Does Anyone feel like Bailing
AIG and Lehman out?
Because I don't.
I. Do. Not.
Don't tell me it's all for the greater good, it will be worse if we don't,etc. Let the CEO's and CFO's bail their companies out. Mohterf******rs!!!
Am I the only one who feels this way?
and another thing: The Chinese get away with selling toxic lounge chairs?
:blah:
ok. Sunday late afternoon ennui, I suppose. But, still.
All you need to know is that rich people will stay rich and poor people will stay poor, and that's how its going to be. Period.
you mean the Dream of the Middle class is truly over?
And to kill my spirit even more---McCain is leading here in Ohio. Holy shite I cannot believe my neighbors. I really, really cannot. I shake my head in complete disbelief.
Oh great, do we have to bail Lehman out now? I thought they getting all split up.
I agree. Whenever this sort of thing happens, all the C_O's--present and especially most recent past--should have to pony up first. Seems like
the guys who leave right before the shit hits the fan are the ones who are the most responsible for the mess.
What's wrong with you people in Ohio?
What's wrong with you people in Ohio?
You mean because they are all voting McCain? I can answer this if this is your question.
The Middle Class was an aberration...was never supposed to happen. That little sociological blip is rapidly being corrected.
First, we lose the investment in our homes by having had the values artificially inflated so that we would borrow against nonexistent money, then having the values lowered so that we are, effectively being returned to being rental tenants for the next decade or so. Second, any jobs which one can actually make a decent living at are shipped overseas where impoverished people jump at the chance to make 1/10th the wages that were paid in this country. Third, the retirement investments we have all labored to build are consumed by market crashes and negative yields. Finally, inflation consumes any of the expendable income we might have as employers in a slumping economy are unwillng or unable to provide raises to even allow us to stay even with inflation.
The rich will still be rich, because the gap between the wealthy and even the middlest of the Middle class is so enormous.
Anyone taking bets on who will step up to shoot down my thesis?
Anyone taking bets on who will step up to shoot down my thesis?
I bet UG.
You mean because they are all voting McCain? I can answer this if this is your question.
I was making a reference to
this thread. No offense intended.
I was making a reference to this thread. No offense intended.
No offense taken.
I just cannot believe the nutjobs around here, supporting McCain. I USED to like him ok enough, but once he pulled that Cheap Trick, the scales fell from my eyes. He's too old and Sarah is a complete right wing saleswoman, courting the Evangelical crowd....blah,blah, you've heard it all before. I just CANNOT believe that, even NOW, people in Ohio support Bush (!!!) and want his clone in office.
I fondly look back on the days of Slick Willie. Blowjobs don't bother me, but blowing up other people---now that does bother me.
OMG! Maybe I'm becoming a
socialist?! Cool! Then me and Dana can hang out more. ;)
Dash my hopes
again why don't you. I thought the title of this thread was "Does anyone feel like balling?"
To quote Ms. Potter "...there was no end to the rage and disappointment..."
As for the topic, I didn't feel like bailing out Neil and Jeb, et al either, and I still feel it is a bad idea to foster and condone irresponsibility.
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm
Got this clip from Lehrer on pbs, 12 minutes of reasonable deabte on the subject.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=17092008&seg=2Problem is I don't BELIEVE Obama. I don't believe in him. I don't understand the vague ambiguities that come out of his mouth. I can't stand his smirky face.His finger flipping, lipstick poking politics. Congress is Democratic! and I am a democrat but I wanted Hillary as Pres. I am protesting but it won't be a protest vote, nor a color of the skin vote. It's a look at the facts about whom has done what.
Who will maybe actually do what they say?
As for bail-outs. It's better that we bail out our country than to hock it to China. What's left anyway.
We may or may not need to bail them out. I certainly don't want to do it with a) $700 billion that b) will be spent entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury with c) absolutely no oversight whatsoever.
And bailing out offshore companies, that moved offshore to avoid paying US taxes. :eyebrow:
I don't want to gamble with the future. What if there would be another depression if we did not? How can we know the truth? We can only really know it in hindsight. I don't want to have to look back and say we should have.
I understand who is to blame and those who did it. I think deregulation is wrong. I always thought so. I can even say, "I told you so" to those who bashed me for bashing Bush' Waay back when but anyway, I didn't like Bush then and I still don't. I still am democratic in my basic philosophy but these parties are so in the pockets of special interests on both sides.
I am all for cleaning up our government. I hope the two nominees can clean it up without running us into the ground any further.
that's all
The "government" is three branches. Congress needs "cleaning up" the most. The Executive branch can supply leadership, and block some mismanagement, but congress is where the most damage is done.
That's one of the reasons the candidates don't get into specifics. It's that not only would the campaigns get bogged down in the details, that most people don't understand anyway, but the congress is the only one that can deal with this. The executive branch can only try to herd the cats.
Problem is I don't BELIEVE Obama. I don't believe in him. I don't understand the vague ambiguities that come out of his mouth. I can't stand his smirky face.His finger flipping, lipstick poking politics.
Then you must also hate McCain for same reasons.
Your emotions should never be reason for such decisions. Making a decision on how you 'feel' makes one the perfect patsy for Rush Limbaugh logic. How to get the naive to vote for you? Get them to think using emotion - decisions only based in first impressions. And yes, that is racism. Racism is not about race. Racism is also judging people only on first impressions.
McCain campaign has absorbed the George Jr wackos who, for example, got the VP selection changed to someone who represents wacko extremist agendas. Do you want someone who promotes the party agenda only because you feel?
George Sr had the same problem. He very much disliked the wacko extremists who eventually took major positions in his administration. He, like McCain, had no choice. Party power is located mostly among wackos which is why moderates (such as Sen Collins of Maine) survive with so little party support.
Do you want George Jr people in power? You get them when voting for McCain. Same people who cause George Sr so much aggravation. Same people who George Sr would not have had if given the choice.
Does Anyone feel like Bailing AIG and Lehman out?
Because I don't.
I. Do. Not.
Don't tell me it's all for the greater good, it will be worse if we don't,etc. Let the CEO's and CFO's bail their companies out. Mohterf******rs!!!
Am I the only one who feels this way?
I think it's interesting that 5-10 years ago, it was the banks and credit card companies that lobbied for
changes to the bankruptcy laws so that individuals would find it much harder to file for bankruptcy and gain protection from their creditors. These lenders were engaging in predatory lending and wanted to be able to keep the thumbscrews on their debtors to collect every last cent.
Now it's the banks who need the protecting, and they are coming to the tax payers to ask for the handout.
They didn't want us to have protection, and now they are begging for protection.
They didn't want us to have protection, and now they are begging for protection.
Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. I say we string each and every one of them up in a public square, then shoot killer bees at them.
The French had a way with dealing with people like these assholes. It's called the Guillotine and they only had to use it ONCE to show the people meant business.
And these CEO's, CFO's? Why, they get to Yacht away into the sunset with a gaggle of giggling girl-mistresses and all OUR cash. VENDETTA!!! I just can't keep living like this! I want a revolution.
you mean the Dream of the Middle class is truly over?
And to kill my spirit even more---McCain is leading here in Ohio. Holy shite I cannot believe my neighbors. I really, really cannot. I shake my head in complete disbelief.
Heh... what's a middle class?
I don't know, Bri. I look around and I just have to shake my head in disbelief. I mean, WTF? The only thing I can come up with is that there was a secret little place where you used a secret password to get in. Once in, you signed a secret little paper that said if you kept everything on the down low, you would get some kind of kickback from all the hell the middle class has had to bear, some monetary kickback from the fat oilcats and fat bankcats. The other side of that was that, if you ran your mouth, you were killed, or sent to Iraq. Either or.
Because otherwise...WTF?
Then you must also hate McCain for same reasons.
I dislike both of them for pretty much the same reasons. First of all they are politicians and secondly, since getting the "nod" the extremists in both parties are now involved in their respective campaigns exponentially more than at the beginning. The leftist extremists are just as bad as the righty tighties.
What is your opinion of the top leftist whackos? I hate to assume this, but it seems as though you only shoot at the right and not both.
Da right has done me wrong.
What is your opinion of the top leftist whackos? I hate to assume this, but it seems as though you only shoot at the right and not both.
Wackos from either side get the contempt they earn. However the lefty wackos were not sending corporate welfare to their chosen companies and religious groups, were not subverting any effort to avert 11 September, were not assigning White House lawyers to rewrite science to properly reflect their political agenda, were not hyping a pathetic man to Mars program only for the glory of their administration, did not try to kill the Hubble Space Telescope, did not stifle fundamental medical science (ie stem cells) only to impose their religion on mankind, did not lower the income of Americans while massively enriching the few richest, were not inventing myths (ie Saddam's involvement on 11 Sept) only to promote more war, did not lie about the massive debts and the resulting recession that must result, did not keep spending massively on 'rebate' programs to only make themselves look good, did not subvert education with "more children left behind" nonsense, did not endorse interference with Terry Schiavo, did not keep American drug prices 40% higher and impose a cost on Medicaid that will only massively increase more entitlements (measured in $trillions over ten years), did not routinely wiretap everyone in some mythical fear that we all conspire to perform terrorism, did not subvert mileage standards so that engineers in the auto industry are further stifled by the bean counters, did not openly conduct torture and international kidnapping - and deny it, did not impose illegal tariffs to protect anti-American big steel while destroying jobs in the productive steel reprocessing industry, did not go to California for a campaign fund raiser when everyone knew a category five hurricane would strike New Orleans, subverted the HAVA standards for electronic voting machines, denied damage to New Orleans for over five days while people had no food or water in the SuperDome and Convention Center (and while the USS Bataan sat only miles away forbidden to offer assistance), did not subvert writ of Habeas Corpus, did not unilaterally subvert numerous international treaties as to all but restart the cold war, did not subvert anti-aids programs in Africa so at to impose wacko extremists Christian beliefs, did not stifle American aid to tsunami victims even with the USS Abraham Lincoln sitting nearby in Hong Kong and unable to provide assistance for five days, did not try to create a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane, did not alienate every American ally including Mexico, Canada and even the 90% approval rating in Turkey smashed to single digits, did not subvert the Carter plan to bring N Korea back into the world on some myth called 'axis of evil', did not earn contempt from virtually the entire JAG, did not increase pork barrel legislation by a factor of ten, did not virtually destroy readiness of American arm forces including the elimination of the once always considered essential Division Ready Brigade, ...
Just a few of the reasons off the top as to why right wing wacko extremists are so dumb and so anti-American.
My complaint with wacko extremist left? They remained mute while all this was ongoing.
We may or may not need to bail them out. I certainly don't want to do it with a) $700 billion that b) will be spent entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury with c) absolutely no oversight whatsoever.
Why should Bush and Cheney get to have all the fun tapping the public femoral cash artery? The American public has plenty of blood left for all of the vampires.
I've been saying this throughout the entire second term...the sole reason for this administration has been to drain as much money out of the public pockets as possible, probably to sink into hard commodities to ride out the coming global financial upheaval in style.
Back to work, if you can find it, serfs.
I dislike both of them for pretty much the same reasons. First of all they are politicians and secondly, since getting the "nod" the extremists in both parties are now involved in their respective campaigns exponentially more than at the beginning. The leftist extremists are just as bad as the righty tighties.
Exactly.
There is 10% of us who will vote based on who makes their hand shake less when attempting to check their box on Nov.4th.
Well tw, given a blank canvas to work with you found virtually no fault with any of the democratic leadership. None whatsoever, in fact. If that is all you have to say, it says a great deal about how firmly entrenched in the left you are. I asked a specific question and you seem to have done nothing but turned it around again onto the right.
Its very telling that you said not one thing about congress.
The "government" is three branches. Congress needs "cleaning up" the most. The Executive branch can supply leadership, and block some mismanagement, but congress is where the most damage is done.
That's one of the reasons the candidates don't get into specifics. It's that not only would the campaigns get bogged down in the details, that most people don't understand anyway, but the congress is the only one that can deal with this. The executive branch can only try to herd the cats.
Perhaps you missed this tw, I think it warrants repeating.
There is 10% of us who will vote based on who makes their hand shake less when attempting to check their box on Nov.4th.
As AIG was crashing, McCain read directly from the script written by his new staff. "Our economy is sound" - a direct quote from what his new staff had written for George Jr. Well McCain realized his mistake later in that day and stopped reading that speech. But the speech was written by those who now run his campaign - the same people who designed political strategy for George Jr.
"Our economy was not sound" according to those who were trying to avoid an economic meltdown. But McCain was quoting the exact same phrase - word for word - that George Jr said. Does that sound like change - or that McCain's staff is now subverted with George Jr wacko extremists?
I wanted Hillary as Pres. I am protesting but it won't be a protest vote, nor a color of the skin vote. It's a look at the facts about whom has done what.
There is 10% of us who will vote based on who makes their hand shake less when attempting to check their box on Nov.4th.
I simply don't understand positions like yours. In the political spectrum, Hillary is much closer to Obama than to McCain. Did you support Hillary because of her politics, or for some other reason?
I understand who is to blame and those who did it. I think deregulation is wrong. I always thought so. I can even say, "I told you so" to those who bashed me for bashing Bush' Waay back when but anyway, I didn't like Bush then and I still don't. I still am democratic in my basic philosophy but these parties are so in the pockets of special interests on both sides.l
The republicans are the party that has pushed deregulation, and much of what they have deregulated has turned to piles of stinking poo because greedy robber barons end up thriving and screwing us. The Savings and Loans in the 80s, the the rolling blackouts in California and the fall of Enron, and now the banks.
What about the Savings and Loans debacle in the 80's? McCain was one of the Keating Five who took campaign contributions in exchange for obstructing the investigation into one of the failed Savings and Loans. Do you really want a member of the Keating Five to try to lead us out of this mess?
Obama on the other hand, has no such skeletons in his closet. And he is tapping a lot of the top economic advisers who worked under Bill Clinton. I miss the Clinton years. The economy was very strong then, we had peace, and the government even had a surplus.
Looking at both campaigns this past week, it seems that Obama is better. Neither candidate has much more information that what they read in the paper, so they can't really say what they can do to lead us out of this mess. Obama has basically said that he's in no position to second guess the Fed and Treasury and has kept his mouth shut, and McCain is running around saying he'll fire people, no wait, he'll just see about getting rid of them, he'll appoint a 9/11 commission. He opposes, no wait, he now supports the bailout of AIG and then finally settles down and takes the same position as Obama to just let the Fed and Treasury do their jobs.
As far as the topic of this thread goes, I think we have no choice but to bail out these banks, but I don't like it. I'd like to see some sort of strings attached, like increased regulation. And maybe putting the CEOs in pillories on Wall Street for a day or two so we can all go by and kick them in the ass.
And maybe putting the CEOs in pillories on Wall Street for a day or two so we can all go by and kick them in the ass.
That means each would be paid about $100,000 per ass kick. That is a solution?
Chance are a member of his entourage will take his place anyway.
Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. I say we string each and every one of them up in a public square, then shoot killer bees at them.
The French had a way with dealing with people like these assholes. It's called the Guillotine and they only had to use it ONCE to show the people meant business.
And these CEO's, CFO's? Why, they get to Yacht away into the sunset with a gaggle of giggling girl-mistresses and all OUR cash. VENDETTA!!! I just can't keep living like this! I want a revolution.
While I agree with you on an emotional level, the pedant in me feels obliged to point out that the French didn't just use the guillotine once. They used it again and again and again, and for more and more spurious reasons. By no means everyone who ended up sans une tête was rich, aristocratic or otherwise guilty. Once mob takes the reins everyone is in danger.
Agreed glatt, McCain has been feckless all last week.
Deregulation is excellent when done correctly, even other bank deregulation. The problem is that doing it correctly is difficult, especially when every little special interest is trying to get paid or to preserve their phoney baloney jobs.
Sure, I understand the theory that a free market is best. And I agree with it in theory. It just seems like in practice, the end result is always that a couple of huge and powerful entities end up screwing everyone else. I don't like being screwed. I think a middle ground is needed.
I simply don't understand positions like yours. In the political spectrum, Hillary is much closer to Obama than to McCain. Did you support Hillary because of her politics, or for some other reason?
I supported her for the issues and I believed she could actually deliver and get something done.
Other than that I don't know. It's a conundrum and I am probably not the best person to dispel a mystery. I can tell you I have done some soul searching for deep seated feminist issues to see if I have a crooked need for a tangerine pantsuit :P
I did like Obama's interview with reporters today. I have been waiting for the debates.I wish we could have had an oportunity to see townhall debates so the remaining fence sitters would know for sure who to vote for. Things could change for me during the debates. We shall see.
I want to see them both off the cuff because these political soundbites, gaffs and talking heads don't tell me anything.
I like the prudence I saw today during the bailout hearings on both political parties.
That's all I know.
TW- Im not ignoring you. It's just that your responses to me are way over what I want to get into. Thanks tho.
[on rant] Bush lost all the debates to Kerry - They only take the main point from the typically BS question and go off on their own pre-prepared tangent stock answer anyway.
My type of "debate" would start with about 50 YES or NO only questions followed by, based upon their answers - HOW?, specifically!
It seems that we are way too accepting of this farce of an election process. It's simply all a bunch of crap. They all lie and typically the better liar wins. Non of these people truly give a shit about you, me or anyone else other than those who can get them elected. The are only interested in getting more power, position and money.
Another thought - maybe these guys could donate some of their campaign money towards the bailout. That would mean a hell of a lot more to me and show some real character and leadership than anything else they've been doing so far. [off rant]
I've read a lot of rants on this board. Rarely to I find one that so adequately sums up the feelings I have. Thanks for posting that, Classic.
Supposedly the FBI is now investigating for fraud. I would like to see just once people get their just desserts for what happened. That would be a really long list.
...and an interesting one too, I'm sure.
Hi All,
I’m against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. I'm also against the $700,000,000,000++ bailout being proposed in Congress right now! Instead, I’m in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let’s assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon -- that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let’s assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved.
Pay off credit card debt.
Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college – It’ll be there for Junior.
Save in a bank – create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car – create jobs
Invest in the market – capital drives growth
Pay for your parent’s medical insurance – health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean – or else
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. If we’re going to re-distribute wealth let’s really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( “vote buy” ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President. If we’re going to do an $85 billion bailout, let’s bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG – liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up, clean it up.
Here’s my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn’t. Sure it’s a crazy idea that can “never work.” But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party! How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC. And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,
Birk
T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
:lol2:
That's a funny e-mail, and it's probably a mistake to look at it seriously, but if you do, the major flaw is that the proposed banking bailout isn't so much a gift of free money as it is buying up a bunch of risky loans that actually have a fair chance of being paid off. Much of the $800 Billion (or whatever the figure is) stands a chance of coming back down the road. There's even a small chance that the government would eventually make money on the deal.
..and an even smaller chance that the American public would know about it.
Money coming in? Oh goody, lets think of something to spend it on... like we did with the surplus. ;)
But if there's a good chance of it being paid off, why the hell do we have to buy it?
Apparently it's not good enough to be inviting to anyone else in the market.
All I know is the impact this is having on my 401k, and if I look at the hit that it has taken and calculate my share of what this bailout will cost, the bailout is cheaper. Assuming it works.
So I'm in grudgingly in favor of the bailout. The alternative is a possible repeat of the 1930s.
But there's a problem with the math.
$85 billion / 200 million = $425/person, not $425,000.
Picky, picky, picky... ya notice that, huh? :lol2:
Apparently it's not good enough to be inviting to anyone else in the market.
All I know is the impact this is having on my 401k, and if I look at the hit that it has taken and calculate my share of what this bailout will cost, the bailout is cheaper. Assuming it works.
So I'm in grudgingly in favor of the bailout. The alternative is a possible repeat of the 1930s.
Possible repeat?
Why should
I have to pony up, to save
your 401k, that I had no decision in planning and get no benefit from? Redistribution of wealth?
Possible repeat?
Why should I have to pony up, to save your 401k, that I had no decision in planning and get no benefit from? Redistribution of wealth?
I can see it from your point of view. Your job is safe if we go into a depression because the government is probably your number one customer. The rest of the country faces some serious uncertainty.
My comments about my 401k were just from a purely selfish perspective looking at easily tangible figures. Potential loss of jobs is harder to calculate because nobody has a crystal ball.
Are you playing devil's advocate here, or do you really not understand that allowing our banks to crash will be bad for the economy?
Yes, I am.
These are questions people are throwing at me, everyday. They know I'm a smartass, and in times like this, the forget the ass part.
Hey, my job is secure... the gumint will need helicopters to help put down the insurrections of the great unwashed.
Besides, in another year or so, I'll be retired, and a good depression would keep prices down. :D
the gumint will need helicopters to help put down the insurrections of the great unwashed.
Hopefully I won't be one of them. I can always bathe in the Potomac to keep clean. In the summer anyway.
The Great Miami River, though not that great, is pretty clear and clean where I live. Just a hop, step, and a jump! :)
Hey, I've heard of the University of Miami in Ohio, is that on the banks of the river?
To be honest, I don't know if it's on the banks. Miami River does run down through Dayton and Cincinnati (and Miami U is in Cincy) but there are a lot of miami named things around here presumbly due to the
Miami Indians who were very "big" in the Ohio area. The Miami have close relation to the Shawnee.
btw, Miami University in Ohio is a wonderful school.
btw, Miami University in Ohio is a wonderful school.
My son says the girls there are "extremely Hawt"
My son says the girls there are "extremely Hawt"
Hawt/high maintenance stuck up hoes who demand to be treated like princesses 24/7. You are merely the red carpet upon which they walk, nothing more.
So says my brother who went there anyway.
Hmmm, it does have a high population of well-to-do people, from all I've heard...so that's where the princess thing comes in I guess. It does have a good rep academically though, for sure. My friend who I worked with every summer at the farm market went there as I was going to my school, and she was pretty down to earth, and talked about the air of snobbery she ran into from time to time. But she loved it!
Given this, why hasn't anyone created a thread, "Does anyone feel like Balling?"
The Game Changer
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The financial meltdown will change many things in America, and we can start with campaign promises. You can say goodbye to universal health care, a cornerstone of Barack Obama's campaign strategy. Massive medical benefits are now impossible because the bailout will take all the money.
Also, sayonara to John McCain's across-the-board tax cuts. The Democrats will likely control Congress again and, in the face of a $750 billion expenditure, there is little chance taxes will decline in any significant way.
So, both candidates find themselves losing a major core issue because of the greedy, stupid mortgage scandal.
Polls show that the folks are angry, as they should be. A Fox News survey puts President Bush's approval rating at 26%. Shortly after 9/11, the President had an approval rating of 88%, so you can clearly see how the once-mighty have fallen.
Just two weeks ago, the Palin bounce had John McCain leading Barack Obama in just about every national poll. Now McCain has fallen behind Senator Obama, and it's directly because of the economic madness.
Some Americans object to the feds bailing out companies that trafficked in risky mortgages. But if the government does not allocate taxpayer money to stop the economic bleeding, then what? Do you let the United States slide into a depression? The American economy is greatly dependent on foreign investment—oil sheiks and Chinese entrepreneurs buying our stocks and bonds. If overseas investors believe the U.S. economy is fundamentally unstable, they will pull their money out. That would be catastrophic for America.
Basically, the feds are playing a confidence game right now. They are assuring the world that our economy will not collapse. That assurance is vital.
But, once again, it is the folks who have to pay the bills, and pay we will. For the next four years, our tax dollars will be basically used for two things—fighting terrorists abroad and bailing out greedheads on Wall Street.
The FBI is investigating some corporate managers who made big money while their companies burned. People like former Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal who allowed his company to buy bad mortgage paper and then, when things went south, walked away with a reported $150 million severance package. Meanwhile, millions of Merrill stockholders got hammered.
In any federal bailout, two things have to happen. First, the companies involved must pay back any "loans" after they get back on their feet. Secondly, the government must control the pay of the managers. That is non-negotiable. No more tax dollars for greedhead incompetents like O'Neal.
In the end, the American working person will pull the country out of this mess, just like we always do. But no longer can we the people trust the government to look out for us. The covenant between the folks and Washington has been badly damaged, there's no question about it.
And that may take a longer time to repair than the stupid mortgage mess.
Basically, the feds are playing a confidence game right now. They are assuring the world that our economy will not collapse. That assurance is vital.
From Wikipedia:
A confidence trick or confidence game, also known as a bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grift, scam, scheme, or swindle is an attempt to defraud a person or people (known as the "mark") which involves gaining his or her confidence.
Oh yeah...I see the trick now.
... if I look at the hit that it has taken and calculate my share of what this bailout will cost, the bailout is cheaper. Assuming it works.
Start with the bottom line. America's net worth has been so distorted with excessively low interest rates, tax cuts (that are really nothing more than future tax increases because spending cuts were not also implemented), and welfare to the rich. Economic forces are now taking revenge. Net worth of America must drop maybe somewhere between 20% and 40% so that the dollar numbers are corrected. So who takes the most pain?
Whether the government does a bailout or bankruptcy threats result in same corrections; is irrelevant in the big picture. We all pay either way. Americans must now pay for this stupidity for the next ten plus years by enriching the Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, etc. Time to avoid this stuff was obvious four and more years ago when the rich increased their wealth by (I no longer know this number) 100 times more while the average man's income dropped 2%. This had only happened once previously - just before the great depression. I am only reposting an obvious fact from history.
This we do know. With every pound more pain applied to top management, only then will future managers learn from history. Washington Mutual executives will get no golden parachute (hopefully). But people such as O'Neil (of Merrill Lynch) must be hounded in the courts, the press, and on the street for being the alpha example of bad people.
We have the economy we deserve because we got the "deregulation" we wanted of those who historically are among the least responsible - the financial industry. Stock brokers, bean counters, etc making a strong economy is always the myth. Now everyone must be hurt big time. No way around it. Americans must now pay for the party hangover whether part of the party or not. Question is only about which Americans *should* suffer most. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That says where pain should be greatest.
Did you invest in the people who make America great (companies that innovate and actually produce something), or did you invest in those who made big profits by lying? America’s product oriented companies are not suffering losses as large. Why are stock broker companies and mortgage hawkers in so much trouble? They are not experts. They are only salesman who successfully lie about being smart. NINJA – these experts even issued mortgages without asking the obvious, “No Job No Income Apparent”. Those who blindly listened to finance thinkers are now suffering most – and rightly so. Learn why bean counter types (spread sheet experts) are the least responsible thinkers.
However, quietly being heard is American automakers got $25billion from the government. Bankruptcy that would have fixed auto industry problems by removing bean counters (the worst being GMs) is being averted – a bad thing.
My mortgage is now owned by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122243718542978849.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I'm getting anxious.
Our mortgage has been sold twice so far.
My shitty mortgage is with Chase, and Jackie works there. Company is solid. I hope to remortgage soon, if somebody will let me.
My mortgage is now owned by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Your mortgage, from your perspective, is completely irrelevant. Your mortgage is now something like a bond - traded like any equity. If Washington Mutual went down, does your mortgage disappear? Of course not. Either the government buys WaMu, or makes a special deal for other company (JP Morgan) to take over your mortgage, or it is sold to another bank, or it is bought by foreigners. Yes, then is where the real rescue is coming from. Even if the government takes over a bank, the money to do so comes (in part or whole) from Treasury Bonds sold to foreign nations.
Remember, economic forces are taking revenge. The bills are coming due. We must pay the rest of the world OR borrow more for assets that were mostly fictions. Bean counter types making money without even looking at the underlying product. That does not affect anyone's existing mortgage. Bankruptcies are so good because the assets (ie mortgages) are sold to others who will be more responsible.
From
Big Shot Bob
The following items must be included in any bailout bill:
NO BLANK CHECKS for the banking industry.
PROTECT THE TAXPAYERS. Taxpayers should get ownership in a company equal to any amount paid in excess of the value of the bad debt. This will prevent profitable firms from using this bailout to get rid of their bad debt. It will insure that if the bailout works and the firms become profitable again, taxpayers - not simply bankers - benefit from the upside.
HOLD CEOs ACCOUNTABLE. Any firm that wants a bailout must agree to hold CEO's and Boards of Directors accountable - by firing them. Those held accountable should NEVER be given millions of dollars for overseeing failure.
PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. An independent watchdog should oversee the public ownership of failing companies to ensure taxpayers recoup their investment. Members of this independent oversight entity should include workers and consumers and be approved by Congressional vote.
ENACT REGULATIONS TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. Any bailout must contain stronger regulation to end the "casino culture" of Wall Street. Financial products based on speculation with no collateral of tangible assets should be prohibited.
AID THE VICTIMS, NOT JUST THE PREDATORS. Since everyone is better off when working families avoid foreclosure, bankruptcy judges should be able to adjust the terms of the mortgages for families facing foreclosure so as many people as possible can stay in their homes.
INVEST IN THE REAL ECONOMY. Any bill to bailout the big corporations should include major public investment in development of new sources of energy and energy conservation, rebuilding schools and infrastructure, extending unemployment and food stamps, and helping states avoid crippling cuts in police and health services.
PROTECT CONSUMERS. Commercial banks that accept taxpayers' money should be compelled to accept tough new restrictions on credit card and banking fees, credit card interest rates and predatory credit practices.
Makes sense to me. :thumb:
requoted: " Commercial banks that accept taxpayers' money should be compelled to accept tough new restrictions on credit card and banking fees, credit card interest rates and predatory credit practices. "
Which commercial banks are accepting taxpayer money? Washington Mutual was driven into bankruptcy while WaMu executives were on a plane - unaware they had been removed. Investments banks are on the dole. But the big commercial banks - JP Morgan, Citigroup, Chase, Bank of America, Wachovia, etc - I don't believe any are taking taxpayer bailouts. But then they also had to conform to restrictions such as limited debt to equity ratios.
Hedge Funds. Are we still to see hedge funds come running for rescue? Auto loan companies might be struggling soon?
Commercial banks can be sold to foreigners who did not have financial people playing money games by purchasing deregulation and would be happy to own banks in America. After all, America that needs cash must sell assets to foreigners - government bonds, mortgage backed securities, companies, real estate - to pay for the eight year party.
Did you have a good time at the party?
Those were the days my friend.
We thought they'd never end.
... a song describing the roaring twenties. We did not have flappers. But we did have Britney Spears without underware and Paris Hilton taping sex. "This is the craziest party there would ever be ... Mama told me not to come...."
The news tonight is predicting Wachovia may be the next to topple. :(
:lol2:
I love that email. I got it yesterday. Almost moved me to tears. Sad no one in power (or soon to be in power) have the brains, audacity, or balls to do something like this. Honestly, I'd be hesitant too. I don't trust the public to make the right choice. Hence, part of the mortgage problems we have. When >25% of homes in my neighborhood are empty because of foreclosures, I believe individuals and banks made a big mistake.
A friend of mine in an investment firm informed me most mortgages given were done because they were "forced" into it because they could not discriminate. That shaffs my ass. Whay can't a bank say no? It's a sad state of affairs when the liberals force businesses to do their bidding by threatening discrimination, then turn and blame the conservatives running the businesses who honestly do want to make a dollar for their effort. Now everyone is suffering. Thanks for nothing. Now where's my $297,500? :p
The news tonight is predicting Wachovia may be the next to topple. :(
Jeez, really? That's not good. The economy is going to take both parties to work together to fix it, else we will pass recession into a depression and a possible crash. :thepain:
I love that email. I got it yesterday. Almost moved me to tears. Sad no one in power (or soon to be in power) have the brains, audacity, or balls to do something like this.
Read it again but this time do the math yourself. ;)
A friend of mine in an investment firm informed me most mortgages given were done because they were "forced" into it because they could not discriminate.
I don't believe that. Either a person is qualified for a mortgage or not. I see the problem as;
1- greedy people trying to make money by turning houses in the bubble, and
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.
When we bought our house 11 years ago, our lender kept telling us (maybe 2-3 times) that with our credit, we really could borrow more money than we were asking for and that we could have more house. My wife and I both worked at the time. We were DINKs. But we knew that kids would probably be in the future and we wanted to be able to afford a house on just one income. So we politely declined the extra money on the table each time it was offered. Looking back, I realize the guy writing up the loan probably got a fee based on the size of the loan and he wanted to make the largest fee possible. He was supposedly working for us, but probably got paid more if he could talk us into a bigger loan. Stupid system.
A friend of mine in an investment firm informed me most mortgages given were done because they were "forced" into it because they could not discriminate. That shaffs my ass. Whay can't a bank say no? It's a sad state of affairs when the liberals force businesses to do their bidding by threatening discrimination, then turn and blame the conservatives running the businesses who honestly do want to make a dollar for their effort.
I don't believe that. Either a person is qualified for a mortgage or not. I see the problem as;
1- greedy people trying to make money by turning houses in the bubble, and
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.
But isn't a lot of this the result of
Bush's (not a liberal) plan to increase minority home ownership? I mean, ARM's have been around forever, why is it that suddenly no one understands them and they are predatory? What changed?
Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to “explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas.”
Pressed for details on “equity assurance” by RealtyTimes, Freddie Mac vice president Craig S. Nickerson said the idea is still at an embryonic stage, but might involve limited guarantees or insurance coverage to protect buyers from the possibility of loss of their initial equity stakes should property values in their neighborhoods decline.
But they didn't do that.
Yes, ARMs have been around forever, but in order to judge the risk, you have to understand how they work and what the probably of risk is, to you.
[Devil's Advocate] Well then, these people shouldn't even be considering buying a home. if they aren't smart(educated) enough to understand what they are signing. [/DA]
Yes, but this was the target audience.
The people whose job it was the hustle these sales, on commission, cajoled, and often lied through their teeth, to people that couldn't fathom anything beyond, how much down/how much a month, RFN.
I'm sure LJ sees these people all the time. People that don't fully realize what they are getting into, and slick salespeople that take advantage of that.
Off track... these are the same people that, if Social Security were removed in favor of Personal Retirement Investments, would invest in AMWAY.
From Forbes magazine;
Dodd proposed his own counter-proposal to Paulson's plan earlier this week. Among other things, it calls for limits on executive compensation at troubled firms and for the Treasury to take a contingent equity stake in those firms. On Tuesday, Paulson rebuffed both ideas, as it might discourage firms from participating in the bailout program.
Wait a minute... companies would refuse the bail-out because of limited executive compensation? They would let their companies go belly up, so they could walk away with bulging pockets? This tells me, if a firm dies, the executives should too... shoot every last one of them. :mad2:
if a firm dies, the executives should too... shoot every last one of them. :mad2:
That's the whole point of my thread.
I DO have a Guillotine idea and, yes, I DID steal it from the Frech.
Stealing good ideas is how progress works.
Stealing and cribbing, stealing and cribbing. It's how I get thru my classes.
Either a person is qualified for a mortgage or not. I see the problem as;
1- greedy people trying to make money by turning houses in the bubble, and
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.
Numbers from Frannie and Freddie demonstrate the problem. Whereas most mortgages qualified for the traditional agreements, in the past seven years, even these applicants were rechanneled for ARMs. Whereas sub-prime loans were issued to a single digit percent of applicants, suddenly these mortgages were being pushed to so many who did not need them. Something like 21% of those who qualified for traditional mortgages were instead only offered sub-prime mortgages. Why? From the highest levels, the economy *must* be fixed by pushing more mortgages; sell more homes; stimulate the economy.
Stimulating the economy rather than addressing its problems was promoted by the George Jr administration. Create a robust economy by throwing money at it. Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Fannie and Freddie were only doing what their 'bosses' wanted. As a result, home priced were inflated by 20% to 40%.
Need to promote sub-prime loans was so encouraged that NINJA became a new and acceptable standard. Nobody cared whether the applicant qualified. From the highest levels of government, we wanted more people buying homes.
Yes, each sub-prime homeowner who could not afford his mortgage only has himself to blame. That does not, for one minute, exonerate anyone else of guilt. Irrelevant how dumb the mortgage applicants were. Those who were promoting mortgages to people who could not qualify are now seeking to blame anyone else. Those who pushed mortgages without first qualifying those applicants are also just as guilty of creating this national problem.
Again, sub-prime mortgages were encouraged at the highest levels of the Federal government mostly in the past seven years. Sub-prime was even pushed on people who qualified for traditional mortgages. That is where this problem originated.
They would let their companies go belly up, so they could walk away with bulging pockets? This tells me, if a firm dies, the executives should too... shoot every last one of them.
At my previous employer who went spectacularly bankrupt (this was over four years ago, and the bankruptcy case is still going through the court system) there were a half-dozen banks willing to give the company plenty of financing, with the only condition being that the CEO step down from the board. He refused, and chose to take the whole company down instead.
... there were a half-dozen banks willing to give the company plenty of financing, with the only condition being that the CEO step down from the board. He refused, and chose to take the whole company down instead.
The reason for problems is not accidental. Lessons were learned long ago. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.
Where were the Board of Directors or stockholders? Or was this a private company where the CEO would rather lose everything rather than be fired?
The stockholders were among the many people who sued. That's one of the reasons the bankruptcy case is still ongoing. Maybe in another four years I'll get the paychecks they owe me.
The stockholders were among the many people who sued. That's one of the reasons the bankruptcy case is still ongoing.
And the Board of Directors? Their job is to avert such problems - to represent the stockholder's interests. Where were the BoDs - or are they also properly being sued?
I think the board was technically only 3 or 4 people, and at least one of them was an immediate family member of the CEO. It was a public company, but he was the company's founder and had maintained pretty significant control over the years.
Got this from a friend this am.
What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
It gets rather interesting at the 4:40 mark. Just some food for thought.
I am looking at the losses only for today. A snapshot of what happens when a wacko administration fixes an economy by through money at the rich.
Agilent Technology - down 5%
Apple - down 18%
Arch Coal - down 21%
Adobe - down 8%
AIG - down 13%
Applied Materials - down 6%
Most of these have no operations in the financial industry. But again, Deja vue. When the income of the richest was increasing massively AND the average man's income dropped (ie 2% under George Jr), then four years after a stock market meltdown, massive numbers of jobs are lost.
Remember when one was warning of the dangers in what is now called "Mission Accomplished". How many years later did the warning come true? At least four. When another was warning about the massive housing crisis, how many years later did the warning come true? Three years. When the stock market crashed in 1929, how many years later were jobs lost? Four years.
What other warnings were pooh-poohed four years ago by wacko extremist propaganda. This is what happens when a political agenda replaces 'working for America'. The spread sheets are again reporting what actually existed four and more years ago.
Who will prosper? Who do you think will step in to provide an "economy saving" capital? Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, etc. Even if the government bails out Wall Street, well, where does government get that cash? Saudis, Israelis, Russians, French, etc.
The party is over. And what was George Jr back in college? The social chairman - a party planner.
Today, Wachovia, that was once considered a savior of Morgan Stanley, no longer exists. A stock that was selling for $15 a share last week dropped massively every days; is now worth only dimes. In one day, Wachovia Bank dropped 80%. How many others have been lying on their spread sheets? Enron was the warning about how our finance people. Did your stock broker warn you last year? Why not? Those warning to prepare were posted in The Cellar.
Is your broker still saying to hang in there? Was he saying what goes down will rise back up? Is he worried about losing you as a customer - or representing your interests?
I am looking at the losses only for today. A snapshot of what happens when a wacko administration fixes an economy by through money at the rich.
Wacko administration????
This is a problem of Congress. If all the demoncrats voted yes it would have passed. Bush already said he would sing it. There is enough of this shit sandwhich that everyone gets a bite, righty tighty and lefty loosey.
Professor of mine today mentioned today that we should watch to see what the hedge funds do tomorrow as a serious indicator of further trouble.
Liberals want to pay my mortgage!!!
But isn't a lot of this the result of Bush's (not a liberal) plan to increase minority home ownership? I mean, ARM's have been around forever, why is it that suddenly no one understands them and they are predatory? What changed?
Obama “Deregulation Caused This Crisis” - An Ignorant Claim Or Political Spin?
Posted on September 22, 2008 by mcauleysworld
Obama continues to blame the current financial crisis on “deregulation”. Either Obama knows that claim to be false or he is ignorant of how this crisis evolved:
The path to our current cirisis started with these steps;
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/obama-deregulation-caused-this-crisis-an-ignorant-claim-or-political-spin/Professor of mine today mentioned today that we should watch to see what the hedge funds do tomorrow as a serious indicator of further trouble.
Economic disaster averted during the Long Term Capital Management fiasco may have scared commercial banks sufficiently to demand honest fiscal practices from the hedge funds. Bank of America, JP Morgan, and Citigroup were three suspected at risk if hedge funds default. These three currently appear to be the most stable.
Almost one year ago, riskiest equities were identified. Take a gander at eight pages of posts in
Sub-prime Bail Out in the first week of November 2007. Listed as problems were companies even in the last (109th) post. What is ongoing today was an obvious and serious problem almost one year ago.
Or again in March 2008
Housing Crisis in Australia .
In Sept 2006, a "Family Income" chart demonstrated one symptom that predicted today's financial meltdown:
Has the Bush Doctrine failed?
What is next likely to be harmed by credit market seizures? Hedge funds must be under pressure since the funds are unlikely to have hedged for losses this large and are very dependent on access to credit.
Crash of Wachovia and Washington Mutual occurred so quick without warning. Therefore others are probably as unstable. Furthermore, foreigners are not marching in mass numbers to buy up so many 'discounted' American firms. That implies equity markets must fall further.
Too much accounting has been in the tradition of Enron and Arthur Andersen. Anyone can only assume that other unstable WaMus and Wachovias are out there. Commerce Bank has also been on my suspect list. Major regional banks may next be in line for collapse.
How serious is the problem? If credit markets seize only because the government does not provide $700billion, then capital losses are probably even worse.
What happens next? World financial markets are suddenly surprised by how much America must buy from the world. Therefore America must sell debt at even higher costs to America. Where does the US government get $700billion? If none from Americans, then where? We have yet to see shock when America sells an additional $700billion debt onto world financial markets that will then demand even higher interest rates on a riskier American economy. After all, who wants to buy debt in dollars that will only fall in value?
Why the bailout? Because the only remaining American institution with sufficient credibility to borrow that much from foreigners is the US government.
Who kept saying, "The fundamentals of our economy are sound"? Even the spread sheets are now exposing how 'sound' this economy has been.
Commerce Bank has also been on my suspect list.
There is no Commerce Bank. It's just a brand name now.
It was bought by Canadian TD Bank last year.Oh yes, and today might be a really good time for E-Trade to stop running that stupid "I'm a baby and you just saw me buy stock" ad.
If people don't panic and the stock values decline and you continue to invest at the same rate you should make a killing when the market recovers, which it will.
But babies should not be subject to this level of risk! They should be in funds.
No way, babies can tolerate the highest risk, because they have decades to recover.
I had an epiphany when I heard the bail out failed.
Instead of fear I had disticnt feeling of relief. That sinking feeling wasn't fear of failure. It was the fear of the governments failure to manage our money.
I like the house Republicans insurance idea. I like the idea of more oversight. I like the idea that the mucky mucks at the top will feel what broke is. :) I like that feeling.
So I am wondering if my epiphany is that I am really a die-hard republican (old school )dressed up in Democratic rags.
Who kept saying, "The fundamentals of our economy are sound"? Even the spread sheets are now exposing how 'sound' this economy has been.
All the democrats were for years when it was time for some foresighted leadership. This administration certainly didn't make things better,not by a long shot, but to lay this at the foot of this idiot is unfair and untrue. This whole mess started when Clinton was in office and the lenders had quotas to reach on "affordable" housing.
Wacko administration????
This is a problem of Congress. If all the demoncrats voted yes it would have passed. Bush already said he would sing it. There is enough of this shit sandwhich that everyone gets a bite, righty tighty and lefty loosey.
You misunderstand, tw is the good conservative on this one. The shit sandwich has to be eaten. Congress did the right thing.
Well pass me a friggin beer then - I need something to wash it down!
All I know is I just got an email from Bank of America increasing my credit limit.
~snip~
Crash of Wachovia and Washington Mutual occurred so quick without warning. Therefore others are probably as unstable. ~snip~
I heard rumors about Wachovia months ago and pulled my client's money out. I don't think it was exactly without warning....
But I do agree, there are other banking institutions in trouble. And things will get worse, before they get better.
Stormie
Shrewd move, Stormie, but you do realise it was YOU that started the run on Wachovia that brought it down. I hope you're proud of yourself.
;) ;) ;)
But I do agree, there are other banking institutions in trouble.
I heard 114 banks. :(
I just skimmed all 7 pages of this, so forgive me if I'm repeating anything that was written previously. Maybe the government does have to step in and bail the bastards out, but I soooo agree with Brianna's "off with their heads" policy. The CEO's of these outfits are criminals and should be treated as such. Supposedly, they are paid the big bucks because they have the intelligence and knowledge to run a major corporation. They've run them alright, straight into the ground. I'm wary of government meddling, but this fiasco shows me that someone needs to start importing pit bulls into the offices of the presidents and CEO's of our financial institutions.
My small town used to have two banks. Then overnight, one of the two flapped its wings and vanished off into the darkness. Suddenly, every third or fourth house around here is for sale. The local pharmacy went out of business along with several shops on Main Street. I think we're in for a long, hard winter. :mad:
I'd like to think my letters and emails to my elected officials helped derail the bailout, but that scumbag Maxine Waters voted for the bailout anyway. She's never met a welfare she didn't like.
Shouldn't it be a rule that you have to live in the district you want to be elected to run?
This whole mess started when Clinton was in office and the lenders had quotas to reach on "affordable" housing.
That is one thread. There is also deregulation without transparency, enormous deficit spending, desperation, and criminality. Some hedge fund numbers come out today supposedly the same smarties who created a lot of these bullshit portfolios moved to hedge funds when things started getting shakey.
Shrewd move, Stormie, but you do realise it was YOU that started the run on Wachovia that brought it down. I hope you're proud of yourself.
;) ;) ;)
:blush: Actually, I just moved the excess funds (over $100k) and spread it around a bit. Don't want all the eggs in one basket.
Also, I don't think giving MORE money to the financial institutions who have mismanaged what they already had is the answer. That seems like throwing good money after bad...as the saying goes.
Stopped at the club last night and they had Faux News on. I had to go outside after they found a way to try to blame the whole mess on Obama.
Wh-wh-wh-WHAT? :headshake
Did generations of old feel like their world was ruled by evil and greed, that we were going to hell in a handbasket, and that the end of the world must be nigh? :o
...Did generations of old feel like their world was ruled by evil and greed, that we were going to hell in a handbasket, and that the end of the world must be nigh? :o
Yes, but that was only because the Pope told 'em so.
Stopped at the club last night and they had Faux News on. I had to go outside after they found a way to try to blame the whole mess on Obama.
Wow thats a new one on me. I hears that there were some people well connected with some lenders who were working with or advising (whatever) Obama. I heard the same of McCain though. I think once you reach a certain point in politics there is so much money and power and and and coming at you that it corrupts even the most well intentioned.
Weeeellll, back in the, in the, uhh, depression, we called it then, not like the depression you get today which is just some kid with no guts in a sulky mood wantin' medicine for free, good for nothing freeloaders, anyway, we knew that we were all just pawns bein' moved about on some giant chessboard, ya see, it was all run by the foreign banks that were run by certain groups which we ain't supposed to say nowadays, and there was an international conspiracy and stuff, and you didn't know who was who or what was what, except that you knew if someone was wearin' pants then they was a man, not like nowadays, and I tell you, the DOW was minus ten thousand, and then it went further down, I remember one time it was minus twelve thousand or so, no twelve million it was, yes thats right, twelve thousand, and all I had to eat for a week was an onion (which I had tied to my belt)...
Some of this feels a bit
familiar.
McCain was around for that one too. And was not one of the good guys.
...and all I had to eat for a week was an onion (which I had tied to my belt)...
I miss the old onion-belt days. [/SteveBsjb]
Weeeellll, back in the, in the, uhh, depression, we called it then, not like the depression you get today which is just some kid with no guts in a sulky mood wantin' medicine for free, good for nothing freeloaders, anyway, we knew that we were all just pawns bein' moved about on some giant chessboard, ya see, it was all run by the foreign banks that were run by certain groups which we ain't supposed to say nowadays, and there was an international conspiracy and stuff, and you didn't know who was who or what was what, except that you knew if someone was wearin' pants then they was a man, not like nowadays, and I tell you, the DOW was minus ten thousand, and then it went further down, I remember one time it was minus twelve thousand or so, no twelve million it was, yes thats right, twelve thousand, and all I had to eat for a week was an onion (which I had tied to my belt)...
Grandpa Simpson! You're home!
Some of this feels a bit familiar.
thats exactly what I was thinking - and how was that treated thru the media? Boy it sure seems different this time - no?
What a week. Somali pirates have captured a Ukraninian ship carrying ammunition and tanks to Kenya, stayed inside Somalia's 12 mile limit, keeping the US Navy (and soon, the Russian Navy) at bay.
Tourists and their Egyptian guides were kidnapped and taken for a 10 day ride into Chad. European commandos raided and rescued the prisoners.
Hubble Space Telescope suffered a nearly catastrophic failure causing a 14 Oct rescue mission to be (temporarily) canceled.
The Cern supercollider suffered a failure during testing - but no black holes.
N Korea, in exasperation with international cooperation, has driven out international inspectors and said they are restarting the plutonium reactor.
Thousands of people are still unaccounted for in Galveston.
Instead, we ignore all this to worry about silly money games and Congressman who cannot take their vacation. Some people were so concerned as to even listen to George Jr speeches every morning. What is this world coming to? Winter.
Fear not. It is no longer a bail out. Now it is a rescue plan. I'll take winter over spin anyday.
Someone on some news showed summed it up very well today I thought, "We're privatizing profit and nationalizing debt".
It sucks.
... N Korea, in exasperation with international cooperation, has driven out international inspectors and said they are restarting the plutonium reactor.
Yabbut, did you know the average N. Korean is three inches shorter than the average South Korean? It's true! Not everything is bad news! Cheer up! Wall Street, the "market", all that stuff is made up anyway.
Yabbut, did you know the average N. Korean is three inches shorter than the average South Korean? It's true! Not everything is bad news! Cheer up! Wall Street, the "market", all that stuff is made up anyway.
That explains why Campbell Soup stock rose as the market crashed 777 points. More news that everyone should have seen if not so busy watching the obvious.
Yabbut, did you know the average N. Korean is three inches shorter than the average South Korean?
:lol2: I'm sure this has something to do with the price of tea in China too.
Seriously, folks, building a stockpile of long life food right now might not be a bad idea.
Most cities have only a few days worth of food in them, thanks to the brilliance of "just in time" inventory. Our economy is so interdependent that if one thing seizes up - say, fuel supplies - everything else will jam up behind it very quickly. Coal supply goes down - no electricity. Fuel pumps don't work - refinery doesn't work - transport becomes very hard to arrange - food becomes scarce... etc.
It could take a few weeks before things start trickling through again.
Most disaster agencies recommend everyone have at least one week worth of essentials on standby. Food, water, and don't forget the toilet paper *.
I am NOT forecasting the end of civilisation as we know it. Maybe nothing like the above will happen. But I reckon that for the next 1 or 2 years, there is a higher than usual chance of things going a bit haywire.
* and ammo, for those that require.
* and tinfoil hats.
2012. That's what the Mayans said and I've never known a Mayan (to be wrong)...wait. Does this mean I can drink now?
:lol2:
:lol2: at the fact that they took two tries to spell "fuckers".
Please take your bailout
This biting satire/live news feed brought to you by TWO-time Pulizer Prize winning Editorial Cartoonist, David Horsey, our very own home town crier.
Is that a good thing, V?
From what I heard this bill was chock-fuckin-full of pork too.
Yeah, I heard there was lots of oinking going on in the background, myself. What I'd like to know is if the CEO's of these failed banks and other lending institutions are going to be held accountable or are they just going to waft away on golden parachutes on the tax payer's dime? :mad2:
short answer:
No.
In my opinion, this is the wrong approach. Bailing is an appropriate illustration. And a certain amount of bailing is needed if you're in a leaky boat. But to make the boat seaworthy, you need to patch the leaks, not just bail. And I believe the leaks in this case are (largely) the defaulting mortgage holders. Those are the leaks that need to be PLUGGED.
Where in this whole spasm of FUD is an acknowledgment of the source of the crisis, and where is there an effort to address (one of the major) the root cause--mortgage defaults.
I'll hold forth in a later post on this BIG issue for me. Right now I have to type elsewhere.
IMO - The first thing that needs to be addressed is the accounting methods for the banks/lenders. No more "mark to market" - That is fuckin beyond insane!
I strenuously disagree. Mark to market is a good accounting practice. Without it, how in the world could you know the value of a company's assets? When the news is good, we'll tell you. When the news is not good, we'll just pick a number we like?
wtf?
eta:
For example:
You have a net worth. It is some value, some number. How do you reach that number? Well, today, you'd add up all your debt, then add up all your assets, subtract your debt from your assets and voila'! Your net worth.
But how do you assign a value to your debts? Well, I look at my loan statement. It tells me what I still owe. And your assets? How do I add them up? How do you value an asset? Your car, for example. What value is assigned to the car? *Your car is worth what you can get for it today.* No more, no less. Notice you don't have to sell your car to get that value, but you do have to make an estimation of what you would get if you did sell. That's mark to market. And the same goes for your house. And your baseball card collection. Without mark to market, what would you use as the basis for your valuation of your assets (or of the assets of a company)?
The problem is mortgage backed securities that now have next to no value. Lending institutions want to fix their books with a "some day my prince will come" value for their MBS's. Well, some day he may indeed come, but not today. We cannot go from a relatively transparent system of accounting to one that is opaque. How are we supposed to make informed investment decisions without mark to market? I'm with BigV.
My Rep voted no. I will vote for my Rep.
The system in place for so many years prior worked just fine. The guarantee is that there is a contract with a value associated to it. The mark to market system nullifies much of the "real value of the loan.
You want to buy a house appraised at 100K.
Bank1 gives you a mortgage for 90k.
Bank1 figures you will repay 270k over 30 years.
Now when Bank1 sells that loan to Bank2, how much does Bank1 get?
You pay 10k on the mortgage loan, then default.
Bank2 now owns the house, and sells it for 100k.
Bank2 calculate it's loss at what they paid Bank1, minus 110k?
Of course to make it a simple example, I've left out payments to Bank1, before they sold the mortgage, and changes in the market value of the house.
I wonder if this will catch on...
Fannie Mae said it will set aside the loan of a woman who shot herself as sheriff's deputies tried to evict her from her foreclosed home.
Fannie Mae foreclosed on the Akron, Ohio, home of Addie Polk, 90, after acquiring the mortgage in 2007.
Addie Polk, 90, of Akron, Ohio, became a symbol of the nation's home mortgage crisis when she was hospitalized after shooting herself at least twice in the upper body Wednesday afternoon.
On Friday, Fannie Mae spokesman Brian Faith said the mortgage association had decided to halt action against Polk and sign the property "outright" to her.
I wonder if this will catch on...
I am going to punch myself in the nose and see if my mortgage co. will let me skip a payment.
That's a sad story, jinx.
My biggest complaint about this whole freakin debacle is the cnspicuous absence of a mechanism to balance the equation at the homeowner level. We have a very well established system for rebalancing a mortgage on a *second home* in the bankruptcy courts. Judges are empowered to call borrower and lender to the table and enforce a renegotiation of the terms of the loan, but, for reasons unknown to me, this power is not extended to cover loans on primary residences.
Why not? I would think that there is no class of borrower than residents who are more motivated to make it work! When I'm faced with getting the note paid or living under a bridge, I'm alllll over it. But for a second home, that same motivation isn't there. Why wouldn't you want to extend the same set of options to the borrowers for primary residences???
Because now, let's say someone doesn't pay and the home goes into foreclosure. Imagine that the mortgage is one that has been purchased as the security behind one of these corporate notes that have rapidly fallen out of favor. So we the people own the note and we're not getting paid. What now?
Foreclose? Kick them to the curb? Wouldn't the homeowner possibly think, no wai GWB is gonna boot me out. I'll just stay. That might happen, sure it could. Now we're not getting paid. Dammit.
Or.
Or we decide to evict him. Now we own the house. Who's gonna mow the lawn? Who's going to sell the house? Who's gonna buy it? And for what amount? A foreclosure sale is often offered at the loan balance, but the previous homeowner couldn't afford that rate, maybe the market isn't there. So we have to lower the price. Now savvy cash rich investors/speculators sensing that the market is heading downward would what? Wait, of course. Until the price goes down even more. Now we have to sell at some discount.
Why didn't we just DO THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE WITH THE FREAKIN HOMEOWNER? We could have saved all the processing bs and cost AND had a homeowner taxpayer stay in the home, helping keep the fabric of our community and economy stay knitted together.
These kinds of decisions are of course all case by case basis only. I don't think second homeowners should have any such benefits. Or at least back of the line buddy. Let the resident borrowers principal residence people, let them come together with the lenders (US) and work it out.
Why didn't we just DO THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE WITH THE FREAKIN HOMEOWNER? We could have saved all the processing bs and cost AND had a homeowner taxpayer stay in the home, helping keep the fabric of our community and economy stay knitted together.
Because of the cash flowing from the lobbyists for the, Copper Plumbing/Wiring & Aluminum Window/Door/Siding, Recycling Association. It's much more convenient when the house is empty. :haha:
Addie Polk, 90, of Akron, Ohio, became a symbol of the nation's home mortgage crisis when she was hospitalized after shooting herself at least twice in the upper body Wednesday afternoon.
How in the name of all that's holy does a 90 year old woman have a mortgage?!
How in the name of all that's holy does a 90 year old woman have a mortgage?!
She doesn't anymore:
the mortgage association had decided to halt action against Polk and sign the property "outright" to her.
She could have easily gotten a 30 year at the age of 60 in 1978.
Wow. It's hard for people over 40 to get 30 year mortgages here.
Wow. It's hard for people over 40 to get 30 year mortgages here.
My MIL, who was 63 at the time, got a 30 yr mortgage and she had impecible credit. I guess they figure that the house itself could have been resold at a profit and they would get their money back. They didn't figure that we were smart enough to place all of her assets in a trust before she died and that all of those assets would be transfered to the trust. Now the trust still pays her house payments from her remaining nest egg even though she died in Feb. The problem is they are coming from the nest egg and the house has not sold. So my wife's and her brother's inheritance dwindles in the mean time.
