Future of Credit

Hey...I get it.

You guys dont like the recovery program to help stabilize the economy that was on the verge of collapse....but you dont have a better solution.

You guys dont like TARP that prevented massive banking failures and prevented even tighter credit markets and more collapse.....but you dont have a better solution.

You guys dont like the legislation passed by the House last year to regulate the housing finance marketing, derivatives and related financial instruments, and to require large banks to self-fund (in advance) any future potential bail-outs....but you dont have a better solution.

You guys dont like the Obama proposal to tax exorbitant salaries of bank executive or fees on largest banks to recover more TARP funds...but you dont have a better solution.

And you dont have a solution to cope with the tightening credit market.

Very constructive, I must say.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Only half. The rest were controlled by the Obama Administration. Nice try to deflect responsibility.

Then why are you blaming Obama 100%? What openly promoted and encouraged Enron accounting? Obama? Hardly. Who got stuck for eight years of wacko extremist spending?

Who surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban? Who invented a lies - "Mission Accomplished" - leaving massive debts still to be paid? Who subverted the SEC even in 2001 - the Harvey Pitts testimony before Congress even refusing to accept any money to hire investigators - to all but protect Maddof, et al. And then who had to start spending massive TARP moneys to save America from their economic mismanagement and tax cuts to the rich? Let's see. Their political agenda. Same people said, "We want Obama to fail."

So let's blame Obama for all of it. At what point do those who most supported George Jr demonstrate the same level of competence? Blame Obama rather than apologize for being so wrong and so destructive to America. Another Limbaugh (and Hitler) propaganda technique. Cast blame elsewhere.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

You guys dont like the recovery program to help stabilize the economy that was on the verge of collapse....but you dont have a better solution.

Bush spent money like water. The TARP plan has its deficits and that is a fact. Should all that money have gone to the banks? I don't think so. But I also don't have all the facts so anything I would say is speculation - same as anyone else.

You guys dont like the legislation passed by the House last year to regulate the housing finance marketing, derivatives and related financial instruments, and to require large banks to self-fund (in advance) any future potential bail-outs....but you dont have a better solution.

How's that going? Seems like the money isn't getting to those who need it. I'm blaming the banks right now, but again I don't have all the info needed to make a better assessment. Neither do you.

You guys dont like the Obama proposal to tax exorbitant salaries of bank executive or fees on largest banks to recover more TARP funds...but you dont have a better solution.

Two separate things, taxing the high end of the income has, I believe, shown to decrease job creation.
I think the banks should be scrutinized much more than they are. Why isn't the money available to those who need it? Why aren't the banks lending? Why? why? why? The "too big to fail" are getting even BIGGER! Why?

Get the people working and get the money flowing. Once people are at work, He'll be able to do just about anything. If nothing else Bush proved that.

Oh, you missed the healthcare issue - Get the friggin thing done in pieces. Have a vote on pre-existing conditions. Have another on the medicare issue. Another on additional coverage for more Americans. Do them separately and make them all vote yea or nay on the issues. Lets make these politicians vote on the issues that are most important so we can really see who is for what and against what. By putting it all together it became a clusterfuck. Get some of this done in smaller pieces instead of a mammoth bill that no one really understands. That's been my belief since the beginning. Dealing with the costs has to be in there as well, but I think trying to do it wholesale was a mistake. If it was that good a bill with the super majority the "D"s had it should have flown thru. Especially if the unemployment issue wasn't so large.

Perhaps that was the problem - unemployment and timing.
I'm not just bashing Obama, perhaps it comes across that way, but I'm friggin pissed at all of them and the games they are still playing, the earmarks, the trips, the frivolous spending . . .
Global warming and "Don't ask don't tell" and some of the other issues are tertiary to me, at best. He's gotta get people working.
How to do that? If I knew that I'd be rich.

Oh, and just saying its all Bush's fault, wacko extremists, 80%, blah blah blah, ad-nauseum doesn't help.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Hey...I get it.

{I make excuses for my parties failure and blame someone else. }

I can't agree more...

[classicman]

That was helpful.

[tw]

For those watching this economy. Who have seen 22% and 44% returns this past year. This may be when we take the economy off its drugs and let it start healing. This is when we start to learn how extensive the damage was. What everyone should be asking is whether January was when economics starts taking revenge. And how extensive that 'revenge' will be for spending on things such as "Mission Accomplished" and a 40% price protection to big Pharma.

We know we will have to pay for the 2000s. We just do not know how much, and in what form that economic revenge will appear. Inflation, dropping dollar, massive unemployment, stagflation, real estate devaluations, bankruptcies, 20% interest rates (which Volker and Carter's administration instituted to solve problems back then), or massive capital sales of America to foreigners. Examples of how economics may take revenge.

We know it must happen. We just do not know how severe and by which processes.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I can't agree more...

When I can't make a logical response I quote the original post and change it in ways (only) I find humorous.

I can't agree more...

[xoxoxoBruce]

You got it, dar... uh, Pete.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Oh, you missed the healthcare issue - Get the friggin thing done in pieces. Have a vote on pre-existing conditions. Have another on the medicare issue. Another on additional coverage for more Americans. Do them separately and make them all vote yea or nay on the issues.

You can't do the preexisting conditions without universal coverage. If you didn't have to buy insurance, and you knew an insurance company had to take you on if you got sick, you would only buy insurance when you needed it. But insurance is based on the idea that there are enough people in the system who don't need it at any given time to pay for the ones who do.

[classicman]

That is something that has to be worked around. If we are going to require all to have insurance, as was in the bill previously, then that is no longer an issue.

[Happy Monkey]

It's an issue if you're doing things piecemeal. Eliminating preexisting conditions has to be paired with universal (or very close) coverage.

Of course, if you're requiring people to buy insurance, you need to subsidize it for people who can't. And you need to lower the cost, to minimize the nuimber of people who need to be subsidized. If you don't have funding for subsidies and something the CBO predicts will lower costs, the bill is going nowhere. And getting an industry that is exempt from antitrust regulation to lower their prices isn't easy.

There may be some parts of this bill that could be done piecemeal, but not much of the meat of it.

[classicman]

Well its probably not going to happen any other way either.

I like the idea of forcing the politicians to admit where they stand on each and every issue with a vote. I realize that all the issues are intertwined. I was looking for an alternate plan of action. Ya know something that actually gets something done. Then again I think this is more of a dead issue than most want to admit. That sucks an a number of levels.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And getting an industry that is exempt from antitrust regulation to lower their prices isn't easy.

Solving the insurance problem only starts to address the issue. Once the insurance problem is addressed, only then will the next problem be confronted.

Insurance companies have something like a 2% profit margin. Big pharma and medical equipment suppliers average 17% and 20+% profit margins. Making it illegal to buy the same drug from Canada or Mexico - to keep American drug prices 40% higher - did not help anything. And yes, same viagra made in Ireland sells for 40% higher in America compared to both Canada and Mexico - because our bought and paid for politicians know where campaign funds come from.