If I don't need SSI I won't sign up for it. Or I might sign up but just give the money to the old bag across the street, she's a Hillary supporter but she's also broke and on a fixed income [aren't they all?]
Right! That was a little socialistic, wasn't it. Fun facts: With $700 billion the government could have bought Gucci watches for every man, woman and child in the United States, and THEN with the extra given every man, woman and child a $2000 check.
Jon: I think if you bothered to do some serious study, you would find that the government and it's "servants" are responsible for most of our problems. So wanting more government isn't going to solve shit. It will simply be the seed of the next problem. Really, it's hard to know where to start. LOL. Institutions like the Federal Reserve for instance, created many booms and busts simply by maintaining an inappropriate policy. The last Depression has the Fed footprints all over it, contracting money supply at the worst possible time. And surely you will agree that the Fed has had a hand in some of the housing problems we now face. Or we could look at the Community Reinvestment Act.....an act that was used to force banks to loan to people who weren't qualified to buy a postage stamp. Subprime loans. Later, institutions with quasi government powers (created by government) bought these mortgages. I mean really jon, what you see today is not capitalism. Do you find any irony in the idea that government via the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to loan to unqualified borrowers, who now are in default, but who may well be bailed out by the same government who is now outraged. LOL. Pleeze. More government is not your solution. But I know you want it, as do most of the posters here. So you're all going to get it. How much of the stock market decline do you suppose was people getting out before Obama and Dems took over? OldTrader
I agree. Bush has been a disaster in some of the big government he has perpetrated on us. The Dems were all over the program too though, as you know. OldTrader
I realize you're only 18 and the media had might as well be a bunch of 18 year olds but from the mid-60's to the early 80's the market did this about every other year! Didn't matter if it was LBJ or Nixon or Ford or Carter or Reagan the Dow kept trading 1000 and then would be 670 a few months later. Now all of a sudden it's the biggest thing since the Great Depression as if there's people jumping out of windows. The same media people who bitch like they're on the Mao TV Network about the "gap" between rich and poor expanding are now up in arms that the same gap is imploding. I tune out 99% of what I hear....
Theft? I would have called it "force". The government forces you to participate, takes the money, so they can give it back to you later with a sub-par return. Again, why would anyone opt out of getting their own money back? OldTrader
First of all its worth noting that we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for government. You seem to be operating under the assumption that all government ever does is "seed the next problem". That is just not true. We wouldn't have the country we have today in all its glory if it wasn't for government. That being said I understand the inefficient and pointlessness of a lot of government programs. All we can really say with any certainty is that sometimes less gov is better, sometimes its not. Sometimes more gov is better and sometimes its not. I can say that with absolute confidence and hopefully we can all agree. Knowing the difference is where the debate lies. Or we could look at the Community Reinvestment Act.....an act that was used to force banks to loan to people who weren't qualified to buy a postage stamp. Subprime loans. Later, institutions with quasi government powers (created by government) bought these mortgages. Do you find any irony in the idea that government via the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to loan to unqualified borrowers, who now are in default, but who may well be bailed out by the same government who is now outraged. LOL. Pleeze. Here is an area where I do have some expertise. First of all the subprime problem, while a mess, is no where near the heart of all this, but it bears discussing anyway. I know the loans you are talking about. I was a mortgage broker and 90% of what I funded was sub prime. Do you know how many FHA or conforming loans I did? 0. I could have and those programs did exist, but trust me when I say they are not the cause of the subprime problem. Not even CLOSE. The subprime mess was facilitated by ridiculous over-leverage and the relentless buying of ALL KINDS OF PAPER by the secondary market-wall street. The reason I get anyone a mortgage wasn't because the gov was saying I should. It was because wall street was buying everything in sight. My lenders didn't give a damn because the loan was already sold to wall street before it even closed. Over leverage and unsound monetary policy( which could have been avoided had regulations been in place) of the secondary market is what facilitated the mortgage mess. More government is not your solution. But I know you want it, as do most of the posters here. So you're all going to get it. How much of the stock market decline do you suppose was people getting out before Obama and Dems took over? Haha I don't know. I doubt that has much to do with it. Unless you can link every rally or crash to some kind of political polling, that seems pretty hard to prove. OldTrader [/B][/QUOTE]