[patm]

Since so many people are so upset by how the Obama administration is dealing with the ecomomic crises, I wonder what you think "should" be done, and also, what do you think a Republican adminstration would be doing? I don't really know any of the answers myself, but somehow I see them bailing out big business - in fact, I bet the oil companies would be getting some money, and probably giving out more actual money to people (although that didn't work the 2 times it happned before) and cutting taxes somehow(which wouldnt' do anything for any immediate relief) But for those of you who either think like Republicans, or just hate what is happening now - what do you think SHOULD be happening?

 

[Bob Pr.]

Not a Republican but my guess is pretty solidly along these lines:

-- Cut taxes, especially for the wealthy (so something trickles down)

-- Cut entitlement & social programs -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemplyment, Head Start, etc.

-- Bail out large banks & corporations

 

[Jefferson'n'Ted]

Well, I'm not really a Republican, I am more of a conservative Independent. So I think I would be just as unhappy with a Republican administration right now. I tend to think that whichever party won, the powers that be would be reacting in similar fashion--not identical but similar--trying their best to stabilize the economy. I'm just not sure if anyone can do that.
I think that we are all worried about the future and our children and grandchildren's futures, and no one really knows at this point what more failures will do to all of us.
I certainly don't know what will work. I wish I did.

 

[amazongold]

Not a Republican but my guess is pretty solidly along these lines:

-- Cut taxes, especially for the wealthy (so something trickles down)

-- Cut entitlement & social programs -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemplyment, Head Start, etc.

-- Bail out large banks & corporations

A whole lot of senior citizens would be homeless and starving, and doing without medical care and medications, if that were to happen! And what would happen to all the people out of work?

Without SS and unemployment, Bill and I would be begging on street corners, right along with a few million others.

 

[patm]

A whole lot of senior citizens would be homeless and starving, and doing without medical care and medications, if that were to happen! And what would happen to all the people out of work?

Without SS and unemployment, Bill and I would be begging on street corners, right along with a few million others.

You're right Jackie - I hope you didn't think that Bob Pr. thought that's what we should do - just what he thought the Republicans might do if they were in power - I'm inclined to agree with him - except that hopefully they would quickly realize exactly what you said. And I hope that the people in power remember these years when in the future they start talking about getting rid of social security and letting people put their money in the stock market for their retirement!

 

[amazongold]

You're right Jackie - I hope you didn't think that Bob Pr. thought that's what we should do - just what he thought the Republicans might do if they were in power - I'm inclined to agree with him - except that hopefully they would quickly realize exactly what you said. And I hope that the people in power remember these years when in the future they start talking about getting rid of social security and letting people put their money in the stock market for their retirement!

I know that is not what Bob felt should happen, but what might have.

OMGosh - I sure hope they rethink doing away with social security in the future. The way the stock market has bottomed out and ruined so many people's 401(k)s and investments, they'd all be homeless. The government surely can't force people into doing something like that, can they? Better if they make companies all have pension plans that are guaranteed, and let people make deposits into that and earn interest on their money instead of buying stock.

 

[patm]

I know that is not what Bob felt should happen, but what might have.

OMGosh - I sure hope they rethink doing away with social security in the future. The way the stock market has bottomed out and ruined so many people's 401(k)s and investments, they'd all be homeless. The government surely can't force people into doing something like that, can they? Better if they make companies all have pension plans that are guaranteed, and let people make deposits into that and earn interest on their money instead of buying stock.

That problem is, companies can't guarantee returns on money anymore than anyone else can. Most companies now give you money , along with your own to invest in mutual funds anyways. Companies aren't earning enough on their retirement plans to keep paying them out. And what if the company goes bankrupt, or no longer is in existence. Or what about the millions of poeple who work for themselves, or work part-time and don't get retirement by a company, or change jobs frequently (like many people do now) and don't ever get "fully-vested". I can't imagine what it would be like if we didn't have SS - I mean - no one should expect to be able to live on only SS, but most people need all they can get, and certainly will in the future to survive retirement. I don't blame younger people for feeling like they won't ever get SS and would just like to have their money to invest now and hope for the best, but talk about a disaster!

