Williston, ND Active Issues

nd.citizen · Senior Member

RE: Economic Crisis Thoughts

SKM · Senior Member

I wonder what a "fair" percent of a flat tax would be? 2 percent 10 percent. I can't help but think what ol Slick Willy would say. Ohhh that's right...depends on what your definition of "fair" is.

vko · Senior Member

Thank you both. Have been reading on it. I suppose this will never get off the ground. How can we put flat tax in, if we can never vote to put it in?

Jimmylikesvikes · Veteran Member

A flat tax would be just to easy! But a flat tax does make the most sense. It scares people to death though.. and why does it scare the politicians? It gives politicians less pork. If you were a representative of North Dakota, and you knew you would be loved by big business if you voted for their agenda, it would be difficult to not be swayed their direction. Our whole system right now still invites pork barrel spending by our congressman. And I know only part of this is related to our tax policy, it certainly doesn't help state money be funneled to the real needs. I'm not an expert in flat tax, but I'm not really sure it takes an expert to understand it. It's basically just that, we all pay a flat percentage. I've seen different varieties of the flat tax system. The latest being "fair tax". Different varieties include a flat federal tax along with some additional "consumption tax" for states to deploy. I really like this concept. However, the problem with this, is that the poor would get hurt the most. Currently, the extremely poor pay negative tax, meaning they get money back from the government even though they pay no money in taxes. I should be more passionate towards the poor I suppose, but the latest tax rebate provide poor with extra dollars in their pocket. My thoughts at the time was, "Shouldn't a tax REBATE be for people who PAY taxes?" I mean, if you go to Best Buy and buy a product, and you get a rebate coupon, you get money back. Does that mean I should be able to go to Best Buy, pick up one of their $200 rebates on a $2000 TV and not purchase the TV, but expect $200 from Best Buy? I would rather help poor people who come to a church or some charity and help them in need, and not the government just cutting a check. If they are unemployed, they can network with people within charities and organizations. In some cases, the charities can write out checks just as the government, but local charities can help by being more dilegent in how they hand out money. The government cannot be deligient as they really don't know the person's real needs like charities or other organizations.

nd.citizen · Senior Member

I've read several articles on it. This one seems to cover it best

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

vko · Senior Member

Some one explain to me how a Flat Tax would work in this mess. Business and Personal. Would it be a fairer way to go?

Jimmylikesvikes · Veteran Member

I agree with Shayla for the most part about the view on spreading the wealth. However, OK.. my confession I always hate to admit.... I think the truly "wealthy" should pay more taxes. $250,000 is not wealthy. People around the $250,000 are at the fringe of trying to become wealthy. And we should NOT enforce higher taxes than they are currently paying. It's this income level that inspires new business, and new potential wealth. This income level usually would rather invest in their own business than rushing out to buy a new boat. Although I agree with the President's view on taxing the wealthy at a higher level, I completely disagree what he considers weatlhy. In my opinion, wealthy is any income over a million. It's the million dollar income level that can benefit easily by taking advantage of tax deductions. I understand our tax policy's reason for creating certain tax deductions by spurring more growth in certain sectors which can lead to ecomomic benefits. However, as we find this system not working as well, call it Reagonomics or trickle-down economics, we should help bring down our debt by less spending and increased tax to the truly wealthy.

SKM · Senior Member

Yes Steve. I always read what you write and take into consideration, but then I always come back to my family. Those 5 states are big. And so many have said there goes California there goes the nation. How many laws have started in California and have carried across the Nation? Why, pray tell, should I trust the government in anything they say? Take my tax dollars for things I agree with..NOT to support someone who cant pass a urine test! Who doesnt want to live in a Million dollar home? But the reality is not many can. And 8500 in this Country isnt alot Steve. You tell me how these small banks and credit union are going to stand up if a government take over of banks happen? Oh..just trust in your bank. Things are going to get worse... and that you can "Bank" on.

nd.citizen · Senior Member

You are so right Shayla, the debt sucks! I wholeheartedly agree. But that doesn't change the fact that it now exists and has to be paid. We can't unring the bell. I'm just saying that our anger won't pay it. It will only put lines in our faces. Reality is staring us in the face and someone has to pay that debt.

