Will Republicans ever contribute good ideas instead of just bing Obstructionists?

Haha. The reason I brought about Reagan having the first trillion dollar deficeit (in the 70's with less inflation no less) is that this is what Republicans keep harping on about with Obama. Thats where the

Deficits have been something that a lot of people mention as the main reason they may not like this administration. So lets discuss this. I personally don't like deficits and I'm sure Obama doesn't either. Take a minute to think about it - why would Obama spend so much, bail out financial institutions, auto companies, etc? It certainly isn't politically expedient or helpful. So ask yourself why?

Unless you've lived in a cave for the past year, you are aware that we're in a downward economic spiral that is on the brink of falling into a recession, we need to take action. To advert this crisis we need to stimulate the economy. Whats the best way to do this? Obama and liberals in general believe that the best way to do this is to make money available to people. One way this was done was to give large banks credit so they could start lending again. If this was not done, there would be massive bank failures which would lead to catastrophe. Another way to infuse money to people is through tax cuts and stimulus checks. If you make less that $250,000 a year, you will not get a tax increase. If you're in the top income bracket ($millions/year), your income tax will go back up to Clinton ear levels (about 3% more) - you know, an era that experienced tremendous economic growth. And if you make more than $250,000 a year, and we may differ on this, but I have no problem with you paying a little more to help your country that has fostered an economy and society that makes it possible for you to excell.

Republicans have a very draconian idea of how to stimulate an economy. They want to cut more taxes to the rich. They believe in "trickle down" economics in that if money is given to the elite corporations and generally to those in the top 2% of the socioeconomic class, we middle class citizens will some how reap the benefits as well. They truly believe that this is the most efficient way to infuse money into the economy. Recent financial events should demonstrate that this is a faniciful idea. In a time of recession, the rich hoard their cash, move investments into bonds, treasuries, and "safe" commodities. They stop spending money, lay off workers, and will buy other currency. In contrast, when working class citizens get stimulus, they put the money back into the system immediately. People will spend money on things like gas, groceries, diapers, tuition, and also for medical care that they couldn't afford before.

Now an area of contention may be that Republicans just don't agree with Obama/Democrat's idea of how to best stimulate the economy in principle. I can understand that. But cmon give us your ideas then. And if they consist of "give tax breaks to the wealth producers," or "Obama wants us to become socialists!!!" or more of the same, I'll pass. I grow tired and I grow angry. We can no longer be complacent with these intellectually lazy ideas. We simply can't afford to do it anymore - too much is at stake.

Bottom line is, yes deficits stink. I hate them too. But unless we stimulate the economy, there won't be an economy left to save. Once we recover and the economy begins to grow again, we can address the deficit. Crying about the deficit at a time like this is like emploring the firefighter to not get the carpet wet when hes trying to put out the fire in your house.

Be well.

I don't even know if I should dignify this ramble with a response. Eh, why not.

Bailouts to financial institutions, somehow make it into the assets of congressmen? Hmm, I'd really like to see the paper trail there. Only thing I can think of that you may possibly be refering to is campaign contribution? If thats the case, I mean sure I guess banks contribute to congressmen - of both parties im sure. So do nursing organizations, teachers, lawyers, doctors, my neighbor and I - or anyone who supports any cause that our legislators do. I mean, if this is a commentary on campaign finance reform, Im amiable. But to infer that theres some sort of direct relationship between the stimulus and congressman taking bribes, thats just silly.

And I really dont feel like explaining to you how the financial crisis came about. But to blame just those who took out loans they couldn't afford is a rather myopic understanding. I don't really feel like explaining it to you as Im sure you don't really care to learn, but Ill try anyway.

These loans were packaged by mortgage brokers who then in term packaged them again into a larger group. They then sold these to financial institutions who then packaged them into "mortgage backed derivatives". These new financial instruments were not traded on any regulated market (like Nasdaq, NYSE). In fact, there wasn't many laws at all. These derivatives were being bought up everywhere and was making everyone involved rich. When the brokers ran out of people who had good credit and regular mortgages to compile into these derivatives, the financial institutions demanded that more home mortgages be available. Well if there are no longer any people left to get loans that have good credit to qualify for them, well what next?

They lowered the standard.

