Now this is an excellent topic from the SCOTUS post.
Who is correct an why? G2A Political Self Awareness
"They have chosen to offer the advice that Obama not nominate anyone, and withhold their consent for such. Where is the problem?" JerryLiberals seem to think that a functional good government is some monstrous thing that pervades and controls many aspects of our personal lives and most of the power is at the Federal level. (ie 50+% of GDP) Conservatives think that a functional good government is some minimalistic thing that keeps us safe, maintains property rights, helps educate the citizens, provides transportation, etc and most of the power is at the State level. (ie 20-% of GDP)
The problem is anti-government folks like you voting in anti-government politicians (Oh, the irony!) which leaves the intelligent people in this country (those that understand that government has a purpose other than making war) stuck with an anti-government." Joel
"The problem is anti-government folks like you voting in anti-government politicians..." Joel
"Yep. People like me. People who think the government has usurped far too much power and authority for themselves and wish to elect people who will devolve power back to the States and to individuals. Or simply people who recognize that government does a few things well and a lot of things very badly, and want the government to quit doing those badly done, counterproductive things. You don't have to be "anti-government" to be pro-GOOD-government. " Jerry
Who is correct an why? G2A Political Self Awareness
67 comments:
I think liberals support having a well functioning judicial branch as set up by the constitution. I don't see what spending has got to do with it.
IAWL
"Good government" is about process. Right now, those processes are corrupted. Both parties have contributed to the current situation, but Republicans are behaving worse at the federal level right now and neither party is distinguishing itself in St. Paul at the moment.
to jerry's quote above in response to mine:
I have no quibble with people wanting government to be more efficient and responsive, i.e. GOOD government, but the type of politicians that you support are not interested in making it more efficient and certainly not responsive, but only smaller and ineffective.
Joel
"not interested in making it more efficient and certainly not responsive, but only smaller and ineffective"
I think the government could be very efficient and responsive if we got rid of medicare, social security, medicaid, welfare, public education and all the bureaucracies those require. And make citizens responsible for their life choices.
To ensure the kids get educated and the disabled get cared for, maybe the Parents get a tax credit to covered most of the cost.
I mean imagine a government that focused on only transportation, defense, trade, law, safety, etc. Kind of like it did for the first ~150 years of this country's existence. We would have so little to argue about.
Now effective is what this discussion is all about...
The Liberals think government needs to control "medicare, social security, medicaid, welfare, public education" in order to protect people from their life choices...
The Conservatives think a small safety net and citizens caring for each other is more than adequate and definitely more effective.
Look at what your vision of "good government" has done to Kansas and Louisiana...
Sean,
You sure are anxious lately to label me a Conservative...
Please explain what my "vision of good government" is using government control of our country's GDP? I think I have been pretty clear over the years...
about your views re government control of our country's GDP- you are the only person I have ever come across that thinks of govt in these terms.
In my experience moderate people don't support getting rid of medicare, social security, medicaid, welfare, public education and all the bureaucracies those require.
most moderate people I know have views like "don't cut social security and medicare or the govt should provide adequate funding for strong schools."
Why Thank You !!! I seek to see the world differently, the GDP/Tax numbers are so easy to get and most importantly it is so logical...
Please tell me where I ever said I want to cut all those things... I think you should read my comments more closely.
I am pretty sure the government could do everything it does today for 33% if some of the inefficiencies were eliminated and we didn't have to pay such a huge debt service.
FYI. It looks like we are so close... That is if the Liberals and Conservatives would agree to make our government more effective...
Current State
I mean look at that... Debt service (ie interest) is 5% of the spend all by itself... And that is with rates at all time lows...
Liberals seem to think that a functional good government is some monstrous thing that pervades and controls many aspects of our personal lives and most of the power is at the Federal level.
That is something I would say conservatives think.
--Hiram
Conservatives think that a functional good government is some minimalistic thing that keeps us safe, maintains property rights, helps educate the citizens, provides transportation, etc and most of the power is at the State level. (ie 20-% of GDP)
The irony of that is liberals support those things too, and they mean governments that can be just as pervasive and controlling as liberals tend to advocate.
--Hiram
Yes. Both want legislate morality.
The Liberals support "forced charity" and many regulatory hurdles. These are financially very expensive and impact most of us.
The Conservatives support saving fetuses and traditional marriage. These are pretty inexpensive and impact few of us.
