26 responses so far ↓

• 1 Kristy // Sep 18, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  I don’t believe that the Government got us into this mess. I think it was the individuals who were buying houses they couldn’t afford, charging things they can’t afford, greedy lenders, greedy people on Wall Street, etc.

  As for bailing out all of these companies, I don’t believe the government should do that either. That being said, the failure of AIG would have been disastrous not only for our country but for the entire world.

  I said the other day how we are still investing and I have changed my tune after the past week. I am still going to keep funding our retirement accounts because we need the tax break, but I am not investing much else until I think all of the financial institutions are stable. I think I may be on the brink of panicking all together: I’m contemplating keeping money under mattress as well.

• 2 Meg // Sep 18, 2008 at 3:35 pm

  “Where’s the personal reponsibility of the Government who got us into this mess? ”

  Who/what exactly are you referring to? What did “the government” do to get us into this mess? Economies rise and fall; market volatility - including recessions - is not the government’s “fault.”

  Sure congress enacts tax policies and the federal reserve enacts interest rate decisions that affect the economy, but the majority of economic activity - good and bad - is can be attributed to the spending and investment habits of every company and individual in the country - not to George W. or any other president or to “the government.”

  What really makes me shudder is your last comment, ” We’re turning socialist even faster than I expected or might even want.”

  Might even want? You might want our country to be socialist?!? That scares the sh*t out of me to hear regular Americans saying crazy stuff like that. As Ronald Reagan once said, everybody needs to realize that “the scariest nine words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

  You can’t rely on Obama or anybody else to “get us out of this mess!” You can’t just vote to create more government programs out of fear, in h0pes that if you just pay higher taxes and shut your eyes “the government” will fix everything! Dear God! I need a cocktail.

• 3 LAL // Sep 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  Very little regulation and oversight by the Government. They were too excited to be making a fortune on Wall Street to care. There is little protection for pensions and little repercussions for using the pension money and leaving employees broke.

  The fact that many Americans didn’t want the war yet here we are. We vote suppossedly are okay with the large deficit run up and outrageous spending by the Republicans. Yep they’ve had tons of fun, in fact McCain now says we need “reform” and cut pork barrel spending that has been going on???

  Yep the American Consumer has to shoulder some of the blame, but not all of it. Were the employees of Enron to blame? Or WorldCom? If I recall the CEOs are sitting high off the hog. And now Fannie and Freddie CEOs are getting severance packages for being dumb? Where’s the fraud? The persecution for doing illegal dealings?

  Ronald Reagan raised taxes 6x after he cut it. At the end of his time, the government again got involved with Black Monday.

  Meg, the government is already involved. Have you not read that the Feds are bailing out AIG? That they are helping Freddie and Fannie? How is that not direct intervention? It’s already happening and you are on the same ship now.

  I never wanted to be on the Bush ship going to war. BUT I had to be. Now you have to be on the ship where the government intervenes a lot because that’s what it wants to do.

  I notice you don’t like government but you aren’t willing to make a stance on whether the AIG and Freddie and Fannie bailout should not go through.

  For people who want little government in their lives that’s fine. Less government, less taxes. Great. But realize that right now we’re under Republican leadership and somehow I don’t see smaller government.

  I see larger government. I see the Patriot act. I see more invasion of our privacy. Gee, we’re already acting socialistic without a single benefit of being a socialist country. And anyone speaking out against the government is seen as “non-patriotic”.

  So how do you propose to get us out of the mess? More deregulation by John McCain? Less Taxes when we print worthless money?

  Cracks me up that people vote for McCain because he’s less taxes and smaller government (what Bush was) and yet here we are with larger big brother than ever.

  Also cracking me up. For people who want less than government leave Roe versus Wade alone. Let it be private between a woman and her doctor. Stop interfering. But NOOO…again another hypocrisy. Less government but we want to regulate your choices.

