PDA

View Full Version : Financial Sector in the Tank



Pages : [1] 2

ari1013
09-15-2008, 12:07 PM
While this isn't really political, you know very well that both candidates are going to jump on it, so here goes:

Two months ago Bear Stearns got bailed out by the fed.

Last week Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got bailed out by the government.

Today, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch are going under, with Lehman declaring bankrupcy and ML getting bought out by Bank of America.

This week, AIG is expected to go under.

Next week, WaMu is expected to go under.

Trust me when I say that more will follow if the government doesn't offer up bailouts.

I already posted about how the US Treasury is sucking up about 20% of our national budget each year. If we keep bailing out the banks and investment firms, we're going to see that percentage rise -- and it's going to be a larger percent of a larger national budget.

Thoughts?

ari1013
09-15-2008, 12:41 PM
And here are the responses:
McCain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igAmVs0cvY8
From one of McCain's economic advisors: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202415.html

Things today just aren't that bad. Sure, there are trouble spots in the economy, as the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and jitters about Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers, amply demonstrate. And unemployment figures are up a bit, too. None of this, however, is cause for depression -- or exaggerated Depression comparisons.


Obama:

"Today of all days, John McCain's stubborn insistence that the 'fundamentals of the economy are strong' shows that he is disturbingly out of touch with what's going in the lives of ordinary Americans. Even as his own ads try to convince him that the economy is in crisis, apparently his 26 years in Washington have left him incapable of understanding that the policies he supports have created an historic economic crisis," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.



If I can find a youtube video of Obama talking about it, I'll post that up.
This morning we woke up to some very serious and troubling news from Wall Street.

The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that are generating enormous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.

Today offers more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store. For eight years, we've had policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans. The result is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.


But again, I really feel like this issue should be above politics. As far as I'm concerned both sides are taking it a little too far. This is going to be a recession, not a "Second Great Depression," but saying things are fine misses out on all the recessionary warning signs that are sitting in a size-28-bold-heading font.

hoosiercubsfan
09-15-2008, 01:28 PM
I'm really not that concerned to be honest with you. You are now seeing the ripple effect running through the financial markets that held onto all those junk mortgages that where written. You have to know that sooner or later the people left holding the bag on those where not going to be able to get out from under them. They took the risk and now they are taking the beating for betting on a bad deal. This is exactly how it should work in a capitalistic society even if it is only quasi capitalistic. Those that don't follow a sound business plan go under and from those ashes someone new will appear to pick up the pieces and do it better learning from the mistakes of those that came before them.

SmthBluCitrus
09-15-2008, 02:03 PM
On another note ... making a political case for this.

This type of information, and any focus on the economy, is going to be a good thing for Obama. Your everyday average voter will likely be thinking that "a Republican got us into this mess." And, they're going to associate McCain with Bush.

I have a feeling that in the next few days the national polls are going to reverse (should interest you pollsters :))

Uncle Funster
09-15-2008, 02:18 PM
Scary stuff. I am amazed that the DJI hasn't gone below 10,000 yet. Recession is upon us.

What really bothers me is that capitalism is dead as we once knew it. With nearly every major US financial institution under government control (albeit because of their own greed), the very life's blood of our economy...loans...are now controlled by politicians. Free market capitalism is gone.

ari1013
09-15-2008, 02:34 PM
Scary stuff. I am amazed that the DJI hasn't gone below 10,000 yet. Recession is upon us.

What really bothers me is that capitalism is dead as we once knew it. With nearly every major US financial institution under government control (albeit because of their own greed), the very life's blood of our economy...loans...are now controlled by politicians. Free market capitalism is gone.
I'm not going to go with the Doomsday scenario just yet, but you have a point.

Had the government actually done a better job regulating the industry, then we wouldn't have had to have the government take over the industry as it's now doing. Sometimes a little bit of regulation can go a long way in helping out the markets.

QuietWyatt
09-15-2008, 02:42 PM
(CNN) — Democrats are pouncing on John McCain's comments at a Florida campaign rally Monday morning that the economy is “strong,” even as a major Wall Street bank filed for bankruptcy protection and another was sold to Bank of America.

"You know, there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street," McCain said at a Jacksonville, Florida event earlier Monday. "And it is, people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times."

McCain's comments came hours after Lehman Brothers — the 158-year-old Wall Street giant — filed for bankruptcy protection and 94 year-old Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America. Both developments sent shockwaves through Wall Street and have dominated the talk on the campaign trail.

McCain's comments seemed out-of-sync with a television ad the Arizona senator released earlier Monday morning declaring the economy in "crisis," a sign his campaign may be struggling over exactly how to respond to the woes on Wall Street.

The Obama campaign quickly mocked McCain's remarks, saying the Arizona senator is "disturbingly out of touch."

"Today of all days, John McCain's stubborn insistence that the 'fundamentals of the economy are strong' shows that he is disturbingly out of touch with what's going in the lives of ordinary Americans," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. "Even as his own ads try to convince him that the economy is in crisis, apparently his 26 years in Washington have left him incapable of understanding that the policies he supports have created an historic economic crisis."

Campaigning in the key battleground state of Michigan — a state which has experienced significant economic turmoil over the last year — Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden also attacked McCain over his economic comments.


"If all you do is walk the halls of power, all you'll hear is the wants of the powerful," said Biden. "I believe that's why John McCain can say with a straight face as recently as this morning, and this is a quote, the fundamentals of the economy are strong. That's what John said. He says that we've made great progress economically in the Bush years.

"Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn't run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well — unless I ran into John McCain," he also said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/mccain-mocked-for-saying-economy-still-strong/

PUGS1688
09-15-2008, 02:47 PM
I don't understand what is wrong with saying, "Yea, your economy is sucking hard."

ari1013
09-15-2008, 02:49 PM
I don't understand what is wrong with saying, "Yea, your economy is sucking hard."
If your party is the incumbant party it doesn't really help your cause admitting that the economy is down.

gcoll
09-15-2008, 02:52 PM
I don't understand what is wrong with saying, "Yea, your economy is sucking hard."

Maybe he doesn't think it is.

ari1013
09-15-2008, 03:00 PM
Obama's response:


It's not that I think John McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of most Americans. I just think doesn't know. He doesn't get what's happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works. Why else would he say that we've made great progress economically under George Bush? Why else would he say that the economy isn't something he understands as well as he should? Why else would he say, today, of all days - just a few hours ago - that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong?

Senator - what economy are you talking about?

What's more fundamental than the ability to find a job that pays the bills and can raise a family? What's more fundamental than knowing that your life savings is secure, and that you can retire with dignity? What's more fundamental than knowing that you'll have a roof over your head at the end of the day? What's more fundamental than that?

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - that promise that America is the place where you can make it if you try - a promise that is the only reason that we are standing here today.

steelcityroller
09-15-2008, 03:03 PM
Maybe he doesn't think it is.

And if thats true there is another good reason not to vote for McCain....

WES445
09-15-2008, 04:07 PM
Both these guys are worrying me. One, McCain, think everything is rosey and the other, Obama, is promising expensive programs while the economy is taking major hits. Both are talking about cutting taxes while we are bailing out another greedy, corrupt money lender. Spending more money, wheter on the Iraq war or healthcare. I am telling you there is alot of B.S. and ducking the issues here by both candidates. Change is great, but I can't change a flat tire and drive my car unless I can afford a new one. Ignoring a bad economy is a sign of madness or a very weak con job being spinned. Or maybe they want the job so badly they don't care about the truth. If these two parties didn't have a extensive history of lying, I'm sorry, spinning the truth, maybe I would believe them.

WES445
09-15-2008, 04:55 PM
I'm not going to go with the Doomsday scenario just yet, but you have a point.

Had the government actually done a better job regulating the industry, then we wouldn't have had to have the government take over the industry as it's now doing. Sometimes a little bit of regulation can go a long way in helping out the markets.

What really yank mine chain is the fact our leaders deregulated alot of safeguards over the last 20 years starting with Reagan thru 1st Bush, Clinton and now W, that might have prevented these problems. They somehow couldn't see the brusting of the tech bubble, housing bubble coming and the blow back that followed. What's next, the financial bubble? How much can the government handle, bailout or insure bad debt from the private sector? Why aren't there more CEO being held accountable for these collaspes? Freddie, Frannie didn't run themselves into the ground.

PUGS1688
09-15-2008, 06:29 PM
Nothing makes me happier then when a Politician says that things are going bad. That proves to me that he/she is being honest and wants to get **** done. Maybe that's why I like Ron Paul so much.

johnnylee722
09-15-2008, 06:46 PM
Economy is strong? Sure... whatever makes you sleep at night.

Obama better win this election becuase this guy has no idea whats going on.

Raider_Vet
09-15-2008, 07:58 PM
This is more proof McCain is out of touch with America and is a simpleton.

CubsGirl
09-15-2008, 08:03 PM
If he really did say that this morning, and the thread title is actually true without any twisting of words or situations or any spin... that's ****ing terrifying.

yaowowrocket11
09-15-2008, 10:05 PM
If he really did say that this morning, and the thread title is actually true without any twisting of words or situations or any spin... that's ****ing terrifying.

It is terrifying. This man has no idea how to handle the economy. Palin OR McCain haven't gone into any real detail how they plan to improve the economy. I guess it doesn't need improvement? It's only declining, and fast. Something needs to be done, and whoever gets elected needs to get something done as soon as they get into office.

ari1013
09-15-2008, 10:10 PM
If he really did say that this morning, and the thread title is actually true without any twisting of words or situations or any spin... that's ****ing terrifying.
I posted a video of it in my finance thread.

ari1013
09-15-2008, 10:13 PM
What really yank mine chain is the fact our leaders deregulated alot of safeguards over the last 20 years starting with Reagan thru 1st Bush, Clinton and now W, that might have prevented these problems. They somehow couldn't see the brusting of the tech bubble, housing bubble coming and the blow back that followed. What's next, the financial bubble? How much can the government handle, bailout or insure bad debt from the private sector? Why aren't there more CEO being held accountable for these collaspes? Freddie, Frannie didn't run themselves into the ground.
Those poor CEOs are only getting a $10M severance package now instead of $30M. I feel so bad for them :rolleyes:

ari1013
09-15-2008, 10:14 PM
Here you go: http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6638580&postcount=2

lakersrock
09-15-2008, 10:14 PM
"You know, there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street," McCain said at a Jacksonville, Florida event earlier Monday. "And it is, people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times."

I guess I missed the economy is strong part. What he said is true. I guess they forgot the tremendous turmoil part too. Nobody in their right mind would make an entire quote, "the economy is strong".

ari1013
09-15-2008, 10:20 PM
I guess I missed the economy is strong part. What he said is true. I guess they forgot the tremendous turmoil part too. Nobody in their right mind would make an entire quote, "the economy is strong".
Clearly you support him, but how exactly are you defending those statements as true?

Turmoil generally refers to rapid up-and-down movements. The financial market is sinking fast. There haven't been any upward trends lately. And then he follows that up with "the fundamentals of our economy are strong?"

Is he talking about market economics? Sure that still works.

No, more than likely he's talking about our specific economic conditions. And those are a far cry from strong. The 3.3% growth from the stimulus checks was nice, but it was short lived. It should have been a boost to the financial sector as well, but with all hell breaking loose on Wall Street, it didn't have any crossover effects.

WES445
09-15-2008, 11:01 PM
Those poor CEOs are only getting a $10M severance package now instead of $30M. I feel so bad for them :rolleyes:

yeah, I cry myself asleep every night for them. Think we can start a relief fund for them?:D

Randy West
09-15-2008, 11:12 PM
has the govt responded with an " everything is fine nothing to see here " comment yet??

hoosiercubsfan
09-16-2008, 12:05 AM
has the govt responded with an " everything is fine nothing to see here " comment yet??

Things definitely aren't fine but it isn't quite the sky is falling like people are saying. This should have been seen coming a long time ago with the stupid junk mortgages that hurt the housing market. I heard someone say it pretty well that now the chickens are coming home to roost. Those left holding bonds backed by this bad debt are getting socked because of it. It is like putting your mortgage payment on black at the roulette table and it coming up red sooner or later your going to have to face the facts that money is due and you have nothing to pay it with.

LAKERMANIA
09-16-2008, 03:56 AM
My friend and I are having a conversation and have been having it for a while now.. He believes that we are heading for another depression, actually he says that we are already in one, what is worse, he also says that we are WORSE OFF right now than the Great Depression in the 30s..

I dont think we are in one.. What do you guys think?

Cracka2HI!
09-16-2008, 04:04 AM
Worse off than the 30's...??? I wasn't there but ROTFLMFAO about that one. Uhhh NOOO! HELL NOOO! What is he thinking there? He just hates Bush I'll bet. Maybe we are heading towards a depression but I don't think people of today with laptops and cell phones can relate to what they had in the depression. These are good topics because a lot of people really believe crap like that, but it's not even close.

Cracka2HI!
09-16-2008, 04:12 AM
I hate both candidates stances on this one. McCain wants to say everything is fine. Obama seems to say CEO's should make similar money to regular workers. Both stances don't work at all. Obama supporters correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can tell he has no idea how to fix it either but is very happy pointing his finger at the right saying its their fault.

steelcityroller
09-16-2008, 04:46 AM
My friend and I are having a conversation and have been having it for a while now.. He believes that we are heading for another depression, actually he says that we are already in one, what is worse, he also says that we are WORSE OFF right now than the Great Depression in the 30s..

I dont think we are in one.. What do you guys think?

There is no way we are worse off right now than the Great Depression of the 30s. At points back then 25-30% of the country was unemployed and the average income was decreased on average by 25% and as much as 50% for some families. There is a big difference in having to eat soup and bread for dinner every night to have enough to pay your bills and complaining about gas prices and payments on your +$100,000 house....

cambovenzi
09-16-2008, 05:27 AM
NO.
we have plenty of prozac.

cambovenzi
09-16-2008, 05:28 AM
There is no way we are worse off right now than the Great Depression of the 30s. At points back then 25-30% of the country was unemployed and the average income was decreased on average by 25% and as much as 50% for some families. There is a big difference in having to eat soup and bread for dinner every night to have enough to pay your bills and complaining about gas prices and payments on your +$100,000 house....

yeah i agree.
almost everyone was in really bad shape back then.
most people are getting by fine right now.

oregontrailGOD
09-16-2008, 05:49 AM
I think that housing is the area thats killing the economy right now. In 1960 the average house cost $14,000 and now the average house cost +$200,000. Back then the average house cost about what a person made in a year now the average house costs about what a person makes in 5-6 years. That basically means you have to take a loan on the house and get into debt and end up paying more by the time you add in interest. Its interesting though if you look at the top 5 things that have increased from an inflation standpoint form the 1960 era to today.

Stamps in 1960 were 3 cents now they are 41 cents
Gas in 1960 was 18 cents a gallon now its +$4.00 a gallon
Average house in 1960 was $14,000 now its +$200,000
Dental crown in 1960 was $40 now its $1100
Monthly Medicare Insurance in 1970 was $5 now its $96.40

WES445
09-16-2008, 06:10 AM
I think that housing is the area thats killing the economy right now. In 1960 the average house cost $14,000 and now the average house cost +$200,000. Back then the average house cost about what a person made in a year now the average house costs about what a person makes in 5-6 years. That basically means you have to take a loan on the house and get into debt and end up paying more by the time you add in interest. Its interesting though if you look at the top 5 things that have increased from an inflation standpoint form the 1960 era to today.

Stamps in 1960 were 3 cents now they are 41 cents
Gas in 1960 was 18 cents a gallon now its +$4.00 a gallon
Average house in 1960 was $14,000 now its +$200,000
Dental crown in 1960 was $40 now its $1100
Monthly Medicare Insurance in 1970 was $5 now its $96.40

I would like to see how wages and buying power are now in comparison. I think you would have a better scale.

oregontrailGOD
09-16-2008, 06:19 AM
I would like to see how wages and buying power are now in comparison. I think you would have a better scale.

The average household income in 1960 was nearly $6000 and now in 2008 its $48000 so thats an 800% increase in the average household income. You also need to keep in mind that most families in 1960 were one income families while now most families both the man and the wife work. So we have

Income from 1960 to 2008 - 800% increase

Stamps from 1960 to 2008 - 1400% increase
Gas from 1960 to 2008 - 2200% increase
House from 1960 to 2008 - 1400% increase
Medicare from 1960 to 2008 - 1900% increase
Dental from 1960 to 2008 - 2700% increase

DodgersFan28
09-16-2008, 06:29 AM
Keep listening to your iPod and making calls on your iPhone 3G and tell me we're in/headed for a Depression.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 06:43 AM
There is no way we are worse off right now than the Great Depression of the 30s. At points back then 25-30% of the country was unemployed and the average income was decreased on average by 25% and as much as 50% for some families. There is a big difference in having to eat soup and bread for dinner every night to have enough to pay your bills and complaining about gas prices and payments on your +$100,000 house....
There's a difference between having food to eat at night and what people had to go through for food during the Great Depression.

During the Great Depression deflation ran rampant and made our goods essentially worthless -- which led to a spiraling effect of our companies shutting down leading to more job loss leading to less money in the system and then once again more deflation. That was the biggest problem.

We might start feeling it badly in the next couple of quarters, but we're never going to hit that bottom point. That's the beauty of globalization.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 06:45 AM
I think that housing is the area thats killing the economy right now. In 1960 the average house cost $14,000 and now the average house cost +$200,000. Back then the average house cost about what a person made in a year now the average house costs about what a person makes in 5-6 years. That basically means you have to take a loan on the house and get into debt and end up paying more by the time you add in interest. Its interesting though if you look at the top 5 things that have increased from an inflation standpoint form the 1960 era to today.

Stamps in 1960 were 3 cents now they are 41 cents
Gas in 1960 was 18 cents a gallon now its +$4.00 a gallon
Average house in 1960 was $14,000 now its +$200,000
Dental crown in 1960 was $40 now its $1100
Monthly Medicare Insurance in 1970 was $5 now its $96.40
It's not housing prices that are killing people. It's energy and medical costs. Looking way back to the 1960s is comparing apples and oranges. Compare today to ten years ago and you'll see that the two things that have risen faster than any other are heating/transportation as well as health.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 06:47 AM
.

