Re: US foreclosure filings jump as moratoriums end

[Guest guest]

The whole economy has been a joke for more than two decades since we were taken off the gold standard. First trashed the economy with a series of horrible mistakes and Reagan over corrected. Reagan did a lot of things right, but he cut too much regulation of the financial markets. Bush, then Clinton, then Bush again accelerated the mess by cutting more regulation and oversight on the financials. The easy debt and credit that was unleashed provided the fuel for the various debt instruments that have caused the current problems.

Sadly, the new regulations proposed aren't going to solve the problem but will only drive the financial companies overseas and maybe lead to a global currency for the mega-elites to gamble with and cause a truly global catastrophe. All we need to do is to cut most of the programs and regulations that have come since and return to the Depression era regulations like the Glass act and others. Put a small, special tax on businesses, maybe 1%, and put that money in a special account to fund the SEC and FBI White Collar Crimes unit heavily. Then, make the white collar crime punishments fit the crime. If we put a street criminal away for life for selling some drugs, what about the Madoffs and Eron types who ruin the lives of millions out of greed? They get a couple of years as it is. It should be life in a regular prison, not their usual country club.

Of course, Congress bears a lot of the blame too. They repealed the regulations and aided and abetted the current crisis with laws and obfuscation of the growing crisis. They can be handled by term limits, a flat tax and strict balanced budgets that pay necessities first (military, courts, etc.) and vote buying gimmicks second (welfare and pork).

In a message dated 4/16/2009 1:29:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

The smoke from the smoke and mirrors tactic has now lifted. Once again we see the economy for what it is. Now what? Are Democrats going to throw more money at the problem? Their programs which prevent foreclosures have already strangled the banks as it is.Administrator Great deals on Dell's most popular laptops - Starting at $479

[Guest guest]

I'll agree with you as far as Madoff. IN the programs that I have seen about him, many investors smelled a rat because the returns were high and consistently about the same. However, they stayed in BECAUSE of those high returns. In other words they were greedy and got suckered.

Enron on the other hand, was a company that was set up to provide a legitimate service, laying fiber optic cables, but defrauded millions of investors. They did hide their fraud very well but as opposed to Madoff who mainly targeted the rich, Enron hurt many regular investors.

In either case, what they did was still wrong regardless of people catching it or not and they should still be harshly punished. As for paying back those who lost. That could be done if sufficient assets were seized. However, that should start with the smallest investors and work up to the biggest. IN this fashion the smaller investors who have the most to lose would be protected somewhat and the bigger investors would have to pay more attention to their investments to make sure they are honest.

In a message dated 4/16/2009 3:12:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

there is a saying: "Let the buyer beware."Madoff and others succeeded because they hid things well from so many buyers, as well as government agencies. So I am willing to concede that perhaps ordinary citizens could not be expected to know what they are up to. Great deals on Dell's most popular laptops - Starting at $479

[Guest guest]

" what about the Madoffs and Eron types who ruin the lives of millions out of

greed? "

there is a saying: " Let the buyer beware. "

Madoff and others succeeded because they hid things well from so many buyers, as

well as government agencies. So I am willing to concede that perhaps ordinary

citizens could not be expected to know what they are up to.

On the other hand, just because an investment firm is advertised somewhere on

TV, or you read about it in the newspaper, or you hear about it from a friend,

does not mean you should put your money in that company.

A person needs to research the company before they decided to engage in any

investment opportunities with them. Then they need to research the investments

within the company.

I was reading about TRUST the other day, and what I read is that a person is

more likely to trust the word of a friend over the word of a salesman.

For example, when buying a car, who are you going to trust? Your salesman, who

tells you that it runs like a top, or four of your neighbors, who agree it has

all the go-power of an anvil without wheels?

Most people will choose their neighbors. Yet these people are no more

trustworthy than a salesman. They are -to a degree- honest, because it is in

their interest to be good neighbors to you. If they are good neighbors to you,

it is hoped you will be a good neighbor to them.

Yet if a person does their own research -say, by going to consumer reports- they

might find the car is not as good as the salesman says...but not as bad as the

neighbors say either, and probably a decent buy for the money.

And so I say again, the people who got rooked are to a degree complicit in their

own defrauding. The more complex the investment, the more research they need to

do to prevent themselves from taking a loss.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" However, that should start with the smallest investors and work up to the

biggest. IN this fashion the smaller investors who have the most to lose would

be protected somewhat and the bigger investors would have to pay more attention

to their investments to make sure they are honest. "

I disagree with the payback method. I'd say whatever is gotten ought to be

diseminated in an equal percentage across the board. A small time investor is

just as responsible for not careflly looking into his/her investments as a

big-time one.

Administrator