Exercitus wrote:Two things:  First, Clinton was not the only one on capitol hill at the time,  if I'm not mistaken, he had a republican congres for most of his two terms.  Seccond. If it was his fault, why hasn't it burst before now.  It has been seven years.    It seems to me that you are almost compalining that the government did not regulate this area of the market enough.  I maintain that it was not the government that forced the companies to give their loans but their gamble on the market.  


However, I do see where you're coming from and am beginning to agree with you.  I have one last question on this  subdject though:  In theory, wouldn't this bill help the economy from going into a comlete tailspin, saving most of us more money than it costs?




How can you say that one can persue happiness when their wages are so low they have no hope of rasing themselves from poverty.  That's not the persuit of happiness, that's no better than slavery, which is definately not liberty.




Do not say that communism is bad, in theory, it is one of the greatest forms of government ever devised.  The only problem is that it never works.  It allways seems to devolve into a dictatorship.  What you detest is not Communism itself, for we have never seen it, but what it can become.  Socialism does not take from your freedom.  It makes sure that you will allways have reasonable shot at hapiness and that allways means liberty. The left does not have to move toward Communism any more than the right must become Fascist.

Some laws, we agree, can take someof that freedom because to loose at little of that freedom here keepsone from loosing a lot of freedom later.

Exactly what kind of freedom are you talking about losing?  Every bit lost opens the door for a little more to be lost later.

He had a republican congreess for most of his two terms. He had a conservative congress for only two years. From 1995 to 97. After the atempted coup on Newt Gringrich, DeLay and Hastert, both RINO idiots  effectively took over the House. In 1999 Gingrich resigned powerless and DeLey and Hastert divided power.

So, it's still not only his burden to carry, you have some of the GOP there rigt allong side him.

Exercitus asks,

“First, Clinton was not the only one on capitol hill at the time, if I'm not mistaken, he had a republican congres for most of his two terms. Seccond. If it was his fault, why hasn't it burst before now. It has been seven years”

Bill Clinton eased regulations that had been in effect that made it easier for lenders to complete loans to some who under the older rules would have not qualified for the loan. There were also some changes in acquisition purchase of one lending institution buying out others and/or merging. I do not have a good handle on the direct effect this had within the sub-prime lending companies. I have always gone by the rule of don’t put all of your eggs in the same basket. I suspect that the size of these lenders had as much to do with this as anything else. The big guys fall just as hard as the little guy but the big guy knocks more over on the way down.
The effects of this change did not cause instant results. It takes years for regulatory changes to play out in the actual market. When the economy is steady as well as growing, it masks a lot of regulatory problems and they do not really show up until there is a strain put on the system. It is similar to building a snowman. You start out with a little ball and keep adding. The sun can be out for short periods of time and you may get a little melting but as long as it keeps snowing you can maintain or increase the size of that ball. When the temperatures finally go up it is going to melt no matter how big that the ball is. It just takes longer. Over regulation is just as bad as under regulation. There has to be a balance within any legislation bill. It needs to be designed with an understanding of the economy as a whole, what the needs of the citizens of this country are and then take into account how human nature works. There was not just one particular piece of legislature that helped cause this problem but greed was a major player.

The legislature of both parties had a part in it also. One of the big problems in the way our government does business is that bills are put together with all different things attached. Many of them having nothing to do with what the main bill is about. The favorite ‘trick’ is to take a bill that is really important to get done. For example a budget for education or the military and attach a bunch of other smaller things to it like a law to change the color of fire engines from red to blue. Everyone votes on the bill because the schools all across the country need time to plan there own budgets or the military personal need to receive paychecks and supplies next month. No one really paid much attention to what the cause and effect of people stopping for blue fire engines was going to be. Ten years down the road everyone is wondering why there has been so many accidents with fire engines at traffic intersections. They do this because someone wants a pet project passed and it gets accepted by everyone else because of the need to get this big thing settled and that’s how we end up with stuff that is not good for the country, or is a lest has not been thought out well and eventually causes problems like this sub-prime loan. I tried to find the actual bills that this was on but it will take some digging to figure out which one it was. [Any body known off hand which ones that effected how mortgages companies where able to operate was?]
Sometimes bills are created and ‘pushed’ through because of personal benefits from the bills or as favors for others.
You have this accusation now about a couple of people on the banking and fiancé committee that came up with the bailout for these lenders as having received special privileges on personal loans from the same people that are part of the sub-prime mess.

Exercitus asks,

“In theory, wouldn't this bill help the economy from going into a comlete tailspin, saving most of us more money than it costs?”

