braggslaw

Wed, Aug 25, 2010 : 12:30 p.m.

We can debate fault... But loans were being given to unemployed people for 200,000 homes... I put the blame on the person taking the loan. Simple math would show that he/she could not afford the loan. Blaming others is a weak attempt to remove personal responsibility. Institutionally Barnie Frank and his partner (see Freddie and Fannie) created a market for high risk loans that would have never been granted if there had been any sort of "risk" decisions made up-front for the borrowers. In an attempt to help people own homes Freddie and Fannie destroyed the dream of home ownership. Another mistake made by the federal govt. People need to accept responsibility for their decisions, blaming others does nothing for this country.

Speechless

Wed, Aug 25, 2010 : 11:52 a.m.

"... Nobody forced the hapless victims to over-pay for real estate, take loans they couldnt afford..." Wait... the financial system explicitly told them that they could afford those loans and mortgages. In most cases the lenders well understood that these loans were very high risk — but not to themselves! Bad loans became profitable by bundling them together to sell to gullible Wall Street investors. This was a racket, and like Jesse Jackson, I'd prefer to see some reparations made to the victims of these scams, as a form of bottom-up stimulus. "...More taxation isnt the answer... siphoning it from the wealthy... will only work until as long as there is something to confiscate... Trickle-down economics is where the wealthy willingly invest in productive things to earn a profit... socialism and confiscation are not the answer..." Higher taxes for the middle class and the poor are not the answer, but returning to the high tax rates of the 1950s for top incomes and the upper middle class is definitely a part of the answer. That money can be made socially useful by applying it to building national infrastructure and social services, along with investment in new national industries to replace those who fled our shores to exploit near-slave labor conditions found elsewhere. As Jackson said in regard to bottom-up stimulus, "Somehow, someway, we must commit ourselves to watering the roots, not just watering the leaves." Waiting for wealth to trickle down from the well-off and powerful is as practical as waiting for thunderstorms in the Sahara. They keep it mostly for themselves or maybe use it to instigate new financial derivative scams. Only the wealthy would consider European-style democratic socialism to be confiscation. Most people who live under it feel it represents basic, essential, everyday social responsibility, necessary for a functioning civil society. It shows Jesse Jackson's "bottom-up stimulus" employed widely across a society. Or, if the word "confiscation" must be used, this consider this: When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him whose? — Don Marquis

braggslaw

Wed, Aug 25, 2010 : 9:26 a.m.

Maybe I am old fashioned. -don't borrow money you can't pay back -don't live beyond your means -when you make a promise, keep it -save enough money to get you through the hard times (keep 50lbs of beans and rice in your basement) -don't have children unless you can take care of them (waited for five years after I was married even though we wanted children earlier) -take care of yourself, don't expect others to take care of you -when hard times hit, don't be too proud to take some help but pay it back -don't stick your nose into other people's business if they aren't bothering you. Why don't we have a march based on these issues? When I listen to people preach about what they "deserve" or what they are "entitled" to I worry about the future of this country.

tlb1201

Wed, Aug 25, 2010 : 1:03 a.m.

