so, like the bad credits, they're not demanding a loan either.
you didn't consider the possibility that interest rates are at an all time low partially because the people who have the credit to borrow aren't demanding it.
The bottom line is that people who wanted to buy shit they couldn't afford didn't walk into the banks with a gun and take the money. The banks approved the loans, gave out the money and entered the debt into our economic system. The banking crisis and subsequent economic woes were primarily caused by the behavior of the banks, not the borrowers.
This is really not that controversial among those who "know" about these things. Most who "know" find the "blaming conversation" to be a cheap biased moral conversation, not an objective one based in reality. Unless one believes that the reckless borrower and spenders took the money at gunpoint and entered it as a loan on the banks books, it's obvious who got us into this mess and the subsequent broader economic woes which concern us all.
Now, how do we get out of it? What did we learn from it? What do we do differently in the future?
And by the way, to any dullard so inclined to label me a socialist or communist in reaction to my objectivity, i have this to say: fuck you - not because i'm not a socialist or communist, but because you are a shallow thinker and are probably unworthy of the demands of a robust democracy.
Which is why there are caps on leverage and also a need for diversification of investments. In case of the sub prime mortage crisis, both were mostly missing, banks had way too much MBS in their balance sheet and they were way too much leverage. Of course, no one expected things to go bad, but it did and well we know what happened
and because financial institutions (intermediaries/money creation) are such an enormous component of the systemic risk in our economy, they should be regulated by the people through their democratically elected government. additionally, if they are to receive any money from the taxpayer (explicitly or through implied guarantees), then nobody at the financial institution should earn more than a civil servant salary because at that point it effectively is a government institution.
So according to you giving civil servant salaries to bankers would solve the problems? Ever heard about RBS? Their salaries are capped. And yet it's in deep trouble.
Was RBS compensation capped before or after the "financial crisis"? Yes, I am suggesting that, for a financial institution that receives funding from the taxpayer either explicitly or through implied guarantees, no total compensation for anybody at the institution should exceed that of a civil servant (certainly nothing higher than the president of the US) as the institution is effectively a government institution.
Before. Always have been capped. For one, what you are suggesting will never be implemented, and there is a huge difference between a government guarantee (which will only come in effect in the rare eventuality of a crisis) and a govt run body. Secondly, if it were implemented most banks would simply not accept a govt guarantee and retain their autonomy.
A taxpayer guarantee in the event of a crisis is essentially capital. It allows the institution to build risk and make money because counterparties know there is a guarantee. Without the guarantee, the banks would not be able.to assume as much risk and, therefore, make as much money. The taxpayer needs to be compensated for being on standby and cannot continue to give financial institutions a free "put" option. The taxpayers elected representatives need to demand an ongoing premium for providing the "put" option.
"if it were implemented most banks would simply not accept a govt guarantee and retain their autonomy."
...that would be the ideal situation. However, should a non-guaranteed institution find itself in a situation where it needs to be bailed out by the taxpayer to avoid systemic damage it will be taken over with equity wiped out to zero, restructured and sold with the proceeds going back to the taxpayer.
The jig is up for the bankers; it's high time for capitalism
About the last part. If I am a shareholder of a bank and you are telling me that if the govt bails me out, it would remove my stake at the firm, then I would much rather declare bankruptcy, wouldn't I? I mean, in one case I lose all my stake and in another the firm goes bankrupt, one and the same thing as far as a share holder is concerned. The one who suffers would be the depositors. As for the management, they can either wish to stay with the new govt owned bank or find jobs elsewhere which they will easily find.
See, policy making isn't all that easy. OWS has a way too simplistic view of life.
As they do now, regulators monitor banks on an ongoing basis and step in appropriately. Bankruptcy is not an option for the bank as shareholders have already lost control. (if there is fraud, all bets are off as criminal and personal liability come into the picture).
"The one who suffers would be the depositors."
How do they suffer any more than they do now?
"As for the management, they can either wish to stay with the new govt owned bank or find jobs elsewhere which they will easily find."
What's wrong with that? Their options moving forward are their own. If they've done nothing wrong they've got nothing to worry about.
"See, policy making isn't all that easy. OWS has a way too simplistic view of life."
Now that's just whining - hardly an argument for allowing the subversion of capitalism by bankers to continue
Regulating banks and taking active control are two very diferent things. As for control, the govt did buy equity, that is a way to control. The equity was later bought back at the market rate. Why do you want complete total control? This isn't USSR
The depositors would suffer if there was bankruptcy. Usually any bank would have some NPA, a 2-3% or even 5% NPA is not much of a problem. But say, it rises to 20%, then there is a problem, but still 80% of the assets are good. So if the bank declared bankruptcy, even this 80% may be taken away by debtor. Or the bank can write off the 20%, undergo restructuring and depositors only make a short loss which can be recovered subsequently.
No banker would put in 16 hrs a day for a civil servant salary. Do you think we are fools?
That wasn't an argument. It was an observation about your naivete.
Groundhog day.
;-)
[Removed]
What is the occupy wall steet please someone tell me?
consider formulating what it "is" for yourself
Look around you. Are living in Oz? You aren't on the same planet I'm on.
the absurdity of the post obviously didn't clue you in to the sarcasm.
Ah, sarcasm. So many trolls over time here that I guess sarcasm is hard to detect. They'll post anything and expect you to take it at face value. I'm expecting one of them to assert that the moon was created by Ron Paul out of green cheese. Thanks for pointing it out.
they "expect you to take it at face value" because they've believed it so far without questioning it for themselves
ROFL
ROFL?
Rolling on floor laughing !
[Removed]
[Removed]