Forum Post: Why do you support government spending?
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 9, 2012, 10:16 p.m. EST by FreeDiscussion1
(109)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
You love the government. You want to raise taxes to give to the government. You LOVE the government. Then when your government bails out the banks, you hate your government. Have you made up your minds yet. You either love the government or hate it. Make up your mind.
Hmm, but bailing out homeowners would have done so much more... or making low interest loans available for small businesses... or maybe just giving every person an equal slice of however many trillion that was. Consumer spending and small business creates real job growth.
Congressional oversite would have prevented all of this. Congress (Barney Frank) forced banks through strong committee suggestions to give loans to people that everyone knew could not afford the payments. Had congress allowed banks to continue with the "old fart banker across the desk" telling you that you cant get a loan based on your downpayment and income, this would not have happened. MILLIONS of people over our 236 year history have purchased homes with bank loans. Not until Barney and Friends did the rules change and look what happened. This did not happen 15 years ago,, it was recent. Blame a liberal agenda. You wont see this happen again because the liberals learned a terrible lesson.
It was a terrible idea, but why throw money at Goldman Sachs instead of homeowners?
If you want to bail out someone, better to bail out the ones who will go out and spend, creating demand, and creating jobs... or so I think anyway.
But that would be like giving a drunk a can of beer. The "homeowners" would STILL not be able to purchase the home over 30 or such years. You cant just give the homes to them. They still have to make mortgage payments. If you just got them back to their on-time payment within the next several months they would be in re-po position. You cant bailout those people because it would never end. If it did, everyone would go buy a house knowing they would be bailed out. This whole thing was a terrible timing event. Recession, job loss, banks FORCED to loan money to people that could not afford the $300,000 on a near zero income. I blame Barney. We had to bail the banks out because of the economy. I would not have if things were better. There were bad things going on with banks but the foreclosure problem was congressional.
I feel the same way about bailing out banks; though I agree smart people would have sold their homes and then rented until the rather obvious bubble popped... but I still think if you have a few trillion to toss around, its better to throw it to the bottom than the top.
The reason is simple, people at the bottom will spend it. Economics is really about the trickle up effect when you get right down to it. Its a thing driven by consumer spending.
In real, controlled and verified ROI, the banks, I understand, have paid back the bailout money with interest. Not was mortage holders could do. Americans interested in taking out a loan in the FUTURE will surely have learned that you cant sign your name to a loan you knew before day one, you knew you could not pay it back or were close enough to the edge. Any adult signing a $250K or $300K mortgage should have at least one inch of smart somewhere inside of their stupid. If million(s) have secured a loan and paid it back for over 200 years, these people really did need a lesson in life. I know banks did stupid things but the government opened the door and pointed guns at them to offer these loans.
I appreciate its not a one sided issue, and that there is a bit of a herd-rush mentality in most markets, but did it actually get paid back? I'm genuinely curious.
Below is a CNNMoney report. Looks like the bailout was a good thing.
By Charles Riley, staff reporterMarch 30, 2011: 4:13 PM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Don't look now, but the bank bailout is starting to turn a profit.
The Treasury Department announced Wednesday that the money it gave to banks during the financial crisis has been paid back, and then some. The bank bailout -- part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- is now $6 billion in the black, a profit that might ultimately rise to $20 billion, according to the Treasury.
[Removed]
My, what a thoughtful, constructive question. Why don't you just fill in our supposed answers and play the monolog in your mind? You don't need us in the cloud of fiction you have adopted.
Below is a CNNMoney report. Looks like the bailout was a good thing.
By Charles Riley, staff reporterMarch 30, 2011: 4:13 PM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Don't look now, but the bank bailout is starting to turn a profit.
The Treasury Department announced Wednesday that the money it gave to banks during the financial crisis has been paid back, and then some. The bank bailout -- part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- is now $6 billion in the black, a profit that might ultimately rise to $20 billion, according to the Treasury.
