TOMORROW,BIG DAY FOR AMERICANS!

M

MR.KAZ

Lurker
Hi Members!

What are your thoughts with respect to Obama becoming president,other than the fact the he's African American.Do you feel confident in his efforts to help America.I ask,because so many politicians promise their voters the world until they're elected,then do nothing.

Do you believe Mr. Obama will honor his commitments,and help your Country with it's economic problems and such?

God Bless,
MR.KAZ
 
I think he'll genuinely try, and it may bring some short term results (i.e. pull us out the economic downturn), but in the end, this trillion dollar bailout he's talking about will just leave an even larger amount of debt for a future generation to pay off. The whole reason this crisis began is because Americans lived beyond their means and took out loans they couldn't repay. How is the government spending money it doesn't have a good way of getting out of the crisis? Both the American people and American government have to stop living beyond their means or we will just be stuck in the same problem ten years from now, except instead of the government bailing out banks and Americans who are defaulting on their mortgages, we will be bailing out the government. His heart is in the right place, and he is trying to help people. That much is obvious, but good intentions aren't everything. He needs to have a better plan than throwing money at the problem until it goes away.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
I think he'll genuinely try, and it may bring some short term results (i.e. pull us out the economic downturn), but in the end, this trillion dollar bailout he's talking about will just leave an even larger amount of debt for a future generation to pay off. The whole reason this crisis began is because Americans lived beyond their means and took out loans they couldn't repay. How is the government spending money it doesn't have a good way of getting out of the crisis? Both the American people and American government have to stop living beyond their means or we will just be stuck in the same problem ten years from now, except instead of the government bailing out banks and Americans who are defaulting on their mortgages, we will be bailing out the government. His heart is in the right place, and he is trying to help people. That much is obvious, but good intentions aren't everything. He needs to have a better plan than throwing money at the problem until it goes away.
Click to expand...

I don't think the crisis began because people were living beyond their means, it's because there were evil, manipulative people out there who gambled big with the country's money and lost. People who live beyond their means, mostly just hurt themselves and not an entire economy. But of course I do agree with you that the government shouldn't just be giving away money as well.

But then again, people who spend their money intelligently can help an economy and I truly believe that this current economical crisis has opened up a lot of eyes in this country. I do believe that more people are aware and have learned from their mistakes. Which in turn will help Obama do a better job and help the country run smoother.

Anyways, despite all of this, I'm pretty excited for his inauguration. It's a time where we as a country have to either step up or step off. Obama can't do it alone, but I do believe he has inspired people to be better Americans and I do believe we'll step up.
 
CreepinDeth said:
I don't think the crisis began because people were living beyond their means, it's because there were evil, manipulative people out there who gambled big with the country's money and lost. People who live beyond their means, mostly just hurt themselves and not an entire economy. But of course I do agree with you that the government shouldn't just be giving away money as well.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty gross oversimplification of the economic problems of our country. Yes, executives shoulder much of the responsibility for approving loans and mortgages that would, in all likelihood, never be paid off, but but the people who ask for the loans should have been able to realize that they would not be able to pay them back. The fact that execs and banks allowed so many of these people to get loans is the reason our banking and credit markets froze up, but the people who got, then defaulted upon the loans deserve some of the responsibility here too.
 
I think that it is more than just a credit crisis problem. The crude oil prices drove up the cost of everything that it takes to live from day to day, for example utilities, food, clothing, gasoline, etc. The high cost of living has taken away the buying power of the average family. At least that is the way it is with everyone around me, including me. Now we are dealing with partial layoffs or work shortages. My work place is rotating workers with half being laid off one week while the other half works. Some are working only two days a week. It is going to take a returning of buying power to the average family to get some things moving again in our economy.
 
retro junkie said:
I think that it is more than just a credit crisis problem. The crude oil prices drove up the cost of everything that it takes to live from day to day, for example utilities, food, clothing, gasoline, etc. The high cost of living has taken away the buying power of the average family. At least that is the way it is with everyone around me, including me. Now we are dealing with partial layoffs or work shortages. My work place is rotating workers with half being laid off one week while the other half works. Some are working only two days a week. It is going to take a returning of buying power to the average family to get some things moving again in our economy.
Click to expand...
While that is true, the credit crisis compounded things and is the reason why this is worse than an average recession. The credit crisis caused a freeze in the banking system and a loss of liquidity which, if not dealt with quickly, is an economic death sentence. Without liquidity and lines of credit being provided by banks almost every business out there, from small businesses to massive corporations either cannot or will have a very hard time continuing to operate. The credit crisis has turned a routine slow-down into one of the worst recessions in the past 50 years (similar problems happened in Japan 10 years ago, and they are just now beginning to really recover). I would argue that restoring liquidity and faith in the banking system (a lack of which is a major reason that all liquidity is drying up) is much more important than increasing the spending power of the average American. The U.S. economy can temporarily survive if Americans don't spend as much, but the banking system is in essence, the circulatory system of the economy, and losing it would be almost a deathblow to our economy.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
That is a pretty gross oversimplification of the economic problems of our country. Yes, executives shoulder much of the responsibility for approving loans and mortgages that would, in all likelihood, never be paid off, but but the people who ask for the loans should have been able to realize that they would not be able to pay them back. The fact that execs and banks allowed so many of these people to get loans is the reason our banking and credit markets froze up, but the people who got, then defaulted upon the loans deserve some of the responsibility here too.
Click to expand...

