PDA

View Full Version : Candidate's economic plans - who gets it?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

BeNotAfraid
March 27th, 2008, 09:24 PM
McCain on the economy Tuesday:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/25/mccain_to_address_housing_crisis_options/


"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers," McCain said. "Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy."

He said any government assistance to alleviate the housing crisis must be temporary and should be accompanied by reforms that aim to make the system more transparent and accountable to prevent a repeat of the crisis. He said no assistance should be given to speculators, or people who bought houses to rent or as second homes.

Asked whether the Fed went too far in helping Bear Stearns, McCain said: "It's a close call, but I don't think so." He said he doesn't support federal bailouts unless it has catastrophic effects on the entire financial marketplace and there were indications that a Bear Stearns failure would have rippled across the entire economy.

McCain also said people shouldn't be able to buy homes with little or no money down, such as the interest-only loans banks have given the last few years. Lenders, he said, "should never insure loans when the homeowner clearly does not have skin in the game."

Obama on the economy today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin


A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That's why we've put in place rules of the road: to make competition fair and open, and honest. We've done this not to stifle but rather to advance prosperity and liberty. As I said at Nasdaq last September, the core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well-being of American business (OOTC:ARBU) , its capital markets and its American people are aligned. I think that all of us here today would acknowledge that we've lost some of that sense of shared prosperity.

Over 2 million households are at risk of foreclosure. Millions more have seen their home values plunge. Many Americans are walking away from their homes, which hurts property values for entire neighborhoods and aggravates the credit crisis. To stabilize the housing market and to help bring the foreclosure crisis to an end, I've sponsored Senator Chris Dodd's legislation creating a new FHA housing security program, which will provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages. This will allow Americans facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates that they can afford. Now, Senator McCain argues that government should do nothing to protect borrowers and lenders who've made bad decisions or taken on excessive risk.
And on this point I agree. But the Dodd-Frank package is not a bailout for lenders or investors who gambled recklessly; they will take their losses. It's not a windfall for borrowers, as they will have to share any capital gain. Instead, it offers a responsible and fair way to help bring an end to the foreclosure crisis. It asks both sides to sacrifice, while preventing a long-term collapse that could have enormous ramifications for the most responsible lenders and borrowers, as well as the American people as a whole. That's what Senator McCain ignores. For homeowners who are victims of fraud, I've also proposed a $10 billion foreclosure prevention fund that would help them sell a home that is beyond their means or modify their loan to avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy. It's also time to amend our bankruptcy laws so families aren't forced to stick to the terms of a home loan that was predatory or unfair.

If you read the entire text, he talks about 'common' or 'shared' prosperity quite a bit.

Hillary Clinton on the economy today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20080325/bs_bw/mar2008db20080324129081

Over the past week, we've seen unprecedented action to maintain confidence in our credit markets and head off a crisis for Wall Street banks," Clinton said. "It's now time for equally aggressive action to help families avoid foreclosure and keep communities across this country from spiraling into recession."

Clinton argued that providing such FHA guarantees to backstop what would essentially be a private-sector auction would provide the best way of getting the frozen mortgage market unstuck and keeping people in their homes. But she also left open the possibility that the FHA may need to play a more active role in purchasing, restructuring, and reselling such underwater mortgages if providing guarantees to private-sector efforts proves not to be enough.

Clinton also argued that the government might eventually have to step in to directly buy up and refinance homes. While such moves would be temporary, she argued they may be necessary given the severity of the crisis now roiling the markets: "Just as it has in the past, this kind of temporary measure by the government could give our economy the boost it needs, and families the help they certainly need."

Such a system, she argued, could be designed to be self-financing over time. As with the Frank and Dodd proposals, the government would charge risk-adjusted fees to compensate for its expanded role. It would retain an equity kicker in the refinanced property so that it would pocket some of the gain when the price of a refinanced house were eventually to rise. As a result, she argues, there would be no cost to taxpayers over the long run.

Whose plan to you think would best help the economy--and how much of an impact will that even have?

I'm leaning towards McCain--mostly because it just seems that capitalism works best when we leave it alone. You can't have a hybrid system. He seems to be saying we need to take the most minimal action we can to keep huge banks from collapsing, but then back off. What do you guys think?

I'm all 67X
March 27th, 2008, 09:32 PM
None will make an ounce of difference. When will we learn that based on history? Things go as they go, the president can't do much about it as he is a bought suit.

Sorry, was that cynical? :heh

Sister-N-Christ
March 28th, 2008, 02:52 AM
67X, I think it was realistic. The harsh truth is that until something is done about the outrageous gas prices, the entire economy is going to falter. It is just plain common sense. If I have to spens double to fill up my gas tank, then that means less money to spend on other things. Times that by about 250 million people.

BeNotAfraid
March 28th, 2008, 08:49 AM
Yes, but I think ultimately two of the plans will prolong this thing and make it more painful than it has to be. At least if we let things take their natural course, we will recover much sooner than we would with artificial measures to "fix" things.

Spending more money we don't have is going to make things worse, and Americans don't have the money to pony up in new taxes right now.

