I want opinions.

[Zounds]

I believe the economy will recover, but we probably wont begin to see any real gains until early next year. Once the "fiscal cliff" gets taken care of, and the budget sequestration cuts are nullified, we will see some gains. In the next 2 months however, you are going to see Wall Street and big banks have some restraint until the spending limit is increased. Having a lame duck congress for 2 months doesnt help with speculators either. I'd expect real economic gains next year though.

As someone who has worked on financial statemens and taxes for dozens of businesses, I have yet to see a business that has failed or succeeded because of the government. I think Presidents get too much credit/blame for the economy. The amount of businesses actually effected by goverment is so small and in niche makets. I believe this economy will turn itself around no matter who was elected president.

[Dolphins9954]

I believe the economy will recover, but we probably wont begin to see any real gains until early next year. Once the "fiscal cliff" gets taken care of, and the budget sequestration cuts are nullified, we will see some gains. In the next 2 months however, you are going to see Wall Street and big banks have some restraint until the spending limit is increased. Having a lame duck congress for 2 months doesnt help with speculators either. I'd expect real economic gains next year though.

As someone who has worked on financial statemens and taxes for dozens of businesses, I have yet to see a business that has failed or succeeded because of the government. I think Presidents get too much credit/blame for the economy. The amount of businesses actually effected by goverment is so small and in niche makets. I believe this economy will turn itself around no matter who was elected president.

I think the government played a role in the housing bubble and crash. Which lead to plenty of businesses going under. Especially in construction. I do agree about the credit/blame part. At the same time government does set policies that could harm or help business growth. Fiscal and monetary policies do effect the economy.

[Zounds]

I think the government played a role in the housing bubble and crash. Which lead to plenty of businesses going under. Especially in construction. I do agree about the credit/blame part. At the same time government does set policies that could harm or help business growth. Fiscal and monetary policies do effect the economy.

Well I'd have to disagree with your first sentence. Many people point to the Community Reinvestment Act as forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it. I call BS on that. Banks weren't forced to do anything but localize thier deposits. Banks took a big risk and paid the price. Banks knew what the consequences were, but in a highly competitive market which was incentivised by huge and unnessecary bonuses, the banks took big risks and lost. The government didnt force them to take unnecessary risks. The financial instruments the banks were using, like adjustable rate mortgages, were intentionally designed to get people into a mortgage who normally wouldnt be able to get one. I'd point to people like Alan Greenspan before I ever would consider government.

[Eshlemon]

Freidman's right, a decrease in government spending and employment and you have growth in the private sector.

Don't know if anything different will come out of Berngari from Congress as they will cuss and fuss but have no balls to do anything over it...from the WH nothing different except possibly the deflection of blame to the the State Department and kill any chance for Hilary in 2016.

[phinfan3411]

Well I'd have to disagree with your first sentence. Many people point to the Community Reinvestment Act as forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it. I call BS on that. Banks weren't forced to do anything but localize thier deposits. Banks took a big risk and paid the price. Banks knew what the consequences were, but in a highly competitive market which was incentivised by huge and unnessecary bonuses, the banks took big risks and lost. The government didnt force them to take unnecessary risks. The financial instruments the banks were using, like adjustable rate mortgages, were intentionally designed to get people into a mortgage who normally wouldnt be able to get one. I'd point to people like Alan Greenspan before I ever would consider government.

I would agree with you on the items like adjustable rate mortgages, but I have never heard that explanation for the CRA, would you mind providing a link to a source for that.

[Buddy]

Why do some think the economy is gonna get better? Some people are drinking the Kool-Aid, most of whom have no idea how the economy works. I seriously doubt that the economy recovers significantly in the next four years and would not be surprised to see it get much worse. You can't borrow and spend yourself out of a recession. However, a lot of people will still buy into the notion that Obama has not had enough time to fix what mean, old, nasty Bush messed up. Truthfully, Romney/Ryan would not have been much better but they may have slowed the bleeding. Apparently, America will not get its financial house in order until it is absolutely forced to do so. This will come with great pain and suffering for those dependent upon the government.

Do you think the deficit will decline? The deficit will not get any better but it may not have the ridiculous trajectory it once did. However, it will continue to grow and should eclipse $20 to $22 trillion by the end of Obama's term or even $25 if the crap really hits the fan. I don't think that it will be possible to recover from this type of debt without major spending cuts that will crush the lower class as they will continue to become more and more dependent upon the goverment.