I hear what you are saying, Steve. You are drawing the conclusion that most of the problem has been caused by economists who have created fear accross our nation based on a miscalculated magnitude of the effects that those few failing large banks will have. That is my fear also....I'm saying you can't really follow a model of what happened in the 30's making comparisons with the numbers from back then, as it is actually the driving force behind the numbers that is more important.

Steve Powell · Guru

Wait a minute though, Shayla. Haven't you read anything I've put out here? There are better than 8500 banks and credit unions in this country and 90 plus percent of them are doing just fine. Greater than a mere 200 banks and credit unions, mostly credit unions, are seeing these kinds of problems. Why do we panic over this? Not to mention, the housing issues are primarily in 5 states. How did the whole country fall into turmoil over 5 states? Not to mention, the country sits between 8 and 9 percent unemployment. Not that having people unemployed is acceptable, I'm just saying the alarms are screaming at this number that at one point in our nations history reached levels in the mid 20th percentile.

Are we really in dire straights? There's over 9 trillion dollars sitting, just sitting, in low interest deposit accounts that SHOULD BE in the market but has been pulled due to the alarmists causing consumer confidence to drop. Could consumer confidence be better if the alarms weren't screaming? And finally, who started the alarms?

SKM · Senior Member

Whether you make 250,000 or 50,000 a year is irrelevant. The point is you earned it and nobody should beable to take it from you. If you make 250,000 a year, hey more power to ya! Im sick and tired of taking care of irresponsible people! You bought a house you can't afford...tough! Your mistake now you deal with it! If things get much worse, people are going to start demanding they be paid in cash so the government can't tax them. And then forget the banks. People will start keeping there money under their mattresses like back in the day. This whole dang situation Sucks! disbelief

nd.citizen · Senior Member

I think the question "what is wealthy" is relative. If you are a college student working at a fast food resteraunt to put yourself through school, 250,000 is wealthy. If you are making 250,000 and paying tax on that, you might laugh at the idea that 250,000 is wealthy.

I think, in Obama's line of thinking, he was just trying to figure out what income level could afford to help out with paying down the debt. It's true that if you make 250,000, you might have to make sacrifices to pay more tax. But....maybe the new boat can wait a few years.

We have to look at this realistically. We have debt and someone has to pay it. Since you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, you'll have to actually go for those who CAN pay it.

I agree that buying real estate is a great investment and I did purchase some properties when the oil boom crashed years ago. They've been a great investment for me. I'm a little too old to be looking at long term investments now though. I'm just looking at ways to protect the operating capital for a company (not mine, I just take care of the business). I think I've settled on your suggestion to spread it across several banks.

For any younger people out there, I too recommend grabbing some of that real estate that the news is telling us is down 50% in Arizona and Florida.

Steve Powell · Guru

A caller on c-span this morning brought up a good question this morning that really has me pondering.

What is "middle class"? Is it the same now as it was in 1930? Is $250,000 really considered wealthy in todays economic times?

rwaitman · Senior Member

Steve Powell wrote:...buy real estate in the big 5 states that the housing market has crashed in. You can pretty much name your price (w/in reason) and the banks will gladly give you 100 percent financing and a big THANK YOU to boot.

that is so true. The wife and I have a home in Phoenix....it has lost approx 30% of its' value in last 1 1/2 years, but I would buy another one in a heartbeat, if I had the money....the sunbelt market will come back, and you can take that to the bank... ;o)

Steve wrote....and finally, take a look at a company like Northwestern Mutual Financial (no this is not a sales pitch for my father-in-law) and find out if there's a safer place to keep money than the FDIC insured banks.

I bet Jerry is pretty red faced over that one...prepare yourself for the onslaught from him. Joking aside however, NWM is definitely well managed... ;o)

Steve Powell · Guru

"The world is a different place than it was in 1933. Economic systems are far more complex, and sitting in the corner is an 800-pound gorilla of astonishing debt".

I agree with you, though, that the dust bowl had a lot to do with the struggling economy of the 30's.

They have a "What's Different This Time Around" section also that shows the national debt compared to now in todays dollars. I wonder if there's anything out there that speculates what that economy would have done were it not for WW2.

Very good question, ND. I think the comparisons are the ways the money is being spent. Rather than buying down assets we are bailing a failing system out (housing) and pouring money into temporary solutions.

