| Author |
Topic:
Have we been duped
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
4/12 3:03pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
Princess_Tina posted:
anidanami124 posted:
Princess_Tina posted:
Yet the problems caused by the situation affect the economy as a whole, it arguably affects all taxpayers the moment it leads to things like bailing out Bear Sterns. So whose job should be to prevent these situations? Isn't there anyone in this country who should be held accountable for allowing things like this to happen? Or do we all collectively say "oops!" while the economy grinds to a recession?
Yeah yourself if you can't control your own spending then how is any one else supposed to? How is it someone else job to bail out people who can't control there spending?
Are you sure you don't mean "borrowing" instead of "spending"?
Borrowing spending whatever. When it comes down to it Princess_Tina KK has been pointing out to you that it is up to you know what is going to happen with your money. I need a new car at some point. So I can do these things here:
A) Borrow the money either from a lender or my parents. Either way I still have to pay it back.
B) I can save up my own money and get it myself
C) I can pay half of it.
Princess_Tina posted:
Yes, but the fact remains that collectively, Americans do have real influence when it comes to the economy.
Your right you do in how you SPEND YOUR MONEY. If you are spending it on things you don't need and what not then that your problem. It's no one else job to tell you how to spend your money. Like KK I don't have the time to go around helping other people out who can't control there own spending habits.
Let me put it to you this way. Let's say ever day I go down to the comic book store and buy ten comic books. Now this is ever day ok. Taking into account the price of the comic book and gas it will start to add up really fast. In other words it's a bad spending habit. I don't need ten comic books a day. Not when there are more improtent things to worry about.
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/12 3:08pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
anidanami124,
I don't believe I have ever suggested that people who behave irresponsibly shouldn't face the consequences for their actions. On the contrary, I think that they should. But it's a whole different matter when the actions of those people reaches such proportions that it affects the nation's economy, as is the case with what has happened in the housing/mortgage crisis. When a crisis reaches such levels, it may be necessary in some cases for the government to intervene.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
anidanami124
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
4/12 3:16pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
Princess_Tina posted:
anidanami124,I don't believe I have ever suggested that people who behave irresponsibly shouldn't face the consequences for their actions. On the contrary, I think that they should. But it's a whole different matter when the actions of those people reaches such proportions that it affects the nation's economy, as is the case with what has happened in the housing/mortgage crisis. When a crisis reaches such levels, it may be necessary in some cases for the government to intervene.
It's still there problem in that they did not know how to nor did they use there money wisely. If you can afford to live in really big houses then go for it. If you can't but still go for it any ways and on top of that you borrow well that's your problem and mess. You live beyond what you had.
I really want Corvette but I just don't have money and I'm not going to borrow the money from a lender either. I will just save up for a car I can afford. If I have to borrow I will turn to my parents for help in that matter.
The crisis is for those who could not and still don't get that live beyond your means is a bad idea. That not looking into and seeing what you can and can't afford.
Sure that small two bedroom house is not what you always wanted. But can you afford it? Yes have you looked into and researched the mortgage rates? Have you shopped around? Have you done anything so that when it comes down to it you don't put yourself into the hole?
If it's yes then you are your way to a great start. If not yeah you will have a crisis that you made.
-----signature-----
Dark Lords of the JCC
My Heros of Music
Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen
5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons
1)ROTS2)AOTC 3)TESB 4)TPM 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
4/12 3:21pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
Princess_Tina posted:
Kimball_Kinnison posted:
Ahh, since you had nothing to add, I take it that you have finally seen the light and agree with me. 
Kimball Kinnison
Editing snafu. Please go back and read my response 
What did I just tell you about editing major content into a short post? Come on, now. I gave you a good 13 minutes to add something else before I replied.
Princess_Tina posted:
The Fed is the government's response to the banking panics that can potentially create much bigger problems for the economy. This we've already established:
No, you didn't establish that. You simply quoted from someone else claiming that.
The Fed is not a purely governmental entity. It is a public/private partnership. As such, while it can be held accountable to Congress (as Congress chartered it), it is also independent from the government in its ability to act. However, like all other government-chartered organizations, it is limited by the authority granted to it by its charter.
When the Fed acts, it is different from the government itself acting.
Princess_Tina posted:
So when the Fed acts, it does so, presumably, to fulfill the role for which it was created by the Congress. Technically it may be a quasi-public institution, but the fact remains that it was created to serve the public good by preventing banking panics. It is not, as you claim, an entity entirely independent from the government, although it was set up to act independently to some extent. The Fed chairman is appointed by the President, and the Fed is subject to oversight by Congress. The purpose of setting it with some degree of independence was primarily to free it as much as possible from political pressure. According to the Fed's own FAQ,
[...] the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."