Yet it's apparently quite all right for the feds to 'bail out' Wall Street tycoons, whose failed, low-standard bets left the poor dears too short on cash to pay out the usual multimillions in bonuses. So our tax dollars did that for them. Banking, investment and mortgage lending have all devolved into financial rackets, nothing more where there's bailing out to be done, let that support go to the hapless victims of these rackets, not the Wall Street perps. We agree here, up to a point. The Wall Street bailout was a symptom of lax lending standards and a poorly regulated lending system. I have no defense for all of that garbage. That was regulatory failure coupled with greed, failed social engineering, and failed economic policy. The various administrations over the past several decades all had a hand in letting things spiral out of control. Lending standards were lowered to put more houses in the hands of more people, regardless of their underlying repayment ability and lack of sufficient collateral value. High-risk lending and 100 percent-plus financing were not wise practices, but nobody cared as long as values kept rising. Consumers were buying and fueling the economic bubble. No one had the guts to end the risky practices and be the one to slow the economy. But here is where we part company: Nobody forced the hapless victims to over-pay for real estate, take loans they couldnt afford, or to keep borrowing every bit of equity they had in their homes so that they could use it to live beyond their means. There were perps throughout the entire system, not just on Wall Street. I include mortgage brokers/commissioned lenders, Realtors, politicians, borrowers, and everyone else who profited in some way by continuation of the bubble. Who ever thought it was a good idea to pay lenders a commission on how much money they can shove out the back door in the form of loans?! Back in the good old days, they were paid based on writing good loans! Steep taxation of the wealthy, combined with the generous sharing of those proceeds by the federal government with the states or directly with the middle classes, ensured that postwar prosperity would spread around. Today, on the other hand, nearly all increase in economic activity accrues to the upper crust only. So-called "trickle down" economics only happen when the government consciously makes it happen through redirecting money, as is the case in western Europe. The U.S. still has a lot of wealth, but you just wouldn't know it, since less and less of the population gets any access to it. More taxation isnt the answer. Living within our means is. We cant pay for everything when we are spending our collective national wealth elsewhere and not in our own country. Siphoning it from the wealthy so that the lower economic classes can spend it on foreign goods and services will only work until as long as there is something to confiscate. We need to make and sell things to others to bring wealth back into this country. That isnt happening. As a nation, we are buying more than we are selling. Unfortunately the greedy wealthy arent bringing in enough taxable profits to support the rest of us. We cant keep living on our inheritance from The Greatest Generation forever. There are no homeless shelters to fall back on for entire failed nations! True trickle-down economics is where there is minimal government intervention. What you suggest is socialism, pure and simple, not trickle-down economics. Trickle-down economics is where the wealthy willingly invest in productive things to earn a profit. In turn, they employ and do business with those who have labor, technology and expertise to contribute toward earning wages and rewards for their innovation, productivity, and knowledge. Land, labor, capital, and ingenuity go where they can find rewards. Unfortunately, due to a too-rapid transition to a global economy, capital and technology are flowing elsewhere for their rewards, leaving labor in the lurch. Yes, the wealthy tend to own capital and technology. Money and technology are very portable; a highly skilled labor force that doesnt want to move to China, not so much. There are more and more laborers competing for jobs requiring their skill levels. They are forced to compete for lesser jobs, often competing with the illegals who find it worthwhile to come here to work for a variety of reasons. The playing field is not equal, but socialism and confiscation are not the answer to improve the lifestyle of the lower economic classes. What was that old adage about teaching a man to fish versus giving them a fish?!. We just need to make sure we still have a stocked pond in which to fish!

braggslaw

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 7:38 p.m.

Speechless, The top 20% of income earners already pay 80% of the federal income taxes collected. Why should I subsidize the lazy drunk football players who did not goto college and are now in dead end jobs? (1/2 my high school friends are in this situation). Getty drunk, ignoring school etc. etc. leads to a poor result. Then to claim some sort of entitlement based on being "American" and wanting to take things from others who earned it disgusts me. Yes, a few thousand wall street bankers were bailed out because they had to be bailed out. But the 10's of millions of people who invested their time and money into themselves or their businesses should not be forced to subsidize those who willingly made poor choices or took the easy way out. If we start punishing people for their success the whole system falls apart and everyone is less wealthy.

Speechless

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 5:05 p.m.

"... Debt forgiveness is no answer. Neither is lowering lending standards. Those practices become flat-out rewards for failure, fraud, and for doing nothing but sticking your hand out...." Yet it's apparently quite all right for the feds to 'bail out' Wall Street tycoons, whose failed, low-standard bets left the poor dears too short on cash to pay out the usual multimillions in bonuses. So our tax dollars did that for them. Banking, investment and mortgage lending have all devolved into financial rackets, nothing more — where there's bailing out to be done, let that support go to the hapless victims of these rackets, not the Wall Street perps. "... I think we should find ways to make college more affordable directly through scholarships and grants and separate programs that target specific needs instead...." In the 1960s and '70s, scholarships and grants certainly existed, but the bulk of higher education costs were covered by support from state and federal sources. Higher federal taxation of the wealthy and upper middle class, who can very easily afford it, underwrote a greater portion of critical federal support than it does now. Instead of putting students in debt for much or all of their adult lives, why not show a little moral courage and make the upper crust pay their share once again, like they did under Ike. "... As to the Eisenhower era, the propserity and success of our middle class had much to due with the productivity and technological advantages and the resulting competitive advantage that the US enjoyed right after World War II..." Steep taxation of the wealthy, combined with the generous sharing of those proceeds by the federal government with the states or directly with the middle classes, ensured that postwar prosperity would spread around. Today, on the other hand, nearly all increase in economic activity accrues to the upper crust only. So-called "trickle down" economics only happen when the government consciously makes it happen through redirecting money, as is the case in western Europe. The U.S. still has a lot of wealth, but you just wouldn't know it, since less and less of the population gets any access to it. "...a military career would be beneath the dignity of Jesse Jackson and his followers" Due to corporate flight in order to exploit low-paid or even semi-slave labor conditions in the Third World, there are economic observers who fear that a warfare-driven economy is where the county is heading in the long term.

braggslaw

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 4:03 p.m.

Wow Speechless, How about we all forget about our responsibilities and committments... Great solution-the govt. will bail out lazy people by taking money away from the people that are doing the work. What an immoral and ludicrous position.

djm12652

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 2:27 p.m.

@Breigel....class warfare battle? Dang...did I miss a good fight? By the way, eyeheart was being mainly sarcastic...lighten up, start a business and hire all these people that wish to protest for a job...me, I guess I'm old fashioned. I went banging on doors, applying for jobs and then making myself worth hiring...not protesting. But seriously...if I protest enough can I have Mary Sue's job?

Mick52

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 2:20 p.m.

Great! I am all for the forgiving student loans since I have some. But I was not there so could someone please post the list given by Rev. Jackson of who we contact to pay off our loans? Or is it simply that after I march, I just call my lenders and tell them I marched away my loans? "Marching always works." No, hardly ever. It did for putting the civil rights movement to the fore and get civil rights legislation passed, but other than that no, protesting and marching does not work. Waste of time. Couple years back college student governments rallied in Lansing about high tuition. Didn't work. Damn. I guess they weren't able to come up with how to fund colleges while cutting tuition. I am sure Rev. Jackson is a great speaker and motivator, but to suggest marching and rallying is going to get you employed is not very helpful without some precise information on how such behavior will magically result in a job. What really irks me about celebrities, and prominent people when they come up with this kind of stuff-forgive student loans-is that they never seem to come up with a way to do so that would ever work.

tlb1201

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 1:51 p.m.