Simplification? Sure. Oversimplification? I would have to disagree. The people who ask for loans were lied to. If these executives actually cared, they would have denied these people. Which is how itis supposed to work. Yet, they took the chance because they wanted more money. They took advantage of of people wanting the American dream. So I would not say that they are even close to responsible as the executives are.
 
CreepinDeth said:
Simplification? Sure. Oversimplification? I would have to disagree. The people who ask for loans were lied to. If these executives actually cared, they would have denied these people. Which is how itis supposed to work. Yet, they took the chance because they wanted more money. They took advantage of of people wanting the American dream. So I would not say that they are even close to responsible as the executives are.
Click to expand...
They took the chance because they had MIT physicists running the numbers and finding a way to turn bad loans into good loans by combining them in different ways. They were wrong about this, but they tried to expand their business, while simultaneously offering people the American dream who would never be able to get it otherwise. Were they wrong? Yes. Were they greedy, evil manipulative monsters? Most of them probably weren't. Most wouldn't knowingly destroy the companies that are paying them millions and jeopardize their job security for some short-term financial gains. It's counter-intuitive.

The people who asked for loans were not lied to. They went and applied for a loan and got what they wanted. Are they not responsible for getting a loan or mortgage that they could never pay back? Responsibility firmly rests upon both parties.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
I think he'll genuinely try, and it may bring some short term results (i.e. pull us out the economic downturn), but in the end, this trillion dollar bailout he's talking about will just leave an even larger amount of debt for a future generation to pay off. The whole reason this crisis began is because Americans lived beyond their means and took out loans they couldn't repay. How is the government spending money it doesn't have a good way of getting out of the crisis? Both the American people and American government have to stop living beyond their means or we will just be stuck in the same problem ten years from now, except instead of the government bailing out banks and Americans who are defaulting on their mortgages, we will be bailing out the government. His heart is in the right place, and he is trying to help people. That much is obvious, but good intentions aren't everything. He needs to have a better plan than throwing money at the problem until it goes away.
Click to expand...

Its simple. Spend less money on things like occupying a foreign country for over half a decade, and spend more money providing jobs and public institutions. Also, dispel any notions that a completely free market is a good thing, as is again being witnessed by the current crisis. Governments and economies need to work together to serve the people. If completely separated or completely joined... they will only get in each other's way.

The money is there, it just needs to be allocated properly, and the lesson has been learned, the solution just needs to be implemented.

So to answer Kaz's original question, I don't know if Obama will be able to deliver on everything he promised, but like HC I believe he will try. At the very least, he's the best shot they've got.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
They took the chance because they had MIT physicists running the numbers and finding a way to turn bad loans into good loans by combining them in different ways. They were wrong about this, but they tried to expand their business, while simultaneously offering people the American dream who would never be able to get it otherwise. Were they wrong? Yes. Were they greedy, evil manipulative monsters? Most of them probably weren't. Most wouldn't knowingly destroy the companies that are paying them millions and jeopardize their job security for some short-term financial gains. It's counter-intuitive.
Click to expand...

Alright, maybe not monsters, but everything else, yes. :lol

Seriously, just because it's "counter-intuitive" does not mean that it doesn't or didn't happen. Like I said they took a gamble because the payoff was huge at the time. So they went ahead and approved a butt-load of loans.

The people who asked for loans were not lied to. They went and applied for a loan and got what they wanted. Are they not responsible for getting a loan or mortgage that they could never pay back? Responsibility firmly rests upon both parties.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree again. They got what they wanted, but remember just like a parent, you need to know when not to give your child everything whenever it wants. They were not denied their loans like they should have. Just because they applied does not mean that they knew what they were getting into and it's the people who approve loans who should have put their foot down and said no. But of course they didn't because they thought they could get rich off of it. I'm not saying that all of the responsibility should fall on these greedy people, but they should have most of it.
 
Strubes said:
People glorify Obama too much. He hasn't done anything yet. In 4 years, we'll talk.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love how people are seriously willing to put someone in authority in their country simply because of the word "change"?

Gotta love glittering generalities.

No offense to Obama... I just think the glorification of him is ridiculous. He just became President. Now we get to watch.
 
kirbyrockz said:
Don't you just love how people are seriously willing to put someone in authority in their country simply because of the word "change"?

Gotta love glittering generalities.