It was actually the Bush administration that increased those limits this past October. This coverage amount will last until December 31 of this year. Perhaps they had a little crystal ball we didn't know about? biggrin

As far as being worried about what to do with your money...this is a topic for a different thread that I truly think should be started. But two things come to mind...1. If you have more than 250 grand in cash you just have to spread it around. Don't have an account over that amount at any one bank. 2. as far as investments go buy real estate in the big 5 states that the housing market has crashed in. You can pretty much name your price (w/in reason) and the banks will gladly give you 100 percent financing and a big THANK YOU to boot. and 3. and finally, take a look at a company like Northwestern Mutual Financial (no this is not a sales pitch for my father-in-law) and find out if there's a safer place to keep money than the FDIC insured banks.

Anyone interested in talking personal financial strategies, investing and stuff like that, let me know and I'd be glad to fire one up. The housing strategy is intriguing to me. Perhaps a "buyers group" of some sort could take advantage of the situation.

nd.citizen · Senior Member

This is a coincidence. I was just visiting with a bank today concerning FDIC coverage. It seems Obama temporariy increased FDIC coverage to 250,000 per depositor for a short period of time and after that, they don't know what the coverage will be.

It looks like that increase will cost the banks, and in the end, I'm sure that that cost will be passed to the bank's customers in one way or another. It's tough on the local banks and tough for small businesses too. We are left wondering how safe any money over 250 is and what to do about it.

I read through the report that you gave a link to, and I'm left with a question. The report lists differences between the depression of 1933 and now. I hear these comparisons on the news quite often also. However, the one difference that I never hear them mention is the drought that swept across the entire country from 1930 to 1940. At that time, Our nation was younger, which I would assume means that agriculture and agricultural jobs accounted for a much larger percentage of our economy than it does now. I wonder how accurately they can draw conclusions by using comparisons when conditions were so different.

Steve Powell · Guru

http://caseyresearch.com/pdfs/20090117_ObamaNewerDeal.pdf

This article is being passed in paper form around the bank today. Community banks are NOT happy with the way policies of yester-year (not naming any administration) were forced and handled nor are they happy with the way we are trying to fix it. A great majority of community banks have remained conservative in their lending policies and had the fore-sight to realize giving a loan or mortgage to just anybody had extremely dangerous ramifications to the industry and the country as a whole. Now, these community banks are being forced to pay dearly for the sins of the 800 pound gorillas in the industry that are realizing their greed has turned the nation’s economy completely upside down. In fact, just today the FDIC notified the innocent community banks that played absolutely NO PART in this fleecing that they are going to be forced to pay 20 cents per 100 dollars in insured deposits. UNREAL!!! (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/28/content_10914692.htm) I sit here and shake my head at stuff like this as the ones that stayed true to their industry standards are being forced to join in the “bail-out” of the idiots that are killing our economy!

-- Edited by Steve Powell at 14:28, 2009-02-27

vko · Senior Member

Well if you read Larry Larsen today in the Williston Herald - The Republican's are still messing this up - even tho the Democrates have Washington under their controll. Any way that's what I took from it and reading it once was enough for me.

Steve Powell · Guru

The $1,000,000 you speak of is in reference to 1 trillion dollars of debt. If we were to spend $1,000,000 every day since the day Jesus was born we still would not have spent 1 trillion dollars.

I agree with you too that government is going places they have no business going. We've lost all concept of capitalism and free market economy.

The bulk of this bailout is paying for the sins of California, Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, and Florida. Those states are far and above all other states in regards to the number of foreclosures that are taking place. So the question then is why is the rest of the country paying for this?

Here's a national debt clock you can keep track of.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

-- Edited by Steve Powell at 11:40, 2009-02-23

rickywaitman · Veteran Member

A little off the ND topic but... I was driving home from Fargo and my mind was wandering a bit. I can't vouch for the validity but here's where my mind was going. I heard on the radio that our (Fed) govt's spent an average of $1,000,000/ day since Jesus was born. We've been spending money for what, say 300 years (I know it's less). Say, roughly $700,000,000,000... 700 billion dollars. Now, in order to "stimulate" our economy we're going to spend over $1 trillion?

Does this mean that in order to "fix" our economy, we have to spend more than the govt has spent to run the entire country for 300 years?

