What Is Next For The Point?

There are other threads, you know.

Especially considering this is a pretty important topic matter (the bailout) that'll affect us one way or another for awhile.

Kevinj said:
Not only are these two (the two that actually could win) polar opposites of one another, they clearly dislike one another...

I totally disagree, on both points. The differences in their policy are sometimes not that different, but considered in an aggregate fashion I suppose you could see a more clear difference. As for them not liking each other, what does that even mean, and based on what? They seem to be relatively polite to each other, and as senators, they frankly need each other to get anything done.

That column on CNN that Walt linked to was an interesting take on things. I think it brings up the question that no one has answered, describing the real risk of taking of the taxpayers buying these bad loans. Typically when something like that goes on, one bank buys them at a fraction of the cost. If that doesn't happen in the private sector, then how is it any better to do so with public funds?

Economists still seem too split on this for me to have an opinion. Not that it matters I suppose, since it's now law. Funny though how Wall Street seems indifferent, unless they have a hell of a run in the last hour.

bholcomb said:
Especially considering this is a pretty important topic matter (the bailout) that'll affect us one way or another for awhile.

...and ultimately the effects of this current financial situation have a serious effect on "What Is Next For The Point" ;)

I think it has perfect relevance as to "What is Next For The Point". Certainly financial matters and political stories affect the "majority" of our pocketbooks and thus might have an impact on the capital expenditures slated at Cedar Point.

Of course some of us might not care and that is respectful that they simply move on and post to another topic. Then again one would question if that were the case why they feel the need to post it in their signature lines.

Josh you beat me to it!

Jeff said:

Funny though how Wall Street seems indifferent, unless they have a hell of a run in the last hour.

The wild stock ride over the last couple of weeks seems to have more to do with emotion than anything.

CPboy77 said:
I hate discussing politics on a non political board. Especially when people are making comments that they have no business making.

a.) If you don't want politics involved, you shouldn't have a political avatar. Double standard, my man.

b.) Just because someone's comments aren't in line with what you may believe, politically, doesn't mean they have no business making them.

And the failure begins to spread.

News Link

So, the bailout has been passed. I see no balloons, parade, or the best day the stock market has ever had....that must mean something.

The very fact that the party lines are still so divided on this package, but passed it anyway, because of a few sweetners added, like the credits for film producers, race track owners, and wooden arrows...tells me that this, like the economic stimulus package, will be one more failure to add to the list. Sure, things might improve in short-term, but just because Congress bailed out the bad debt doesn't mean the market is suddenly going to turnaround.

Oh, and Cpboy77, you're not in charge of anything. Period. Telling other people what their business should or should not be, is a one-way ticket to being permanently discredited.

Jeff said:
So you're one of the people who accuses the Dems of wanting to control everything, big government, etc., and yet the regulations governing dozens of industries were dismantled primarily by Republican legislators, including those that governed the financial sector. You can't have it both ways, which is exactly why making it about one party or the other is non-productive.

You totally ignore the fact that it was a government mandate pushed by Democrats that forced banks to lend to people that had no business borrowing to buy a house in the first place. Google "Community Reinvestment Act." It was started during the Carter administration and expanded to even lower income brackets under Clinton. The intent was to provide more "affordable" housing. The result was housing prices rising far faster than the rate of inflation. Barack Obama's law firm sued Citi because they were not issuing enough subprime loans. People blaming Bush for this mess should really look a little deeper and stop drinking the kool-aid. Where Bush and these congresses have gone wrong is spending too much themselves with no way to pay for it. That has hurt the strength of our dollar and caused some additional pain like higher gas prices.

I don't want more regulation. I was just pointing out to people blaming Bush and Republicans that they brought up the problems with Fannie and Freddie in 2004 and 2005 and were ridiculed by Democrats. I want government to keep their nose out of the markets and other places where they don't belong. Period. I feel this way about stupid ideas like the Community Reinvestment Act AND this ridiculous bailout. I wish McCain would have voted against it and I'd feel a lot more comfortable voting for him if he did. They're trying to play god against the markets and they are going to lose. Today, the bailout goes through and stocks continue to fall. I can't say I'm surprised. Who would want to invest in a socialist nation anyway? This bailout might temporarily prop up the housing market, but eventually, they will come back in line with their historic (pre-1995 expansion of the CRA) growth rates and this 700 billion probably won't be repaid, banks burried in sub-prime loans will probably still fail, and people on Main Street will still suffer.

Congress had a Republican majority the bulk of the Clinton administration... how can you pin it on the Democrats? A cleverly edited YouTube video and your word makes it all true? With it generally true for decades that no one party controlled both Congress and the White House, it's absurd to try and pin legislative faults on either party.

Obama did not own a law firm. The firm he worked for sued Citi on behalf of a client who believed that it was denying loans to African Americans, and he was a junior attorney in the case who has almost no impact on it. Google it, it's all out there. That wasn't forcing them to loan money to anyone, it was spanking them for discrimination. There was no national campaign to force them to loan money as you imply.