WES445
09-16-2008, 06:48 AM
There is no way we are worse off right now than the Great Depression of the 30s. At points back then 25-30% of the country was unemployed and the average income was decreased on average by 25% and as much as 50% for some families. There is a big difference in having to eat soup and bread for dinner every night to have enough to pay your bills and complaining about gas prices and payments on your +$100,000 house....

How about the months or a couple of years before the great depression? The roaring twenties could have been similar to the 1990 with the greed that rampage during both times. Grant you banking regulations were non-existence in the early 1900. Right now the tough times don't compare. I asked some of the older members of mine family who had gone thru the great depression. About the build up to it and they are fearful. No firm yes or no but alot fear. My mom saided they (american public) were buying stock and acting like it would never happen right up to the crash. All the warning signs were ignored. One of those "how could this happen moment?" hit everyone. The politicans were selling bs about the american economy right up to the time stockbrokers were jumping out the windows. Hooverville sprung up within months. If it is coming, the politicans will not give us a warning.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 06:50 AM
It's a similar situation but on a much smaller magnitude. This time around, the service sector is our busiest sector of the economy. There's really no way that unemployment can even hit double digits, let alone 30%+

WES445
09-16-2008, 06:55 AM
The average household income in 1960 was nearly $6000 and now in 2008 its $48000 so thats an 800% increase in the average household income. You also need to keep in mind that most families in 1960 were one income families while now most families both the man and the wife work. So we have

Income from 1960 to 2008 - 800% increase

Stamps from 1960 to 2008 - 1400% increase
Gas from 1960 to 2008 - 2200% increase
House from 1960 to 2008 - 1400% increase
Medicare from 1960 to 2008 - 1900% increase
Dental from 1960 to 2008 - 2700% increase

I can believe that. A buck could get you 3 comic books, 5 baseball card packs, jelly donut, pop and bag of chips with change back then. A buck was mine weekly allowance.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 06:57 AM
Things definitely aren't fine but it isn't quite the sky is falling like people are saying. This should have been seen coming a long time ago with the stupid junk mortgages that hurt the housing market. I heard someone say it pretty well that now the chickens are coming home to roost. Those left holding bonds backed by this bad debt are getting socked because of it. It is like putting your mortgage payment on black at the roulette table and it coming up red sooner or later your going to have to face the facts that money is due and you have nothing to pay it with.
Pretty sure that was Krugman. He's usually got a good assessment of how good/bad things really are.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 06:58 AM
I hate both candidates stances on this one. McCain wants to say everything is fine. Obama seems to say CEO's should make similar money to regular workers. Both stances don't work at all. Obama supporters correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can tell he has no idea how to fix it either but is very happy pointing his finger at the right saying its their fault.
How to fix this? Nobody can fix this. It's just going to have to play itself out. As far as the economy goes -- I'm decidedly in favor of Obama's policies over McCain's. I can detail that for you if you'd like, but I'm sure I've done it several times in other threads.

WES445
09-16-2008, 07:00 AM
It's a similar situation but on a much smaller magnitude. This time around, the service sector is our busiest sector of the economy. There's really no way that unemployment can even hit double digits, let alone 30%+
Cancel the question. If more people lose their jobs, the service sector will feel it big time. Right now my job paids well and is secure (I hope), but I have cut back on eating out, going to the movies, using dry cleaning and canceling mine yearly vacation. If gas continue to go up along with food cost, I will cut back more. I am sure alot of other people are doing the same things. This got to be a drain on the service sector and now that Ike has hit texas, their tourist industry is taking another hit. I don't see 30%+ job lost but I can see double digit in some areas of the country. The poor will feel it big time.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 07:37 AM
Cancel the question. If more people lose their jobs, the service sector will feel it big time. Right now my job paids well and is secure (I hope), but I have cut back on eating out, going to the movies, using dry cleaning and canceling mine yearly vacation. If gas continue to go up along with food cost, I will cut back more. I am sure alot of other people are doing the same things. This got to be a drain on the service sector and now that Ike has hit texas, their tourist industry is taking another hit. I don't see 30%+ job lost but I can see double digit in some areas of the country. The poor will feel it big time.
The service sector is much larger than that. Have you called an 800-number lately? You're speaking to a call center. That employment is service. Many of our "essentials" are also service-related. Retail workers, haircuts, most minimum wage workers, insurance and law, security, etc.

hoosiercubsfan
09-16-2008, 07:50 AM
Cancel the question. If more people lose their jobs, the service sector will feel it big time. Right now my job paids well and is secure (I hope), but I have cut back on eating out, going to the movies, using dry cleaning and canceling mine yearly vacation. If gas continue to go up along with food cost, I will cut back more. I am sure alot of other people are doing the same things. This got to be a drain on the service sector and now that Ike has hit texas, their tourist industry is taking another hit. I don't see 30%+ job lost but I can see double digit in some areas of the country. The poor will feel it big time.

It is sad to say but Ike will have little if any effect on the Texas tourism. I have been to Galveston many times when we lived down there. It is not a tourist destination like San Antonio is. The beach was not near what it is in South Padre and other places. And since I lived in Houston I can't see why on earth you would go there for vacation. The places of Texas that are the true tourist destinations really did not get hit since the are all inland not on the coast for the most part.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 08:35 AM
It is sad to say but Ike will have little if any effect on the Texas tourism. I have been to Galveston many times when we lived down there. It is not a tourist destination like San Antonio is. The beach was not near what it is in South Padre and other places. And since I lived in Houston I can't see why on earth you would go there for vacation. The places of Texas that are the true tourist destinations really did not get hit since the are all inland not on the coast for the most part.
the number one tourist destination in TX has always been the Alamo, right?

cambovenzi
09-16-2008, 08:42 AM
Keep listening to your iPod and making calls on your iPhone 3G and tell me we're in/headed for a Depression.

lmao.
"we're in a depression":rolleyes:

INFECTED
09-16-2008, 08:51 AM
I know it doesnt mean a depression,, but about 5 months ago we bought $600 worth of groceries and walked out with 5 shopping carts full... Then just last week we spent the same $600 but only walked out with 2 carts.

hoosiercubsfan
09-16-2008, 08:52 AM
the number one tourist destination in TX has always been the Alamo, right?

I would have to guess that would be the case. I only lived there for 5 years and was not a native so I am not really sure. But San Antonio was a truly amazing place to visit which is where the Alamo is located. Austin was a pretty nice city to visit. Also the hill country was really beautiful to visit but I am not sure if that is something that is a national tourist area or more of a place that Texans go and visit.

hoosiercubsfan
09-16-2008, 08:55 AM
I know it doesn't mean a depression,, but about 5 months ago we bought $600 worth of groceries and walked out with 5 shopping carts full... Then just last week we spent the same $600 but only walked out with 2 carts.

That isn't a factor of being in a depression. It is just the simple reality that you are paying for the higher shipping costs of the items you bought. Grocery stores are stocked from items brought in by a semi. So when diesel is 4.50+ the items they bring are going to be more expensive. That is the cause of a lot of what has gone up in our economy since much of the goods that are purchased are transported this way.

SmthBluCitrus
09-16-2008, 10:45 AM
It is sad to say but Ike will have little if any effect on the Texas tourism. I have been to Galveston many times when we lived down there. It is not a tourist destination like San Antonio is. The beach was not near what it is in South Padre and other places. And since I lived in Houston I can't see why on earth you would go there for vacation. The places of Texas that are the true tourist destinations really did not get hit since the are all inland not on the coast for the most part.

Disagree. A lot of Texans spend money in Houston/Galveston and Corpus Christi. That's their vacation destination. My best friend is a former Central Texan (same basic area as the Bush Crawford Ranch ... other side of I-35) ... and their summer vacation was always Galveston and Corpus Christi. The same is true for others in her (former) community ... I'm sure her city isn't the only one in Texas that feels that way.

hoosiercubsfan
09-16-2008, 11:04 AM
Disagree. A lot of Texans spend money in Houston/Galveston and Corpus Christi. That's their vacation destination. My best friend is a former Central Texan (same basic area as the Bush Crawford Ranch ... other side of I-35) ... and their summer vacation was always Galveston and Corpus Christi. The same is true for others in her (former) community ... I'm sure her city isn't the only one in Texas that feels that way.

Houston just doesn't hold the true touristy appeal that other places in the state hold. I was more speaking for other parts of the country coming to visit Texas not so much for Texans themselves. Having lived in Houston I see how it could be a place to go visit if you already live in the state. If you are coming from a place like Iowa there is just very little there compared to other cities in the state that are far more interesting ie Austin, San Antonio, South Padre Island, Corpus even. Galveston was a pretty neat place but again not a place that you would go if you lived elsewhere in the country. The beach was not what you would expect like a beach in Florida. The gulf there was pretty nasty we did go there every couple months even with that being the case. Kema was another place that got slammed which was a really nice out of the way place. I guess the point of my rambling here is that the main part of tourism isn't going to be hurt to much by this but it will definitely be affected.

hoosiercubsfan
09-16-2008, 11:30 AM
Americans have been betrayed by a "casino" on Wall Street, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Tuesday, defending earlier comments that US economic fundamentals are "strong."
"I said the fundamental of our economy is the American worker. I know the American worker is the strongest, the best, the most productive and most innovative," McCain told ABC television.

"They've been betrayed by a casino on Wall Street. They've been betrayed by corruption and distress that's damaged their futures," McCain argued.

"We're going to fix it. We're going to be sure that every American who has a deposit in the bank, their deposit is insured."

McCain on Monday insisted US economic "fundamentals" were strong despite a banking crisis and Wall Street meltdown, prompting a scathing rebuke from his White House foe Barack Obama.

"There has been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. People are frightened by these events," McCain told supporters in the key battleground state of Florida.

"Our economy I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times," Senator McCain said.

"I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street," McCain vowed, drawing loud cheers from his supporters.

"Senator McCain, what economy are you talking about?" Democratic candidate Obama responded, after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy sent fear across the globe and spooked investors, wiping 500 points off the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The crisis marked a moment of peril and opportunity for the candidates, neither of whom has yet carved out a wide advantage on the economy, which polls show is the top concern of voters.

McCain appeared on cable networks Fox News and CNN as well as ABC early Tuesday, condemning Wall Street greed, an antiquated regulatory system and what he said was Obama's plan to increase taxes.

"We will come back from this crisis, but right now we are the victim of greed, excess and corruption in Wall Street which is hurting them very, very badly and, unfortunately, it will in the future, but I believe in the American worker and I believe the American worker is the fundamental strength and future of America," McCain told CNN
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080916130415.87aw2blg&show_article=1

This at least gives a further explanation of what he was talking about. Whether you believe it or think he is just trying to talk his way out of the comment that is up to your point of view. Would have been a lot better for him if he would have added this yesterday instead of coming out with it today.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-16-2008, 11:52 AM
I live near San Antonio. We barely got a drop of rain and we are a huge tourist city destination for Texas.

As far as a Depression goes we had 3% growth last quarter. Are we just skipping a recession and declaring a depression? I dont think anyone that lived through the real depression would ever declare today worse than the real depression. Its not even close. Not by a long shot thankfully. :)

rhino17
09-16-2008, 12:01 PM
Disagree. A lot of Texans spend money in Houston/Galveston and Corpus Christi. That's their vacation destination. My best friend is a former Central Texan (same basic area as the Bush Crawford Ranch ... other side of I-35) ... and their summer vacation was always Galveston and Corpus Christi. The same is true for others in her (former) community ... I'm sure her city isn't the only one in Texas that feels that way.

Corpus Christi not so much, but Galveston has had a ton of tourism this summer. Every time i drive down there it was absolutely packed.


I would have to guess that would be the case. I only lived there for 5 years and was not a native so I am not really sure. But San Antonio was a truly amazing place to visit which is where the Alamo is located.
Really? I'm originally from San Antonio and grew up mostly in Houston and I have always found San Antonio to be a complete dump. The riverwalk is disgusting, everything is a strip mall, most of downtown is like deserted, the only coll thing is the Alamo


Back to the topic, no, we are definitely NOT in a depression

SLY WILLIAMS
09-16-2008, 12:19 PM
I know it doesnt mean a depression,, but about 5 months ago we bought $600 worth of groceries and walked out with 5 shopping carts full... Then just last week we spent the same $600 but only walked out with 2 carts.

More a sign of inflation than a depression for sure. Inflation really did hit us hard based largely on the increased fuel costs everyone faced. Thankfully oil is now around $92 and falling fast. Its down around 33% in recent months.

hoosiercubsfan
09-16-2008, 12:33 PM
More a sign of inflation than a depression for sure. Inflation really did hit us hard based largely on the increased fuel costs everyone faced. Thankfully oil is now around $92 and falling fast. Its down around 33% in recent months.

And someone I heard on the news said that we should start to feel the lower prices sometime around Columbus day which is Oct. 13th this year. So maybe the economy is in for its own October surprise. :)

steelcityroller
09-16-2008, 01:02 PM
I know it doesnt mean a depression,, but about 5 months ago we bought $600 worth of groceries and walked out with 5 shopping carts full... Then just last week we spent the same $600 but only walked out with 2 carts.

Why did you buy so much beer this time?

ari1013
09-16-2008, 01:45 PM
I would have to guess that would be the case. I only lived there for 5 years and was not a native so I am not really sure. But San Antonio was a truly amazing place to visit which is where the Alamo is located. Austin was a pretty nice city to visit. Also the hill country was really beautiful to visit but I am not sure if that is something that is a national tourist area or more of a place that Texans go and visit.
I've only been to Dallas -- and that was just to visit some friends. Though I did go to the zoo.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 01:46 PM
I live near San Antonio. We barely got a drop of rain and we are a huge tourist city destination for Texas.

As far as a Depression goes we had 3% growth last quarter. Are we just skipping a recession and declaring a depression? I dont think anyone that lived through the real depression would ever declare today worse than the real depression. Its not even close. Not by a long shot thankfully. :)
well... that 3.3% growth was pumped up by the stimulus package. that's not sustainable.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 01:51 PM
More a sign of inflation than a depression for sure. Inflation really did hit us hard based largely on the increased fuel costs everyone faced. Thankfully oil is now around $92 and falling fast. Its down around 33% in recent months.
Oil's falling for the same reason that it had been rising -- the dollar. The dollar has strengthened dramatically over the last 2 months as the US economy has begun to falter. It's what typically happens. Oil's now under $100; gold is quickly approaching $700 (down from around $1100); etc.

That's part of what we normally refer to as the economy correcting itself. Now with prices falling, the Fed should be able to cut rates once more in the next couple of sessions and that should prevent the upcoming recession from lasting more than 2 quarters.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 01:52 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080916130415.87aw2blg&show_article=1

This at least gives a further explanation of what he was talking about. Whether you believe it or think he is just trying to talk his way out of the comment that is up to your point of view. Would have been a lot better for him if he would have added this yesterday instead of coming out with it today.
I guess that's an ok save. But that's clearly not what he meant yesterday. For all of our sakes, I really hope that he means what he's saying today more than what he said yesterday.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-16-2008, 02:21 PM
Oil's falling for the same reason that it had been rising -- the dollar. The dollar has strengthened dramatically over the last 2 months as the US economy has begun to falter. It's what typically happens. Oil's now under $100; gold is quickly approaching $700 (down from around $1100); etc.

That's part of what we normally refer to as the economy correcting itself. Now with prices falling, the Fed should be able to cut rates once more in the next couple of sessions and that should prevent the upcoming recession from lasting more than 2 quarters.

Ari, I agree the strengthening of the dollar is part of it but not all of it. There were plenty of people speculating on oil including a friend of mine. That helped lead to a mini oil bubble not totally different than a real estate bubble, a internet bubble or a tulip bubble. Once speculators saw some weakness they started running to take profits. :)

ari1013
09-16-2008, 02:25 PM
Ari, I agree the strengthening of the dollar is part of it but not all of it. There were plenty of people speculating on oil including a friend of mine. That helped lead to a mini oil bubble not totally different than a real estate bubble, a internet bubble or a tulip bubble. Once speculators saw some weakness they started running to take profits. :)
I'm sorry but I don't buy the speculation part at all. Oil's not a stock. It's a commodity. So in order for a speculator to actively increase the price of oil from $75 up to $150 someone would essentially have to pull about half the world's oil off the "shelf." It's just not feasible. And as I pointed out, oil wasn't the only thing moving up like crazy. Gold and other metals were as well.

Sure the traders may have accounted for a percent here and there, but nothing to the extent at which oil had moved.

NotVeryOriginal
09-16-2008, 02:43 PM
I'm sorry but I don't buy the speculation part at all. Oil's not a stock. It's a commodity. So in order for a speculator to actively increase the price of oil from $75 up to $150 someone would essentially have to pull about half the world's oil off the "shelf." It's just not feasible. And as I pointed out, oil wasn't the only thing moving up like crazy. Gold and other metals were as well.

Sure the traders may have accounted for a percent here and there, but nothing to the extent at which oil had moved.

They are called OPEC and for them anything is possible. Didnt you read the news about the Saudis walking outta OPEC for doing just that.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-16-2008, 02:49 PM
I'm sorry but I don't buy the speculation part at all. Oil's not a stock. It's a commodity. So in order for a speculator to actively increase the price of oil from $75 up to $150 someone would essentially have to pull about half the world's oil off the "shelf." It's just not feasible. And as I pointed out, oil wasn't the only thing moving up like crazy. Gold and other metals were as well.

Sure the traders may have accounted for a percent here and there, but nothing to the extent at which oil had moved.

There are commodity speculators just like stock speculators. Land is a commodity that is speculated on. I'm sure you have heard the term land speculators or real estate speculators. Equities are not the only thing people speculate on.
Too make oils price go up you dont have to make half the oil on the planet disappear but you have to make people think demand will out grow supply for sure. When there was the great Tulip speculation craze did that need any logical explanation behind the crazy prices?