 

[Nick]

I don't blame younger people for feeling like they won't ever get SS and would just like to have their money to invest now and hope for the best, but talk about a disaster!

That describes me. I have little faith that social security will even be around, especially considering it will stop making money soon and start contributing to our already massive deficit. I'd love to take the bet that the market will be much higher than 7,000 in 40 years when I retire.

Another reason we "kids" don't mind it is because that's our only option. It's almost unheard of that a company offers new-hires a pension plan. The days of company provided retirement are history. Any retirement will come from personal savings and 401(k) style plans. Maybe that makes something like social security more necessary, I don't know.

I think I could do a lot better if given the chance to manage my withholdings, and I'd love to invest in the market, especially now. I do see the problem with completely doing away with it. Judging by how most people in America have managed their money, if given the option to invest and opt out, most people would probably opt out and not invest. Then what do you do with people who squandared the money and are at retirement age?

I'd love to say, "too bad, that's your problem for mismanaging your finances" but we've seen how it ends up coming back on all of us. One option is to make it mandatory. If you opt out of traditional social security, you must invest it. If you don't, the following year you will lose your ability to opt out. I don't know if that would provide enough revenue to finance SS (or at least be cheaper than what we're currently looking at). The only other option is to increase the retirement age, decrease benefits, and/or increase payroll taxes.

 

[Golfgirlrobin]

What Republicans wouldn't do is raise capital gains taxes. They are literally begging for investment right now; it's actually part of the big plan that Geitner is supposed to propose tomorrow. The President has been touting what a great buy the market is right now for longterm investment, and yet they want to take a bigger chunk of whatever you might make off that investment. Talk about a disincentive to jump back into the market.

What Republicans wouldn't do is raise taxes on the group of citizens who actually have the ability to stimulate the economy and job growth. Higher payroll taxes and shifting more costs to employers during a period like this is a recipe for disaster. California tried it several years ago when Pete Wilson was governor and it took a one year recession and turned it into a three year recession. You want me to expand my business and hire? Then don't make it more expensive to do so. I simply think that Republicans have a better grasp of what stimulates business and where the jobs come from.

I don't think there would be that many cuts. Politically you simply can't cut Social Security or Medicare. The difference might be that the Republicans would keep spending at current levels until the deficit works its way down, and not use this crisis to fund every item on their wish list. And yes, the Republicans have been just as fiscally irresponsible as the Dems in recent years but that doesn't mean it needs to continue.

I think Obama has shown a remarkable lack of focus, but for what it's worth, I don't think McCain was the person to handle this either.

 

[Dad of Toby]

The Republican plan should be get out of the way...let the recession happen--it's almost like we've had such a long stretch of economic prosperity that we forgot recession can and do happen and MUST happen in capitalism...it's okay...the best medicine for the economy is always time.

Let time fix this mess--Republicans could offer legislation that strongly regulates mortgages so people aren't victims of predatory lenders offering ARMS that look great to start then become unmanageable in the future...but really--what Obama is doing is securing his defeat in 2012 and ensuring a depressed economy for the life of his term....Government is not what made this country great..it is the people privately that made it great...that is the greatness of our founding fathers...they ensured individuals would be free to pursue greatness...so Republicans ought to encourage the private market recover on it's own...because doing Obama's plan will encourage the private market to not recover AND create the public's wealth and income to be lost for many generations down the road...a fail/fail proposal.

 

[BigBrownDog]

If the market does not improve in the next 7-10 years we will likely sell this house (basically paid for and in one of the more costly markets in the US) and move to a less expensive state. Not what I had in mind originally.

 

[Mia&Buddy]

Not sure what Republicans would do, but until this country takes a hard look at 60% of the budget (SSA, medicare, military spending) we can't make a meaningful change in our economic situation. (I hate that I can only find this chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png on wiki because the first time that I saw it was in the San Diego Union and that would seem to be more reliable.)

Truly, things are fubar right now. It's going to take a long time to get to the other side of this mess.

