99% agreement.
Only slight quibble is that I wouldn't tend to put as much of this on Greenspan. With what was going on elsewhere, he was pretty much reduced to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. He got them arranged about as well as possible, doing quite a bit with smoke and mirrors to get there. What he didn't do, that he probably should have, was point out the iceberg to everyone. It was there, and I'm sure he saw it, but it really wasn't in his job description, so he let it go. Could he, should he, have called it to our attention? Probably so. But he's not the reason things collapsed.
The problem is you can't get elected if you say "hey, we've got a real problem with the national debt. We have to cut spending across the board and get rid of most social programs."
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.-Alexander Tytler
Jugnaut Wrote:The problem is you can't get elected if you say "hey, we've got a real problem with the national debt. We have to cut spending across the board and get rid of most social programs."
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.-Alexander Tytler
Of course, Greenspan himself wasn't actually running for anything, so he is the one person who could have spoken out. That is a valid criticism. But to blame him for more than that is allowing someone else to escape his or her appropriate share of the blame.
Greenspan did not pressure lenders to make affordable loans to borrowers who turned out to be bad credit risks, just as the lenders said they would be.
Greenspan did not structure our capital gains, dividends, and corporate income taxes in such a way as to create disincentives for investors to create the necessary liquidity.
Greenspan did not fail to pass legislation requiring the initiator of a mortgage to retain a significant part, say 25%, when he packaged it up and sold it to someone else as part of a securitization.
If the United States broke up into different countries could each country avoid the debt?
firmbizzle Wrote:If the United States broke up into different countries could each country avoid the debt?
I don't see why not...I'm not personally responsible of any of the damn debt these thieves incurred. I never gave government the legal right to borrow anything in my name.
Let the Federal Government go chapter 11...liquidate its assets to pay the debt just like any other entity that fails to live within its means and can't pay its bills.
They own a assload of fine real estate that would probably do the trick. What ever is left unpaid?...Tough cookies to the fools that loaned them the money..... This will do two great things....eliminate Federal property and make it where no other government will be inclined to loan money to finance another countries war ambitions.
Actually the federal government in all likelihood owns assets with substantially greater value than the debt, even including the off-balance-sheet debt. One way to dig out of the hole may be to sell TVA, millions of acres of federal land, etc.
Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Actually the federal government in all likelihood owns assets with substantially greater value than the debt, even including the off-balance-sheet debt. One way to dig out of the hole may be to sell TVA, millions of acres of federal land, etc.
Yep...and doing away with public land would not necessarily be a bad thing in relation to the "tragedy of the commons".
Maybe the government should first look at leasing out some of its assets to acquire revenues. I'm sure there are some entrepreneurs that could do a fine job of running some of our National Parks without having to steal from those that don't care to use that land in order to maintain it.
Organizations like Ducks Unlimited and the Sierra Club could lease some of these lands for their members private use. This would be not only a source of revenue but put a concerned party in charge of maintaining and preserving the land with voluntary labor and capital.
Timber companies in my area already lease out land for hunting clubs..why cant the govt. do the same thing?