WES445
09-16-2008, 03:39 PM
What if a terrorist strike occur in the middle east oil fields ( or heaven forbid a war breaks out there) or Ike took out the oil refineries in Texas, could this spark a depression? Could one major event plunges a fragile world economy into a tailspin? Rememeber we were buying dirt cheap oil in the early 1900 and weren't using as much as we are today.
Once again I am reading some good and funny posting here. Yall are the best posters on the internet.

gcoll
09-16-2008, 03:52 PM
Clearly you support him, but how exactly are you defending those statements as true?

Turmoil generally refers to rapid up-and-down movements. The financial market is sinking fast. There haven't been any upward trends lately. And then he follows that up with "the fundamentals of our economy are strong?"

Is he talking about market economics? Sure that still works.

No, more than likely he's talking about our specific economic conditions. And those are a far cry from strong. The 3.3% growth from the stimulus checks was nice, but it was short lived. It should have been a boost to the financial sector as well, but with all hell breaking loose on Wall Street, it didn't have any crossover effects.

See. This is the kind of argument I prefer.

When Mccain says "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" I prefer a "no they're not here's why" type of thing. Instead of "Tell that to the regular folks sitting at the kitchen table" type stuff, because:

1) It's stupid. It's just pandering.

2) When people have economic trouble, they don't sit around the table and chat. They yell and throw things. A lot of "My mother was right to tell me not to marry you"....."Yeah well I hope your mother dies!" type of stuff.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 08:21 PM
See. This is the kind of argument I prefer.

When Mccain says "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" I prefer a "no they're not here's why" type of thing. Instead of "Tell that to the regular folks sitting at the kitchen table" type stuff, because:

1) It's stupid. It's just pandering.

2) When people have economic trouble, they don't sit around the table and chat. They yell and throw things. A lot of "My mother was right to tell me not to marry you"....."Yeah well I hope your mother dies!" type of stuff.
And that's why I'll never be a politician. I can't mix emotional trash into a rational argument. It's an art for a politician.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 08:22 PM
They are called OPEC and for them anything is possible. Didnt you read the news about the Saudis walking outta OPEC for doing just that.
OPEC has nothing to do with the speculators that Sly is talking about.

OPEC deals with the supply side. Speculators deal with the demand side.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 08:24 PM
There are commodity speculators just like stock speculators. Land is a commodity that is speculated on. I'm sure you have heard the term land speculators or real estate speculators. Equities are not the only thing people speculate on.
Too make oils price go up you dont have to make half the oil on the planet disappear but you have to make people think demand will out grow supply for sure. When there was the great Tulip speculation craze did that need any logical explanation behind the crazy prices?
Land speculators buy up land and then sell it afterwards. It's real land. Oil speculators do the same thing. They get a holding firm to acquire the commodity.

If I go out and buy gold, I'm doing so because I hope it will appreciate in value. I'm not just buying a certificate that says I own gold, I'm actually owning real gold.

ari1013
09-16-2008, 08:27 PM
What if a terrorist strike occur in the middle east oil fields ( or heaven forbid a war breaks out there) or Ike took out the oil refineries in Texas, could this spark a depression? Could one major event plunges a fragile world economy into a tailspin? Rememeber we were buying dirt cheap oil in the early 1900 and weren't using as much as we are today.
Once again I am reading some good and funny posting here. Yall are the best posters on the internet.
Nope. It might lead to a recession as consumption drops like a rock, but it wouldn't lead to a Depression.

If somehow all the world's oil disappears, then we might see something like that. But bear in mind that the bulk of our oil doesn't even come from the Middle East. It is a sizeable chunk, mind you, but we could get along ok without it in the short term (likely with $8 gas) -- at least until they get their oil lines back up and running.

Drucifer
09-16-2008, 09:38 PM
Headed? Anyone bear the bottom of the totem pole know we already in one.

OnWisconsin2007
09-16-2008, 10:26 PM
We're headed for more than a depression, more like our entire country is about to crumble.

JHG722
09-16-2008, 10:56 PM
Depression? LOL

NotVeryOriginal
09-17-2008, 07:12 AM
OPEC has nothing to do with the speculators that Sly is talking about.

OPEC deals with the supply side. Speculators deal with the demand side.

OPEC is holding out oil to drive up the price tho

ari1013
09-17-2008, 09:41 AM
OPEC is holding out oil to drive up the price tho
Granted. But that's not speculation on oil demand. That's a supply-side issue. And my point is that speculators in the financial market don't play as big a role as say, Chinese and Indian demand; OPEC supply cuts; and the changing dollar.

ink
09-17-2008, 10:54 AM
McCain Embraces Regulation After Many Years of Opposition
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 17, 2008

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

Now, as the Bush administration scrambles to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurance company, and stabilize a tumultuous Wall Street, the Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" on Wall Street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603732.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=new

ink
09-17-2008, 03:49 PM
My point here is not to play a tiresome political game of gotcha. McCain's long-held belief in deregulation is sincere and consistent with his fiscal conservatism. But the current credit crunch has forced him--as both a matter of political survival and rational policymaking--to change his tune. In the past few days, McCain, like Obama, has come out in support of "boosting the regulation of banks, investment banks and other financial institutions" and "tightening the rules on the type and amount of funds financial institutions should hold." On the stump, he's presented himself as a pugilistic populist and champion of regulation who's determined to "take care of the workers" and remedy the "casual oversight by regulatory agencies in Washington" at the root of the current crisis.

The problem is that because this is such a new posture for McCain, he's yet to back it up with much in the way of specifics. Delivered Tuesday in Tampa, his speech on "reforming our financial markets" devoted only three of its nine paragraphs to actual reforms--and even then, McCain spoke in the broadest possible terms. There will be "comprehensive regulations that will apply the rules and enforce them." "Wall Street operator[s]" who "abus[e] the trust of the public" will "face the consequences." The closest McCain came to producing a specific proposal was his promises to "reduce the debt and risk that any bank can take on" and "prevent the kind of wild speculation that can put our markets at risk"--laudable goals, but little more than obvious platitudes without actual plans to put in place. Meanwhile, unlike Obama, McCain has not posted any additional information on his website; the senator's economic plan doesn't even mention market reform.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/17/on-wall-street-obama-is-all-wonk-and-mccain-is-all-words.aspx

hoosiercubsfan
09-17-2008, 04:03 PM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”



Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.

“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.

When asked whether the Democrats “deserve some responsibility” regarding the economic crisis, Pelosi responded: “No.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-dems-bear-no-responsibility-for-economic-crisis-2008-09-16.html

Maybe she should go back and re-look at a bill that the Clinton administration proposed. A little bill called the Community Reinvestment Act led to a lot of unwise loans being offered.


The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

And Bush's mismanagement of the economy was the result of this? Come on now Nancy you have to think we are smarter than that.


The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.


''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.


''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

That last quote is my favorite of the entire article. I guess someone missed the boat on keeping tabs on these two companies because they certainly are facing financial troubles.

Doc Fluty
09-17-2008, 04:14 PM
I typed out a long reply to this post about the democratically controlled house and senate, then i erased it... because it doesnt matter.. people will just point to bush and nod...

ari1013
09-17-2008, 04:39 PM
She's an idiot. Washington ****ed up. Even if you discount the gluttony of the 1990s, the Dems still should have forced more regulationary bills through over the last two years when it became apparent what was coming.

hoosiercubsfan
09-17-2008, 04:49 PM
She's an idiot. Washington ****ed up. Even if you discount the gluttony of the 1990s, the Dems still should have forced more regulationary bills through over the last two years when it became apparent what was coming.

That I agree with completely. Whole point of my post is to show the stupidity of pointing fingers at the other side for the mess. Both sides could have done more to prevent this but didn't when given the chance.

b1e9a8r5s
09-17-2008, 04:50 PM
She's an idiot. Washington ****ed up. Even if you discount the gluttony of the 1990s, the Dems still should have forced more regulationary bills through over the last two years when it became apparent what was coming.

Agreed. I can't stand her. And there is plenty of blame on both sides to go around on this one.

WES445
09-17-2008, 06:28 PM
And the game goes on..

Randy West
09-17-2008, 06:34 PM
Why not just point fingers??? The job pays the same even if they do nothing.

So just get paid to point fingers back and forth. That beats actually working and getting something accomplished.

Pelosi is the same crock of crap person that voted farm labor unions down in California

Just so happens she owns a farm and didn't want the bill to pass and increase her business expenses.

She should be in jail..........just like half of these politicians......either side of the aisle

What Nancy should have said is no one in government is ever responsible for anything at anytime..........and even if they were there is nothing you can do about it

yaowowrocket11
09-17-2008, 06:42 PM
She's an idiot. Washington ****ed up. Even if you discount the gluttony of the 1990s, the Dems still should have forced more regulationary bills through over the last two years when it became apparent what was coming.

Exactly. I also agree 100%. Everyone is at fault here.

americanoutlaw
09-17-2008, 06:46 PM
In the words of one Ron White

Bull ****

natepro
09-17-2008, 07:11 PM
Oh Pelosi. :laugh2:

DenButsu
09-17-2008, 08:56 PM
Two stories from the NYT, one about each candidate, both about them trying to get the upper hand on the economy as a campaign issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17mccain.html?ref=politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

JHG722
09-17-2008, 09:12 PM
Those poor CEOs are only getting a $10M severance package now instead of $30M. I feel so bad for them :rolleyes:

I wish my dad got a 10M sev package, but I think it was much less :/

I had a big discussion about the CEOs with my bro (17 year old--big Republican), and my point was that boo hoo they'll only have between 10-20M in assets, rather than whatever ridiculous amount of millions they have now, and'll have to sell some of their houses, their plane, and live like normal rich people :P

Uncle Funster
09-17-2008, 10:00 PM
Its getting very scary out there. I am shifting funds out of Wamu and spreading them into other areas. WTF is supposed to happen when your checking account isn't safe?

ari1013
09-17-2008, 10:30 PM
Its getting very scary out there. I am shifting funds out of Wamu and spreading them into other areas. WTF is supposed to happen when your checking account isn't safe?
Your own assets should be safely protected by the FDIC -- up to $100K anyway.

hoosiercubsfan
09-18-2008, 11:28 AM
Democratic Congress May Adjourn, Leave Crisis to Fed, Treasury

By Kristin Jensen

Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn't equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can't agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.

Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments -- Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven't ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.

One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that ``no one knows what to do'' at the moment.

What a bad idea. This is going to be flat out blasted by the RNC. Even if you don't know what to do at least act like it. You can almost bet this will be part of the up and coming ads from the RNC.

ari1013
09-18-2008, 11:30 AM
What a bad idea. This is going to be flat out blasted by the RNC. Even if you don't know what to do at least act like it. You can almost bet this will be part of the up and coming ads from the RNC.
You mean in terms of PR or in terms of what they can do?

Because honestly, I'm glad the government isn't trying to do much right now. A positive move probably won't help much, whereas a negative move will really sink us.

ari1013
09-18-2008, 11:32 AM
Speaking of Democrats and Republicans...

I really don't understand how Republicans can be in favor of all this corporate welfare. By taking over AIG (who runs about $1 trillion worth of investments) the government is essentially now running a part of all the companies that AIG has invested in. That's a heck of a lot more socialist than a revamp of our medicare system.

hoosiercubsfan
09-18-2008, 11:33 AM
You mean in terms of PR or in terms of what they can do?

Because honestly, I'm glad the government isn't trying to do much right now. A positive move probably won't help much, whereas a negative move will really sink us.

As in PR I surely don't want them doing a thing. I just think coming out and admitting you don't know what to do is foolish. It's like playing poker and holding a pair of deuces. You have to keep up your bluff till the rest of the hand is played out. This just gives the RNC more firepower to point that the Dem's who control congress don't know what they are doing. Granted You and I both understand they really can't do anything but it will still be played up to the public you can almost guarantee that.

hoosiercubsfan
09-18-2008, 11:40 AM
Speaking of Democrats and Republicans...

I really don't understand how Republicans can be in favor of all this corporate welfare. By taking over AIG (who runs about $1 trillion worth of investments) the government is essentially now running a part of all the companies that AIG has invested in. That's a heck of a lot more socialist than a revamp of our medicare system.

I don't know how they can be in favor of it also. I understand it is dire times for the financial sector but you have to let businesses fail so others can rise up in their ashes. But we are in a globalistic economy so I guess we can't let them fail because of the impact on other countries. The government is just getting bigger and bigger and they do a poor job with the size they are at now let alone making itself bigger.

On a side Look at Russia they have flat shut their stock market down and are in worse shape than we are. They are dependant on oil revenue and now that oil is below a $100 a barrel they are feeling the squeeze. Then you have that idiot in Iran claiming that they can control the Gulf they are doing what they can to get oil back up.

ari1013
09-18-2008, 11:44 AM
As in PR I surely don't want them doing a thing. I just think coming out and admitting you don't know what to do is foolish. It's like playing poker and holding a pair of deuces. You have to keep up your bluff till the rest of the hand is played out. This just gives the RNC more firepower to point that the Dem's who control congress don't know what they are doing. Granted You and I both understand they really can't do anything but it will still be played up to the public you can almost guarantee that.
Agreed.

ari1013
09-18-2008, 11:46 AM
I don't know how they can be in favor of it also. I understand it is dire times for the financial sector but you have to let businesses fail so others can rise up in their ashes. But we are in a globalistic economy so I guess we can't let them fail because of the impact on other countries. The government is just getting bigger and bigger and they do a poor job with the size they are at now let alone making itself bigger.

On a side Look at Russia they have flat shut their stock market down and are in worse shape than we are. They are dependant on oil revenue and now that oil is below a $100 a barrel they are feeling the squeeze. Then you have that idiot in Iran claiming that they can control the Gulf they are doing what they can to get oil back up.
That's what happens when your whole economy is based on a single natural resource...

And that's also why economics is really the best remedy to bring about democratic changes around the world. Note that all of the despots rule poorly-managed economies that are either reliant on oil, gold, or diamonds. There really aren't any exceptions to the rule.

hoosiercubsfan
09-18-2008, 11:54 AM
Just listening to Glenn Beck and he had an absolutely excellent point on the financial sectors problems. He stated something to the fact that he believes in the American people, and small business is what is going to lead America forward. It is being held back by the financial sector and the government won't let it purge itself of these bad apples. Until they are allowed to purge themselves of these people we are set up to fail.

mr_badman
09-18-2008, 02:51 PM
here is a thought.
with so many of our banks and finacail institutions going under. opportunist banks from other countries are set up to potentially buy our banks and control our money. now each candidate claims to seek for fuel independence from the middle east, but if they buy out our banks and hold all of our money, we will still be tied to them.

which candidate economic plan seems more likely to:
1. strengthen the us dollar
2. save our banks
3. build a system that keeps US products made in the US
4. prevent foreign banks (i believe citibank) from buying and owning our finacial institutions
:flag:

ari1013
09-18-2008, 03:00 PM
This should be merged with the financial thread.

To answer your questions:
1. The dollar is improving by itself. No candidate is going to be able to do that himself.
2. If you mean checking account type banks, they don't really need saving. As for financial banks, it's just a matter of weathering the storm.
3. Our manufacturing base has been essentially wiped out. Short of a catastrophe hitting East Asia that forces companies to come back to the States, it's not happening.
4. Don't worry. Foreign investment banks are going to be going under soon as well.

steelcityroller
09-18-2008, 03:15 PM
This should be merged with the financial thread.

To answer your questions:
1. The dollar is improving by itself. No candidate is going to be able to do that himself.
2. If you mean checking account type banks, they don't really need saving. As for financial banks, it's just a matter of weathering the storm.
3. Our manufacturing base has been essentially wiped out. Short of a catastrophe hitting East Asia that forces companies to come back to the States, it's not happening.
4. Don't worry. Foreign investment banks are going to be going under soon as well.

The last 2 jobs I had I was laid off because they moved overseas....

ari1013
09-18-2008, 03:16 PM
Just listening to Glenn Beck and he had an absolutely excellent point on the financial sectors problems. He stated something to the fact that he believes in the American people, and small business is what is going to lead America forward. It is being held back by the financial sector and the government won't let it purge itself of these bad apples. Until they are allowed to purge themselves of these people we are set up to fail.
Glenn Beck and Excellent Point don't usually mix ;)

But yes he does have a point there. The reason this economy was able to grow faster than the rest of the world for 100 years is because we were heartless when it came to which companies we allowed to fail and which survived.

To play devil's advocate for a moment though, if the banking industry scales back loans, that would severely hurt the American consumer and the American small business. It's all interconnected. And that's the problem with a fullscale purge.

ari1013
09-18-2008, 03:19 PM
The last 2 jobs I had I was laid off because they moved overseas....
Right. It's something that could have been dealt with 25 or 30 years ago when foreign competition really picked up after Nixon opened up trade with China, but at this point, there's so little left. Manufacturing has gone from being the dominant portion of our economy to essentially nothing now.

mr_badman
09-18-2008, 03:24 PM
This should be merged with the financial thread.

To answer your questions:
1. The dollar is improving by itself. No candidate is going to be able to do that himself.
2. If you mean checking account type banks, they don't really need saving. As for financial banks, it's just a matter of weathering the storm.
3. Our manufacturing base has been essentially wiped out. Short of a catastrophe hitting East Asia that forces companies to come back to the States, it's not happening.
4. Don't worry. Foreign investment banks are going to be going under soon as well.

3. im not worried about bringing them back im worried about the trend continuing
4. its not just banks budwiser anyone not me never again. not that i ever liked the beer to much anyway.