WOW!!!

Another thought. It looks like GM may get a total of $35 billion dollars. If I were to start a manufacturing plant, build my own vehicles and create dealerships to sell them, how much would that cost? You could pay half a million people a $70,000 salary for a year. I could run over 100,000 Jerry's Services for a year.

My own opinion........ WHAT A *(^(^% DISASTER!!! Government is COMPLETELY overstepping their bounds. Republican, Democrat, Independent....whoever. Right now, as my little cousin so elegantly puts it, "You Suck!"

nd.citizen · Senior Member

Considering the condition most states are in, I think they certainly should use ND as an example in their speeches. We only have 9.3 people per square mile, many of those too young to be tax payers. We are not a small state. Yet, as few as we are and as large as this state is, we manage to pay for our infrastructure throughout this state and wind up with a budget surplus.

This is one well-managed state! That's something to be proud of. I think our representatives deserve a pat on the back.

Steve Powell · Guru

Well, the 200 million number came from CSpan earlier this week. I heard a new number that was in the 400 millions today. I'm guessing if there was an increase it had something to do with our Senators. Especially considering the fact the North Dakota was used as an example in one of Obama's recent speeches.

nd.citizen · Senior Member

200 m is a small token considering the size of that bill. You are right that we probably don't really need it here. (I am assuming that most of the 3.5% of population unemployed in ND is unemployed for reasons other than that there are no jobs available.) I was listening to a newscast on that subject recently.

It will be interesting to see what Hoeven comes up with. Maybe we can use it to build a damn below Lake Sakawea so the southern states can't steel our water anymore. LOL!!!

SKM · Senior Member

STOOOOOOPPPPP the World....I want to get off!!

rwaitman · Senior Member

Steve Powell wrote:

Next topic...Obama's plan to nationalize banks. WHAT!!!???? <break into song...It's the End of the World As We Know it>

You know, of course, that this will just be for the short time?

;o)
R

Steve Powell · Guru

The numbers are already out on how much each state is getting. ND is expecting 200 million. I just started reading w/in the last hour about some states considering not taking the money. I didn't realize it was an option. As much as I would love to see Governor Hoeven make this decision not to accept the money, or perhaps take only what is absolutely necessary, I don't believe that will be the case.

Next topic...Obama's plan to nationalize banks. WHAT!!!???? biggrin

nd.citizen · Senior Member

As I sit here listening to CNN talk about the Stimulus Package, I am wondering how it will affect us. Do you think ND will see any of that money?

I'm guessing that since we only have a 3.5% unemployment rate (2nd lowest in the county) and we have a budget surplus, we won't see any of it. It's only my gut feeling, but i'm guessing all the jobs money will go to California and other places that are seriously in trouble. What do you think?

nd.citizen · Senior Member

I know what you're saying VKO. While we do have a lot of people still seeking homes, I think if we need anything it's apartment rentals. I wonder how the local banks feel about financing new homes during this time when oil prices are so "iffy".

I'm pretty sure the oil prices will rise soon, but...........I'm not betting a 30 year mortgage on it!

vko · Senior Member

Our company has had many calls from very large companies esp from California coming into Williston to Build homes. (This quite frankly scares me to death) They want to start building in March. We try to explain any other year you might get away with that. I just want my husband to retire and work for someone. One company is talking 35 homes. Personally my thought but most likely wrong would be horrible for Williston if the Oil is moving out.. I just don't know about all this. cry

Steve Powell · Guru

Jimmylikesvikes wrote:

There was a day where unpaid debt was worst than a bad check. Now unpaid debt is "Oh, they went over their head in spending". There was a day where unpaid debt could mean losing all or most of your assets. Now we have chapter 7, 11, and 13 and people really know how to use these chapters .

I'm just tired of all the bail-outs. If people are struggling and need help, they should seek help from people. Perhaps even get help from a church or other some other type of organization where they can benefit more than simply having a check cut out for them.. as Steve has mentioned...it needs to be a change in lifestyle. Last time I checked, the government is a poor place to learn lifestyle changes. The only way for anyone to learn, including the government, banks, etc. is to feel the hurt.

