The government is involved. Who should be helped?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>I read arguments that the government helps poor people or middle class people and these people should stand on their own two feet. The government helps rich people too. Super rich people. </p>

<p>Now with the mortgage crisis, who are we going to help? There is a small difference between the two parties. Both want government involvement. BOTH PARTIES. Any thought that argues the opposite needs to be rethought.</p>

<p>Who should be helped?</p>

<p>One party wants to help the borrowers. The other party wants to help the lenders. </p>

<p>[Parties</a> Differ on Whom Economic Aid Should Help - New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/business/28regulate.html?em&ex=1206936000&en=194bf6a358c0bf3d&ei=5087 ]Parties”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/business/28regulate.html?em&ex=1206936000&en=194bf6a358c0bf3d&ei=5087 )</p>

<p>"When an election campaign coincides with both a crisis on Wall Street and soaring home foreclosures across the country, the traditional ideological battles over “more government” or “less government” become blurred.</p>

<p>But while their philosophies might seem starkly different, in reality both parties have come to the conclusion that major government involvement is needed to rescue the financial and housing markets. </p>

<p>The ideological clashes are less about whether the government should intervene in the economy, and more about whom it should try to rescue. </p>

<p>“Democrats are more likely to propose protecting individuals, and Republicans are more likely to propose protecting markets,” said William A. Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group in Washington that champions smaller government. </p>

<p>Despite differing approaches, Democrats and Republicans may end up in a similar place because it will be difficult to protect individuals without protecting the markets, and the markets will remain fragile if individuals suffer huge declines in their personal wealth."</p>

2

<p>Republocrats - different sides of the same coin.</p>

3

<p>A very valuable coin, too.</p>

4

<p>There’s 4 options. You only hear about 3 of them. One is to bail out people. One is to bail out the investors (isn’t investing taking on risk???!!! nobody is entitle to profits). One is to do nothing more.</p>

<p>The fourth option is to take action that involves “striking the root [of evil]”. That’s not to say all evil comes from this one thing, but it is the underlying cause of this whole mess: the government. The government enforces the monopoly on currency of the Federal Reserve at the threat of force. It inflates the money supply with artificially low interest rates and everybody wo receives the money last (e.g. non-investors) essentially lose a lot of their money.</p>

<p>At the same time, this artificial inflation leads to mass speculation which explains how so many mistakes are made around the same time.</p>

<p>The solution? Get rid of the monopoly on currency. In the long run, get rid of the government (the monopoly on force).</p>

5

<p>An anarchist, interesting… haha.</p>

6

<p>From what I read (in the NY Times), poor and less educated folk were given loan documents without proper disclosure (there’s a federal term about the disclosure on loan terms in simple language, RSPA is it?). If this is the case, the federal law failed to protect some financially vulnerable people. The bailout money for these people should come from the seizure of the ill-gotten gains.
I also recall reading about illegal collusion between brokers, builders, and lenders to targets less-educated folk and convince they could afford home ownership when they could not.</p>

<p>On a side note, anyone else hear that the CEO of Countrywide Mortgage is going to step down with a $28 million severance package?</p>