How many bad ideas can a legislative body ...

[Tilted]

come up with in a 12 month period?

Bankruptcy Mortgage Bill to Be Introduced in Senate

This is just horrible, and has the potential to be very damaging to the prospects for economic recovery.

On the one hand, we say that we want business activity - we want capital motion - we want credit to flow. On the other hand, we pursue policies that will have the precise effect of discouraging those things. Just the threat of this kind of legislation could have a significant paralyzing effect on those dynamics.

You can't continually compromise contract integrity, and erode confidence in the stability created by the reliable rule of law, and also expect business to make the decisions necessary to allow the economy to flourish, and the society to prosper. Given the stated objectives of this government, both in general and in specific, this legislative initiative is inane - simply inane. Seriously, how do people that are this oblivious to the functioning of the real-world, manage to get their shoes and ties tied each morning?

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not sure if you were around last fall, but I introduced a plan that would create a $50,000 credit on the lowest appraised 20,000,000 owner occupied homes in the US that would last as long as the monthly payment ate it up.
1, 2, maybe 3 years.

$1 trillion.

It would instantly fix THE problem of mortgages not being paid. It would free up those dollars from people that were making their payments to spend or save as they see fit. And it would put the banks and business in the position they NEED to be in; competing for dollar.

Wold you know not one member of congress or the banks contact me about this?

Whatever issues people would have with the idea, it has the elegant feature of bailout the PEOPLE and addressing the actual problem.

 

[Tilted]

I'm not sure if you were around last fall, but I introduced a plan that would create a $50,000 credit on the lowest appraised 20,000,000 owner occupied homes in the US that would last as long as the monthly payment ate it up.
1, 2, maybe 3 years.

$1 trillion.

It would instantly fix THE problem of mortgages not being paid. It would free up those dollars from people that were making their payments to spend or save as they see fit. And it would put the banks and business in the position they NEED to be in; competing for dollar.

Wold you know not one member of congress or the banks contact me about this?

Whatever issues people would have with the idea, it has the elegant feature of bailout the PEOPLE and addressing the actual problem.

I don't think I was around posting yet, but I remember seeing you reference it several times. Did you contact any members of Congress with your idea? They probably aren't searching somd.com searching for ideas to help fix problems.

It would be a whole lot better solution than abandoning the rule of law, which is the bedrock on which our prosperity has been built.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't think I was around posting yet, but I remember seeing you reference it several times. Did you contact any members of Congress with your idea? They probably aren't searching somd.com searching for ideas to help fix problems.

It would be a whole lot better solution than abandoning the rule of law, which is the bedrock on which our prosperity has been built.

I sent it to someone who knows someone...who probably had a 'delete' key on his computer.

It has the distinct short comings of being simple, effective, working for THE PEOPLE, hence the nation, and not given any power to congress people.

The whole bank thing takes the absurd premise that in an economy, the banks and insurers come first. That the great 'they' think that way is indicative of how deeply messed up things are. An economy is about producer and consumer, end of story. The money people FIND those transactions. Not the other way around. No one landed in America and set up a bank hoping for some producers and consumers to happen along.

No one moved west and opened up banks and insurance companies in hopes that some homesteaders might be interested in borrowing a few bucks.

Hell, I think Paulson reacted the way he did because the great 'they' were scared to death to be found out for what they really are; unnecessary gods.

 

[Tilted]

I sent it to someone who knows someone...who probably had a 'delete' key on his computer.

It has the distinct short comings of being simple, effective, working for THE PEOPLE, hence the nation, and not given any power to congress people.

The whole bank thing takes the absurd premise that in an economy, the banks and insurers come first. That the great 'they' think that way is indicative of how deeply messed up things are. An economy is about producer and consumer, end of story. The money people FIND those transactions. Not the other way around. No one landed in America and set up a bank hoping for some producers and consumers to happen along.

No one moved west and opened up banks and insurance companies in hopes that some homesteaders might be interested in borrowing a few bucks.

Hell, I think Paulson reacted the way he did because the great 'they' were scared to death to be found out for what they really are; unnecessary gods.

There's some good insight in there, in a way that I hadn't thought about it before.

Almost by definition, the 'money suppliers' are not the drivers of an economy. If they were, they wouldn't be in the business of supplying money, they would be in the business of using that money. As it is, they aren't interested in taking the risks and doing the work associated with creating new money, and seek only to extract the modest rewards associated with having money. In order to do that, they have to let others use that money.

I don't mean at all to diminish the importance or merit of banking - because there is a lot of work that gets done in that industry - it's just a fundamentally different kind of work. It isn't productivity, it facilitates productivity.

 

[Larry Gude]

There's some good insight in there, in a way that I hadn't thought about it before.

Almost by definition, the 'money suppliers' are not the drivers of an economy. If they were, they wouldn't be in the business of supplying money, they would be in the business of using that money. As it is, they aren't interested in taking the risks and doing the work associated with creating new money, and seek only to extract the modest rewards associated with having money. In order to do that, they have to let others use that money.

I don't mean at all to diminish the importance or merit of banking - because there is a lot of work that gets done in that industry - it's just a fundamentally different kind of work. It isn't productivity, it facilitates productivity.

The thing that gets missed is banking and insurance are...businesses. What do they do? Banks sell money. Insurers sell protection of money. When you give banks money, you've wiped out their motivation to do the one thing Bush and Obama say they want them to do; sell money (lend).

I sell flowers. If I have a bad year, I'll fix the problems, come up with a better plan and then you can loan me some money to go do my thing, presuming you agree my plan is worth your risk AND what I am paying you for your money. If you just GIVE me money and I've not had to address any of the problems, what's gonna happen?

We live in a giant confidence game where all the big players do the same thing as the small players, maximize good, limit bad, as best they can, yet on a grand scale and with powers unimaginable and unavailable to the little people; They've gotten enough people on board that what they do is irrelevant; sell money. Sell cars. Sell insurance. What matters is the number of people they can get on board their conspiracy, their confidence game to agree that they must not be allowed to fail and, even better, don't even have to fix what went wrong.

All of this would be on the upswing by now had they all had to pay the piper of which you speak, the reality Obama doesn't see or is ignoring. He, and Bush, had/have the power to suspend reality.

This is DANGEROUS.