Kansas and Louisiana did -- at a state level -- what you say "good government" is. They slashed taxes (particularly on the wealthy), they kicked thousands of people off of welfare programs, and they cut government spending (Kansas eliminated four Department-level agencies) including public education. Yet, their economic growth and job growth lags the nation and their neighbors and their governments face large deficits.
Why are we to believe that such a model works better?
What is better from your perspective?
In MN we are propping up our job numbers by borrowing billions of dollars via bonding... And over the following decades we and our children will have to pay them off... Is this better?
I don't know enough about Kansas to make a good analysis. Also, tax and spend policies take 5+ years to show a stabilized effect. Who or what businesses move where?
That is why I find praising Dayton and cursing Walker so amusing.
By the way, government mandated charity has reduced the penalties of poor choices for 50+ years. (ie sloth, having babies too young, not becoming educated, addiction, etc) I mean in the old days those folks had to beg for assistance from charities / family, and people had to believe they were worthy of that charity.
Hunger, homelessness, and begging Parents for help should be pretty good deterrents to risky behaviors. Now if a young person gets in trouble they just have to apply and qualify for benefits.
This likely had an effect on our society. How many decades would it take to undo or change that effect?
How do you think reducing the penalties for poor behavior has impacted our society?
The Republican Party Must Answer for What It Did to Kansas and Louisiana
In MN we are propping up our job numbers by borrowing billions of dollars via bonding.
Which is what somebody in the private does when they take out a mortgage to buy a house. It's an interesting question. Should we prevent young couples from propping up the job market by insisting they pay cash when buying a house?
--Hiram
The problem with these analyses of tax and spending policy is a mirrored one-- first, they often do not include "dynamic scoring," which says, quite logically, that people will react to incentives and disincentives. Tax them more, they leave. Tax them less, and those wanting to spend that tax money do NOT leave the public trough. Rather than saying we need to spend only what is necessary and effective, liberals (pardon the shorthand), say we want to do all of these things and let's tax whatever that costs, or put it on the credit card. Conservatives budget scarce resources, liberals write wish lists and imagine infinite resources.
The problem isn't so much government efficiency, it's efficacy-- how well does each taxpayer dollar spent do what it is supposed to do, and is government the best entity to accomplish the job in the first place?
Laurie,
Thanks again for another fact based analytical unbiased assessment of what is happening in Kansas. (not...) I especially liked this quote for it's fair and balanced wording.
"When the GOP's economic platform decimates two U.S. states, a similar confrontation is in order."
Hopefully the poor from Kansas and Louisiana will pick up and move to Vermont since they have it figured out.
Hiram,
Maybe more like a young couple taking out a big mortgage to buy a fancy house to impress their peers knowing full well that they can pass the payments and consequences off to someone else in 4 years.
Jerry,
I agree with this wholeheartedly. "Liberals write wish lists and imagine infinite resources" This is why none of them will say how much of the GDP is an acceptable amount to let the Government control. Setting bounds on the government budget fills them with consternation.
I disagree with "Conservatives budget scarce resources". History has shown that Conservatives believe that if taxes are cut, the economy will magically grow and people will become more charitable. Both have been proven wrong repeatedly.
Some balance is required between the 2 extremes.
CNN Denmark is a Changing
Also, please note the metric they used...
"To pay for all these benefits, Danes are more heavily taxed than Americans. In Denmark, total tax revenues is 49% of the size of the economy, compared to 25.4% in the U.S., according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Danes pay a top tax rate of 56%, compared to 39.6% in the U.S."
The only problem is they forgot to note our State & Local tax burden. (ie 25.4 + ~11 = ~36%)
So if we want to live like Denmark, apparently we have to give the government control of ~50% of our economy... And apparently we would still have to pay for some benefits.
was there some particular fact in my link that you found was inaccurate? were you absent a lot from school when teachers explained how to distinguish fact from opinion?
if you want to disagree with my link I suggest posting an alternative viewpoint expressing how well the state of Kansas has done under the conservative Brownback experiment. Good luck finding that.
Based on a quick google search I could easily find a dozen more links expressing how this experiment has failed or shown that conservative policies don't work. I just posted that one because I came across it as it was just published.
Laurie, If you were an organization that preached "big government is needed to make people successful"... What would you write? And I certainly agree that there will be some downsides during the withdrawal period.
Blaze Kansas Welfare Reform Success
US News Democrats Wrongly Blame
Kansas Job Creating Machine
Kansas education changes
Education funding tied to success
Forbes Kansas
Kansas Ag Success
Just imagine all the union personnel who are used to having their way as they fail their students.