In theory, the bailout bill was a feel good bill in response to those who would loose their home. It may sound cynical to say this but it made the legislature look good. To be fair some portions of this bill could help in the long run, such as taking any of those home that end up being foreclosed even after everything is done and putting them back out there as quickly as possible for habituation to keep them from becoming an additional drag on the country. Empty houses bring down every ones values in a local market.
The bailout also keeps the money in circulation. By backing the balance of these loans it takes the pressure of the lending steam pipe. It allows lending to keep happing. Without lending the money tree goes dormant. It won’t grow. No loans, no interest paid, no new money for new loans to make more interest… That is also a good thing that it does but the problem is somewhere along the line it will happen again because nothing has been done to keep it from happening again. [At least not that I am aware of at this time]
The other problem is rewarding bad behavior does nothing to keep it from happening again. It set up a precedent for other industry to expect to be bailed out if they fail. It actually encourages it. The majority of these foreclosures are in California, Nevada and Florida so what part does the states have to do with this and are the states taking their share of the blame. That needs to be looked at also.
Some lenders voluntarily reduced interest rates and wrote off large amounts of interest owed to be able to come up with a loan plan that would work for everybody involved. That was a great way to put the breaks on the problem. How many and which ones I do not know. I do wonder why the rest of them that did not do this where not forced to do so.
A home that cost $100,000.00 at 7% interest over 30 years generates $139,508.90 in just interest plus the original price of the home. The homeowner is getting his consequences by having a lousy credit record as well as loosing the home.
Will it save money in the long run? No, probably not. Will it stop the domino effect from knocking them all down? Yes, The amount of money it will cost? That will depend on the bundling of the loans that we the people get to back. It the past behavior of these lenders has any merit on it we will end up paying for a large majority. Bear-Stearns comes to mind.

Exercitus asks within the context of this subject.

This does not fit under the housing bailout but it was asked under this heading so I will answer it here.

“Exactly what kind of freedom are you talking about losing? Every bit lost opens the door for a little more to be lost later.”


Yes it can, that is why you have always see if there can be another way to achieve the same results. Sometimes with extraordinary events you have to choose to take more risk and give up something that in any other circumstances you would never ever consider. Giving the government the right to use something that you have that enables the government to help you protect your freedom can be the best way to achieve what is needed. Sunset clauses have to be included so it does not end up becoming something that you never get back.

The big one that gets everyone talking is the Patriot Act. There are many different aspects of this bill but I will use just this one point as an example. Phone tapping. The general premise is that we the people give the government the right to listen to individuals conversations, after applying for special permission to do so, and have shown a need to do so based on probable cause, gives law enforcement the ability to determine if in fact, an individual is someone who is a threat to the safety of our country.
Hence, we the people gave up a little of our freedoms now so we protect us from having to give up bigger portion of our freedom, act of terror, in the future.

Some people think that the government listens to every bodies phone conversation all the time. Do they? Who knows, but I doubt it. They are only going to do that if they already suspect you in the first place. If it will keep a nut from blowing something up, have at it. My personal contention is if you are not a terrorist don’t be worried. If someone wants to sit and listen in on my phone calls they will be bored to tears. Last night my neighbor and I were complaining about the high price of gas.

Exercitus asks within the context of this subject.

This does not fit under the housing bailout but it was asked under this heading I will answer this here also.

“How can you say that one can pursue happiness when their wages are so low they have no hope of raising themselves from poverty. That's not the pursuit of happiness, that's no better than slavery, which is definitely not liberty.”

Everyone that is in this legally in this country has the same ways and means to make as much money as one chooses. Every child is given an education. It is up to the individual to make the most of those years in school. There is no one keeping anybody from working there way up as a wage earner. If you are earning a low wage one has to determine why that is. What does one need to do to change it? Priorities usually end up being the reason one does not make better his living standards. Choices that are made during ones lifetime are another reason.
Definition of poverty is also part of the question. What is poor? Maybe you could give an example of what poor is to you. Start a new topic under Open Line Friday. It would be interesting to see what everyones definition of poverty is.

Slavery is the ownership of one human being by another. It is utterly detestable. It is something that needs to be stopped everywhere it is found.

Some people enslave themselves to a way of life that is undesirable as well as destructive. It is not anyone else keeping them in that situation even though they may use someone or something as their justification as to why they have not done what is needed.

Exercitus comments,

“Do not say that communism is bad, in theory, it is one of the greatest forms of government ever devised. The only problem is that it never works. It always seems to devolve into a dictatorship. What you detest is not Communism itself, for we have never seen it, but what it can become. Socialism does not take from your freedom. It makes sure that you will always have reasonable shot at happiness and that always means liberty. The left does not have to move toward Communism any more than the right must become Fascist.”

See new topic under Open Line Friday