CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Mar 6, 2009 15:23:06 GMT -5
Who is most to blame?
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Mar 6, 2009 17:55:10 GMT -5
Of course the Democrats are being blamed.Who ran the country for eight years? This recession has been building for years.However I didn't blame Bush,I blame the greed on Wall Street.B of A won't release the name of Merrill Lynch execs who got the big bonuses as M>L> was being taken over by B of A. Welfare for the rich costs this country far more than welfare for the poor and it is icing on the cake the bonus giveaway to these failures.
|
|
|
Post by daleescondido on Mar 7, 2009 8:15:41 GMT -5
Who is most to blame? There is no most to blame. We have been slowly allowing business to be more leveraged than ever before for at least 30 years. During the banking crisisi in the 80s when the development of the reo officers came to be it was the result of legislation. Foreign nations owed enough money to collapse banking institutions if interest payments werent met. So by allowing banks to loan the money to make interest payments and keep the debt in the asset column and not a liability this created the same for bank forclosures. It was a weaking of the fiscal strenght making them look better on paper. We have allowed a weakening in all areas to stimulate economic growth. People use credit card to invest in markets. The first time I ever got involved with commodities in 79 I had to show I could asorb a 25,000 dollar loss to invest 2,000 in silver. Those consepts of stability have been thrown out allowing anyone to RISK what they couldnt afford to lose to stimulate. The lessons of the 29 crash and the protections put in place have been slowly eroded in the name of stimulating.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Mar 7, 2009 14:56:29 GMT -5
Who is most to blame? There is no most to blame. We have been slowly allowing business to be more leveraged than ever before for at least 30 years. During the banking crisisi in the 80s when the development of the reo officers came to be it was the result of legislation. Foreign nations owed enough money to collapse banking institutions if interest payments werent met. So by allowing banks to loan the money to make interest payments and keep the debt in the asset column and not a liability this created the same for bank forclosures. It was a weaking of the fiscal strenght making them look better on paper. We have allowed a weakening in all areas to stimulate economic growth. People use credit card to invest in markets. The first time I ever got involved with commodities in 79 I had to show I could asorb a 25,000 dollar loss to invest 2,000 in silver. Those consepts of stability have been thrown out allowing anyone to RISK what they couldnt afford to lose to stimulate. The lessons of the 29 crash and the protections put in place have been slowly eroded in the name of stimulating. Absolutely and I think it also can be laid at the feet of Congress (both houses) with the need to stay in power by promising more and more and blindly turning from the commonsense of "can you afford this?"
|
|
|
Post by daleescondido on Mar 7, 2009 16:22:51 GMT -5
There is no most to blame. We have been slowly allowing business to be more leveraged than ever before for at least 30 years. During the banking crisisi in the 80s when the development of the reo officers came to be it was the result of legislation. Foreign nations owed enough money to collapse banking institutions if interest payments werent met. So by allowing banks to loan the money to make interest payments and keep the debt in the asset column and not a liability this created the same for bank forclosures. It was a weaking of the fiscal strenght making them look better on paper. We have allowed a weakening in all areas to stimulate economic growth. People use credit card to invest in markets. The first time I ever got involved with commodities in 79 I had to show I could asorb a 25,000 dollar loss to invest 2,000 in silver. Those consepts of stability have been thrown out allowing anyone to RISK what they couldnt afford to lose to stimulate. The lessons of the 29 crash and the protections put in place have been slowly eroded in the name of stimulating. Absolutely and I think it also can be laid at the feet of Congress (both houses) with the need to stay in power by promising more and more and blindly turning from the commonsense of "can you afford this?" This is why we are in so much trouble. The truth is not only are our business, but our nation is so overextemded there is no easy fix. The stimulius is intended to get us spending and borrrowing again, thats the only thing they understand. We on the other hand know its time to save and be frugal. Everytime a fiscal conservative says were heading for a collapse its stated they are hoping for failure. If someone jumps froma plane without a te the outcome is usually obvious.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Mar 7, 2009 16:27:10 GMT -5
Below an email that is circulating the net.
Guess you heard that 68% of the youth vote went to Obama. My granddaughter called this morning to tell me she was one of them.
I replied with this e-mail:
Dear Susan,
The election of Obama comes down to this. Your grandmother and I, your mother, and other productive, wage-earning tax payers will have their taxes increased and that means less income left over. Less income means we will have to cut back on basic purchases, gifts and handouts. That includes firing the Hispanic lady who cleans our house twice a month. She just lost her job. We can't afford her anymore.
What is the economic effect of Obama's election on you personally? Over the years, your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in food, housing, cash, clothing, gifts, etc. By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. So in the future, if you need assistance with your rent, money for gas, tires for your car, someone to bring you lunch, etc. ... call 1-800-white house. That's the telephone number for the Office of the President of the United States. I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check from his personal or business accounts, as we have, or leave cash in an envelope taped to his front door for you, as we have.
It's like this. Those who vote for the President of the United States should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, stimulus checks, etc.). What Obama voters don't seem to realize is that the government's money comes from taxes collected from tax paying families. Raising taxes on productive people means they will have less money to spend on their families... Congratulations on your choice.
For future reference, you might attempt to add up all you've received from us, your mom, Mike's parents and others and compare it to what you expect to get over the next four years from Mr. Obama.
To congratulate Mr. Obama and to make sure you're on the list for handouts, write to:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
|
|
|
Post by daleescondido on Mar 7, 2009 16:40:53 GMT -5
Most whos children voted for obama are in line for the same benfits as their children. When obama was elected my son called and said Geez whats next? I answered we have to wait and see. Eventually even the presidental supporter will realize no matter how many dollars they get for free it will be very exspensive. I get shit over this but i signed some post . The more you need the more you believe.
|
|