BuffaloBill Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 In the rush to have the Federal Government bailout US institutions and citizens on everything ranging from bad mortgage deals to poor management of risk we have allowed the Feds to once again permeate every corner of American life and stood by as though nothing has happened. Worse yet, we are raising a generation, now maybe two, who are learning “don’t worry if you make bad choices or decisions because the Feds will just bail you out.” I, for one, find this whole situation sickening. Think about the number of corporations and now citizens that have their hands stuck out waiting for their share of the great “bailout” of 2009. If I am CEO or leadership employee of a bank, major insurer or now the auto companies (GM and Chrysler specifically), I do not have to live with years of poor decision making or mismanagement of risk I just wait on the government check. What about citizens who just run up debts that they can’t afford? Just wait for good old Uncle Sam to figure out how to stop foreclosures so I can continue to live in this house that I never really could afford to be in. Do people not realize that all of this comes with cost beyond simply money? A dangerous precedent has been set for one. Want to take big chances, go for it because you do not have to be accountable if you lose. Two, if anyone thinks for a minute that their lives will be less regulated after this mess you are high. If the government isn’t already pervasive enough this will only add to the bureaucracy that we all experience. Does anyone think that the waste they see and get touched by to board an airplane now days is not going to be extended to the mortgage industry for example? How many people in Washington will be employed to make sure an individual does not take on a mortgage that they can’t afford? Boom and bust periods are a part of the business cycle. Our Congress though seems to think that they need to make this situation worse by declaring themselves saviors of all things American. I would much prefer if they would simply focus on reducing the presence of the federal government in our lives, build a lasting and sustainable national defense and let citizens manage their own lives which also includes taking responsibility for their financial failures. Don’t even get me started on institutions. The Government now owns AIG, they are about to own Citibank and they continue to dump money into GM and Chrysler. When does it end? If the government wants to insert themselves how about going after the assets of the top management and brokerage firms that enriched themselves while running these institutions into the ground. The same goes for the unions that were a party to pushing an unsustainable cost model onto the automotive industry. Common sense would tell you that if unemployed or retired members are collecting nearly the same pay and benefits as the employees that there is a problem. Not doing so only fails to teach these same citizens or institutions that they, not the government, need to be responsible for their decisions or actions. These are my thoughts for the day. What are yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 These are my thoughts for the day. What are yours? My thoughts? In three years people will be pining away for the more prosperous days when Jimmy Carter was POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 In the rush to have the Federal Government bailout US institutions and citizens on everything ranging from bad mortgage deals to poor management of risk we have allowed the Feds to once again permeate every corner of American life and stood by as though nothing has happened. Worse yet, we are raising a generation, now maybe two, who are learning “don’t worry if you make bad choices or decisions because the Feds will just bail you out.” I, for one, find this whole situation sickening. Think about the number of corporations and now citizens that have their hands stuck out waiting for their share of the great “bailout” of 2009. If I am CEO or leadership employee of a bank, major insurer or now the auto companies (GM and Chrysler specifically), I do not have to live with years of poor decision making or mismanagement of risk I just wait on the government check. What about citizens who just run up debts that they can’t afford? Just wait for good old Uncle Sam to figure out how to stop foreclosures so I can continue to live in this house that I never really could afford to be in. Do people not realize that all of this comes with cost beyond simply money? A dangerous precedent has been set for one. Want to take big chances, go for it because you do not have to be accountable if you lose. Two, if anyone thinks for a minute that their lives will be less regulated after this mess you are high. If the government isn’t already pervasive enough this will only add to the bureaucracy that we all experience. Does anyone think that the waste they see and get touched by to board an airplane now days is not going to be extended to the mortgage industry for example? How many people in Washington will be employed to make sure an individual does not take on a mortgage that they can’t afford? Boom and bust periods are a part of the business cycle. Our Congress though seems to think that they need to make this situation worse by declaring