Trash Day!

If it weren't for taxachusetts NH economy would be on it's ass. Everybody goes over the state line to shop.

Gridlock will stop Obama and his lefty cohorts in their tracks... that's a HELL of an improvement IMHO!

Mike

"Live free, or die"....... like God intended!

Mike

All this intelligent, highly educated bs only goes to prove that common sense does not equal intelligence.......

Denny

yep, we're no fools...

I guess gridlock is more important that turning this economy around.

R

Roy:

You miss Jodi's point altogether. The car companies, banks etc. wouldn't have just disappeared taking their employees down the tubes with them. They would have been forced to reorganize and operate their businesses on a more sustainable model. Yes, there would have been "some" loss of employment for a few but it would have resulted in a healthier company in the long run.

Stop and think. Our economic system provided unparalled prosperity for millions for several hundred years before the gummint became involved. There were hiccups of course, with the attendant suffering of a few, but by and large we built the most successful nation and an economy envied by the world without Uncle Sam getting involved in every decision. We can return to that prosperity if the gummint will just stay the hell out of the way.

I recommend a book, Basic Economics by Dr. Thomas Sowell. Read it, please and you will discover how Federal intervention has actually hurt us in oh so many ways.

Mike

Problem is, Mike and I don't believe that what Obama is trying to do will help the economy. IMHO, the gov't needs to get the hell out of the market and let the free market work as intended. And yes, I think the mess started with Bush.

I could go on, but will resist.

jmc

Agreed, if they would fail and never come back, but that wasn't about to happen.

A rapid reorganization didn't appear to be a option imo. I'm sure your

Not really. I was downsized out of my job as a result of the corporate resturcture and it has not been without pain, but I am surviving.

I think most will agree that the current recession was caused by the housing bubble that burst. The prime cause of the housing bubble WAS the goverment dictating to the banks that they MUST be more lenient in granting loans to whose whose were marginal buyers to begin with and also agreeing to guarantee marginal loans. Had government not made that diktat and had they not guaranteed the loans, we would not be where we are now.

No you can't and unless and until the general populace figures out that government involement in their lives is not a good thing, it will continue. It appears however that folks are beginning to wake up and see socialism for what it is and how it is eroding our freedoms and our prosperity.

SS and Medicare will be toughies, no doubt. In their present form, they are unsustainable no matter what accounting tricks the pols try to pull. Sooner or later (the sooner the better, IMHO) we will be forced to address this and it ain't gonna be pretty. But, if we take our medicine now it will be less painful than at some future time. We can't leave our kids and grandkids the mess we allowed Washington to create.

Mike

By the above one can surmise you folks would have rather allowed the auto industry to go belly up. Knowing that every 10th job is tied to the auto industry. The additional unemployment adding to the existing unemployment and housing market collapse is also fine with you guy's as well. Further you would have also been fine with wall street going belly up as well.

I gotta say imho your a tad short sighted.

Damn! Now you went and did it.....

Mike

Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (11/6/2010 8:48 AM):

Actually, yes. They would have gone bankrupt, reorganized, and come back much stronger than they ever will now. There's this assumption that they would have just gone out of business, but that's not true.

We are becoming a culture that rewards failure. I do not like that. Now big business has this idea that they can just screw their customers, and if that means they get near bankruptcy because they lost all their customers, they can just cry to the gov't to bail them out.

If they'd been allowed to fail, they would have had no choice but to do what Ford did: Actually LISTEN to their customers, build vehicles people actually want to buy, and that way get back into the black.

Ford did not take the bailout. They listened to their customers, improved their vehicles. Despite the really horrid reputation they had for a long time (I didn't even look at Ford when I researched pickups in

2001), they have now repaired that reputation, and are making a profit.

I love my Dakota, but if it died right now, I'd probably buy an F150 to replace it, rather than a Ram 1500 (since 2011 is the last year for the Dak).

So yes, I think paying the car companies and the banks for failing was and is a very, very bad idea. Gives them nothing to work for. They don't have to listen to their customers, they don't have to improve their products, just screw everyone trying to make a product and when the free market causes them to fail for doing it, they get rewarded for their failure by getting gov't bailouts. Then they keep screwing the customers and making bad products, because there's no reason for them to do better.

jmc

So all the employees and vendor's employee's and every other employee in a related industry are on unemployeement. Then they loose their homes and the hole becomes deeper.

I suppose if one is not personally adveresly impacted then it's okay. Is that what your saying?.

Sounds like "I've got mine, screw those people"

Roy

I'd respectfully recommend a real hard look around at the exisiting vacant homes and unemployeement figures, although jobs have been added recently. Your caual "some loss" would be a million easily if GM and Chrysler were to fail. A rapid reorganization didn't appear to be a option imo. I'm sure your aware the linkage of jobs related to the auto industry and the effect of a shut down would have on those smaller companies downstream and the subsquent job loss. Kind of a caviler position if one's job isn't in jeoprady.

