BF2S Forums and why not pass a "jobs bill"?

You certainly have a unique way of looking at things, lowing.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You certainly have a unique way of looking at things, lowing.

It is called the truth.

If the govt. really wanted to help the people or care for the people, they would do shit that stimulated actual job growth, not simply redistribute other peoples money that do have jobs, to those that do not.

Now wait a minute...  if you're looking to the government to stimulate job growth, isn't that kind of statist?  I thought the market could handle growth on its own. 

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You certainly have a unique way of looking at things, lowing.

It is called the truth.

If the govt. really wanted to help the people or care for the people, they would do shit that stimulated actual job growth, not simply redistribute other peoples money that do have jobs, to those that do not.

Now wait a minute...  if you're looking to the government to stimulate job growth, isn't that kind of statist?  I thought the market could handle growth on its own. 

It can if the govt. would get the fuck out of it and stop taxing it to death.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is called the truth.

If the govt. really wanted to help the people or care for the people, they would do shit that stimulated actual job growth, not simply redistribute other peoples money that do have jobs, to those that do not.

Now wait a minute...  if you're looking to the government to stimulate job growth, isn't that kind of statist?  I thought the market could handle growth on its own. 

It can if the govt. would get the fuck out of it and stop taxing it to death.

....and how do you propose paying down our current debts?

I've got nothing against cutting government spending, but cutting taxes at this point would just result in bigger debts.

I'd just like to point out that lowing's proposal was Hoover's "solution" to his recession.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

....and how do you propose paying down our current debts?

I've got nothing against cutting government spending, but cutting taxes at this point would just result in bigger debts.

First stop spending would be a great way to reduce debt. Kinda like how it works for the rest of us.
Ummmm how about putting people to work, tax fairly ( because if more people are working you have a larger tax base) and stop throwing money into holes that do not produce?

Or do you think crippling EVERYONE is going to generate income? read my sig.

There is plenty of fat in government budgets, but cutting it is very difficult because of a budgetary form of NIMBY (yes, John, I'm using that acronym too...    ).

Every special interest has their own piece of the pie.  For example, there really is no logical reason for us to subsidize agriculture anymore, but we still do, because agricorporations lobby hard for it while the public is still under the delusion that it's mostly going to "small farmers."  At this point, small farmers are well named -- they make up a very small portion of the agricultural market.  So, even if we restricted all subsidies to only small farmers, the budget for this would be miniscule compared to the current one.

Of course, lots of politicians across the country have ties to these agricorps, so this budget rarely sees cuts and has actually expanded in recent years.

Until we can cut out a lot of this pork, cutting government spending isn't going to happen.  Until it does, we can't cut taxes.

and yet, we are not in this mess because of agriculture. We are in this mess because the govt. refuses to let hte market correct itself. Can't risk a society that needs the flow of money more than it needs govt. intervention in their lives controlling that flow.

lowing wrote:

and yet, we are not in this mess because of agriculture. We are in this mess because the govt. refuses to let hte market correct itself. Can't risk a society that needs the flow of money more than it needs govt. intervention in their lives controlling that flow.

We are in this mess because of pork and because regulators have been corrupted by industry itself.

The level of corruption we currently face is considerably less than in countries where there is little to no regulation, however, because if you let the private sector completely run things without oversight, then life tends to suck for the common man.

Our problem isn't regulation itself so much as it is corruption in government linked to corporate interests.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

and yet, we are not in this mess because of agriculture. We are in this mess because the govt. refuses to let hte market correct itself. Can't risk a society that needs the flow of money more than it needs govt. intervention in their lives controlling that flow.

We are in this mess because of pork and because regulators have been corrupted by industry itself.

The level of corruption we currently face is considerably less than in countries where there is little to no regulation, however, because if you let the private sector completely run things without oversight, then life tends to suck for the common man.

Our problem isn't regulation itself so much as it is corruption in government linked to corporate interests.

No again. We are in this mess because of govt. interference in the housing market. We fell deeper in this mess because govt. insists on interfering.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We are in this mess because of pork and because regulators have been corrupted by industry itself.