themselves saviors of all things American. I would much prefer if they would simply focus on reducing the presence of the federal government in our lives, build a lasting and sustainable national defense and let citizens manage their own lives which also includes taking responsibility for their financial failures. Don’t even get me started on institutions. The Government now owns AIG, they are about to own Citibank and they continue to dump money into GM and Chrysler. When does it end? If the government wants to insert themselves how about going after the assets of the top management and brokerage firms that enriched themselves while running these institutions into the ground. The same goes for the unions that were a party to pushing an unsustainable cost model onto the automotive industry. Common sense would tell you that if unemployed or retired members are collecting nearly the same pay and benefits as the employees that there is a problem. Not doing so only fails to teach these same citizens or institutions that they, not the government, need to be responsible for their decisions or actions. These are my thoughts for the day. What are yours? It's just continuation of the inevitable fall. People keep voting for the same ideas wrapped up in slightly different packaging and pretending that it's change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well you can't have it both ways. Industries got deregulated. AND they got deregulated with no oversight whatsoever, under the assumption that they would conduct their business wisely and ethically. Didn't happen. Jerks who couldn't afford stuff were given credit until the whole thing is a house of cards that, if it falls, will take EVERYTHING with it. "Big government" is said to be a bad thing, but that's not quite true. Big government is not so much the problem as INEFFECTIVE. government - of any size. In retrospect, wouldn't have been a little better to have some controls and a little more oversight on these lenders? Then they would have lent so much to greedy ignorant morons. But ask for some oversight and you'd hear screams of "big government! free trade!" and bla bla bla. I am one of those people who should be livid, since I owe nobody anything and I resent VERY much paying for greedy corporations, dumb needless wars, and incompetent greedy nitwits. And I think the economy is going to reset, needed to reset. But not completely freefall. I am livid, but I also believe that things could be very very much worse. This is a global issue and it seems that globally governments are applying the same tactics, presumably based on the same expertise and beliefs. Either they are ALL wrong, or the governments are all conspiring against us. And one last thing: if you hate big government then it is time to admit that it's not the purvue of one party over the other. I guess if you are counting # of employees, or agencies, or $ spent, that's one measure. But in terms of invasiveness they are BOTH guilty. I was cracking up just this morning when I read about the proposal in Congress to outlaw chimpanzees as house pets since that poor woman got her face ripped off...and before you jump on that, the proposal was to add chimpanzees to the OTHER animals outlawed in a bill signed into law in 1981 by ... President Reagan, Mr. "No Big Government" himself. Each side has it's own buttinsky tendencies and they both stink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well you can't have it both ways. Industries got deregulated. AND they got deregulated with no oversight whatsoever, under the assumption that they would conduct their business wisely and ethically. Didn't happen. Jerks who couldn't afford stuff were given credit until the whole thing is a house of cards that, if it falls, will take EVERYTHING with it. They were deregulated with backing by the gov't for their investments. That's not free-marketing as a problem, but gov't intervention of force feeding a market. Do you think investors would have flocked Fannie and Freddie if the gov't wasn't backing their investments, or do you honestly believe people were lining up to buy up liar loans with 620 credit scores as part of honest risk? Sadly, big gov't can be in big business. Liberals just don't understand the whole economy, if they did they should just start their own state and watch it go bankrupt in a very short time. They are parasites on the productive. "Big government" is said to be a bad thing, but that's not quite true. Big government is not so much the problem as INEFFECTIVE. government - of any size. In retrospect, wouldn't have been a little better to have some controls and a little more oversight on these lenders? Then they would have lent so much to greedy ignorant morons. But ask for some oversight and you'd hear screams of "big government! free trade!" and bla bla bla. Would the Constitution agree with you? Would the founding father? You know the answer, but pretend it's just inefficiency. The Constitution was made to limit gov't against the people, because they knew it was ineffective. I am one of those people who should be livid, since I owe nobody anything and I resent VERY much paying for greedy corporations, dumb needless wars, and incompetent greedy nitwits. And I think the economy is going to reset, needed to reset. But not completely freefall. I am livid, but I also