Speechless, you leave me nearly speechless! But Im getting over it quickly. Forgive everyone's debt?! Are you kidding?! Debt forgiveness is no answer. Neither is lowering lending standards. Those practices become flat-out rewards for failure, fraud, and for doing nothing but sticking your hand out. I think we should find ways to make college more affordable directly through scholarships and grants and separate programs that target specific needs instead. Also, there should be incentives to educate people for specific careers and fields of employment that are undersupplied or are expected to need more qualified candidates in the future. Debt forgiveness is an incentive for more people to have a greater sense of entitlement and is wide-open for fraud and abuse. It is a disincentive for people to become successful enough to have to repay their own debts and taxes. Why would they want to work hard enough be rewarded with having to pay for those who dont? Do you have a clue how free enterprise works?! Hard work, industriousness, taking prudent risks, doing things right, and achieving success should be rewarded, but failure, poor choices, entitlement, and fraud should not. The ones who profit the most from debt forgiveness are those who profit from writing and receiving the bad loans. The conventional lending system should not be used for subsidies and social engineering. You can see how well reduced lending standards for those purposes worked during the past two decades! Separate, specific programs should be used, not the lending system. As to the Eisenhower era, the propserity and success of our middle class had much to due with the productivity and technological advantages and the resulting competitive advantage that the US enjoyed right after World War II. Since then, we have seen other countries catch up rapidly in their technology and productivity while their wages and standard of living are still in the Stone Age. Our middle class and manufacturing jobs are going to those who can make things and do things for less cost. The capital and facilities are going where the profits are. Our working class's well-being is declining while theirs is enjoying more prosperity than they have ever seen. We have to find other ways to compete and to protect our jobs. Otherwise, I fear that there will be much more suffering yet to come until wages and productivity equalize globally.

Carl Duncan

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 12:37 p.m.

I suppose a military career would be beneath the dignity of Jesse Jackson and his followers.

Speechless

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.

Jackson was speaking near campus to an audience that included students. So, it's not surprising that his bullet points included student loan forgiveness. At other gatherings and on Saturday, he and other speakers may well put more focus on mortgage foreclosure moratoriums and/or other remedies. Back in the day some 30-50 years ago, federal and state and federal taxes largely underwrote in-state college education. State tuition was fairly cheap, and even free, I believe, if you lived in California. This was a legacy of the Eisenhower era that steadily began to disappear under Reagan and after. An essential feature of the Eisenhower years, which made wide access to higher education possible, was the heavy taxation of wealthy incomes. That had a great deal to do with postwar prosperity for the middle class; steeply graduated taxation made sure that substantial wealth would "trickle down" from society's elite, rather than foolishly relying on the rich to share it. We should go ahead and forgive student loans. To pay for it, eliminate a tax loophole or two that doesn't benefit anyone except the already well-off. Then immediately get started with large-scale forgiveness of home mortgage debt.

braggslaw

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 9:55 a.m.

We can debate trickle down, Obama's public works projects etc... But protesting for jobs? What does that mean? I am protesting... so hire me? What company would ever hire an employee who believes he/she could get a job through protesting?

InsideTheHall

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.

Forgive student loans....! So the students and parents who cut back on their lifestyle to save money to fund education now have to pick this cost as well???????? Where does this sense of entitlement come from? Has it replaced a good work ethic? When the revolution comes (and it is about to happen) it will come from the right as the doers will be fed up supporting the non-doers.

russellr

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 9:31 a.m.

I heard him on TV to forgive all the student loans. Are you kidding me? How about forgive all mortgages, credit card debt, car loans, etc.... He is unbelievable!! I'm sorry they need to take the term Rev off. Don't hide behind the bible because things he says and does, doesn't match up to my bible. Don't be deceived people but as I read alot of these comments people on here are smarter than I thought to see through him.

Cash

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.

Small businesses will grow the economy, according to Rick Snyder. Now if he could convince his wealthy pals, you know the ones that got multi billion dollar bailouts from us, to loan to small businesses as well as help people who are losing their homes, perhaps the economy could improve and we'd have more private sector employment. As long as big banks refuse to lend to small businesses, the employment scene will not change. Perhaps it's a ploy to impact the fall elections, who knows? But big banks aren't going to help this economy in spite of the help that they received from us. Stop worrying about the middle class getting a break from tax money and start worrying about corporate America taking everyone for a ride at our expense.

Top Cat

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 7:24 a.m.

High and persistent unemployment is the inevitable result of Obama, Pelosi and Reid's war on capital and private enterprise and policies to grow government. Step 1 is to stop those policies and step 2 is to reverse them. November 2!

Awakened

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 6:08 a.m.

I agree with protesting for jobs! We should refuse to work until they give us some!

michiganpoorboy

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 4:06 a.m.