The last 2 jobs I had I was laid off because they moved overseas....

it hits a lot of people at home. im not a victim myself but i do have family members who this is a serious concern for.

i dont have any problems with products from anywhere but made in the usa should still mean something.

steelcityroller
09-18-2008, 03:28 PM
Its gonna hit harder more and more companies are talking about going overseas. I know that both Dell and HP are talking about moving almost all of their operations to either Mexico or Asia.

mr_badman
09-18-2008, 03:34 PM
Its gonna hit harder more and more companies are talking about going overseas. I know that both Dell and HP are talking about moving almost all of their operations to either Mexico or Asia.

yet we are most likely their main consumers. i think we need to get back to the made in the USA all over again. im college educated and work in a good field yet i fear for my job. thats a more a result of this bad economy than anything. but if i cant do what im traditionally trained to do and have to fall back to some ole manual labor, the jobs arent even there.

there are markets for strickly american made products i think whole foods is one of them that is doing pretty good at it. not saying every thing is american there but im sure you get the idea

QuietWyatt
09-18-2008, 03:40 PM
It has been a bad week for McCain any way you look at it.

hoosiercubsfan
09-18-2008, 04:43 PM
Glenn Beck and Excellent Point don't usually mix ;)

But yes he does have a point there. The reason this economy was able to grow faster than the rest of the world for 100 years is because we were heartless when it came to which companies we allowed to fail and which survived.

To play devil's advocate for a moment though, if the banking industry scales back loans, that would severely hurt the American consumer and the American small business. It's all interconnected. And that's the problem with a fullscale purge.

:D
I knew mentioning his name may draw ire from a certain segment of the crowd. Tough love may not be such a bad thing for a while. Though I do believe it would have come right back around sooner than later.

ari1013
09-18-2008, 06:20 PM
3. im not worried about bringing them back im worried about the trend continuing
4. its not just banks budwiser anyone not me never again. not that i ever liked the beer to much anyway.



it hits a lot of people at home. im not a victim myself but i do have family members who this is a serious concern for.

i dont have any problems with products from anywhere but made in the usa should still mean something.
Oh trust me, living in STL, I know all about the A-B buyout. That's one of the things that's keeping MO close for Obama. McCain's wife was one of the people that made millions off that sale at the cost of thousands of jobs to the area as well as huge cutbacks from A-B on the charity front.


But that's more of an issue #3 for you.

ari1013
09-18-2008, 06:22 PM
yet we are most likely their main consumers. i think we need to get back to the made in the USA all over again. im college educated and work in a good field yet i fear for my job. thats a more a result of this bad economy than anything. but if i cant do what im traditionally trained to do and have to fall back to some ole manual labor, the jobs arent even there.

there are markets for strickly american made products i think whole foods is one of them that is doing pretty good at it. not saying every thing is american there but im sure you get the idea
How many people can afford Whole Foods in a good economy? And now think about a bad economy. High end stores of any nature are going to suffer.

PUGS1688
09-18-2008, 06:57 PM
It has been a bad week for McCain any way you look at it.

Yet, the polls say otherwise which is down right depressing and makes me ashamed of my people.

JHG722
09-18-2008, 07:20 PM
Oh trust me, living in STL, I know all about the A-B buyout. That's one of the things that's keeping MO close for Obama. McCain's wife was one of the people that made millions off that sale at the cost of thousands of jobs to the area as well as huge cutbacks from A-B on the charity front.


But that's more of an issue #3 for you.

So she should be penalized for good investments?

ari1013
09-18-2008, 09:04 PM
So she should be penalized for good investments?
"good investments" is what got us into the economic mess we're in right now. Regulation over certain deals could have certainly helped us now.

If the government blocks this deal, sure she loses out on a few million (maybe a new house?) but thousands of jobs are saved in return. Not to mention that St. Louisans will still have corporate sponsorship for our zoo and museums.

How much is a single job worth?

JHG722
09-18-2008, 09:07 PM
"good investments" is what got us into the economic mess we're in right now. Regulation over certain deals could have certainly helped us now.

If the government blocks this deal, sure she loses out on a few million (maybe a new house?) but thousands of jobs are saved in return. Not to mention that St. Louisans will still have corporate sponsorship for our zoo and museums.

How much is a single job worth?

So all of that is unfair, yet over-taxing my dad simply because of how much he makes is fair?

ari1013
09-18-2008, 09:15 PM
Yet, the polls say otherwise which is down right depressing and makes me ashamed of my people.
No... actually they don't. Obama's leading in the national polls in almost every single one that's come out in the last two days.

Even RCP, which maintains their old polls for way too long, shows Obama up by 1.9%.

Look at the individual nationals:
Research 2000: Obama 49 - McCain 43
Gallup: Obama 48 - McCain 44
Rasmussen: Obama 48 - McCain 48
Hotline/Diagio: Obama 46 - McCain 42
CBS: Obama 49 - McCain 44
Quinnipiac: Obama 49 - McCain 45
Battleground Tracking: Obama 45 - McCain 47

All in all, Obama is between 48 and 49% in all but 2 of those polls (a 45 and a 46). McCain is between 42 and 45% in all but 2 of those polls (a 47 and a 48).

So we're really looking at something very close to Obama 48 - McCain 44 with about 2% for "others" and 6% still undecided.

ari1013
09-18-2008, 09:20 PM
So all of that is unfair, yet over-taxing my dad simply because of how much he makes is fair?
If the banks had been regulated better, we wouldn't have had to authorize about $250 billion worth of bailouts to Freddie, Fannie, and AIG (and whoever else is about to fall).

That's $250 billion that needs to come from somewhere, and my best guess is that it comes from taxpayers. 60% of Americans pay taxes, and just to simplify things, lets say everyone will pay an equal burden (which we know is untrue -- your father will most likely pay a lot more than a McDonalds worker), so that means we're looking at roughly $1,400 per tax payer.

If you want to whine about taxes, you might want to direct those whines to the right source.

mr_badman
09-18-2008, 11:00 PM
So she should be penalized for good investments?

my problem is an investors making money, get off the thought of people needing hand outs. consumers without jobs cant consume. other countries like dubi and the sort dont allow a person who wasnt naturally born there own houses not to mention businesses. american businesses and producst should be controlled and manufacture by americans, thats why we are having such problems with the gas prices now.

ari1013
09-18-2008, 11:21 PM
my problem is an investors making money, get off the thought of people needing hand outs. consumers without jobs cant consume. other countries like dubi and the sort dont allow a person who wasnt naturally born there own houses not to mention businesses. american businesses and producst should be controlled and manufacture by americans, thats why we are having such problems with the gas prices now.
Yeah, kind of... but don't forget that we're part of a global economy. Cutting yourself off from the rest of the world economy would be suicidal.

ari1013
09-19-2008, 12:40 AM
Mods -- give this a day or two by itself and then merge into the financial thread.

Disclaimer: I'm not one to fall into hysterics, so be advised that this is something you might want to look into.

Disclaimer out of the way, here's something that shouldn't have happened:

1-month and 3-month T-Bills are now fluctuating between paying -0.01% interest and 0.06% interest.

What does that mean?
Essentially, when the government needs money, they issue a bond, known as a treasury bill (or a T-Bill for short), where they guarantee a lender his/her money plus some amount of interest. This is how they finance their deficits each year. So right now the interest rate for the short-term bonds is at best a fraction of a percent, and at worst... well you'd have to pay them to get them to take money from you.

What's so bad about that?
Well aside from the obvious, that T-Bills really shouldn't ever be negative (and never have been in history, even during the Great Depression), there's a much larger implication. Nobody is going to want to lend the government any money.

Why should I care?
If nobody is willing to loan the government any money, we're going to see three things happen:

1. The great Ponzi scheme of the last 28 years is about to collapse. What was happening was we were using our debt as collateral for more debt. Whenever we had to pay interest on the T-Bills, we'd issue more T-Bills to pay for that interest.

2. Foreign bond-holders are likely to want to cash out immediately to get their money into an asset that's not losing value.

3. The American taxpayers are going to be stuck holding the short end of the stick in the near future.

Well that's just great... But do I have to worry about anything in the next few days?
Only if you have a money market account and were expecting to actually still have all your money in it on Monday: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/09/money_market_fund_breaks_the_buck

DenButsu
09-19-2008, 12:49 AM
Okay ari, I'll merge it later.

Oh, and yikes :speechless:

CubsGirl
09-19-2008, 12:58 AM
...will you do my macroecon homework? :)

SmthBluCitrus
09-19-2008, 01:00 AM
No good ...

DenButsu
09-19-2008, 04:30 AM
Hours after Senator John McCain called for the firing of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Senator Barack Obama offered his response at a rally here on Thursday as he posed a question to the crowd: Why stop there?

“That’s all fine and good, but here’s what I say: In the next 47 days, you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other-way crowd in Washington who have led us down this disastrous path,” Mr. Obama said. “Don’t just get rid of one guy, get rid of this administration. Get rid of this philosophy.”

Mr. Obama said he was convening a meeting of his top economic advisers on Friday and was proposing the passage of a “Homeowner and Financial Support Act,” in an effort to stabilize the nation’s fluctuating fiscal policy. He also called upon the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to use their emergency authorities to “maintain the flow of credit” to support mortgages.

The details of the Obama proposal, aides said, would be presented on Friday.nytimes (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/obama-is-mccain-goldwater-or-kucinich/)

steelcityroller
09-19-2008, 06:24 AM
yet we are most likely their main consumers. i think we need to get back to the made in the USA all over again. im college educated and work in a good field yet i fear for my job. thats a more a result of this bad economy than anything. but if i cant do what im traditionally trained to do and have to fall back to some ole manual labor, the jobs arent even there.

there are markets for strickly american made products i think whole foods is one of them that is doing pretty good at it. not saying every thing is american there but im sure you get the idea

I have an associates and numerous computer degrees/certifications and Im having a hard time keeping a job/finding a job. I worked at Dell first as Tech Support (which they then laid off my entire floor and moved it to India, big shock huh) and then at a different location actually building desktops and then got laid off again as they are supposedly sending that to Indonesia. Almost everywhere around here is looking to eliminate positions to save money instead of creating new ones.

ari1013
09-19-2008, 08:46 AM
...will you do my macroecon homework? :)
I think that would qualify as an ethical violation. Sorry! :)

SmthBluCitrus
09-19-2008, 09:21 AM
Tech jobs are a lot cheaper overseas. You would actually be of great benefit to follow them (and no, I'm not saying "get the hell out!") However, American's that want to work in the IT sector can make a lot of money in India and China.

I don't know if that would be something that would interest you, but if it is, it's worth looking into.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-19-2008, 10:09 AM
Well that's just great... But do I have to worry about anything in the next few days?
Only if you have a money market account and were expecting to actually still have all your money in it on Monday: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/09/money_market_fund_breaks_the_buck

The US Treasury is guaranteeing money market accounts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/bs_nm/financial_treasury_dc

mr_badman
09-19-2008, 10:12 AM
How many people can afford Whole Foods in a good economy? And now think about a bad economy. High end stores of any nature are going to suffer.

the point is there is a market for it regardless or not if everyone can afford it. i personally dont mind a little clear in my burger but many others do so i shop at a regular grocery store. but i do try to spend my money on american products.


Yeah, kind of... but don't forget that we're part of a global economy. Cutting yourself off from the rest of the world economy would be suicidal.

we cant maintain a society based on all technical jobs. we have to also have some sort of production level jobs; if and when we reduce it to a minimal level not only will we become dependent like we are to big oil, the government with have to address the people who are not capable of technical work. personally i take pride in driving my caddy over a BMW or other high end car. made in america should mean something. As for cutting ourselves from the global economy, of course i wouldnt want that there are just to many producst out there that makes our lives easier that comes from other places. but i would prefer to buy american first. its like shopping from your family or shopping from a stranger, who would you rather see profit.

YankeeFan28
09-19-2008, 10:17 AM
**** this rally the last two days. I was hoping for more of a dip. Stupid SEC.

hoosiercubsfan
09-19-2008, 11:40 AM
1) First, to deal with the immediate crisis, I will lead in the creation of the Mortgage and Financial Institutions trust -- the MFI. The underlying principle of the MFI or any approach considered by Congress should be to keep people in their homes and safe guard the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system and capital markets. This trust will work with the private sector and regulators to identify institutions that are weak and fix them before they become insolvent. The MFI is an early intervention program to help financial institutions avoid bankruptcy, expensive bailouts and damage to their customers. This will get the Treasury and other financial regulatory authorities in a proactive position instead of reacting in a crisis mode to one situation after another.

The MFI will restore investor and market confidence, build sound financial institutions, assist troubled institutions and protect our financial system while minimizing taxpayer exposure. This is an important step, but it is not enough. I will also take the additional actions needed to make sure a crisis like this is never allowed to build and break over the American people again.

2) Second, I will propose and sign into law reforms to prevent financial firms from concealing their bad practices. An inexcusable lack of financial transparency allowed Wall Street firms to engage in reckless behavior that padded their profits and fattened executive bonuses when times were good, but now imperil the financial security of millions of Americans when their bets turned sour.

So much of the damage to our economy could have been avoided if these practices had been exposed to the light of day. Americans have a right to know when their jobs, pensions, IRAs, investments, and our whole economy are being put at risk by the recklessness of Wall Street. And under my reforms for the financial sector, that fundamental right will be protected.

3) Third, we need regulatory clarity. The lack of transparency in our financial markets went unnoticed by the regulatory agencies scattered throughout Washington charged with protecting the common good. We've got the SEC, the FDIC, the CFTC, the SIPC, the OCC, the Fed. At best, this confusing assortment of regulators and institutions was egregiously lax in carrying out their responsibilities. At worst, they engaged in the old Washington game of guarding their bureaucratic turf, instead of safeguarding the public interest and protecting investors.

Many in the financial services industry also either forgot or neglected their duty to act ethically and honorably. This shortcoming was aided and abetted by the creation of financial instruments that allowed lenders to escape any responsibility for the risk of their loans. In the past, lenders had to pay a price if they made a bad loan. Today, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked with Wall Street to bundle together all these dicey subprime loans and then pushed them off on investors who didn't have the tools of transparency needed to assess or even understand the risk.

The current system promotes confusion, encourages bureaucratic infighting and creates incentives for financial firms to cut corners. We need to enhance regulatory clarity by holding the same financial activity to one regulatory standard. We don't need a dozen federal agencies doing the job badly -- we need the best federal agencies to do the job right.
4) Fourth, we must ensure that consumers and investors are protected. Our regulatory system must protect consumers and investors by punishing individuals who engage in fraud, break contracts, or lie to customers -- like the predatory lenders who know you can't afford an adjustable rate mortgage, but mislead you into signing one. These actions are criminal and the people who commit them should be behind bars. And corporate governance rules will be reformed so that shareholders have a clear say in determining the pay of CEOs and other senior executives. On my watch, the consequences for corporate abuse will not be more enrichment, but more likely an indictment.

5) Fifth, in cases where failing companies seek taxpayer bailouts, the Treasury Department will follow consistent policies in deciding whether to guarantee loans. It must have well developed remedies for a financial crisis. With billions of dollars in public money at stake, it will not do to keep making it up as we go along.

Finally, the Federal Reserve should get back to its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation. It needs to get out of the business of bailouts. The Fed needs to return to protecting the purchasing power of the dollar. A strong dollar will reduce energy and food prices. It will stimulate sustainable economic growth and get this economy moving again.
Here are details from the McCain campaign about the formation of a Mortgage and Financial Institutions Trust (MFI), which the campaign called “a vital element in managing the current financial crisis”:
The Purpose Of The Mortgage And Financial Institutions Trust (MFI):
The MFI Is An Early Intervention Mechanism That Will Help Financial Institutions Avoid Bankruptcy And Expensive Bailouts While Protecting Their Customers. The MFI will minimize the use of taxpayer money by having an orderly process to address the market crisis. Working with the private sector and regulators, the MFI will help identify troubled institutions and take action to strengthen them before they become insolvent.
The MFI Will Provide Troubled Institutions With An Orderly Process To Identify Bad Loans, Provide Funding And Eventually Sell Them At A Profit. This will get the Treasury and other financial regulators in a proactive position instead of reacting to one troubled institution after another.
The Structure Of The Mortgage And Financial Institutions Trust (MFI):
The MFI Will Be Part Of The U.S. Department Of The Treasury. The MFI will be managed by a board of directors consisting of at least the Secretary of the Treasury, Federal Reserve Chairman, Chairman of the FDIC and two public members. The Secretary of the Treasury will be Chairman of the Board. Under the MFI process:
• Troubled institutions will voluntarily come to the MFI.
• The MFI will provide liquidity loans at reasonable interest rates. The MFI will receive warrants for controlling interest in troubled institutions.
• Troubled financial institutions that enter the MFI will keep operating as private companies with the help of the MFI.
• The MFI will supervise the sale of loan assets at market prices and purchase them as necessary.
• The MFI will eventually, and at its discretion, sell the loans to the private sector.
• The MFI will have a predetermined tenure during which to dispose of the loans.
• The MFI will return all profits to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and taxpayers.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13605_Page2.html

Figure this will be more interesting to talk about than what new attack ad that is put out. :) Since it is actual policy that is finally put out by his campaign.

ari1013
09-19-2008, 12:24 PM
He sounds like a democrat. The only thing he didn't say was that all those "confusing organizations" were headed by Bush appointees who have done a "heck of a job." Just ask Brownie.

Seriously though, I'm happy that he's taking a reasonable approach to this. And not simply taking the standard GOP talking points for once.

ari1013
09-19-2008, 12:26 PM
the point is there is a market for it regardless or not if everyone can afford it. i personally dont mind a little clear in my burger but many others do so i shop at a regular grocery store. but i do try to spend my money on american products.



we cant maintain a society based on all technical jobs. we have to also have some sort of production level jobs; if and when we reduce it to a minimal level not only will we become dependent like we are to big oil, the government with have to address the people who are not capable of technical work. personally i take pride in driving my caddy over a BMW or other high end car. made in america should mean something. As for cutting ourselves from the global economy, of course i wouldnt want that there are just to many producst out there that makes our lives easier that comes from other places. but i would prefer to buy american first. its like shopping from your family or shopping from a stranger, who would you rather see profit.

From our current state, how do you propose we rebuild manufacturing?

ari1013
09-19-2008, 12:27 PM
**** this rally the last two days. I was hoping for more of a dip. Stupid SEC.
Why would you want the economy to tank?

ari1013
09-19-2008, 12:28 PM
The US Treasury is guaranteeing money market accounts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/bs_nm/financial_treasury_dc
Yay more taxpayer dollars!