believe that things could be very very much worse. This is a global issue and it seems that globally governments are applying the same tactics, presumably based on the same expertise and beliefs. Either they are ALL wrong, or the governments are all conspiring against us. They are all wrong since they left money reform. With sound money this "global" problem wouldn't be that big of a problem. Read the Constitution on money. We weren't always wrong. Politicians discovered how effective controlling the masses with money is... all you have to say is that other people are greedy and we'll steal for you. Everyone has been profiting on fiat currency and the attempt to line the pockets of others based on fake wealth at the expense of inflation has been the trick they sell us. We are poorer than ever before, and yet people think we are fine because we have cars we make payments, houses we make payments, and own nothing without the credit behind it. And one last thing: if you hate big government then it is time to admit that it's not the purvue of one party over the other. I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBinVA Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Industries got deregulatedno oversight whatsoever assumption they would conduct their business wisely and ethically "Big government" is said to be a bad thing, but that's not quite true. Big government is not so much the problem as INEFFECTIVE. government - of any size. better to have some controls a little more oversight greedy ignorant morons ask for some oversight "big government! paying for greedy corporations dumb needless wars incompetent greedy nitwits Industries got deregulated - WRONG no oversight whatsoever- WRONG assumption they would conduct their business wisely and ethically - WRONG "Big government" is said to be a bad thing, but that's not quite true. - WRONG- WRONG Big government is not so much the problem as INEFFECTIVE. government - of any size. - WRONG- WRONG- WRONG better to have some controls - WRONG a little more oversight - WRONG greedy ignorant morons - RIGHT ask for some oversight - WRONG "big government! - WRONG paying for greedy corporations - WRONG dumb needless wars - WRONG - WRONG - WRONG incompetent greedy nitwits - WRONG (incompetent stupid nitwits - RIGHT) Dude, you really have some issues. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -- Ronald Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 My thoughts? In three years people will be pining away for the more prosperous days when Jimmy Carter was POTUS. At the rate we are going it is more like when Hugo Chavez becomes primary consultant to our Federal Government because we are only half a step away from nationalizing the banks, major insurance and the auto industries. Carter will look like a freakin conservative by comparison. At least one can argue on a humanitarian level he has been a half way decent former POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well you can't have it both ways. Industries got deregulated. AND they got deregulated with no oversight whatsoever, under the assumption that they would conduct their business wisely and ethically. Didn't happen. Jerks who couldn't afford stuff were given credit until the whole thing is a house of cards that, if it falls, will take EVERYTHING with it. Not true, banks are highly regulated. Problem is that the regulators were not smart enough or did not care enough to see the mismanagement of risk nor did they raise any flags before the crash. "Big government" is said to be a bad thing, but that's not quite true. Big government is not so much the problem as INEFFECTIVE. government - of any size. In retrospect, wouldn't have been a little better to have some controls and a little more oversight on these lenders? Then they would have lent so much to greedy ignorant morons. But ask for some oversight and you'd hear screams of "big government! free trade!" and bla bla bla. Tell me one example of where big government has been effective. By default big government is ineffective. And one last thing: if you hate big government then it is time to admit that it's not the purvue of one party over the other. I guess if you are counting # of employees, or agencies, or $ spent, that's one measure. But in terms of invasiveness they are BOTH guilty. Each side has it's own buttinsky tendencies and they both stink. I couldn't agree more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 These are my thoughts for the day. What are yours? Democracy (or representative democracy for our pedantic, supercilious, anal orifices) served its noble, if brief purpose, but it is a fatally flawed and ultimately doomed system of governance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Democracy (or representative democracy for our pedantic, supercilious, anal orifices) served its noble, if brief purpose, but it is a fatally flawed and ultimately doomed system of governance. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 UBibVA, I'm trying valiantly to unravel your negation of the original points made in this post. Is Buffalo Bill just plain wrong because you say so....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 Is Buffalo Bill just plain wrong because you say so....? My wife uses this line of reasoning all the time .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts