How Do We Collectively Make a Change?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

Giving away free housing to buy votes was the whole motive behind the subprime goat screw.

You don’t think that is giving away money?

Keep dreaming.

I thought it was was Ibanks wanting to make a lot of money and pursuing a shorterm profit with single-minded determination and with no regard for longterm consequenses. Go figure. No, the government is not to blame for this except as a failure of oversight and regulation. And that is the fault of the both the Republican leadership and the democratically-controlled Congress. [/quote]

There does not need to be more regulation. The subprime fiasco was the result of the fed meddling in the markets in the first place. Maybe there should be some regulation of the government.

There should never have been an incentive given to banks - by the government - to make stupid loans to idiots who had no business even thinking about buying a house.

To gloss over the government’s responsibility in this is intellectual dishonesty at the very least.

Now, the government is a vested party in Wall Street and that’s the last fucking we need.

42

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

Giving away free housing to buy votes was the whole motive behind the subprime goat screw.

You don’t think that is giving away money?

Keep dreaming.

I thought it was was Ibanks wanting to make a lot of money and pursuing a shorterm profit with single-minded determination and with no regard for longterm consequenses. Go figure. No, the government is not to blame for this except as a failure of oversight and regulation. And that is the fault of the both the Republican leadership and the democratically-controlled Congress. [/quote]

Guess what heavily contributed to the sharp increase in home prices? Government regulation and restriction on building & zoning. I live in San Francisco and believe me, it’s the absolute reality – that and rent control, another brilliant government idea. Less supply + increasing demand = higher prices.

Add to that our need to be ‘fair’ – that is, to make sure a proportionate number of black and latino borrowers are ‘allowed’ to take out loans that many had no business qualifying for (see The Community Reinvestment Act). This led to Investment Banks – which had NO INTEREST in loaning money to people with low income and shitty credit – to be ‘equal opportunity lenders’. In doing so, they had to creat investment vehicles with looser standards and creative payment options (Interest Only, 80/20s, Option ARMs, No Income, Stated Income/Assets, etc).

And now that these same shitty borrowers can’t make their payments? It’s all the fault of those greedy Investment Banks. Bullshit. Government regulation had PLENTY to do with it.

43

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
How do we collectively make a change as a society?[/quote]

The only possible way to change society is to collectively change the ideas that allows society to function. This is not an easy task. It starts with a few lone voices. Luckily, technology allows ideas to flourish much easier. It is impossible to stifle free voices on the internet.

The first American Revolution was fought over the right to self determination and independence. The second revolution will be fought over the means to our independence.

The Fed must go and it must go either under its own volition or by force. All governments over the entire world will be brought to their collective knees when this happens and will no longer be able to force their will upon the rest of its citizens. Once central banking crumbles people will be free because government will have no means. Taxation is not sufficient means to govern empires.

Buy a rifle and learn to handle and use it. There is no organized military, the US included, that can defeat free people who fight for their own freedom.

44

is a weak dollar bad?

45

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

Giving away free housing to buy votes was the whole motive behind the subprime goat screw.

You don’t think that is giving away money?

Keep dreaming.

I thought it was was Ibanks wanting to make a lot of money and pursuing a shorterm profit with single-minded determination and with no regard for longterm consequenses. Go figure. No, the government is not to blame for this except as a failure of oversight and regulation. And that is the fault of the both the Republican leadership and the democratically-controlled Congress.

There does not need to be more regulation. The subprime fiasco was the result of the fed meddling in the markets in the first place. Maybe there should be some regulation of the government.

There should never have been an incentive given to banks - by the government - to make stupid loans to idiots who had no business even thinking about buying a house.

To gloss over the government’s responsibility in this is intellectual dishonesty at the very least.

Now, the government is a vested party in Wall Street and that’s the last fucking we need. [/quote]

There needs to be regulation that makes it against self-interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices. That hits lenders in their pocket books similar to SOX. Which has been extremely effective. Rather than micromanaging corporations, it’s done a good job by providing proper incentives for effective managment and disincentives for corporate fraud. But I will concede your point. You are right. Not only has the government not simply remained neutral, it has actually has encouraged irresponsible lending practices. Such as with the repeal of the Glass-Steaghal act and the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act and its 1990s ammendments. But I would still place most of the blame on the financial institutions themselves. They are the primary culprits and the primary actors. And the longterm foreclosures and their consequences to both individuals and the institutions themselves should have been readily anticipated with anyone with a rudimentary financial background.

46

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

Giving away free housing to buy votes was the whole motive behind the subprime goat screw.

You don’t think that is giving away money?

Keep dreaming.

I thought it was was Ibanks wanting to make a lot of money and pursuing a shorterm profit with single-minded determination and with no regard for longterm consequenses. Go figure. No, the government is not to blame for this except as a failure of oversight and regulation. And that is the fault of the both the Republican leadership and the democratically-controlled Congress. [/quote]

Could not have happened, without fiat money.

Fiat money as in monopolized, planned-economy style government created and controlled money.

So, yes the government is to blame for this.

Even without the promise to bail out banks if they fail, passing legislation to make sure people get mortgages that otherwise wouldn´t…

47

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

Giving away free housing to buy votes was the whole motive behind the subprime goat screw.

You don’t think that is giving away money?

Keep dreaming.

I thought it was was Ibanks wanting to make a lot of money and pursuing a shorterm profit with single-minded determination and with no regard for longterm consequenses. Go figure. No, the government is not to blame for this except as a failure of oversight and regulation. And that is the fault of the both the Republican leadership and the democratically-controlled Congress.

Could not have happened, without fiat money.

Fiat money as in monopolized, planned-economy style government created and controlled money.

So, yes the government is to blame for this.

Even without the promise to bail out banks if they fail, passing legislation to make sure people get mortgages that otherwise wouldn´t…[/quote]

Fair enough. The private sector is plenty damn culpable. But I don’t disagree. The government did play an active and not simply passive role. I was wrong to imply otherwise.

48

Before partisianship rears it’s ugly head again, it’s worth pointing out that Phil Gramm was instrumental in and a champion of the anti-regulatory crusade that has in part helped usher in this mess. Unregulated credit swamps championed by Gramm have greatly contributed to the subprime meltdowm. Today, of course, Gramm is a key adivsor of McCain. Deregulation ain’t always a good thing.

49

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
<<< There needs to be regulation that makes it against self-interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices. >>>[/quote]

How bout the absence of regulation that makes it IN self interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices? How bout that? Ya think maybe we should’ve started there?

50

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

Giving away free housing to buy votes was the whole motive behind the subprime goat screw.

You don’t think that is giving away money?

Keep dreaming.

I thought it was was Ibanks wanting to make a lot of money and pursuing a shorterm profit with single-minded determination and with no regard for longterm consequenses. Go figure. No, the government is not to blame for this except as a failure of oversight and regulation. And that is the fault of the both the Republican leadership and the democratically-controlled Congress.

Could not have happened, without fiat money.

Fiat money as in monopolized, planned-economy style government created and controlled money.

So, yes the government is to blame for this.

Even without the promise to bail out banks if they fail, passing legislation to make sure people get mortgages that otherwise wouldn´t…

Fair enough. The private sector is plenty damn culpable. But I don’t disagree. The government did play an active and not simply passive role. I was wrong to imply otherwise. [/quote]

I am having a problem with this “greed brought this upon us”.

Say you are the CEO of a bank. Your CFO comes in and says “Sir, you are not going to believe this, but if I interpret that bill correctly we can make billions and the government is going to bail us out if we fail”.

So what are you going to do? What were you hired for?

The behavior of such a CEO is perfectly simple to predict, so why do they make these stupid laws in the first place?

Who made it profitable to be “greedy” at the taxpayers expense?

51

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
is a weak dollar bad?[/quote]

That depends if you don’t mind paying and are able to pay higher prices. A weak dollar is good for foreigners who want to come in and buy up property and other assets.

52

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
<<< There needs to be regulation that makes it against self-interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices. >>>

How bout the absence of regulation that makes it IN self interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices? How bout that? Ya think maybe we should’ve started there?[/quote]

Your wording does not make sense to me. But I think I know what you’re saying anyway. And the answer is No. Because it IS in lenders self-interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices if they make a great short-term profit. Just like corporate fraud is in self-interest if the only penalty is getting fired and not significant financial and potentially criminal penalties. No regulation is not the answer. Regulation in the right places and the right levels is appropriate. And not too much of it. And I would certainly agree that the government shouldn’t be passing legislation that encourages loans to unacceptable credit risks.

53

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
is a weak dollar bad?

That depends if you don’t mind paying and are able to pay higher prices. A weak dollar is good for foreigners who want to come in and buy up property and other assets.[/quote]

It is equally good for american farmers looking to seel their commodities on the internetional market. Weak dollar = more sales.

Farmers are making bank right now. Well, my farmers are at least.

54

[quote]orion wrote:
Who made it profitable to be “greedy” at the taxpayers expense?

[/quote]

The taxpayer?

55

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The fact is that as long as government hand outs continue to exsist in the staggeringly large numbers they exsist government is going to continue to grow no matter who is in office. Government subsisdized housing, welfare and food stamps for every drug dealer and dirt bag to lazy to work with no oversite.
Did you know that if recipient of child support goes on welfare and the person obligated to pay that child support does not pay it, your tax dollars through welfare pay the recepient dollar for dollar what they are entitled to. Where is the incentive to get a job?