Issachar
March 28th, 2008, 09:07 AM
McCain is more correct than the other candidates on economy. However, he is talking "what should be". He does not have the power to change things to "what should be". No president has for nearly a century; since the establishment of the central bank. The central bank, known as the federal reserve bank in the US, is what controls the economy and it (the central bank) is a private entity. The US Constitution, Article I; Sec.8 states that Congress (we the people) should control the value of money and it also says that no state can make anything legal tender other than gold and silver coin. So until the central bank is gone, a president cannot control the economy. Because it is controlled by private individuals who are far removed from the public view, the public has no say in it. If the fed wants to raise of lower rates rather than let it be driven by a free market, they will. No one will change their mind; no one can change their mind. There is no debate. There is no vote. When folks realize just how the economy is controlled, they will quit looking to public officials to "do something about it". 1913 was a VERY pivotal point for the United States.

Issachar

I'm all 67X
March 28th, 2008, 09:10 AM
McCain is more correct than the other candidates on economy. However, he is talking "what should be". He does not have the power to change things to "what should be". No president has for nearly a century; since the establishment of the central bank. The central bank, known as the federal reserve bank in the US, is what controls the economy and it (the central bank) is a private entity. The US Constitution, Article I; Sec.8 states that Congress (we the people) should control the value of money and it also says that no state can make anything legal tender other than gold and silver coin. So until the central bank is gone, a president cannot control the economy. Because it is controlled by private individuals who are far removed from the public view, the public has no say in it. If the fed wants to raise of lower rates rather than let it be driven by a free market, they will. No one will change their mind; no one can change their mind. There is no debate. There is no vote. When folks realize just how the economy is controlled, they will quit looking to public officials to "do something about it". 1913 was a VERY pivotal point for the United States.

Issachar

BINGO! "what should be's" are nothing but empty words. You, sir, get it as far as I am concerned.
:thumb:thumb

BeNotAfraid
March 28th, 2008, 02:08 PM
McCain is more correct than the other candidates on economy. However, he is talking "what should be". He does not have the power to change things to "what should be". No president has for nearly a century; since the establishment of the central bank. The central bank, known as the federal reserve bank in the US, is what controls the economy and it (the central bank) is a private entity. The US Constitution, Article I; Sec.8 states that Congress (we the people) should control the value of money and it also says that no state can make anything legal tender other than gold and silver coin. So until the central bank is gone, a president cannot control the economy. Because it is controlled by private individuals who are far removed from the public view, the public has no say in it. If the fed wants to raise of lower rates rather than let it be driven by a free market, they will. No one will change their mind; no one can change their mind. There is no debate. There is no vote. When folks realize just how the economy is controlled, they will quit looking to public officials to "do something about it". 1913 was a VERY pivotal point for the United States.

Issachar

So a president would need to get rid of the Fed and give that power to Congress? How would that be done? I don't understand how we are allowing this to happen if it is unconstitional :idunno. And darn it, I don't trust Congress with our economy either.

Issachar
March 28th, 2008, 11:17 PM
So a president would need to get rid of the Fed and give that power to Congress? How would that be done? I don't understand how we are allowing this to happen if it is unconstitional . And darn it, I don't trust Congress with our economy either. Some interesting questions BNA. I don't know about the president, but yes, someone would have to get rid of the Fed and return that power to Congress. "That power" is this:

Article I. Sec. 8. The Congress shall have Power .... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; ...

Article I. Sec. 10. No State shall .... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...

We can see in the latter, that the only Constitutionally permissable thing that is legal tender is gold and silver coin. Today, US citizens are so used to the fiat system we have that if someone acquires gold or silver they're a bit marginalized; seen as wackos. Amazing isn't it?

Notice in the Sec. 8 quote that it is Congress (we the people via representatives) that is supposed to have the power to coin money (notice the word "coin", not print) AND to regulate the value of it. Regulating the value of it includes setting of interest rates. As I posted earlier, that responsibility has been handed off to a group of private individuals that are the central bank; i.e. Federal Reserve, a name chosen to give the illusion that it is a part of the federal government when it isn't and it is not a reserve.

You ask how this could be reversed and returned to the Congress. In short; it can't. The United States is in such heavy debt to the fed.

Proverbs 22:7 *¶The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.

You also say that you don't understand how we are allowing this to happen if it is unconstitutional. One of the biggest things is ignorance. That is not a degrogatory term as some have used it. It simply means lacking in knowledge about something which makes all of us ignorant about something. The vast majority of folk have no clue this is the case. A large part of that majority doesn't want to hear it or think about it. As was true in Ancient Rome, as long as a populace is fed and entertained, they care not what their leaders do.

Issachar

J.J.
March 29th, 2008, 02:54 AM
None of the above, we're doomed.:ohno

Issachar
March 29th, 2008, 07:59 AM
J.J., we're not doomed. Allow me to explain. Nations come and go. They never decide to go. It is something that happens because of the sin nature that man is born with. Kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall. Same reason. We, as believers in our Lord, Jesus Christ, are separate from all that. Those that have obtained mercy, the body of Christ, are a nation; an holy nation ... not geographically for we are spread over the whole earth ... we have our own government; Jesus.

1 Peter 2:9 *But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

So for us believers, there is no gloom. We have the inheritance of eternal life. As stated in Nehemiah 8:10, The joy of the Lord is our strength.

So yes, while a nation or an economy or a kingdom may be doomed, we are not.

Habakkuk 3:
17 *Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls:
18 *Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.
19 *The LORD God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds' feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places.

We can lose all worldly things; carnal things ... but being in Christ, we lose nothing that matters. :hat

Issachar