YankeeFan28
09-19-2008, 01:15 PM
Why would you want the economy to tank?

ehhh no one said about it tanking. But a little more of a dip would've been nice from the aspect of a long term investor.

If the government wanted to intervene, they should've stepped in long ago when Bear Sterns was tanking, and especially when Lehman was tanking. They could've helped Frannie and Freddie as well.

It took good results from MS and to still tank for the government to intervene. Or to realize, help is needed.

I personally was hoping for a rally of this sort next week, but a bad week this week so I could load up for myself and investors I represent, for the long term. It's not everyday you get a chance to buy GS, MS, JPM at amazing prices.

mr_badman
09-19-2008, 01:42 PM
From our current state, how do you propose we rebuild manufacturing?

dude how the h:smoking:ll am i suppose to know that :laugh2:
if i did would be running for president. its just an issue that needs to be considered

1. one idea would be to increase an import tax for companies which are american based but manufacture elsewhere.
2. give a tax cut for companies who it would be fiscally better to out source work but yet keep the jobs over her.
3. both^^^

would that change things i dont know but i know my family and friends who work at places like nabisco or simular manufacturing jobs for 15 + and made a carreers of it dont deserve to be layed off because its cheaper to manufacture in mexico. no :k:s against mexicans, but nabisco in nj did move their fig newton manufacturing line to mexico :) and i now a few poeple who lost thier jobs behind it. and i do have a few people who work in manufacturing.

ari1013
09-19-2008, 02:53 PM
dude how the h:smoking:ll am i suppose to know that :laugh2:
if i did would be running for president. its just an issue that needs to be considered

1. one idea would be to increase an import tax for companies which are american based but manufacture elsewhere.
2. give a tax cut for companies who it would be fiscally better to out source work but yet keep the jobs over her.
3. both^^^

would that change things i dont know but i know my family and friends who work at places like nabisco or simular manufacturing jobs for 15 + and made a carreers of it dont deserve to be layed off because its cheaper to manufacture in mexico. no :k:s against mexicans, but nabisco in nj did move their fig newton manufacturing line to mexico :) and i now a few poeple who lost thier jobs behind it. and i do have a few people who work in manufacturing.
You're not. It's an impossible task.

ink
09-19-2008, 04:50 PM
From the WSJ editorial board ...


McCain's Scapegoat
SEPTEMBER 19, 2008

John McCain has made it clear this week he doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does. But on Thursday, he took his populist riffing up a notch and found his scapegoat for financial panic -- Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, we'll quote at length: "Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground.

"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him."

Wow. "Betrayed the public's trust." Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.

Take "naked" shorting, in which an investor sells a stock short -- betting that it will fall in price -- without first borrowing the shares he is selling from an investor who owns them. The SEC has never condoned the practice, and since 2005 it has clamped down on short selling in any stock that shows evidence of naked shorting. The SEC further tightened its rules against naked shorting just hours before Mr. McCain excoriated Mr. Cox for doing nothing.

The rules announced Wednesday will increase penalties and close loopholes that exempted broker-dealers from the rules against naked shorting. They also make it clear that deliberately selling short a stock whose shares cannot be borrowed is fraud under the Securities Exchange Act. That's all to the good, we suppose; fraud is fraud. But regular short selling is not fraud. It adds valuable information to the market about what investors believe to be the price direction of a stock. Demonizing short-sellers as a band of criminals, or barring short-selling outright in financial stocks, as regulators in the U.K. did Thursday, removes information from the market.

Then there's Mr. McCain's tirade against the "uptick rule," a Depression-era chestnut that investors could only short stock after a rise in that stock's price. The SEC staff studied the effect of the uptick rule on prices for years, in a controlled experiment involving thousands of stocks. It found the rule had no effect. Other studies, including those that examined the uptick rule's effect on stocks disclosing bad news, also found that it "protected" no one. The SEC's permanent staff has long supported repeal and the SEC's commissioners voted to do so unanimously in June 2007.

While he was at it, Mr. McCain added the wholly unsupported assertion that "speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground." It wasn't very long ago that he blamed speculators on the long side for sky-high oil prices. Then oil prices fell. Now Mr. McCain wants voters to believe speculators are responsible for driving mismanaged financial companies to ruin. The irony is that this critique puts Mr. McCain in the same camp as some of the Wall Street CEOs who have led their firms so poorly. They also want someone (else) to blame.

In case Mr. McCain is interested, overall short interest in financial companies actually declined by 20% between July and the end of August. That's right: Far from driving this crisis, shorts were net buyers of financial stocks this summer, as they must buy stocks back to close their positions and realize their gains (or losses).

In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178318884054675.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

GA16Angels
09-19-2008, 05:17 PM
That's right, never diss a guy from my hometowne *****.

ari1013
09-19-2008, 06:05 PM
Ouch. And this from a Murdoch-owned paper.

What's the excuse going to be this time? Liberal Media doesn't apply here.

mr_badman
09-20-2008, 09:35 AM
dude i dont believe that all manufacturing based jobs has to be outsource. there are minimum wage jobs in america and plenty people work at them. i would just like some american products to be produced in america.

ari1013
09-20-2008, 12:51 PM
dude i dont believe that all manufacturing based jobs has to be outsource. there are minimum wage jobs in america and plenty people work at them. i would just like some american products to be produced in america.
There still are some... but it's a dying feature of our economy. We could have discouraged companies from outsourcing via excise taxes on their products, but we didn't, and now it's basically too late.

The only thing that can save US manufacturing is if the next "big thing" is produced here and is under patent to prevent it from being produced elsewhere.

Raider1169
09-21-2008, 03:21 AM
As a Raider fan I'm going to say this.

McCain is like Al Davis: Senile and out of touch with reality

ink
09-21-2008, 05:46 PM
Obama's economic adviser brushed off suggestions that Obama was behind on any financial issues.

"Six months ago, he outlined a clear, six-point plan of how we could re-establish oversight of financial markets, and he has expanded and reiterated that," Austan Goolsbee said on Late Edition. "John McCain, at that same time six months ago, was saying we ought to start removing regulatory barriers. So he has been way out front and way foresighted on these issues. It's completely inaccurate to say he's nowhere to be found."

He also slammed the plan laid out on McCain's Web site, saying, "There is more information on the back of a box of Froot Loops than on what they presented."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/economic.plans/index.html

SmthBluCitrus
09-22-2008, 09:52 AM
Cash for Trash
By Paul Krugman

Some skeptics are calling Henry Paulson’s $700 billion rescue plan for the U.S. financial system “cash for trash.” Others are calling the proposed legislation the Authorization for Use of Financial Force, after the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the infamous bill that gave the Bush administration the green light to invade Iraq.

There’s justice in the gibes. Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding extraordinary power for himself — and for his successor — to deploy taxpayers’ money on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesn’t make sense.

Some are saying that we should simply trust Mr. Paulson, because he’s a smart guy who knows what he’s doing. But that’s only half true: he is a smart guy, but what, exactly, in the experience of the past year and a half — a period during which Mr. Paulson repeatedly declared the financial crisis “contained,” and then offered a series of unsuccessful fixes — justifies the belief that he knows what he’s doing? He’s making it up as he goes along, just like the rest of us.

So let’s try to think this through for ourselves. I have a four-step view of the financial crisis:

(more -- New York Times) (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

Where exactly is this money coming from in the short term? Granted, the $700+b is going to be tax payer money, but where are they going to get it this week? China, Dubai, etc ... And, how does this "fix" the problem unless the market has rules and guidelines put back in place (that McCain worked to remove that Bill Clinton signed)?

Good article by Paul Krugman.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-22-2008, 10:59 AM
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett
More Photos/Details

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

DenButsu
09-22-2008, 11:06 AM
I saw a replay of a recent Larry King Live show that Ben Stein appeared on, and I was fairly well shocked at how severely he bashed Paulson, the Bush admin and McCain. (Keep in mind that Stein is a conservative of the anti-evolution "science leads you to kill people" variety, who blamed Obama for Paris Hilton's response to McCain's celebrity ad).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_akSPSoId8

And Stein is not alone. Many among the truly fiscally conservative and libertarian voices are lashing out at the bailout.

Everybody's favorite far right neocon, Bill Kristol (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin):


A friend serving in the Bush administration called Sunday to try to talk me out of my doubts about the $700 billion financial bailout the administration was asking Congress to approve. I picked up the phone, and made the mistake of good-naturedly remarking, in my best imitation of Oliver Hardy, “Well, this is a fine mess you’ve gotten us into.”

People who’ve been working 18-hour days trying to avert a meltdown are entitled to bristle at jocular comments from those of us not in public office. So he bristled. He then tried to persuade me that the only responsible course of action was to support the administration’s request.

I’m not convinced.

It’s not that I don’t believe the situation is dire. It’s not that I want to insist on some sort of ideological purity or free-market fastidiousness. I will stipulate that this is an emergency, and is a time for pragmatic problem-solving, perhaps even for violating some cherished economic or political principles. (What are cherished principles for but to be violated in emergencies?)

And I acknowledge that there are serious people who think the situation too urgent and the day too late to allow for a real public and Congressional debate on what should be done. But — based on conversations with economists, Wall Street types, businessmen and public officials — I’m doubtful that the only thing standing between us and a financial panic is for Congress to sign this week, on behalf of the American taxpayer, a $700 billion check over to the Treasury.

A huge speculative housing bubble has collapsed. We’re going to have a recession. Unemployment will go up. Credit is going to be tighter. The challenge is to contain the damage to a “normal” recession — and to prevent a devastating series of bank runs, a collapse of the credit markets and a full-bore depression.

Everyone seems to agree on the need for a big and comprehensive plan, and that the markets have to have some confidence that help is on the way. Funds need to be supplied, trading markets need to be stabilized, solvent institutions needs to be protected, and insolvent institutions need to be put on the path to a deliberate liquidation or reorganization.

But is the administration’s proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment.



And Libertarian Jim Henley (http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/20/8720) (lots of additional links here if you go to the source):


Who imagined that the great opportunity for joint progressive and libertarian advocacy and activism would end up being economic? But that’s where we are. This loathsome bailout plan is a slap in the face to anyone who believes in either free-market principles or social justice. William Greider calls it “a historic swindle.” Paul Krugman says, “No Deal.” Radley Balko decries it. Arnold Kling says, dueting with Luigi Zingales (pdf), “the government officials making these decisions are seeing things from the perspective of Wall Street, which is kind of like seeing the auto industry from a Detroit viewpoint or seeing the movie industry from a Hollywood viewpoint or seeing elections from a Washington viewpoint.”

What we have here is a soul test of several tendencies in American politics - progressivism, libertarianism, limited-government conservatism, principled defenders of managerial liberalism generally. This is as naked a case as we could imagine seeing of the state working to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of the many. The only theoretical defense of it would be a belief that the well-being of America’s wealthy as a class is necessary to the well-being of the country as a whole, and that this transcends any merit its members possess. That is, the business of America isn’t business, but businessmen. This is not an argument anyone is going to want to make in so many words.

If libertarians fail to oppose this bailout, they stand revealed as the hypocritical apologists for corporate power their detractors have always accused them of being. If Democratic leaders fail to oppose this bailout, they will prove to be the phonies and weaklings of stereotype. If managerialists go along with it, then every argument against the State as guardian of the general welfare will bear out. Right now a corrupt and spent corporate class is on the brink of getting a corrupt and spent governing class to perpetuate its privilege by almost dumbfoundingly transparent means. Anyone with a soul needs to oppose them.


And there's a lot more where this came from.

Republican Andrew Sullivan is calling it "Republican Socialism".

ari1013
09-22-2008, 11:36 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Sorry Sly, but that person's wrong. By 2005, that bill was already too late. The whole downward spiral began in the 1980s during the massive anti-regulation campaign that allowed investment firms to turn one real dollar into thirty theoretical dollars (see Phil Gramm's career achievements).

The total value of "debts" to all of those companies is something in the order of $70 trillion -- more than the total global GDP.

The housing crash was just the world finally seeing the emperor for what he truly was -- naked and without a real penny to his name.

captainatheism
09-23-2008, 06:42 PM
Before we start calling Paulson's plan Socialism for the rich, addressing the lack in oversight, putting some more regulations to it and all the other flaws in it: Shouldn't we worry whether we can afford it or not? It's gonna cost a minimum 700 billion dollars, I've heard estimates up to 1.5 trillion dollars. We have 800 billion dollars in the federal reserve and SS is almost completely gone.

Where is the money gonna come from? I don't see us taking any foreign loans and we'll have to print a lot of money, so hello 50 dollar loaves of bread. If we don't intervene though, people are saying we'll be in a recession. It seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation.

I didn't give two ***** about the economy until two weeks ago, so this could seem like unintelligible babble. I haven't really read two opinions that agreed with each other yet either. The uncertainty's killing me.

Padres Son
09-23-2008, 07:04 PM
I think there are two main issues with the bailout:

1) The ethical/political question -- Is it the responsibility of the government (or is it even legal) to bail out private companies using taxpayer money during a financial crisis?

2) The "can we afford it" question -- Will the bailout fix or lessen the problems, or are we just creating an even bigger problem down the road?

In order to argue these questions you really have to know wtf you're talking about.

captainatheism
09-23-2008, 07:19 PM
I think there are two main issues with the bailout:

1) The ethical/political question -- Is it the responsibility of the government (or is it even legal) to bail out private companies using taxpayer money during a financial crisis?

2) The "can we afford it" question -- Will the bailout fix or lessen the problems, or are we just creating an even bigger problem down the road?

In order to argue these questions you really have to know wtf you're talking about.

I think the moral question is kind of moot. They screwed up, but if we don't help them out and the economy collapses we're screwed anyway. IF (the 'if' is what i'm trying to figure out) that is the case: go ahead and bail them out, but put some provisions in bill to keep them from ****ing up this royally again. I'd like to see the nationalizing of the banks, or at least see them repay the bailout (similar to the Chrysler bailout way back when) eventually, but in this country that's dreaming.

tomno00
09-23-2008, 07:28 PM
Before we start calling Paulson's plan Socialism for the rich, addressing the lack in oversight, putting some more regulations to it and all the other flaws in it: Shouldn't we worry whether we can afford it or not? It's gonna cost a minimum 700 billion dollars, I've heard estimates up to 1.5 trillion dollars. We have 800 billion dollars in the federal reserve and SS is almost completely gone.

Where is the money gonna come from? I don't see us taking any foreign loans and we'll have to print a lot of money, so hello 50 dollar loaves of bread. If we don't intervene though, people are saying we'll be in a recession. It seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation.

I didn't give two ***** about the economy until two weeks ago, so this could seem like unintelligible babble. I haven't really read two opinions that agreed with each other yet either. The uncertainty's killing me.

if obama is president it will come from taxes and foreign aid
if mccain is president, it will come from less tax and mroe foreign aid

Padres Son
09-23-2008, 07:35 PM
I don't think it's a given that there needs to be a bailout. The country is basically being held hostage by a lot of these banks that are saying that they won't lend money or back securities if they're left to deal with this crisis without government bailout money. Keep in mind that these companies got into this mess THEMSELVES and only after intense lobbying to have government regulations eased and/or removed.

Also, in what is probably the most angering and disgusting part of this whole situation... the executives of many of these institutions are threatening to REJECT government money if it comes with a limit on the amount of money that can go to executive compensation packages. Some of these CROOKS are threatening (blackmailing) to basically drive their companies into the ground unless they personally receive millions of dollars of taxpayers money. These people should be thrown in JAIL!!! Not given $25 million buyouts of OUR MONEY!!!!!!

cabernetluver
09-23-2008, 08:15 PM
This is not a question of do we do something at some unknown expense or not, this is a question of what will happen (another way of saying what is the cost) if we do something v. what will happen (once again another way of saying what is the cost) if we don’t do something.
More than happy to talk about blame later if someone wants to talk about that, but for now the above is the first equation. I would say there is a lot of evidence that the worldwide markets are saying that we are on the verge of a fiscal meltdown if we don’t do something.
If one starts at this point, then the question is what do we do. I believe that the responsible Republicans and Democrats are not being rushed into a no accountability law. With each minute of today’s hearings I saw good questions from all of the senators.
If you want to question the should we do this or should we not do this question, this is not about bailing out Wall Street, or banks, or homeowners. This is truly about keeping our economy from a total meltdown. If this were really about the bail outs alone, I would be at the front of the parade with a big red stop sign.
A quick note about the unknown expense, understand that we really don’t know. If the bill becomes law with a $700 billion dollar authority, some part of that money will come back. In fact it is possible, although not probable, that the entire thing might make a profit. This has happened in the past.

captainatheism
09-23-2008, 09:15 PM
This is not a question of do we do something at some unknown expense or not, this is a question of what will happen (another way of saying what is the cost) if we do something v. what will happen (once again another way of saying what is the cost) if we don’t do something.
More than happy to talk about blame later if someone wants to talk about that, but for now the above is the first equation. I would say there is a lot of evidence that the worldwide markets are saying that we are on the verge of a fiscal meltdown if we don’t do something.
If one starts at this point, then the question is what do we do. I believe that the responsible Republicans and Democrats are not being rushed into a no accountability law. With each minute of today’s hearings I saw good questions from all of the senators.
If you want to question the should we do this or should we not do this question, this is not about bailing out Wall Street, or banks, or homeowners. This is truly about keeping our economy from a total meltdown. If this were really about the bail outs alone, I would be at the front of the parade with a big red stop sign.
A quick note about the unknown expense, understand that we really don’t know. If the bill becomes law with a $700 billion dollar authority, some part of that money will come back. In fact it is possible, although not probable, that the entire thing might make a profit. This has happened in the past.

How would it come back? It seems like that plan would have us take care of the bad debt and the banks would get the profit.

I agree with your second paragraph though. I don't mind bailing the wall street fatcats out if the alternative is an economic meltdown, as long as there are some provisions to keep them from doing that again. Chris Dodd seems to be making a strong stand there, too. It's the uncertainty of what will happen in both scenarios that bothers me the most. What evidence leads you to believe there'll be a fiscal meltdown if we don't act? I'm starting to lean towards the bailout if that's the case. Who knows? Maybe we'll manage the money smartly and the inflation won't be severe enough to lead to a recession.

cabernetluver
09-23-2008, 09:34 PM
[QUOTE=captainatheism;6739641]How would it come back? It seems like that plan would have us take care of the bad debt and the banks would get the profit.

