Talk of The Villages Florida - Can Anyone Endorse Rush's Hope?

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- The Villages, Florida, Political talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/)

- - Can Anyone Endorse Rush's Hope? (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/can-anyone-endorse-rushs-hope-19723/)

Reading All This Again Makes It Clear That We're ALL Conservatives At Heart

I know I am. I sure don't want any more government dictating what I do every day. Or providing for me when I don't need it. I do believe that we've gotten our government expenditures and those to whom services are provided a little out of whack. There are many examples, but to have the government provide subsidized healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it, while 50 million Americans don't have health insurance calls out for correction.

But the major differences that we've been talking about here and in other threads are the government's reaction to the slumping economy. Some believe that it's just another recession and will work itself out with little more than a few tax cuts. That's worked before, it should work again.

I believe our situation is far more critical than that. I don't believe that tax cuts, regardless of how big and to whom, will result in increased demand, more production and more jobs -- the economic recovery we all seek. In fact, if were up to me alone I wouldn't enact any tax cuts right now. It's not that I never would -- it's just that economic circumstances are so dire that I don't think the few extra bucks people would get would cause them to spend in the way needed to begin to re-energize the economy. For that matter, I probably wouldn't spend very much money on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects right now either. Again, maybe sometime in the future, but not right now -- it would simply take too long to have much of an effect on the spending-demand-production-jobs cycle. (I might say that for political reasons, neither of the things I would avoid will be avoided -- Congress will do both for political reasons, whether I like it or not.)

What I WOULD do is pump every available dollar into fixing the U.S. banking system. It is broken and cannot or will not fix itself without massive government intervention. The leverage provided by loans is the grease that makes our economy grow, so with no source of credit because of the broken banks, our economy might take decades to recover. The only way banks can "fix themselves" is to increase their capital. The only way they can do that is by selling equity, such as in common stock, or retaining earnings into capital accounts. Right now, there is no demand whatsoever for the stocks of banks and there are no earnings from which to retain for capital-strengthening purposes. The problem with this alternative is that it's going to cost more money than we can possibly imagine right now -- a lot more than the "stimulus bill" that President Obama is pressuring Congress to pass.

There are probably lots of ways to fix the banks' capital adequacy problems -- have the government buy all the bad loans, inject equity into the banks (as has been done so far), or even form a new "government national bank" to make loans and compete with the privately-owned banks. I don't know the answer, but I know that getting all the bad loans off the bank's books is what will be needed to get the economy going again. And I also know that such a fix will create so much national debt that many generations of Americans will have to work very hard to repay it.

Do I like this idea? Heck No! But this conservative-minded ex-banker sees no other way that will work to get our economy growing again anytime soon. When I say "anytime soon", I mean that even with massive government intervention the economy is not likely to recover before sometime in 2010. Without gobs of government money -- your money and mine -- recovery to economic activity as we have known it in recent years might take a decade or more. That means a real change in lifestyle for all of us. And anyone who knows the definitions would describe such government intervention as "nationalizing" or "socializing" important parts of our economy. That's what it is, like it or not.

I might add that whatever contrary opinions that are held by posters here, the economists, bankers, and financial experts of both conservative and liberal leanings seem to agree that the old ways of reacting to a recession cannot work this time. The financial crisis is simply too overwhelming.

So, we really don't have differences of opinion as "conservatives" or "liberals" or even "socialists". We all should have learned by now that "Republican" doesn't mean "conservative" any more than "Democrat" means "liberal" or "socialist". Our only difference of opinion is how bad the economic problem is that we're facing and what alternatives are available to fix it. Once we begin citing one fix or another, it's only then that people start assigning idealogical tags to the alternatives -- and those that propose them.

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 184716)

I know I am. I sure don't want any more government dictating what I do every day. Or providing for me when I don't need it. I do believe that we've gotten our government expenditures and those to whom services are provided a little out of whack. There are many examples, but to have the government provide subsidized healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it, while 50 million Americans don't have health insurance calls out for correction.

But the major differences that we've been talking about here and in other threads are the government's reaction to the slumping economy. Some believe that it's just another recession and will work itself out with little more than a few tax cuts. That's worked before, it should work again.