The govt. stayed out of the banking industry and what happened? Is it your position that it should have been allowed to continue? Resulting in even more bank failures, more unemployement and more home forclosures?

I'm getting the idea that those that are waving the too big govt. pom poms are really sorta cherry picking what they want govt. involved in and out of. Can't really have it both way's imo.

I'm curious how the "new" leaders in congress are going to redo SS and Medicare. I'm sure that will be painless for those who recieve SS benifits. They are going nut's around here as there was no cola this year.

Speculation on both our parts imo.

IIrc you are employed in the auto supply industry. If the big 3 or 2 failed would your job be there? Questionable at best.

I see let's get govt. out of the whole deal, is that where you would take us? Do away with the FRA FAA ICC FCC FBI CIA DoT (I'm out of initials) the folks that inspect our food, park service, Coast Guard, hell, let's do away with the DOD then we won't need the VA. Where does it end, your quest to end "socialism".

Roy

Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (11/6/2010 4:13 PM):

I'd respectfully submit you're actually supporting my argument. DESPITE the bailouts, there's rampant unemployment, which is really much higher than the official figures, because the truly productive people are under-employed rather than unemployed, as they were smart enough to take any job they could get, just to be employed.

I'm not totally convinced unemployment would have been that much worse if those two car companies had failed. You make it sound like GM and Chrysler are the only two car companies in the US that hire Americans... last I looked that was not true. I'm fairly certain that the other companies have already snatched up the best of the people left unemployed by GM and Chrysler being stupid.

In a general sense (nothing is 100%), the best employees, the hardest working, the ones that are willing to learn new skills, and the ones willing to take a pay cut just to have a decent job, already are working again, and probably moving back up the chain to enjoy the paycheck they got before. FWIW, my brother is on this list - he lost his job, he was only unemployed a couple of months because he is hardworking, willing to try something new, and he did take a cut in pay to be employed. He's doing well now.

My attitude was the same when I was unemployed, actually. I took part time work just to have something of a paycheck. I barely ate for quite a while because I refused to take government handouts, and was only making enough money to pay the bills, with about $5 per week leftover for food. I did eventually get on food stamps because it is hard to put in a hard day's work on an empty stomach, plus that $5 got rather eaten into when winter came.

I don't cherry pick. I am eligible for SS, but I'm not counting on it. I started saving for retirement early, and am putting a rather large chunk of my income into savings. Yes, that means I do without a lot of luxuries and/or new "stuff" (note my truck is still a 2001 Dakota), but it also means that if I live to be 100, if I'm not extravagant, I can live comfortably all that time, even without SS, as long as progressives don't steal my savings.

I believe in helping those who have fallen on bad times, btw, I have no problem with unemployment. Not, however, perpetual unemployment, or welfare.

As for the banks, they got away with what they did because too many were asleep at the wheel, including the banks' own boards. Going public allowed them to use shareholders' money in increasingly risky undertakings, and the government made some bad moves allowing them to increase their debt. The writing was on the wall, they allowed themselves to overreach in order to gain short-term profit, and they should have been allowed to crash as well, instead of being rewarded for their greed and failure by getting gov't handouts.

Here's some light reading:

This one's about President Hoover:

This one explains the role of government in the boom-bust cycle (note that this is from Australia, which is socialistic:

In short, the government created the bust, which eventually has to crash, then the gov't interceding in the crash extends recession and can cause depressions.

jmc

Suddenly, without warning, Roy exclaimed (11/6/2010 5:12 PM):

Please don't put words in my mouth. Reducing gov't is not getting rid of it altogether, and the last thing I want to do is strip the portions of the government that protect us and provide necessary infrastructure.

I'm not sure how you connect these organizations with the whole "big government" thing. FBI, CIA, Coast Guard (and the rest of the military and Intelligence organizations) protect us at home and abroad. Some form of these existed when our government was formed. (I'll not get into *how* some of these agencies are currently used, but they do have good and noble purposes)

I'm not a pure Libertarian, I don't think it is advisable to kill all the current Federal agencies, but think it is highly desirable to shrink it as much as possible. A careful benefit/cost analysis should be done of each agency to determine if they're worth the amount of money it takes to run them; the ones that are worthwhile most likely can still be reduced in size and scope.

Here's two lists of government agencies; I don't know if they are complete, but holy crap there are a lot (fwiw, I could NOT find an actual "# of federal agencies")!

I'm betting over half of these could be abolished, with very little negative impact to average working Americans. I'd also abolish everything on the list of "Government Enterprises" which includes Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Oh, and Sallie Mae, who tried to steal my money when I paid off my student loan early - had to fight to get them to accept my proof that it was paid off.

jmc

Help me out here with a simple yes or no answer please.

Putting aside how we as a people arrived in the mess we are in. The housing market, unemployment, 401's, pension plans way down and so on. Is it your contention that the govt. should have stepped aside, no tarp, no auto loans and done nothing. No extension of unemployment benefits. Just let people become homeless.... This is the reality that I'm gathering from this discussion.

Roy