Show me more "recovery"

[OhioFiler]

So when *all* American government controls and restrictions are removed and the market (and the primarily American corporations who control it ) are allowed to go wherever and do whatever they please, here's what resulted before - American sweatshops, some using child labor. Think it didn't already happen here? Take a look at http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/145 and at the photos at http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

We have American government regulation to make it as hard as possible for this corporate-led horror to ever happen again. If you want to discuss having *less* regulation, then I'm right there with you. However, if you believe that *no* regulation at all is the right answer, then pull up those photos of what's already happened right here in the good old USA and take a hard look again.

Thinking that we can somehow return to the past and recreate American manufacturing jobs if we just deregulate and let the market have free rein means one of two things - you either don't understand the now-global marketplace that will now never go away, or you don't care if many innocent people in America and elsewhere around the world are hurt by the need to drive corporate earnings ever higher, as long as your beliefs in a failed economic ideology are followed.

We do not have government regulations because of historical abuse of children in the marketplace. We have government regulation because politicians crave power. You can't honestly believe that politicians create anything to help anyone other than themselves or a specific financial supporter.

In a free market the market regulates what is done. If GM were to begin making cars with 10 year old kids working 70 hours per week for $10 no one would buy a GM car. In today's environment where everyone is connected via the internet that type of activity could not be kept secret.

[OhioFiler]

Deregulation? The Banks need MORE regulation, not deregulation. Between the S&L crisis when I was in college and what recently happened, I think it's safe to say that deregulation is not the way to go.

And rather than destroy our planet by drilling in protected areas, why not work on ELIMINATING the need for oil? That's a far better plan that will last a whole lot longer than destroying protected areas will.

As for the government being unable to create jobs, well, it can. The depression started getting a little better with the New Deal. But it recovered when the government went to war and started spending even more money. President Obama wasn't too far off with his "stimulus" idea. The only problem is that we don't have the money for it. Why? Because nobody wanted to pay higher taxes to pay back the borrowed money for the spending that got us out of the depression. So here we are, in a mess. One that isn't going to go away.

It was the regulations imposed via the Community Reinvestment Act and subsequent congressional regulatory actions that created the housing bubble that led to the current crisis we're in.

Why eliminate the need for oil? Everything you use today is a product of oil in one way or another. Even that polyester jogging suit you have on is petroleum based. Would you rather be forced to buy a wardrobe made only of natural fibers spun on a wind powered loom, sewn by hand and delivered to you via delivery on foot? That outfit you bought at K-Mart for $21.99 will now cost you $499.00.

Our economy is oil based and that is not going to change for many decades, if ever. It's irresponsible to ignore that fact and focus on alternative energy sources as the only solution.

The New Deal extended the depression.

[backtoschool]

It was the regulations imposed via the Community Reinvestment Act and subsequent congressional regulatory actions that created the housing bubble that led to the current crisis we're in.

Why eliminate the need for oil? Everything you use today is a product of oil in one way or another. Even that polyester jogging suit you have on is petroleum based. Would you rather be forced to buy a wardrobe made only of natural fibers spun on a wind powered loom, sewn by hand and delivered to you via delivery on foot? That outfit you bought at K-Mart for $21.99 will now cost you $499.00.

Our economy is oil based and that is not going to change for many decades, if ever. It's irresponsible to ignore that fact and focus on alternative energy sources as the only solution.

The New Deal extended the depression.

I agree with some of what you said OF, and disagree with some points.

It was not the Community Reinvestment Act that fueled the housing bubble. A very small percentage of the housing bubble money ended up in low income communities. It was the Fed's lowering of interest rates to almost zero, which flooded the market with cash looking for a safe place to land, that caused the housing bubble. Ironically, it was an Ayn Rand disciple (Greenspan) that caused the housing bubble (and it's inevitable crash...) Removing redlining of neighborhoods, which is what the Community Reinvestment Act was meant to do, had little to do with the zero down, no provable income mortgages that most of the middle class were offered during the housing boom. People were offered those mortgages so that they could be repackaged into packages of securities and sold to investment banks and insured by AIG. Everyone was making guaranteed money. That is why there was a bubble, not because the government wanted to eliminate housing discrimination.

I agree with you however, that we should not, and cannot completely eliminate the need for oil. I disagree that we shouldn't even try. I always buy natural fiber clothing, and fair trade items, etc. I am willing to pay more for these items because they are more in line with my values. Does this solve anything? No, one person buying fair trade wool does not solve anything, but it makes me feel that at least I aligning my purchases with my values.

As we have discussed before in a thread some months back, the New Deal was neutral in regards to the Depression. It was the military ramp up of WWII that got us out of the Depression, but the New Deal spending kept things at a stasis and did not do any harm. Banks were not lending, there were huge deflationary pressures, and certainly doing nothing would have extended the depression.

[momisery]

We are not going to see a shred of recovery until big business and wallstreet get what they want in Washington. They are not fans of Obama or his congress for wanting to control them. Does Obama have the best plan, of course not, but then who does? If we rein in the federal budget we will cut spending which means we will stop job creations, and stop unemployment, maybe cut SS, or medicare, or school programs? Over time the economy will rebound and taxes will come back that would be the time to start cutting. I know jobs will help, but until Washington gets their heads out of their behinds and starts taxing business in a way that makes good job sense we will continue to lose them. We need to tax those who off shore, and give tax breaks to those who hire American workers as that will increase the amount of taxes on payrolls to our bottom line. Years ago I was told about the poor little rich kid and how they were so upset about how hard their lives are. Well, they can give all that money away and stop their career so they are not so famous ... but what options does a poor person have? They have nothing to give away.