How in the name of all that's holy does a 90 year old woman have a mortgage?!
In 2004, Polk took out a 30-year, 6.375 percent mortgage for $45,620 with a Countrywide Home Loan office in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The same day, she also took out an $11,380 line of credit.
Over the next couple of years, Polk missed payments on the 101-year-old home that she and her late husband purchased in 1970. In 2007, Fannie Mae assumed the mortgage and later filed for foreclosure.
If they bought the house in 1970, the mortgage was probably paid off.
Now in 2004, they gave a then 86 year old woman, $45k plus an $11k line of credit, but she couldn't make the payments?
Something stinks... where'd the money go? :eyebrow:
Lemme see if I can do this - It doesn't matter whether it is a defaulted loan or not. The way I understand it is that Bank 1 sells the mortgage to Bank 2 for an amount less than they issued it for, say .5% and, most times, Bank1 keep that for managing/processing it.
The real issue is that the banks cannot take into account the value of the house in 5/10/20 or 30 years as an asset. When they are being judged "creditworthy" under the mark to market system, they can only use the immediate house/mortgage value today. They cannot take into account appreciation of the property or the interest they will earn on the loan.
If they bought the house in 1970, the mortgage was probably paid off.
Now in 2004, they gave a then 86 year old woman, $45k plus an $11k line of credit, but she couldn't make the payments?
Something stinks... where'd the money go? :eyebrow:
Maybe it was one of those reverse mortgage things, and she was using the money to pay property taxes, plus eke out a small pension?
Maybe medical bills.
A former neighbor of mine refinanced her house a couple of years ago to re-side and re-roof it. Early this year the payments went up, so she tried to refinance again like they told her she would be able to do because housing prices will keep going up up up...but no dice, nobody would do it. She has had to give up her home because she is retired and doesn't have enough to cover the increased payments. It broke her heart. She's living in a retirement community that takes the rent out of her social security.
Maybe it was one of those reverse mortgage things, and she was using the money to pay property taxes, plus eke out a small pension?
No, not a reverse mortgage, but I did notice it wasn't a bank, it was a loan company. I smell a rat. :eyebrow:
They cannot take into account appreciation of the property or the interest they will earn on the loan.
Or depreciation, I guess.
exactly xob - but that is typically the exception to the rule - not the norm when referring to a home.
As I discovered this weekend, the mortgage side of the current problem is only half the story. The other part is the practice of credit default swaps. This is a practice that has never been regulated or had oversight -- and should have.
exactly xob - but that is typically the exception to the rule - not the norm when referring to a home.
Then they don't consider whether the neighborhood is in decline?
They are not allowed to consider anything other than the immediate value of the property if they had to sell it immediately - today.
Watching the market a little today...
Let's say the stock market drops 25%, but then it bounces back up 25%. You get your money back. Right?
Pretend you have $100 of a stock. It falls 25%, so now you have $75.
So you now have $75, but the market goes back up 25%, so it's all cool, right? 25% of $75 is $18.75. So you bounce back up to $93.75. Nifty how that works, huh? And the fund managers make their % on the way down and on the way back up too.
As I discovered this weekend, the mortgage side of the current problem is only half the story. The other part is the practice of credit default swaps. This is a practice that has never been regulated or had oversight -- and should have.
You're right, dar. Let's explore that a bit, shall we?
Credit default swaps, a kind of insurance policy I don't completely understand, were legislated to be free from the shackles of regulation by Phil Gramm. Read this story for details of the
jailbreak in 2000.
In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call “a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,” the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm.
There was little debate on the floor. According to the Congressional Record, Gramm promised that the amendment—also known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act—along with other landmark legislation he had authored, would usher in a new era for the U.S. financial services industry.
“The work of this Congress will be seen as a watershed where we turned away from an outmoded Depression-era approach to financial regulation and adopted a framework that will position our financial services industry to be world leaders into the new century,” Gramm said.
Watershed indeed. With the U.S. economy now battered by a tsunami of mortgage foreclosures, the $30-billion Bear Stearns Companies bailout and spiking food and energy prices, many congressional leaders and Wall Street analysts are questioning the wisdom of the radical deregulation launched by Gramm’s legislative package. Financial wizard Warren Buffett has labeled the risky new investment instruments Gramm unleashed “financial weapons of mass destruction.” They have fed the subprime mortgage crisis like an accelerant. While his distracted peers probably finalized their Christmas gift lists, Gramm created what Wall Street analysts now refer to as the “shadow banking system,” an industry that operates outside any government oversight, but, as witnessed by the Bear Stearns debacle, requiring rescue by taxpayers to avert a national economic catastrophe.
Panzner also believes that Gramm-Leach-Bliley “may have even set the stage for both the collapse and the subsequent ‘rescue’ of Bear Stearns by the Federal Reserve.” The deregulated financial services industries were “encouraged to push the envelope in terms of risk-taking, and were not entirely dissuaded from thinking that the public purse would be available if things went horribly wrong.”
Still others blame Gramm’s Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Prior to its passage, they say, banks underwrote mortgages and were responsible for the risks involved. Now, through the use of credit default swaps—which in theory insure the banks against bad debts—those risks are passed along to insurance companies and other investors.
Maryland law professor Greenberger believes credit default swaps “were a key factor in encouraging lenders to feel they could make loans without knowing the risks or whether the loan would be paid back. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act freed them of federal oversight.”
Before passage of the modernization act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was attempting to regulate the swaps market through rule-making. The modernization act, Gramm noted in his remarks on the Senate floor, provided “legal certainty” for the growing swaps market. That was necessary, Greenberger says, because at the time, “banks were doing these trades in direct violation of federal law.”
"legal certainty" == legal immunity.
So Phil Gramm was the father of the unregulation of credit default swaps. What else do we know about Phil Gramm? He's McCain's principle economic advisor. Gulp.
Gramm was always Wall Street's man in the Senate. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee during the Clinton administration, he consistently underfunded the Securities and Exchange Commission and kept it from stopping accounting firms from auditing corporations with which they had conflicts of interest. Gramm's piece de resistance came on Dec. 15, 2000, when he slipped into an omnibus spending bill a provision called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), which prohibited any governmental regulation of credit default swaps, those insurance policies covering losses on securities in the event they went belly up. As the housing bubble ballooned, the face value of those swaps rose to a tidy $62 trillion. And as the housing bubble burst, those swaps became a massive pile of worthless paper, because no government agency had required the banks to set aside money to back them up.
The CFMA also prohibited government regulation of the energy-trading market, which enabled Enron to nearly bankrupt the state of California before bankrupting itself.
From here.
I'm very unhappy with this pattern of decisions and choices.
Legalized gambling - the house always wins.
Watching the market a little today...
Let's say the stock market drops 25%, but then it bounces back up 25%. You get your money back. Right?
Pretend you have $100 of a stock. It falls 25%, so now you have $75.
So you now have $75, but the market goes back up 25%, so it's all cool, right? 25% of $75 is $18.75. So you bounce back up to $93.75. Nifty how that works, huh? And the fund managers make their % on the way down and on the way back up too.
What you are describing is an illustration for why the sequence of returns is so important in creating portfolios and managing them for risk. Your last statement is kind of a throw away line though. The fund managers are managing investments and risks on the way down and on the way up. They are doing their jobs, why shouldn't they continue being paid?
Hey, at least Richard Fuld, #11 on Forbes list of highest compensation for CEO's, is safe. Thank god, thank god. But, he got away with only 300 million---somebody-quick!- start a telethon for this man!!
This is vile.
V - even if all that is as you say, which I think is a actually a skewed view of the situation, what did the current congress do to change that? What have they done to rectify the situation? Did they even attempt to change the regulations to pre 2000? Did they take any action to force lenders to do.....anything different or did they just throw $700,000,000,000.00 at the problem and at the same time pay themselves and another $110,000,000,000.00 in pork?
From what I can tell absolutely nothing.
Bail? Why should I bail? This is a Republican administration. That means the government will do it for me. All you lesser income people who are not entitled to my 14% Federal tax rate - you must keep working. After all, Uncle Sam will need your cash to protect our tax cuts.
But again, more socialism provided by Republican party wackos. Only poor people pay taxes. That also is Cheney socialism.
I'm sorry I missed where the republicans were pushing this bill and threatening if it didn't pass to pull it off their, oh so busy, schedules.
I'm sorry I missed where the republicans were pushing this bill
You mean the Fed, Treasury and White House are not Republicans? Oh. You mean all that legislation these past eight years that made businesses more responsible were not Republicans? You mean Harvey Pitts did not increase SEC funding to avoid these problems? You mean those recent changes to increase investment bank debt to equity ratios from 12 to 30 were not Republicans. Oh my god. You mean nobody is bailing the boat?
I must call my chauffeur so that I can get off this boat and take more money to the Cayman's. Socialism is now dead? Time to find a money friendlier economy. You guys keep bailing.
Thats more like it - You are so predictable.
Top 10 Tax Sweeteners in the Bailout Bill
It was a pain to copy each individually, but take a look at how congress works. Its not bad enough that we are, according to some of them, on the edge of financial ruin, and need to spend $700,000,000,000.00 of our money, but
they also STOLE an extra $115,000,000,000,00 [thats over 16% additional] for their own pet projects just to get this DO NOTHING bill passed. This is only the beginning - they haven't changed the regulations, nor the accounting principles that helped create this problem. This is yet another example of the poorest leadership by our elected officials.
Honestly - this one sits at the foot of the democrats - I don't wanna hear any "Bush signed it" BS. The Dems are totally in charge of this one and pass or fail - its on them.
It just passes a huge debt on to us and - oh have you heard yet? There are already rumors of another bailout.
Thanks congress.
The Dems are totally in charge of this one and pass or fail - its on them.
Horseshit.
This kind of oversimplification is lazy thinking at its worst. Please don't indulge yourself like this.
The day you see a 60% Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a Democrat in the White House--then you can honestly say it was "totally the Dems' fault/credit".
Go look for yourself, from your own link.
[HTML]
Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 172 63
Republican 91 108
Independent
TOTALS 263 171[/HTML]
Hold everybody individually responsible. My Rep, a Democrat, voted no.
I was reminded today of this Jim Cramer clip from a little over a year ago.
[youtube]rOVXh4xM-Ww[/youtube]
Now that we've given them all that money, everything is all fixed. See,
they're relaxing and spending money, again. No tight belts at AIG, anymore!
AIG documents obtained by Waxman's investigators show the company paid more than $440,000 for the retreat, including nearly $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 in spa charges.
"They're getting their pedicures and their manicures and the American people are paying for that," said Cong. Elijah Cummings (D-MD).
Meanwhile, back at the spa:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Less than a week after the federal government had to bail out American International Group Inc., the company sent executives on a $440,000 retreat to a posh California resort, lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown said Tuesday.
The tab included $23,380 worth of spa treatments for AIG employees at the coastal St. Regis resort south of Los Angeles even as the company tapped into an $85 billion loan from the government it needed to stave off bankruptcy.
The retreat didn't include anyone from the financial products division that nearly drove AIG under, but lawmakers were still enraged over thousands of dollars spent on catered banquets, golf outings and visits to the resort's spa and salon for executives of AIG's main U.S. life insurance subsidiary.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-10-07_D93M0K6G3&show_article=1&cat=breaking
Heh! Great minds think alike, Kitsune.
Does anyone feel like Balling?
If by "balling" you mean "lynching", yes.
If by "balling" you mean "lynching", yes.
No, I was thinking along the line of some other kind of "Balling"....
Ball gags and whips?
:whip:
That's too good for them.
Who didn't see this coming? You KNOW what they're gonna do with the next 700 billion we give them, don't you?
That's right: Chuck Norris jeans, cowboy boots, big screen TV's, cocaine and Courvosier.
New mansions for everybody! Its the least they can do to help out the lending crunch! :eyebrow:
srsly, though? You all know you are liking my guillotine idea better and better.
Ball gags and whips?
:whip:
That's too good for them.
Who didn't see this coming? You KNOW what they're gonna do with the next 700 billion we give them, don't you?
That's right: Chuck Norris jeans, cowboy boots, big screen TV's, cocaine and Courvosier.
Ok, well, whateva
I want in.......
[Devil'sAdvocate] OK, so AIG executive went through with a planned corporate outing even though they were going through financially tough times. Has anybody asked the question about when the outing was booked, how much of a deposit was already paid, and what the penalty would be for canceling at the last minute? In my law firm, we book entire floors of hotels when we go off to trial in other cities. The amount of money you have to deposit to hold entire floors, including conference rooms, is pretty astronomical. If the case settles at the last minute and the trial is canceled, the hotels never refund our deposit. So if this spa outing was already substantially paid for and couldn't be canceled, why not go forward with it? [/Devil'sAdvocate]
It was probably like, their swan song!
Actually, Kitsune's post shows that they had paid a deposit of about $400,000 of the $440,000 total. So this thing was already 91% paid for in advance. I haven't seen anywhere what the cancellation policy was, but if that 91% payment was non-refundable, I'd go through with it too.
I like how that invoice looks like it was done on an old manual typewriter: I can't tell if it's Pica or Elite, though.
In my industry, we are told to avoid even the appearance of impropriety at all costs.
They would have been better off eating the (possible) loss, if only for the image of belt-tightening it sends.
Oh, good point, Pie. We are told the same thing. No matter how ethical or unselfish are intentions are, if others even have an inkling of impropriety, then we're doin' it wrong!
Oh, yeah, it's a horrible image for sure. Maybe they should have sent the mailroom staff on the outing instead. Or orphans or something.
lol
How about some needy Dwellers?
I doubt this was appropriate use of company funds even before the crash. $1488 at the Salon Vogue?
Remember how whats-his-name was slaughtered for his expensive haircut?
Where's the liquor bill? Eh, they suck at partyin'
Well, they did spend over $5,000 at the Stone Hill Tavern. :rolleyes:
If they're doing it up right, $5,000 wouldn't even cover the first round.
The deposit issue depends on how long ago it was booked and paid.
It has been clear for a while that things were getting tight. Exactly how long ago it was booked affects the ethics of this.
But think the appearance point trumps it anyway. Even if they could only save 10%, they damn well should have.
Remember how whats-his-name was slaughtered for his expensive haircut?
[wistful] I'll never forget what's-his-name[/wistful]
Where's the liquor bill? Eh, they suck at partyin'
Master 3 total:
9,982.02
Probably drinking well booze.
Back on topic ....
WASHINGTON (AP) - After consulting with Barack Obama, Democratic leaders are likely to call Congress back to work after the election in hopes of passing legislation that would include extended jobless benefits, money for food stamps and possibly a tax rebate, officials said Saturday.
The bill's total cost could reach $150 billion, these officials said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters in Denver last Wednesday a $150 billion stimulus package is necessary and she may call the House back into session after the election. Her spokesman, Brendan Daly, added, "Congress just worked in a bipartisan way with the Administration to pass an economic rescue plan to help stabilize our financial markets, and we must now work together to pass a jobs creation and economic recovery stimulus package."
I'm all for helping those that need help, but why did they have to bilk us out of $115,000,000,000 first? Why couldn't this have just been part of the original bill? Too many questions? This doesn't seem right.
That looks a lot more like the Democratic view.
Insight on Government Rescue Plan
By Dirk Hofschire, CFA Fidelity
October 03, 2008
Insight on Government Rescue Plan
That Fidelity article discusses some aspects of this financial market meltdown in terms of what the government is doing and hopes to accomplish.
It's not going to stop at $0.7trillion. Expect government to borrow massively to apply something under $2trillion.
Now a larger picture that is concerning many. Recessions are necessary to fix (remove) the reasons for economic mismanagement. That means top management. Unfortunately, this 'emergency' bailout programs will intentionally ignore that need and in many cases will protect the reasons for such problems.
Recessions and bankruptcies, if left to do what is necessary, eliminates bad management while saving employees and stockholders. After all, that is what happened to Ford in 1981, Chrysler in 1979, etc. But if the problem gets protection using spread sheet games (no SEC prosecution, Arthur Andersen fraud, etc), then basic economics mean even the employees and stockholders get punished (Enron, Lehman Bros, AT&T, S&L Crisis, Long Term Capital Management).
This government bailout all but guarantees inflation. Government has no choice because we used easy money to fix the recession rather than what was creating the recession. Years ago, it was obvious that interest rates needed to rise. Instead we dropped interest rates to further inflame a housing market no justified by the productivity in America. And now we are further stuffing the economy with more money without going after the fundamental reasons for this meltdown.
When government throws money at the economy to 'fix' it, then economic forces take revenge years later. We have no doubt that the revenge will be coming. We just don't know exactly when, how severe, or in what form. But we do know what happened last time government threw money at problems. It was never supposed to be possible - massive inflation and recession - called stagflation. Economic forces took revenge on Americans throughout the 1970s because of fiscal irresponsibility especially in Vietnam.
Expect more government welfare checks to big business. And then expect this nation to sell itself to the world to pay for fixing a recession using massive tax cuts, silly tax rebate schemes, ridiculously low interest rates, and legalizing fiscal irresponsibility.
The damage was done years ago even as the president was declaring "Mission Accomplished". Now we pay for government's overt fiscal mismanagement. Cheney said, "Regan proved that deficits don't matter." Wrong again.
Some numbers to put all this into perspective.
The world has about something just over $70trillion - all currencies combined. This US financial market meltdown has destroyed about $2trillion. The US will spend another $1trillion on "Mission Accomplished". Government has already spent $0.7trillion on a bailout - expect that number to double. The Defense Dept budget under George Jr has ballooned to $0.7trillion per year. US Federal government debt (treasury bonds et al to pay for our fiscal mismanagement) is somewhere between $5trillion and $8trillion depending on with game is used to measure it. A number that is guaranteed to increase massively and that was quickly approaching zero during Clinton's time.
For twenty years, America had seen a fairly constant growth rate. With 2000, and once we eliminate the distortions of inflation and economic wealth fueled by debts not yet paid, America has seen little if any economic growth. For all these GNP increases, we also have incurred massive debts that have still to be paid - such as most of the $trillion for "Mission Accomplished".
Get yourself financially stable. The numbers have long suggested that things could be getting much nastier. We still don’t know how many more ponzi schemes will collapse. Too many unknowns still remain.
We know this. The average American income has dropped 2% while welfare to the rich has significantly widened the difference between rich and poor. This occurred once previously in American history – just before 1929. Get out now from under credit cards and car payments.
Fascinating link, Bruce.
Although I notice they say the stock market fell by exactly 22.6% on October 28, 1929 AND October 19, 1987. If that is correct, it is a most curious coincidence.
1929 dropped 22.6% of the total market value.
1987 dropped 22.6% of the Dow Jones Index.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Clusterfuck! :eyebrow:
Although I notice they say the stock market fell by exactly 22.6% on October 28, 1929 AND October 19, 1987. If that is correct, it is a most curious coincidence.
Not coincidence according to research on this subject identifying factors such as weather. A topic not relevant to a far more serious problem.
For any American - living well this past eight years? Do you measure your well being based upon daily consumption? Or realize your real net worth?
Bruce's citation notes a 15% increase in credit card debt. So what happens when credit card interest rates exceed 22% and 25% - as lessons from the 1970s suggest?
When George Jr took office, the average American owed the equivalent to 80% of disposible income. Today that number is between 120% and 140%. Debt increased that dangerously high. Meantime (with inflation) the average American income dropped 2%. Finance markets suggest a probability of the worst recession since WWII.
Did I get your attention? You may still have a few years to protect yourself.
From the Washington Post of 23 Oct 2008:
Job Losses Accelerate, Signaling Deeper Distress
... for many companies, the pullback in hiring is not a direct result of tightening credit. Rather, firms simply don't know whether their own customers will be affected by the financial crisis; as a result, they want to hold their breath and delay hiring decisions until they have a better sense of the future. ...
What's particularly noteworthy, Holley said, is what's happening in Phoenix. Job applications have held steady, but since September more applicants have had backgrounds in general labor and warehouse distribution. That's unusual because warehouse and logistics jobs usually hold steady in the fall to support retailing for holiday shopping.
Job loses are currently defensive in nature. The inevitable inflation has not yet appeared. You may have two years to get secure.
Secure? As in reducing debt?
Secure? As in reducing debt?
Absolutely. I was surprised how many don't get this. First pay off the debt with highest interest rates - ie credit card. Pay that off even if at the expense of savings - the lowest interest rate. Then pay off car loans (the next highest interest rate) which a fiscally responsible person does not have anyway.
Some people foolishly refuse to use savings to eliminate high interest rate debt. They don't get it. Money for an emergency is a credit card with no outstanding debt. Money in a savings account at 1% or 2% while the credit card is demanding a 12% interest rate payment? That is a no brainer. Move that 1% saving to eliminate a 12% expense. Do it now. Stop using credit (debit) cards until those balances are zero. Get secure.
This is not an economy to be exposed. If others go bankrupt, then your income or risk gets even worse. Economics does this by many methods – inflation, dropping dollar, corporate downsizing, higher rents and a deadlocked housing market, loss of benefits, or the worst – stagflation.
We also know the more that government does to alleviate this (corporate welfare, tax cuts, increased tariffs, special benefits to domestic industries), then the worse economics takes revenge later.
How bad will it be? Automakers were given $25billion. (GM is only worth $5billion because GM products are so bad and GM has no solution in the innovation pipeline.) Automakers are already going back to government for more money. That means your financial security is at even greater risk.
Ive been working on it since....forever, it seems. I pay out $1000 a month on average to pay off our credit card debt. The good news is that the bulk of it is at 0% interest . I still am putting money away into my savings though and have built up a really nice cushion. If and when G loses his job, I dont want to use credit cards to pay bills, because I wont be able to count on more 0% interest in the future. I'm struggling because we have been hit with major car repairs and a vacation that costs us way more than I wanted. I know I'm not doing this in the most sensible way, but I am working on it.
I'm struggling because we have been hit with ... a vacation that costs us way more than I wanted.
Pico, I don't know you, and have no real knowledge of your circumstances. But the silliness of that sentence there just boggles me.
Oh I know.
It was suppose to be a cheap vacation that my husband decided to do at the last minute...a camping trip at a lake with boating and skiing. I thought we were going to rough it by picnicking and cooking out. Instead we ate out for nearly every lunch and dinner. And we helped pay the gas for the boat, which averaged us a $100 per day. This was my husbands family and I just had to go along with the flow, but I was really irked afterwards. Anyway, it all went on the card. That and nearly $3000 in car repairs. So it seems like Im never getting ahead.
It's one of those things that should go in the rule book they should give you when you get married.
Never take vacation with others or dine out with others when you're trying to save money. You just don't have control of the outcome.
... or dine out with others ...
Oh yes. Absolutely. When my wife and I were first married, I was struggling to make a living as a musician, bringing in like $12k a year while my wife finished her teaching credential and masters degree. Sushi had just become the hot new thing, and all of our friends would go out to "do sushi", order a bunch of food, and then split the tab.
We figured out very quickly that we couldn't afford to do that.
Back on topic -
Greenspan Admits Flaw in Regulation Stance
Greenspan said he was in "a state of shocked disbelief" that his theory about lending institutions was flawed. He believed financial firms would act responsibly on their own to protect their viability and shareholders' interest.
This holds with the greed comments earlier posted by someone here on the cellar - Hmm hey tw, do you remember who that was?
While lawmakers were quick to point out Greenspan's role in inflating the housing bubble, others say there is plenty of blame to go around.
Indeed, the failed mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government-supported entities whose main objective was to promote homeownership to low-income and minority Americans. The GSEs were pushed by lawmakers to loosen standards and buy riskier mortgages whose debtors may not have documented their income or provided other evidence that they could afford the home.
Hmm this sounds rather familiar too.
"That's one of the gross misperceptions here," says Rich Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research. "You have these lawmakers waving their fingers at [Greenspan], but the they're the ones who adopted all the policies that turned into this. When do we get to turn the tables and wave our fingers at the lawmakers who allowed anybody who wanted to have a home to buy a home -- whether they had a job or income or anything else?"
I believe thats a hat trick for the, as of late, rather unpopular dwellar.
Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), a free-market conservative and former presidential contender, goes a step further to say that the existence of a federal bank that sets monetary policy -- rather than the market setting interest rates itself -- is flawed. Paul says the housing bubble was "preventable," but that the Fed and Congress created the financial crisis because they set "artificially low interest rates" while "insisting that subprime mortgages should be made."
"I don't think he offered any solutions and I don't think he admitted that he caused all the trouble," Paul says of Greenspan's testimony. "I think it's more of the same."
"Swish"
Robert Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon and former undersecretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, says that as Fed chairman, Greenspan undoubtedly knew that the demand for securitized mortgages was "based on a bubble" and that risky assets were being purchased with excessive leverage.
Sets the timeline also previously mentioned.
Greenspan on Thursday took effort to lament the need for stricter regulation, as well as the loss of the subprime mortgage market, which opened the doors of homeownership to citizens otherwise barred from that American dream.
Sounds like the "good & noble intentions that were based upon a poor plan" posted earlier.
This holds with the greed comments earlier posted by someone here on the cellar - Hmm hey tw, do you remember who that was?
Who was also calling for lower interest rates, rebate checks, deregulation for people who routinely need most regulation such as stock brokers and equity traders? The White House lawmakers and many members of Congress who are no longer there instead were demanding easier money as if the economy needed fixing.
If reading old quotes, tw called for higher interest rates in and before Nov 2006 as the administration was pushing for lower interest rates to 'stimulate' the economy. Fed’s primary task is inflation - integrity of the money - not to stimulate an economy.
Much of this problem is due to government 'stimulus' even back on 2001. Every year, George Jr is talking about more stimulus - even privatizing social security which to any informed person was total lunacy.
Remember, rather than let airlines fix themselves by suffering economically and therefore eliminating bad management, instead this administration gave the airlines $8billion with no strings attached. Rather than fix the completely defective American steel industry, George Jr put up illegal tariffs. Those tariffs protected the anti-American steel industry and harmed the so productive steel reprocessing industry. Rather than let drug prices in America fall 40% to the same prices all over the world, George Jr pushed through the Medicaid prescription plan that keeps drug prices 40% higher in American AND makes it a crime to buy those exact same drugs from the exact same company in Mexico or Canada. Just another $1trillion over ten years of corporate welfare provided by this administration that is very good at mortgaging massive debts.
In every case, the solution should have been to let recession and market losses force the companies to fix their bad management.
When do we reap what we sow? Now is typically when such money games result in economic revenge. And still to be seen are the losses if we are not the innovators in global warming solutions, stem cell research, pushing space exploration, quantum physics, and a long list of other fundamental new products and markets stifled by our wacko extremists.
classicman could also requote post after post where tw says economics takes revenge years later when government 'fixes' the economy using easy money, tax cuts, rebate checks, and corporate welfare. Warren Buffet was also quoted. The only tax cut is one that also cuts spending. Instead, extremist Republicans (who even angered moderate and more patriotic Republicans) went on a spending spree well beyond what any Democrat ever did. A spree that promotes money games and not product innovation. Economics must now take revenge on us for not seeing through Karl Rove propaganda.
Also find the many posts where tw discusses requiring everyone to replant their lawn every year to stimulate the economy. Just like so many George Jr’s economic stimulus plans. Now we have reaped economics taking revenge.
Requote posts about General Motors who stifled product innovation for decades. Who used money games even with its pension funds in the 1990 rather than face bankruptcy that would have saved GM. Find those posts where the foolish actually praised the Chevy Cobalt and other GM crap. Last year, others were falling for the ‘every five year’ GM spin, "We were making bad cars but now we are making good cars."
GM is still making crap cars as GM was doing (and noted here) even in the early 1990s. As a result, GM is now burning through $1billion per month. GM will not even have a new product model until 2010. How many more $billion months can GM survive without being bankrupt - without fixing their only problem - Rick Waggoner? Government provides $25billion and not demand management change? Economics will have to take even more revenge. But on who?
Let’s see. GM was given $100million to build a hybrid in 1994. A new deal between government and industry where government would help only if industry innovated. Well GM took the money and still has no hybrids 15 years later. When the hybrid was supposed to come to market and did not, when did George Jr punish them accordingly? Oh. We must lavish more money on our most needy industries? Just another example of extremists in action who justify the worst kind of socialism. Economics must take more revenge.
Yes, government in the latest decade did everything it could to even cause houses to be 20% and 40% overpriced. George Jr’s reelection was at risk. We borrowed massively to make houses overpriced. When do those debts come due? Borrowed by playing money games such as massive tax cuts to the rich. Deregulation so that loans could be obtained with NINJA and other "we don't care because we are rich" attitudes. When that did not work, 0% financing. Did anybody notice how 0% financing was just another money game to mortgage the future?
Economics is only taking revenge for America's (and government) economic policies mostly from the last decade. In housing, the most egregious policies were promoted by the George Jr administration including overt stifling SEC regulations and all but encouraging Enron style accounting even in Fannie and Freddie. What was AIG doing just before their crash hit? They were creating another off-balance vehicle. AIG was about to move more debt off their spread sheets - Enron style accounting that is now acceptable with deregulations. The Economist of 18 Sept 2008:
Banks can exploit the regulations’ inevitable blind spots: assets hidden off their balance sheets, or insurance (such as that provided by AIG) which enables them to profit by sliding out of the capital requirements the regulators set. It is no accident that both schemes were at the heart of the crisis.