If you want to play sound-bite politics, you should look into the facts before regurgitating half-truths.

I'm skeptical that the bailout will do anything either.

When McCain announced his V.P. pick, it was almost enough to make me switch my vote. And then I found out it was the wrong Palin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos

*Not a Rick Roll.

Get back to the subjectand start your arguments on a new thread please :)

Sure, Republicans controlled the congress for the bulk of the Clinton Administration, but his modifications to the CRA regulations were passed by the 103rd congress when Democrats controlled both houses. Additionally, when the original legislation was passed in the 70s, Democrats controlled congress (95th). I guess this is one of those times you were referring to when you said it might not be such a bad thing that the legislative branch and the executive branch are usually controlled by different parties because it keeps anything too drastic in either direction (like the CRA) from going through.

Unfortunately, Democrats also controlled the congress too when Bush and McCain tried to tighten up on Fannie and Freddie in 2004 and 2005. Good thing we brought down the entire economy for "diversity" and "political correctness."

And you won't respond at all to my sound-bite comment. Why is that?

Draeger pointed this out on his blog, but this is the best account I've seen yet on why it's stupid to pin something this big and this complex on either party. It tells a very different story than what you try to explain.

Seriously, I don't understand why you're so anxious to compartmentalize everything into black and white or repeat the outright fabrications that someone spoon feeds you (like the "Obama v. Citi" nonsense). If it's to plug your favorite candidate, that's super, but it's not going to help him win.

By the way, here's a fascinating account of what the VP candidates got wrong in their debate.

...So the closest thing I've seen relating to Cedar Point on this page is mention of a "wild stock ride". How wonderful.

^ Who cares. There are other things in life besides Cedar Point that happen to affect us all. When the admins of the site are participating in the conversation, don't you think its out of line to try and bring it back "on topic"?

The mere fact of the matter is, the topic of this thread has become exactly what is being discussed right now. If you don't like it, there's an "X" at the top of your browser, or a back button, if you so desire.

I was going to stay out of this topic, but now that they've passed the bailout, I thought I'd come back and read it. They just don't get it. I officially hate the one party system. Then again, even the founders knew that governments slowly gain more power over time. That's why it's sad to see the people more afraid of the government than vice versa. Oh well, it's only a matter of time before the second amendment is repealed for "national security purposes." Don't label me a conspiracy nut for saying this, but I encourage everyone to own at least one high capacity semi-automatic weapon, and do not ever give it up under any circumstances. When the day comes and the government begins to confiscate our arms - We know what has to be done.

Perhaps you are right that in my attempt to support the party that I see as the lesser of two evils, I miss the real point that neither one is a great option. I can agree with that. Like I said, I'm pissed that McCain supported this bailout. Democrats have always been the big government, big spending party. Republicans of late have been exactly the same. They differ on social issues like abortion, gun control, etc, but those don't get me all worked up like fiscal policies to be honest.

Having said that, I don't really think it's that much of a stretch to think that government (pick your party or your instance of meddling) played a major role in causing these problems. I saw a list last night that made a lot of sense, listing the causes of these problems:

5.) Community Reinvestment Act - encouraged lending to people that maybe shouldn't have been lent to.
4.) The Tax Code - the mortgage tax deduction and exemptions on capital gains taxes for real estate up to 500k are an example of government tipping the scales in favor of a person buying a house.
3.) Ratings Agencies - government anointed, supposedly credible outfits like S&P and Moody's rating crappy mortgage debt as "AAA."
2.) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - government sponsored enterprises using money borrowed from the government at a lower rate than anyone else could attain, buying crappy mortgages, packaging them up, and then selling them to Wall Street. The more they sold, the bigger the bonus of Fannie and Freddie execs.
1.) Easy Money - Greenspan gets credit for flooding the economy with easy money after 9/11 to get things singing again, but he kept rates too low for too long, encouraging people to borrow too much at these low rates as if they'd never go back up.

The point is, no matter who or what you choose to blame, you can't solve a problem that was caused by a government created environment of too much easy money and easy credit with more easy money and easy credit.

Someone else described the bailout as taking buckets of water out of one side of a lake and then walking around to the other side and pouring those same buckets in there. You're taking money from one part of the economy and pouring into another part. The net result is nothing has changed. The only way this will work itself out is for housing prices to correct, some banks to fail, people swallow their bitter pill, learn from it, and move on. I've got to admit - Ron Paul has it right and I wish he was the Republican nominee.

I totally agree that the government caused this by pumping in too much credit. They should have just let the free market take it's course. But instead, if anything looks slightly wrong, the Fed decides to take control and dish out artificially low interest rates. I swear, politicians are either stupid or willingly ignorant for personal gain, probably some of both. Amen to Ron Paul by the way. But I do see gun control as more than a social issue, due to the fact that it gives us the right to protect our life, liberty, and property; not to mention it enables us to at least *attempt* at keeping a tyrannic government under control.