I like Huckabee's plan:
* Make all higher-education tuition tax deductible.
* Oversee a Federal Reserve that adopts a "pro-growth, low-inflation policy."
* Increase defense spending to 6 percent of GDP. [Defense spending is currently about 4 percent of GDP. It has not been at 6 percent since 1972.]
* Recruit and train "thousands" of troops and "bring our National Guard and Reserves back home."

* Build a fence along the US-Mexico border "with American labor and American materials."
* End U.S. dependency on Middle Eastern oil by January, 2019.
* Preserve and expand the Bush tax cuts.

Amen, brother! Literally. And you forgot my favorite part about Huckabee. No IRS.

Jimmylikesvikes · Veteran Member

There was a day where unpaid debt was worst than a bad check. Now unpaid debt is "Oh, they went over their head in spending". There was a day where unpaid debt could mean losing all or most of your assets. Now we have chapter 7, 11, and 13 and people really know how to use these chapters

.

I'm just tired of all the bail-outs. If people are struggling and need help, they should seek help from people. Perhaps even get help from a church or other some other type of organization where they can benefit more than simply having a check cut out for them.. as Steve has mentioned...it needs to be a change in lifestyle. Last time I checked, the government is a poor place to learn lifestyle changes. The only way for anyone to learn, including the government, banks, etc. is to feel the hurt.

I like Huckabee's plan:

* Make all higher-education tuition tax deductible.

* Oversee a Federal Reserve that adopts a "pro-growth, low-inflation policy."

* Increase defense spending to 6 percent of GDP. [Defense spending is currently about 4 percent of GDP. It has not been at 6 percent since 1972.]

* Recruit and train "thousands" of troops and "bring our National Guard and Reserves back home."

* Build a fence along the US-Mexico border "with American labor and American materials."

* End U.S. dependency on Middle Eastern oil by January, 2019.

* Preserve and expand the Bush tax cuts.

Willistonrecguy · Veteran Member

I will give it some thought
I saw a group on facebook that is for the gov't paying off all federal student loans as a stimulation package.

Who has student loans- 40ish and under, they spend a lot of money on commercial items, if they did not have student loans to pay of this would give each of them an extra $100 or so a month of "fun" money. Did not study this completely, but I did find it interesting.

Steve Powell · Guru

That's a good point, Jeremy. There would have to be...and I hate to say this because I'm anti-government (for the most part)...regulation preventing credit card companies from charging over a certain percentage rate and from issuing a new card to anyone who has received this "bail-out".

I see your point, Jeremy, and it's definitly valid. I'm really not for a proposal like this as I was very much against the other bail-outs. I merely brought this up because the spendulus was inevitable. So considering billions are being spent somewhere, shouldn't they be spent fixing the true root of all this evil? We borrow, and borrow, and borrow. When does it end? It's everywhere. Government continues spending (yes even from the last administration) money we don't have. Families continue spending money they don't have. It would be better to bring back the old fashion mind-set of saving first for whatever it is you want to buy, rather than get yourself so far into debt that you struggle to live paycheck to paycheck and when the pink slip comes, so do the foreclosures and bankruptcies causing the banks who issued the mortgages and credit to plead for a bail-out.

Plus, I'm not just talking about a mere bail-out of these people, I'm also talking about re-educating those that take bail-out money. This provides both reactive and preventive measures, where-as the current bail-outs have merely been reactive.

Very good point, Jeremy. Can you see a way to prevent your scenario from happening with a plan like this?

Willistonrecguy · Veteran Member

Steve I have to admit, I do not think it is a good idea. It seams the main reason you like this plan is to redefine social spending/saving habits. But i do not believe that this will teach the lesson you intend.

So Sally Shopper gets all of her credit card bills and loans paid off. Her credit score is destroyed, so the only credit card she can get has a 25% interest rate.

Do you think she will use it?

I bet she maxes it out and waits for the gov't to bail her out again.

vko · Senior Member

At least the California Marsh Mouse is happy.