Why was AIG so carefully writing contracts so as to not be regulated by state insurance commissioners? Under a recently defanged SEC, AIG has about $1trillion contracted but equity now believed to have been only $67billion. A ponzi scheme made possible significantly due to new SEC regulation standards. This company was provided $85billion in government welfare.
From The Economist of 11 Oct 2008:
The trouble is that financial innovation did not occur in a vacuum but in response to incentives created by governments. Many of the new-fangled instruments became popular because they got around financial regulations, such as rules on banks' capital adequacy. Banks created off-balance-sheet vehicles because that allowed them to carry less capital [see above reference to AIG and Enron style accounting]. The market for credit-default swaps enabled them to convert risky assets, which demand a lot of capital, into supposedly safe ones, which do not.
Politicians also played a big part. America's housing market - the source of the greatest excesses - has the government's fingerprints all over it. Long before they were formally taken over, the tow mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had an implicit government guarantee. As Charles Calomirisi of Columbia University and Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute have pointed out, one reason why the market for subprime mortgages exploded after 2004 was that these institutions began buying swathes of subprime mortgages because of a political edict to expand the financing of "affordable housing".
History also shows that financial booms tend to occur when money is cheap. And money, particularly in America, was extremely cheap in the past few years. ...
So modern finance should not be indicted in isolation. Its costs and benefits are, at least in part, the result of the incentives to which the money men were responding. But given those distortions, did the new-fangled finance boost economic growth, welfare, and stability?
Critics answer no on all three counts.
Learn from where financial innovation actually works. Venture capitalism funnels money through people who understood the product - come from where the work gets done. Venture capitalism is how productive financing works.
Well economics will take revenge. But economics does not target the offender. Economics takes revenge on the innocent who, for example, ceated this prolem by not speaking out against the wacko extremists who created this mess and actually promoted socialism. No Democrat ever spent money like a drunken sailor - as government has done through the entire 2000 to make the economy look better - to mortgage the future and even completely wipe out every good financial accomplishment by Clinton.
Economics is taking revenge because our right wing extremists all but wanted this meltdown AND are now some of the most egregious socialists - but only for the rich and big corporations.
I have tw on ignore, but I am soooooo tempted to read that post. I think I'll guess instead. I imagine it says all sorts of " i predicted this followed by quoting himself and then a sprinkling of "mental midget" , "wacko extremists" a "George jr." or two and possibly something about emotional posters.... Oh and how the rest of us are stupid and ignorant. How'd I do?
Oh I forgot "vietnam", GM and "mission accomplished." No quote of his is complete without them.
classicman, in this post, tw was actually saying nice things about you.
Or maybe he just posted "I hate his posts. His posts suck. He sucks. He always sucks. Whine whine whine."
Actually, I'm impressed by how long tw's post is. Even for him, it's a long post.
tw was actually saying nice things about you.
HA HA HA HA HA Shit the sky really is falling! HA HA HA HA HA
The original $85billion to AIG was provided on a theory that it was an investment to be returned maybe with a profit. This Washington Post article of 24 Oct 2008 describes progress of a company that may have contained only $67billion of equity. US government has already channeled 7% of this nation GNP into the bailout. This first progreess report is distressing:
AIG Has Used Much of Its $123 Billion Bailout Loan
The troubled insurance giant American International Group already has consumed three-quarters of a federal $123 billion rescue loan, a little more than a month after the government stepped in to save the company from bankruptcy.
AIG has borrowed $90.3 billion from the Federal Reserve's credit line as of yesterday, the bulk of it to pay off bad bets the company made in guaranteeing other firms' risky mortgage investments. That's up from roughly $83 billion AIG had borrowed a week ago, and the $68 billion level it reached a week before that. The news comes as the company's new chief executive warned Wednesday that the government's financial lifeline may not be enough to keep AIG afloat.
Okay, so someone explain this to me. We just got a quarterly 401K statement in the mail. It's down, no shocker there. But on the last page, for comparison, they list a performance summary of all the funds available in the plan, not just the ones that you are actually invested in.
Of the 30 or so listed, exactly two of them show a positive number under "Actual Periodic Return" (period of 7/1/08 through 9/30/08):
Cohen & Steers Realty Income
Virtus Real Estate Securities
WTF?
Cohen and Steers
Top 10 Holdings as of 9/30/08
Name Sector % of Net Assets
Simon Property Group Inc. Regional Mall 8.5
Public Storage Self Storage 6.2
Vornado Realty Trust Diversified 5.7
Macerich Co. Regional Mall 5.0
Boston Properties Office 4.8
Equity Residential Apartment 4.4
Regency Centers Corp. Shopping Center 3.8
ProLogis Industrial 3.5
Host Hotels & Resorts Hotel 3.4
AvalonBay Communities Apartment 3.3
Malls, storage units, and hotels are still making their rent payments. Those rent payments happen to equal more than the expense of owning those buildings.
VirtusDoesn't actually invest in the Real Estate, rather they own REIT's (real estate investment trusts) meaning they are buying and selling closed end funds that specialize in the various areas of real estate.
non-publicly traded REIT's are some of the most consistently profitable investments around. They are certainly not appropriate for everyone though.
Okay, so in theory Cohen and Steers wouldn't see a hit until businesses actually start closing, and/or people significantly cut back on their general travel expenses (hotels.)
But then again, when we all start living in storage units, that part of their holdings will soar.
They would suffer if the mall didn't have stores paying them monthly rent.
They would continue to make money on hotels, regardless of occupancy, unless the hotels actually go out of business.
Ford Prodigy
GM Unveils Concept Car That Gets 108 Miles A Gallon
Dodge ESX3
The U.S. government is estimated to have spent about $240 million on PNGV projects last year.
Well of course. Clinton in the mid 1990s suggested (with investment) that the automakers innovate - an event that is nearly impossible when MBAs dominate a company and industry. Why must these automakers be driven to bankruptcy? As soon as George Jr took over and began stifling innovation (even White House lawyers rewrite science papers), then domestic automakers did not have to innovate. No longer was the product important. The purpose of their companies was profits - the lie taught in business schools. George Jr promoted corporate welfare. No wonder George Jr and his extremists advocated another $25billion of corporate welfare to domestic car companies.
Even Gerald Ford refused to give these automakers corporate welfare in the 1970s. So automakers removed the only reasons for their failures. For example, people more destructive to America than Nikita Khrushchev (Townsend and Richardo) were replaced by a car guy - Lee Iacocca. In only four years, Chrysler went from record losses to record profits. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.
When your leaders are overt socialist - also known as extremists who work for a party agenda rather than America - then your tax money is given to airlines ($8billion), auto companies ($25billion), durg companies (Medicaid perscription drug laws), and insurance companies ($138billion). These policies are also supported even by the Cellar's extremists - who can only respond by attacking others.
Was the American economy investing in innovations - or the money games of finance? Fifteen years after promising to market hybrids and paid by government to do so - the domestic automakers did what? Nothing. Put 1968 technology low performance engines into MBA designed SUVs. Just another example of why patriotic people who believe in the free market buy innovative (and therefore foreign) products. This last decade was about innovation in finance rather than innovation in products. Expected when your president is also an MBA (and a mental midget).
Appreciate why an almost inevitable recession will occur as economics takes revenge on us for voting in wacko extremists. You don't just vote in the polls. You also vote by what you buy. We saved 1970s Ford Motor by stop buying their crappy products - and therefore removed another anti-American - Henry Ford. Welcome to Deja vue. Will you save America by buying the best - or love it when George Jr's solution is more corporate welfare.
It's one of those things that should go in the rule book they should give you when you get married.
Never take vacation with others or dine out with others when you're trying to save money. You just don't have control of the outcome.
In our family that isn't usually a problem. We all just itemize what we've had and pay that portion. Those who have less, pay less. Those who have more pay more.
It works well for us, and no one has to feel like they can't join in a family outing.
From Mercs third link above
"There was an awful lot of, 'Trust us. Leave it alone. We can do it better than government,' without any realistic understanding of the dangers involved," says Harvey Goldschmid, a Columbia University law professor and a former commissioner and general counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
He says the bill was passed at the height of Wall Street and Washington's love affair with deregulation, an infatuation that was endorsed by President Clinton at the White House and encouraged by Alan Greenspan.
"The credit default swaps was the key of what went wrong and what's created these enormous losses," Goldschmid says.
"Is it your impression that people at the big Wall Street investment houses knew what was going on and knew the kind of risks that they were exposed to?" Kroft asks.
"No. My impression is to the contrary, that even at senior levels they only vaguely understood the risks. They only vaguely followed what was going on," Goldschmid says. "And when it tumbled, there was some genuine surprise not only at the board level where there wasn't enough oversight but at senior management level."
I've been reading the Derivatives implosion will make the trillion dollar Savings & Loan bailout, and the more recent trillion dollar Wall Street bailout debacle, look like kid's stuff.
Off with their heads!:mad:
I printed out the print versions of the interviews to study later. The show was very good.
From Link 2
The numbers are staggering, but they don't begin to explain the greed and incompetence that created this mess.
It began with a terrible bet that was magnified by reckless borrowing, complex securities, and a vast, unregulated shadow market worth nearly $60 trillion that hid the risks until it was too late to do anything about them.
"If you look at how this started with the subprime crisis, it doesn't seem to be a good bet to put your money behind the idea that people with the lowest income and the poorest credit ratings are gonna be able to pay off their mortgages," Kroft points out.
"The idea that you could lend money to someone who couldn't pay it back is not an inherently attractive idea to the layman, right. However, it seemed to fly with people who were making $10 million a year," Grant says.
Noble idea as previously posted, but really bad as we are all learning...and paying for.
"Now, who was selling these credit default swaps?" Kroft asks.
"Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers & AIG were selling them. You know, the names we hear that are in trouble, Citigroup was selling them," Greenberger says.
"These investment banks were not only selling the securities that turned out to be terrible investments, they were selling insurance on them?" Kroft asks.
"Well, it made it easier to sell the terrible investments if you could convince the buyer that not only were they gonna get the investment, but insurance," Greenberger explains.
But when homeowners began defaulting on their mortgages, and Wall Street's high-risk mortgage backed securities also began to fail, the big investment houses and insurance companies who sold the credit default swaps hadn't set aside the money they needed to pay off their obligations.
Asked what role the credit default swaps play in this financial disaster, Frank Partnoy tells Kroft, "They were the centerpiece, really. That's why the banks lost all the money. They lost all the money based on those side bets, based on the mortgages."
And those "bets" were made on what? GREED!
How big is the market for credit default swaps?
Says Partnoy, "Well, we really don't know. There's this voluntary survey that claims that the market is in the range of 50 to 60 or so trillion dollars. It's sort of alarming that, in a market that big, we don't even know how big it is to within, say, $10 trillion."
"Sixty trillion dollars. I know it seems incredible. It's four times the size of the U.S. debt. But that's the size of the market according to these voluntary reports," says Partnoy.
He says this market is almost entirely unregulated.
Isn't that special?
SDA's CEO, Robert Pickel, says there is nothing wrong with credit default swaps, and that the problem was with underlying mortgage securities.
"Well, there's clearly something wrong with the system if all of these leveraged bets, hidden leveraged bets, caused a collapse in the financial system," Kroft remarks.
"It is something that we all need to look at and learn lessons from. And we all need to work together to understand that and design a structure in the future that works more effectively," Pickel says.
"My point is, the people that made these mistakes are the people you represent in your organization. And many of them sit on the board. I mean, if they didn't get it right, who would?" Kroft asks.
That is so wrong on so many levels.
something important to understand is that no lender was holding their paper much past the first payment. When that is the case, likelihood of repayment is no longer the primary concern. When a bank holds it's paper it will make profit from the interest over a period of years. When a bank sells it's paper it makes profit on the fees charged to close the loan. Sub-prime loans charged much higher upfront fees, therefore were much more profitable to the loan origination company. Repayment? That's someone else's problem.
I will tell you this, though, ACORN and others like them shoulder a lot of the responsibility for this. The tactics and pressure they applied to companies to approve loans for lower income and lower credit quality applicants was obscene. It got to the point that underwriters often joked that the applications should just be sent to ACORN since they seemed to want anyone with a pulse approved.
Oh lookout - stop it with the facts again.
Socialism may end this year. So GM is running to George Jr for more money. In but a month, that $25billion is already gone. GM now wants the government to pay for a GM Chrysler merger.
As any good MBA would do. Fix a defective company by merging it with another losing company. No problem. A merger means a stock swap - no cost. But a merger is also an excuse for more corporate welfare.
Well, GM may not get that money. So GM today ran to George Jr to get money through its finance arm - GMAC. George Jr just announced that he approves of the request. Remember that $700billion bailout called TARP? George Jr now said GM may be able to tap that $700 billion as soon as the Treasury approves. GM will do anything to protect its problem - top management - especially Rick Waggoner.
Louis Hughes was running GM's $36billion international division - making a small profit. At least it was worth that much back then. The Buick in China was Louis Hughes' biggest success. Louis Hughes was a car guy - actually worked with cars. Rick Waggoner: a bean counter who as the head of GM's North American division. Under Waggoner, North American division was losing money. Who did GM select for the top job?
GM is so dominated by bean counters as to select Rick Waggoner. Therefore GM is losing money everywhere - even in its international group. Louis Hughes immediately left to run Lockheed Martin. Now the entire GM is only worth $5billion. International division alone was once worth $36?
When extremists advocate corporate socialism, GM will hurry for free money. Next year, the new president may demand fiscal responsibility - which the current administration never did to encourage this market meltdown. With $700billion in easy money sitting on the table, George Jr is again doing what extremist conservatives do best - spend with reckless abandon. As Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Using its financial arm - GMAC - GM intends to tap the $700billion TARP bailout money. GM will do anything to protect their only problem - top management. Easy to do when government is run by ‘spend excessively’ extremist conservatives who advocate corporate socialism. Easy to do when those extremists may lose power and want to spend even more recklessly. Easy to do when Rush Limbaugh tells extremists that this is good and blames it on Clinton.
The entire thing continues to make me feel totally enraged. Why should we pay billions of dollars to not only bail out incompetent CEO's, but even give them golden parachutes which allow them to bail out of the mess they created and live like the Saudi royalty? Meanwhile, children living in poverty go without medical care and decent schools that might give them a chance in life? I am so mad and fed up over all of it. :mad:
SamIam, Blame the fiscal branch of Gov't.
What fiscal branch? It was our wonderful congress that voted for the bailout. The excutive branch in the form of lame duck Dubya signed off on it. No doubt if they had a chance, the judicial branch in the form of the Supreme Court would have corporate welfare become the law of the land. Oh, grrrrrrrr!
SamIam, Blame the fiscal branch of Gov't.
I believe the hint was missed.
Ed Lazear, chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, defended the implementation of the rescue plan at a press conference Thursday. He noted there is little hard evidence that banks are not appropriately using federal funds. "We have to make sure that banks have the appropriate flexibility to do those things that will get credit markets going," Mr. Lazear said.
Uh no sir, THAT'S HOW WE GOT INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE
From
here
U.S. lawmakers are considering steps to alter the terms of the Treasury Department's financial-rescue plan, including forcing banks to lend funds they've received from the government and imposing new limits on executive compensation at firms that are part of the program.
Good Idea
"The goal seems to be changing every single day," Mr. Sanders said. "Are we comfortable that a handful of bankers are literally alone in a room deciding which banks get what?"
Someone tell me this is NOT whats going on..... please.
This is not what's going on.
Is that better?
More convincingly, please.
Maybe if you put it in bold, underlined or italics.
Yeh - that might help
Sorry; just listened to National Public Radio. This is what's going on.
Fucking congress - Seems like all those elections flew under the radar too. I think they may be more important too.
Fucking congress - Seems like all those elections flew under the radar too. I think they may be more important too.
Congress is the election process to be keeping an eye on. It matters not who gets elected president anymore. I don't prefer Obama or McCain, but with a supermajority in Congress things could get ugly. I don't trust them anymore than I trust a supermajority by the Repubs. We have already seen what that gave us, and yet somehow we have pervasive mindset that a swing of the pendulum in the other direction is acceptable. Be careful what you wish for.
Another GM money game to avoid bankruptcy was 0% financing and car leasing. GM constantly sought profit sources to mask a line of crappy cars. GMAC, for example, could reap profits from a government subsidized housing market. GMAC then would sell a GM car by lower its price using 0% financing, etc. Then GMAC would suffer losses many years later. No problem. Bean counters only think in terms of years - not decades.
During the 2000 decade, GM cars were still crap. So GM did another deal for money. They sold half of GMAC to Cerberus Capitial (who also bought Chrysler).
An MBA named Nardelli was running Home Depot slowly into the ground. So they gave Nardelli $200million to leave. Nardelli is now running Chrysler into the ground.
GM and Chrysler decided to merge (as if economies of scale mean higher profits - a myth taught to business school graduates). No problem. Exchange stock and merger done. However both GM and Cerberus own companies that make crappy products, do not innovate, and both own GMAC. Eventually the housing market could no longer coverup 0% financing. So GM and Cerberus Capital Management ran to government for another $10billion.
GM is worth about $5billion. Chrysler is worth maybe $0.5billion. So government will give them $10billion to merge? Since avoiding bankruptcy in 1991 by playing money games (ie stop funding the pension funds), GM has long needed bankruptcy to fix GM's only problem.
Last GM cash cow (without $billions from government welfare - TARP) is slowly going belly up. Another victim of GM that did not face bankruptcy early one. From the NY Times : [QUOTE]
Deteriorating Home Market Puts GMAC Unit at Risk
GMAC, the finance company partly owned by General Motors, lost $2.52 billion in the third quarter, hurt by the housing slump and write-downs on vehicle leases, and said Wednesday that its mortgage unit, one of the nation’s largest home loan providers, might not survive.
The loss, GMAC’s fifth consecutive quarterly decline, compared with a loss of $1.6 billion in the period a year earlier and brought GMAC’s losses since the middle of 2007 to $7.9 billion. ...
The finance company’s results will hurt G.M., which still owns 49 percent of GMAC after selling the rest in 2006 to the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. G.M. will report its earnings on Friday.[\QUOTE] Give GM credit. They sold much of GMAC to an even more foolish Cerberus Capital just before GMAC was no longer useful for money games. GM is excellent at these money games. Has GM run out of places to steal money? Will GM finally fix their only problem - Rick Wagoner? Bankruptcy early enough means few or no employee job losses, replacing finance people with product people, and innovation.
Chambers of Cisco is known for his rosy projections. Chambers today issued a very negative economic outlook. Cisco October sales decreased 9%. This downturn in a company that is productive, innovative, and therefore patriotic American. Few other companies have announced projections. Can GM coverup massive losses again this Friday when they announce earnings? Or are economic forces finally taking revenge for George Jr's economy based on lies, deceit, and money games?
Crappy products and innovation (maybe White House lawyers also rewrote those innovations) are finally appearing on the spread sheets. How honest will those spread sheet be? Friday will be a very bad market day if the spread sheets are honest. Then GM will use those reports are an excuse to beg for more corporate welfare.
Unbefuckingbelievable.
Care to expound on that thought process? Specifically to what?
Choice #1 - lawmakers decide how the money borrowed/stolen from our future will be spent.
Choice #2 - clutch of bankers decide how the money borrowed/stolen from our future will be spent.
Two groups whose incompetence has already been exposed will be picking the winners and losers and paying the winners with money they haven't earned. Go us.
Choice #1 - lawmakers decide how the money borrowed/stolen from our future will be spent.
Choice #2 - clutch of bankers decide how the money borrowed/stolen from our future will be spent.
There is a one glaring difference.
Under option 2, we are only at risk if we, individually, decide to put money at risk. Nobody is coming into your FDIC insured savings account and taking away money because the market is down, are they? Nobody is showing up on your doorstep and saying, "Sorry, because of the troubled credit market, we need you to pay 20% more for your mortgage" unless you agreed to let them. Prudence and foresight were sufficient to avoid any direct fallout from this mess.
Option 1 affects everyone, all of us, regardless of our individual responsibility. It obligates the prudent and the fool alike to repay money that only some put at risk.
There is a one glaring difference.
Under option 2, we are only at risk if we, individually, decide to put money at risk. Nobody is coming into your FDIC insured savings account and taking away money because the market is down, are they?
Yes, they are. Where do you think that $700billion is coming from? Economics has many methods of punishing you (all), for example, for not calling the President a liar when he said that "Mission Accomplished" would pay for itself. You money will now be diminished. You are being punished.
That money in your FDIC account has diminishing value as your dollar becomes worth less and as inflation increases massively. And then takes even more money when economics revenge also causes gasoline prices to skyrocket again. Economics also raids that FDIC account by taking away jobs. Don't fool yourself for one minute. Those massive tax cuts to the rich are now being paid for by you. That routine lying on spread sheets made so acceptable especially during this past eight years - you must now pay for that deregulation and welfare to the rich.
And those roads that will be repaved? Those bridges that get rebuilt? That electric system that remains reliable? More ways you must pay. Meanwhile, the only alternative is massive tax increases. But again, more ways that your FDIC account get raided such as when you could not pay your bills. Or you must take a severe reduction in your standard of living.
Having said this, was your stockbroker or finance adviser warning you to get out of equities back in August when that was obviously prudent? If so, then you get to pay less for our economic fiasco.
The time to worry about this was many years ago when Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." He was right because nobody wanted to think in economic terms - in 4 to 10 year cycles. Those Cheney debts are only just starting to become due. So those debts did not matter to Cheney. Now everyone must pay for the party by a few.
So who is calling for the problems to be fixed. You still don't hear mass media commentators calling for fixing GM's #1 problem - Rick Wagoner. Instead, they want to throw more of your money - another part of $25billion into $5billion GM - as if throwing money like a grenade will solve problems.
There is a one glaring difference.
Option 1 affects everyone, all of us, regardless of our individual responsibility. It obligates the prudent and the fool alike to repay money that only some put at risk.
Not according to the Obama plan.
Not according to the Obama plan.
or the Bush plan. They both use confiscated dollars. There is no individual choice.
Under option 2, we are only at risk if we, individually, decide to put money at risk. Nobody is coming into your FDIC insured savings account and taking away money because the market is down, are they? Nobody is showing up on your doorstep and saying, "Sorry, because of the troubled credit market, we need you to pay 20% more for your mortgage" unless you agreed to let them. Prudence and foresight were sufficient to avoid any direct fallout from this mess.
I consider the plan to confiscate $700 Billion, to be distributed willy nilly, to be direct fallout. There will be costs to the rest of the economy to pay for this free ride. I made the poor choice of paying my own way for housing now I get to pay for "yours" as well. Go me.
or the Bush plan. They both use confiscated dollars. There is no individual choice.
From what I can tell there never was a Bush plan. The rescue plans were designed and passed by the Democratic controlled Congress. Bush just rubberstamped them in as a Lame Duck President.
you must now pay for that deregulation
Can you point to which particular deregulation?
From what I can tell there never was a Bush plan. The rescue plans were designed and passed by the Democratic controlled Congress. Bush just rubberstamped them in as a Lame Duck President.
Wrong, that is a complete rewrite of history. The Bush plan was to demand the money with no strings attached during a panic. Originally he got his way, but now the once compliant congress is winding string having found an opportunity to turn Republican pork into Democratic pork.
I think I misunderstood. I took option 1 to be the bailout with the government taking over failing institutions, and option 2 to be no bailout, letting the economic chips fall where they fall.
To merge a maybe $2.8billion company with a $0.5billion company, GM wanted government to add $10billion to $25billions of corporate welfare. Since that was not good enough, Rick Wagoner had meetings with Pelosi and others to beg for another $25billion in free money. All this because innovation was routinely stifled in GM and Rick Wagoner is mostly interested in a job that enriches himself. After all, Wagoner is a classic business school graduate doing what bean counters routinely do. Notice his salary and bonuses are not $1 per year like Lee Iacocca - a cary guy - did.
With deregulation this past eight years, GM did zero product innovation. None because significant GM innovation only happens when required by government regulation. Shameful. But that is what happens when finance people - ie business school graduates or communication majors - run a corporation or industry.
Numerous examples of deregulation to enrich only the richest were provided even though UT does not see them. Having promoted destruction of the American economy, now George Jr's administration might sign off on more and massive free money. Free money to those who did more to destroy America than Saddam Hussein. That last sentence clearly is not disputable.
The Economist discusses more examples of deregulation in "The Great Untangling" of 6 Nov 2008:
They are, ... a “Ponzi scheme” that no self-respecting firm should touch. Eric Dinallo, the insurance superintendent of New York state, calls them a “catastrophic enabler” of the dark forces that have swept through financial markets. Alan Greenspan, who used to be a cheerleader, has disowned them in “shocked disbelief”. ...
Until last year credit-default swaps (CDSs) were hailed as a wonder of modern finance. These derivatives allow sellers to take on new credit exposure and buyers to insure against companies or governments failing to honour their debts. ...
One reason is the broad threat of “counterparty risk” - the possibility that a seller or buyer cannot meet its obligations. Another is the rickety state of back-office plumbing, which was neglected as the market boomed. A third is that swaps can be used to hide credit risk from markets, since positions do not have to be accounted for on balance-sheets.
CDOs - how to do insurance without regulation. Deals carefully worded so that state insurance commissions cannot regulate them. Structured to fall under the domain of the SEC where deregulation was rampant and enforcement was reduced to minimal - especially by George Jr's administration.
Originally conceived as a means for banks to reduce their credit exposure to large corporate clients, CDSs quickly became instruments of speculation for pension funds, insurers, companies and (especially) hedge funds. And with no fixed supply of raw material, unlike stocks or bonds, bets could be almost limitless.
... A paper last year by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded that they “give banks an opaque means to sever links to their borrowers, thus reducing lender incentives to screen and monitor.”
IOW CDSs became another tool to hide losses from the spread sheets thanks to no regulation and Enron style accounting.
Concern about the damage that the failure of a big swap-seller might yet do has created pressure for the CDS market to be regulated. ... Mr Dinallo labels uncovered CDS trades as “naked”, likening them to abusive short-selling of shares. Federal regulators, who passed up several opportunities to police the market during the credit boom, are circling too.
Too little too late. But the lesson is obvious. Financial markets where so many 'expert' are nothing more than slick salesmen with the same ethics - this industry needs massive regulation.
Take for example your stock broker. Did he tell you to get out of stocks last August or earlier because he knew his job? Or was he more interested is the profits from managing your money. These people are not experts in basic economics or sufficient to evaluate equities. But they can spin deals. People who are experts in enriching themselves in commissions and management fees. How to we keep these people honest? Regulation that they well deserve.
Another way to regulate markets is a centralized exchange. The NYSE and Nasdaq add further regulations to stocks which is why most investors find greater safety there. Honest financial markets cannot operate without regulation. In a desperate effort to save derivatives such as CDOs, some are recommending the creation of centralized markets where derivatives such as CDOs would be heavily regulated and where derivative salesmen - just like stock brokers -alsp are regulated salesmen.
Some industries deserve to be heavily regulated. In thirty some years, when a new generation hypes a political agenda such as financial deregulation and promotes equity brokers as smart, then you should be smart enough to laugh in their face.
Many industries do not need massive regulation. But then those industries are regulated by the free market and by products that are limited and can be grasped. That is not true where finance people sell products that "with no fixed supply of raw material ... bets could be almost limitless."
If many jobs are lost two years from now, well look back at the money games promoted by George Jr, et al to make the economy appear productive - to promote themselves. Guess what. Deficits do matter.
Meanwhile, the worst thing we can do is destroy the auto industry by giving them free money. As long as the MBA Rick Wagoner is running GM, then innovation will continue to be stifled and all employee jobs are put at risk.
But those examples are not examples of deregulation. They're shady people working their way AROUND regulation. Is it a problem, yes; could it be introduced by the administration, yes; does in involve regulation, yes; is it deregulation, NO. The Economist doesn't call it deregulation so why do you?
Now come on, be an adult; there was no deregulation, am I right?
But those examples are not examples of deregulation. They're shady people working their way AROUND regulation. Is it a problem, yes; could it be introduced by the administration, yes; does in involve regulation, yes; is it deregulation, NO. The Economist doesn't call it deregulation so why do you?
So many examples of deregulation from so many posts ignored. The Economist was specifically quoted saying deregulation contributed to this economic fiasco. Did you read that long ago when the example was posted specifically for you to read?
Another example of ignored deregulation - Glass-Stegall. Some parts were eliminated - deregulations. Other parts were simply not enforced - deregulation. Bottom line - none of Glass Stegall remains.
If you were honest, then you would have posted proof that deregulation did not exist. You did not because you cannot. So you are doing the only thing you can - take cheap shots. You don't prove 'no deregulation exists' because no such proof exists - just like George Jr's lies about WMDs. BTW, you did that exact same thing there. You provide zero proof that Saddam had WMDs. Your only proof was to claim I and my citations were wrong. By now, I would have expected you to learn that proof is not found in nay-saying me. Where are YOUR facts that say deregulation does not exist? Even The Economist said it exists (and what follows are more citations from tw) in "A survey of the World Economy When fortune frowned” on 9 Oct 2008 :
What will be the long-term effect of this mess on the global economy? ...