The level of corruption we currently face is considerably less than in countries where there is little to no regulation, however, because if you let the private sector completely run things without oversight, then life tends to suck for the common man.

Our problem isn't regulation itself so much as it is corruption in government linked to corporate interests.

No again. We are in this mess because of govt. interference in the housing market. We fell deeper in this mess because govt. insists on interfering.

The CRA should share some of the blame, but it and other regulations certainly weren't the only reasons the mortgage crash happened.  Plenty of stupid actions were made by the private sector -- some of which would've happened with or without government involvement (like the absurd amount of derivatives and leveraging).

banks were forced to act against their desire to make loans for people who could not pay them back. It is this act that caused the mortgage crisis and thus the entire economic crisis. The finger pointing is irrelevant to those facts.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The CRA should share some of the blame, but it and other regulations certainly weren't the only reasons the mortgage crash happened.  Plenty of stupid actions were made by the private sector -- some of which would've happened with or without government involvement (like the absurd amount of derivatives and leveraging).

banks were forced to act against their desire to make loans for people who could not pay them back. It is this act that caused the mortgage crisis and thus the entire economic crisis. The finger pointing is irrelevant to those facts.

Derivatives and leveraging have nothing to do with the CRA.  They were merely expansions upon previous practices.  Leveraging, in particular, has been around for a long time.  It didn't become a problem until corporations started stretching how much they were compensating for with so little in actual assets.

You could make the argument that ARMs wouldn't have been so common without the CRA, but the other two are endemic problems.

I do not recall major companies folding because the CEO's got paid too much. Enlighten me.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

banks were forced to act against their desire to make loans for people who could not pay them back. It is this act that caused the mortgage crisis and thus the entire economic crisis. The finger pointing is irrelevant to those facts.

Derivatives and leveraging have nothing to do with the CRA.  They were merely expansions upon previous practices.  Leveraging, in particular, has been around for a long time.  It didn't become a problem until corporations started stretching how much they were compensating for with so little in actual assets.

You could make the argument that ARMs wouldn't have been so common without the CRA, but the other two are endemic problems.

I do not recall major companies folding because the CEO's got paid too much. Enlighten me.

The only companies that have been limited in how much they pay CEOs are ones that accepted tax money for bailouts.  The conditions for these limits are tied to what they owe the government.  If they pay back what they've borrowed (which some have done), then the restrictions are no longer in place.

That policy was more of an incentive to pay back loans quickly than it was one that actually made a difference in terms of stability.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not recall major companies folding because the CEO's got paid too much. Enlighten me.

The only companies that have been limited in how much they pay CEOs are ones that accepted tax money for bailouts.  The conditions for these limits are tied to what they owe the government.  If they pay back what they've borrowed (which some have done), then the restrictions are no longer in place.

That policy was more of an incentive to pay back loans quickly than it was one that actually made a difference in terms of stability.

I am not speaking of the bailouts, I am speaking of the cause of this crisis, and it was not agriculture nor was it compensations. It was govt. intervention into the market for votes.

Ok, two things...  The agriculture example was just one of many involving pork.  I mentioned earlier how regulators are corrupted by industry -- the agriculture sector is one of many cases where this happens.

The mortgage industry is the same.  The regulators for that industry and their Senate counterparts (like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) were corrupted by that industry.  Both Frank and Dodd have a lot of friends in that business, so they bended rules to benefit their friends and themselves.  Frank corrupted Freddie Mac, and Dodd was part of the Friends of Angelo scandal.  Had neither of these guys chosen to get kickbacks from the aspects of the market that they were supposed to regulate, they would've pushed for appropriate regulations that would have resulted in more market stability.   The government should serve a role as a regulator -- not a social engineer or a collection of cronies to industry.

So the problems can be solved by electing less corrupt officials, but it's hard to find people that fit that description.

The causes of the crisis do include the CRA, but that's only part of the equation.  The other parts are corrupt officials exchanging favors with industry and the recklessness of industry when it isn't properly regulated.