Jimmylikesvikes · Veteran Member

nd.citizen.. my thoughts exactly. I also agree with your comment on politcal advocating (positioning). However, this is nothing new and politcal bantering/advocating/positioning is not going to change. In fact, this strategy I believe has hit it's peek during the last administration's run. And it is proven that this strategy DOES help the politcal party. To say it doesn't is simply just ignorning realitiy. Dirty politics does not help people, but it DOES help the party.. and it makes pretty funny TV if you can see the humor.
........... how do we make the $$$ spent go to something that may really truly help americans and possibly even bring in higher tax revenue? I'm not sure what the real answer is... but now we are in this position, we better make the right decisions on how this money is spent... pray pray pray that we make the correct decisons.

nd.citizen · Senior Member

As predicted, the bill has passed. The only coarse of action we are left with is to pray and pay. While we have no choice but to pay (for generations to come), let's not forget to pray for it's success.

I am listening to the republicans who appear to be very unhappy about this turn of events. In my opinion, their negative comments are more about positioning themselves politically, so as not to take the blame for this if it should fail.

I was not for the bill, as I felt the only way out of this mess was to actually sit back and suffer the consequences of our mistakes, and then begin to start over, taking a different direction with our finances. However, I don't agree with those who now wish to express anger and doom. Where our choices are limited, we need to get on board and do what we can. Please remember to pray for it's success.

Steve Powell · Guru

Lou Dobbs had a copy of the bill with him at his desk last night. He kept commenting on how big and heavy the stack of papers was. I was actually quite impressed with some of his interviews last night. He grilled a couple Senators last night on the bill and did a nice job of both hard-line questioning and giving them credit.

Bottom line, you're very correct vko, that a bill containing 1100 pages with (in Karl Sagan voice)billions and billions of dollars was passed without the proper amount of time to read and disect everything that was in that bill.

Instead of "Say ello to my lih uhl friend", it's "Say ello to my BIG GOVERNMENT".

vko · Senior Member

I don't know how anyone can honestly vote on this when very few were given any time to even peek at it. Once something is voted in, it's pretty hard to have a do over. confuse

nd.citizen · Senior Member

I agree that we need to change the mindset. I think though, that the reason people were so conservative after the depression in the 30's is because they had to suffer through that.

If only we could change the way people think with words and a bailout. But I just don't think so. I know that stimulous will happen and we will pay for it. What saddens me most is that at the same time, we are bailing out the banks and encouraging banks to get back to lending as usual and people to get back to borrowing as usual, creating new jobs so that they can do so. OUCH!....rerun!

Steve Powell · Guru

How fair is it to any business that has been fiscally responsible and yet has to watch the government bail out competitors that failed at what the responsible ones worked so hard at?

How fair is it that you and I have worked hard for our money and our possessions, yet many people who can work like you and me sit at home drawing soc. sec. checks yet have 4 flat panel tv's, Wii's for their kids, etc, etc, etc...

I think you and I will agree that there isn't much "fairness" in government handouts of any type.

My point wasn't about agreeing with whether the government should or shouldn't follow through with the spendulus. The sorry fact of the matter is that this money WILL be spent even though we don't have the gold bullion to back it up. So, perhaps the government should bail Americans out and work towards moving our ideologies back to when Americans saved money to buy cars. Or at least only had to borrow 5 percent and paid cash for the other 95. An entire mindset of recent generations needs to be changed. We need to re-educate people to think like they did before and shortly after the depression in the 30's. Save and prepare.

But the economy would be stimulated if people could reduce or completely dissolve their debt. So if the government is going to spend this money, get Americans back to affordable living and spend money on educating them to stay that way.

Old school from a young "almost middle aged" guy.

Jimmylikesvikes · Veteran Member

I agree. It isn't fair.

Now, as Steve mentions, we are bound to spend the billions. So how do we spend it? Spend it on a stimulus package that gives $$$ to small businesses, create new roads, new bridges, new schools, and other infrastructure. And spend it on significant "REAL" rebate checks for people who actually DO pay taxes! Also, bring in more college grant money similar to the Pell Grant to enable students who have been impacted by this poor economy to continue their education.

nd.citizen · Senior Member

You have a good idea, as good as any the government has come up with. But let's talk about fairness for a minute.

I will agree that most Americans spend, spend, and spend; and that most of that spending is money they do not have. But...not all. When we were young, we borrowed money to build our home. We didn't build the biggest most expensive home that we could possibly afford. We were very conservative and live very simply. Other than our home loan, we didn't borrow money for anything that didn't MAKE money. We drove what we could afford to pay cash for, if we didn't have money for clothes, entertainment, furniture, appliances, etc., we didn't buy it. By the time we were 42, we were debt free and have been ever since.