First, Western finance will be re-regulated. At a minimum, the most freewheeling areas of modern finance, such as the $55 trillion market for credit derivatives, will be brought into the regulatory orbit. Rules on capital will be overhauled to reduce leverage and enhance the system’s resilience. America’s labyrinth of overlapping regulators will be reordered.
In the same issue, "Taming the beast" said:
The market itself has already asked for dramatic changes—away from highly geared investment banks towards the safety of lower leverage and more highly regulated commercial banks. ...
The new system evolved over the past three decades and saw explosive growth in the past few years thanks to three simultaneous but distinct developments: deregulation, technological innovation and the growing international mobility of capital.
In "Changing the Rules" on 2 Oct 2008:
While free trade is linked more philosophically than directly to the deregulation that has helped to spawn the current financial crisis, ...
And then from
Griff's post of 6 Oct 2008 (see also
John McCain's Gramm Gamble:
With the U.S. economy now battered by a tsunami of mortgage foreclosures, the $30-billion Bear Stearns Companies bailout and spiking food and energy prices, many congressional leaders and Wall Street analysts are questioning the wisdom of the radical deregulation launched by Gramm’s legislative package. Financial wizard Warren Buffett has labeled the risky new investment instruments Gramm unleashed “financial weapons of mass destruction.” They have fed the subprime mortgage crisis like an accelerant.
We are different. I demand facts rather than turn speculation into beliefs. Need an example of why your logic does not work? UT knew that Saddam had WMDs only because he felt it must be true. Despite numerous facts and citations from tw, UT instead denied those facts. And just like with 'deregulation', UT refuses to prove 'deregulation does not exist'. He does not like the many examples of deregulation. That proves that deregulation does not exist? - just like that proved Saddam had WMDs? UT, where are your citations and proof that deregulation did not exist? In the same bin, using the same logic, that also proved Saddam had WMDs?
Why do you keep supporting that scumbag mental midget?
UT even ignored a sentence in that latest (6 Nov 2008) quote from The Economist that demonstrated another classic example of deregulation:
Federal regulators, who passed up several opportunities to police the market during the credit boom, are circling too.
Makes little difference whether one opens the gates or leaves them open. That was George Jr's deregulation to let the wolves into the hen house. George Jr got the deregulation he wanted. We get to suffer the consequences.
How many citations and example do you need UT? The above citations are in addtional to a long list cited previously. Why do you ignore them just like you ignored the numbers that said, "No proof exists for Saddam's WMDS". Why do I cite this? Because you are again making the same logic mistake you made then. You denied AND you provide no supporting facts for your belief.
You, UT, must prove that deregulation did not exist. You refuse and you can't.
Using my own basic logic and reputable sources, I think most of what tw has posted in this thread rings true. But clinging to the term deregulation, in instances where new regulation was sorely needed, but not forthcoming from the government, is stubbornness that's off putting to readers not familiar with our resident sage. :smack:
If you were honest, then you would have posted proof that deregulation did not exist.
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=499135&postcount=88
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122403045717834693.html
While there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. economy during the last 30 years, none of it has occurred in the financial sector.
FAIL
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=499135&postcount=88
An FDIC law was passed that required American banks to conform to Basel 1. Then the administration exempted investment banks from that law. Deregulation. Administration let investment banks raise their debt to equity ratio from 12:1 to 30:1. FDIC law was to make such debt to equity ratios unacceptable. Ahhh .. but this was not deregulation, says UT.
Administration continued deregulation which meant not agreeing with another international banking standard - Basel 2 - so that financial deregulations would not be reversed. Basel 2 further defined the equity required by financial firms for all those new investment vehicles. But that would eliminate the new deregulation - especially self regulation.
UT, your citation was disputed for multiple reasons. You chose to ignore facts such as the new debt to equity levels. And you again ignore those facts to repost nonsense.
Meanwhile, The Economist said
What will be the long-term effect of this mess on the global economy? ...
First, Western finance will be re-regulated. At a minimum, the most freewheeling areas of modern finance, such as the $55 trillion market for credit derivatives, will be brought into the regulatory orbit. Rules on capital will be overhauled to reduce leverage and enhance the system’s resilience. America’s labyrinth of overlapping regulators will be reordered.
Not regulated. Re-regulated as in putting back and enforcing the regulations that were eliminated by deregulation and self regulation ... again contradicting UT.
Or another citation from The Economist says deregulation existed and then created a mess:
The rationale behind financial deregulation was that freer markets produced a superior outcome. Unencumbered capital would flow to its most productive use, boosting economic growth and improving welfare. ... Today, however, a different premise has become popular: that financial markets are inherently unstable.
Of course, that entire article is a myth because UT tells us that deregulation did not exist.
Of from the
NY Times of 28 Sept 2008
Remember, his chief mentor on economics is Phil Gramm, the arch-deregulator, who took special care in his Senate days to prevent oversight of financial derivatives — the very instruments that sank Lehman and A.I.G., and brought the credit markets to the edge of collapse.
Or from the NY Times of 26 Sept 2008:
The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down.
Voluntary supervision. Another deregulation. Christopher Cox was a strongest advocate of deregulation (which is why he got the SEC job to eliminate regulations and enforcement).
Or this editorial from the NY Times on 27 Oct 2008 entitled "Rescuing Capitalism". Oh. There is no deregulation according to UT. Therefore the editorial is about something that does not exist?
Financial deregulation enabled our boom-and-bust dynamic — removing barriers to capital flows, allowing unrestricted trading of abstruse financial products and letting financial institutions take on more and more debt. Cheap money, from China or the Federal Reserve, fueled the fire. But America’s virtually unregulated shadow financial institutions — brokerages, hedge funds and other nonbank banks — played a particularly important role at the center of this process.
The solution will require rethinking the rules of finance. The amount of capital that banks must keep in reserve will have to rise; deregulated financial institutions will have to be regulated. Yet much more will be needed than just putting the bridle back on American banks.
Or this from a Washington Post article entitled "What went wrong" on 15 Oct 2008:
The House passed the bill Oct. 19 [2000], but then the legislation stalled. Gramm was holding out for stronger language that would bar both the CFTC and the SEC from meddling in the swaps market. Alarmed, SEC lawyers argued that the agency at least needed to retain its authority over fraud and insider trading. What if a trader, armed with inside knowledge, engaged in a swap on a stock? Treasury Undersecretary Gary Gensler brokered a compromise: The SEC would retain its antifraud authority but without any new rulemaking power.
UT also says if a law exists and is no longer enforced, then that is not deregulation. So yes, to law books, that is not deregulation. To all relevant parties and the real world, that is clearly deregulation. Just another way that George Jr got his desired deregulation.
We are now prospering from the deregulation that George Jr wanted. Argue semantics all you want. CDSs are simply insurance policies renamed with the cooperation of Federal authorities so as to not be regulated. Laws did not change. But the regulation did. Just another example of deregulating the business.
Bruce is correct. Lack of regulation has also contributed mightily to our economic problems. My every post agrees with him. In 2005, Credit Default Swaps amounted to $10trillion in a world now worth $70trillion. In 2007, CDSs were estimated at $60trillion. All this time (in 1999 and 2004), regulators had become alarmed, especially because of lessons from LTCM. But the new mantra was deregulation including its variation - self regulation. Therefore even new regulations were constantly stifled by the powers that be.
I never said otherwise. But I also said deregulation by an extremist administration significantly contributed to this mess.
Regulations on new financial instruments were sorely needs - ie Basel 2. But UT has argued that George Jr's administration is innocent. That's just plain stupid from both the facts and the administration's reputation. George Jr's administration promoted deregulation, and stifled repeated attempts to regulate or even measure new financial instruments such as CDS.
Numerous responsible sources all say that deregulation also contributed to our economic fiasco. UT said
The Economist doesn't call it deregulation so why do you?
The Economist was quoted calling it deregulation both before UT posted in error and after. Deregulation is clearly to blame for this economic fiasco.
Apparently UT read a Wall Street Journal editorial that claimed George Jr did not institute any deregulation. He can argue semantics. Bottom line - deregulation was the only relevant George Jr regulation.
I think I misunderstood. I took option 1 to be the bailout with the government taking over failing institutions, and option 2 to be no bailout, letting the economic chips fall where they fall.
Looking back at it, I wasn't clear. My preference would have been to take the hard economic adjustment, leaving market forces in place to punish bad behavior. I saw Merc giving the administration a pass when they had asked Congress for the cash. That criticism isn't based in any belief that Congress will be virtuous.
Wherever you are getting your information from, it's broken.
An FDIC law was passed that required American banks to conform to Basel 1. Then the administration exempted investment banks from that law.
[COLOR=Red]Citation needed.[/COLOR]
Administration continued deregulation which meant not agreeing with another international banking standard - Basel 2 - so that financial deregulations would not be reversed.
Well if that sorta thing happened, it would be nonregulation not deregulation. But, you know, you're wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_II
On November 1, 2007, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (U.S. Department of the Treasury) approved a final rule implementing the advanced approaches of the Basel II Capital Accord.
Oops.
First, Western finance will be re-regulated
Financial deregulation enabled our boom-and-bust dynamic
Did they happen to mention what deregulation they were talking about here? No they didn't. Did tw assume it was Bush deregulation. Yeah he's not a very good reader. When did it actually happen? Banking deregulation preceded the Bush years.
The House passed the bill Oct. 19 [2000], but then the legislation stalled.
Does anyone know why legislation stalling in 2000 is not relevant to Bush administration deregulation. Anyone? Anyone?
Here's the Washington Post's story "What Went Wrong". Its opener:
[SIZE=4]A decade ago[/SIZE]...
And they go on to describe how the big guys at Treasury ensured that deregulation was the interest of the day... although the story fails to connect that deregulation to any parts of the failure, except Bear Stearns.
Does anyone know why matters that happened in a back room at Treasury in 1998 are not a good example of Bush administration deregulation? Anyone? Anyone?
The story puts much of the onus on the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which prevented SEC regulation of the investment banks the way they wanted, leading to a system of self-regulation that failed. Does anyone know why 1999 acts of Congress are not a good example of Bush administration deregulation? Anyone? Anyone?
Wrong, that is a complete rewrite of history. The Bush plan was to demand the money with no strings attached during a panic.
I don't buy that, it is a rewrite of history to call it a rewrite of history. It was no pass for the Bush admin because as you see from the posts above, it started before Bush became president.
Is this the Limbaugh angle, pretending there is no bailout unless the Democrats change it from serving incompetent bankers to serving incompetent borrowers? As narratives go it's convenient but hardly compelling.
We can play the blame game, fo evah. What we need is the cure.
I got this from a cow orker. I am too lazy to check its veracity, but I like it.
Quote of the Week
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Thomas Jefferson 1802
We can play the blame game, fo evah. What we need is the cure.
That begins with the purpose of companies. Having defined that, only then can a bank's function be defined.
What is the purpose of a company? Zengum quotes what happens when society and its company's objectives (and therefore a bank's purpose) are subverted.
Some of that destructive behavior was quoted previously and grasped by those who need more than sound bytes to comprehend.
CDSs quickly became instruments of speculation for pension funds, insurers, companies and (especially) hedge funds. And with no fixed supply of raw material, unlike stocks or bonds, bets could be almost limitless.
A banking system serving unlimited speculation is clearly not serving society. One industry that definitely cannot be trusted to be unregulated is the finance industry. One industry whose primary purpose is supposed to profit only by servicing other industries is the finance industry.
An example. Intel had technically superior microprocessors well before 1981. Intel constantly had one problem. Intel could not get financing to make what the world (society) needed. Banking and Wall Street could not do its job for obvious reasons. They only understood profits - not their purpose. Intel finally made killer products only after IBM made the major investment that resulted in fabs.
Today, another financial institution solves that same fundamental problem. Too many banks still forget their purpose. Venture capitalists do what banks routinely fail to do. The only valid speculation results in what society needs - innovative products. Something with a defining characteristic: investment in raw materials that are limited and that result in a useful (innovative) product.
Again, why are we in this mess? Our wacko extremists (mostly due to total ignorance and a political agenda) encouraged a Ponzi scheme where investment had "no fixed supply of raw material" so that "bets could be almost limitless."
Only legitimate investment invests in reality - products that come from limited raw materials and that serve the fundamental purpose - advance mankind.
The Economist was quoted to demonstrate what deregulation created and what happens when the finance industry serves itself rather than society: [QUOTE}They are, ... a “Ponzi scheme” that no self-respecting firm should touch. Eric Dinallo, the insurance superintendent of New York state, calls them a “catastrophic enabler” of the dark forces that have swept through financial markets. Alan Greenspan, who used to be a cheerleader, has disowned them in “shocked disbelief”. ... [/QUOTE] CDSs, SIVs, mortgage backed securities, etc all existed or were perverted to enrich bankers and brokers; not to serve society.
Not defined in paragraph one, because you were already expected to know this. Those who promote corruption say the purpose of a company is profits. Honest purpose of any company is to serve mankind. Profits must only exist when it achieves its purpose. Otherwise a company (or its bankers) are corrupt.
We have a massive economic fiasco because deregulation openly encouraged the finance industry to enrich itself rather than serve society. How does a Merrill Lynch executive get $200million to bankrupt his company and leave? Welcome to an America now subverted to enrich so many who produce nothing - who get rich playing legalized ponzi schemes. Why are so many bankers permitted to play that game rather than serve society? Deregulation of the wrong industry. How many actually knew the purpose of a company (and its bankers)?
Using economic stimulus plans (throwing money at a problem) simply encouraged America to play money games rather than innovate. Economics will again take revenge. Intel announced a $1billion reduction of sales in the 4th quarter.
With a market reduction of 40%, I had assumed the market had finally found a new, lower, and realistic value for America. A reduction directly traceable to George Jr's "deficits don't matter" and "welfare to the rich" (ie the secret changing of tax laws at the start of October).
I may have been too optimistic. Numbers (even in home prices) suggested that America (and your pensions) should drop as much as 40%. Based upon this Intel revelation and what may happen tomorrow (Thursday), America's net worth value may drop again. Show me where the real problems have been addressed?
Welcome to what happens when your government does nothing to avert Enron accounting and to throw money at problems. Even GM has no restructuring plans for good reason. GM is queuing up early for even more government welfare rather than fire Rick Wagoner and use 70 horsepower per liter engines.
Tomorrow, the stock market will again ask, "How much is America really worth?" now that so many Americans are MBAs rather than people who do something productive and innovative.
I had hoped the market found a bottom. Since we have not done anything to attack problems - ie Enron style accounting - and while even Cisco and Intel sales have tanked - we will see tomorrow what happens when "Deficits don't matter".
Of course, Palin could have saved us - as if George Jr's praying for guidance averted all this. Tomorrow, we will ask how much of America's wealth disappeared before government starting handing out billions like it was candy. Has America been only 40% overvalued - or were spreadsheet lies even more egregious?
Soon to line up for free government money - boat building companies. Clearly we must save jobs.
First the Democrats in Congress Bail out the big corps, now they are going to bail out the Automakers, and the DNC has the balls to ask for people to send them money to reduce their debt from the election. Screw them.
First the Democrats in Congress Bail out the big corps, now they are going to bail out the Automakers,
This was Paulson's plan to save America. Now that TARP and $700billion has not solved anything, he is responding to Democratic calls (more stupidity) to bail out companies without any requirements to fix their problems. Did no one learn from 1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford? Even NPR tonight discussed the severe medicine that saved those companies. Does everyone still worship myths from the MBA schools?
"Ford to NYC: Drop Dead" - a headline on the NY Post that actually saved NYC. Why is this poster who some called a liberal, instead, such a hardass and more conservative than even our wacko conservatives? Maybe there wacko liberals and conservatives - and then others who deal in reality?
What has become apparent: Paulson's (a George Jr man) only plan was ill conceived (in a three page memo), was only supposed to be a temporary solution, and remains the only plan on the table. Why? He and Bernanke have no idea what to do. That realization is starting to scare the many and the markets.
This sudden revelation on Wall Street combined with Intel's hours old announcement may create but another massive sell off.
Oh. Last of the banks given special exemption (deregulation) by George Jr on equity requirements - both Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs - may need to concede. Neither appear to be solvent enough to become a commerical bank. That would mean all five investment banks, provided George Jr liberation from equity requirements, will disappear.
Just another example of economics taking revenge on a nation who let their leaders play money games - who said "deficits don't matter". As Warren Buffet said, the only [real] tax cut is one that cuts spending. We have yet to pay for that $1trillion war. And so our illustrious leaders spend more money than any Democrat ever did AND will now use more debts to pay for that bailout. The rooster has come home to ... shit? George Jr's legacy.
Notice another example promoted by MBAs. Drill, Drill, Drill. Notice that solution also completely ignored the problem. Welcome to Paulson's latest plan. It's getting scary again.
If only Palin replaced Cheney. Then all this would go away.
First the Democrats in Congress Bail out the big corps
Fuck you and your fucking revisionist history. I can appreciate an honest difference in opinions about how to best proceed to make this country better, but your blatant lies about this recent history are unforgivable.
The $700 billion dollar bailout was a
bipartisan plan devised primarily by Bush through his appointee Paulson and modified by Congress to gain the votes needed to pass it. Bush gave a speech begging Congress to support the
revised plan. And said he was "very disappointed" when they didn't at first. The Democrats and Republicans in the
House and
Senate passed it
together, and Bush quickly signed it into law the same day. You may hate the plan, but to say it is a Democrat only plan is a complete rewrite of history. You are a liar. Stop being one.
-----------------
For the record, Merc. Here's the time line:
September 29, 2008: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (H.R.3997) was introduced. This bill was a revision of the Bush/Paulson plan. In an early morning White House address, Bush urged lawmakers to pass this revised plan into law.
* Just before the vote, Pelosi made some partisan comments that some Republicans didn't like.
* The bill was defeated.
* The Republicans may not have had the votes anyway.
* As a result of the defeat, the DJIA dropped 777 points that day. White House spokesman said that Bush was "very disappointed."
*
October 1, 2008: The
Senate approved a revised measure, H.R.1424. 34
Republicans and 39 Democrats voted for it.
October 3, 2008: The
House approved H.R. 1424 on October 3, 2008. 91
Republicans and 171 Democrats voted for it. President Bush, a
Republican, quickly signed it into law the same day.
*I love this one. (see bold)
In October, I announced the creation of the Lt. Governor's Foreclosure Prevention Task Force to help Delaware homeowners deal with the growing foreclosure crisis in the state. ... helping as many Delawareans as possible keep their homes.
First, as outlined in the task force's Interim Report, we have secured almost $700,000 in additional funding for the DEMAP program, which helps homeowners who are facing foreclosure through no fault of their own.
Foreclosure Prevention website
Through no fault of their own. Like a truck came outta nowhere while they were sitting on the couch eating popcorn and crashed into
their den?
Why is it seen as alright to rescue big corporations and not everyday working people? Are their sins more forgivable or what?
Who said it was or wasn't?
Classic, didn't these banks and financial companies get into trouble 'through no fault of their own, too?
Not in my opinion, NOT AT ALL.
Not in my opinion, NOT AT ALL.
Two posts and nothing said.
1) Why is it seen as alright to rescue big corporations and not everyday working people?
2) Why did these banks and financial companies get into trouble 'through no fault of their own, too?
A major oppurtunity exists. Classicman would answer Pico and Me with a reply that does not waste bandwidth. There it is, classicman. His two questions. You consumed bandwidth with cheap shots. Now, what is your answer - which means you also post supporting facts. An answer with supporting facts - please fill us with your wisdom.
Classic, Im still confused...which questions were asked of me?
Post #287 - sorry singular
Oh, you mean your question for my question? Thats me being somewhat rhetorical. You seem to like jumping on the 'slam the little guy for his financial indiscretions' bandwagon, which just brought my question to mind. I responded to your question with post #288. Do you really need me to clarify that it wasn't you who 'said it'?
I have a major issue with giving these banks this corporate welfare and then not giving anything to the people on the front lines whose lives are more seriously affected by this mess. Not giving them help because it was 'their fault and bad decision making' when we are doing it for corporations is just plain sinister.
What we have here -
... is failure to communicate.
Again.
This is getting too cozy.
Why is it seen as alright to rescue big corporations and not everyday working people? Are their sins more forgivable or what?
Who said it was or wasn't?
Classic, didn't these banks and financial companies get into trouble 'through no fault of their own, too?
Not in my opinion, NOT AT ALL.
I have a major issue with giving these banks this corporate welfare and then not giving anything to the people on the front lines whose lives are more seriously affected by this mess. Not giving them help because it was 'their fault and bad decision making' when we are doing it for corporations is just plain sinister.
I agree with that. I never said anything to the contrary. It still sucks that those who are paying their mortgages and their taxes have to bail ANYONE out.
I think you took my quote out of context. I believe the lenders are at fault. I believe the politicians that passed the laws which forced lenders to offer loans to people who really didn't qualify are at fault and I think that the people who took out loans that they knew or should have known they couldn't afford are both at fault.
The reason(at least to my understanding) for the bail out is to ensure that the economy doesn't go into a crash that would rival 1929
I'm still of an opinion that this recession would have been relatively short (a couple years) and very hard if they didn't bail any organizations out. With the bailouts we're subsidizing organizations that need to fail, propping up housing prices that need to go down, and punishing savers in favor of the over-extended. This will likely be long and hard. I often wonder about the lessons we "learn" from history, was world war really the only way out of the Great Depression? Consider as well the re-writing that has been done in the meantime. Merc is hardly the first person to create and disseminate false history.
As presently constructed, the GOP is the party of business subsidy and the Dems are the party of individual subsidy. Neither is a party favoring responsibilty. At this point, I figure the best option is to go to work every day do my job and hope that Obama can find a middle way that doesn't create incentives for further nonsense.
That's a disconcerting point from Griff there. The great depression was a significant factor in causing WWII, and the eventual economic recovery was partly driven by the military spending of the 1930s.
So, ah, if this does turn out to be a very bad depression, does that mean we are going to have another big war in maybe a decade's time? Hope not!
So, ah, if this does turn out to be a very bad depression, does that mean we are going to have another big war in maybe a decade's time? Hope not!
I just read a headline in today's paper that said pretty much the same thing.
Experts See Security Risks in Downturn
Global Financial Crisis May Fuel Instability and Weaken U.S. Defenses
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 15, 2008; A01
Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats.
If absurd spending levels are the key, maybe we should go big into future tech like alternatve energy and space exploration instead of clinging to the 20th century junk.
I'd rather see that space exploration money spend on rebuilding our infrastructure, waste & water treatment, education, health care, the list goes on... :cool:
That's a disconcerting point from Griff there. The great depression was a significant factor in causing WWII, and the eventual economic recovery was partly driven by the military spending of the 1930s.
So, ah, if this does turn out to be a very bad depression, does that mean we are going to have another big war in maybe a decade's time? Hope not!
But who would be the 'new' Germany?
Why not Germany? Third time's the charm.
Who? Well, China, Russia or India are obvious contenders.
No wait, the UN is going to invade the USA. That's right. In 2012. Yes.
Not the UN, Canada.
You can't see them, but there up there all right. They think their geographically superior position makes, them better than us. Oh yes, all high and mighty with their kilometers, loonies & toonies, and red coats. Why they even taught many of their hordes, a secret language for the invasion. :worried:
They're gonna come and, steal your commas, you know, Bruce. (They'll send commandos for that!)
No wait - England! 300 years ago they claimed all of North America. One day they're gonna come and take it back!!!
Who? Well, China, Russia or India are obvious contenders.
Wolfovitz defined this for us. To keep America #1, we must be prepared to unilaterally attack India, Germany, or Russia. Why would the political agenda of America’s wacko extremists change?
If absurd spending levels are the key, maybe we should go big into future tech like alternatve energy and space exploration instead of clinging to the 20th century junk.
Meanwhile, where are $billions still being spend wastefully?
Everyone with basic technical knowledge knew hydrogen as a fuel was a myth. The numbers posted here how many years ago? But from the Washington Post of 15 Nov 2008:
Detroit Has Plans for Loans to Retool. First It Must Survive.
Many critics point to GM spending more than $1 billion on research on a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which would require an enormous infrastructure investment in refueling stations that isn't likely to take place. GM is still working on that program, though it has taken a back seat to the Volt.
Spent a $billion on something that is technically absurd (but is hyped by MBAs)? And still spending innovation money on things that can not be viable? Just another example of why another $25billion into a company now only worth $1.8 billion is obviously wasted money. And will always be wasted money as long as Rick Wagoner is GM's CEO.
I just read a headline in today's paper that said pretty much the same thing.
Quote:
Experts See Security Risks in Downturn
Global Financial Crisis May Fuel Instability and Weaken U.S. Defenses
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 15, 2008; A01
Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats.
No doubt, esp when Obama begins to cut the military budget. If there is a direct relationship between the cutting of the budget and a catostrophic terror attack it would be a pretty big monkey on his back that would detract from any good he had done up to that point.
No doubt, esp when Obama begins to cut the military budget. If there is a direct relationship between the cutting of the budget and a catostrophic terror attack it would be a pretty big monkey on his back that would detract from any good he had done up to that point.
Yeah the
$571,000,000,000 we spent turning Iraq from an isolated brutal dictatorship into a civil war and terrorist training ground has done wonders for our security. I certainly wouldn't want to see that budget cut.
Yeah the $571,000,000,000 we spent turning Iraq from an isolated brutal dictatorship into a civil war and terrorist training ground has done wonders for our security. I certainly wouldn't want to see that budget cut.
Sure, but I am not sure that taking $750,000,000 and giving it to large failing corps is doing much good either for our failing economy now. And of course this does not include the money we are sending to the CEO's, the planned amounts to send to the auto companies, and doubtless multitude of others queing up with their hands out.
And btw, the numbers game with the Iraq war are dubious.
anyone catch Kashkari getting the business? It was sweet, but could have been sweeter. They could have roughed him up a bit. Or just give him a whirlie. Guy is a disaster.
No doubt, esp when Obama begins to cut the military budget. If there is a direct relationship between the cutting of the budget and a catostrophic terror attack it would be a pretty big monkey on his back that would detract from any good he had done up to that point.
The Pentagon programs likely to be cut have no effect on our ability to fight terrorists. You don't need F-35s to stop truck bombs.
Suggestions.The Pentagon programs likely to be cut have no effect on our ability to fight terrorists. You don't need F-35s to stop truck bombs. Suggestions.
No doubt about that. But that is not where cuts are made, at least that is not what the Clinton model used. The big business interests are preserved because Congress controls the purse strings and they are not about to let down these perks and lobbiests. Obama seems to be leaning toward a number of Clinton era advisors. There is no reason to think that he and the dems in congress will not do the same. Troop strength will be cut. Overall cuts in troop strength diminish the pool of selectable troops needed for the more cream of the crop organizations.
Troop strength will increase by 70,000, the Governors want their National Guards back.
They will get them back, but that is hardly a relative increase. And just think, the state has not had to pay that bill for that time they are deployed.
Yeah, but they had to import illegals to landscape the Gov's mansion, with the Guard gone.
Yeah, but they had to import illegals to landscape the Gov's mansion, with the Guard gone.
Radar will be happy they have jobs. But now they will be out of work again.
Speaking of Illegals, we have noticed a huge decrease in their presence at the local areas where they stand around on the corners waiting for work. At one location there would be 30 - 40 per day in one place, now, none. Gone, poof. I think it has been related to the signifcant decrease in home building. Anyone else note a trend?
The Pentagon programs likely to be cut have no effect on our ability to fight terrorists. You don't need F-35s to stop truck bombs.
Military has an even bigger problem. Having massively increased spending, the ROI on that money has resulted in much less useful products. IEEE Spectrum recently had a major series on this problem. However that goes right back to a definition of quality. Throwing more money at something does not create more innovation and often results in less innovation.
Return to the lessons from Nam. Massive spending on a war that violates even basic military principles results in a smaller, weaker, and unaffordable military. Lessons from Nam apply to "Mission Accomplished" and the $1trillion bill that will be paid years from now. Monies spend in 1968+ resulted in a weaker military and massive job losses in the late 1970s. A fact that every informed American knew back when George Jr was blaming Saddam for 11 September and those mythical WMDs.
Spending $700million on an F-22 that cannot even support ground troops? What kind of military is that? One that is getting ready to fight an alien invasion from Mars? Well we started it by littering their planet. Or is that one preparing to unilaterally attack (Pearl Harbor) India, Germany or Russia?
George Jr wanted to increase the military budget from $400billion to almost $1trillion annually. After all, under George Jr, we were making enemies everywhere. Maybe a smarter America would invest in solving problems by diplomacy. But then means one talks to everyone - especially enemies existing and potential.
How much did military spending spending help to keep the charade of the economy going and mask the reality while prolonging the inevitable? Did it come up just months short? What if this meltdown hadn't happened till after the election? I wonder how that would have affected the outcome.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Saturday that Congress was not told the truth about the bailout of the nation's financial system and should take back what is left of the $700 billion "blank check'' it gave the Bush administration.
"It is just outrageous that the American people don't know that Congress doesn't know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone,'' the Oklahoma Republican told the Tulsa World.
"It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don't know. There is no way of knowing.''