No offense to Obama... I just think the glorification of him is ridiculous. He just became President. Now we get to watch.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Strubes said:
People glorify Obama too much. He hasn't done anything yet. In 4 years, we'll talk.
Click to expand...

I think Obama resonates with people because he appears to be intelligent, capable, good, and honest, which is something very unexpected out of politicians, and in stark contrast to the appearance of the Bush administration. While Obama hasn't yet done anything in the Presidential office, that isn't to say he hasn't done anything, ever, that would give reason to expect certain things from him during his time in office. That which he has proposed to do, and that which we have reason to believe he will do, are very exciting and hopeful things.

kirbyrockz said:
Don't you just love how people are seriously willing to put someone in authority in their country simply because of the word "change"?
Click to expand...

While I found South Park's exaggeration of each political party's main platform hilarious (Stan's dad always makes me laugh), it is not the mere word or idea of "change" that won the election for Obama. It was the type of changes which he proposed to make, and the sincerity with which he made them, that caused people to being to admire him. Whether or not he's successful is yet to be seen, but I believe there is good reason to be optimistic, because for the first time in a long time I firmly believe the President of the United States actually has the best interests of his people in mind.
 
stealth toilet said:
Its simple. Spend less money on things like occupying a foreign country for over half a decade, and spend more money providing jobs and public institutions.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, Iraq is a drop in the pan when compared to our incomprehensibly large debt and deficit. Even if we did pull out of there, our deficit would still be about $450 billion a year, and our debt would still be $11 trillion. Given just how great our debt is, can we really afford another trillion dollar stimulus package? In short, cutting military spending and pulling out of Iraq wouldn't come remotely close to balancing the budget. In fact, the vast majority of our budget (70% according to a source I just used for my thesis) is taken up by medicare, social security, medicaid, and interest on existing debt. I'm not suggesting that these programs be eliminated or even be cut back, but this statistic shows that our money isn't going to military spending or foreign wars, for the most part. The money really isn't there.

CreepinDeth said:
Seriously, just because it's "counter-intuitive" does not mean that it doesn't or didn't happen. Like I said they took a gamble because the payoff was huge at the time. So they went ahead and approved a butt-load of loans.
Click to expand...

They clearly didn't think it was that great of a gamble if they took it. It isn't as though these people sank their companies and then jumped ship with every cent they could plunder. They saw a new market, one that they thought could work, but they were mistaken. That is what this was, a mistake, and I really don't think a mistake makes these people evil.

CreepinDeth said:
I would have to disagree again. They got what they wanted, but remember just like a parent, you need to know when not to give your child everything whenever it wants. They were not denied their loans like they should have. Just because they applied does not mean that they knew what they were getting into and it's the people who approve loans who should have put their foot down and said no. But of course they didn't because they thought they could get rich off of it. I'm not saying that all of the responsibility should fall on these greedy people, but they should have most of it.
Click to expand...

These people aren't children though. They are fully grown adults who are given the right to make decisions for themselves, but that also means that they must shoulder responsibility for those decisions. You can't blame the banks because these people couldn't pay back the loans. It was an entirely ridiculous and moronic decision on the part of the banks to approve the loans (which is why they shoulder the responsibility), but the people who asked for the loans should not be shielded from blame because they didn't know any better. When you're getting something as important as a mortgage or a loan, it should be your job to know what you're getting into.
 
Well even just his race has made some other countries give us another look. I was watching on the news that people in Africa for example were throwing celebration parties and such. While it may seem like a silly thing, if Obama being president can help us with our foreign relations just because of his race, that's already an improvement.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
In all honesty, Iraq is a drop in the pan when compared to our incomprehensibly large debt and deficit. Even if we did pull out of there, our deficit would still be about $450 billion a year, and our debt would still be $11 trillion. Given just how great our debt is, can we really afford another trillion dollar stimulus package? In short, cutting military spending and pulling out of Iraq wouldn't come remotely close to balancing the budget. In fact, the vast majority of our budget (70% according to a source I just used for my thesis) is taken up by medicare, social security, medicaid, and interest on existing debt. I'm not suggesting that these programs be eliminated or even be cut back, but this statistic shows that our money isn't going to military spending or foreign wars, for the most part. The money really isn't there.
Click to expand...

70%? I'll take your word on that, being as you live in America and all. :lol

But last I heard 50% of America's budget went directly to military spending, and this figure was fairly consistent before the Iraq war. I assumed it would only have risen since. At the very least, there are several hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on military upkeep in America, and allocated properly it could at least stem the tide. Even if its just a drop in the pan, which I believe to an understatement, any drops going towards the right pan will pave the way for more to drop there as well, so to speak. It would be a start, which is no small thing. I oversimplified my initial statement on purpose, but I really do believe America has the industrial strength and wealth to climb out of the hole its in, and I don't think its unreasonable to think this could happen well within a decade.

But I am curious, if you think the situation really is that dire HC, what do you believe would be the best course of action for the American people to take?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top