  Irony. Here’s a feminist Catholic whose pro-choice. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/wendy_doniger/2008/09/all_beliefs_welcome_unless_the.html

• 4 LAL // Sep 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm

  Kristy is it entirely at the fault of the people? Or do CEOs who walk away with large golden parachutes have nothing to answer for?

• 5 Kristy // Sep 18, 2008 at 7:03 pm

  You do know that the American people were just as excited to be making money on their homes and in the stock market right? It wasn’t just the government. I can’t believe that you are blaming the government for this mess. If you want to blame someone maybe you should blame Bill Clinton for signing a bill to let poor Americans buy houses in 1997.

  And yes I think the employees of Enron and Worldcom were to blame, should they had all of their money invested in company stock or should they have been diversified? What do you think?

  So do you think the CEO’s of big companies shouldn’t be paid for what they do? So should you be paid only if you do a good job for the company? I don’t think that’s fair either. I don’t mind the CEO’s making the big bucks, they earn it. They work practically 24 hours a day and the should earn more.

  I will say it: I don’t want big government and if Obama is elected that is exactly what we will have. You can not compare what is going on currently with what will happen in the future. If the government did not bail out AIG, there would have been huge repurcursions worldwide. It would not have been pretty. Did you know that they have operations in 130 countries? Do you know what the collaps of AIG would do? You realize that it was not a bailout, that the Feds are getting 80% of the assets of the company, right? Plus they are getting interest of 8.5% plus prime.

  I never said that it is entirely the fault of the consumer, in fact if you look back I said it is the consumers fault for overspending on practically every aspect of life, the lenders fault for being just as greedy and Wall Streets fault for being greedy.

• 6 Tim // Sep 19, 2008 at 7:46 am

  well, sitting here in the UK (yes, LAL you can check my IP address, as I told you I haven’t been lying about anything), and seeing problems they are having here and in Europe, the fundamentals of the US economy is still a valid statement unless you are running for office. Wipe away everything, and if the fundamentals weren’t strong, the situation would have we would be in meltdown. Although unemployment has been increasing, it is still relatively low. That couldn’t happen if companies weren’t still fundamentally sound. i won’t go into a long diatribe on other things. I think what we should be doing is not getting caught up in all the hysteria of the media and the election, which many people are doing.

  yeah, yeah, everyone was greedy. no one was complaining last summer, even though negative savings rate, over extension of credit, and housing surging beyond fundamentals. the fact is, when you trace the origins of the current mess, it all starts from people signing the dotted line on mortgages that they couldn’t afford PERIOD.

  There would not have been a market for mortgage backed securities or insurance to cover those positions if there weren’t tons of people feeling a home was a right and a need and deciding to get a subprime mortgage, arms, interest only mortgages, getting larger mortgage than they could afford. yeah, yeah, companies shouldn’t have been offering them. bad companies, they held a gun to peoples’ heads to sign the dotted line. bad company, should have known that i couldn’t afford a home, because i’m too stupid to not know that i couldn’t afford a home. bad company.

  everyone now is talking about regulation this, regulation that, so people can stay in their homes, because effectively they are saying that americans are too stupid to determine whether or not they can actually afford something.

  yes, the taxpayer is bailing out these companies. At the end of the food chain where it all started, the taxpayer is actually bailing out the taxpayers who bought mortgages they couldn’t afford so they can still stay in their homes that they couldn’t afford to begin with. the poor hard working american, we need to keep them in their unaffordable homes. does that make sense to anyone?

  yeah, yeah, we are bailing out the companies, but the companies are losing everything and their assets will be sold and they will no longer exist. That is far more than what everyone is calling for the taxpayers who have unaffordable mortgages who everyone wants to keep their homes. So when we talk about bailouts, let’s start talking realities here. it sounds good to voters to punish the companies, which they are by being liquidated, and it sounds good to keep people in their homes, which they shouldn’t be.

  the govt did not get us into this mess PERIOD. and let’s not talk just about bush, because the govt consists of congress, too, which people forget about. congress, democratically controlled, did nothing the past two years in office to change anything. they agreed with bush on the budget, they agreed with bush on war spending, they didn’t institute regulations, etc. etc. so don’t make it a partisan battle, because no one was complaining last summer.

