Colorado's Economy (mortgage, loans, house)

[Josseppie]

Do you think that President Obama's stimulus plan will help Colorado's economy? If so why if not why not?

[reginhild]

I think it will help but, only a very little. Luckily, there is a little bit of job creation in the stimulus bill - wish there was a lot more.

[motoracer51]

Colorado doesn't have it's own money to pay it's own bills, even after taking more than it's fair share from the oil and gas companies.

So what do these idiotic politician do? They don't cut spending, but rather go on a drunken spending spree on the dime of other states' residents.

This is a god damn disgrace.

[Shuffler]

No.

For some bizarre reason this administration seems to think there is an exception to the basic laws of economics. What Mr. Obama is doing is akin to burning one's house down in order to stay warm. When the house is gone, what comes next?

And regarding our State, 'green energy' isn't interchangeable with the infrastructure in place to run all the crap that relies heavily on cheap fossil fuel inputs. We're not just going to pull the plug on oil & gas and plug in Ethanol, wind, and solar. Ain't gonna happen in our lifetime, so get over it.

[McGowdog]

We'll see how this shakes out in time, after more votes get in, but so far it's 2 to 1 in favor of NO! Yet this state and most of the country voted in favor of Pelosi and Obama and Biden. So what gives? Was it truly just revenge voting?

All I can say is that it BETTER help. But I'm Doubting-Thomasing this thing out right now.

[bullfish15]

No it won't. In fact it will hurt all of us. And our kids. $800 billion divided by 3 million supposed "created" or "saved" jobs = $266,666 per job. Doesn't it seem a little much? And besides, that money isn't for stimulating the economy, it's for stimulating government growth.

[reginhild]

I think these questions should be asked on a near term/recession vs. long term economic health basis. Near term, hugh influx of money and some jobs created will help. Long term, the debt created will cause issues (unless we have heavy inflation to wipe out the debt - but inflation itself is an issue).

[jwiley]

The problems with the economy are not being fixed by this mess of a power grab by the government, in fact many of them are being made worse. It is irresponsible for the US government to on one hand tell the people to live within their means, and that personal debt is the cause of all this trouble, while borrowing more money to try to fix the issue.

To add to that they still have not fixed the real issue that has forced the economy in this downward spiral. The issue is not that nobody has any money, it is that banks were forced to use the mark to market accounting, when the sarbaines oxley act passed a few years ago. So for years the lenders borrowed money at the 1 to 10 ratio, using the inflated value of the loans they had made as their 10% basis. Now with the collapse of the markets they are forced to use a deflated value for their mortgage notes, and are well over the 10% law, which does not allow them to capaitalize any further (or in lawmans terms they are not allowed to borrow money) this is the reason many of them cannot lend, and will not be able to lend until they are able to either raise the cash through to collection of these debts, or place a higher value on these debts to get the ratios back in line. In other words until banks can get more money through loans or people paying off their debts, or interest rates move high enough to interest more investors we are not going to magically get out of this problem. This whole stimulus idea may help in the short term by giving some people more money to pay down their debt, but long term, it is the government moving towards more control and ownership of what was meant to be private enterprise. In other words a move towards socialism.

[zenkonami]

So what is the solution, here? Cutting services? Which ones? Lowering taxes? For whom? I'm not happy about the idea of a rapidly increasing national debt either, nor was I during the prior administration, but unless some money from *somewhere* is injected into the system to move it back towards equilibrium we risk a expanding decline our economy's ability to function correctly.

I'm no economist, and I understand there are a myriad of factors at work in any complex system of this size and scope. It seems to me, however, that some system of putting money in citizen's pockets to pay off debt (perhaps *exclusively* to pay off debt, or for those that are debt free as a significant tax break), coupled with a measured and controlled bailout of the financial institutions is the way to go. Then you've got to get a handle on inflation, which (if I understand correctly) would probably keep the overall economy slow for a couple more years, but would allow dollar value to resettle at a viable rate for both Americans and for imports/exports. Some people will have lost values on their homes, perhaps permanently, but there is a lot of overvalued property out there. Government ought to lay down the law (that is part of their job) regarding monetary policy and consumer protections, while allowing financial institutions and other bailed out industries to being repaying their loans on a long term, no interest basis pegged to inflation.

Frankly, I don't think there is any long term movement toward socialism. The American people don't want it. I *do* think, however, that the government has been moving toward a completely hand-off system for some time now, at tremendous benefit to large institutions but at the peril of the consumer at large. It is a huge, complex system, and it's difficult for consumers to navigate those waters when it benefits the supply-side to keep consumers as far out of that loop (or at least as perplexed and confused) as possible. Any short term socialization of our economy is unlikely to last for long simply because I don't think it's sustainable, and I don't think American voters would tolerate it. Frankly, I think large institutions *need* rules to keep them from becoming government like in the scope of their power. They are only accountable to money, and money is more easily manipulated than the vote of the public at large.

Colorado seems to be one of the more stable places in the United States right now, relatively speaking. If Colorado can build a policy that sustains that kind of stability then I think additional spending in the state will certainly improve economic conditions there. Buildings are still going up, projects are still being built, and clearly *someone* is financing them. To me this shows some signs of health, despite sharing some of the countries economic woes. Unless the stimulus produces a complete economic collapse for the country, which I see as unlikely (deficits, if managed, can be paid down, but only if we get the economy functioning properly), then additional funding from the stimulus can only benefit the state.

[zenkonami]

Note: Low interest should read *low* interest basis. I ought to proof read a little more thoroughly ^_^