I believe our situation is far more critical than that. I don't believe that tax cuts, regardless of how big and to whom, will result in increased demand, more production and more jobs -- the economic recovery we all seek. In fact, if were up to me alone I wouldn't enact any tax cuts right now. It's not that I never would -- it's just that economic circumstances are so dire that I don't think the few extra bucks people would get would cause them to spend in the way needed to begin to re-energize the economy. For that matter, I probably wouldn't spend very much money on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects right now either. Again, maybe sometime in the future, but not right now -- it would simply take too long to have much of an effect on the spending-demand-production-jobs cycle. (I might say that for political reasons, neither of the things I would avoid will be avoided -- Congress will do both for political reasons, whether I like it or not.)

What I WOULD do is pump every available dollar into fixing the U.S. banking system. It is broken and cannot or will not fix itself without massive government intervention. The leverage provided by loans is the grease that makes our economy grow, so with no source of credit because of the broken banks, our economy might take decades to recover. The only way banks can "fix themselves" is to increase their capital. The only way they can do that is by selling equity, such as in common stock, or retaining earnings into capital accounts. Right now, there is no demand whatsoever for the stocks of banks and there are no earnings from which to retain for capital-strengthening purposes. The problem with tbis alternative is that it's going to cost more money than we can possibly imagine right now -- a lot more than the "stimulus bill" that President Obama is pressuring Congress to pass.

There are probably lots of ways to fix the banks' capital adequacy problems -- have the government buy all the bad loans, inject equity into the banks (as has been done so far), or even form a new "government national bank" to make loans and compete with the privately-owned banks. I don't know the answer, but I know thaqt getting all the bad loans off the bank's books is what will be needed to get the economy going again. And I also know that such a fix will create so much national debt that many generations of Americans will have to work very hard to repay it.

Do I like this idea? Heck No! But this conservative-minded ex-banker sees no other way that will work to get our economy growing again anytime soon. When I say "anytime soon", I mean that even with massive government intervention the economy is not likely to recover before sometime in 2010. Without gobs of government money -- your money and mine -- recovery to economic activity as we have known it in recent years might take a decade or more. That means a rreal change in lifestyle for all of us. And anyone who knows the definitions would describe such government intervention as "nationalizing" or "socializing" important parts of our economy. That's what it is, like it or not.

I might add that whatever counter opinions that are held by posters here, the economists, bankers, and financial experts of both conservative and liberal leanings seem to agree that the old ways of reacting to a recession cannot work this time. The financial crisis is simply too overwhelming.

So, we really don't have differences of opinion as "conservatives" or "liberals" or even "socialists". Our only difference of opinion is how bad the economic problem is that we're facing and what alternatives are available to fix it. Once we begin citing one fix or another, it's only then that people start assigning idealogical tags to the alternatives -- and those that propose them.

First of all I dont believe for one minute VK that you are a conservative, but you can say whatever you want and I am forced to accept your words.

Second, as I said many times...I am no economic guru as you purport to be, but explain to me how GIVING MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars away is doing one thing for us.

First I read how Barney Frank helped a black bank in MA get money...why...because they were black...he made sure they shared in the funds and was and is pusing for more TARP for these folks. I might add they are infamous for the high salaries.

Second, I hear one of the President's gurus say he cannot assure EVEN ONE JOB WOULD BE CREATED BY GIVING OUT MONEY.

What is the point ?

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 184716)

I know I am. I sure don't want any more government dictating what I do every day. Or providing for me when I don't need it. I do believe that we've gotten our government expenditures and those to whom services are provided a little out of whack. There are many examples, but to have the government provide subsidized healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it, while 50 million Americans don't have health insurance calls out for correction.

But the major differences that we've been talking about here and in other threads are the government's reaction to the slumping economy. Some believe that it's just another recession and will work itself out with little more than a few tax cuts. That's worked before, it should work again.