QUOTE]

Not all of the debt is nonperforming. As the debt ages, it becomes more valuable for sale. Cramer on CNBC gave a better explanation than I am able to give right now. The bottom line is that we really don’t know how much will be good or bad.

AllTheWay
09-23-2008, 09:44 PM
The Banks got themselves into this mess, now the government has to bail them out?

Why should we have to pay this with our tax dollars(or our parents). Although many people could lose thier life savings if the banks go out of business, isn't the government supposed to reimburse them?

DenButsu
09-23-2008, 10:04 PM
Obama's presser today on the economy

Statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta6EN2h4ys8

Q&A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au4ZdKOkhsg


McCain had one too, and I searched youtube for it, but I couldn't find similar video of it in entirety. So I'll leave that to anyone else who'd like to get it posted.

Padres Son
09-23-2008, 10:54 PM
I think it's difficult to get an accurate assessment of how bad it would be if we don't bail them out because the companies and executives (people with a lot of money and a lot of power) are trying to make it appear as bleak as possible. They are doing their best to scare the crap out of congress to get them to rush into signing this bailout so they can line their pockets.

If it were up to me, we'd let these banks fail and see how bad the fallout is. I'm sure it'd be a tough couple years, but we'd get through it, I surmise, easier than we will having to pay back this $700+ billion to the national debt.

captainatheism
09-23-2008, 10:55 PM
The Banks got themselves into this mess, now the government has to bail them out?

Why should we have to pay this with our tax dollars(or our parents). Although many people could lose thier life savings if the banks go out of business, isn't the government supposed to reimburse them?

That's definitely a moral point. It's sleazy, but the damage would be really great. People wouldn't be able to sell houses or take out loans and we'd go into a recession. Helping out *******s or having the economy crumble seem to be our options here.

WES445
09-24-2008, 07:20 AM
Obama's presser today on the economy

Statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta6EN2h4ys8

Q&A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au4ZdKOkhsg


McCain had one too, and I searched youtube for it, but I couldn't find similar video of it in entirety. So I'll leave that to anyone else who'd like to get it posted.

How much will Obama and McCain's plans add to the National debt on top of the numerous bailout?

DenButsu
09-24-2008, 07:41 AM
How much will Obama and McCain's plans add to the National debt on top of the numerous bailout?

ari's the man to ask about that. I'm no econ professor :laugh2:

But I think that for those concerned with "fiscal responsibility" (as we all should be), it's an encouraging sign that while Obama has a few things that he seems intent on standing firm on (tax cuts for the middle class), he's showing a willingness to prioritize and be flexible and realistic in terms of recalibrating his agenda and lopping off some stuff he was hoping to do if there's simply not money to do it.

WES445
09-24-2008, 07:52 AM
I hope so bro. This old sixties radical (now just left of center) have alot of trouble believing in politicans.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 09:44 AM
How much will Obama and McCain's plans add to the National debt on top of the numerous bailout?
Something like $350 billion for McCain's plan. Obama's plan should break even if he does end up gutting the Bush tax cut for the top 5%.

However, that's purely their economic plans. If they actually are able to pass their social spending, that's likely to be another few $100 billion for Obama and probably a little under $100 billion for McCain.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 09:50 AM
Before we start calling Paulson's plan Socialism for the rich, addressing the lack in oversight, putting some more regulations to it and all the other flaws in it: Shouldn't we worry whether we can afford it or not? It's gonna cost a minimum 700 billion dollars, I've heard estimates up to 1.5 trillion dollars. We have 800 billion dollars in the federal reserve and SS is almost completely gone.

Where is the money gonna come from? I don't see us taking any foreign loans and we'll have to print a lot of money, so hello 50 dollar loaves of bread. If we don't intervene though, people are saying we'll be in a recession. It seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation.

I didn't give two ***** about the economy until two weeks ago, so this could seem like unintelligible babble. I haven't really read two opinions that agreed with each other yet either. The uncertainty's killing me.
$700 billion for this + $300 billion already spent on Wall Street = $1.0 trillion.

I haven't heard the $1.5 trillion number.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 09:53 AM
if obama is president it will come from taxes and foreign aid
if mccain is president, it will come from less tax and mroe foreign aid
Not true.

None of this money is coming from taxes directly. It's all coming from bond sales. Indirectly, however, the interest from those bonds will be financed by the tax payers.

On a side note, it's kind of crazy that we acquired AIG no questions asked. But now that it's bigger than AIG, we're just overpaying for Wall Street debt. Why aren't we buying stock in these companies instead? At least that has some promise for potential returns when the government unloads them after the crisis is over.

The debt, on the other hand, is likely to never be paid off.

Padres Son
09-24-2008, 11:05 AM
Not true.

None of this money is coming from taxes directly. It's all coming from bond sales. Indirectly, however, the interest from those bonds will be financed by the tax payers.

On a side note, it's kind of crazy that we acquired AIG no questions asked. But now that it's bigger than AIG, we're just overpaying for Wall Street debt. Why aren't we buying stock in these companies instead? At least that has some promise for potential returns when the government unloads them after the crisis is over.

The debt, on the other hand, is likely to never be paid off.I don't know if you caught Bill Clinton on the Daily Show last night, but he was kind of saying the same thing. He said that the "loan" to AIG and acquisition of 80% of their equity will end up making money for the government. He said that we need to ensure that the govt is getting something tangible in return for all of the money that's being "given" out either in the form of interest or equity.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 11:08 AM
How would it come back? It seems like that plan would have us take care of the bad debt and the banks would get the profit.



Not all of the debt is nonperforming. As the debt ages, it becomes more valuable for sale. Cramer on CNBC gave a better explanation than I am able to give right now. The bottom line is that we really don’t know how much will be good or bad.


I don't buy that. You can't tell me that you really expect that debt we're buying at a price GREATER than market price is going to go up in value to be even greater than that.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 11:09 AM
I don't know if you caught Bill Clinton on the Daily Show last night, but he was kind of saying the same thing. He said that the "loan" to AIG and acquisition of 80% of their equity will end up making money for the government. He said that we need to ensure that the govt is getting something tangible in return for all of the money that's being "given" out either in the form of interest or equity.
No, I'm moving tomorrow so I cut off my cable this past Monday. Good to hear Bill gets it though.

DenButsu
09-24-2008, 11:19 AM
I hope so bro. This old sixties radical (now just left of center) have alot of trouble believing in politicans.

Well, your skepticism is well founded. Few have proven we should have any reason to feel otherwise.

But I do believe that Obama is sincere in his desire to do things differently and get America back on a better track. I don't think he's just blowing smoke with the "change" and "hope" rhetoric. I think he really means it.

Now, whether he's actually able to translate that into action, whether he's actually going to be an effective executive, that's another question altogether and he'll have a long ways to go in proving he's capable (although I think he's shown plenty of signs of his competence already, this will be on a much bigger scale). But I'm willing to at least give him a chance. Contrary to popular perception, I think he's by far the less risky of the two candidates. And I'm down with his message and most of his policies, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I feel fairly confident that that trust will be rewarded and not result in disappointment.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 11:40 AM
I can't help to wonder if this whole thing was planned. It just seems so illusory that the government would buy up bad debt from some companies, further deregulate others, and offer "forgiveable" loans to others -- even as those companies made serious mistakes and should be held accountable for their errors.

The Bush Administration has been the most corporate-friendly president of my lifetime. And I'd imagine that only Coolidge would have him beat in that regard. Coolidge's lax attitudes to corporate misdealings helped lead to the Great Depression. That's a situation that's impossible to happen again, but the Bush Administration has done everything it possibly could to bankrupt the country while fattening the purses of the biggest companies on Wall Street.

This is just the latest and grandest of their schemes. I really hope Congress doesn't fall for it today when Paulson and Bernanke testify.

gcoll
09-24-2008, 11:40 AM
Can't we just get more from China?

ari1013
09-24-2008, 11:45 AM
Can't we just get more from China?
Right. That's where it's going to come from. Chinese investors, Japanese investors, Arab investors, and even Russian investors.

At some point though, the yield on our bonds is going to be driven up so high that we, the taxpayers, are going to be paying a big burden in taxes each year just to cover the interest.

cabernetluver
09-24-2008, 11:48 AM
I don't buy that. You can't tell me that you really expect that debt we're buying at a price GREATER than market price is going to go up in value to be even greater than that.

I understand you are upset, but, neither of us knows what will be paid for the debt instruments. Market price is not a question, because there is no pockets deep enough to buy this debt, therefore, the statement that in the end this can be sold at a later time for some portion, maybe even more than cost is valid. The fact is right now there is a panic worldwide. All speculative investments become non speculative with time and performance. I would imagine that we agree that some part of this portfolio will be worthless and some portion will have gained value over time. The question is what portion will be greater and if so, by how much.
The bottom line is that it will not in the end cost the entire amount of money being discussed. If it works out like it did with the Savings and Loan debacle it might make a profit for the USA (which means me as a taxpayer).
The congress, and by that I mean both sides of the aisle are acting in a rare show of responsible activity by making sure that this is not a blank check with no oversight.
However in the end, this is secondary to the primary problem. If something is not done, the worldwide markets are telling me that we are in for a really tough ride. If this was just about a bailout of one group or another, I might find myself in agreement with your feelings, but in fact this money situation is causing problems in all areas.
An example, Bank of America announced yesterday that it was closing it window to McDonald’s franchisees under their corporate agreement. Why would they do this? Tight money.
This problem is seeping into all areas of our economy. It is not a choice of doing something and paying for it or not doing something and not having to pay for it. It is a problem of paying for it either way.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 12:25 PM
I understand you are upset, but, neither of us knows what will be paid for the debt instruments. Market price is not a question, because there is no pockets deep enough to buy this debt, therefore, the statement that in the end this can be sold at a later time for some portion, maybe even more than cost is valid.

Of course there's a market price. If I offer 1 cent on the dollar for a bad mortgage, the company likely won't sell. There's clearly a value for this debt. And that value is less than $1 per $1. But at that value, the companies are still going to wind up in debt. And that's why the government is going to have to pay MORE than the market price for the debt.



The fact is right now there is a panic worldwide. All speculative investments become non speculative with time and performance. I would imagine that we agree that some part of this portfolio will be worthless and some portion will have gained value over time. The question is what portion will be greater and if so, by how much.

Speculation of assets very rarely causes them to become undervalued. And if, indeed, anyone believed that the assets would increase in price down the line, there would be people lining up to buy mortgage bonds. But there aren't. So see my response above.




The bottom line is that it will not in the end cost the entire amount of money being discussed. If it works out like it did with the Savings and Loan debacle it might make a profit for the USA (which means me as a taxpayer).

Sure. That would be the case if the government was buying up capital and not debt.



The congress, and by that I mean both sides of the aisle are acting in a rare show of responsible activity by making sure that this is not a blank check with no oversight.

Not if Paulson has his way today.



However in the end, this is secondary to the primary problem. If something is not done, the worldwide markets are telling me that we are in for a really tough ride. If this was just about a bailout of one group or another, I might find myself in agreement with your feelings, but in fact this money situation is causing problems in all areas.
An example, Bank of America announced yesterday that it was closing it window to McDonald’s franchisees under their corporate agreement. Why would they do this? Tight money.

It's never a good idea to make a decision spur-of-the-moment. Especially when that decision involves $700 billion that Paulson wants -- without any review. Here's a direct quote from the bill:

Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

See???? This is definitely a big short term problem, but if we solve it incorrectly, it could lead to a long term problem as well.



This problem is seeping into all areas of our economy. It is not a choice of doing something and paying for it or not doing something and not having to pay for it. It is a problem of paying for it either way.

It's a problem of preventing this from becoming an even bigger catastrophe.

hoosiercubsfan
09-24-2008, 12:28 PM
Well, your skepticism is well founded. Few have proven we should have any reason to feel otherwise.

But I do believe that Obama is sincere in his desire to do things differently and get America back on a better track. I don't think he's just blowing smoke with the "change" and "hope" rhetoric. I think he really means it.

What in his past gives you this feeling? This is a serious question to you since I really don't see anything at all about him that gives me the same feeling. I see a man who is following Saul Alinsky's plan fairly closely in his campaign. What about him gives you the feeling that he is about change and hope?

ari1013
09-24-2008, 12:39 PM
What in his past gives you this feeling? This is a serious question to you since I really don't see anything at all about him that gives me the same feeling. I see a man who is following Saul Alinsky's plan fairly closely in his campaign. What about him gives you the feeling that he is about change and hope?
Political science isn't my strong suit -- I hated most poli-sci profs and grad students for being totally out there -- but from what I recall, wasn't Alinsky all about social justice at the local level? I'm not quite sure how that has anything to do with running the country...

I can see how it impacts Obama's campaign strategy -- of deploying large scale ground efforts across 22 states. But then again, Bush did that in 2004. Was he following Alinsky as well?

I guess I'm missing the connection you're trying to make.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 12:50 PM
On more thing just before I have to leave:

Take a look at Warren Buffet's decision today to spend between $5 and $10 billion on STOCK not on debt. He knows what the good business decision is and what the bad business decision would be. He's acquiring capital and not debt. You're not going to make any money overpaying for someone's garbage.

cabernetluver
09-24-2008, 12:52 PM
Of course there's a market price. If I offer 1 cent on the dollar for a bad mortgage, the company likely won't sell. There's clearly a value for this debt. And that value is less than $1 per $1. But at that value, the companies are still going to wind up in debt. And that's why the government is going to have to pay MORE than the market price for the debt. .


No no no. A market price means an ascertainable market price. As a former appraiser, I promise you, this is what it means. I was asked to appraise things that at times would have no ascertainable market price and would have to decline. Your premise that one person would determine a market place is wrong in law and in practice.


Speculation of assets very rarely causes them to become undervalued. And if, indeed, anyone believed that the assets would increase in price down the line, there would be people lining up to buy mortgage bonds. But there aren't. So see my response above.

Actually speculation is what has caused this problem. Naked short selling has caused a run on institutions drawing down their capital.




Sure. That would be the case if the government was buying up capital and not debt.

Once again no no no. Bonds are debt instruments, not capital instruments. I am sure you would not say that bonds cannot yield a profit



Not if Paulson has his way today.
We agree. However Congress is making sure he does not get his way.



It's never a good idea to make a decision spur-of-the-moment. Especially when that decision involves $700 billion that Paulson wants -- without any review. Here's a direct quote from the bill:

The bill that was brought to congress is not the bill that will be sent to the president. As writen it was DOA, but it did start the conversation. The world wide meltdown of the markets tells me that there is a real problem.


See???? This is definitely a big short term problem, but if we solve it incorrectly, it could lead to a long term problem as well.

I have a friend who is a geologist. He says all problems are short term. The problem with calling something short term is one that was once defined by the then head of Mattel. He said that we would all be dead in the long term. Japan has been in a 12 year problem due to inaction. I am 58. I don't want to be in a 12 year problem.




It's a problem of preventing this from becoming an even bigger catastrophe.

On this we completely agree. The tearing down of the laws that were created in the 30's to stop this was a mistake.

On a side note, is there an easy way to make multi quotes?

PHX-SOXFAN
09-24-2008, 01:35 PM
Bush is thinking of addressing the nation:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426825,00.html

this should make people suspicious due to the fact that every time this guy tries to sell something hard it's wrong, beneficial to the rich, and something regrettable for the country down the road. there's some nice quotes in here echoing that:

"Republicans and Democrats both say Bush has lost credibility on Capitol Hill, particularly in cases where he argues there will be dire consequences if Congress doesn't act.

"They sold the war, they sold the stimulus package and some other things. It's the 'wolf at the door' " argument, Davis said.

"It's hard being trusting" of Bush's bailout plan, said Democratic Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill, who said the administration's full-court press to sell it reminded him of the one the White House mounted before the Iraq war.

"You feel like you're always getting hoodwinked, because they say the consequences if you don't do it is a complete demise and collapse of the system," he said."


Paulson and the rest of this administration need to be watched very closely and have their power and decision making monitored, second guessed, and subject to court review and ramifications. the plan that they wrote is ridiculous in giving the administration total control of the money and decisions without oversight, review, etc.

This is like giving a blank check to GW just like he got with the Iraq war, the patriot act, warrantless wiretaps, immunity to telecom, tax breaks for the rich, etc. How in the world does he think he has the credibility to get away with this?:speechless:

I agree that something like this needs to be done. But in no way should GW's group of idiot chronies be given the keys. There needs to be an independent structure to take care of this outside of party lines and certainly this administration.

hoosiercubsfan
09-24-2008, 01:35 PM
Political science isn't my strong suit -- I hated most poli-sci profs and grad students for being totally out there -- but from what I recall, wasn't Alinsky all about social justice at the local level? I'm not quite sure how that has anything to do with running the country...

I can see how it impacts Obama's campaign strategy -- of deploying large scale ground efforts across 22 states. But then again, Bush did that in 2004. Was he following Alinsky as well?

I guess I'm missing the connection you're trying to make.

Here is an editorial that sums it up pretty nicely. I'm not going as far as calling him a socialist but more to the fact that trying to determine what about him is so popular. In response to Den's comment about how he is about change and hope I just don't see it. I'll post a few of the rules below for those that won't read the article that is linked.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551


• Rule: "Rub raw the resentments of the people; search out controversy and issues." In the mortgage meltdown, for instance, Obama vows to prosecute "predatory lenders" for "abusing" minority borrowers. He's also stoking class resentment by painting Wall Street and other executives as villains.

• Rule: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." In an ad to woo Hispanic voters, Obama demonized Rush Limbaugh by falsely claiming he made racist statements against immigrants.

• Rule: "A mass impression can be lasting and intimidating." This explains why Obama moved his acceptance speech to a football stadium and bussed in 85,000 supporters. Alinsky's son was so impressed, he praised Obama for learning his father's "lesson well."

