I'm a Conservative and I Approve Regulating
 

i'll be sending a tea bag to DC next month, and i'd like to send a letter w/ recommendations of how to help bring us out of the recession as well as promote economic health.

i've got some ideas and would like to get yours as well before it is finalized and perhaps sent as a widespread email. maybe someone like theholycow could help w/ the tech part of that.

regulating...

i believe proof of income and percentages based on THAT should dictate any and all loans. no more than 25-35% on a mortgage, 10% on a car loan, etc. if the requirements cannot be met, NO LOAN! this will protect the consumer, the banks, and the fed govt!!! destimulation is a concern, but a necessary evil if and when weak businesses close.

how about business education a required course at every level of school? yes, elementary kids can learn basic financial and money handling skills. weighing out wants and needs should be a focus as well. SAVING is the key, not spending, especially that of credit.

welfare recipients should be required to attend the same type of class AND be given a plan to get off of govt assistance. w/ the exception of disabilities and such, they should have voting rights revoked(and other penalties) after a predetermined time has expired.

we are rewarding irresponsible behavior, especially that of consuming and living off the govt(waiting for bailout). even european nations do not like what we are doing(stimulus) and reported as believing it will increase inflation. THAT BTW is what seperates this recession from the recent two(lower inflation is helping greatly).

basic DIY stuff should be encouraged as well as non-profit help(churches and such). some churches have a "garage" day to help single moms w/ free labor on auto work for example.

Rush said it best(paraphrasing)...

conservatives love all people. but, sometimes you have to let them fail in order to learn. this is the land of opportunity not entitlements!

Build my hybrid design. You have 130+ million cars to replace. The fuel savings will pay for the cars. OPEC dies as the design spreads worldwide. Global emissions shrink for the first time in a century.

Take the oil import savings and use the same design for wind, tidal, and solar systems, as well as wave, and gulf stream systems. Combine this with solar farms and eliminate oil consumption altogether.

Millions of employed, total shift of the balance of world economic power and the environment is saved.

regards
gary

As a libertarian, I'm torn on this. Obviously, libertarians are about as anti-regulation as you can get. However, it seems that even some huge companies don't seem to have the intelligence to convert the thriving (during "boom" economies) to surviving (during recessions).

I think in retrospect, we all understand that housing costs could not be sustained at 8% - 10% increases per year. We also understand that if the financially savvy amongst us get mortgages at 6%, and the banks only offer 9% to the less-financially-savvy, then how could they NOT drive the poor into bankruptcy & foreclosure? (the aforementioned "we" refers to us in society who have brains, not necessarily the CEOs of the financial institutions, in whom I have no confidence whatsoever).

So why is something that was obvious to everyone else, not obvious to these geniuses? There are a few contributing factors I'm sure, including "innocent" factors (like being driven by quarter-by-quarter results instead of long-term results), but also several stupid things like shortsightedness and ignorance.

Alright, so what do we do about it? It seems that these huge financial institutions made several stupid decisions, but how do you protect someone from their own stupidity?

I would say that any company which makes a contract, for instance a bank that makes a mortgage to a low-income individual, should be able to fulfill that contract even in the face of adverse conditions. If these huge companies are all dragged down to bankruptcy because of economic conditions which could have been foreseen, they deserve the consequences (like going out of business). But their inability to hold their end of their contracts should NOT affect the other parties to the contract or the rest of the country.

So my off-the-cuff solution is this: If your company requires governmental assistance (i.e. the FDIC has to pay claims, or your company requires a governmental bailout, etc.), your CEO/CFO/Chairman/Board all go to jail for life. This would make CEOs mindful of the consequences of short-sighted decisions, and make companies only sign contracts (mortgages) which they can fulfill even when economic conditions will change. It also nicely fulfills the "your stupid actions deserve consequences" sense of responsibility that a Libertarian believes in. And in addition, since banks will now be more careful about the loans they make, we won't see real estate prices grow to where they are unaffordable and unsustainable.

Whaddya think?

-Bob C.

good points Bob. the libertarian view, much like that of conservatism, dictates that our economic issues work themselves out, with as little govt interference as possible.

let them go bankrupt or out of business. other, stronger companies will step in to fill the void. our govt forced a great many of these illadvised loans. granted, corps went along for the ride.

banks, auto makers, electronics manufaturers, etc will all have to cut back as sales(or loans) never reach astronomical number again. but this will make for stronger, longer economic health.

and that goes for govt as well. why is florida REALLY struggling? not because of the bad times, but because a prudent budget was not implemented during the good times. what happens to individuals that do not save for a crisis? many are living it!

what about reward-type legislation? you know, like tax credits for hybids. give tax credits and such for being responsible. paying a mortgage on time, not smoking, attending a health club, etc could be incentives.

Forced?

pushed for? legislated? asked for w/out asking(telling)? promoted equal opportunity housing? a rose by any other name...

what loan amount someone is APPROVED for is not relevant, it is what that individual(s) can afford. my perfect credit would allow me to buy SO MUCH more than i could repay.

1. We......each and all of us need to get off our collective butts and DO something. Bowtieguy, finalize your thoughts and send em on.
All we need to do is talk to new faces.

2. The reason we don't already have a flat tax or any other improvements to the system is Congress.
The power Congress gets is from spending money and controlling people with their ability to make law and regulation. Obviously, they will never change the system.....unless the ground swell of public awareness makes them follow Jessie Unruh's law.
So, follow #1.

3. theholycow,
Yes. Forced.
Here is your source. https://www.heritage.org/
You can double check. The information is hidden, in plain sight, in the drive-by liberal media.

4. R.I.D.E.
Give us a list of the names of major auto manufacturers you submitted your plans to, and their response.
Catty? Hell yes.
I knew a man who said he watched them put the 'pill' into the empty gas tank of a Jeep and then fill it with water, start it and run it.....all back in the 1940's.
Then he forgot about it and only recalled it as an amusing story, through the years? Great story line for "Who Killed Roger Rabbit" but I simply do not believe a story when it is not followed by some kind of proof, like your patent.

thanks Shatto for the link. i found this there...

https://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cfm

if this isn't recruiting voters, immorally i might add, then i don't know what is! remember Franklin's quote on voting and money?

but to this member, it's not political in nature. most important, it is crafting a plan for economic failure, PERIOD!

This is why I hold the belief that anyone who receives money from the government should be ineligible to vote. Otherwise you have a conflict of interest.

-BC

I remember The Heritage Foundation having something on the ballot in my state a couple elections back. It was a big wasteful project that served no purpose other than to cause in increase in debt and an increase in taxes. I'm not a fan.

As for the government forcing bad loans, I wouldn't mind a short explanation of what they did so I know what I'm looking for. The only thing I can think of is that they allowed the bad loans, and by doing so caused banks to need to do it to stay competitive.