Just imagine all the social services people who feel threatened when people will no longer be coming in for benefits.
Just think of all the bureaucrats in State government who fear effectiveness gains because they may lose their job.
Just think of all the people who will need to go out and get a less than desirable job because the welfare checks are cut. All those jobs that our illegal residents are happy to have.
As I said, maybe Kansas could charter some buses to send all the people who unhappy with the changes to Vermont... Or maybe MN...
I have got to ask... Though I don't want to go as far as Jerry on cutting the costs of living and doing business in the USA, how do expect for us to compete in a cut throat globally competitive world if we subsidize the choice of people who make the wrong choices.
Here is a list I posted on MP.
"I think many of them did have a choice:
- Did they choose to work hard to learn in the K-12
- Did they choose to stick it out or did they drop out
- Did they choose to avoid having children while young
- Do they choose to show up consistently at work, work hard, treat everyone with respect, communicate professionally. etc
- Do they strive to learn and improve everyday
- Do they choose to take on extra responsibility
Here are some facts and data.
Mpls Fed Paper
How do you want to encourage them to make the right choices? Or do you just want to keep adding to the burden of those who make good choices?
Imagine all of those government entities as a huge union system that burdens the USA compared to other countries.
Remember that America's wealth only grows when something is created here that someone else in the world values and is willing to pay for. Most of the transactions in the USA do not increase the wealth of our country. Inventions, Unique Knowledge, Production and Agriculture are the key wealth builders. Unfortunately the first 3 seem to be rapidly declining as the world catches up.
I think of it as the big American economy wealth balloon. The above fill the balloon and trade deficits are leaks in the balloon. Now we do need to take care of the truly disabled, however carrying other dead weight will give the other countries blowing into their balloons an advantage.
3 of my favorites...
Comic 1
Comic 2
Comic 3
Most of the transactions in the USA do not increase the wealth of our country.
What would Donald Trump say about that? Narrowly understood, I tend to agree. While the existence of markets is an integral part of the economy and wealth creation, they don't by themselves create wealth, just as a scoreboard doesn't create touchdowns, although it is integral to the game that someone keep score.
The Donald argues that America isn't very good at making deals. This raises a number of questions, few of which are ever explored by the media. What are the deals he is talking about? And what constitutes a good deal? Yesterday, I was thinking about the aftermath of WW I, when the allies imposed what history regards as a punitive set of conditions on Germany. What do we say about the deal the allies made? It was a good deal for the Allies in Trumpian terms was it not? I am sure Lloyd George and Clemenceau went back to their electorate and praised themselves for their toughness and their ferocity to the extent that one might almost think it was they who survived had four years in the trenches.
But was this a good deal in any but a Trumpist sense? Who else was it a good deal for? It destroyed Germany financially, directly resulting in the political and economic stability that led to the rise of the Third Reich, and ultimately the Second World War. History condemns in the strongest terms the men of Versailles, for the shortsightedness that directly resulted in the greatest catastrophe of modern history and quite possibly ever. Is that really the to which we want to return now?
--Hiram
Though I know nothing about the WWI treaty. I think there is a causal logic error in this statement...
"It destroyed Germany financially, directly resulting in the political and economic stability that led to the rise of the Third Reich, and ultimately the Second World War."
If Germany was "destroyed financially" they could not have launched a massive expensive war. I think the historians you a reading are making some big cause and effect leaps.
"Conservatives believe that if taxes are cut, the economy will magically grow and people will become more charitable. "-- John
One may be able to argue with statistical history that this is the case, but I think there are far too many variables to make a conclusive case. Most of them have to do with the question of efficacy. When taxes were cut, was spending cut to go with it? Does the economy grow because of more spending, or because of capital investment producing more goods for the same price? Does deficit spending crowd out capital investment? Does it matter what the money is spent for, and who spends it? (Of course it does.) Have the people been told that they get a bigger tax cut if they are charitable, or that they can count on this tax cut being permanent to boost charitable giving, or are they told that government will continue to look after the poor on our behalf?
The upshot is that the best reason to cut taxes is that they are too high. They go to (partly) cover non efficacious spending on those things that government either doesn't do well (like charity), or perhaps shouldn't be doing at all. Government should be allocating scarce resources to the areas of most efficacy-- i.e. cost-benefit-- and only taxing what is necessary to support those functions. Horse before the cart.
If Germany was "destroyed financially" they could not have launched a massive expensive war.