I think it will actually pay off, and probably the $13 trillion that was loaned by the Fed to domestic and foreign banks and big companies came back with a little interest. But, the interest charged in that crisis was unconscionably low for the risk they were taking. I accept that it was a necessary thing but a real banker would have extracted his pound of flesh from borrowers in their situation. I wouldn't have been so generous.
However, WE did not have access to the high and low level financials for the banks to see if the risk was, in comparison, to risks for borrowers. The blanket, "We will bail out the banks" statement, one would assume, was not simply a swipe of a credit card. The bailout may have been a no brainer even if there was no crisis. We will never know. However, I think it is time to move on with the bank hater stuff. That is a waste of time. We cant continue with a happy face society praising the notion of raising the debt while it is at nearly $15 TRILLION. Forget the banks, cut spending on programs that everyone knows is filled with waste and fraud.
"Forget the banks" and we will go through this all again and much too soon.
I had a dog who learned to open the gate. He didn't stay home until I fixed the gate. We need transparency at the Fed, a board of governors who are held accountable we have to have prudent regulation of banks, the must divest their trading departments who cause conflicts of interest, we must adequately fund the SEC, CFTC, The Office of the Currency, the Fed must provide the regulation that it was chartered to do, but Greenspan ( I took econ from him in the '60's) refused to do, we must regulate derivatives through clearing houses who must ringfence customer's funds (MF Global), we must have a Tobin tax on financial transactions to fund regulation and build reserves against flash crashes, we must charter the bond ratings firms and they must provide insurance to their clients, they must not provide services other than ratings which disguise the kickbacks they get for over rating securities and, yes, we must have a robust Consumer Protection Agency.
And then we can forget about banks for about 15 minutes.
Then, yes we need to cut the waste and fraud in Defense, who can not produce and has not produced accurate financial statements for years but do not deny indications of more than $60 billion lost, unaccounted for in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, plus the billions we are shipping to both countries that are accounted for (about $150 billion.) There is about that much wste ad fraud with Defense contractors. Speaking of contractors we have more of those in Iraq and Afghanistan than we have soldiers and US employees. Fire all of those. You can replace any that are really needed with troops for one third the cost.. I assume you would agree that would be a great place to start to get to a balanced budget. I went through the exercise of balancing the US Budget when Simpson Bowles was working. It isn't that tough to do.
Waste fraud and abuse in Medicare is already being cut, $500 million (which GOP strangely criticized then turned around and proposed cuts not related waste etc.) Congress should immediately void the patent extensions granted to big Pharma and medical device manufacturers and ban direct advertizing to consumers (US takes 5 times as many drugs as Canada with poorer health outcomes) Immediate generic replacement of most brand name drugs cut medicine costs by 60-80%. You can cut $billions by stopping private equity companies from gutting companies and sticking the taxpayers with the pension costs. That is billions per year as far as the eye can see. So there are perfectly valid ways to balance the budget without making it hurt people or putting the country at risk financially or any other way. Those who say otherwise are scare mongering.
I don't have time for all of the details but it is pretty simple, really.
Ever heard of the fallacy of the false dilemma? I don't 'love' the government or 'hate' it. And while I approve of some things the government does this in no way entails that I must approve of everything the government does. For instance, I approve of the government providing me with public transit and communications infrastructure, while I disapprove of it starting needless wars to procure raw materials for multi-national corporations to further line their own fetted and festering pockets.
Like many people I am capable of subtle political thought and critical thinking, and I realize that sometimes an individual/institution can be both praiseworthy and damnable at the sametime (though in different ways).
This is generally what's referred to as a false choice.
And frankly, it's not about loving or hating the government. It's about who the government is working for, who it's advocating for, and in whose service it is spending taxpayer money.
Eric - you hit it on the head! America should have the best and most effective government in the world. Problem is we have handed the governing over to the wrong folks. Here's my 2 cents:
There are a lot of improvements that need to be made. The list of reforms Americans want to see is long and varied depending on who you talk to. That said, I believe there is one reform that would provide the American people the best chances of seeing other meaningful reforms actually happen - that is REAL, loop-hope free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! I have seen others on this site calling this the "fulcrum" or pivotal issue. Right now the current legalized bribery, pay-to-play system of campaign donations and paid lobbyists has disenfranchised the American voter. Until this is fixed, any other reform the politicians may try to placate us with (be it a change to healthcare, clamping down predatory school loans, new financial regulations, etc.) will be about as effective as a farmer putting a new roof on his CHICKEN COOP, but still letting the FOX guard it.