• Rule: "Multiple issues mean constant action and life" for the cause. This is why Obama never harps on one issue, as Hillary did with health care. His platform is packed with grievances from "economic justice" to "reproductive justice" to "environmental justice."

hoosiercubsfan
09-24-2008, 01:38 PM
Bush is thinking of addressing the nation:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426825,00.html

I agree that something like this needs to be done. But in no way should GW's group of idiot chronies be given the keys. There needs to be an independent structure to take care of this outside of party lines and certainly this administration.

Stop the presses I completely agree with Phx here. No way no how should any bailout be put in the hands of anyone without proper oversight. The first bill they put across was to give the treasure complete control without chance of any oversight from anyone no court, committee or anything else. That in a sense would create a financial czar. NOBODY should have that kind of power. Did they seriously think that would pass muster?

ari1013
09-24-2008, 01:39 PM
No no no. A market price means an ascertainable market price. As a former appraiser, I promise you, this is what it means. I was asked to appraise things that at times would have no ascertainable market price and would have to decline. Your premise that one person would determine a market place is wrong in law and in practice.



Actually speculation is what has caused this problem. Naked short selling has caused a run on institutions drawing down their capital.





Once again no no no. Bonds are debt instruments, not capital instruments. I am sure you would not say that bonds cannot yield a profit



We agree. However Congress is making sure he does not get his way.




The bill that was brought to congress is not the bill that will be sent to the president. As writen it was DOA, but it did start the conversation. The world wide meltdown of the markets tells me that there is a real problem.



I have a friend who is a geologist. He says all problems are short term. The problem with calling something short term is one that was once defined by the then head of Mattel. He said that we would all be dead in the long term. Japan has been in a 12 year problem due to inaction. I am 58. I don't want to be in a 12 year problem.





On this we completely agree. The tearing down of the laws that were created in the 30's to stop this was a mistake.

On a side note, is there an easy way to make multi quotes?
1. I'm really dumbfounded by that. Are you trying to tell me that there's no market at all? The bonds are completely worthless now?
Here you go. Krugman's graphs explain it a little better: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/doubts-about-the-rescue/

2. I love how speculators get blamed for everything bad in the market these days. Naked short selling accounted for such a small portion of the overall short-sell market that there's no way it could have possibly triggered this downturn. And if it did, what faith can any of us possibly have in the financial market when 0.3% of short sells (which themselves are a small portion of overall trades) can bankrupt the entire country?

3. So you agree then that buying mortgage bonds is indeed debt acquisition which will yield no real profit for us as taxpayers. Thus, again I ask, why should we be buying debt and not capital?

4. That's great for a geologist, but this is the economy. And to an economist, the long run I'm talking about is what happens after a few series of business cycle swings.

5. I never got the hang of multiquotes. That's why I was so happy when Andrew proposed adding "Quick Reply." It's all I use.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 01:50 PM
Here is an editorial that sums it up pretty nicely. I'm not going as far as calling him a socialist but more to the fact that trying to determine what about him is so popular. In response to Den's comment about how he is about change and hope I just don't see it. I'll post a few of the rules below for those that won't read the article that is linked.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551
Can't the same be applied to McCain?

1. Search out controversy: Tying Obama to Bill Ayers, the anti-Christ, Paris Hilton, etc.

2. Pick the target and polarize it: Telling people that Obama is going to raise taxes on everyone

3. Mass impression can be lasting: McCain's been trying to draw bigger crowds with Palin at his side. He rutinely outdrew Obama for the week following the convention.

4. Multiple Issues: Sure McCain would love to focus on national security, but he also talks about social issues like abortion and gay rights; environmental cap and trade initiatives; he even tries to talk about the economy.


Maybe McCain's following that book as well?

ari1013
09-24-2008, 01:52 PM
Stop the presses I completely agree with Phx here. No way no how should any bailout be put in the hands of anyone without proper oversight. The first bill they put across was to give the treasure complete control without chance of any oversight from anyone no court, committee or anything else. That in a sense would create a financial czar. NOBODY should have that kind of power. Did they seriously think that would pass muster?
Back when the Republicans controlled every aspect of the government, the Bush Admin was able to get stuff like this passed with regard to military spending. I'm not suprised they tried it again.

cabernetluver
09-24-2008, 02:11 PM
1. I'm really dumbfounded by that. Are you trying to tell me that there's no market at all? The bonds are completely worthless now?

What I am telling you is that there is no fair market value without the following 3 elements
1:Willing Buyer
2:Willing Seller
3:Without duress

To use your word, I would be dumbfounded if you felt there was no duress.

I went to your link and did not see the chart you were referring to. I am not sure where to look.



2. I love how speculators get blamed for everything bad in the market these days. Naked short selling accounted for such a small portion of the overall short-sell market that there's no way it could have possibly triggered this downturn. And if it did, what faith can any of us possibly have in the financial market when 0.3% of short sells (which themselves are a small portion of overall trades) can bankrupt the entire country?

I guess I failed to explain myself to you. You said that speculators had very little to do with price drops, and I am making the point that many people (not you) would disagree. We can argue experts, and not come to a conclusion that would satisfy the other person, however, it is undeniable that there are many experts (including the fed that put a temporary halt to short selling on over 700 stocks) that short selling had an important role to play in the meltdown.


3. So you agree then that buying mortgage bonds is indeed debt acquisition which will yield no real profit for us as taxpayers. Thus, again I ask, why should we be buying debt and not capital?
Why is this an either/or proposition. I own debt instruments (bonds) and I own capital instruments (stocks) and there is no reason to make this a one size only argument. You are picking an argument that I never made. The argument was can one make a profit with debt instruments, and my point was that one, in fact I am one of many) who has made a profit with these things. The so called junkbonds were junkbonds until they had performed and at that time they were no longer junk.


4. That's great for a geologist, but this is the economy. And to an economist, the long run I'm talking about is what happens after a few series of business cycle swings.According to Warren Buffet that this is a finacial precipice that would take years to fix.

5. I never got the hang of multiquotes. That's why I was so happy when Andrew proposed adding "Quick Reply." It's all I use.[/QUOTE]

hoosiercubsfan
09-24-2008, 02:11 PM
Back when the Republicans controlled every aspect of the government, the Bush Admin was able to get stuff like this passed with regard to military spending. I'm not surprised they tried it again.

And that is why I am fine with McCain as a president with the assumption that the Dem's will hold both houses of Congress. Personally I like it best when opposite parties hold the Executive and Legislative branches. Especially when I am not entirely enthralled with either candidate.

hoosiercubsfan
09-24-2008, 02:18 PM
Can't the same be applied to McCain?

1. Search out controversy: Tying Obama to Bill Ayers, the anti-Christ, Paris Hilton, etc.

2. Pick the target and polarize it: Telling people that Obama is going to raise taxes on everyone

3. Mass impression can be lasting: McCain's been trying to draw bigger crowds with Palin at his side. He rutinely outdrew Obama for the week following the convention.

4. Multiple Issues: Sure McCain would love to focus on national security, but he also talks about social issues like abortion and gay rights; environmental cap and trade initiatives; he even tries to talk about the economy.


Maybe McCain's following that book as well?

1. I have never heard McCain himself compare Obama to Ayers or the Anti Christ. He was referring to her celebraty status not that he was like Paris herself.
2. His out of touch can't use a computer, and the Rush ads are blantant polarization. Saying he will tax people more is a question on his policy. Personally I think it will affect a LOT more than the 5% he talks about.
3. I'll give you this one they are drawing large crowds for the spectacle that is Sarah Palin.
4. I thought McCain did not speak about issues just about stuff that doesn't matter. Even I haven't heard him speak about all those issues.

No I don't think McCain is following Saul Alinsky's book.

Wrigleyboy25
09-24-2008, 04:39 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/09/11/gb.bail.out.america.cnn?iref=videosearch

ari1013
09-24-2008, 05:25 PM
1. I have never heard McCain himself compare Obama to Ayers or the Anti Christ. He was referring to her celebraty status not that he was like Paris herself.
2. His out of touch can't use a computer, and the Rush ads are blantant polarization. Saying he will tax people more is a question on his policy. Personally I think it will affect a LOT more than the 5% he talks about.
3. I'll give you this one they are drawing large crowds for the spectacle that is Sarah Palin.
4. I thought McCain did not speak about issues just about stuff that doesn't matter. Even I haven't heard him speak about all those issues.

No I don't think McCain is following Saul Alinsky's book.
I'm just saying that if you squint really tight, you can make a donkey look like an elephant and vice versa.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 05:28 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/09/11/gb.bail.out.america.cnn?iref=videosearch
I'm sorry... it looked kind of interesting, but the guy was just so annoying that I couldn't watch any longer.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 05:44 PM
Let me put it to you this way. Speculators are responsible for this about as much as they're responsible for high gas prices. Sure it might have done a little, but the whole game was already changing.

And again, I'll repeat that buying bad bonds are clearly a worse investment at this point than buying stock. If you think you can make a profit off those bonds, go for it! It'll ease the burden I have to pay later when fewer of my tax dollars are bailing the government out from their bail out.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 06:11 PM
We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all. We encourage potential buyers to work in concert with the lending community to educate themselves about the responsibilities of purchasing a home, condo, or land.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm

I agree with them here. If we're going to bail them out, it should be via the market. Buy up their stocks now to infuse capital into the system and then sell the stocks back to them at the market price once they've rebounded. Use the proceeds of that sale as a rebate back to consumers.

Raider_Vet
09-24-2008, 06:22 PM
You know I just got done speaking with my father. He is 59, and has lost 40% on his 401k this year. He has worked hard and always paid his bills on time. No reason to punish him because of stupid mistakes others and corperations has made. This bailout is needed for America. Many inocent will fall victim to it becaue if what I said above. The risks are too great not to do anything. Also I would like to say that I am willing to bet that nobody on this thread will be of retirement age and sweating loosing what they have saved for years for their retirement. If so then the opinions would be differfent. If we don't bail them out then we risk a Depression. Put regulations and restrictions on these businesses we are bailing out and lend them the cash I say. Too much is at stake not to.

Rochesta
09-24-2008, 06:30 PM
I think the risks are greater if we do it. I think the economy will still fail, we'll have 700 billion more pumped into the national debt, and we'll have a socialized economy.

Take the 700 bil and expand social security to protect people who lost their 401k's. Screw the banks. People will found new banks.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 06:33 PM
You know I just got done speaking with my father. He is 59, and has lost 40% on his 401k this year. He has worked hard and always paid his bills on time. No reason to punish him because of stupid mistakes others and corperations has made. This bailout is needed for America. Many inocent will fall victim to it becaue if what I said above. The risks are too great not to do anything. Also I would like to say that I am willing to bet that nobody on this thread will be of retirement age and sweating loosing what they have saved for years for their retirement. If so then the opinions would be differfent. If we don't bail them out then we risk a Depression. Put regulations and restrictions on these businesses we are bailing out and lend them the cash I say. Too much is at stake not to.
Agreed but it has to be handled correctly. I know that's not what they're saying, but if we combine the social conscience from the Dems with the market theory from the Repubs we could get to a solution that works, like what I outlined above.

Raider_Vet
09-24-2008, 06:33 PM
I think the risks are greater if we do it. I think the economy will still fail, we'll have 700 billion more pumped into the national debt, and we'll have a socialized economy.

Take the 700 bil and expand social security to protect people who lost their 401k's. Screw the banks. People will found new banks.If you did that then it would not be a loan. how old are you and are you going to draw out on your 401k anytime soon? If so your opinion would be much different.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 06:33 PM
I think the risks are greater if we do it. I think the economy will still fail, we'll have 700 billion more pumped into the national debt, and we'll have a socialized economy.

Take the 700 bil and expand social security to protect people who lost their 401k's. Screw the banks. People will found new banks.
We're not socializing. We're buying trash. And you're right that it won't help that much in the long run.

If we were buying up stock then it could actually be beneficial.

Raider_Vet
09-24-2008, 06:36 PM
Agreed but it has to be handled correctly. I know that's not what they're saying, but if we combine the social conscience from the Dems with the market theory from the Repubs we could get to a solution that works, like what I outlined above.Sorry ari for sounding like a moron but I am not getting what you are saying. Would you please put it in simple terms if posible? Thank you.

ari1013
09-24-2008, 06:48 PM
Sorry ari for sounding like a moron but I am not getting what you are saying. Would you please put it in simple terms if posible? Thank you.
Sure. Sorry about that.

Right now the government is talking about buying bad debt from the banks, to the tune of $700 billion. However, that debt clearly cannot be worth $700 billion. It has to be worth quite a bit less. If it was worth that much then the banks wouldn't be facing bankrupcy.

OK so with that out of the way, the government should instead be following the action that smart investors are taking right now -- and that's buying stocks in the companies. It infuses them with cash but at the same time provides the government with real value in return -- a piece of the company -- at a fair price.

Once the companies have recovered, the government can sell the stocks back to the companies. The profits generated from those sales can then be shipped back to individual taxpayers as a sort of "return on our investment" in the form of a tax rebate. That'll help the nation come back strong after the recession.

Let me know if that makes sense.

Raider_Vet
09-24-2008, 06:55 PM
Sure. Sorry about that.

Right now the government is talking about buying bad debt from the banks, to the tune of $700 billion. However, that debt clearly cannot be worth $700 billion. It has to be worth quite a bit less. If it was worth that much then the banks wouldn't be facing bankrupcy.

OK so with that out of the way, the government should instead be following the action that smart investors are taking right now -- and that's buying stocks in the companies. It infuses them with cash but at the same time provides the government with real value in return -- a piece of the company -- at a fair price.

Once the companies have recovered, the government can sell the stocks back to the companies. The profits generated from those sales can then be shipped back to individual taxpayers as a sort of "return on our investment" in the form of a tax rebate. That'll help the nation come back strong after the recession.

Let me know if that makes sense.
This makes alot of since. I thought however that the Dems wanted to do this to the tune of 20% of their stocks or am I wrong? I also say I agree with what you are saying at this point but I would have to gather info on how it would affect the market and my dad's 401k. Well worded friend and thank you for the simple straight talk.

hoosiercubsfan
09-24-2008, 09:17 PM
Sure. Sorry about that.

Right now the government is talking about buying bad debt from the banks, to the tune of $700 billion. However, that debt clearly cannot be worth $700 billion. It has to be worth quite a bit less. If it was worth that much then the banks wouldn't be facing bankrupcy.

OK so with that out of the way, the government should instead be following the action that smart investors are taking right now -- and that's buying stocks in the companies. It infuses them with cash but at the same time provides the government with real value in return -- a piece of the company -- at a fair price.

Once the companies have recovered, the government can sell the stocks back to the companies. The profits generated from those sales can then be shipped back to individual taxpayers as a sort of "return on our investment" in the form of a tax rebate. That'll help the nation come back strong after the recession.

Let me know if that makes sense.

I know this isn't totally related to the thread but more so to your comment. As an economist would you really be sinking money into the market right now with the wild ride it is on currently? Especially in the banking system.

DenButsu
09-24-2008, 10:05 PM
What in his past gives you this feeling?

His consistency, for one thing.

If you listen to him speak two years ago, four years ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-eOYtaru4Q), he's the same guy talking about the same stuff, the same ideals, the same principles.

If you compare McCain now to McCain two years ago to McCain four years ago you'll see three different guys.


And like ari, I kind of don't follow the thinking of your retort. The logistics of drafting and executing a campaign stragegy and the question of whether a candidate actually believes in and intends to accomplish the goals and policies he's outlined are two very different questions.

Uncle Funster
09-24-2008, 10:33 PM
Sure. Sorry about that.

Right now the government is talking about buying bad debt from the banks, to the tune of $700 billion. However, that debt clearly cannot be worth $700 billion. It has to be worth quite a bit less. If it was worth that much then the banks wouldn't be facing bankrupcy.

OK so with that out of the way, the government should instead be following the action that smart investors are taking right now -- and that's buying stocks in the companies. It infuses them with cash but at the same time provides the government with real value in return -- a piece of the company -- at a fair price.

Once the companies have recovered, the government can sell the stocks back to the companies. The profits generated from those sales can then be shipped back to individual taxpayers as a sort of "return on our investment" in the form of a tax rebate. That'll help the nation come back strong after the recession.

Let me know if that makes sense.

I agree. Knowingly buying something that is not worth wht you are paying for it is ********. Buy stock and let the markets recover naturally while creating an opportunity for the government and tax payers to get their ROI. I'd vote for that in a heart beat.

DenButsu
09-25-2008, 04:12 AM
Quote of the Day»

Why $700 billion? (http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html)


“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

Doesn’t this seem like a very strong argument for a much smaller appropriation designed to last for another couple of months? There’s nothing to stop congress from appropriating more money in mid-November if the situation seems to warrant it.yglesias (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/quote_of_the_day_9.php)

PUGS1688
09-25-2008, 12:30 PM
Conspiracy theorists believe that President Bush would cancel the 2008 Presidential Elections. According to this article, the Patriot Act gives the President the power to do so...
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/july2004/200704cancelelections.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6477



Last Night, John McCain who is ironically a Republican, suspended his campaign due to the 'Financial Crisis.'
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html



It was also quietly announced that Martial Law is going to be declared on the our own Country for crowd control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYxTzDFofZQ




I'm just reporting what I see...Not jumping to conclusions, but hey, there it is.

SmthBluCitrus
09-25-2008, 12:34 PM
-No, Bush will not cancel or postpone the elections. I'm pretty sure that's not something he can do all by himself.

-Who cares if John McCain "suspended" his campaign. It's a political tactic.

-Martial Law is not being declared.

hoosiercubsfan
09-25-2008, 01:15 PM
-No, Bush will not cancel or postpone the elections. I'm pretty sure that's not something he can do all by himself.

-Who cares if John McCain "suspended" his campaign. It's a political tactic.

-Martial Law is not being declared.

I believe they did or where at least talking about Martial law for Galveston after Ike came through. But that would have been more for the point of getting the last stubborn people out of the way so they can start the clean up.