Last week the Treasury secretary announced he was abandoning his plan to free up the nation's credit system by buying up toxic assets from troubled financial institutions. Instead, Paulson wants to take a more direct action on the consumer credit front.
"He was able to get this authority from Congress predicated on what he was going to do, and then he didn't do it,'' Inhofe said.
"I have learned a long time ago. When they come up and say this has to be done and has to be done immediately, there is no other way of doing it, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of 10 they are not telling the truth,'' he said.
"And this is one of those nine times.''
Here it comes.
Goldman Sachs just announced that six top executives would "forgo" their $67million per person bonuses. Why is this significant? Because no other 'on government welfare' companies announced same. Meanwhile, Goldman will still pay something less than $1billion in bonuses to other employees. Thank god we rescued those bonuses.
I read that too, I thought there would be some early adopters to follow their lead. None as of yet though.
AIG is planning on doling out over $600 million in "delayed compensation" to it's people right after the first of the year. They said this isn't bailout money, this is money they had set aside for this. :mad:
So many years ago, I pointed to the AIG building in lower Manhatten and told the National Park Service cop why that is a company I was waiting to go under. This may have been in 2004.
When GM has no profits, its unions get no Christmas bonuses. But its management does. When AIG puts $1trillion at risk, why does anyone in AIG get bonuses? The reasoning? If they don't get that bonus, then they cannot afford to live in NYC.
By getting no $67million bonus, top GS executives must suffer poverty - only $600,000 this year. So we would even blame the unions?
Lee Iacocca - a product oriented thinker - took only $1 per year at Chrysler until Chrysler was profitable. Bean counters educated in business schools would never do that. Their compensation is more important than their job.
More examples of deregulation. From the Washington Post of 23 Nov 2008:
Banking Regulator Played Advocate Over Enforcer
Agency Let Lenders Grow Out of Control, Then Fail
The benefits were clear: Countrywide's new regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, promised more flexible oversight of issues related to the bank's mortgage lending. For OTS, which depends on fees paid by banks it regulates and competes with other regulators to land the largest financial firms, Countrywide was a lucrative catch.
But OTS was not an effective regulator. This year, the government has seized three of the largest institutions regulated by OTS, including IndyMac Bancorp, Washington Mutual -- the largest bank in U.S. history to go bust -- and on Friday evening, Downey Savings and Loan Association. The total assets of the OTS thrifts to fail this year: $355.7 billion. Three others were forced to sell to avoid failure, including Countrywide. ...
OTS is responsible for regulating thrifts, also known as savings and loans, which focus on mortgage lending. As the banks under OTS supervision expanded high-risk lending, the agency failed to rein in their destructive excesses despite clear evidence of mounting problems, according to banking officials and a review of financial documents. ...
In 2004, the year that risky loans called option adjustable-rate mortgages took off, then-OTS director James Gilleran lauded the banks for their role in providing home loans. "Our goal is to allow thrifts to operate with a wide breadth of freedom from regulatory intrusion," he said in a speech. ...
In the summer of 2003, leaders of the four federal agencies that oversee the banking industry gathered to highlight the Bush administration's commitment to reducing regulation. They posed for photographers behind a stack of papers wrapped in red tape. The others held garden shears. Gilleran, who succeeded Seidman as OTS director in late 2001, hefted a chain saw. ...
Gilleran was an impassioned advocate of deregulation. ... The result was a mismatch between a short-handed agency and a burgeoning thrift industry. ... He also reduced consumer protections. ...
Here it comes.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Saturday that Congress was not told the truth about the bailout of the nation's financial system and should take back what is left of the $700 billion "blank check'' it gave the Bush administration.
Karma is such a bitch.
Re: merc's new sig.under his handle----sure glad you're not bitter, merc.
:D not bitter at all!
More examples of deregulation.
The
first example presented. Well done. Congrats to the WaPo for finding it, two months into the crisis.
Re: merc's new sig.under his handle----sure glad you're not bitter, merc.
:D not bitter at all!
All in good fun. :D
Pico is still trying to figure out what it means.;)
LOL
Oh no Merc, I figured it out. You are a poser. You like to throw around derogatory terms in your posts even though you cant back them up.
:D
Must be a nice view from up there Pico.
Yeah, she can see your comb-over : sniggers: .
The first example presented.
The fact that The Economist was even quoted blaming deregulation - even used the word deregulation - and then The Economist provideds examples? Somehow that was not an example?
Must be a nice view from up there Pico.
I asked a simple question but neither one of you wanted to answer it. Theres nothing holier-than-thou about it.
:eyebrow:
Awww maaaaaaan. This is why I said forget about it.
From the Washington Post of 24 Nov 2008:
Government Would Help Embattled Citigroup Under Plan
Citigroup, with $2 trillion in assets, is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and is connected through various transactions with virtually every other significant financial institution. Government officials believe that if it were to go under in a disorderly way, it would create massive problems around the world.
Only a day earlier, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said the banking industry had been stablized. Enron accounting is so rampant that even one day later, the largest institution is on the verge.
Shares of Citigroup closed Friday trading for only $3.77, down 60 percent over the week, ...
Paulson has not a clue. Meanwhile, the solution to this was obvious in 2001 according to that previously quoted Washington Post article. Instead we made it worse. We deregulated people who must be heavily regulated.
Must be a nice view from up there Pico.
Yea, we look up and see nothing but assholes. Good job Pinko.
You're full of shit Merc. You know you wouldnt answer my question, why does that make me an asshole?
You're full of shit Merc. You know you wouldnt answer my question, why does that make me an asshole?
Hey look! a talking asshole!
Damn, you are a jerk. You get mean when you get pinned.
Damn, you are a jerk. You get mean when you get pinned.
And you are a whiney cunt when you get had. Hey all is fair in love and war.
I just don't feel like getting into Pico - I apologize for my offhand uncalled for remark. I dislike some of what Soros stands for and don't think its a great idea for him to be involved. Instead of getting into it all, I decided to drop it.
I just don't feel like getting into Pico.
Yea, sounds totally risky..
I didnt get had.
You got served.
Bye Bye now Merc. Since you are so ready to be insulting, I dont need to read you anymore.
I didnt get had.
You got served.
Bye Bye now Merc. Since you are so ready to be insulting, I dont need to read you anymore.
Crushed... totally crushed I am. Not. You are the insulting one. Can't take what you give out. Sorry. Not my problem. Just put me on ignore so I don't need to belive you exist.
Yea, sounds totally risky..
Nope. I'm too busy to do the homework properly and its unfair of me to not back up what I'm saying - I don't like it when its done to me or anyone else. So there.
Hate is routine when one is a wacko extremist. TheMercenary demonstrates how those with minimal education promote themselves by being offensive and condescending:
Hey look! a talking asshole!
And you are a whiney cunt when you get had. Hey all is fair in love and war.
Rut ro... don't tell pinko!
Did twweeny comment. I have no idea what it posted.
You are the insulting one. Can't take what you give out. Sorry. Not my problem. Just put me on ignore so I don't need to belive you exist.
Yea, we look up and see nothing but assholes. Good job Pinko.
Why a chain of demeaning insults? Even a dumb wacko extremist cannot deny that being naive and blindly loyal to an intellectual bankrupt political agenda was wrong. This nation will suffer over the next ten years because of agendas that only the offensive would promote. With minimal education, his only defense in the Cellar is to routinely post disparaging remarks. Above are his latest posts to hurt others who have only posted honest and accurately.
TheMercenary is a classic example of those who support George Jr. Offensive comments about others is acceptable because hate promotes the wacko extremism inspired by intolerant conservatism. That is who the TheMercenary is.
Merc - you have decided to stop subverting the Cellar when you have posted a Cellar wide apology to Pico and Me.
Of course, I don't expect you to say why you are so demeaning. That would require sufficient grasp. To admit that hate is openly encouraged by your political handlers - Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. The Cellar can tolerate naivity. But your constant degrading comments, obviously acceptable where you live with routine profanity, is not acceptable where others bothered to get educated.
You owe Pico and Me an apology for doing what wacko extremism openly encourages.
What did he say, I have him ignore. If a tw speaks in the forest does it exist?
I just don't feel like getting into Pico - I apologize for my offhand uncalled for remark. I dislike some of what Soros stands for and don't think its a great idea for him to be involved. Instead of getting into it all, I decided to drop it.
Thank you Classic, I appreciate your class.
What did he say, I have him ignore. If a tw speaks in the forest does it exist?
You are quoting Shakespeare again - right? Again demonstrating your wealth of earned knowledge. And justifying attacks on Pico and Me.
No wonder you worship George Jr and massacring American soldiers in "Mission Accomplished". TheMercenary having called their deaths, "Glorious."
I hear the whisper of the wind but no wind blows....
"Whatever, Psychos!"---MTP, some recent thread.
And good advice it is.
PS
Just so everyone knows: MERC IS NOT CRUSHED ABOUT THE ELECTION!
We can now ignore the wacko extremist's attack on others, and return to topic and problem. The numbers. Citigroup has maybe $2trillion in obligations. AIG only had $1trillion. Whereas we once thought the investment banks would harm the economy, well, future (and not yet seen) damage will be even greater. Citigroup now needs a second government lifeline.
This is a complete shock even to me. Citigroups was once considered a more responsible financial firm which suggests how deep George Jr's deregulation has created economic cancer.
The entire world wealth measured something over $70trillion. According to Bloomberg, the US Treasury has provided corporate welfare amounting to $7trillion. This from a government that had chalked up record deficits because Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" (he still will not admit to any mistakes).
Well, someone must still provide money for that new $7trillion debt. We have yet to start selling off America and taking second jobs to pay for that new debt.
Put $7trillion into perspective. The S&L crisis that so harmed American during the days of the Keating Seven - that shocking bailout was only $0.22 billion with symptoms such as the 1987 stock market crash. Deregulation created that economic mess and harmed the American economy. Today's numbers say that is next to nothing - trivial. $7 trillion on top of a $1 trillion "Mission Accomplished" on top of massive debt obligations also imposed by George Jr and massive debts made worse by tax cuts to the rich and 50% of American companies not even paying any incoming taxes.
By the numbers, what a mess. And we still don't know how many more companies have Enron style balance sheets - will be in line for government bailouts.
We have no reason to believe the bottom is yet in sight. One study using 1929 as an analytical basis says a bottom will occur when stocks have dropped by 80% of their 2007 value. That's additional $7trillion of Treasury debt we must get by selling America and no longer having those profits from the newly foreign own capital earning real estate, intellectual assets, and equipment.
At this point we have no grasp how severe our economic damage is due to George Jr and legalized money games.
Put $7trillion into perspective.
more than the output of the entire US last year.
One study using 1929 as an analytical basis says a bottom will occur when stocks have dropped by 80% of their 2007 value.
Don't get carried away there tw - What were the default rates and jobless percentages in '29? You know that this is not a realistic comparison...
Don't get carried away there tw - What were the default rates and jobless percentages in '29? You know that this is not a realistic comparison...
This is one analyst projection by associating percentages and chart characteristics to those in 1929. Neither I nor the analysts says it is correct. He is simply noting similar trends AND therefore a possible scenario. Meanwhile, when everyone was saying they had never seen anything this bad (in late October), well it has already gotten much worse then anybody thought even back then. Those who have predicted the worst are now accused of being too optimistic. Reasons why are discussed in another thread called "How the GAME is played."
If I read another prediction correctly, Obama is talking about the need for another $700billion TARP. And this is no longer for buying up bad assets. That Paulson strategy has even been abandon by Paulson.
Bottom line remains. We have invented massive assets that really never existed. Then enriched those who invented these fictions. Now those assets have vaporized leaving massive debt obligations. Who will provide that money? Well, the best American allies (ie Saudis) have put up some. But few will loan us money due to mythical America accounting standards. So, the government must issue corporate welfare in various forms, then the government can get foreigners to provide that cash.
Few other American financial institutions can be trusted anymore. You will see foreigners putting up circuit breakers to protect the world from American MBA games. Paulson is creating massive government debts, then gives that money to American companies with the biggest hands out.
Time to be fair was back when wacko extremists were saying, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." It was obvious back then only to a few how often George Jr was lying. Time to pay for not paying attention. Except it is worse than even the worst projections - and then last week got even worse again.
Worst part - there is no certainty. Even the most negative predictions have become too optimistic.
I must have missed where you answered my question about the default rates and jobless percentages in '29 compared to today? They are straightforward questions one must know the answers to before drawing any similarities or basing conclusions upon. I'm actually surprised that you didn't know this before basing an argument on that which may or may not be true. One must first know the facts before drawing any conclusions. Since you failed to provide any supporting evidence upon which you were basing your argument in post , I'll do it for you.
~Mortgage defaults in the United States were in the 50% range as compared to the current rate of approx. 10%.
~Additionally, the unemployment rate reached nearly 25% during the Great Depression compared to 6.5% for the month ending in October 2008.
~Bank failures were also at 20%.
~The stock market lost 89% of its value from its peak during the Great Depression.
~ Industrial production fell by nearly 45% between the years 1929 and 1932.
~ Home-building dropped by 80% between the years 1929 and 1932.
~ From the years 1929 to 1932, about 5000 banks went out of business.
Contrast that with figures from across the pond. Glasgow experienced 30% unemployment whilst in Newcastle the major industry of ship building fell by 90% and unemployment rose to 70%.
Just a final perspective - The stock market from '29 - 32 reached a high of $381.17 and fell to a low of $41.22.
Are there similarities, yes. Is it going to happen again - doubtful. IS this all GWB's fault? Absolutely not. Did he make matters worse, yes. There is more than enough blame to go around and it started long before him.
I must have missed where you answered my question about the default rates and jobless percentages in '29 compared to today?
Obviously we are not at the 80% drop of the stock market, the 50% mortgage default, the 25% unemployment rate, etc. That was his point. All those factors in 1929 - and we were currently on the same path for all those adverse numbers. Did I say the stock market had hit the bottom yet? Obviously not.
His projection using 1929 suggests how much worse things could get.
Damm we have a 25% unemployment rate? really?
Don't we have a few more options now than we had then to prevent that?
Damm we have a 25% unemployment rate? really?
No. :headshake
You are quoting Shakespeare again - right? Again demonstrating your wealth of earned knowledge. And justifying attacks on Pico and Me.
Would that be Pico and Me and me? Just askin... as you were or are or ...
Without joining either side of this argument I'd like to point out that 6.5% today is similar to 12-13% during the great depression due to the fact that 1 person losing their job generally meant one family out of work while 1 person losing their job today generally means one half of one family losing their job.
No it isn't scientifical but it is worth thinking about when comparing raw numbers.
Without joining either side of this argument I'd like to point out that 6.5% today is similar to 12-13% during the great depression due to the fact that 1 person losing their job generally meant one family out of work while 1 person losing their job today generally means one half of one family losing their job.
No it isn't scientifical but it is worth thinking about when comparing raw numbers.
It seems to me you got those numbers reversed. 4 people would have to lose their jobs today to equal 2 people losing their jobs in the 30's.
Hmmm. 6.5% today means 6.5% of american workers. In 1929 typically the man worked, woman stayed home so each family only had one worker... so 6.5% of workers doubled would would have the effect of 12-13% unemployment in 1929. IF what we are actually looking at is how many families are without income.
Right? Or did I completely screw that up - I'm bad at that kind of thing.
That thinking would change the % of families without income, but not the % of total workers without income. Still it is an interesting dynamic when comparing the two generations. And you would think that it means that fewer households are actually in peril. However, I wonder how many households have two incomes just to survive...to get the bills paid. Losing one of those incomes would hurt many families, putting them on or below the poverty line. For instance, I only have a part-time job. Losing my husbands income would cause a lot of distress.
Certainly families are at peril, but consider the difference. In 1929 if Bob lost his job and Judy was already a stay at home mom there was ZERO income to buy food and pay the mortgage/rent. In 2008 if Bob loses his job and Judy still has hers life gets shitty but they can probably still eat and pay the rent.
Do we (well, you) have 25% unemployment?
There are two "correct" answers:
(1) No.
(2) Not yet. Which was what I think TW's source was getting at.
I doubt it will go that high. One of the effects of the depression was to make governments realise that they could, and sometimes should, interfere to keep the economy going. Keynes and all that.
However, I wonder how many households have two incomes just to survive...to get the bills paid.
For all the stuff they couldn't really afford in the first place?
Certainly families are at peril, but consider the difference. In 1929 if Bob lost his job and Judy was already a stay at home mom there was ZERO income to buy food and pay the mortgage/rent. In 2008 if Bob loses his job and Judy still has hers life gets shitty but they can probably still eat and pay the rent.
Not if the had an ARM that just went up. Some of them can't afford the increase with both of them working.
They may not be able afford the mortgage but they can afford the rent on something else. owning a home is not a right. life sucks, but that's the way it goes.
No. :headshake
Forgot my /sarc/ tags.
Interesting commentary:
Bailout costs more than Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, moonshot, S&L bailout, Korean War, New Deal, Iraq war, Vietnam war, and NASA's lifetime budget -- *combined*!
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/11/25/bailout-costs-more-t.htmlFor all the stuff they couldn't really afford in the first place?
BIG assumption there Classic. Do you know any families where both parents are working a minimum wage job? I do, and they dont have a lot.
They may not be able afford the mortgage but they can afford the rent on something else. owning a home is not a right. life sucks, but that's the way it goes.
Agreed.
Overview
[youtube]bbHbaqMo_OI[/youtube]
Conspiracy Theory
[youtube]DTZY5TFt0aw[/youtube]
BIG assumption there Classic. Do you know any families where both parents are working a minimum wage job? I do, and they dont have a lot.
Then they probably couldn't afford a home either. The situation as you described it is exactly what I've been referring to. How exactly can a household with two people making minimum wage think they can buy a house and maintain the payments? Especially if they got into one with an ARM.
They can't and they shouldn't have. It is all about living within your means. I sure the left-wing nuts will try to come up with some reason why it is someone elses's fault and now the government should save them.
They can't and they shouldn't have. It is all about living within your means.
They can't and they shouldn't have. So the system once upon a time vetted all such loan applications. Bankers and loan officers where never suppose to offer loans to people who could not afford them. Deregulation. NINJA. Now anybody can get a loan because the finance industry decided that responsible mortgage offerings were no longer their responsibility. And when all those mortgages go bust, those same finance industry bankers and loan companies then go running to the government crying, "But it was not our responsibility."
Deregulation. Nobody need be responsible anymore. NINJA - what once could never happen in any bank or loan institution. How curious. Same deregulation also resulted in the Saving and Loan crisis and the "we will never make that mistake again" $220billion bailout. We blamed the irresponsible bankers for making that mess. Why not today? Everyone knows those bankers and mortgage companies are always the good guys. Rush Limbaugh now tells us how to think.
If a home owner takes out a mortgage that he cannot afford, he only has himself and a system that is suppose to protect him to blame. But then bankers put thousands of NINJA mortgages out there that completely undermine the system, do we still blame the homeowner? Of course not. Just like during the S&L crisis, we blame the people who created this mess - no matter what Rush Limbaugh says.
They can't and they shouldn't have. So the system once upon a time vetted all such loan applications. Bankers and loan officers where never suppose to offer loans to people who could not afford them. Deregulation. NINJA. Now anybody can get a loan because the finance industry decided that responsible mortgage offerings were no longer their responsibility. And when all those mortgages go bust, those same finance industry bankers and loan companies then go running to the government crying, "But it was not our responsibility."
Deregulation. Nobody need be responsible anymore. NINJA - what once could never happen in any bank or loan institution. How curious. Same deregulation also resulted in the Saving and Loan crisis and the "we will never make that mistake again" $220billion bailout. We blamed the irresponsible bankers for making that mess. Why not today? Everyone knows those bankers and mortgage companies are always the good guys. Rush Limbaugh now tells us how to think.
If a home owner takes out a mortgage that he cannot afford, he only has himself and a system that is suppose to protect him to blame. But then bankers put thousands of NINJA mortgages out there that completely undermine the system, do we still blame the homeowner? Of course not. Just like during the S&L crisis, we blame the people who created this mess - no matter what Rush Limbaugh says.
What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with it? Everyone gets a piece of the shit pie, estp the wantabe homeowners who now have ruined their credit for many years to come, getting in to an ARM hoping the markets never changed for the worse. No plan when it did.
What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with it?
If you are going to recite what Limbaugh says, at least give him credit for repeating the mantra.
If you are going to recite what Limbaugh says, at least give him credit for repeating the mantra.
You think I am reciting Limbaugh? You must listen to him on a regular basis because I have no idea what you are talking about. At least get your facts straight.
They can't and they shouldn't have. It is all about living within your means. I sure the left-wing nuts will try to come up with some reason why it is someone elses's fault and now the government should save them.
They can't and they shouldn't have. So the system once upon a time vetted all such loan applications. Bankers and loan officers where never suppose to offer loans to people who could not afford them. Deregulation. NINJA. Now anybody can get a loan because the finance industry decided that responsible mortgage offerings were no longer their responsibility.
If a home owner takes out a mortgage that he cannot afford, he only has himself and a system that is suppose to protect him to blame. But then bankers put thousands of NINJA mortgages out there that completely undermine the system, do we still blame the homeowner? Of course not. Just like during the S&L crisis, we blame the people who created this mess
I believe it was Clinton who, as stated repeatedly in other threads, started the ball rolling with the dream of "everyone should own a home. There were further decisions by Bush which further exacerbated the problem, but this is simply not all Bush's fault. Nor is it so simple as "deregulation." Greed and an expectation of businesses to have a higher moral standing instead of just going after the almighty dollar have a great deal to do with this. These are simply facts - no matter how many bad decisions Bush has made, you simply cannot lay all this on him. Congress also has a great deal of the responsibility. They all got rich and more powerful off these companies.
Deregulation. Nobody need be responsible anymore.
Of course not. Just like during the S&L crisis, we blame the people who created this mess - no matter what Rush Limbaugh says.
Good, so we agree it is the fault of the Dems and Clinton. I am with you.
This guy never ceases to crack me up.
Zawahiri blames global financial crisis on 9/11 in latest al-Qaeda video
Al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has said in a new internet video that the international financial crisis is the result of a US war on Muslims and the Sept 11 attacks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3533079/Zawahiri-blames-global-financial-crisis-on-911-in-latest-al-Qaeda-video.htmlWell, a huge deficit funded spending spree on destructive consumption rather than creative/productive investment probably was a contributing factor. Not the only one though, the bloke does have delusions of grandeur.
Please show your math and how this lead to a break down of the lending system, the mortgage crisis, and a real estate bubble. Where is the connection? Other than the bottom line deficit the two were not related IMHO.
What is this "math" you speak of? ;)
As I said, a contributing factor. I'm not saying it caused everything.
Other than our deficit, which is astronomicallyjupiterproprotionally out of this universe, I don't see who it contributed.
Deficit spending for the WOT inflated the number of dollars in the system. That created a push to find clever ways to invest those dollars because conservative investments probably wouldn't keep up with inflation. Easy money is the fundamental problem at the heart of this whole mess, which apparently now is to be solved with easier money. :eyeroll:
I don't agree. Deficit spending for the WOT went to a very narrow number of industries. It was not the source for America's new found wealth. Easy money came from the lenders, not from governmental deficit spending on The WOT. Easy money came from lending practices and a desire to get money out there at any cost. More people became eligible to buy, many whom should not have, and lent money flooded the market. Many more buyer drove up the prices and greed and competition met on the real estate market place. The hyper-over inflated home values plus the new lent money created the bubble. None of this has anything to do with money from the The WOT. As we know the majority of those billions was poured into the Middle East where it went down a black hole.
I don't agree. Deficit spending for the WOT went to a very narrow number of industries.
The money didn't magically disappear after it was spent. By WOT, I mean the original definition where supposedly the Iraq war was part of it.
The money didn't magically disappear after it was spent. By WOT, I mean the original definition where supposedly the Iraq war was part of it.
But it didn't pour into the market place either, infusing the economy with new found wealth. A narrow number of people and industry got rich, the rest disappeared into the pockets of the Middle East.
I'd be interested in seeing a money trail on that, if it were even possible. [shrug] I also left out the easy money policies of Al Greenspan, which were supposed to save asia.
Me too. There were many trails where where there was no path. People who had duffle bags of taxpayer money, in cash, to pay the way to an end at the wim of the sargent in charge. Hundreds of thousands of dollars used to grease the palms to get things done. It is gone forever.
The real money was in men and material not goofy black ops.
I agree with Griff. True, there was a large amount of cash used in Afghanistan, but much, much more went to US industries, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton etc. And those lucky few who got rich then spent some of it on consumer goods and services within the US.
But, as a wishy-washy wimp, I also acknowledge a lot of truth in Merc's point: there were a lot of factors that had little or nothing to do with the WOT.
Editorial
Bailing Away
The federal government is going for broke in an attempt to avert the type of calamitous financial collapse that led to the Great Depression. No one would fault the objective, but throwing money at the problem is becoming an end in itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30sun1.htmlWASHINGTON -- The Treasury Department has failed to address a number of critical issues while implementing the $700 billion financial rescue plan, including how to ensure its efforts are successful, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday.
The report, which was required by the legislation authorizing the rescue plan, said Treasury has yet to figure out how to make sure financial firms receiving billions of dollars of federal funds comply with limits on executive compensation and dividend payments. (Read the full report.)
On a more basic level, the Treasury's efforts to establish "an effective management structure and an essential system of internal control" are incomplete, the report said.
"Without a strong oversight and monitoring function, Treasury's ability to help ensure an appropriate level of accountability and transparency will be limited," the report said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122824907384873263.htmlOn a more basic level, the Treasury's efforts to establish "an effective management structure and an essential system of internal control" are incomplete, the report said.
"Without a strong oversight and monitoring function, Treasury's ability to help ensure an appropriate level of accountability and transparency will be limited," the report said.
Lemme see if I get this... We have no plan implemented to oversee that the monies are spent properly, so we decided to give the money out anyway and worry about that later.
Correct. According to the GAO, the money is being given out without adequate oversight on how it is being spent.
This thread should be read in conjunction with the welfare thread.
It is only what we deserve after electing politicians willing to fall for the "we need this package done right now or the economy will collapse" BS that was spun. $700B given out with no firm plan in place. $700B given out with no oversight on the distribution. $700B given out because a lot of people made bad choices and didn't like the consequences. $700B given out because some only pay lip service to the free market. $700B given out which will only make the hole deeper.
BS. Every last penny of it. The $700B isn't meant to prevent to AIG, Citi, the Big 3, etc. fail... it is proof that they've already failed and they just want the taxpayer to pick up the pieces so they can keep their doors open. Good companies don't fail. Bad companies do. Bad companies should be forced to face the consequences of bad management. They either close the doors (only the strong survive) or they are taken over by stronger companies (only the strong survive). Bailouts only encourage poor companies to continue being poor companies.
BS. Every last penny of it. The $700B isn't meant to prevent to AIG, Citi, the Big 3, etc. fail... it is proof that they've already failed and they just want the taxpayer to pick up the pieces so they can keep their doors open. Good companies don't fail. Bad companies do. Bad companies should be forced to face the consequences of bad management. They either close the doors (only the strong survive) or they are taken over by stronger companies (only the strong survive). Bailouts only encourage poor companies to continue being poor companies.
Here, here! Well stated.
:beer:
Citi is raising the APR on accounts of those with A++ credit to 19.99%
My dad just received a very "uniquely" phrased letter from citi. He let my sister use his CC to buy her truck a couple years ago. Fixed 3% for the life of the loan. That is the only purchase ever made on the card and she only has about a year left to pay on it. The letter is confusing but once it is deciphered it basically says we want to raise your rate to 12%. Yeah, we agreed on 3% but we need more money. If you don't agree with us raising your rates you have to let us know in writing. If you don't want us to change the rate we won't let you use the card for future purchases. Funny.
DETROIT (AP) - Worried about their jobs and warned that the cost of failure could be a depression, hundreds of leaders of the United Auto Workers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to make concessions to the struggling Detroit Three, including all but ending a much-derided program that let laid-off workers collect up to 95 percent of their salaries.
"Everybody has to give a little bit," said Rich Bennett, an official for Local 122 in Twinsburg, Ohio, representing Chrysler workers. "We've made concessions. We really feel we're doing our part."
Union leaders also agreed to let the cash-starved automakers delay billions of dollars in payments to a union-administered trust set to take over health care for blue-collar retirees starting in 2010.
In addition, they decided to let the Detroit leadership begin renegotiating elements of landmark contracts signed with the automakers last year, a move that could lead to wage concessions.
Bout friggin time! The see the reality now that enough people are fed up with this situation and are re4ady to let the big three fail and start from scratch. Guess they realize that its better let a little go now than a whole lot later.
GM may pull plug on Saturn
GM officials say options include overhauling the lineup, partnering with another carmaker, selling the brand and, potentially, sending Saturn off to the junkyard.
GM's Swedish luxury brand Saab might also be sold, and Pontiac could be transformed into a "niche" brand inside other dealerships.
But the decision to consider pulling the plug on Saturn, the agile little start-up that GM developed to reinvent the way it produced and sold cars, is a bitter reminder of just how deep the automaker's troubles run.
One down, two or three more to go.
"But the decision to consider pulling the plug on Saturn, the agile little start-up that GM developed to reinvent the way it produced and sold cars, is a bitter reminder of just how deep the automaker's troubles run."