Why do you think that?
What happened was that the Weimar Republic was swept away by a totalitarian regime that defaulted on it's financial obligations to the west.
I wonder what Trump would have thought about the Marshall Plan. Would he have argued that the Allies had made a terrible deal with a defeated Germany? But of course this is idle speculation because there is little evidence that Trump thinks at all.
--Hiram
about "If you were an organization that preached "big government is needed to make people successful" I have not come across an organization that promotes their mission that way. I did google it and found this link:
What Do Rich Countries Have in Common? Big Government
I believe big govt was helpful in your success, as college was much more affordable many years ago. Why should students today need to take on so much debt to receive the same opportunity you had?
also, about your many links, do any of them show that the economy in Kansas is doing better than other states after the large tax cuts? I think it is very clear that the cuts did not pay for themselves and led to large budget shortfalls
The upshot is that the best reason to cut taxes is that they are too high.
Well, if we want to bring logic into it, the best reason to cut taxes are the reasons that make them too high, whatever they might be.
How do you know when taxes are too high? How do you know when taxes are too low? Are there standards that can be applied?
This is sort of tangentially relied but an element of the male and perhaps female psyche is to win deals. It's this sort of atavistic urge that Trumpism appeals to. Every guy who enters into a negotiation wants to think that he "won" the deal, and maybe even more importantly, that the other side "lost" the deal. And when you combine this with the fact that every deal can always be questioned after the fact there is often sort of permanent sense of unease. In any deal, you can always argue that you should have given less for more, and that bugs people.
Donald Trump lives in a world where deal making is a predatory action. He uses force in various ways to create deals in his favor. His world is the world of New York real estate where markets are highly controlled. Once out of this world, the Donald can seem oddly clueless. Consider what happened in the first Fox News debate in which he refused to participate. He thought he was in the power position because of the high ratings, so he tried to force out Megyn Kelly. What he failed to understand was that Fox has a lot more invested in Kelly than Trump, and they said "no" with abruptness and finality, and Trump. Trump provided his usual bluster, but he lost subsequent primaries and left with a metaphorical tail between his legs. No one noticed it, but in the real world, full of forces he can't control, that was The Donald getting his comeuppance.
--Hiram
Laurie,
I liked these quotes best. Please remember that I have no problem with effective government spending on infrastructure, defense, law / order, etc. All those things that make us more competitive in the world market. Actually I don't know of anyone who is against these core functions of government.
"We can see how public goods make a country richer. One example would be infrastructure. Private companies have trouble building railroads without government help securing the land corridors."
"In other words, big government is good -- up to a point. And people know that big government is good, so they allow it. This is what Acemoglu calls a “consensually strong state.” If you look at the history of the U.S., Western Europe and Japan, you see that voters have again and again chosen leaders who are willing to expand the scope of government. The Grover Norquists of the world have usually lost their battles, and the protests of the Chris Houses have fallen on deaf ears. The voters have sided with Acemoglu.
Of course, government can get too big. Acemoglu’s model allows for that too. But too small and weak a government can be just as bad as a big one. As conservatives continue their attempts to slash the American state, we should keep that in mind. "
Laurie, Your link brought me to this gem. And it is even pro-Obama.
NW We Are Not Sweden
"Actually I don't know of anyone who is against these core functions of government."
"As conservatives continue their attempts to slash the American state,..."
Now are you being inconsistent or biased? Do you actually know conservatives, or just consider them not part of "anyone"?
Actually, both statements could be true, if you simply admit that our federal government is too big and has taken on too much to be effective. That we have some 80 overlapping programs to assist "the poor" might be one evidence. That we are spending more than ever to eliminate poverty and have more people in poverty might be another. Other examples abound.
One was my statement and another was a quote from Laurie's article...
What I see in Laurie's article is one more case of "post hoc ergo procter hoc" fallacy. The question is asked "did these countries become rich in spite of big government?" It then goes on to answer in the negative, but that's not reasonable. These countries-- Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Italy, England, Portugal, Spain, became rich by some combination of conquest or trade, with conquest always leading to trade or why do it? The "big government" came along afterwards. Even in the US, you couldn't say we had a big government until at least the 30s, and we were hugely prosperous before that point.
