PDA

View Full Version : Is Free Enterprise dying?



pooltchr
07-15-2008, 06:29 PM
My understanding of Free Enterprise is quite simply, offer a product or service. If people buy it, you succeed, if they don't, your business doesn't survive.

When did it become the job of the Federal Government to step in and bail out any big company that fails? I think we have to go back to Jimmy Carter, who engineered the first big bail-out for Chrysler. Now it looks like GM might be the next one to get in line for a taxpayer handout.

Mortgage companies and banks made some poor judgement loans to people who couldn't pay them back. Now the government is going to start bailing them out. Yet the bail out doesn't help the poor fools who borrowed more than they could afford...it helps the companies who were foolish enough to lend those poor fools.

While the failure of large companies might cause some short term problems with unemployment, in the long run, companies would be forced to operate in a more fiscally sound manner if they want to stay in business. Would the US be that much worse off if Chrysler had just failed? They probably would have been taken over by another car maker....oh, wait! That happened ANYWAY!!!

If you own an airline, I guess you can do whatever you want, and if you lose enough money, the government will take care of it. Where is the motivation for business to act like a business???

Why is Washington so eager and willing to jump in when a big business gets in trouble? Control and Power! Does anyone beside me get concerned when that much power over business is held in the hands of 535 lawyers turned politician?

They want to take over healthcare.
They want to take over the oil industry.
They want to take over the mortgage industry.
They want to control public education.

And all the Obama supporters seem to want the government to take care of them too. What happened to people being responsible for their own choices, and accepting the benefits or consequences that accompany those decisions?

Some posters get upset when the conservatives use the term "Socialism". Look around. It's happening right before your eyes!

Steve

mike60
07-15-2008, 06:44 PM
Steve, When you're right, you're right. And i don't mean right wing. This is so true. A lot of people seemed to hate FDR but he helped the people with jobs and hope.
The country is in need and the citizens are being fleeced by the oil companies etc. Boy am i getting tired of typing that phrase.

mike60

Gayle in MD
07-16-2008, 04:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 1980, Chrysler was only weeks from filing for bankruptcy by the time the government acted. If G.M. were to be pulled even further into trouble by a strike at Delphi, its biggest supplier, that shut G.M.'s own assembly lines and if it were truly tottering on the brink, the urge to keep it from tipping over might prove too great to resist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/automo...=rssnyt&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/automobiles/14bailout.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=6894a5fdb8e90424&ex=1302667200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) </div></div>\


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As Chrysler was tottering in 1979, President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic-controlled Congress cobbled together a rescue plan that included $1.5 billion in federal loan guarantees and a package of concessions worth several billion dollars more from others interested in Chrysler's survival, including its union, its bankers and its dealers.

The Carter administration also made a 25 percent tariff on imports of Japanese light trucks unavoidable building a protective wall around what were to become Detroit's hottest products: sport utility vehicles and minivans.

THE EFFORT WAS BI-PARTISAN and it continued into the 1980's. One of the first things the Reagan administration did upon taking office in 1981 was to press Japan to agree to so-called voluntary export restraints by its carmakers.

Today, the automakers' troubles are arguably on an even greater scale. General Motors lost more than $10 billion last year as the high cost of gasoline made consumers shun its large S.U.V.'s., further eroding its market share. This only added to G.M.'s structural problems, associated with the cost of providing pensions and health care to its army of retired workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/automo...=rssnyt&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/automobiles/14bailout.html?ex=1302667200&en=6894a5fdb8e90424&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

</div></div>

As I recall, it was a bi-partisan effort, and the NYT artical, linked here, seems to support my recollections.

The situation now with mortgage lenders, includes illegal activities. I thought I read that the State of Florida is sueing Country Wide Mortgage, for example. I happen to have a friend who worked for that bunch of crooks, in Florida, so I've heard the horror stories of how they operated first hand.

Regardless of what we face at the present, economically, our astronomical debts to foreign countries and financial institutions, a weakend dollar, Two Federal Reserve Chairmen, both Republican, cutting interest rates for years to put a rosey picture on the Economy....

The price of oil can only be reduced immediately if we release some of the oil from the Federal Emergency Oil Reserve, none of the other suggestions will bring any immediate lowering of the price of oil, Bush refuses to do so.

I believe I have posted information about the Republican "Enron Loophole." Also stated that the De-Regulation friendly Republican policies, would surely lead to a huge mess, given that corporations can not be trusted to regulate themselve, as we saw with Enron.

During testimony, Bernaki and Paulson, referred to the many investigations which are presently underway. This is just another example of what happens when we have a president who sends out the message to the powerful corporations in this country that only their bottom line, matters, and F. the American workers, as long as the rich are getting richer.