That's no different than any other government-chartered institution. For all functional purposes, it is essentially independent from the government.
Princess_Tina posted:
Furthermore, it can be held accountable by Congress:
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
Anything involved in interstate commerce can technically be held accountable to Congress (as that is a power granted to Congress in the Constitution). In the recent steroid hearing, Major League Baseball was held accountable to Congress, but that doesn't make MLB part of the government.
Princess_Tina posted:
Finally, it doesn't matter that you personally do not think there is any need for the government to step in at this time, because it already has.
You asked for my opinion, and I gave it. Whether or not the government has already stepped in or not has no bearing on my opinion. By bringing this out, you are essentially implying that while you asked for my opinion, my opinion doesn't matter at all.
Princess_Tina posted:
Not only that, but Bank of America has reportedly proposed that Congress supply the $739 billion it estimates are needed to bail out the banking industry.
And until I see proof that it is necessary for the government to do that, I oppose it. How hard is that for you to understand?
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/12 3:41pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
Princess_Tina posted:
anidanami124,
I don't believe I have ever suggested that people who behave irresponsibly shouldn't face the consequences for their actions. On the contrary, I think that they should. But it's a whole different matter when the actions of those people reaches such proportions that it affects the nation's economy, as is the case with what has happened in the housing/mortgage crisis. When a crisis reaches such levels, it may be necessary in some cases for the government to intervene.
How are they facing the consequences if they're bailed out? Further, why should my tax money be going to help them now that they've screwed up?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/12 4:54pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
- Date Edited:
4/12 5:13pm (3 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
anidanami124 posted:
It's still there problem in that they did not know how to nor did they use there money wisely. If you can afford to live in really big houses then go for it. If you can't but still go for it any ways and on top of that you borrow well that's your problem and mess. You live beyond what you had.
It's not "there" problem, it's "their" problem. And I don't disagree with that, but you're still only looking at the individual lenders and borrowers.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:
And until I see proof that it is necessary for the government to do that, I oppose it. How hard is that for you to understand?
You are very much mistaken in assuming that I do not understand it. Not only do I understand it, but I totally respect your opinion. Pointing out the futility of that opinion in the actual course of action taken by financial authorities doesn't mean I don't understand the opinion.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
How are they facing the consequences if they're bailed out? Further, why should my tax money be going to help them now that they've screwed up?
I said they should face the consequences. And I totally agree with you that taxpayer money shouldn't be used for any kind of bailout action, ideally. I'm not just talking about the present crisis, but any kind of financial crisis in any country.
But what happens when the situation has already reached such levels that you face the real possibility of major bank failures if the government doesn't act in some way? There's no real way to predict exactly what the effects of widespread bank failures, but it could easily be much worse than if the government acts. In such a scenario, it basically comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils.
No, there shouldn't be situations where a government (again, any country, any situation) has to use taxpayers' money to bail out its banking system. But it still happens...
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
4/12 5:33pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
|
The economy will survive if they aren't bailed out. We're in a downturn anyway so not bailing out these people and lenders isn't going to be a huge dramatic shift, IMO. The market has to correct itself because the current situation where housing has priced itself out of the middle-class's reach is adding to the already shrinking middle class. I do not want to see an America where the only people who can own are wealthy or putting 70% of their income into their mortage. It's wrong.
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/12 5:39pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
Princess_Tina posted:
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
How are they facing the consequences if they're bailed out? Further, why should my tax money be going to help them now that they've screwed up?
I said they should face the consequences. And I totally agree with you that taxpayer money shouldn't be used for any kind of bailout action, ideally. I'm not just talking about the present crisis, but any kind of financial crisis in any country.
But what happens when the situation has already reached such levels that you face the real possibility of major bank failures if the government doesn't act in some way? There's no real way to predict exactly what the effects of widespread bank failures, but it could easily be much worse than if the government acts. In such a scenario, it basically comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils.
No, there shouldn't be situations where a government (again, any country, any situation) has to use taxpayers' money to bail out its banking system. But it still happens...
What consequences are they facing exactly? Are they going to still lose the house like they should? Since most bail outs mentioned involve ways to make it so they don't get foreclosed upon, when that is EXACTLY the consequence they should face.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/12 5:39pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
- Date Edited:
4/12 5:42pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
chibiangi posted:
The economy will survive if they aren't bailed out. We're in a downturn anyway so not bailing out these people and lenders isn't going to be a huge dramatic shift, IMO. The market has to correct itself because the current situation where housing has priced itself out of the middle-class's reach is adding to the already shrinking middle class. I do not want to see an America where the only people who can own are wealthy or putting 70% of their income into their mortage. It's wrong.
What evidence is there that economic turmoil wouldn't be significantly worse if major financial institutions were allowed to fail? It has been many decades since it has happened in the United States. And if anything has changed significantly, it is the risk of contagion due to the a much more globalized economy.
