What is, is, though I gotta tell ya, there's a part of me (the socialism-loathing part) that's glad it went down in flames. If private industry companies make bad decisions that lead to their failure, neither you or I should be on the hook for it. Yes, it's waaay more complicated than that (I can proudly say that I saw the sub-prime mortgage mess coming on years ago), and yes, in this case those companies were nudged into making some of those decisions by insane Bush economic policies/practices, but nudged with a fingertip. I want to say let the financials fail. Let the market crash (and yes, I have stocks in there). If that's what it takes to get back to sane economic practices, bring it. But of course it can't happen that way. I can't really say those things because too many people would feel the hurt too deeply. As the web spins out, too many guiltless businesses and industries would be adversely affected. My only hope is that whatever measures are taken, they do not stink of socialism.
As someone who would be described best as a "socialist libertarian," but generally votes liberal, I have to admit, I agree with this in a lot of ways. The companies hung themselves...
And a lot of it started during the Clinton administration, although I'm sure Reaganomics had a lot to do with it. In my limited knowledge of the whole thing, that is.
As much as I want to blame W or Bush I or Reagan, and as much as they want to blame Clinton, the impression I keep getting is that it was more at a Congressional level... some kind of act in 1999 that Gramm sponsored was a big part of it, maybe? I dunno.
The sub-prime debacle started at the tail-end of the Clinton administration, as was recently pointed out by the NYT in this (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) article dated September 30, 1999.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
That about says it all. Irresponsibility and greed.
There's got to be a way to help low and moderate income people buy a house (I'm in the 'moderate income' category, I think) without bankrupting the country.
Here's an idea: take everyone who ever made a decision on this (and if they're dead, dig 'em up), knock their heads together and ship them off-world. Then hire someone competent who also has actual integrity to run things. If such a creature even exists.
If private industry companies make bad decisions that lead to their failure, neither you or I should be on the hook for it.
I'm pretty sure I agree with you, there. And it seems like both ends of the spectrum are at fault, going way back, especially the greedy corporate CEOs. AND the government. It seems fashionable to blame one or the other, but it's really both (and yeah, more complicated).
I don't own stocks (except whatever's invested from an IRA--see how ignorant I am?), and I'm pretty happy about that right now. I'm also happy I have a job that's not going to disappear any time soon.
I'm all for serious transparency in whatever is decided on. Because allowing a government takeover with no accountability? That's not socialism, that's suicide.
Absolutely it's government - both parties, several different policies - and greedy execs at fault. ALSO, a passel of private citizens bear a significant burden of responsibility for taking out loans and mortgages they knew (or should have known) they could not afford once the sub-prime period expired. Bottom line: irresponsibility and greed have come home to roost. As was absolutely inevitable.
I was utterly freaking out after I read the text of the very first Paulson plan. It gave one man control of $700 billion dollars. And that man's actions and decisions were not reviewable by Congress or the courts. Say it with me, kids: unconstitutional.
In truth, I actually think any kind of government bailout of private industry is unconstitutional.
I'm trying not to freak out. In the past 16 months, my husband's 401k stocks/mutual funds have lost 38% of their value, and mine have lost 21%. And that's before today's tanking. I keep telling myself that we still have the same number of shares, they're just not worth what they were - but they'll go back up. Someday. In fact, I'm trying to see this as a buying opportunity. I actually increased my hubby's 401k contribution %.
Absolutely it's government - both parties, several different policies - and greedy execs at fault. ALSO, a passel of private citizens bear a significant burden of responsibility for taking out loans and mortgages they knew (or should have known) they could not afford once the sub-prime period expired. Bottom line: irresponsibility and greed have come home to roost. As was absolutely inevitable.
Yes, yes, and damn, yes.
I was utterly freaking out after I read the text of the very first Paulson plan. It gave one man control of $700 billion dollars. And that man's actions and decisions were not reviewable by Congress or the courts. Say it with me, kids: unconstitutional.
The scariest part of all is that the Constitution is being IGNORED. *clutches tattered shreds of Bill of Rights* I mean, the Constitution is...whatever the secular word for 'sacred' is.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-29 08:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-29 09:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-29 09:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-29 10:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-29 10:47 pm (UTC)Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
That about says it all. Irresponsibility and greed.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-29 10:56 pm (UTC)Here's an idea: take everyone who ever made a decision on this (and if they're dead, dig 'em up), knock their heads together and ship them off-world. Then hire someone competent who also has actual integrity to run things. If such a creature even exists.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-29 09:58 pm (UTC)I'm pretty sure I agree with you, there. And it seems like both ends of the spectrum are at fault, going way back, especially the greedy corporate CEOs. AND the government. It seems fashionable to blame one or the other, but it's really both (and yeah, more complicated).
I don't own stocks (except whatever's invested from an IRA--see how ignorant I am?), and I'm pretty happy about that right now. I'm also happy I have a job that's not going to disappear any time soon.
I'm all for serious transparency in whatever is decided on. Because allowing a government takeover with no accountability? That's not socialism, that's suicide.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-29 10:15 pm (UTC)I was utterly freaking out after I read the text of the very first Paulson plan. It gave one man control of $700 billion dollars. And that man's actions and decisions were not reviewable by Congress or the courts. Say it with me, kids: unconstitutional.
In truth, I actually think any kind of government bailout of private industry is unconstitutional.
I'm trying not to freak out. In the past 16 months, my husband's 401k stocks/mutual funds have lost 38% of their value, and mine have lost 21%. And that's before today's tanking. I keep telling myself that we still have the same number of shares, they're just not worth what they were - but they'll go back up. Someday. In fact, I'm trying to see this as a buying opportunity. I actually increased my hubby's 401k contribution %.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-29 10:31 pm (UTC)Yes, yes, and damn, yes.
I was utterly freaking out after I read the text of the very first Paulson plan. It gave one man control of $700 billion dollars. And that man's actions and decisions were not reviewable by Congress or the courts. Say it with me, kids: unconstitutional.
The scariest part of all is that the Constitution is being IGNORED. *clutches tattered shreds of Bill of Rights* I mean, the Constitution is...whatever the secular word for 'sacred' is.