Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wonder what lessons the left can pull out of this? Sure it will cost jobs and the conservatives understand that when you do offer unsustainable benifits the jar runs out of coins. I am counting on the GOP or the DNC to really get it, just fiscal conservatives that have seen the train wreck coming for years. If we are to redistribute the wealth then we must also redistribute the pain.
It isn't even about benefits. It is about the number of government workers PERIOD. If people looked at it on a smaller scale they'd see how unsustainalbe having a government that is bigger than the private sector like we have now is.
Let's pretend there is a tiny country on an island with 100 residents. 66 of them are government workers and 34 of them in the private sector build and maintain the homes, farm and produce the food and handle the medical care. The 66 in the government decide rules and regulations for everyone and provide the "safety" that everyone supposedly needs... and the 34 who actually produce goods and services support everyone. The 66 are nothing but a drain on the economy of this small country. This alone should make it clear enough to those that don't understand basic economics that we can't support a government the size of ours which is 2/3's the size of the private sector and the answer to out "jobs" problem is NOT to create more government jobs but rather to expand the private sector.
To make matters worse in this little country, suppose 3 of the government workers leave the government and start a central bank known as "The Federal Reserve" where all they do is print money and hand it out to their buddies in the government and other banksters in other country. Then you have an expansion of the money supply which means the beneficiaries of the freshly printed money, (the banksters) will be able to buy up all the goods and services with free $money from the Federal Reserve. Then by doubling the money supply prices of the goods and services will double making it twice as expensive to live in the country for the people who have to work hard and earn the money.
The obvious way to solve this country's problem is to first get RID of the Federal Reserve and have them immediately stop printing money and debasing the currency and B cut the bloated government that is double the size of the private sector down to where perhaps 10% of the residents or 10 people make up the government and the other 90 are in the private sector.
It is as simple as that. It has been what people like Congressman Ron Paul have been advocating all along.
Instead to add insult to injury we've had government leaders who in their inimitible ways find excuses to expand the government. They think a bigger government is the answer which means to spend money. All of a sudden in recent history the Federal government got involved in education and backed student loans. They got involved in health insurance. They got involved in mortgages. What has happened as a result? The prices of those things have all gone up exponentially as compared to what they cost before the government was involved.
They blame "Wall Street" for our economic woes when Wall street pays for their campaigns.Who benefits? The government elites and the CEOS of BIG PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATIONS (Wall Street)...and of course the BANKSTERS. It is all a big fat SCAM!
I took my rose colored glasses of decades ago. It is the government that allows the passage of laws that taint our food. Look at genetic engineering of our food such as rBGH treated cows that produce milk that sours quicker that is sold in markets or corn fed antiboitic treated beef cattle (when they should be grass fed and barns should be simply kept clean).
Look at the irradiation of our food. Look at the laws that forced you to have your kids innoculated with poisonous vaccinations that do more harm than good in order to enter school!
You think all of this makes things better? I think these measures are downright evil. YOU are the one wearing rose colored glasses.
Imagine if you were a farmer or a food company. Wouldn't you want to use the best most wholesome ingredients in your product to ensure it's popularity?
What if you couldn't because stupid laws had been passed that forced you to use a dozen chemicals made by Monsanto to keep the food "safe" for consumption (but that really were known carcinogens)?
Sheesh! All you have to do is look at the public water supply and the fact that rat poisoning is being added to our water and we are supposed to believe it is good for us.
Besides, everyone knows that government organizations that people think are cracking down on food and drug companies are actually former executives from those very food and drug companies they are supposed to be policing.
Again, I think those rose colored glasses are still on. Business owners are concerned with making money in the cheapest way possible and if it means cutting a few corners or having a few people becoming injured or sick (or die) so be it. Big companies don't recall products because they are concerned about the consumer, they do it because if they didn't, lawsuits would cost them more. If they believe they can get away with keeping a flawed product on the market without an expensive recall and they can handle resulting lawsuits or deflect them then the flawed product stays on the market.
Like it or not..when you run out of money you have to start cutting.
Yep, I'd like to see big cuts in the military budget for one thing. Funny how Reps never think that way when it comes to defense. That budget is sacrosanct for them.
Yep, I'd like to see big cuts in the military budget for one thing. Funny how Reps never think that way when it comes to defense. That budget is sacrosanct for them.