[OhioFiler]

I agree with some of what you said OF, and disagree with some points.

It was not the Community Reinvestment Act that fueled the housing bubble. A very small percentage of the housing bubble money ended up in low income communities. It was the Fed's lowering of interest rates to almost zero, which flooded the market with cash looking for a safe place to land, that caused the housing bubble. Ironically, it was an Ayn Rand disciple (Greenspan) that caused the housing bubble (and it's inevitable crash...) Removing redlining of neighborhoods, which is what the Community Reinvestment Act was meant to do, had little to do with the zero down, no provable income mortgages that most of the middle class were offered during the housing boom. People were offered those mortgages so that they could be repackaged into packages of securities and sold to investment banks and insured by AIG. Everyone was making guaranteed money. That is why there was a bubble, not because the government wanted to eliminate housing discrimination.

I agree with you however, that we should not, and cannot completely eliminate the need for oil. I disagree that we shouldn't even try. I always buy natural fiber clothing, and fair trade items, etc. I am willing to pay more for these items because they are more in line with my values. Does this solve anything? No, one person buying fair trade wool does not solve anything, but it makes me feel that at least I aligning my purchases with my values.

As we have discussed before in a thread some months back, the New Deal was neutral in regards to the Depression. It was the military ramp up of WWII that got us out of the Depression, but the New Deal spending kept things at a stasis and did not do any harm. Banks were not lending, there were huge deflationary pressures, and certainly doing nothing would have extended the depression.

Sub-prime lending is the culprit behind the housing crash. Sub-prime lending was devised to get people owning houses who were not qualified. The bundling of these mortgages and the backing of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae destroyed our economy.

If you were truly concerned about the effect of oil on our ecology you would buy your own sheep, chicken and cow. Or even better, wear clothing made of hemp. The only problem is you'd have to walk to the Grateful Dead concerts!

[backtoschool]

Sub-prime lending is the culprit behind the housing crash. Sub-prime lending was devised to get people owning houses who were not qualified. The bundling of these mortgages and the backing of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae destroyed our economy.

If you were truly concerned about the effect of oil on our ecology you would buy your own sheep, chicken and cow. Or even better, wear clothing made of hemp. The only problem is you'd have to walk to the Grateful Dead concerts!

If being ecology minded means I have to listen to the Grateful Dead, then sign me up for unlimited petroleum products.

Sub-prime lending was only a small portion of the lending that caused the housing crash. The vast majority of the lending backed by Freddie and Fannie was to middle class home buyers. It was zero money down loans and ARM's that led to the housing crisis. Granted some of these went to subprime borrowers, but the majority of them went to middle-class borrowers with decent credit scores.

[OhioFiler]

If being ecology minded means I have to listen to the Grateful Dead, then sign me up for unlimited petroleum products.

Sub-prime lending was only a small portion of the lending that caused the housing crash. The vast majority of the lending backed by Freddie and Fannie was to middle class home buyers. It was zero money down loans and ARM's that led to the housing crisis. Granted some of these went to subprime borrowers, but the majority of them went to middle-class borrowers with decent credit scores.

I disagree though I recognize that a share of the problem was related to the ARM mess. Either way, loans were issued to people who did not qualify and the impetus was government interference.

[Mi Bankruptcy]

I think the lack of understanding of the "ARM" really created this mess. I bought my home FHA with 3k down 8 years ago. I knew this was the biggest purchase I would ever make and did my research. I used a broker to push through my deal because I couldn't get conventional lending. This guy was scum and I knew it. I used his appraiser to push through an FHA appraisal that should have never passed. However, I refused to take the ARM and took the higher interest rate. My wife couldn't understand it. NOW she does..

The people that didn't take the time to educate themselves ( like me with CC) fell victum to the Mortgage companies resetting all their ARMs. Why would these mortgage companies reset their ARMS... = GREED

If a consumer was paying all the time before the reset why wouldn't you adjust the mortgage back to their original rate.. WHY =GREED

[OhioFiler]

I think the lack of understanding of the "ARM" really created this mess. I bought my home FHA with 3k down 8 years ago. I knew this was the biggest purchase I would ever make and did my research. I used a broker to push through my deal because I couldn't get conventional lending. This guy was scum and I knew it. I used his appraiser to push through an FHA appraisal that should have never passed. However, I refused to take the ARM and took the higher interest rate. My wife couldn't understand it. NOW she does..

The people that didn't take the time to educate themselves ( like me with CC) fell victum to the Mortgage companies resetting all their ARMs. Why would these mortgage companies reset their ARMS... = GREED

If a consumer was paying all the time before the reset why wouldn't you adjust the mortgage back to their original rate.. WHY =GREED

I would suggest WHY = CONTRACT

[Mi Bankruptcy]

I would suggest WHY = CONTRACT

True.. But I definitely understand contracts can be modified. I do it all the time. This is with the government too. So.. WHY = Greed. They would rather foreclose on someone that was paying before they reset the arm rather than modifying the contract.

[OhioFiler]

True.. But I definitely understand contracts can be modified. I do it all the time. This is with the government too. So.. WHY = Greed. They would rather foreclose on someone that was paying before they reset the arm rather than modifying the contract.

Mortgages are complicated. You have a holder who may have purchased it from a previous holder who may have purchased it from a previous holder....

Then you have the servicer who you are dealing with trying to get the modification processed through.

Then you have mortgage insurance.

And of course don't forget precedent.

I think applying logic to mortgage handling and expecting the logical result is an exercise in futility.