  i’m not worried about the economy, b/c i look all around and see far more healthy companies than non healthy ones. no politician during an election that is under 50 days is going to stay by the fundamentals are strong statement, because it is suicide to do so, regardless of reality.

  is there trouble right now? yes, but if warren buffet is gobbling up companies, which he is now, i think theres some good fundamentals out there that will eventually prove beneficial if you do not panic, if you do not get caught up in the election rhethoric, and take a look of the fundamentals of your investments.

  last, we don’t invest and companies don’t exist out of purely benign reasons. they exist to make a profit. so what the heck is everyone talking about greed for? of course everyone is greedy, that’s how our system works. be greedy, don’t get caught up in the hype, which itself a bubble that will pop, buy at discounts, and understand that our economy is very resilient.

• 7 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 19, 2008 at 11:16 pm

  A lot of companies including Enron and Worldcom cut pensions. Pensions people were counting on. So did United, Northwest, American Airlines. These pensions were inadequately funded by the laws. These companies were allowed to dump their pensions on the Federal Government and the CEOs were not held responsible for actually funding the pensions.

  Yes people should not count on pensions and be diversified. But to not fund the pension you promised? And dump it on the PBGC? http://www.pbgc.gov/ How is that okay?

  I believe that CEOs of companies shouldn’t have golden parachutes when they drive companies into the ground. When they get fired they get fired, not $14 million dollars to go quietly. They failed, get lost. Perhaps that money should go to the pension plan instead??? Instead it’s coming out of our tax dollars.

  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aX4lTr7NWck8&refer=home

  The federal government said companies which participates in the bailout might need to curtail the GROSSLY overcompensated CEOs. Yeah it needed to be done a long time ago.

  Yes it needed to be done (AIG buyout) or else, but come on. How is that not socialism, the government stepping in to save us? It’s already happening and so is the rest of the Patriotic Act and invasions in our privacy.

  And yes they are going to be repaid in 2 years, but really, what happened to capitalism? We instead took socialistic action instead of allowing failure.

  You want smaller government? Vote for Ron Paul. McCain is more of the same and right now we’re in bigger government interference.

  Also why shouldn’t the poor have an opportunity be allowed to buy homes? If not for that my mom wouldn’t have bought a home nor her siblings. They did fine.

  I don’t think the consumers are solely to blame. There were other participants. They didn’t get loans all on their own.

• 8 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 19, 2008 at 11:27 pm

  Is it really only due to mortgages? Or where there other factors at play? I believe it was more than just mortgages. It was more than just mortgages that drove us into this crisis.

  I don’t believe the economy will rebound shortly. I also believe we’ve been hurting for a lot longer than just 1 year.

  Right now the SEC banned short selling on 799 stocks for the next 10 days to prevent hysteria. Again more government intervention, so where is it supposed to stop? I’m all for it, but heck everyone who isn’t, why aren’t their protesting?

  Why are people who want smaller government, not raising hell? Why aren’t people complaining more about bailing out others?

  Last night they announced a huge government bailout to be further ironed out this weekend.

  So whose going to benefit now? We the crappy taxpayers. So I guess socialism is working out better than expected.

  Whose panicking? I bought more stocks on discount. I’m a happy camper. But I’m a liberal remember? Wealth redistributer, who preaches paying more taxes.

  I’m laughing because people rant about government and paying more taxes. But now we’ve turned into socialists overnight.

  Overnight people were begging for help so we did. Funny, I think it’s just like my health insurance analogy. No one wants universal care until they have a catastrophic illness and are wiped out. Then they want help from the government.

  No one likes to pay taxes until they need help. No one wants to help out others, until it helps them.

  Now we have to help out people in mortgage hell because we’re in hell with them. We need to stabilize the economy/market with our taxpayer dollars because what other choice do we have?

  Here we are bailing others out. Ha. So much for capitalism. We’re now Sweden wannabees.