It doesn't even make logical sense. Government by its nature produces nothing except a secure environment for private enterprise to flourish. Our Constitution starts out "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..." Notice, please, that there is only ONE thing government must "provide" under the Constitution. It's particularly noticeable, IMHO, that we should only "promote the general welfare," not provide it, and it must be GENERAL welfare, not something given to individuals. That's especially galling when in the name of GENERAL welfare, some are taxed so that others can be rewarded. It would be a zero sum game except that there's a huge bureaucracy in the middle so it ends up a less-than-zero sum game.
What is good government? It is "That government is best which governs least."
"And I certainly agree that there will be some downsides during the withdrawal period."
OK, how much longer do the people of Kansas has to suffer before the wealth fountain magically gets turned on? Brownback has had six years with a GOP-controlled legislature the whole time.
Sean,
Who exactly do you think is "suffering" in Kansas? My guess is that the vast majority of citizen's lives are going great.
Thoughts?
My guess is it takes ~10 years for a system to change. People and businesses are slow to move states.
Jerry,
These words do seem to be the point of contention between the 2 sides...
"promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
One group seems to believe it means people are owed housing, food, healthcare, clothing, etc whether they choose to positively contribute to our society or sit on the sidelines and/or make poor life choices.
And that it should be paid for by those who choose to positively contribute to our society.
Does anyone know much about the politics and "success" of the states surrounding Kansas?
Was Kansas relatively Liberal like Wisconsin was and a correction is taking place?
Or was Kansas Conservative like South Dakota, and is becoming more Conservative?
"...whether they choose to positively contribute to our society or sit on the sidelines and/or make poor life choices."
This is where your argument always goes off the rails, John. You just can't see that there are Americans suffering despite avoiding all those pitfalls.
Joel
Here is something I just left on MP.
I am fine acknowledging the sins of our past, however at some point the victims need to accept that it is in the past, start planning for the future and living in the present.
The recipe for success in America is pretty simple if you have the self discipline:
- Work hard in K-12 and treat people with respect.
- Graduate High School with good grades.
- Work hard, learn and treat people with respect. Either at a job, tech school or college.
- Live below your means, save and invest.
- Do not have kids until you are married, stable and mature.
- Only have as many children as you can afford.
Now doing this is a lot harder than it sounds given all the temptations in our modern society and that during many of the stages the person is usually pretty immature... And that is when a strong consistent Parent(s) are so important.
"“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”" Leo Tolstoy
John, as far as I know, Kansas was like Wisconsin-- people living with conservative values and electing Democrats. I look at Minnesota as illustrative. At one point, Republicans swept the legislature, implemented a $1B tax cut and curbed spending to match. Two years later the DFL was given control over the Lege again and raised taxes and spending by $1B, putting the state right back on the unsustainable course. You cannot expect results within the election cycle, or even several election cycles and, fortunately or unfortunately, government policy has little to do with it short OR long term. Raising taxes is probably wrong, and lowering taxes is probably wrong. What is needed is to control spending to those things government is most efficacious at producing and leaving the rest. It's taken us 40 years or more to get into this mindset of "let George do it," and it may take that long to get us out, if we start now.
Now my family is pretty blessed, however I have enough in-laws and friends who only have high school degrees and are fighting the good fight.
The ones who struggle the most are those who get divorced and those who just have problems keeping their job because of their temper or poor behaviors. Sometimes these are the same people...
The folks who stayed married, stuck with the job, did not spend beyond their means, etc are not rich, but they are stable and happy.
"You just can't see that there are Americans suffering despite avoiding all those pitfalls."-- Joel
I see it just fine. I may even concede there are a significant number "suffering" "through no fault of their own." The question is, what are YOU going to do about it? Are you working with the food shelf or transitional housing program or helping in mentoring programs? Don't tell me it is the government's job, because I am convinced that government is the one subsidizing those many folks who ARE making bad decisions and not suffering enough the natural consequences that should follow.
Joel,
Please explain what suffering means to you?
Who are these people?
What is the root cause of their suffering?
"What is the root cause of their suffering?"
That's a chicken or the egg question, isn't it? Is the root cause of the "suffering" of poverty the poverty itself, because that seems like circular reasoning. Seems like you want the root causes of poverty and that has to be one of two, or both: the failure or inability to grasp opportunity, the unwillingness to seek or create opportunity. It isn't right to blame poor people for being poor unless you have offered them an opportunity to do otherwise and allowed the consequences of poverty to "push" them in that direction. $20,000/year to NOT work doesn't seem like an incentive for productive endeavor.