Now, how fair is it that we, as tax payers, pay to forgive the debt on homes twice the size of the one that we bought, cars that we would never have splurged on, credit cards debt that we would never have accumulated, etc?

There are, I'm sure, other people out there who have lived their lives conservitely and responsibly. It just isn't fair!

Jimmylikesvikes · Veteran Member

Give all the money to the needy, especially the people without jobs. Give free medical care to all the jobless and homeless. Have the government buy some of the foreclosed homes and give them to the jobless and homeless people. .. this makes me want to sing that song.. I'd like to buy the world a home

I'd like to buy the world a home and furnish it with love,
Grow apple trees and honey bees, and snow white turtle doves.
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony,
I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company.
(Repeat the last two lines, and in the background)
It's the real thing, Coke is what the world wants today.

I have tears in my eyes after singing that song.

Steve Powell · Guru

OK...I agree with that 100 percent. But realistically, we aren't going to go that route with the current administration. There WILL be a spendulus no matter how you look at it. So if the government is going to spend money it doesn't have...what's the best way to spend it to get Americans back to the line of thinking you mention?

Jimmylikesvikes · Veteran Member

Interesting idea. But I just don't like anyone getting bailed out for any reason. I surely don't like giving the government the power to remove credit cards or giving the government any power to control personal debt for that matter. The government has already inherited financial power based on the recent bank "buyout". This country works best under pure capitalism albeit capitalism has it's own issues as well. Banks should have gotten a huge slap on the wrist by the natural process of going broke. Would that hurt our economy? Absolutely. Can we get through the pain? I think we can. Remember the days when most households only had one or maybe two TVs? When going outside to shoot hoops was the greatest time ever? When going out to eat was a very big deal? When we use to talk about THE car and not which car? Actually, I don't remember that.. I just thought it sounded cool

If things get tough, we may end up going back to these days. I hope not as I like our lifestyle we have today. But we can handle what the economy dishes out.

Steve Powell · Guru

As I sit here watching C-Span (a great source to get the true facts on what the politicos are saying) I can't help but wonder if our political parties will EVER see eye to eye on how to get the country back on track. The Democrats are proposing a spending bill that will supposedly create jobs and put a little extra cash back into Americans pockets in order to SPEND it to grow the economy. The Republicans disagree with the proposal saying it will create bigger government and increase our debt to the point it will take each household $100,000 just to get the country back to even. The Democrats say the Republicans are playing partisan politics and keep proposing the same kind of legislation that got us where we are today. The Republicans believe the last administration's spending was similar to what has been proposed recently.

Uff dah!!!! Can't we all just get along!!!

So I had a thought and I would like you guys to reply on this thought and not on what I posted above. One of the biggest reasons people can't afford to live anymore is because household debt has grown to astronomical proportions. Even though the average household debt dropped in December for the first time in 17 years, it's still a daunting task to get Americans away from the "buy now, pay later" mentality. Think about the following and let me know if you think there is a way that something like this could work.

Since we want to blame the government and the banks for getting us in the situation we are in, is there a way to make them work together to get us out? Instead of taking billions of dollars and simply writing checks out to local governments (this apparently is what Republicans are calling "creating bigger government") or even writing checks out to individuals (people can get these checks just by having a soc. sec. number and don't necessarily have to have paid any taxes), what if the government went to work with the banks to provide credit/debt relief by paying off credit card/loan debt for anyone who is willing to cancel their cards or close loans and agree to take a credit hit to make getting themselves BACK into debt almost impossible. The banks will setup a "credit/debt relief" account system and the government can pass a bill allowing for x amount of dollars to go to that account to get rid of Americans household debt. This gives working Americans a better income to debt ratio allowing for savings and purchasing without credit. I'm sure a bill like this would be far more complicated but does it sound like a philosophy that could help the potential crisis? I guess in my mind it seems that "making monthly payments" is what get's families into trouble. We don't prepare ourselves anymore for those "emergencies" by saving. We spend, spend, spend, money that we don't have expecting income to always be there later to pay for it and when we get the "we have to let you go" notice, we end up looking for government help. So would something like this help us work towards freedom from government?

Thoughts?