The dudes a joke. Looks like he is on drugs?????????

tdw

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 12:15 a.m.

@Bagel Is there ever a time that you cannot blame Repubs or christans for any problem?

David Briegel

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 11:16 p.m.

EyeHeartA2, Sure beats discussing the failed philosophy you espouse! How about addressing the victors of the class warfare battle?

sbbuilder

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 10:53 p.m.

Ghost How's this: zzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzzzz Actually, Mr Jackson has become more of a bothersome mosquito. They're not very big, but they sure can grab your attention when they are trying to suck your blood.

Nephilim

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 10:10 p.m.

I've only got one question........where's AL?????

Townie56

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 9:49 p.m.

Jessie and Al "the mouth" are great examples of the Peter Principle. That's what makes America great

djm12652

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 8:52 p.m.

Outside of Jesse Jackson's bodyguards and limo drivers, exactly how many jobs has he created? Without federal monies that is...

stunhsif

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 8:50 p.m.

Jesse "Love Child" Jackson is no Reverend in my opinion. He needs to find a real job and quit pimping those that he thinks he represents.

Steven Case Lyman

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 7:43 p.m.

Dreamers, a bunch of damn dreamers! And Rev. Jesse Jackson (I never understood what is so reverent about him) capitalizes off the emotionalism of those who sucker for his solution (marching?). Businesses do not exist for the purpose of creating jobs, rather for the struggle to make a profit, or at least stay afloat in these competitive times. The Republicans do not have a solution (lowering business taxes will hardly make a dent), and neither do the Democrats (borrow more to create jobs). Welcome to the New World Oder, we are in a pickle!

Macabre Sunset

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 7:29 p.m.

If we want jobs, we have to give businesses a reason to provide jobs. Right now, corporate America is convinced the White House wants to wage war against corporations. So they're afraid to invest in new ventures. The stimulus has only helped banks recover from all the poor loans they were forced to make under previous mandates from the government. That, and maintain public sector employment. Meanwhile, we've had a jobless "recovery" from a serious recession. This rally needs to be held in Washington, not in front of helpless corporate and university entities.

Stephen Landes

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 7:08 p.m.

Unfortunately the Rev Jackson's appearance is worse than useless: it encourages people to believe that there is a way to get ahead by protesting rather than by working hard. What these students need to hear is a message that says "work hard, study hard, save your money, and get out in the real world and get experience". True, some of that experience might be volunteering or interning for no pay. There is no substitute approach -- no amount of "marching" is going to change the economy or create jobs where there aren't any. No one, that is NO ONE, gets a guarantee of anything with their degree except the opportunity to compete. Not even successful athletes have a guarantee: they have to work through the draft, be in shape physically and mentally, and work HARD. Pleading for the Feds to send in more "stimulus" money is a prescription for economic chaos. We have already borrowed too much and created too much uncertainty in the economy for businesses to invest in new employees. If these students have the time to march then they have the time to read the Constitution, learn some basic economics, and polish up their skills. More math and english, less marching.

jcj

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 6:37 p.m.

Anyone have any figures on how much he charged to "inspire" a few? Go ahead forgive the student loans and we won't have enough room in colleges for the free (for the students not the tax payers)education! So then we will have everyone educated and still no jobs. If your looking for guarantees you should be a politician or guest speaker.

InsideTheHall

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 6:15 p.m.

Take the debate up with Obama. The stimulus was supposed to create 3.5 million jobs not lead to higher employment!

annarbor28

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 6:04 p.m.

He's just trying to justify himself.

Tom Joad

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 5:13 p.m.

The man has a point. With persistent, nay, permanent unemployment for millions of Americans it won't be long until that turns into a heady social protest movement. I first saw Jesse Jackson in person dropping off a couple of students at Stockwell Dorm on UM's campus in early 90s. He was in a limousine and that is where I first conjured the term Limousine Liberal to myself (kinda funny, huh?)