• 9 Kristy // Sep 20, 2008 at 6:34 am

  The bailout of AIG was not just to save us, but to save the world economy and was necessary. I thought you wanted more socialism…shouldn’t you be happy about this? This is what is going to happen to your tax dollars when Obama gets elected.

  I am complaining about bailing all of these companies out, do you think I want my tax dollars to help other failing banks?

  I’m not panicking yet, however I am starting to keep a little more cash than I normally do (which is $50). For the record I did vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. He would have been the best candidate (Republican or Democrat) to fix this country and economy.

• 10 Velvet Jones // Sep 20, 2008 at 10:52 am

  It gives me a chuckle how some people are afraid of more government, yet live in states that have outlawed oral sex (i.e., in North Carolina you’ll face 10 years in prison and a fine).

  I guess the freedom to make more money than others and gloat about it is more important than the freedom and privacy of their own bodies.

• 11 fengshui // Sep 20, 2008 at 11:06 pm

  “I don’t believe that the Government got us into this mess. I think it was the individuals who were buying houses they couldn’t afford, charging things they can’t afford, greedy lenders, greedy people on Wall Street, etc. ”

  The “government” was well aware that all of this was happening and didn’t do a damn thing to try to stop it before it exploded into this disaster. And now, after failing to implement “regulations” for home loans, now WE (taxpayers) are going to foot the bill for yet ANOTHER bailout ($700 billion) and set us further into debt by raising the defecit to $11.3 TRILLION. But, what does Bush care when he’s on his way out….

• 12 Kristy // Sep 21, 2008 at 7:19 am

  “The “government” was well aware that all of this was happening and didn’t do a damn thing to try to stop it before it exploded into this disaster. And now, after failing to implement “regulations” for home loans, now WE (taxpayers) are going to foot the bill for yet ANOTHER bailout ($700 billion) and set us further into debt by raising the defecit to $11.3 TRILLION. But, what does Bush care when he’s on his way out….”

  I think its funny how its the governments fault for not regulating, but now that they are regulating they are being criticized. By the way the Democrats have been in charge of Congress for 2 years, but I guess everything is still Bush’s fault. Not to mention that Clinton started this whole mess with a bill he passed regarding discrimination of mortgages to minorities and poor people, which caused the subprime mortgages to be created.

• 13 fengshui // Sep 21, 2008 at 11:28 am

  This is what is going to happen to your tax dollars when Obama gets elected.

  Why does everyone think that they are going to be raped with taxes with Obama being elected. He wants to tax the very wealth and corporations, not us “little” middle class people. Unless you’re clearing $2 million a year or more, McCain isn’t going to benefit you much tax wise…..

• 14 fengshui // Sep 21, 2008 at 11:48 am

  “I’m laughing because people rant about government and paying more taxes.”

  I don’t mind paying taxes, as long as the decisions benefit the people of this country and not multi-million dollar CEOs, etc.

• 15 fengshui // Sep 21, 2008 at 11:52 am

  “Now we have to help out people in mortgage hell because we’re in hell with them. We need to stabilize the economy/market with our taxpayer dollars because what other choice do we have?”

  This just makes me angry….. This mess never should have happened. People made VERY poor decisions about what they could and could not afford. And because people inflated their incomes and took out ARM “stated” mortgages when they shouldn’t have, and eneded up losing a home that they never should have in the first place, and now the tax payers have to bail them out, and the corporations that allowed this to happen? It is just unbelievable…. At this point the damage has been done, and the government is stepping in, but where does it end? How do we know that this won’t happen again?

• 16 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 21, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  I am very happy about the bailout. I believe in it. But I feel as though people who want the bailout a lot of them were people who wanted smaller government. This is exactly why I like higher taxes because we end up in messes like this.

  I believe that Ron Paul exemplies what the Republican party used to stand for. He says lower taxes, smaller government, and less invasion. I believe he would. I have no idea when Republicans became free-spenders who use bigger government to make us “afraid”. I think Ron Paul is a true “maverick” compared to McCain.