There is one good reason why the Reaganomics led to a recession. The trickle down theory doesn't work. The reason why is very simple. GREED!

When a government coludes with corporate power, against the best interests of the masses, it is called fascism, not socialism.

This mess didn't suddenly appear, it's been coming on for years. Democratics have only had a razor thin majority since 2006, and yes, Republicans have broken records with their filibusters and block voting. Working overtime to blame all the mess on the Dems, is a bit absurd, given the costs of this war, Republican tax cuts, during war time, a virtual invasion thanks to Reagan's Amnesty, and a President who lumps jobs such as rolling out hamburgers into the manufacturing sector.

Yesterday, Bush said the economy is growing. Translation, the rich are getting richer, the rest of the country is in a deepening recession. but then, there is always a deepening recession after Republicans have been in control for too damned long.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-16-2008, 07:00 PM
Were the mortgage companies and banks not "encouraged" to make home loans available to more "poor" Americans who otherwise might not be able to join the group of productive workers in the joy of home ownership? Who was it that put that kind of pressure on banks and mortgage companies.
This is what happens when the government tries to make things "fair".

As for your other point, since you blame Bush for everything that happens even though Congress has far more power, I would think you would give Carter credit for the bail-out as well.

Steve

mike60
07-16-2008, 09:00 PM
Steve, Who encouraged the lenders? No one claims that role now. The banks and lenders put their own necks on the line because like the rest of the suckers they believed the
prices would rise forever, or at least until they got their payoff. Really, the money and credit businesses built this house of cards on the backs of suckers that never even read the fine print. Not that a normal person would understand that legal double talk if they did read it. The government under the Cheney-Bush regime has never given a damn
about anyone not contributing big dollars to the slush funds and RNC.

The Chrysler bailout was just the model for the new crap. If it saved jobs then maybe a bail out but the way things work in the USA today the CEO's and Executives get their
multimillion checks and still fire the workers to "save money".

Next.

mike60

Gayle in MD
07-17-2008, 06:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Were the mortgage companies and banks not "encouraged" to make home loans available to more "poor" Americans who otherwise might not be able to join the group of productive workers in the joy of home ownership? <span style="color: #000066">Nobody told them to push people into mortgages that they knew full well they would not be able to manage when their rates went up. Nobody told them to approve unsecured loans. Nobody told them to push even people who could afford a conventional loan, toward no do, interest only loans. Predatory lending means just that. Bernanke and Paulson both stated yesterday to the Senate Investigating committee that there are many investigations underway. </span> Who was it that put that kind of pressure on banks and mortgage companies. <span style="color: #000066">It was a failure of oversight by this Republican led government, which had the most to gain from faulty rosey economic pictures. Bush touted the many people who bought homes after he took office, as something great that his administration had accomplished with all their so called free enterprise. The whole predatory mess happened under Greenspan's watch. A Republican. I suppose you think he never discussed the issue with Bush? I suppose you think that Bush wasn't friendly to the idea of making things look better than they really were? The same man who yesterday stated that the economy was growing? </span>
This is what happens when the government tries to make things "fair".

<span style="color: #000066">LOL, fair to whom? Fair to millionaires and billionaires, the ones who made all the profits from predatory lending practices, and have gone up the road with their pockets stuffed long ago from those mortgatges they bought and sold? It was a scam. Stop trying to turn it into some kind of Democratic result. The Dems had nothing to do with this. Does the time ever come when you hold this corrupt, incompetent administration accountable for ANYTHING at all that they have caused?</span>

As for your other point, since you blame Bush for everything that happens <span style="color: #000066">No, not eveything, just for what he is responsible for, and for the mess he has made. I suppose if there were a Democratic president right now, you wouldn't be holding him to account for the many disasters and failures that this incompetent POS has caused? </span> even though Congress has far more power, <span style="color: #000066">Correction, HAD more power before Bush and Cheney, and the lack of enough Democratic majority to hold them to account. </span> I would think you would give Carter credit for the bail-out as well.

Steve

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> THE EFFORT WAS BI-PARTISAN and it continued into the 1980's. One of the first things the Reagan administration did upon taking office in 1981 was to press Japan to agree to so-called voluntary export restraints by its carmakers.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">You were the one who tried to lay all the blame on Carter. I gave you the link to demonstrate that it was a bi-partisan effort to bail out Chrysler. Do You Ever READ anything???Stop accusing me of partisanship when you don't like the facts, and can't abide being called down on your BS!

Gayle in Md. </span>
</div></div>