I don't see any circumstances at any point in the near future where the U.S. government, controlled by either Democrats or Republicans, is going to simply allow major financial institutions to fail. It could easily be as bad as the Great Depression. However, if for any unforeseen circumstance it actually were to allow that to happen, we will finally be able to answer the question of whether or not it could be as bad as the Great Depression.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Princess_Tina posted:
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
How are they facing the consequences if they're bailed out? Further, why should my tax money be going to help them now that they've screwed up?
I said they should face the consequences. And I totally agree with you that taxpayer money shouldn't be used for any kind of bailout action, ideally. I'm not just talking about the present crisis, but any kind of financial crisis in any country.
What consequences are they facing exactly? Are they going to still lose the house like they should? Since most bail outs mentioned involve ways to make it so they don't get foreclosed upon, when that is EXACTLY the consequence they should face.
Lowbacca, I'm not sure if I understand the confusion... do you understand the difference between "They should face the consequences..." and "They will face the consequences"?
I'm not saying if they will or not, I am saying they should. But just because something should arguably happen doesn't mean that it will, right?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/12 6:03pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
Well, I was under the impression we were discussing what should be done here. In which case, there should NOT be a bailout because people SHOULD face the consequences.
You've prior taken the stance that bailout is a good thing, yet when questioned on what it essentially means, which is that people don't face the consequences of their actions, you've said that they should face consequences and that is inconsistant with your statement.
Either you feel that ultimately people should face consequences for their actions here, in which case they deserve to be foreclosed upon and there is no further bailouts, or you ultimately believe that these people should not have to face the consequences of their actions, in which case you support further bailouts.
To say they should face consequences and that there should also be a bailout seems to be logically inconsistant.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/12 6:11pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
- Date Edited:
4/12 6:13pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Well, I was under the impression we were discussing what should be done here. In which case, there should NOT be a bailout because people SHOULD face the consequences.
You've prior taken the stance that bailout is a good thing, yet when questioned on what it essentially means, which is that people don't face the consequences of their actions, you've said that they should face consequences and that is inconsistant with your statement.
Either you feel that ultimately people should face consequences for their actions here, in which case they deserve to be foreclosed upon and there is no further bailouts, or you ultimately believe that these people should not have to face the consequences of their actions, in which case you support further bailouts.
To say they should face consequences and that there should also be a bailout seems to be logically inconsistant.
Sorry, but I have never taken the stance that a bailout is a good thing. In certain situations, it may be the lesser of two evils. It's not a good thing when it happens, but governments usually resort to such measures when they have good reason to believe the alternative (allowing major banks to fail) would be even worse for the economy.
Yes, in a perfect world, people who behave in financially irresponsible ways would always face the consequences of their actions. We do not, however, live in a perfect world. There are unfortunately cases where those who acted with great financial irresponsibility nonetheless end up benefiting from a government-led bailout.
I've already lived through one major bank bailout, which at the time was estimated would eventually cost Mexican taxpayers around $65 billion dollars. There's absolutely no reason why I would think bailouts are a good thing, and the Mexican case was even worse since there was ample evidence that several crooked bankers who were bailed out had managed to pocket hundreds of millions of dollars.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
4/12 10:53pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
The bailouts only encourage the irresponsible to keep behaving irresponsibly IMHO.
It only prolongs the problem.
I'm in kinship with Lowbacca on this.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/12 11:13pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
ShaneP posted:
The bailouts only encourage the irresponsible to keep behaving irresponsibly IMHO.
Are you talking specifically about individual borrowers, or about the major investment banks, or both?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
4/12 11:22pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
Ideologically it is easy to say the taxpayer should never bail anyone out for their own mistakes. However in the real world we have to confront the reality that it would be much worse off for the taxpayer if they don't bail out certain institutions and groups of people.
It is a very difficult line to walk, and we almost never have all the information we need when we have to make the decision.
To address the current situation, I don't see how you can support the bailout of Bear Stearns and JPM, and not support any relief for the average joe that got swindled into a bad mortgage. We don't know exactly how much the taxpayer is going to have to pay for Bear Stearns, but as soon as the fed used taxpayer money to stop them from going bankrupt, the shareholders who should have lost everything demanded more and got it.
Should we like the fact that institutional banks and broker-dealers are now un-failable in todays complex global financial system? No, but we still have to bail them out. All we can do is impose reasonable regulation on them.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
4/12 11:31pm
Subject:
RE: Have we been duped
|
Princess Tina
Are you talking specifically about individual borrowers, or about the major investment banks, or both?
Both. And there are many crossovers between individuals and major firms too. It's not a stark contrast.
It was great for everyone when there was money to be made.
We're all to blame to an extent.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