  I agree, why smaller government when people are putting their noses where it doesn’t belong? Example Patriot act. Example, changing the constitution for gay marriage.

  The Government loosened regulations and allow CEOs of bankrupt companies to walk away with huge golden parachutes. They aren’t prosecuting the Enron, WorldCom, airline CEOs who didn’t fund the pensions adequeately? That is fraud and a die hard republican economist have published that as well! They said where is the responsibility?

  Um, Kristy, barely 18 months have the Democratic Congress. The Republicans have been in charge for the 12 years previously from 1994. And the Congress was still split because Lieberman is independent so it was 50, 49, and 1. I believe that it was very difficult to get anything done when Republicans still held so much power.

  I also believe Clinton reformed welfare, raised taxes, and allowed people who were poor to get ahead. The mortgage crisis didn’t start until Bush’s period because the rates weren’t low enough to really get people into home buying. It wasn’t until 2001 really. So I would say it was BUSH. Also bush, tax cuts while allowing spending to become RAMPANT.

  You cannot deny that the deficit and spending has ballooned during these 8 years. Kinda doesn’t work, increased spending, decreased taxes.

  No Obama is cutting taxes for the majority of people. 95% actually. It’s the very wealthy who will get caught. And yes that is mostly people who have capital gains. I’m sorry but if you are making $150k and have capital gains I bet it’s not more than 5% of your income at most. I doubt you have more than $7500/year. It’s unlikely that you are pulling in that much in taxable accounts.

  At $250k,maybe. But even then you aren’t really living on your capital gains because the majority of your money is from salary. If you are retired and living on $250k in capital gains, well then you are rich. That is a 15% bracket and to generate $250k you need $6M in net worth minimally. That’s not poor but ANY standard.

  We don’t know when the government will stop stepping in. We also have no idea how we will extricate the government when the time is right.

  Personally I’m fine but I’m a very liberal Democrat. I can see how this would upset many more moderate Dems and all Republicans. BUT hey who put us in this position?

  It wasn’t a 2 year “democratic” congress sworn in Januaray 2, 2007. Yes that’s when it starts. NOT November 10, 2006! Our next president will be sworn in January 2009, like Bush was sworn in January 2001.

  So our 18 months things went from Great to BAD? I doubt it. It’s been a lot longer in coming. I would say things started back in 2004/2005.

• 17 Kristy // Sep 22, 2008 at 5:28 am

  Regardless of when you think this crisis ocurred, it doesn’t negate the fact that Clinton’s administrations passed the laws that started this whole mess. You can blame whoever you want, but Clinton signed a law while he was still in office allowing poor people with poor credit to get loans for housing.

  As far as only making $7500 on capital gains and dividends: Right now someone making that would only pay 15% ($1,125), but if Obama’s tax increases are passed that person will pay 39.5% ($2,962.50). Sorry, but I would still like to keep my money that I made. That law is not the only one that he is proposing that I don’t like. He wants to increase the inheritance tax, housing tax, etc. That’s fine if you like him and want socialism in this country, I don’t.

• 18 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 22, 2008 at 7:02 pm

  Clinton did not allow people to do stated income loans. That started under BUSH and what really got us into trouble. The trouble did not start in 1997. It started when people began doing option arms, stated income loans, no documentation loans under Bush. The blame is with the deregulation with BUSH.

  Second, you got the capital gains wrong. Here is a fact check article.http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html

  Obama will raise capital gains only on people making $250k/year or more. He will not be be increasing taxes for the middle class.

  Yes he wants to apply the inheritance tax. BUT until bush there was an inheritance tax and why not? Only rich benefit. Also McCain has an estate tax as well but it’s 15% instead of 45% and capped above $5 million instead of $3.5 million. Yes, how many people are worth over $3.5million in inheritance? Are you going to inherit $3.5 million? I’m not.

  http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/cch-details-candidates-tax-policies/story.aspx?guid={CB6AE055-AA57-49C8-BF32-ABF1E15D60D5}&dist=hppr

  Also why not tax home gains of $500k? Who actually has home gains of $500k if not the rich? The average home price is $175k. Um, when will they ever reach $500k in profits? It will be like the previous laws where the profits just need to be rolled into another home! 95% of americans never profit $500k in home equity!