There would be none. Except welfare now has term limits and work requirements. It’s no longer a simple handout. And it’s no longer of indefinite duration. It’s what it should have been originally. A safety net that helps and gives people a chance to get on their feet. In most states today, upwards of 80% of those who go on welfare go on to get jobs and become productive members of society.

Shhhh… that shoots down the argument that Democrats just want to give away money to crackheads.

Next you’ll be saying that the Democrats want women to use abortion as birth control.

Giving away free housing to buy votes was the whole motive behind the subprime goat screw.

You don’t think that is giving away money?

Keep dreaming.

I thought it was was Ibanks wanting to make a lot of money and pursuing a shorterm profit with single-minded determination and with no regard for longterm consequenses. Go figure. No, the government is not to blame for this except as a failure of oversight and regulation. And that is the fault of the both the Republican leadership and the democratically-controlled Congress.

Could not have happened, without fiat money.

Fiat money as in monopolized, planned-economy style government created and controlled money.

So, yes the government is to blame for this.

Even without the promise to bail out banks if they fail, passing legislation to make sure people get mortgages that otherwise wouldn´t…

Fair enough. The private sector is plenty damn culpable. But I don’t disagree. The government did play an active and not simply passive role. I was wrong to imply otherwise.

I am having a problem with this “greed brought this upon us”.

Say you are the CEO of a bank. Your CFO comes in and says “Sir, you are not going to believe this, but if I interpret that bill correctly we can make billions and the government is going to bail us out if we fail”.

So what are you going to do? What were you hired for?

The behavior of such a CEO is perfectly simple to predict, so why do they make these stupid laws in the first place?

Who made it profitable to be “greedy” at the taxpayers expense?

[/quote]

No one made it profitable to be greedy at the taxpayers expense. That is exactly the problem. It just is. We need some modicum of laws to discourage banks from lending to really high-risk borrowers. What happened is entirely natural. Of course they looked to short-term proft. And didn’t think about or focus on the longterm risks because they were blinded by dollar signs. I highly doubt any banks ever expected it to go this far though.

They disregarded the risks, but I don’t think anyone was lending money thinking their bank would eventually fold but it’d be ok because the government would bail them out. They just made decisions they shouldn’t because the desire to make a buck overshadowed all insight and reason. CEOs and upper management who know they’ll forfeit bonuses in such cases would think a lot harder.

56

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
<<< There needs to be regulation that makes it against self-interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices. >>>

How bout the absence of regulation that makes it IN self interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices? How bout that? Ya think maybe we should’ve started there?

Your wording does not make sense to me. But I think I know what you’re saying anyway. And the answer is No. Because it IS in lenders self-interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices if they make a great short-term profit. Just like corporate fraud is in self-interest if the only penalty is getting fired and not significant financial and potentially criminal penalties. No regulation is not the answer. Regulation in the right places and the right levels is appropriate. And not too much of it. And I would certainly agree that the government shouldn’t be passing legislation that encourages loans to unacceptable credit risks.[/quote]

You’re saying we need regs to DIScourage this behavior. Rainjack rightly pointed that we had regs ENcouraging this behavior.

My point was that maybe if we didn’t have the latter we wouldn’t need the former.

These bailouts amounts to me lending my neighbor a grand when I know he doesn’t have 10 cents to his name, but with the knowledge that his father will pay it if he doesn’t.

57

[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Government grew while Reagan was in office. As did the debt. Tremendously.

This fact is what most right-wingers want kept from public knowledge.

National debt in and of itself is not a bad thing. In fact, it can be used as a very positive form of leverage – i.e. investment. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Other factors need to be looked at as well: How does it compare with national income/output? How much of the Government’s debt (i.e. investment) is in domestic vs. foreign economies? Why is the debt being incurred?

Since a country’s economy (hopefully) expands over time, it makes sense that it’s debt (i.e. investment) will increase – hopefully somewhat proportional to what it’s income can reasoanbly support. Similarly, as a person’s income increases as they move up the income ladder professionally, they are better suited to take on a larger mortgage.

Conflict can put a different perspective on what is a ‘reasonable national debt’. In 1945, the US Federal Deficit was $260B, while the US National Income was $180B. In other words, our debt was 41% HIGHER than our nation’s income. The alternative was to sit with our thumbs up our collective asses while Germany and Japan had their way with the world.

Much of the spending incurred during the Reagan Administration was on increasing the military’s potency and infrastructure. Arguments can be made for or against the logic and justification for such spending, but it ultimately led to the end of the Cold War and the crumbling of the Wall. And our economy survived, to put it mildly. Not a terrible end result. [/quote]

Yes and no. It’s a lot more complicated than that. The Soviet system fell apart because it was economically, politically and morally unsustainable. Did we have to be strong and contain Russia in the meantime? Yes. But Reagan did not defeat the U.S.S.R. singlehanded.