I can't count how many right leaning/rep/conservative people on this forum alone have said over and over and over again how cuts ACROSS the BOARD including DEFENSE need to be made. I'm a lot more conservative than most reps and I'd love to see at least a 30% cut in defense spending right away with more later.
It isn't even about benefits. It is about the number of government workers PERIOD. If people looked at it on a smaller scale they'd see how unsustainalbe having a government that is bigger than the private sector like we have now is.
Let's pretend there is a tiny country on an island with 100 residents. 66 of them are government workers and 34 of them in the private sector build and maintain the homes, farm and produce the food and handle the medical care. The 66 in the government decide rules and regulations for everyone and provide the "safety" that everyone supposedly needs... and the 34 who actually produce goods and services support everyone. The 66 are nothing but a drain on the economy of this small country. This alone should make it clear enough to those that don't understand basic economics that we can't support a government the size of ours which is 2/3's the size of the private sector and the answer to out "jobs" problem is NOT to create more government jobs but rather to expand the private sector.
To make matters worse in this little country, suppose 3 of the government workers leave the government and start a central bank known as "The Federal Reserve" where all they do is print money and hand it out to their buddies in the government and other banksters in other country. Then you have an expansion of the money supply which means the beneficiaries of the freshly printed money, (the banksters) will be able to buy up all the goods and services with free $money from the Federal Reserve. Then by doubling the money supply prices of the goods and services will double making it twice as expensive to live in the country for the people who have to work hard and earn the money.
The obvious way to solve this country's problem is to first get RID of the Federal Reserve and have them immediately stop printing money and debasing the currency and B cut the bloated government that is double the size of the private sector down to where perhaps 10% of the residents or 10 people make up the government and the other 90 are in the private sector.
It is as simple as that. It has been what people like Congressman Ron Paul have been advocating all along.
Instead to add insult to injury we've had government leaders who in their inimitible ways find excuses to expand the government. They think a bigger government is the answer which means to spend money. All of a sudden in recent history the Federal government got involved in education and backed student loans. They got involved in health insurance. They got involved in mortgages. What has happened as a result? The prices of those things have all gone up exponentially as compared to what they cost before the government was involved.
They blame "Wall Street" for our economic woes when Wall street pays for their campaigns.Who benefits? The government elites and the CEOS of BIG PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATIONS (Wall Street)...and of course the BANKSTERS. It is all a big fat SCAM!
You don't need to look at it at a small scale - look no farther than the Soviet Union and how well their big government handled things in the 1980s and into the early 1990s.
Again, I think those rose colored glasses are still on. Business owners are concerned with making money in the cheapest way possible and if it means cutting a few corners or having a few people becoming injured or sick (or die) so be it. Big companies don't recall products because they are concerned about the consumer, they do it because if they didn't, lawsuits would cost them more. If they believe they can get away with keeping a flawed product on the market without an expensive recall and they can handle resulting lawsuits or deflect them then the flawed product stays on the market.
The problem here is that the GOVERNMENT ENABLES the BIG CORPORATIONS to CONTINUE putting out substandard products. Don't you GET IT YET????? Additionally THE GOVERNMENT makes it harder for smaller companies who would likely make better safer higher quality products for a reasonable price... harder to start and run due to all the GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS THAT SHOULD APPLY TO THE BIG CORPORATIONS. Get it now?????
All the more reason for the DOJ to prosecute the fraud. Why has it been allowed to continue for so long? It should have been prosecuted as soon as it became evident, with restitution implemented. So far, Obama's DOJ refuses to indict.
The federal government will not be indicting anyone because it would require the government to release documents for court that they are not willing to disclose. The government wants people to believe it was Wall Street, not government which caused the crash...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The GSE securities clearly state on every prospectus that they are not guaranteed by the U.S. Government. What you keep trying to insist is akin to a rapist's defense: no means yes.
And since Congress authorizes the GSE's, and Congress sets the standards the GSEs operate under, and what limits the GSE's MUST accept, then no one believes the government and the GSEs are an arm length away, the legal standard to immune someone from being sued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
What was unknown? GSE securities explicitly state they are not guaranteed by the U.S. Government. In direct contrast, U.S. Treasury securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, and as such are generally considered to be free of credit risk but typically carry lower yields than other securities.