The immediate cause of the poverty of people I know are:
- single parent w/ 1+ children (often too young)
- divorced and supporting 2 households
- more children than they can afford
- no high school degree or GED
- particular about job / gets themselves fired
- unwilling to work 40 or more hours per week
- poor spending choices / credit card debt
- living above their means
- addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc
- health problems
Now we can argue if their parents, local society, American culture or government caused these... However my point is that people who get a HS degree, work hard, live cheaply, save, invest, get married, have kid(s), stay married, etc will do fine in most cases.
I think you have to ask why people do NOT do these common sense things? Are there obstacles to them doing so, or is it a matter of ignorance? Or is it that they have been encouraged and/or enabled in these "mistakes"? And finally, what is MY responsibility as a taxpayer to help them out of their mess? I think it's none whatsoever.
"Who exactly do you think is "suffering" in Kansas? My guess is that the vast majority of citizen's lives are going great."
You could turn Topeka into West Stockholm and the vast majority of citizens would do just fine as well. The question is what happens on the margins, and I think you see that approaches like those in Kansas don't work very well.
"what happens on the margins"
Before welfare this is where family, friends, charities, communities, etc helped to carry the load. Of course the adult child would have to listen to the lectures, prying and likely show some effort at improvement to get the assistance. This of sounds like a great thing to folks like Jerry and myself.
If you are immature, not too smart or incapable, it seems you need more than just a check.
"Before welfare this is where family, friends, charities, communities, etc helped to carry the load."
The reality, though, is that the reason we have the programs we do today is because private charity wasn't getting the job done. Conservatives love to pretend that history doesn't exist, but it does. And they've offered no assurances that going back to that model will turn out any differently than it did the last time.
Jerry,
I think poor Parenting and a society where many people think they should get something with little work makes it very hard for some children.
My Parents weren't the gifted hugging bonded parental type, but they sure taught me to work and continuously learn. Those days in the field, hog pens, grain bins, etc did wonders for me. Here is a great book and movie with a similar theme.
"reason we have the programs we do today is because private charity wasn't getting the job done."
I don't know if this is true. I think politicians, like managers, like to grow their scope of influence. And Liberals seem to have a hard time watching people learn lessons the hard way. My guess is it just kept growing until 1996 when folks figured out things had gone to far.
By the way, I think Medicaid is necessary in our high medical cost world. But I think many of the other programs are overkill and leading people to bad choices.
"And Liberals seem to have a hard time watching people learn lessons the hard way."
Not Bernie. He voted against bailing out the big banks. I guess Republicans have a hard time watching big banks and corporations learn lessons the hard way.
Joel
"The reality, though, is that the reason we have the programs we do today is because private charity wasn't getting the job done."
I also disagree. I suppose it matters greatly what "job" we want done. If relieving people of the consequences of their poor decisions, wasting tons of money keeping them poor and keeping them from the opportunity to do better, then yes, the modern welfare state is doing great.
"Not Bernie. He voted against bailing out the big banks." Then Bernie was apparently in favor of economic collapse. Of course, you can't blame this on Bush. The original legislation was supposed to direct the money to small borrowers in danger of foreclosure. It was Obama who redirected the money to the banks, to gain leverage over them.
A. Most of the Banks were forced by the Fed to take the bail out program against their will.. And the banks paid back all of the funds plus interest. On top of this the banks have paid $235+ Billion in fines.
B. Where as what did all the home owners who took out a bigger loan than they could pay back or those who walked away from their upside down mortgage get fined. And what about all those tax dollars to make their loans more affordable?
My point as always is that investors, banks, government and mortgagees all contributed to that mess. If there had been no mortgage defaults there would have been no meltdown.
Jerry,
Where do you get this stuff? "Obama who redirected the money to the banks,"
He wasn't even in office yet !!!
So, when was the money spent? Who directed the spending of the money? Why didn't homeowners get the money, as intended?
I think there are a couple of programs. This one was to ensure there was plenty of cash available.
Wiki TARP
Look at all the excuses you just made for not letting people (corporations) learn things the hard way by having the government help them.
That's a pretty high level of hypocrisy.
Joel
Joel,
Now you did hear me say that the Corps were FORCED to take the money against their will by the government, and they paid it back + interest???
And on top of this they paid MASSIVE fines...
I personally would have been fine with letting them collapse. So what hypocrisy are you noting.
Along those lines, it was the President who chose to bail out GM instead of letting it go into bankruptcy to be parceled out. Then they gave much of it to the employee unions who helped to cause the failure, instead of paying back the Investors and Bond Holders. (ie US Mutual Fund Holders...)
Post a Comment