I believe our situation is far more critical than that. I don't believe that tax cuts, regardless of how big and to whom, will result in increased demand, more production and more jobs -- the economic recovery we all seek. In fact, if were up to me alone I wouldn't enact any tax cuts right now. It's not that I never would -- it's just that economic circumstances are so dire that I don't think the few extra bucks people would get would cause them to spend in the way needed to begin to re-energize the economy. For that matter, I probably wouldn't spend very much money on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects right now either. Again, maybe sometime in the future, but not right now -- it would simply take too long to have much of an effect on the spending-demand-production-jobs cycle. (I might say that for political reasons, neither of the things I would avoid will be avoided -- Congress will do both for political reasons, whether I like it or not.)

What I WOULD do is pump every available dollar into fixing the U.S. banking system. It is broken and cannot or will not fix itself without massive government intervention. The leverage provided by loans is the grease that makes our economy grow, so with no source of credit because of the broken banks, our economy might take decades to recover. The only way banks can "fix themselves" is to increase their capital. The only way they can do that is by selling equity, such as in common stock, or retaining earnings into capital accounts. Right now, there is no demand whatsoever for the stocks of banks and there are no earnings from which to retain for capital-strengthening purposes. The problem with tbis alternative is that it's going to cost more money than we can possibly imagine right now -- a lot more than the "stimulus bill" that President Obama is pressuring Congress to pass.

There are probably lots of ways to fix the banks' capital adequacy problems -- have the government buy all the bad loans, inject equity into the banks (as has been done so far), or even form a new "government national bank" to make loans and compete with the privately-owned banks. I don't know the answer, but I know thaqt getting all the bad loans off the bank's books is what will be needed to get the economy going again. And I also know that such a fix will create so much national debt that many generations of Americans will have to work very hard to repay it.

Do I like this idea? Heck No! But this conservative-minded ex-banker sees no other way that will work to get our economy growing again anytime soon. When I say "anytime soon", I mean that even with massive government intervention the economy is not likely to recover before sometime in 2010. Without gobs of government money -- your money and mine -- recovery to economic activity as we have known it in recent years might take a decade or more. That means a rreal change in lifestyle for all of us. And anyone who knows the definitions would describe such government intervention as "nationalizing" or "socializing" important parts of our economy. That's what it is, like it or not.

I might add that whatever counter opinions that are held by posters here, the economists, bankers, and financial experts of both conservative and liberal leanings seem to agree that the old ways of reacting to a recession cannot work this time. The financial crisis is simply too overwhelming.

So, we really don't have differences of opinion as "conservatives" or "liberals" or even "socialists". Our only difference of opinion is how bad the economic problem is that we're facing and what alternatives are available to fix it. Once we begin citing one fix or another, it's only then that people start assigning idealogical tags to the alternatives -- and those that propose them.

Banks are no different than any other business. Some succeed. Some fail. Some make a profit. Some Ponzi themselves into ruin. Some are very well managed. Some bank managers shouldn't be allowed to run a lemonade stand.

Gobs of money in the hands of managers proven to be inept or greedy is wasted money.

Successful economies require money to remain in the society and cycle several times. Removing money from the "cycle" via foreign purchases results in no economy.

Sure, there are billions in bad loans out there - and those holding the bad paper have lost their investment. Period.

Let's be very blunt. There are no people in government service who have graduated with economics degrees from Hogwarts, and no magic potions on their desks and no magic wands stuck in the belts. In other words, there are no people in government service who have the expertise to fix what the greed of others have broken. Mega-BIllions dispensed by well-meaning amateurs is scarier yet, as the potential for exploitation is immense.

So, in the end, the marketplace has to fix itself because there are no magicians in government to put Humpty Dumpty back together. That means some banks will go belly-up and be gobbled up by the remaining healthy sharks.

These lousy bankers who screwed up are no different than the thousands who go to Las Vegas, Biloxi, Atlantic City and similar spots, blow it all on a bad spin or "lousy cards" and end up broke. Shall we recoup their losses as well? Gambling is gambling, whether it is called "investing" or other sanitized term. Businesses succeed and fail, as all businesses operate on levels of assumed risks. Banks are no different.

The marketplace will correct the banking system. Government bailout only means that banker executives will be paid per their contracts, bonuses despite bad business decisions will be paid, and the folks at the top of the banking pyramid - the ones who direct the payment of campaign funds and hire K Street lobbyists to protect their interests - can breathe easier and still order their new Mercedes SLR McLaren.