What will happen to Obama if the Bengahzi (sp?) situation is ****ed up? We pretty much know it was ****ed up then covered up...no one apparently cares any more. Free stuff trumps treason apparently. Nixon resigned for less. This is one place where I can truthfully say that if you bought what Obama has been saying then you are a straight up homer and have no objectivity whatsoever. If other things were of greater value than this, fine, but at least call it what it was. This coverup was calculated and spun from the instant it occurred...from including the words "act of terror" in the initial response while in no way stating that it was an act of terror to sending the most mixed of messages from the State Department and stonewalling all of the real-time information that they had. The fact is, 47% of the people were going to vote for him even if he slaughtered babies on the Whitehouse lawn. Romney was right about that...he shouldn't have ever said it out loud but he was right.

[Buddy]

Well I'd have to disagree with your first sentence. Many people point to the Community Reinvestment Act as forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it. I call BS on that. Banks weren't forced to do anything but localize thier deposits. Banks took a big risk and paid the price. Banks knew what the consequences were, but in a highly competitive market which was incentivised by huge and unnessecary bonuses, the banks took big risks and lost. The government didnt force them to take unnecessary risks. The financial instruments the banks were using, like adjustable rate mortgages, were intentionally designed to get people into a mortgage who normally wouldnt be able to get one. I'd point to people like Alan Greenspan before I ever would consider government.

That is where you are wrong, my friend. Glass-Steagal was repealed in conjunction with the CRA and modifications at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as reductions in the interest rates specifically to increase minority ownership of homes. It allowed mortgages that never should have been issued to be bought by Fannie and Freddie and bundled with hundreds of other morgages and sold to the investment firms with a AAA rating which then sold derivatives of the mortgage backed securities. Barney Frank himself told the CEO's of a lot of the banks who predicted the eventual outcome not to worry about it because the Federal Government had their backs. The bailouts were guaranteed ten pkus years before they ever came to fruition. Read Reckless Endangerment by Gretchen Morgenson and All the Devils Are Here by Bethany McLean for a pretty good idea of what actually happened. Needless to say, Clinton, Bush, Greenspan, James Johnson (Fannie Mae), Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and a host of other EVIL SOBs sold their souls to the devil and our economy with it. You don't have to believe me...please, read the books as well as any others you can get your hands on regarding the collapse of the housing market.

[Zounds]

That is where you are wrong, my friend. Glass-Steagal was repealed in conjunction with the CRA and modifications at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as reductions in the interest rates specifically to increase minority ownership of homes. It allowed mortgages that never should have been issued to be bought by Fannie and Freddie and bundled with hundreds of other morgages and sold to the investment firms with a AAA rating which then sold derivatives of the mortgage backed securities. Barney Frank himself told the CEO's of a lot of the banks who predicted the eventual outcome not to worry about it because the Federal Government had their backs. The bailouts were guaranteed ten pkus years before they ever came to fruition. Read Reckless Endangerment by Gretchen Morgenson and All the Devils Are Here by Bethany McLean for a pretty good idea of what actually happened. Needless to say, Clinton, Bush, Greenspan, James Johnson (Fannie Mae), Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and a host of other EVIL SOBs sold their souls to the devil and our economy with it. You don't have to believe me...please, read the books as well as any others you can get your hands on regarding the collapse of the housing market.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but just because the government created conditions that enabled the banks to take advantage doesn't mean the banks had to make unnecessary risks. These banks engaged in deceptive practices, approved loans to people who were at high risk of default, and illegally foreclosed on mortgages. Now I know what you are saying - that the government created the conditions for this to happen, but that doesn't mean the banks had to do it. Nobody forced the banks to lend to these people, and nobody told the banks to mislead these home buyers. That's like holding the government responsible for murder because they legalized guns. Just because the conditions are there doesn't mean you have to do it.

[Buddy]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but just because the government created conditions that enabled the banks to take advantage doesn't mean the banks had to make unnecessary risks. These banks engaged in deceptive practices, approved loans to people who were at high risk of default, and illegally foreclosed on mortgages. Now I know what you are saying - that the government created the conditions for this to happen, but that doesn't mean the banks had to do it. Nobody forced the banks to lend to these people, and nobody told the banks to mislead these home buyers. That's like holding the government responsible for murder because they legalized guns. Just because the conditions are there doesn't mean you have to do it.

Oh, make no mistake, the banks and investment firms are very much to blame as well as the politicians in addition to the American public buying a bunch of houses they couldn't afford and refinancing them into oblivion. Nevertheless, the politicians set the stage and then cashed in on the collapse on back side of the crash. It just further supports my assertion that the government should almost never tinker with the economy.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2