Bush Moves Towards Nationalizing the Insurance Business

This is not a your side vs. my side issue. As carpro and Bro. Curtis pointed out to you when discussing the 2003 issue the dems philabustered. Both sides are to blame. John McCain pointed the problem out again in 2005 when he co-sponsored legislation to reform the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the dems voted it down.

 

[$600 billion

If we keep bailing out these failed private businesses who's going to bail out the people of the USA? It's dangerous foolishness!

 

I don't understand, are you two suggesting the Government should have let the economy collapse like in 1929?

I agree Fannie and Freddie caused the problem in theory but the actual problem (as I see it) was no regulation. Does anyone have a link to the actual bill McCain tried to introduce? I was listening to the news and someone said the legislation wouldn't have even made a scratch toward resolving the problem. I agree it was a step in the right direction but I wanted to see how it read.

 

And just who is responsible for this deregulation:

Source Here

 

From the same source:


DURING THE Clinton years, command-and-control regulation was largely replaced by a risk-based approach that was based on inherently flawed estimates of value and risk. According to risk-based capital requirements, the greater the risk of a loan, the greater amount of capital a bank would be required to raise. But this risk-based approach made little sense when regulators were using inflated market prices to build their defenses.

 

So much for the Clinton policies:BangHead:

 

The government can not save the economy - it never has been able to do that - but it sure can wreck it! The exchange of goods and services between people is what can save the economy. The less the government sticks its big bulbous noses into it the better! Many of those we send to Washington and to our State capitols are idiots with respect to commerce. Why should we look to them and their bureaucratic processes to solve our economic problems? What are their success stories? What have they created that's worth trading for something else of value? All they do is take some of what we make to give it to someone else who isn't making anything. There's the economic formula at which government excels! The more the government skims and tries to rearrange things to fit political goals the worse it will get. Regulations should be merely those needed to enforce real and simple justice for the people while in the pursuit of their own commerce. There's a real challenge for government - real and simple justice! Oh, how we long for that in a world of volumes upon volumes of regulations but little common sense and true justice. Regulations should not be viewed as tools to make commerce free of its inherent risks outside the realm of fraudulent transactions nor to manipulate some social engineering project. The risk of success or failure should be carried by the participants - not the government - not the people through the government.

 

This appears to be the problem, the signs were there but the agency responsible for sounding the alarm was sleep at the switch. I think this should be a crime and I'm sure we all believe the leaders of this group should be looking for a job. We must discourage this kind of poor work ethic and careless handling of trusted responsibility.

 

Perhaps, but they can prop it up where it sags a bit just to get us by.

I agree 100% here. I was surprised to learn you don't need a law degree or any formal training to be on the hill. They create laws but are not trained in law. They manage the economy but aren't financially trained.

I agree with less government control and I agree the investors should loose since after all, that's the risk they took in investing. The problem is with all these foreclosed houses who would buy one newly built from a builder? It's an endless circle that turns back on itself.

 

No the problem was Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Greenspan. It might help you to read the whole article.

 

I did, laws good or bad are useless if we turn a blind eye to the crime. I'm not saying there wasn't other factors, but if the federal bank regulators had of thrown up the flag to the president, congress or the country if necessary then everyone would have had to take notice.

 

OH! Well....what happened to Bush did it? What happened to the so called Clinton policies that lead to such financial progress in this country. It now seems he had none and we are seeing the fruit of his failures ( to include Carter and Reagan)

 

Just like the savings and loan mess, the bailout will be for millionaires and the foreign governments, not for the working peope.

 

Really? What country did you live in during that time.

 

I think the better question would be what planet was he living on during that time?:laugh:

 

A shock wave is a good thing?
Explain that to those people who own mutual funds with holdings in AIG that would be wiped out (and it most likely will happen). Explain that to the policyholders who have been insured with AIG, and would suddenly fiind themselves uninsured. Explain it to the institutions who are holding commercial paper.

On the surface, it looks as though you are implying that there is some sort of culpability on the part of those who have invested in AIG. I would love to hear you explain that.

An honest request, by the way.

Regards, hope all is well in your neck of the woods,
BiR

 

No, actually, the market was up over 400. I was watching it all day, and at the open it went down further, then recovered. If you are reading this on Thursday, go to CNBC and check the trading range for Morgan Stanley (MS). Pretty amazing....

Regards,
BiR

 

Sometimes God sends us reminders through adversity - even hurricanes, financial losses, etc. - to get us to thinking clearly and get back to depending upon Him and worshiping Him. Shock waves can be real good for the spirit even if harmful for the body. At times in my life I've lost money - lots of money - on investments, have been uninsured, have been unemployed, etc. - in some cases I could say it was beyond my control and others not. In fact some of my present investments are being adversely effected by the failure of the financial sector while others are not and some are even doing very well. The losses hurt but, fortunately, I didn't put everything into one nest egg. Not that long ago my present employer lost a lot of money in a spin off company that went bankrupt taking with it a large portion of my company stock I owned that had been used to fund the spin off. I didn't get to decide about the spin off nor get to demand someone else cover my loss later on when all the grand plans didn't work. Like the rest of the owners, I had to move on with re-building from the loss. When you make an investment and become a bond holder or stock holder you do have some culpability in your decision. It's not an investment in paper - well ideally not anyway - but a funding of capital for business to use to, hopefully, make money which you'll get to have a part of. But if they lose their shirt in the adventure so do you because you're one of owners. Like a lot of investors when something is hot there's a tendency to go for it thinking you're going to get rich. People can be talked into these deals for sure but, in the end, it's their own decision and with it comes risk. Those that didn't take the risk shouldn't have to cover the ones that did whether they be "little old windows ladies" or some big corporation. I don't demand that my neighbors take care of me through the force of law nor do I like it when they try to take what earned through the force of law to give it someone else. I might someday have to ask for help but I don't think I should be able to demand it through the government. No one owes someone else a living.