We need to go back to the original political currency. Instead of the current system of who can collect the most money from corporations and special interests it should be who has the BEST IDEAS to EFFECTIVELY RUN THE COUNTRY (we don't need "Wealth Redistribution," what we need is "Political Influence Redistribution")!
For the sake of our children and future generations of Americans, we need to take back our democracy from the rich and powerful who are using their vast sums of money to "speak" as if they represent millions of Americans. This "Corporate Personhood" that has crept into our laws is allowing them to manipulating our policies in their favor at the expense of the average American (the recent "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling is a miscarriage of justice and must be reversed. The $50 or $100 a normal American may give to a political campaign becomes meaningless when corporations or other special interests are handing our millions to buy political access to the decision making process.
For decades now the corporations and special interests have had our "representatives" bought and paid for (both on the right and the left). Concentrating our efforts on getting the money out of our politics is the best way we can create an environment in which further reforms can be realized. Until we end the current system of legalized bribery (campaign donations) and paid lobbying our politicians will continue to be the LAP DOGS of the corporations and special interests. What we need first and foremost is real, loop-hole free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!!! If the corruption is not dealt with first, the chance of any other meaningful reforms becoming a reality is almost zero - the special interests will just use their money to buy votes and put forward bills that create loop-holes or otherwise twist the law in their favor. If we want our children to live in a country where there vote matters, we need to get the money out of our politics, otherwise they will increasingly become the 21st century version of the "landless peasant." Spread the word - End the LEGALIZED BRIBERY!!! CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM needs to be THE main goal of the protests!!!
It is not a false choice. You love the government and support the government ONLY as long as it does what you think it should do. During a change in party power you then would hate the same government if spending is decreased on those social programs you support. This is why I dont support the government just because it is in the best interest at the time. Limit government is my goal in life.
Again, it's not about loving or hating. It can be, and often is, an issue of approving or disapproving of how the government is being run, and that does tend to vary based on which party holds greater power. But my feelings towards the government in general -- ie, that it should be active, effective, and efficient -- pretty much remain steady.
The government can bite shit. A big fat brown P.O.S.
[Removed]
Government is good for a few necessary things. That is all. OWS as a movement does love big and bigger government. The bigger the better.
Government had a set of rules 236 years ago. Today, you could not find those rules if you looked for decades. Prepare for the common defence, maintenace of our country infrastructure (highways, etc) is the most important. PROMOTE the general welfare is not the same as PROVIDE welfare. If you believe we came from apes as Darwin suggested, you also must agree in survival of the fittest too.
Nope. Government has become what our founders feared. They would all have heart attacks if they saw the shit hole we've put ourselves in. It's damn sad people who serve in government are bought off by special interest and leave office extremely wealthy. At least many do, not all.
Government bails out banks with your money.
Failing to bail out the banks would have resulted in larger job losses - some estimates put the numbers on par with the Great Depression.
I don't oppose government spending - as long as we aren't being robbed in the process. When the SEC is underfunded, or when it is encouraged not to enforce the law, the people are being robbed.
It's kinda like building an interstate - without pavement.
Zen : What are the odds that the half-wit responsible for this particular forum-post is a 'Tea-bagger' ?!
Thus on the matter of the "Astro Turf" (cf. False Grass Roots) Tea Party, please see the following very important and revealing documentary film : "The Billionaires' Tea Party" ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_WC0FINmA !!
fiat lux !!!
I wish I could - I would take notes.
I'm on dial-up
Sorry mate, I forgot :-( Here's the link to the doc. film's own site : http://www.billionairesteaparty.com/ !
pax et lux !!
Hey, thanks!