  And Obama wants to raise SS taxes on those making more than $250k. Also, consider that John McCain wants to privitize SS, which in today’s economic market doesn’t seem like such a hot idea right now.

  Obama is going to give you a home heating credit. McCain is going to give tax breaks to the oil company.

  Yep Obama will raise your taxes. Well I’m glad for it. You are in the top 1% of earners since the top 5% is $100k or higher. $250k is top 1% of earners. You are out earning 99% of the country and keeping more of it than ever before. Even other republicans didn’t cut taxes as much.

  And how are we going to pay for our $700B bailout package?

• 19 Kristy // Sep 22, 2008 at 7:38 pm

  Do you really think that only the rich a going to pay for the 1.8 billion dollar bailout package? That is laughable. Our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are going to pay for it too.

  I came from a poor family, so no I won’t inherit over 3.5 million. However, if I die right after I retire my children could inherit this much money. Sorry I would rather my children pay only 15%, not almost half of what I have earned throughout my career.

  I don’t think the Democrats are entirely responsible for this crisis, I also don’t think the Republicans are entirely responsible either. As for SS being privatized, I hope it is. Then I can be in charge of my own money and retirement.

  Clinton did pass the Graham Leach Bailey Act in 1999, so I apologize for the wrong date, it wasn’t 1997.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

• 20 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  Right, but the mortgages didn’t take off until after the housing really started skyrocketing in 2001. Economists said that mortgages weren’t going crazy until almost 2003. Then people were writing for not just people with bad credit but everyone crazy mortgages.

  Even with excellent credit you were being offered loans without any documentation. My BIL made $20k/year, foreigner, and yet he was offered a $300k mortgage! Just because he had excellent credit and thus they said he could do a stated income, no documentation loan! It wasn’t for poor credit rating people.

  I had friends doing mortgages in 3 different banks/brokers and all said people with great credit were doing balloon mortgages, option arms, etc because they had excellent credit. Thus they qualified for no-documentation, stated income loans. NOT poor credit risk who qualified for higher rates and had to pass the documenatation. These were normal people with excellent credit lying about income being $150k instead of $75k. Or being commission based and making sometimes $50k, sometimes $100k.

  Exactly, but you really believe your children will inherit $3.5 Million in today’s dollars? I doubt my children will. Maybe my grandchildren will, but it’s not likely. I also think they should be paying some taxes on their inheritances.

  Also I believe that with the irresponsibility of the public privitizing SS will be horrible. They will end up going back to a government system when it turns out people have no idea how to invest their money.

  Realize people can barely invest a 401k or IRA. Adding a 3 choice to the mix is asking for trouble.

  Reality is that medicare and SS need more money.

  And no, not only the rich is paying for $700b. Just the portion of people who actually pay taxes, since about 40% of americans don’t pay any taxes.

  NOT a huge deal, but like i said in my post today, I am all for the bailout under certain conditions. And if not, I’d rather NOT see a bailout then handing over $700B without regulation.

  I’m not convinced that the Paulson plan is sound. I think there are lot of problems. Maybe even more than the bailout with regulations, doing nothing like many fiscal conservatives want is write.

• 21 Kristy // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:25 pm

  So is it Bush’s fault that all of these people lied about their income to get a loan? He put a gun to all of these people heads and made them sign on the dotted line? My whole point is that there is a ton of blame to go around, the Republicans, Democrats, individuals, companies, etc. It is not just one person’s fault that our economy is what it is today.

  What I said about my kids inheriting 3.5 million dollars is that yes they will if I die right after I retire. What you are getting wrong is that I don’t believe in taxes, I do believe in them. I just don’t believe in raising the inheritance tax to 45%…that is ridiculous. Though I am sure that if it happens I will talk to my attorney and readjust my will/trusts.