58

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
<<< There needs to be regulation that makes it against self-interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices. >>>

How bout the absence of regulation that makes it IN self interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices? How bout that? Ya think maybe we should’ve started there?

Your wording does not make sense to me. But I think I know what you’re saying anyway. And the answer is No. Because it IS in lenders self-interest to engage in irresponsible lending practices if they make a great short-term profit. Just like corporate fraud is in self-interest if the only penalty is getting fired and not significant financial and potentially criminal penalties. No regulation is not the answer. Regulation in the right places and the right levels is appropriate. And not too much of it. And I would certainly agree that the government shouldn’t be passing legislation that encourages loans to unacceptable credit risks.

You’re saying we need regs to DIScourage this behavior. Rainjack rightly pointed that we had regs ENcouraging this behavior.

My point was that maybe if we didn’t have the latter we wouldn’t need the former.

These bailouts amounts to me lending my neighbor a grand when I know he doesn’t have 10 cents to his name, but with the knowledge that his father will pay it if he doesn’t.

[/quote]

I think the banks would be engaging in this behavior without regulations to encourage behavior. The crisis is only partially caused by regulations encouraging banks to extend credit to innappropraite risks. It is also caused by deregulation of other aspects of the industry. And primarily by the fact that banks are for-profit entities and management is not going to necessarily consider or care about longterm consequences of practices that result in a big payout in the immediate term. It’s definitely true that government passed laws it shouldn’t have (such as requiring approval of a certain percentage of minoirity applicants).

But Bush was right when he said, 'Wall Street got drunk." It kept going after risker and risker sources of revenue. So companies start finding ways to lend to people with bad credit, or finding new ways to share the risk by re-packaging loans so they could make even MORE risky loans. If the government should be blamed, and I suppose it should be, it only bears a fraction of the blame. It gave an inch. Wall Street took a mile. Taking on all of that risk was bound to lead to consequences. And so it did.

That is not to say I want the government micromanaging the market. That’s not the answer. I want management to suffer personal consequences for fuckups. I have no doubt that would lead to better decision-making.

59

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Great posts from you on this thread, I agree 100%. Conservatives should be a lot more concerned about their culture and communities than about winning elections, with the last two decades as all the evidence you need.

But without dragging this thread into the usual debate, it makes me wonder how you so happily vote Republican. The Democrats may well be the Party of Death, or close, but the Republicans are the Party of Greed. And as Andrew Bacevich has written, Ronald Reagan, conservatism’s Dear Leader, was probably the apostle of that cultural shift.

I am not happily voting Republican in this election. I am much more willing to vote for them now that Palin is on the ticket, though. In fact, if you will look back at my posts prior to Palin being picked, I was begging for Kinky Friedman to join the race.
[/quote]

See this I don’t get AT ALL. Was meaning to make a similar reply to Varqanir the other day.

I like Sarah Palin and what she stands for by and large, although the parallels to Bush are striking and she has zero foreign or security policy knowledge (which any halfway honest person should be able to admit). That doesn’t bother me. The vice president has no Constitutional powers outside of the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. The usurpation of the last years was bizarre and unprecedented. The VP should go back to playing cards with his friends, as was the case in the 19th century.

And never mind that she was a blatant diversity hire, which Republicans were against once upon a time.

But anyway, I like Palin, I like a smalltown conservative who clearly walks the walk in her own life. But she will not be running the country. She will not be doing much of anything. She will be taking trips and cutting ribbons while John McCain invades the world and invites the world. You vote McCain-Palin, you are voting for four years of John McCain. That’s it.

Maybe, maybe not. The GOP has been using that “judges” hammer to keep social conservatives in line for years if not decades, and it has gotten us nothing. Roe vs. Wade still the law of the land, the culture increasingly debased. I’m not buying it any more.

60

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think it requires every man and woman coming to a point where they are sick and tired of being sick and tired.

People are slaves in this country. Slaves to the acquisition of “stuff”. And in order to get this stuff, they gladly become slaves to the credit card companies, and the mortgage lenders, and whoever they are sending their car payment to every month.

The first step is to become the master of your own life - Get Out Of Debt.

The second step is to take greater pride in your family - keep a parent home with the kids. Don’t pay the childcare center to raise your children. They are your responsibility.

Third step is, once you have 1 and 2 down, to look at where you live. Can you help others achieve the first two steps? If you can, then you have an obligation to help where you can.

The rest of the process gets progressively larger.

I can only hope that this banking crisis wakes people up to the fact that being debt free is far more enjoyable than the intoxicating new car-smell.

[/quote]

::claps::

I agree 100% with the debt thing. I’ve seen debt DESTROY some of my older friends (because they were absolutely retarded with their credit cards). I’m a huge advocate of making personal finance a MANDATORY course in High School (right along with gun safety and use, and basic cooking skills).

As fruity as it sounds, BRING BACK HOME ECONOMICS.