Now instead of having to verify your assets and income, at the end of the slippery slope, we ended up with giving people "stated income/asset" loans. Why? Because the bankers were hungry and they were getting rich. The link below is to a radio show on NPR that explains what happened exquisitly. But Lets Be Clear here. Blaming those lower credit, poor, "other" people as the ones solely responsible for this crisis is dishonest and just plain scapegoatism. If you just scratch a little deeper into the matter, you see that this is not the case. I guess the hard part is making you want to scratch.

Be well.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radi...px?episode=375

I still have hope that there are still some sensible Republicans around. The Republican Party has so radically shifted to the right that they were going to vote Arlen Spector out in the Primary for a Republican that was more willing to toe their line. I hope they keep doing this - who knows, we may yet get some more moderate Republicans into our open party.

Yes, we saw how the private banking industry performed so well.

I don't know what you mean by the postal service. I can send a letter from LA and expect it to get to San Diego in less than 2 days for less than $.50. They even work Saturdays. If I could get my health insurance to work as well as my postal service, I'd be happy.

Actually, I understood perfectly what you meant. I understand people took out loans they couldnt afford and I know that many did this because they assumed home prices would go up and that they could just refinance. What I seem to be not communicating to you is that banks were DEMANDING to mortgage brokers (not end lenders, the brokers that buy up mortgages at wholesale) that they get more mortgage packages. These brokers then in turn pressured their lenders and in turn the real estate agents to get more borrowers. When those with good credit dried up, banks started giving the OK for all these subprime mortgages.

Also, you seem to think that the losses we're seeing is from people simply defaulting on the loans. Thus you seem to be pinning the blame primarily on the borrower who can't make anymore payments. The crisis did not come about because of this. The crisis came about because these loans were packaged, sold, and resold ad infinitum on the derivatives market. These financial packets/instruments/bonds were then bought up in an unregulated market skyrocketing the price. Why did people/institutions buy them? Because these bonds were given a AAA rating by supposedly neutral bond rating firms (paid by banks to rate them).

To add onto this deck of cards, companies like AIG decided to sell insurance on these bonds and these firms bought them. However, since these bonds were so new, there were no laws regulating these insurance products. Unlike casualty or life insurance, there were no laws requiring the insurance companies to have any sort of liquid capital to hedge/back up these products. And as you have seen, this resulted in AIG going bust after these bonds were tanking and they turned to AIG.

So - you blame the home buyer who got a loan over their head for the brunt of this financial crisis. This is an easy target, and they do in part share the blame. But lets get real. The bubble didn't balloon because of home buyers who still have capital in the homes/land they bought. The reason we saw the value of these subprime mortgages loans fall to $.20 on the dollar levels is because of all of the financial wizardry by the Wall Street "elite" and the lack of oversight.

To address your last point - what is this administration doing? Plenty.
To start off, remember those derivatives we talked about? Well he is now trying to change it so that they're no longer traded willy-nilly with no oversight.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,6051242.story

Furthermore, his officials in the Justice Department and the SEC have been working to turn back the Bush administration's policies and attitudes of laissez faire economics where sociopaths like Bernie Madoff could defraud investors of billions of dollars.

Now am I totally happy with how everything has gone thus far? Absolutely not. Even with the bank bailouts. The idea of giving them access to capital was so that our credit market didn't freeze up. Banks were starting to stop making loans because they wanted to lower risk and wanted to save all the capital they had so they could stay solvent in the face of tremendous losses due to the subprime mortgage. The problem now is, that although they now have capital, they were hesitent to use it and only recently have they started making credit available. I think that Obama, as well as Bush who was the one that started the policies of bailing out large financial institutions, made a mistake here. They should have required the banks to lend the money if they accepted assistance. We didn't let them have money so they could sit on it. It should go out to those who need loans to start businesses, make payroll, invest in ventures, etc. This didn't happen and we're only recently addressing it (although I have a feeling that if Obama did require such a proviso on the TARP money, the right wingers would have labels him as a socialist).

Its been only five months and they are far from finished. Yet changing this country (especially after the last 8 years) will not be easy or immediate. Steering the course of a country is similar to that of steering a large ship. When heading towards an iceberg, we need to take action now, even though we may not see or feel immediate results.