WOW. If anything had value to be sold off I would think it would be Saturn. They certainly have a better rep than Pontiac or most other GM cars. I just can't believe that someone out there would not be interested in scooping that up.
Big Three Spending Millions On Lobbying
(CBS) As Congress mulls over a bailout for U.S. automakers, some may be thinking about more than jobs and the economy.
The auto industry spent nearly $50 million lobbying Congress in the first nine months of this year.
And people tied to the auto industry gave another $15 million in campaign contributions, CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.
Sen. Carl Levin, received $438,304 from the automotive industry.
Rep. Joe Knollenberg received $879,327.
Rep. John Dingell got nearly a million from the industry. All have enjoyed generous support from the auto industry over their careers, with GM and Ford as their two top contributors.
All support a bailout.
But nobody's been a bigger advocate for Motor City interests than Dingell. And for him, the stakes aren't just political, they're personal.
"There's an actual conflict," said Ryan Alexander of the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "His personal financial health, you know, the wealth of his family is tied up in the car industry."
Dingell's wife Debbie once worked as a lobbyist for GM.
When she married the congressman, she became a senior GM executive at an undisclosed salary. And we found the couple has extensive GM assets.
Dingell's current financial disclosure filed in May lists GM stock worth up to $350,000, options worth up to $1 million more, and a GM pension fund. In 2000, among the Dingells' GM assets were stock options worth up to $5 million.
Bout time someone started calling these guys out - I wonder who else is tied in with al this. I'm sure there have to be some R's too.
Put 'em all on report, Jim!
From the NY Times of 3 Dec 2008:
With Saturn, G.M. Failed a Makeover
“I’m absolutely convinced that the Saturn way could have worked,” said Michael Bennett, the original U.A.W. leader at Saturn. “But what we had was never embraced or adopted.” ...
Mr. Bennett blamed a lack of interest by G.M. executives who succeeded Roger Smith, who as chief executive in the 1980s committed $5 billion to begin Saturn.
But those who followed him — including John F. Smith Jr., who became chief executive in 1992, and G.M.’s current chief executive, Rick Wagoner, who ran its North American operations in the 1990s — had bigger worries.
They had to lead the company through the financial turbulence at G.M. in the early 1990s. And with managers at G.M.’s other, older brands begging for investment, G.M. executives declared Saturn would have to prove it deserved more support, even though its small cars were accomplishing their main goal of winning buyers from imports.
Despite G.M.’s pledge that Saturn would be run as a separate company, with its own car development and purchasing operations, it was folded into G.M.’s small-car operations in 1994, and its lineup did not receive any new models for the next five years.
Saturn's success is directly traceable to significant independence from GM's MBA corporate executives. Once that independence was lost, Saturn began dying as quickly as all other GM division. Just another example of why GM's #1 problem centers on Rick Wagoner.
Last I heard, GM repeatedly promises a new product for Spring Hill TN (the famous Saturn plant) and then takes it away. Another symptom of an MBA boss - indecision.
My dad just received a very "uniquely" phrased letter from citi. He let my sister use his CC to buy her truck a couple years ago. Fixed 3% for the life of the loan. That is the only purchase ever made on the card and she only has about a year left to pay on it. The letter is confusing but once it is deciphered it basically says we want to raise your rate to 12%. Yeah, we agreed on 3% but we need more money. If you don't agree with us raising your rates you have to let us know in writing. If you don't want us to change the rate we won't let you use the card for future purchases. Funny.
Since this does need a reply, I'm left wondering how the sentiments of "go fuck yourselves" are best expressed in legal jargon.
That's standard procedure for all the cards I've had. When they decide to jack the interest rate, the first time you use the card, the interest rate goes up on the unpaid balance. Doesn't bother me because I never pay any interest.
This time is a bit different though. This isn't one of the small print disclosures they expect you to simply ignore and throw away. This is a full on formal letter asking him to give them written and explicit permission to change his existing rate regardless of future use. Pretty funny really considering he doesn't and won't ever use the card.
This time is a bit different though. This isn't one of the small print disclosures they expect you to simply ignore and throw away. This is a full on formal letter asking him to give them written and explicit permission to change his existing rate regardless of future use. Pretty funny really considering he doesn't and won't ever use the card.
I would have to tell them to fuck off. No change in the rate.
he told them he likes his current rate and doesn't need future borrowing privileges. they chose not to close his available credit anyway.
Auto bailout could be tied to gov't-run overhaul
WASHINGTON (AP) - The government would order a major restructuring of Detroit's struggling Big Three auto companies in exchange for a multibillion-dollar bailout under a plan circulating in Congress.
Skeptical lawmakers are weighing whether to dole out as much as $34 billion in aid to the automakers as the once-mighty companies make their second round of pleas for government help to keep them from collapsing by year's end and potentially deepening an already painful recession.
With several lawmakers in both parties pressing them to consider a pre-negotiated bankruptcy - something they have consistently shunned - members of Congress and the Big Three both were contemplating a government-run restructuring that would yield similar results, including massive downsizing and labor givebacks.
U.S. auto executives were appearing before the House Financial Services Committee for the second time to outline their plans for staying afloat with a government infusion.
The rescue, though, was facing fresh obstacles in Congress, with lawmakers still unconvinced they should support yet another bailout and congressional officials saying a leading proposal for helping the carmakers wouldn't come close to covering the cost.
"We're looking at a death sentence" for the auto companies, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Senate Banking Committee chairman, said Thursday, pledging to try to help the Big Three. He quickly added, "I'm not a miracle worker and no one here is."
Finding the money was proving to be an uphill battle. Congressional budget analysts said one leading proposal - to use an already approved fund set aside for making cars environmentally efficient - would provide just $7.5 billion - a fraction of what General Motors Corp. (GM), Ford Motor Co. (F) and Chrysler LLC say they need.
Democratic congressional leaders are leaning on President George W. Bush to instead tap into the already enacted $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund to aid the auto industry, arguing that a carmaker collapse would have a devastating impact on the financial firms the program is designed to help.
The Bush administration has said it has no intention of doing so, arguing that the money was supposed to be for financial institutions, and instead wants to convert the fuel-efficiency money into emergency loans.
Auto state lawmakers are threatening to block the administration from accessing the second half of the financial rescue fund unless it comes to the aid of the Big Three.
And President-elect Barack Obama wasn't stepping forward with an alternative. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who has been dealing with both the financial bailout and the auto rescue proposal as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Obama is "going to have to be more assertive than he's been."
Repentant after a botched first crack at bailout pleas, the companies' executives said they were willing to overhaul their companies and own up to past errors.
"We made mistakes, which we're learning from," GM chief Rick Wagoner said. Ford CEO Alan Mulally also acknowledged big missteps, saying his company's approach once was "If you build it, they will come."
"We produced more vehicles than our customers wanted, then slashed prices," he said. But as a result of these past mistakes, "we are really focused," he said.
United Auto Workers union President Ron Gettelfinger, aligned with the industry in pressing for the aid, told senators that any kind of bankruptcy, even a prepackaged one, was not "a viable option." Gettelfinger said consumers would not buy autos from bankrupt companies, no matter the terms of the arrangement.
He also warned that without action by Congress: "I believe we could lose General Motors by the end of this month." He said the situation was dire.
It wasn't enough for some skeptics.
"I don't know how they're going to make it," Sen. Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., said of the automakers. "If they called this a plan to get money, the bankers all over the world would laugh."
Even sympathetic Democrats said it was difficult to find a way to help the Big Three with time running out on this year's Congress.
"Can it be done in the next week?" said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. "That's a tough lift."
he told them he likes his current rate and doesn't need future borrowing privileges. they chose not to close his available credit anyway.
And
that is how a gentleman tells someone to fuck off.
.... I find myself disinclined to acquiesce to your request ...
There may be two more 'shoes to fall'. Suggested was that credit card companies and pension funds will need government protection.
Obviously top of the pension fund list is GM's. GM was routinely shorting the pension fund to claim profits - to make top management look good.
Many are asking questions of Capital One who attracted (with low interest rates) customers that never pay off the balance. Captial One then hikes those interest rates higher on a slightest excuse.
Many are asking questions of Capital One who attracted (with low interest rates) customers that never pay off the balance. Captial One then hikes those interest rates higher on a slightest excuse.
That was not just Capital one, thats the most common trick of a low-end, bottom feeder, deceptive lender.
That was not just Capital one, ...
Obviously I never said Captial One was the only one. Capital One is simply a benchmark of companies considered a prime example of the what may be the next 'shoe to fall'. Another pending 'shoe' may be pension funds. Why do you again ignore what was posted? Why do you routinely post with no useful facts? Why do you never demonstrate knowledge?
Your writing style is very unclear. Your last post, like many of your posts are written in a most unusual style, leaving the reader to guess at some of your intent. You seemed to single Capital One out for some reason and I was simply clarifying that. Your welcome!
Your writing style is very unclear.
At what point does "credit card companies" somehow become "credit card company"? [QUOTE=tw;511346]There may be two more 'shoes to fall'. Suggested was that credit card companies ... will need government protection. ...
Many are asking questions of Capital One ... [QUOTE] How did Capital One become all "credit card companies"? Cited was a problem - "credit card companies" - and a benchmark example - "Capital One".
Post did not say "company". It said "companies". Please read what was posted. Capital One was singled out as an example. Some "credit card companies" (ie Capital One) are described by others at particularly high risk - an example of the maybe 'next shoe to fall'.
I read what you wrote, the implication was still there whether it was intended or not. Geez relax!
I read what you wrote, ...
Then deal with what was written. The topic in this thread is "Bailing". Meltdown in the credit card companies (ie massive interest increases on people who can least afford it) and pension funds (which is simply another irresponsible financial organization that all Americans get to pay for - ie via PBGC) are looming crisis yet to implode.
Once upon a time, some Americans foolishly worried about a mythical sucking sound into Mexico. We have finally discovered sources of that sucking sound. It resides among us. Writing was on the wall. A 2% reduction of the average American income over these past 8 years. A $2billion war that now costs over $1000billion. Worse, we even voted for it.
Sucking has probably only started. How much will be sucked into oblivion? How many more implosions are awaiting us? Pension funds and credit card companies are two latest concerns.
Don't forget that in 10-15 years at the current rate taxes will double to about 42% for the average American and it will be virtually all consumed by medicare, medicaid, the debt and the interest on the debt.
That leaves nothing for wars, homeland security, Universal healthcare..... nothing.
Just something to keep in mind as we bail more companies & corporations out.
Don't forget that in 10-15 years at the current rate taxes will double to about 42% for the average American and it will be virtually all consumed by medicare, medicaid, the debt and the interest on the debt.
That's what happens when taxes are only cut for the rich. Even Warren Buffet complains he pays less than his receptionist. 50% of American corporations now pay no taxes. When liars claim that American corporations pay the highest taxes in the world, then debts are further created. Lying may be the biggest reason why Americans must pay higher taxes or face international bankruptcy.
Ironically, too many Americans believe the Treasury is a bottomless pit of cash. That's a delayed catastrophe attributed to debt. Debt can keep accumulating long after bankruptcy was necessary - then take revenge all at once. Need an example? GM has really been bankrupt for maybe 20 years. The spread sheets only “suddenly discovered” that reality. AT&T was virtually bankrupt for so long that only its name had any value. Having given out or promised away $7.5trillion, the US government is all but bankrupt. We may not know it yet.
Harm has been done. Results of that economic revenge have not yet been seen. Most interesting will be how severely economics will take revenge. The numbers. How deep and for how long. Nobody can really say. We know economics will take revenge. But numbers that define that revenge and where it will be worst are unknown. It could be mild and long. We just don't know and have no history to benchmark a useful model.
Another example of finance people playing money games as technology and infastructure gets ignored by those spread sheet moguls. From the NY Times of 11 Dec 2008:
url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/worldbusiness/12bell.html]As Buyout Fails, Bell Canada Seeks to Bolster a Struggling Business[/url]
With the record-setting $50 billion leveraged buyout of Bell Canada all over except for the potential litigation, the company, Canada’s largest telecommunications company, once again faces a possibly bigger issue: reversing the seemingly relentless decline of its business.
The takeover, which had several setbacks, appeared doomed late last month after the accounting firm KPMG concluded that Bell, ... would not be solvent after being burdened with about $30 billion in debt from the deal.
Its demise was confirmed on Thursday through two curt statements. The buyout group, which was led by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, said that the deal’s failure to pass its solvency test was the final blow, adding: “Under these circumstances neither party owes a termination fee to the other.”
Link
...many analysts said that Bell was now better positioned to deal with the future than it would have been after a buyout.
“They were going to be saddled with a debt which would have meant that they could not have done anything.”
Mr. Eiley cautions that both Bell and Telus, which he said faced several of the same problems as Bell, would have to weigh carefully the potential returns from investments in network upgrades. That situation, he added, might delay or even block substantial change.
It seems the article is playing both sides. On on hand they are better off not being bought out, yet on the other the investment needed for upgrading and innovating may be prohibitive.
[It seems the article is playing both sides. On on hand they are better off not being bought out, yet on the other the investment needed for upgrading and innovating may be prohibitive.
It is better to address problems when they exist. In a parallel example, GM has been bankrupt since the 1990. By playing accounting games and all but encouraged to do so by deregulation, GM also did not have to face reality.
Bell of Canada should have been addressing these problems years if not a decade ago. That is why credit rating firms, auditors, and government oversight exist. Maybe the bean counters in finanical markets and government were no longer doing their jobs? No. These people exist to advance mankind. They would do their jobs.
Bell of Canada is added to a long list of firms that ... well that list has not yet hit the half way point. Did I mention big steel because some stupid president protected them some four plus years ago from free market pressures that would have saved them?
BTW, a world record loss has now been set by a hedge fund. This will be the largest Ponzi scheme ever.
"Don't worry. Be Happy."
It is better to address problems when they exist.
To late.
Next.
Interesting if the numbers/math is right...from
here.That would make more sense as a stacked bar chart.
Yeah, a bar stacked with shots of Cuervo.
From the NY Times of 18 Dec 2008:
Car Bankruptcy Cited as Option by White House
The White House raised for the first time on Thursday the prospect of forcing General Motors and Chrysler into a managed bankruptcy as a solution to save the companies from financial collapse. ...
Mr. Ray said that a number of airlines went through bankruptcy protection earlier this decade, using federally backed loans awarded by the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, which was set up to aid the industry after the September 2001 attacks.
The board turned down United’s request, however, and the airline subsequently restructured under bankruptcy protection without federal money.
“United is still flying, and G.M. is not doing very well,” Mr. Ray said. “Their chickens have come home to roost, and now it’s inevitable” that G.M. seek bankruptcy protection, he added.
Had GM not used Enron accounting in 1991 to avert bankruptcy, then GM's problems would have been addressed and solved. Cars would be designed by car guys. The Hybrid would have been widely available in 1999.
Chrysler is owned by a rich investment firm that could easily finance Chrysler's bridge loans. Maybe even do what 1979 Chrysler did when government did not bail them out. 1979 Chrysler replaced bad management, then bridge loans from the banks. Loans that Chrysler paid off in only four years because Lee Iacocca (a car guy) replaces Chrysler's only problem - top mangement.
Cerebus is an investment firm that would rather have government pay for their bad investment decisions. Rich investors once had to accept the risks of their investments. But the economy downturned. According to Cerebus, that is not fair. Therefore government should bail them out.
Deutsche Bank called it about one month ago. GM's future stock price is predicted to be zero dollars per share. Obviously.
GM products were obviously that bad long ago.
Maybe even do what 1979 Chrysler did when government did not bail them out. 1979 Chrysler replaced bad management, then bridge loans from the banks.
Cerebus is an investment firm that would rather have government pay for their bad investment decisions. Rich investors once had to accept the risks of their investments.
They still should.
When GM stock shares hit $0 I will buy all of them.
then you can fire all of top management! You better be paying attention.
Bush Approves $17.4 Billion Auto Bailout
December 19, 2008
WASHINGTON — President Bush announced $13.4 billion in emergency loans on Friday to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, and said another $4 billion would be available for the hobbled automakers in February. The entire bailout is conditioned on the companies undertaking sweeping reorganizations to show that they can return to profitability.
The president’s plan gives carmakers until March 31 to restructure.
The loans, as G.M. and Chrysler teeter on the brink of insolvency, essentially throw the companies a lifeline from the taxpayers that will keep them afloat until March 31. At that point, the Obama administration will determine if the automakers are meeting the conditions of the loans and will continue to receive government aid or must repay the loans and face bankruptcy.
Well at least its something. I also noticed that Ford declined to participate - good for them.
If they only built a better car I might consider buying one.
[QUOTE=classicman;515190Well at least its something. I also noticed that Ford declined to participate - good for them.
If they only built a better car I might consider buying one.[/QUOTE] Ford had been many years into undoing the disaster created by Jacques Nasser. The finally came out with some 70 Hp per liter engines. Ford is ahead of GM in making better cars - only barely. Ford addressed the management problem which is why Ford does not need government rescue.
$100s of billions were given to banks to start loaning again. What does GM need? Exactly what Chrysler needed in 1979. New management AND loans from the banks. Who will better hold GM's feet to the fire of innovation? Bankers; not government. However since the president is a mental midget, he protected GM management AND is not letting free market forces operate. Banks now flush with cash would hold GM to actual solutions. The mental midget did not.
Only government requirements that GM must conform to: executives can no longer fly in private jets. Everything else is too subjective - as well planned as "Misson Accomplished".
cough.
why is it okay to have corporate welfare*** and NOT ok to have national health care?
***we all knows these fkkrs ain't going to make good OR pay up.
.
Only government requirements that GM must conform to: executives can no longer fly in private jets. Everything else is too subjective - as well planned as "Misson Accomplished".
AND continuing the further deterioration of workers rights. This is actually a direct shot at the unions.
AND continuing the further deterioration of workers rights. This is actually a direct shot at the unions.
Please explain. I'm not sure what you mean here.
Goldman Sachs just announced that six top executives would "forgo" their $67million per person bonuses. Why is this significant? Because no other 'on government welfare' companies announced same. Meanwhile, Goldman will still pay something less than $1billion in bonuses to other employees. Thank god we rescued those bonuses.
Latest numbers from Goldman. Top executives will take a bonus cut. Bonuses will be reduced by 46%. Goldman Sachs took about $10billion in government assistance. Goldman will pay just over $10billion in bonuses to employees.
So the employees are practicing variations of "Bah Humbug".
Please explain. I'm not sure what you mean here.
The Republicans made it plain that their first objective in this bailout was major concessions from the unions. They have been attacking unions since Reagan, and this is a perfect storm for them to fire a direct shot against them. The Southern Senators want union wages to equal what the transplant companies are paying. Thing is, once that happens and once union wages stop being a benchmark for how other workers are paid, average wages will start to go down.
The Republicans made it plain that their first objective in this bailout was major concessions from the unions.
I agree with that.
They have been attacking unions since Reagan, and this is a perfect storm for them to fire a direct shot against them. The Southern Senators want union wages to equal what the transplant companies are paying. Thing is, once that happens and once union wages stop being a benchmark for how other workers are paid, average wages will start to go down.[/QUOTE]
I'm not as opposed to the wages as to the other benefits that the union workers have. 95% pay when laid off or ill, or the insane retirement benefits... for example. These make it obviously nonfunctional business plan. The companies seem to be virtually still employing every current worker AND the retired ones to a degree that is not manageable. There are other problems like the insane executive bonuses as well. I am not against the unions, but there are some issues that need to be addressed if these companies are to survive.
(whispers: I am against unions )
If we all join together, we CAN get rid of these unions.
I see what you two did thar.
I'm not against unions or union members. I am against union leadership. I remember when the UAW was "working hard" for new contracts with a farm implement company. These were contract renegotiations as it was already acknowledged the previous contracts were unsustainable. The membership had listed a few things they wanted saved and a list of things they were willing to sacrifice.
The union leadership came back and announced, "Great news! We've gotten them to add free legal representation in non-felony cases to your benefit package." They hadn't bothered to talk about the job outsourcing or the hourly wage. The geniuses got booed out of the room.
There is no doubt that union leadership is as corruptible as politicians. Its a shame.
I am against onions. They do terrible things to workplaces. There was a lady once whose workplace onion made her cry, even! :3eye:
Hmmm... Haven't noticed this thread before.
Bailing out these megacorps from the mismanagement of funds that caused them to go backrupt in the first place? What I don't understand is why they are going bankrupt in the first place. I don't mean "why," but, I do mean WHY? Was greed so great that these Senior Exec's thought it better to deceived stockholders and the public into believing there is a bottomless supply of money that could get anybody credit if they simply had a job for more than a six month period?
I find it rather ironic that after the first $300 billion was dibbied out that the "Big-Three" came forward with their hands out! Then they were told they would not get it! LOL! They knew they would get it anyway - and they did!
Isn't it odd that all these people are losing their homes to foreclosures and not one of them has been saved from foreclosure. Just a little fishy here...
...and the news this morning told of CEO and top Exec bonuses reaching a dismal $1.6 billion dollars this holiday season. :headshake
I think we need a cage match of CEO's, CFO's, Top Execs vs the average American public. Winner takes all.
I want my cut... :cool:
Bailing out these megacorps from the mismanagement of funds that caused them to go backrupt in the first place? What I don't understand is why they are going bankrupt in the first place. ... Was greed so great that these Senior Exec's thought it better to deceived stockholders and the public into believing there is a bottomless supply of money ...
First appreciate why the money no longer exists. That was summarized in
How the GAME is played.
Second appreciate what a finance guy does - how he thinks. What is the purpose of a company? To make a profit? Then the company is no different than the Mafia. And that is what is taught in business schools; openly advocated by stock brokers and finance bankers. In reality (and where America is productive), the purpose of a company is its products.
Third, learn from some latest example of that corruption. Goldman Sachs just took $10billion from the government. So this year’s bonuses will exceed $10billion. Whereas a finance industry salary is in the $hundreds of thousands, his bonuses are typically 10 times larger. Why? The purpose of their labor is to only enrich themselves - to make a profit rather than produce something - screw the economy, mankind, or anything else productive.
Another classic example is not limited to finance in finance companies. When finance people control corporations, the same corrupt attitude exists. GM was only four hours from bankruptcy in 1991. How did GM save itself? Did it fix GM's biggest problems - the world's worst cars? Of course not. GM did what any finance guy would do - Enron accounting and other money games.
GM became ‘profitable’ (Enron accounting) by shorting the pension funds. GM did this for so long that the entire profit from selling Hughes (estimated at $18billion) disappeared into pension funds. And then GM continued to short the pension funds rather than let engineers design cars.
GM invented another myth. Legacy costs. In an honest company, legacy costs do not exist. When that employee retires, the pension fund is fully funded. Instead, GM was using pension money to claim mythical profits - and that was fully permitted by the George Jr administration’s new deregulation attitudes. (After all, everyone knows unions are evil.)
Well, a GM car is now estimated selling for a $700 to $1000 loss. Obviously. A GM car needs two extra pistons to do what all 'American patriotic' auto companies all over the world do routinely. Worse, many Americans so hated American as to buy GM crap.
Since GM cars fail so often, then GM restored another cost controller's trick - stick dealers with all warranty costs. Therefore dealers would be hesitant to honor any warranty.
Well, GMAC was one of the few profit centers in GM. So GM offered cars at 0% financing. That way, GMAC profits could subsidize the world's most expensive and crappy cars. Resulting losses would not appear for many years later. IOW GMAC is now just starting to lose money because of 0% financing and other money game tricks from so many years ago.
GM has run out of places to play money games. The ponzi scheme is collapsing. They even got Clinton to give them $millions in 1994 to build a hybrid. Then made a crappy hybrid and pocketed the cash. GM had a hybrid in 1999 - and will not sell one until 2010. No problem. The Volt – a first generation hybrid – will save GM – if you also worship penises.
GM is only one example of what our bean counters and stock brokers have been doing for years. Now that pyramid or ponzi scheme has collapsed. Now all those mythical assets (see
How the GAME is played.) are suddenly worthless. Suddenly America needs cash for all those debts. And no foreigner will provide that cash. So what does AIG, GM, et al do? They get the US government to print cash and to sell off America to foreigners. The government will not even admit who got the cash and how much (see the Bloomberg lawsuit).
No foreigner will buy American corporate debt. Stock brokers, bean counters, hedge fund managers, etc have been lying for years and decades. American balance sheets cannot be trusted (Enron accounting is alive, well, and protected by George Jr's SEC). So the US government will sell government bonds, then give that money to the most corrupt corporations.
Corrupt? It’s not just GM, et al who is corrupt. Add American consumers who bought that crap for the past 20 years. Those who endorse communism say, “Buy American.” "We make crap but we are the American company - so you must buy our products." That is communism. Not enough Americans believed in the free market – said, “Buy the best.” Therefore GM, et al could continue playing money games for decades and still make crappy products.
Fourth, economics is now taking revenge. Economics know nothing about fair. Economics will take revenge on anyone until it gets its just due. That means the little people will pay for executives who did almost nothing productive and were paid $15million and $67million annually in bonuses. Corrupt corporate leaders such as Nardelli were even paid $200million to just leave. They took the real cash. What were left were mythical assets that are now collapsing. A collapse means the government is printing money to cover those debts.
Fifth, above are only snapshots. The underlying principles in these examples are routine when the stock broker mentality (people who were typically the less intelligent people in school) controls American business institutions. Notice which companies are still productive or profitable? In those industries, bad (MBA trained) management is quickly removed. Carly Fiorina being a perfect example of an American enemy eventually removed because she was doing more than Saddam to destroy America. Yahoo management being another example of what must happen to keep America productive. Unfortunately people with Fiorina’s ethics are still alive and well entrenched. The most anti-American (people who routinely stifle innovation) are those who also say the purpose of a company is to make a profit.
In those snapshots: where the money went, why government is throwing money into these pyramid schemes, where that money will come from (and the inevitable drop in the American standard of living four and more years from now), who created the problem, the corruption and communism they openly advocate, Enron accounting is still alive and, well, how to identify the future destroyers of the American standard of living by simply observing missing product innovation.
Sixth, America went through this same thing in the 70s. We foolishly labeled America’s most anti-American industries as smoke stack industries because bean counters said so (there are no smoke stack industries). We invented dumping to raise tariffs – to protect defective management in so many American companies (as if we did not learn about that mistake in the Great Depression). We stifled innovation by creating MBAs – who could not see an innovation if it was stuck up their nose and that cannot be measured on spread sheets. And we keep interest rates low and printed money while lying about our real expenses – ie the Vietnam war.
How did we fix the problem? We sold off the world’s third largest industrial base. Economics took revenge on the American public including a reduction in the American standards of living, massive inflation, no jobs etc. Then we screwed every American to pay for the excesses and lies of the few. Finally we replaced anti-Americans corporate and political leaders with patriots (ie Chrysler, Ford, NYC, etc). We raise interest rates to something like 22%. Finally economics no longer had any reason to take revenge.
95% pay when laid off or ill,
When that benefit was negotiated, it was set up so a worker laid off would get a supplement to their unemployment check that would add up to 95% of their take home pay, minus $7.50 (lunch money they didn't need when not working), for a defined length of time. There was a separate fund set up at the same time to cover the cost of this benefit and when that fund was depleted that benefit stopped for everyone.
Since most of the autoworkers got laid off every year, at model changeover, it was an attractive plum offered by the companies in lieu of a bigger pay increase. And since it came from a separate fund, it limited the company's liability. When tens of thousands of workers get laid off, that fund won't mean shit.
Unfortunately, the general public just gets the sound-bite that auto workers get 95% of their pay when they're laid off.
I understand that Bruce, but that still doesn't explain the many benefits and very generous retirement packages that that negotiated.
Also, Why does it take months for a "retool" at their plants when the foreign ones can do it in hours or days?
It just seems to me that a lot of these things are what is wrong with them. Its not just one thing, its many things that add up to an insane, unmanageable business plan.
I understand that Bruce, but that still doesn't explain the many benefits and very generous retirement packages that that negotiated.
Many benefits? Vacations? Sick days? Pensions? 40 hour work week? If it weren't for the UAW, nobody would get those things. We'd still be working six long days, then going to the poor farm when we couldn't keep up with the younger ones, or if we could, work till we died.
Negotiated is the key word. These benefits were all agreed to, often proposed by, the auto companies. They were all supposed to be funded as they accrued, but the companies didn't do that. They took that money and boasted of big profits, justifying big bonuses/perks for bean counters... those evil MBAs.;)
The best benefit they have is the medical insurance, making sure they can get medical care for the family members that need it, although that has limits too. What's different from most, is that in retirement they have insurance to supplement their Medicare. I'd like to see everyone get that.
Also, Why does it take months for a "retool" at their plants when the foreign ones can do it in hours or days?
It just seems to me that a lot of these things are what is wrong with them. Its not just one thing, its many things that add up to an insane, unmanageable business plan.
I agree. tw's ranting about lack of innovation is pretty much on target, but that's not the UAW's fault. Usually innovation makes their jobs easier rather than harder.
There is no doubt that union leadership is as corruptible as politicians. Its a shame.
Union leadership ARE politicians. :(
My personal experience with Gettelfinger left me with a very poor opinion of him... and he's not the only one, but I was favorably impressed with many that were working behind the scenes.