SmthBluCitrus
09-25-2008, 01:18 PM
I believe they did or where at least talking about Martial law for Galveston after Ike came through. But that would have been more for the point of getting the last stubborn people out of the way so they can start the clean up.

That's a bit of a different story, however. It's not a general state of martial law. Implying that the government is going to turn this into a military state is reckless and absurd.

hoosiercubsfan
09-25-2008, 01:29 PM
That's a bit of a different story, however. It's not a general state of martial law. Implying that the government is going to turn this into a military state is reckless and absurd.

Oh I agree just trying to give at least a plausible explanation of how that thought has been put out there. But you are dealing with the fringe crazy's on both sides you are going to get reports like this.

PUGS1688
09-25-2008, 01:30 PM
That's a bit of a different story, however. It's not a general state of martial law. Implying that the government is going to turn this into a military state is reckless and absurd.

I would like to agree with you, but while Martial Law being declared on our own country is absurd, so was the idea of spying your own citizens, and the President having the power to declare anyone an enemy combatant.


So again, while I do find it very difficult for this government to turn their backs on us and do this, there is no reason why we as citizens shouldn't keep an eye on the situation around us. While we do have foreign enemies, we also have ones that are domestic.

HOWE do i do it
09-25-2008, 01:37 PM
Boy do I love conspiracy theorists.

dbroncos78087
09-25-2008, 01:43 PM
Boy do I love conspiracy theorists.

I think that this is an intersection between conspiracy theorists and actual fact.

First off, the video didnt give me the impression of Martial Law, but the articles were more worrisome to me. If they could cancel the elections that would be very bad. I think there is no denying that the Bush administration in general is not opposed to any "dirty" trick. Obviously this would be a step up, in just changing all 50 states constitutions.

I am looking forward for the door to be kicking George Bush out on i believe January 20th. I dont think McCain would be near the problem Bush's administration would be but it would have more of Bush's people than Obama's would and those are the people that make the real decisions than the president i think.

SmthBluCitrus
09-25-2008, 01:47 PM
I think that this is an intersection between conspiracy theorists and actual fact.

First off, the video didnt give me the impression of Martial Law, but the articles were more worrisome to me. If they could cancel the elections that would be very bad. I think there is no denying that the Bush administration in general is not opposed to any "dirty" trick. Obviously this would be a step up, in just changing all 50 states constitutions.

I am looking forward for the door to be kicking George Bush out on i believe January 20th. I dont think McCain would be near the problem Bush's administration would be but it would have more of Bush's people than Obama's would and those are the people that make the real decisions than the president i think.

The problem is you can't look at those two articles with any credibility. It's Prison Planet and Global Research. They thrive on conspiracy. They are to the political world what the National Enquirer is to entertainment. They take a fact, or an idea, and spin it to satisfy an immediate concern.

I just can't buy it. And, if this was of grave concern, why aren't any of the major (liberal) media outlets -- or the progressive anti-Bush blogosphere -- reporting on it? Probably because the issue doesn't exist.

dbroncos78087
09-25-2008, 01:50 PM
The problem is you can't look at those two articles with any credibility. It's Prison Planet and Global Research. They thrive on conspiracy. They are to the political world what the National Enquirer is to entertainment. They take a fact, or an idea, and spin it to satisfy an immediate concern.

I just can't buy it. And, if this was of grave concern, why aren't any of the major (liberal) media outlets -- or the progressive anti-Bush blogosphere -- reporting on it? Probably because the issue doesn't exist.

Not to quote House here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQCjELcE0yQ)

I am sure that it is a slim-to-none chance, but there is a huge difference between slim-to-none and none.

Padres Son
09-25-2008, 01:51 PM
I think that this is an intersection between conspiracy theorists and actual fact.

First off, the video didnt give me the impression of Martial Law, but the articles were more worrisome to me. If they could cancel the elections that would be very bad. I think there is no denying that the Bush administration in general is not opposed to any "dirty" trick. Obviously this would be a step up, in just changing all 50 states constitutions.

I am looking forward for the door to be kicking George Bush out on i believe January 20th. I dont think McCain would be near the problem Bush's administration would be but it would have more of Bush's people than Obama's would and those are the people that make the real decisions than the president i think.Very bad is an understatement. It would essentially be the end of the American democracy. People need to just take a deep breath and calm down about everything that's going on. Yes, we're in a bad position economically and it's going to be a hard road to get back to the economic prosperity we've enjoyed for so long. But civilization is not going to fall apart; we're not going to have riots in the streets; the government is not going to collapse; and we will have a new president in January.

SmthBluCitrus
09-25-2008, 02:12 PM
Not to quote House here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQCjELcE0yQ)

I am sure that it is a slim-to-none chance, but there is a huge difference between slim-to-none and none.

I love House. I don't watch the show enough.

That's absolutely true, there is a massive difference between slim-to-none and none. For the most part, we can very rarely say that the chances of something happening are "none." Because, you just never know.

But, I'll take slim-to-none on this. It's not going to happen. It would take something overtly drastic and nation-crippling before this type of activity could be remotely successful in succeeding. We're talking something beyond 9/11 ... and more towards a multiple nuclear holocaust/Day After Tomorrow scenario. And, the chances of seeing something like that are remote, at best.

PUGS1688
09-25-2008, 02:14 PM
I love House. I don't watch the show enough.

That's absolutely true, there is a massive difference between slim-to-none and none. For the most part, we can very rarely say that the chances of something happening are "none." Because, you just never know.

But, I'll take slim-to-none on this. It's not going to happen. It would take something overtly drastic and nation-crippling before this type of activity could be remotely successful in succeeding. We're talking something beyond 9/11 ... and more towards a multiple nuclear holocaust/Day After Tomorrow scenario. And, the chances of seeing something like that are remote, at best.

That's a good point

gcoll
09-25-2008, 03:23 PM
Conspiracy theorists believe that President Bush would cancel the 2008 Presidential Elections.

Yes. And they also say that he will declare himself "chancellor" or something like that.

Then it will be up to the conspiracy theorists to save us all. They will put down their bongs, emerge from their parents basement and start the revolution.

But when the election happens, and Bush is out of office......they'll come up with some other bizarre story to link the next president, to the Illuminati.

Hey, I hear Cheney and Obama are cousins.

gcoll
09-25-2008, 03:29 PM
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm

I agree with them here. If we're going to bail them out, it should be via the market. Buy up their stocks now to infuse capital into the system and then sell the stocks back to them at the market price once they've rebounded. Use the proceeds of that sale as a rebate back to consumers.

Can it really be as simple as you make it sound though?

CubsGirl
09-25-2008, 03:30 PM
Yes. And they also say that he will declare himself "chancellor" or something like that.

Then it will be up to the conspiracy theorists to save us all. They will put down their bongs, ermerge from their parents basement and start the revolution.

But when the election happens, and Bush is out of office......they'll come up with some other bizarre story to link the next president, to the Illuminati.

Hey, I hear Cheney and Obama are cousins.

:laugh:

OnWisconsin2007
09-25-2008, 05:44 PM
The elections are never going to get cancelled. That's just ****ing ********.

ink
09-25-2008, 05:46 PM
^ Who took that photo of the northern lights? Wow.

Randy West
09-25-2008, 05:48 PM
Wait maybe just maybe they will turn New York into a maximum security prison and dump all the convicts there and then seal it off from the rest of the world

Then and only then will Snake Pliskin be our only hope

We turned New York into a prison but we forgot we left John McCain there............we need to send in Snake.........it is the only way to get Johnny out alive and well

I mean WTF already with all this crapola

OnWisconsin2007
09-25-2008, 05:56 PM
^ Who took that photo of the northern lights? Wow.

Nobody. I just found it.

ari1013
09-25-2008, 06:24 PM
I know this isn't totally related to the thread but more so to your comment. As an economist would you really be sinking money into the market right now with the wild ride it is on currently? Especially in the banking system.
As an economist, yes, I think it would be very beneficial to the economy for people to do that.

Of course if I had my PhD in Finance, I'd probably be counseling individuals against doing that.

Different goals.

ari1013
09-25-2008, 06:26 PM
Can it really be as simple as you make it sound though?
It has a better shot of working out positively than the whole over-paying for debt proposal that the Bush Admin is trying to sell us on.

ari1013
09-25-2008, 06:35 PM
I agree. Knowingly buying something that is not worth wht you are paying for it is ********. Buy stock and let the markets recover naturally while creating an opportunity for the government and tax payers to get their ROI. I'd vote for that in a heart beat.
When we start agreeing on policy, you know it must be right.

DC better get their act together and not let this whole debt buyout go through unabated. It just makes no sense.

ari1013
09-25-2008, 06:38 PM
Very true. I'd be much less mistrusting of the plan if it was done in several stages. But then again, buying debt is just nonsense.

FearAD
09-25-2008, 06:59 PM
Causacian please!!!!!

i4c
09-25-2008, 08:09 PM
mccain suspended his campaign so he wouldn't have to debate obama and look like a fool..and moreso so Sarah "The Walking Disaster" Palin wouldn't have to debate Biden.

now he is killing the bailout (at least thru the weekend) to ensure that the debates do not happen. then he is gonna try to propose and take credit for making the bailout happen

hoosiercubsfan
09-25-2008, 10:07 PM
When we start agreeing on policy, you know it must be right.

DC better get their act together and not let this whole debt buyout go through unabated. It just makes no sense.

But how often does DC ever do anything that makes sense. Many in congress view the wages we earn are theirs and they just let us keep enough to keep us fat and happy. They don't connect each dollar they spend to a dollar they have taken from the taxpayers pocket. That is the problem with having career politicians they spend all their time in Washington and only care about the people when it is time for getting elected back to office. That is why I seriously wish there where term limits in congress as well. After two terms you are done and time for someone else to come in and take a crack at it and banning all lobbyists from the capital. Then and only then will they get back to doing the will of the people because they will again work for us not the corporations that are begging to be saved.

SmthBluCitrus
09-25-2008, 11:53 PM
Largest bank takeover in American history.



Government Seizes WaMu and Sells Some Assets
By ERIC DASH and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Published: September 25, 2008

Washington Mutual, the giant lender that came to symbolize the excesses of the mortgage boom, was seized by federal regulators on Thursday night, in what is by far the largest bank failure in American history.

Regulators simultaneously brokered an emergency sale of virtually all of Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings and loan to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion, averting another potentially huge taxpayer bill for the rescue of a failing institution.

The move came as lawmakers reached a stalemate over the passage of a $700 billion bailout fund designed to help ailing banks, and removed one of America’s most troubled banks from the financial landscape.

Customers of Seattle-based WaMu, with $307 billion in assets, are unlikely to be affected, although shareholders and some bondholders will be wiped out. WaMu account holders are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to $100,000.

By taking on all of its troubled mortgages and credit card loans, JPMorgan will absorb at least $31 billion in losses that would normally have fallen to the F.D.I.C.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26wamu.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

sboyajian
09-26-2008, 12:16 AM
I think the risks are greater if we do it. I think the economy will still fail, we'll have 700 billion more pumped into the national debt, and we'll have a socialized economy.

Take the 700 bil and expand social security to protect people who lost their 401k's. Screw the banks. People will found new banks.Expand Social Security? To be honest, I'd be much happier if they gave me all of the SS I have paid since I began working.. I can invest it better myself.. and when I retired I would actually still have it.

As for this bailout.. unless The provide all tax payers a share based on their tax rate for any interest, revenue, etc earned on this 700b bailout.. I would rather see the banks fail, the bad debt written off, the good portions of the banks bought up and transfered into a good standing bank portfolio and the Fair Isaac to punish people for big mistakes for longer than a year or two.

DenButsu
09-26-2008, 12:46 AM
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing (sic) the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
The U.S. Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2)

It looks to me like:

-Only the Congress has the power to schedule (and therefore postpone) presidential elections. The President has no authority over this.

-I'm no constitutional law scholar, but it would appear to me that the Constitution actually mandates the election of a president every four years. Or, in other words, congress might have the authority to schedule (and perhaps re-schedule) an election, but it would be unconstitutional for a presidential election not to be held at all.

Rochesta
09-26-2008, 01:24 AM
The U.S. Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2)

It looks to me like:

-Only the Congress has the power to schedule (and therefore postpone) presidential elections. The President has no authority over this.

-I'm no constitutional law scholar, but it would appear to me that the Constitution actually mandates the election of a president every four years. Or, in other words, congress might have the authority to schedule (and perhaps re-schedule) an election, but it would be unconstitutional for a presidential election not to be held at all.

The consitution is vague on this.

If I had to interpret, I would say that the rule would be thus:

Bush, declaring martial law, could remain president for up to 2 years beyond the 20th of January (consult 22nd, 20th). The election would have to take place, at the states' and Congress's behest. However, I believe that Bush could serve for up to 2 years into their terms under martial law, even though Obama or McCain would be president elect. At January 20th, 2011, Bush would have to leave office regardless of the circumstances, unless the 22nd is repealed in that time.

DenButsu
09-26-2008, 01:41 AM
Even if that's true (which I severely doubt, not in any realistically implementable sense at least), on what grounds would Bush declare martial law? I mean, for that to happen wouldn't Dr. Evil have to open up all the prisons and mental hospitals and let the madmen run amok on the streets, or Magneto gather up all his rebel mutants and wage war against the humans or something? "Economic crisis" somehow seems to fall short of "grounds for implementing martial law" to me.

Rochesta
09-26-2008, 01:54 AM
Even if that's true (which I severely doubt, not in any realistically implementable sense at least), on what grounds would Bush declare martial law? I mean, for that to happen wouldn't Dr. Evil have to open up all the prisons and mental hospitals and let the madmen run amok on the streets, or Magneto gather up all his rebel mutants and wage war against the humans or something? "Economic crisis" somehow seems to fall short of "grounds for implementing martial law" to me.

Right, there's no grounds for it. Its a crazy theory. Its not impossible (I won't speculate on what happens as a result of this), but its extremely, extremely unlikely that anything violent would happen, and that's what martial law is designed to address.

Constitutionally, I can't see anything to determine what goes down. Like I say, I think that his tenure could extend for up to 2 years, based on the 20th and 22nd ammendments. I obvioulsy don't think it would happen but it is fun to try and interpret the document.

The supreme court would have to rule on this.

SmthBluCitrus
09-26-2008, 10:31 AM
Where Are the Grown-Ups?
by Paul Krugman

Many people on both the right and the left are outraged at the idea of using taxpayer money to bail out America’s financial system. They’re right to be outraged, but doing nothing isn’t a serious option. Right now, players throughout the system are refusing to lend and hoarding cash — and this collapse of credit reminds many economists of the run on the banks that brought on the Great Depression.

It’s true that we don’t know for sure that the parallel is a fair one. Maybe we can let Wall Street implode and Main Street would escape largely unscathed. But that’s not a chance we want to take.

So the grown-up thing is to do something to rescue the financial system. The big question is, are there any grown-ups around — and will they be able to take charge?

-------

This has to be a bipartisan plan, and not just at the leadership level. Democrats won’t pass the plan without votes from rank-and-file Republicans — and as of Thursday night, those rank-and-file Republicans were balking.

Furthermore, one non-rank-and-file Republican, Senator John McCain, is apparently playing spoiler. Earlier this week, while refusing to say whether he supported the Paulson plan, he claimed not to have had a chance to read it; the plan is all of three pages long. Then he inserted himself into the delicate negotiations over the Congressional plan, insisting on a White House meeting at which he reportedly said little — but during which consensus collapsed.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

SmthBluCitrus
09-26-2008, 03:28 PM
Wall Street to GOP: Drop Dead
James Pethokoukis

Economic conservatives may be horrified at the thought of a trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street, but the GOPers on Wall Street seem horrified that they are being left to wither on the vine by Washington. Take a look at this email I just got last night from a money manager:


I am a lifelong ( 51 years old) "rock-ribbed" conservative.... What an eye opener this week has been! I now realize what a blowhard Newt truly is by advocating the GOP bail on the Paulson Plan. As a professional money manager I can tell you I am shocked, dismayed and depressed that the Speaker would excoriate the GOP to abandon this plan which is URGENT and necessary to avoid a financial catastrophe that once commenced may be irreversible. The level of ignorance of financial and economic reality displayed by the Speaker , Rep. Boehner, Sen. Shelby , et al, has been frightening and sad. I thought the GOP had a better grasp of such matters than the Dems. Apparently not. And if this has been pure election gamesmanship as I suspect? The willingness to play politics with the U.S. financial markets is appalling and disgusting.

I am a huge Reagan fan and admirer.I have voted GOP every election since 1976. Until now. Today. September 25, 2008. As soon as I finish this email I am going to try and get my $1000 McCain/Palin credit card donation back as I will not be voting GOP this year after watching this circus and the theatres passing as leadership displayed by the GOP. I am embarrassed to have been an erstwhile supporter of this gaggle of self-serving jerks. I hope the GOP lose their ***** come November. They shall deserve it.

US News & World Report (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/09/26/wall-street-to-gop-drop-dead.html)

ari1013
09-26-2008, 04:18 PM
US News & World Report (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/09/26/wall-street-to-gop-drop-dead.html)
Well that was bound to happen.

Both sides of Washington are just letting ideology carry their arguments here, when clearly a non-political solution would make a whole lot more sense.

SmthBluCitrus
09-26-2008, 04:19 PM
Is it really a Democrat vs. Republican issue right now? I was under the impression that it was House Republicans vs. the Republican White House.

ari1013
09-26-2008, 04:26 PM
Is it really a Democrat vs. Republican issue right now? I was under the impression that it was House Republicans vs. the Republican White House.
Yes... because the House Republicans believe that Bush sold out to the Dems in conceeding certain tag-a-longs like UI benefits.

While UI benefits are important, the Dems really shouldn't be tagging them to this bill because it's just going to increase the final $$$ amount. We'd be much better off with a lean bill at this time to see if it'll even work in getting things jump-started. Basically, if the bill doesn't work right away, then there's no point to it because the markets will recover by themselves anyway. We're just trying to move that recovery up to next quarter.

SmthBluCitrus
09-26-2008, 04:28 PM
Gotcha. Thanks.