Impatience breeds mistakes, especially when it comes to dispensing money with little information. Worse, impatience makes a select few richer at the expense of the frightened.

Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit (Ferengi Rule of Acquisition # 161) I wonder who those folk are in this mess?

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 184466)

How can a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh make statements like this and even call himself an American? It's attitudes like this that have so fractured our political system that it has frozen and has totally failed to serve the people. Hopefully most people will react to statement's like this in the same way that Limbaugh's own staff did when he said the words on the radio -- they laughed. But hopefully people will also react with disgust with Limbaugh's distasteful and stupid foolishness.

....and the democratic buffoons who attacked Bush from day one get a pass from you....is it only Conservative Republicans that have bad attitudes?

What do you think of your Democratic cronies, Pelosi, Reid, et al who are pushing to crush Conservative dissent with that little Stalinist gem called the "fairness doctrine" that would virtually take conservative talk radio off the air? Its coming....sooner then later. The partisan tone of your post suggests you would support it.

How does that serve the people?

I love the libs....freedom of speech for them...but, crush distasteful and stupid foolishness...if its coming from the right.

I have respectfully read most of your posts over a long period of time. While I don't agree with much of your political tilt to the left, I have occasionally enjoyed exchanging missiles.

You said, "I'm really surprised that some of you really endorse Limbaugh's outrageous hope for President Obama, and by inference our country."

That "by inference our country" remark you made, is nothing short of cheap, inflammatory fighting words. I know many posters who have served this country when others were heading for Canada. Don't preach to me or them about who supports our country and who doesn't. Your thoughtless provocative linkage from Limbaugh's opinion saying those that support Limbaugh somehow do not support our country is the worst attack I have seen on this board. Yes, I do take it personally.

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.'s column

Rush Limbaugh's a disloyal clown when he says he hopes Obama fails

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...na25pitts.html

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 184735)

Rush Limbaugh's a disloyal clown when he says he hopes Obama fails

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...na25pitts.html

This article referenced above was written by Leonard Pitts......the link below is an article he wrote this week on President Bush.....oh, this is the last sentence of that article...

"Godspeed, then, Mr. Bush. Good health and long life. I hope you live to hear history itself tell you what an awful president you were."

http://www.freep.com/article/2009011...ON03/901170303

Not much bias huh ?

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 184736)

As Stephen Colbert said: �Reality has a well-known liberal bias.�

VK,

I am quite certain you don't need my or anyone elses help, but the stuff being thrown your way, both overt and wrapped in a cloak of semantics, sarcasm and demegoguery is frankly becoming distasteful. While I may not agree with everything you say you do consistently bring well articulated and well informed opinions into the forum, and have done so without resorting to insults or personal attacks. Kudos to you for having the courage and intelligence to bring meaningful discussion to the table,and I for one like the fact that you (and others) have profoundly challenged some of my thought processes. Thanks for your efforts.:coolsmiley:

Some say they don't do personal attacks and then do. There are some people that have been unhappy people every since I have been in this forum. They live to stir the pot. VK - I agree with you and think your posts are usually well thought out and meant to provide discussion instead of all this nonsense.

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 184735)

Rush Limbaugh's a disloyal clown when he says he hopes Obama fails

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...na25pitts.html

Kayaker, go read what Rush actually said, not what some media pundit said he said and his interpretation of it. He did not say he hopes Obama fails. He said he hopes his socialist policies fail. I hope they do also. I want Obama to succeed, but not his leftest ideas. Big difference.

And this is all I have to say on the matter. You can agree to disagree, but the rest of this is drivel.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...NmZmM2MzYxMmI=

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 184864)

And this is all I have to say on the matter. You can agree to disagree, but the rest of this is drivel.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...NmZmM2MzYxMmI=

Thanks for a great link Tall !!!

I was glad to see the mention of Sal Alinsky in the link....I have been preaching all through the primary and the election how President Obama is following to the letter his teachings.

Just as an aside, someone was on here talking about his 80% approval ratings...now at 68

Rush is right...again.

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 184923)

Rush=Buffoon

Your comment = ignorance.