Fear still governs people's views of ...

Fear still governs people's views of economy

There are 29 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Sep 15, 2009, titled Fear still governs people's views of economy. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

One year after Wall Street teetered on the brink of collapse, seven out of 10 Americans lack confidence that the federal government has taken safeguards to prevent another financial-industry meltdown, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Support the Schools

Columbus, OH

#1 Sep 15, 2009
The American people are pretty dumb. Men who make hundreds of millions of dollars per year wrecked the financial institutions they ran by offering foolish mortgages to people who never had the ability to repay them. When these super-wealthy men faced the collapse of their firms, they simply took money from the federal treasury to repay all of their losses.
Stock Analyst

Strawberry Plains, TN

#2 Sep 15, 2009
Wow, they survey a lot of idiots.

How come Federal Reserve aren't getting any blame? And what do president Bush and Obama got to do with this? The deregulation happen during the Clinton's administration. The president cannot call the Feds and say "slow the economy down"

The three major people I blame are: The Feds, loan officers, and stupid people.(particularly people that bit off more then they could chew, hence defaulting on their loan payment)

Just because deregulation allowed them to do so, doesn't mean it could have been abused. Higher interest rate would have slowed down the lending, and loan officer wouldn't have abused the system more often. And government firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shouldn't have been accepting loan papers as if they are gold.

And to the original poster, there is NOT a group of super wealthy men sitting in a room brainstorming ideas of how to bankrupt America. They did not repay any loss, their loss was gone! The money from treasury was to prevent them from going under. They wasn't making any money. And when they was able to liquidate some holdings and start making money they paid the treasury off. The lending was more of a parachute, rather than "Did you bankrupt your company? here have 30 billion dollars!" They had to REPAY the treasury! It wasn't a grant...

There are millions of people including politicians in this country that still aren't quite sure how the system collapsed. Quite sad really. Oh well. I will keep on doing what I'm paid to do.
No One Important

Broadview, IL

#3 Sep 15, 2009
The fact is, Obama and the democrats haven't done anything to SPUR economic growth.

And that has people even ANGRIER. THE ENTIRE NATION says TAX CUTS are a larger priority than NEW SPENDING no health care.

"It's the economy, stupid."

Summers, Obama's chief economics person, "this high unemplyment may continue for years."

6.4 million jobs gone, and the blithering idiot democrats are focusing on HEALTH CARE?

When 90% of the nation is FINE with the system? WE JUST WANT JOBS back?

These guys are IDIOTS.

71% of this economy is CONSUMER driven. No one has ANY MONEY.

But there's blithering Obama out there...he's declaring "mission accomplished" on the economic crisis.

Excuse me idiot? Look around. 6.4 million poeople out of work. That is MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for you?

The democrats would never DREAM of giving you a tax cut.

NOT A SINGLE POLL IN AMERICA says that HC reform is a priority.

But dimbo Obama out there....humpin' around the united states, yankin' his pud trying to make you think that HC reform is a priority.

Congress got their automatic 4,900 raise, bought themselves PLANES, get chauffered around in LIMOS that YOU AND I PAY FOR....

Obama on holiday in Martha's vineyard...we hemmorage jobs, losing houses, try to feed our kids...

And he's blithering on and on about health care, calling opponents LIARs....

And the NATION IS YELLING FOR THE IDIOTS TO STOP.

"it's the economy, stupid."

The anger is still rising.. and it's going to keep rising if the democrats and Obama keep screwing around with garbage that has nothing to do with jobs growth and jobs creation.

Talk about a clueless bunch of elitists idiots.
King Tut

Anchorage, AK

#4 Sep 15, 2009
KING TUT OBAMA caused ALL of the fear to push the stimilus, thats why he is a LIAR!!!!!

Just one reason!!!
Angry Young American

Columbus, OH

#5 Sep 15, 2009
Silly old American people- just because half of all mortgages will be underwater by next year and millions of people are out of work and neglected to save while they had jobs and thus aren't in a position to start shopping and boost consumer spending (which makes up 70% of the GDP), they still let fear govern their view of the economy for some strange reason
Stock Analyst

Strawberry Plains, TN

#6 Sep 15, 2009
No One Important wrote:
The fact is, Obama and the democrats haven't done anything to SPUR economic growth.
I hate to say this, but they did stop the free fall.

It not suppose be up to the government for growth. They did, however, stop the economy from falling down a slippery slope even more. At the rate in which the economy was going, they was predicting 2-3% GDP drops, double digit unemployment, etc. This stimulus only drop GDP by 1% and unemployment hasn't hit double digit. They just made an attempt to slow it down and try boost confidence back into consumers that way. They did spur auto companies into short term gain with cash for clunker program which spiked the August retail gain.

Without investors and creditors the economy wouldn't be where it is today. Right now, the governments are acting as investors and creditors, trying get the original investors and creditor that still have cash back into the game. Stock market crashes because there are no investors playing the stock market. If a companies stock falls sharply next day, is because there large amount of investors pumping sell orders for that stock, and there are no buyers for it.
Tater

Morristown, TN

#7 Sep 15, 2009
Stock Analyst wrote:
Wow, they survey a lot of idiots.
How come Federal Reserve aren't getting any blame? And what do president Bush and Obama got to do with this? The deregulation happen during the Clinton's administration. The president cannot call the Feds and say "slow the economy down"
The three major people I blame are: The Feds, loan officers, and stupid people.(particularly people that bit off more then they could chew, hence defaulting on their loan payment)
Just because deregulation allowed them to do so, doesn't mean it could have been abused. Higher interest rate would have slowed down the lending, and loan officer wouldn't have abused the system more often. And government firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shouldn't have been accepting loan papers as if they are gold.
And to the original poster, there is NOT a group of super wealthy men sitting in a room brainstorming ideas of how to bankrupt America. They did not repay any loss, their loss was gone! The money from treasury was to prevent them from going under. They wasn't making any money. And when they was able to liquidate some holdings and start making money they paid the treasury off. The lending was more of a parachute, rather than "Did you bankrupt your company? here have 30 billion dollars!" They had to REPAY the treasury! It wasn't a grant...
There are millions of people including politicians in this country that still aren't quite sure how the system collapsed. Quite sad really. Oh well. I will keep on doing what I'm paid to do.
You said it all and there was no interest in congress to stop it.
Tater

Morristown, TN

#8 Sep 15, 2009
Angry Young American wrote:
Silly old American people- just because half of all mortgages will be underwater by next year and millions of people are out of work and neglected to save while they had jobs and thus aren't in a position to start shopping and boost consumer spending (which makes up 70% of the GDP), they still let fear govern their view of the economy for some strange reason
it takes a buckeye to think like you and you know what they call a buckeye (a worthless nut)
Deregulation

AOL

#9 Sep 15, 2009
Stock Analyst post:"How come Federal Reserve aren't getting any blame? And what do president Bush and Obama got to do with this? The deregulation happen during the Clinton's administration. The president cannot call the Feds and say "slow the economy down"
down"
"Phil Graham, McCain's economic adviser was the architect, the Republican Congress pushed it, and Clinton signed it".
Source(s):
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stori …
Stock Analyst

Strawberry Plains, TN

#10 Sep 15, 2009
Deregulation, your link didn't work. But here a link that I wouldn't used as my number one source, but it get your feet wet. By showing you that the poll listed above is useless, because Obama and Bush both had nothing to do with the crisis itself. You can blame both republicans and democrat for deregulation. Why? A republican pushed the bill, a democratic president signed it. The end.

And loose monetary policy by the feds cause it to go to hell. PRESIDENTS OR CONGRESS CANNOT TELL THE FEDS WHAT TO DO!!!! That important for you to know.

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/09/b...

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#11 Sep 15, 2009
Stock Analyst wrote:
Wow, they survey a lot of idiots.

The three major people I blame are: The Feds, loan officers, and stupid people.(particularly people that bit off more then they could chew, hence defaulting on their loan payment)

And to the original poster, there is NOT a group of super wealthy men sitting in a room brainstorming ideas of how to bankrupt America. They did not repay any loss, their loss was gone! The money from treasury was to prevent them from going under. They wasn't making any money. And when they was able to liquidate some holdings and start making money they paid the treasury off.
Isn't it possible that you and the original poster are talking about the same people, to some extent? The individuals who made those loans got the commissions and did not have to return them, then they got huge bonuses for making the loans that got them the commissions, etc. Remember the outrage when it was determined that those employees were still contractually eligible for their commissions, even though their companies were granted billions of dollars in bailout funds, and their actions helped cause the meltdown?
Tater

Morristown, TN

#12 Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Vol in FL wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it possible that you and the original poster are talking about the same people, to some extent? The individuals who made those loans got the commissions and did not have to return them, then they got huge bonuses for making the loans that got them the commissions, etc. Remember the outrage when it was determined that those employees were still contractually eligible for their commissions, even though their companies were granted billions of dollars in bailout funds, and their actions helped cause the meltdown?
Those people were forced into doing those loans and yes they smelled money when they bundled them. The government stood by, both parties, and allowed this practice to go on. As I have said many times if you run into a fella that says I'm from the government and I'm here to help take shelter fast.
Stock Analyst

Strawberry Plains, TN

#13 Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Vol in FL wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it possible that you and the original poster are talking about the same people, to some extent? The individuals who made those loans got the commissions and did not have to return them, then they got huge bonuses for making the loans that got them the commissions, etc. Remember the outrage when it was determined that those employees were still contractually eligible for their commissions, even though their companies were granted billions of dollars in bailout funds, and their actions helped cause the meltdown?
It is possible, but I wouldn't blame all of them. I don't know how loan officers salaries or commissions are set up. It varies from banks to banks. Some of them do not even get commission, if they get healthy return from interest or they keep bank afloat, then the extra money they created is consider retention bonus.

AIG, for instance, I remember someone telling me that AIG salary was set up like this. Say you work for AIG, lets say your job descriptions has nothing to do with the derivative or proprietary desk.(the desks that drove AIG to the gate of hade)
say you are suppose be paid a salary of $80,000.00 Since AIG is trading most of the companies cash and stuff, you are only guarantee $40,000 a year, and they will pay you the remaining $40,000 at end of year in lump sum package plus additional cash which be consider bonus. And since those additional cash got on the check with extra $40,000 it was consider a bonus. But that bonus in reality was the remaining $40,000 of their $80,000 salary.

It may sound confusing to you, but that how I was told by someone in Chicago. Frankly, I don't give a rat arse, but that how I was told SOME of the AIG's employees payroll was set up.
Stock Analyst

Strawberry Plains, TN

#14 Sep 15, 2009
I forgot to add, since you do not work on AIG trading desk, you couldn't get your remaining part of the salary because the guys on trading floor screwed up! While some AIG employees deserved their reward, the other halves didn't. That why I was kind of ticked off at media portraying them as greedy pigs. Some of them are, but the ones below the executives lost their pays too, and they probably had nothing to do with the trading desk.

I already forgot the guys name, I think his last name started with a C and he was responsible for all the derivative trades gone wrong for AIG. His unit should have been dismissed.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#15 Sep 15, 2009
Stock Analyst wrote:
<quoted text>
It is possible, but I wouldn't blame all of them. I don't know how loan officers salaries or commissions are set up. It varies from banks to banks. Some of them do not even get commission, if they get healthy return from interest or they keep bank afloat, then the extra money they created is consider retention bonus.
AIG, for instance, I remember someone telling me that AIG salary was set up like this. Say you work for AIG, lets say your job descriptions has nothing to do with the derivative or proprietary desk.(the desks that drove AIG to the gate of hade)
say you are suppose be paid a salary of $80,000.00 Since AIG is trading most of the companies cash and stuff, you are only guarantee $40,000 a year, and they will pay you the remaining $40,000 at end of year in lump sum package plus additional cash which be consider bonus. And since those additional cash got on the check with extra $40,000 it was consider a bonus. But that bonus in reality was the remaining $40,000 of their $80,000 salary.
It may sound confusing to you, but that how I was told by someone in Chicago. Frankly, I don't give a rat arse, but that how I was told SOME of the AIG's employees payroll was set up.
Thanks for the info, it really was interesting. I don't think the guys who only made $80,000 a year were the problem. I am talking about the ones in the multi-million dollar range.

You know how outraged we all (rightly) are over the ACORN videos? There were people within the lending institutions who essentially did the same thing. They didn't WANT to know if an applicant had a job or could possibly meet their mortgage payments, because by the time they defaulted, the lender would already have his commission. Besides, I don't think the lenders predicted that home values would fall so far so fast, so the worst that could happen would be that the firm would own the home.

My experience is more with the brokerage industry, where representatives would frequently place clients in products which were not in their best interests, but for which the reps got a higher payout. Invariably, if the client decided to sue, the firm would pay them off, and the rep got to keep ALL his commissions. I just think that is terribly wrong.
Stock Analyst

Strawberry Plains, TN

#16 Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Vol in FL wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the info, it really was interesting. I don't think the guys who only made $80,000 a year were the problem. I am talking about the ones in the multi-million dollar range.

My experience is more with the brokerage industry, where representatives would frequently place clients in products which were not in their best interests, but for which the reps got a higher payout. Invariably, if the client decided to sue, the firm would pay them off, and the rep got to keep ALL his commissions. I just think that is terribly wrong.
1) The guys making $80-100,000 weren't the problem, but they loss half of their salary that was paid in bonuses because the trading floor screwed up! Then media made matters worse by making them look like bad guys. I rather the trading floor guys lose their bonus than the guys at bottom of the totem pole. They had nothing do with company's failure.

2) About the brokerage business, representatives have no salary or they have a very tiny salary. My first year I was one of those guys, I had a $20,000 salary. Rest of my money was pure commission, I made $40.00 in commission at the time. I got paid whether a client sold a stock or bought a stock. If I had group of millionaires on my client list and they didn't want to trade, I was sitting duck with stress about not having money to pay rent. After my 1st year I chose not to pursue further interest in getting a series 7 license. I got a CFA instead, now I'm holding a CFP license. Most of the suing stuff, rarely happens now because all companies got a fine print which clients MUST agree too before they let a representative trade for them. If they think they been cheated or misled they must file with SEC and SEC will deal with it. I know a couple guys that got fired because of pressure from SEC. I don't know what they did and I don't want to know.

Check out what the feds got up their sleeve.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090915-...
Stock Analyst

Strawberry Plains, TN

#17 Sep 15, 2009
Tater wrote:
<quoted text>
Those people were forced into doing those loans and yes they smelled money when they bundled them. The government stood by, both parties, and allowed this practice to go on. As I have said many times if you run into a fella that says I'm from the government and I'm here to help take shelter fast.
No they wasn't. The loan officers didn't hold a gun to the customers head and make them accept it. The customers are as guilty as a the loan officers. They should have read all fine prints. IMO. I do same thing when I apply for a home, if a mortgage broker try give me a loan with pre-payment penalty I go somewhere else. If they slowly rise interest over yearly, I would shop a little harder. If interest isn't rising with inflation I would shop a little harder.
Stock Analyst

Strawberry Plains, TN

#18 Sep 15, 2009
I'm sorry, I meant to say if interest rate is rising, but inflation rate isn't. I would shop a little bit harder.
Ridiculous

AOL

#19 Sep 15, 2009
No One Important wrote:
The fact is, Obama and the democrats haven't done anything to SPUR economic growth.
And that has people even ANGRIER. THE ENTIRE NATION says TAX CUTS are a larger priority than NEW SPENDING no health care.
"It's the economy, stupid."
Summers, Obama's chief economics person, "this high unemplyment may continue for years."
6.4 million jobs gone, and the blithering idiot democrats are focusing on HEALTH CARE?
When 90% of the nation is FINE with the system? WE JUST WANT JOBS back?
These guys are IDIOTS.
71% of this economy is CONSUMER driven. No one has ANY MONEY.
But there's blithering Obama out there...he's declaring "mission accomplished" on the economic crisis.
Excuse me idiot? Look around. 6.4 million poeople out of work. That is MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for you?
The democrats would never DREAM of giving you a tax cut.
NOT A SINGLE POLL IN AMERICA says that HC reform is a priority.
But dimbo Obama out there....humpin' around the united states, yankin' his pud trying to make you think that HC reform is a priority.
Congress got their automatic 4,900 raise, bought themselves PLANES, get chauffered around in LIMOS that YOU AND I PAY FOR....
Obama on holiday in Martha's vineyard...we hemmorage jobs, losing houses, try to feed our kids...
And he's blithering on and on about health care, calling opponents LIARs....
And the NATION IS YELLING FOR THE IDIOTS TO STOP.
"it's the economy, stupid."
The anger is still rising.. and it's going to keep rising if the democrats and Obama keep screwing around with garbage that has nothing to do with jobs growth and jobs creation.
Talk about a clueless bunch of elitists idiots.
"When 90% of the nation is FINE with the system"?

I don't know where you got this information but I sure would like to. Frankly, I don't believe there is a word of truth in it. Ninety percent of America is not happy with the "system". That is only one I singled out because it is one of the most ridiculous of all your claims in this post.
Ridiculous

AOL

#20 Sep 15, 2009
Stock Analyst wrote:
<quoted text>
No they wasn't. The loan officers didn't hold a gun to the customers head and make them accept it. The customers are as guilty as a the loan officers. They should have read all fine prints. IMO. I do same thing when I apply for a home, if a mortgage broker try give me a loan with pre-payment penalty I go somewhere else. If they slowly rise interest over yearly, I would shop a little harder. If interest isn't rising with inflation I would shop a little harder.
Sometimes I can't believe what I have just read. I simply cannot grasp how people can be so gullable. I have never seen anything to compare with some of the things I have recently read, right here in good ole' Motown. I don't blame the consumer entirely, but they must bear some of the responsibility, a modest amount, none the less a bit. I have always known when I could or couldn't afford that new pair of Jimmy Choos.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 1 min Scratch Golfer 1,327
News Trump's state visit should be scrapped, says Lo... 2 min CZars_R_US 52
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 2 min jonjedi 5,715
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min Uncle Tab 259,074
News Trump supporters cheer his combative stance wit... 3 min Dalai Lama 298
Donald J Trump, our next president (Mar '16) 5 min Chilli J 2,543
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 6 min Sheriff Joe 529 3,141
News Fearing deportation, undocumented mother seeks ... 8 min Texxy the Selfie Cat 164
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 22 min ritedownthemiddle 1,496,773
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr positronium 412,717
More from around the web