  All the bailout plan is going to do is delay the inevitable. The government needs to just stay out of this and let the banks fail. Our economy will be crappy for a few years but we will bounce back.

• 22 No Debt Plan // Sep 23, 2008 at 3:37 pm

  This issue started with mortgages and lack of regulation. It didn’t show up until a few years later because that’s how long it takes for those bad loans (ARMs, for example) to reset.

  The incentive was there for all parties involved. I’m interested in owning a home, and there is away to get me into one. The mortgage broker takes his cut, so he wants to put me into a home. The bank is going to sell the loan at a small profit but no risk, they want to put me into a home. Etc. Etc. Etc.

  Then there is the unregulated credit swap market that could be as big as $60 trillion in size (according to a NYTimes report). AIG was the biggest player in insuring all of those swaps — if AIG goes down, the swaps go down. If the swaps go down, the companies holding those swaps go down. If those go down… etc., etc., etc.

  This scenario happened in Sweden back in the late 80s or early 90s. It was essentially where they were being PAID to own a home, that’s how lucrative it was. Big explosion in the market, followed by a massive bust and all of the major banks failing. Result? Government opened up a bad asset bank and funded it with billions of dollars (probably equivalent to what we’re doing in today’s dollars).

  Lack of regulation — allowing banks to sell off mortgages, allowing this unregulated credit swap market… have led to all of this.

  That and institutions are now “too big to fail” because they are involved in everything. Another problem for regulators to tackle — don’t let the firms become that big. Period.

• 23 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  There is more than enough blame to go around. But previous administration did not push deregulation. Deregulation was policy of the current administration. And the mortgages that failed took a few years to fail. The underwriting started after Bush took office and let the mortgage industry go hog wild.

  Before this administration mortgages even for poor/bad credit was standard 20%. Also the law passed by Clinton in 1999, was first passed and approved by a Republican congress. In fact the bill was proposed and Drafted by Republican Phil Gramm and James Leech. Which means that Republicans thought the deregulation awesome and the Democrats thought helping the poor great.

  Estates should be taxed. Even Bush agrees. Obama will give you up to $3.5M tax free passed on but anything higher and you will pay 45%. Well that’s lower than what you would pay under Bush so WHY are you complaining? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

  See the top tax bracket is 55% on estates of $2million under Bush. Personally maybe Obama should keep it at 55%.

  I am willing to support a non-intervention plan period. I am not willing to support a bailout plan without regulation, oversight, and a blank check!

• 24 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:08 pm

  So Kevin, are you suggesting if we don’t regulate the free market won’t correct naturally? Won’t it just take a long time?

  Sadly I wonder if regulation is just to late?

• 25 Kristy // Sep 24, 2008 at 6:21 am

  We are going to have to disagree. I believe that it was more than just one person’s fault for the mess we are in right now. Does something need to be done to fix it? Should they just let t it go and have our country fall into a depresssion? No one knows, but I am sure that whatever Bush does will be criticized from both parties.

  Actually I think if we let the free market correct naturally it will be quicker than if this bailout occurs. If that happes then I think we will be in this same situation in 3-5 years.

• 26 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 24, 2008 at 1:03 pm

  No, I agree that a lot has to do with the consumers. That a lot of Americans drove us into the situation with greed over the housing market. The subprime mess. But it wasn’t only subprime mortgages, it was exotic mortgages for people who “qualified” with great credit but really could not afford a $500k home.

  I don’t know, but Bush will go down as infamous after this debacle. That and the money we have been spending $10b/month on Iraq war. You have to admit that the money spent on the war could have been used to shore up our own problem at home.

  I do wonder if perhaps we aren’t going to “bailout” companies to fall back into the same trap. The only difference is that this time, people won’t have as much of a credit rating to get exotic loans.

  It wasn’t poor, bad credit homeowners. A lot of people were young, well off, trying to get into better homes and “flipping” homes every year with their “equity”.

Leave a Comment