What was unknown is how bad the economy was going to get.. If Fannie/Freddie ceased to exist, then there would be NO ONE to buy mortgages.. How would homes be sold and financed with NO ONE financing them? Everyone knew their collapse meant not only a bigger recession here, but complete collapse of the financial sector. You think what we had was bad? Imagine if NO ONE could get a mortgage. I dont need a perspectus to tell me that the US Government isnt liable for something that everyone knows the federal government cant allow to fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Why wouldn't the rate be different for a U.S. Government guaranteed security than a non-U.S. Government guaranteed security? It's already acknowledged that Treasury securities carry lower yields because of the reduced risk compared to GSE securities.
Because they arent. GSEs are government sponsored entitites, and investors will want a higher interest rate for Treasuries if GSE's fail. If your wife defaults on a credit card, does your interest rates go up, even though you didnt legally sign the credit card agreement? Yes it does..
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I'm not saying that at all. I'm merely questioning why anyone doesn't understand the explicit legal disclaimer on GSE security propsectuses compared to the acknowledged lower yield Treasury securities that actually are guaranteed by the U.S. Government.
With or without the legal disclaimers, all investors know the US Govt cant afford to have the securities of GSE's to default. If they allow a GSE to default, they wont ever be able to sell another GSE to another investor again..
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
So what you're doing is expecting the U.S. Government to back USPS properties even though they don't state that they do, in order to reap a higher yield. That's what those who bought GSE securities did. If they actually wanted a U.S. Government guarantee, they should have bought Treasury securities and accepted the lower yield in exchange for less risk.
No, you actually have it backwards.. We are expecting the US Government to backup these investments, and with that expectation we accept LOWER yields, not higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No. We're talking about the loans on the banks' books... the underperforming, toxic, defaulting loans that if actually taken at mark-to-market would instantly render the banks insolvent. The U.S. Government placed the GSEs in receivership in order to establish a dumping ground for troubled banks to sell their devalued loans at nearly 100 cents on the dollar instead of having to take the loss when the loans default, or sell them at a loss. It's a taxpayer funded back door bailout for the banks.
Banks bought these assets knowing the government cant afford to let them go bad..
There was 2 options,
1 move these assets to the government
2 allow the banks to hold the assets but firm up their balance sheets
I didnt like the government taking over the assets, so it wasnt a plan I supported, but it secured up the financial stability of the nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
So, Fannie and Fredie have paid back all the U.S. Government has pumped into them plus $20B? Cite your source.
That's only $142B, not the full amount that's been lost by Fannie and Freddie, and banks are still dumping underperforming and defaulting loans into the GSEs so that taxpayers will make them whole.
The Fannie/Freddie bailouts were a different program and not at all related to the buying up of toxic assets.. The taxpayers wont get their $200B back until Fannie/Freddie are privatized again because the taxpayers are holding equity/i.e. stock in Fannie/Freddie that needs to be sold off.. this is in addition to the mortgage back security bailouts. The Fannie/Freddie bailouts will eventually return a profit to the taxpayers just like TARP, and the purchasing of toxic assets were.. And just for the record, I also objected to all of these bailouts because governments job isnt to be making investments and competing against the private sector. That said, this doesnt mean this wasnt a good investment and the taxpayers should be happy at the outcome..
I can't count how many right leaning/rep/conservative people on this forum alone have said over and over and over again how cuts ACROSS the BOARD including DEFENSE need to be made. I'm a lot more conservative than most reps and I'd love to see at least a 30% cut in defense spending right away with more later.
Not that I don't believe you, but could you give me some examples, other than yourself?
You know that how? It might well be a bunch of little mom and pop operations getting money so they can hire Joe Sixpack to do what the government had done before.
Quick thing - can we please stop using the term "Joe Sixpack??" Evoking an image of the average American as a beer-swilling, couch-surfing, chain-smoking dude in a wifebeater not only over-simplifies the "average" American blue-collar worker, it stereotypes in a "You-stay-classy-San-Diego" kindofa way. Not exactly the most awesome international street cred either.
It'd be like referring to every German as Gunter Lederhosen or every Australian as Kanga McOutback.
For the sake of making your point - John Q. Public or John/Jane Doe will work just fine.
Not that I don't believe you, but could you give me some examples, other than yourself?
Me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