 

[Labs4life]

We regular folk do not have special interests groups and businesses constantly in our face affecting every decision we make. We don't have to cater to anyone in order to keep our careers, so to question what should be done is easier for us.

Imagine you have to make a decision at work,knowing it goes against your bosses ideology. Would you make a decision even if it was career suicide? I don't think our politicians are willing to give up the meal tickets that got them where they are, so the influence of special interests is very strong. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike. We might have voted them in office but they really don't answer to us.

I think many of our politicians partly know what needs to be done but choose the path along the company line. Not one party nor one person has the answers. This whole mess needs to run it's course. It's like a violent flu bug. There are some things you can do to lessen the effects,but the cure is to let it happen.

I don't think bigger goverment is the answer. Already far too much of each dollar taxed is in adminstration costs of ANY government program. In good times we kid about government waste and stupidly run programs, but now every penny counts and we are stuck. My fear is we are spending billions on G programs and once created we will never be able to dismantle it.

There are variables similar to past recessions and a whole boatload of new variables. This recession cannot be accurately compared to the past. The approach to recovery can't be a plan snipped out of the history books. This country has to combine things that worked in the past with new ideas and pray.

 

[Nick]

Not sure what Republicans would do, but until this country takes a hard look at 60% of the budget (SSA, medicare, military spending) we can't make a meaningful change in our economic situation. (I hate that I can only find this chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png on wiki because the first time that I saw it was in the San Diego Union and that would seem to be more reliable.)

Truly, things are fubar right now. It's going to take a long time to get to the other side of this mess.

Wikipedia cites the CBO, and if you go to their website they have charts and graphs galore on budget. That graph seems to match some of the stuff I remember seeing in my MPA program, and based on what I saw on the CBO website, I'd say it's pretty accurate.

 

[Maple1]

.....
Let time fix this mess--Republicans could offer legislation that strongly regulates mortgages so people aren't victims of predatory lenders offering ARMS that look great to start then become unmanageable in the future......so Republicans ought to encourage the private market recover on it's own....

Reagan would roll over in his grave if they offered that kind of legislation.

As president, Reagan deregulated the S&L and mortgage industries allowing lenders to offer ARMs and other so called exotic mortgages that were previously illegal. He also eliminated the tax deductions for local sales tax and interest on credit cards and consumer loans, leaving mortgage and home equity loan interest as the only major tax dedcutions.

As a result, people started taking home equity loans to purchase cars, tvs, boats etc. And because the new ARMs and other loans usually had lower payments, people were willing to borrow more, spend more on their houses and home prices began to rise.

Then Reagan rolled out new rules that allowed Wall Street to securitize mortgages [with very little regulation]. Demand grew for mortgage backed securities and, to meet the demand, mortgage regulations and underwriting standards were further relaxed so almost anyone could qualify for a loan.

And so it began.

 

[Nick]

Is it possible that, as the legislative history suggests, they (Democratic congress and Republican president) thought it was a bad idea for the tax code to encourage spending through credit cards, but a better idea to encourage home ownership?

In light of the circumstances, I think it's time to repeal the home mortgage interest deduction. It won't happen since it's become a sacred cow, but I think the unintended consequences of having it outweigh the benefits.

I think a lot of things can be attributed to ignorance over malice. You can sift through and select facts to paint any picture, but I'm not sure it's always the correct picture. For example, President Clinton exempted credit default swaps from regulation. Was that because he wanted to keep money flowing through the financial companies to keep the phony economy running, or did he just think they were innocent insurance policies? Did he encourage quasi-governental entities to participate in those same loan transactions you described to artificially inflate the economy, or to get low income people into houses (George Bush also continued that policy)? I'm guessing it's the latter on both, but you could easily paint the picture that it was the former.

Maybe if this forum were around back then, people would've called out the elimination of the credit card interest deduction or the exemption of CDSs from regulation. Then again, maybe those actions were the result of something less malicious, but had consequences people didn't consider.

 

[Maple1]

I didn't say anything about malicious. I'm sure he thought it was a good idea. I was just providing some historical perspective on mortgages, securities, and tax law and how changes to all three combined with Main Street and Wall Street greed got us where we are now.