Many benefits? Vacations? Sick days? Pensions? 40 hour work week? If it weren't for the UAW, nobody would get those things. We'd still be working six long days, then going to the poor farm when we couldn't keep up with the younger ones, or if we could, work till we died.
Dunno about all that. I'm not willing to take the leap. I work well more than 40 hrs a week as does LJ and I'm sure a few others here just as examples. No I don't get any additional compensation either. Just the priviledge of keeping my job.
Negotiated is the key word.
That is the real crux of my point. These/those companies cannot afford to cover this stuff, be it a very generous retirement plan length or med benefits fully paid or the ridiculous bonuses they pay out. It is/has been a failed plan and has to change.
The best benefit they have is the medical insurance, making sure they can get medical care for the family members that need it, although that has limits too. What's different from most, is that in retirement they have insurance to supplement their Medicare. I'd like to see everyone get that.
Me too, but its simply too costly.
I have to pay for my family/dependents insurance - my employer only covers me. Is that out of the ordinary? How bout you?
I have to pay for my family/dependents insurance - my employer only covers me. Is that out of the ordinary? How bout you?
That's been the policy at every company I or my husband have ever worked for. He also works a lot more than 40 hours a week.
Negotiated is the key word. These benefits were all agreed to, often proposed by, the auto companies. They were all supposed to be funded as they accrued, but the companies didn't do that. They took that money and boasted of big profits, justifying big bonuses/perks for bean counters... those evil MBAs.;)
Completely irresponsible to blame employees when top management was reaping 34% and 67% annual income increases. Even reaping large bonuses when the company was losing money. Before anyone can blame the unions, first, it starts with top management.
Meanwhile, very little cost of a car is found in labor. The massive majority in a car's cost are in its design. The fools say GM must control costs. Those who come from reality say GM must innovate. Cost controls don't reduce costs. Only innovation reduces costs. Ie 1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford. Where are costs highest? Where GM has been stifling innovation - ie robots to deliver parts to assembly lines. Not in labor costs.
New proposals would decrease labor costs from $28 per hour to $24. Numbers wildly different from those hyped in myths.
Rick Wagoner said GM has no problems with it products and assembly plants. Rick Wagoner said GM's entire problem is only due to the economy. Denial is alive and well. Did unions also create that problem?
very little cost of a car is found in labor. The massive majority in a car's cost are in its design.
Only innovation reduces costs.
Perhaps you could provide a pie chart showing the costs of a vehicle broken down.
I don't think I'm reading what you're writing....
there is no way that they can "innovate" immediately - or is there?
Dunno about all that. I'm not willing to take the leap. I work well more than 40 hrs a week as does LJ and I'm sure a few others here just as examples. No I don't get any additional compensation either. Just the priviledge of keeping my job.
40 hours has been the standard industrial work week since it was championed by the UAW.
Non-industrial trades like construction, fishing, logging, etc, that are seasonally restricted, will vary.
Retail sales and the like are not comparable.
Jobs where you're not being productive all the time, but require being available, are generally longer hours.
I don't know what you do, but how much time does LJ spend waiting for the salesman to close the deal so he can go to work?
That is the real crux of my point. These/those companies cannot afford to cover this stuff, be it a very generous retirement plan length or med benefits fully paid or the ridiculous bonuses they pay out. It is/has been a failed plan and has to change.
It's only a failed plan because the companies failed to remain competitive, not because of their labor costs, but because of poor management. If the Big Three had followed the Jap car makers in their production methods, labor costs would be a moot point.
I have to pay for my family/dependents insurance - my employer only covers me. Is that out of the ordinary? How bout you?
That's been the policy at every company I or my husband have ever worked for.
When I worked for Tufts University and a small company, we had to pay for dependents coverage, but every large corporation has paid for both, until a few years ago. Now we have to contribute to both our own and dependents coverage.
Medical costs have skyrocketed since they paid Brianna all that money.;)
He also works a lot more than 40 hours a week.
I thought he was self-employed?
I understand that Bruce, but that still doesn't explain the many benefits and very generous retirement packages that that negotiated.
Also, Why does it take months for a "retool" at their plants when the foreign ones can do it in hours or days?
It just seems to me that a lot of these things are what is wrong with them. Its not just one thing, its many things that add up to an insane, unmanageable business plan.
When unions can get companies to pay 80 or 90% of a workers pay after he stops working the unions are no longer useful.
I thought he was self-employed?
Nope, he's a Systems Admin for a major website. But like you pointed out, some of his hours are just being available in case servers go down, and a lot more are being productive but from the computer at home.
When unions can get companies to pay 80 or 90% of a workers pay after he stops working the unions are no longer useful.
Evidently you didn't read my post explaining that doesn't happen.:rolleyes:
Oh, ok. I thought you were talking about the sub-pay program.
I agree thats a bad system, I never understood why they bought that in the first place. But shouldn't the union ask for programs to benefit the people that are paying them, remember the company just has to say no.
Boeing has a small version of that, something like 60 or 70 people, that are held to fill in with experienced people if a department is suddenly shorthanded. The difference is when they are not needed to fill in, they are janitors cleaning the bathrooms and offices.
Perhaps you could provide a pie chart showing the costs of a vehicle broken down.
I don't think I'm reading what you're writing....
there is no way that they can "innovate" immediately - or is there?
The numbers were provided many times previously including number of man-hours in each car. One is expected to read those posts and grasp those numbers.
How did Iacocca turn Chrysler from record losses to repaying all bank loans (there were no government loans) in only four years? He started innovating immediately. Those stories have also been posted numerous times repeatedly. Why did Chrysler have record profits in only four years? Innovation typically takes four to ten years to appear on a spread sheet. Rather obvious is when innovation started.
I agree thats a bad system, I never understood why they bought that in the first place.
Because it’s not a bad system if management is responsible. Toyota has the same thing without a union. Toyota is now redirecting employees to fix or modify currently idle assemble plants. Sending employees for retraining. IOW taking advantage of the situation.
IF GM management came from where the works gets done, then GM management would do same. Ironic, that is what some union employees complained to me while I was in a GM plant. The company is so bureaucratic - so out of touch with reality - that is just lets employees sit there - learn nothing - fix nothing - do nothing.
A company with responsible management would be investing in their assets - their employees. But to an accountant, those employees, retraining, or modifying an assembly line are called an expense. Toyota is conducting training programs. GM lets their assets just sit ther doing cross word puzzles.
From the Washington Post of 24 Dec 2008:
SEC Chief Defends His Restraint
Christopher Cox, the embattled chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is defending his restrained approach to the financial crisis, saying he has provided steady leadership as Wall Street's main regulator at a time when other federal regulators have responded precipitously to upheaval in the markets.
During his tenure, the SEC has watched as all the investment banks it oversaw collapsed, were swallowed up or got out of their traditional line of business. The agency, meanwhile, was on the sidelines while the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve worked to bail out the financial sector. And the SEC, by its own admission, failed to detect an alleged $50 billion fraud by Bernard L. Madoff that may be the largest Ponzi scheme in history.
But in his first interview since the Madoff scandal broke, Cox said he was not responsible for the agency's failure to detect the alleged fraud and that he had responded properly to the broader financial crisis given the information he had. Confronted with a barrage of criticism from lawmakers, former officials and even some of his staff, Cox said he took pride in his measured response to the market turmoil.
Just like other George Jr SEC Chairmen, he is proud that he did nothing to avert the meltdown. Harvey Pitts even refuse to accept a doubling of his budget after Enron. Deregulation is alive and well in an industry that most be most highly regulated do to the people who work in that industry - stock brokers. Cox is proud that he did nothing. Sounds like Karl Rove propaganda is still alive and well in the George Jr adminstration. Deny that a problem exists, let Rush Limbaugh tell the wacko extremists, and people will believe it.
How many corporate executives are currently being prosecuted by the SEC for their Enron style accounting? Zero?
Noticed in NYT story this morning saying it's the end of the line for SUVs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/24auto.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
More than 1,000 workers were laid off at the Moraine plant. Under terms of the U.A.W. contract for all its members, they and the workers in Janesville and Newark will collect unemployment checks and payments from G.M. that together equal about 80 percent of their take-home pay.
For a YEAR. What an amazing deal.
Of course, in a market, everything is connected. The other side here is that GM is motivated to close the plant *sooner*, so they don't have to pay for nothing for too long. With gas prices dropping like a rock, perhaps there is life for the line after all. But GM can't risk it.
There is always the other side to these deals. The union negotiates a higher salary and greater benefits. The company must then lay people off wholesale, when the tough times come, instead of keeping more people and saving money on salary and benefits.
Still, GM had their chance to build a car in a non-union state, from scratch, with non-union North American labor just like the Japanese companies... and they built Saturn. Were we supposed to be impressed?
How did Iacocca turn Chrysler from record losses to repaying all bank loans (there were no government loans) in only four years? He started innovating immediately.
Actually, by the time Chrysler asked the government to insure those bank loans, they had already started innovating and were ready to go into production with the K car. Remember they showed one to Congress, to prove they had a viable business plan deserving of government support.
Quite unlike the asshats that appeared before Congress recently.
For a YEAR. What an amazing deal.
That deal was negotiated when GM was bragging about the bazzillions of dollars they were making to the Wall Street analysts.
Of course, in a market, everything is connected. The other side here is that GM is motivated to close the plant *sooner*, so they don't have to pay for nothing for too long. With gas prices dropping like a rock, perhaps there is life for the line after all. But GM can't risk it.
It's a pretty safe bet that gas prices will rebound. I figure they will settle out around $3 a gallon.
There is always the other side to these deals. The union negotiates a higher salary and greater benefits. The company must then lay people off wholesale, when the tough times come, instead of keeping more people and saving money on salary and benefits.
Historically GM, and the rest, lay off/recall production line workers as needed. They have never shown any loyalty to their workers, which is why in good times the UAW has pushed for benefits like the "job bank" and sub-pay.
[caution, opinion ahead]
I think the UAW leadership is just as out of touch as the board of directors. They've seen many boom/bust cycles over the years and figure this is just another one, instead of realizing that the world and market are (have been) going through profound changes.
Probably it's that "just another one" mentality making the union leadership reticent to make any concessions, thinking the business will rebound and it would take years, if not decades, to regain those hard won benefits.
I applaud the UAW for the precedent setting strides they've made in workplace safety and a fair share of profits for the workers. I'm sure the non-union auto plants, as well as other industries, would not be as fair to their workers if it were not for that precedent.
But that said, I don't think the present leadership is doing the right thing. I fear the future without unions would lead to an even bigger have/havenot gap in this country. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water, I'd like to see more responsible leadership. The fly in the ointment is the union leadership is elected by the members, and voters being voters, as we've seen in politics, vote for the candidate promising the most.
[end opinion]
The numbers were provided many times previously including number of man-hours in each car. One is expected to read those posts and grasp those numbers.
How did Iacocca turn Chrysler from record losses to repaying all bank loans (there were no government loans) in only four years? He started innovating immediately. Those stories have also been posted numerous times repeatedly. Why did Chrysler have record profits in only four years? Innovation typically takes four to ten years to appear on a spread sheet. Rather obvious is when innovation started.
I read your posts, ya friggin scrooge! I just wanted to see the info in a nice pretty colored pie chart.
The second part of my post was regarding innovation and you seem to have given a very political answer.
So your answer to my original question regarding innovation is "NO. There is no point in innovating. They apparently don't have 4 to 10 years."
95% pay when laid off or ill,
[explanation]
Unfortunately, the general public just gets the sound-bite that auto workers get 95% of their pay when they're laid off.
I understand that Bruce, but that still doesn't explain the many benefits and very generous retirement packages that that negotiated.
Well, of course the explanation for one benefit doesn't explain all of the others. I would think that each one has its own explanation, many of which would be just as good.
Noticed in NYT story this morning saying it's the end of the line for SUVs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/24auto.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
For a YEAR. What an amazing deal.
Of course, in a market, everything is connected. The other side here is that GM is motivated to close the plant *sooner*, so they don't have to pay for nothing for too long. With gas prices dropping like a rock, perhaps there is life for the line after all. But GM can't risk it.
There is always the other side to these deals. The union negotiates a higher salary and greater benefits. The company must then lay people off wholesale, when the tough times come, instead of keeping more people and saving money on salary and benefits.
Still, GM had their chance to build a car in a non-union state, from scratch, with non-union North American labor just like the Japanese companies... and they built Saturn. Were we supposed to be impressed?
Chuh. I WORKED at that Moraine plant and I cannot think of a group of people more richly deserving of a plant closing than these fucks.
Go ahead and pitch your names at me----these people DESTROYED their plant. I saw it happen day by day. The union was invested in saving the jobs of your worst cow orker nightmare---is that what union dues are for? to save the scum of the earth? Coz that's what they did. Worst. People. Ever.
And beware, all of you. Lots of these displaced persons are heading for nursing school. Think things are bad in health care now? Just wait.
PS---the workers at this particular GM plant are, of coursem predicting the end of the world as we know it because their plant is closing. Alarmist bullshit from folks who can't even fight their own traffic ticket.
We shall see.
So your answer to my original question regarding innovation is "NO. There is no point in innovating. They apparently don't have 4 to 10 years."
Obviously GM has 4 to 10 years if responsible management exists. 1979 Chrysler also did not have one year to survive. A claim shouted even louder when the government refused them any money. Chrysler had to get their loans from banks ... who were not then flush with hundred of $billions in free government money. Banks, in turn, demanded productive changes and a restructuring plan. Suddenly Chrysler no longer was leaching money everywhere.
Until Iacocca got there, bean counters were so dumb as to keep factories working. Chrysler even covered the entire Michigan State fairgrounds of thousands of cars sitting for so long that grass was growing inside on the carpet AND those unsold cars had started to rust. That was their plan because a bean counter's only solution is to throw money at it. Deja vue GM 2008. GM does not have four years as long as Wagoner remains throwing money at problems. GM easily has four years if GM starts now fixing themselves.
Obviously GM could easily survive with bank loans. Of course the banks already have hundreds of $billions that they should be loaning. But that means Wagoner would have to admit that GM products and manufacturing plants are in dismal shape. Better to beg to a mental midget who does not require any solutions (ie "Mission Accomplished", bin Laden, etc), and who believes "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
GM will burn through that government $billions in months and come begging again. How curious that Wagoner was only saying last summer that GM had plenty of reserves and would easily weather through this turmoil. So he did nothing. Suddenly the burn increased to $1billion per month. Then $2billion per month. And still he did nothing. Today he still has no restructuring plan because Wagoner says GM's only problem is the economic downturn - not bad GM products. Why then is GM on the verge of total bankruptcy? Because Wagoner still denies GM's problems. Only bankruptcy would get him off his ass and out the door.
Had Wagoner been honest (no Enron accounting), then GM had no profits in seven years. But Wagoner is educated just like George Jr. He is an MBA - well trained in the art of denial and saying the right things. Like "Mission Accomplished", Wagoner still has no plans and says his products are winning against imports. Only problem? GM loses money on every Chevy car such as the Chevy Cobalt. Their products are that crappy.
The only reason GM does not have another four years? Wagoner does nothing to save GM. His only solution is to throw more money at it. That is what MBA routinely do. That was Ross Perot's complaint. GM throws money like a grenade at problems. Wagoner still claims GM's only problem is directly traceable to the economy - not to GM products. And George Jr agrees - giving GM and Chrysler (a company owned by rich men who don't need the money) $18billion for free. As so again, all Americans will be screwed - especially GM employees.
hey. tw. Ya know what unions do with problems? Throw money at them.
That's what unions routinely do.
Ya wanker.
(a moment of silence while I weep for tw and his beloved gm employees)
tw is a shop rat.
Obviously GM has 4 to 10 years if responsible management exists.
Better to beg to a mental midget who does not require any solutions.
GM will burn through that government $billions in months and come begging again. How curious that Wagoner was only saying last summer that GM had plenty of reserves and would easily weather through this turmoil. So he did nothing.
Today he still has no restructuring plan because Wagoner says GM's only problem is the economic downturn - not bad GM products.
Wagoner still has no plans and says his products are winning against imports.
The only reason GM does not have another four years? Wagoner does nothing to save GM. As so again, all Americans will be screwed - especially GM employees.
Wow - after reading this you seem to be torn on whether or not they have time to implement your "innovation plan".
That was a very long post to address a simple yes/no question. I have to infer that you think they will not go bankrupt and therefore have the 4-10 years you are talking about to innovate.
On the other hand, you say tat as long as Wagoner is there they will not have that time unless we keep bailing them out.
We pretty much paid more for the damn company than they were worth. At this rate we should change the name to USA - Unites States Automotive or TFC - Taxpayer Funded Cars... The benefits for the union employees would then be altered to those of Gov't employees.
We pretty much paid more for the damn company than they were worth.
Rick Wagoner says GM's products are world class competitive. Anyone with minimal intelligence knows that is not true. Rick Wagoner says GMs only problem is the economy. So Rick Wagoner has no restructuring plans and it therefore given $10billion. GM is already making plans so that government can double down on a bad debt. Must be executed quickly because the White House will soon finally have someone with intelligence; not driven by blind loyality to a political agenda.
Must be executed quickly because the White House will soon finally have someone with intelligence; not driven by blind loyality to a political agenda.
What? We elected Perot? When did that happen?
What? We elected Perot? When did that happen?
Well, you're gettting better. Instead of just reading the 1st paragraph, now you are up to reading every fourth word. Progress has been made. You are now reading more that George Jr does.
I read the whole post, as always. The first 90% was just your same old regurgitated bullshit - no need to comment on it as I already read the Economist as well. I just don't see the point in paraphrasing it and acting as if they were my original thoughts.
(a moment of silence while I weep for tw and his beloved gm employees)
tw is a shop rat.
:devil:
Nice...
Autoworkers Union Keeps $6 Million Golf Course for Members at $33 Million Lakeside Retreat
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472304,00.htmlFrom the Washington Post of 3 Jan 2009 is what happens when government does constant economic stimulus; then economics takes revenge:
U.S. Debt Expected To Soar This Year
... the national debt is projected to jump by as much as $2 trillion this year, an unprecedented increase that could test the world's appetite for financing U.S. government spending. ...
But about 40 percent of the debt held by private investors will mature in a year or less, according to Treasury officials. When those loans come due, the Treasury will have to borrow more money to repay them, even as it launches perhaps the most aggressive expansion of U.S. debt in modern history. ...
While the current market for Treasurys is booming, it's unclear whether demand for debt can be sustained, said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, which analyzes Treasury financing trends.
"There's a time bomb in there somewhere," Crandall said, "but we don't know exactly where on the calendar it's planted."
The government's hunger for cash began growing exponentially as the nation slipped into recession in the wake of a housing foreclosure crisis a year ago. ...
As of yesterday, the debt stood at nearly $10.7 trillion, of which about $4.3 trillion is owed to other government institutions, such as the Social Security trust fund.
When the president had intelligence and not a political agenda, then debt was about to be eliminated. Wackos since promoted outright myths to the ignorant such as tax cuts, corporate welfare, and even blames unions. These same anti-Americans also promoted another myth: if it was promoted or created by Clinton, then it must be wrong.
Others say those fears are overblown. The market for U.S. Treasurys is by far the largest and most liquid bond market in the world, and big institutional investors have few other places to safely invest large sums of reserve cash.
Unfortunately, that same reasoning justified mortgage backed securities, CDOs, massive economic government stimulus, corporate welfare, tax cuts, and even "Mission Accomplished". The resulting costs appeared years later, suddenly, and brutally.
In the next few years, we will learn how much damage a mental midget has done to America - as 1968Nixon did to 1970s America. We have yet to see the real costs of wacko extremist conservatism - what happens when the mental midgets get a president they can relate to.
U.S. governors seek $1 trillion federal assistance
The governors of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin -- all Democrats -- said the initiative for the two-year aid package was backed by other governors and follows a meeting in December where governors called on President-elect Barack Obama to help them maintain services in the face of slumping revenues.
"The Obama team has been very receptive in listening to us," said Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin. He said "quite a number" of other governors back the initiative.
The Republican Governors Association, however, said the level of federal aid being sought would create a burden for the future.
"The proposal by the Democratic governors goes beyond things like 'shovel-ready' infrastructure projects and is essentially a bailout of these states' general funds," Nick Ayers, executive director of the Republican Governors Association, said in a statement. "Now is the time to focus on finding cost-effective ways to provide essential services without burdening future generations with ever greater debt."
Corzine said the money called for represents about 3 percent to 3.5 percent of the economy, equivalent to the amount that the economy is expected to contract by over the next two quarters.
In light of the $700 billion provided to bail out the financial industry, "It's not shockingly large," he said.
We seem top have lost all perspective and reason. All I hear is gimme gimme gimme - just print more money....
I feel ill.
I am considering forming a bank and asking for money.
From CNN's Rebecca Sinderbrand and Mark Preston
Larry Flynt is asking for a bailout.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Another major American industry is asking for assistance as the global financial crisis continues: Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis said Wednesday they will request that Congress allocate $5 billion for a bailout of the adult entertainment industry.
“The take here is that everyone and their mother want to be bailed out from the banks to the big three,” said Owen Moogan, spokesman for Larry Flynt. “The porn industry has been hurt by the downturn like everyone else and they are going to ask for the $5 billion. Is it the most serious thing in the world? Is it going to make the lives of Americans better if it happens? It is not for them to determine.”
Francis said in a statement that “the US government should actively support the adult industry's survival and growth, just as it feels the need to support any other industry cherished by the American people."
“We should be delivering [the request] by the end of today to our congressmen and [Secretary of the Treasury Henry] Paulson asking for this $5 billion dollar bailout,” he told CNN Wednesday.
Well, it looks like the White House will have to bail out GM now if it wants parts and service for the
new presidential limo.
When President-elect Barack Obama pulls up to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Jan. 20, he will do so in a new car -- a highly armored, specially designed limousine manufactured in near secrecy by General Motors.
Both GM and the Secret Service are keeping the specs of the car under tight wraps, but according to a spokesman for the car company, the limo is a new and "unique" design that was not simply built atop an existing GM chassis.
Personally, if I had to place my life in the hands of an American company, I don't think GM would make the list. I hope he at least got free roadside assistance.
Yes, Mr President. It is Tuesday and you do need to travel through the city. Well the problem is Mr Wagoner says he won't reactivate our keys until he get another $25,000,000,000. Yes sir, he did cackle when he said it.
I dunno -= you got a better plan? My income will be 1/2 of what it was last year. I'm game for whatever works.
Print More Money DAMMIT!!!
Obama plans to just print more money. Good job bub.
From thw Washington Post of 8 Jan 2009 which says TheMercenary and his political agenda is lying again:
Bush Prepares to Ask for Second Tranche of Bailout Funds
Senior Bush administration officials are preparing to ask lawmakers for the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package despite intense opposition in Congress and then use a presidential veto if the request is voted down, sources familiar with the matter said.
Problematic is not that money is being requested. Just like wicks did early in "Mission Accomplished" (flew three 747s chock full of pallets of $100 bill into Iraq with zero accounting), this administration has no idea what the TARP money has been used for.
Goldman Sachs took $10billion from the government, then issued over $10billion in bonuses when the company was losing money - when no bonuses would be paid in an honest corporation. Just an example of spending money while Enron accounting continues alive and well - even in how TARP money is given away.
.....TheMercenary.....political agenda....."Mission Accomplished" .....
You left out Rush Limberger and wacko extremist. :p
From the Washington Post of 8 Jan 2009 which says TheMercenary and his political agenda is lying again:
Senior Bush administration officials, consulting with the Obama transition team, have prepared a plan to ask lawmakers for the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package despite intense opposition in Congress, sources familiar with the discussions said.
"There have been discussions between the administration and the transition team on how to proceed ~snip~
"There have been discussions between the administration and the transition about how to proceed should the president-elect determine that he wants to have those funds available on January 20," said Robert Gibbs, spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team. "No final decisions have been made, but we want to be ready to act if needed."
Even as senior Bush and Obama officials consulted about how to access the rest of the money,
Many of the measure's provisions are being coordinated with Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy F. Geithner,
For Obama, using a veto runs the risk of souring his relationship with rank-and-file lawmakers, especially if it is one of his first official acts in the White House. It carries less risk for Bush, who is leaving office in a matter of days.
The article repeatedly states that the two administrations are working closely together on this issue.
I am sure we can all recognize that is to ensure a smooth transition and do what is best for the country.
Looks to me, like tw took out of that what tw wanted - more negativity.
Barney Frank (D-Mass.), unveiled a bill on Capitol Hill aimed at forcing the Treasury to use the money in accordance with lawmakers' wishes.
Democratic leaders say that a request from either administration is likely to be rejected, making a veto almost unavoidable.
Therein lies the rub!
I can't believe this thread is still going.
It's OVER, folks. They bailed the bums out.
The article repeatedly states that the two administrations are working closely together on this issue.
The article only suggests what we know - the two administrations are talking - nothing more. George Jr is telling Obama what he will do despite what Obama has been planning. This president cannot help himself - spending every dime possible before leaving office.
Negative is what this president created and continues to create. Reality is only posted. What is routinely negative is classicman who routinely attacks this poster at every opportunity; who never deals with reality that opposes his politics; who never posts supporting facts. After all, that is what wackos are taught to do. Always attack and insult others who oppose wacko extremism - classicman.
George Jr is spending money that Obama already had plans for. Is that cooperation as classicman claims? Of course not. classicman must avoid that reality.
It's OVER, folks. They bailed the bums out.
That's the point. It's not over. George Jr now wants the same amount of money again to bail out more 'friends'. Obama had been planning how to spend that money. George Jr cannot leave any cash unspent especially when it means those bums are his closest supporters. George Jr will screw us right up to his last day. Spend money without any accounting - as the oversight committe has now accused him of doing.
......George Jr...........George Jr .....George Jr .....
What about Bin Laden?
What about Bin Laden?
And again TheMercenary subverts the topic of a thread. It requests a wacko extremist to grasp a concept, learn reality, and ignore what Limbaugh tells him to say.
So again, TheMercenary destroys another thread.
.....TheMercenary.....wacko extremist......Limbaugh.....TheMercenary .....
What about George Jr?
The article only suggests what we know - the two administrations are talking - nothing more. George Jr is telling Obama what he will do despite what Obama has been planning.
The first sentence you have correct. The second is nothing but your opinion, contrary to what the article repeated states.
What is routinely negative is classicman who routinely attacks this poster at every opportunity; who never deals with reality that opposes his politics; who never posts supporting facts.
When was the last time? I have called you out several times recently on your "claims", but I have not "attacked" you. None of which you substantiated, by the way.
Always attack and insult others who oppose wacko extremism - classicman.
Who me? You outta look at your last dozen posts.
George Jr is spending money that Obama already had plans for. Is that cooperation as classicman claims?
Cite? The article you posted infers to the contrary based upon the issue of a veto.
I can't believe this thread is still going.
It's OVER, folks. They bailed the bums out.
I'm afraid it's a long way from over, you'll (we'll) have to bend over awhile longer. :(
... as will our children.
When was the last time? I have called you out several times recently on your "claims", but I have not "attacked" you.
If you were something above a turd, you doubts would include from you supporting facts for you doubt. You don't like it?
Cite.
After all, I am calling you out for personal attack and underhanded mockery. An honest classicman would include reasons for doubts with 'cite'. But classicman routinely has opinions based only in passive aggressive attacks. Cite, classicman, means you first put up something you rare provide - facts.
you doubts would include from you supporting facts for you doubt
No, I don't need to post facts to question unsubstantiated claims. If you back up your claims with citations/sources, only then do I have to produce substantiated facts to disprove your claims. If you repeatedly post opinion as fact, and personally attack anyone questioning your statements, your credibility goes through the floor.
...yup below the basemen...er cellar.
No, I don't need to post facts to question unsubstantiated claims.
Then why did you do just that?
tw's asshatery in this thread is so funny i had to make sure it wasn't the TW. persona just mocking him.
*note to self: if I ever find myself unable to differentiate between myself and a caricature... just stop.
From thw Washington Post of 8 Jan 2009 as posted previously in
post 505 Bush Prepares to Ask for Second Tranche of Bailout Funds
Senior Bush administration officials are preparing to ask lawmakers for the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package despite intense opposition in Congress and then use a presidential veto if the request is voted down, sources familiar with the matter said.
Today, George Jr offered to rescind his request for the $350billion TARP money unless asked to do so by Obama. Obama today called George Jr to ask him to put forth that request. IOW George Jr had not consulted with Obama until today.
Four days later, on 12 Jan 2009 in the NY Times:
“This morning, President-elect Obama asked President Bush to formally notify Congress, on his behalf, of his intent to exercise the authority under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to access the last tranche of $350 billion in funding for Treasury programs addressing the financial crisis,” Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. “President Bush agreed to the president-elect’s request.” ..
The decision to request the money now reflects the calculation by Mr. Obama and his aides that it would be better to have both the incoming and outgoing presidents urging lawmakers to release the money, given the high level of anger and frustration on Capitol Hill over how the Bush administration has managed the bailout program.
Congress is not happy how the money was spent without corresponding concessions and without accounting for what it was used for.
Curiously, the law is written so that if Congress does not release the cash, then the president can sign a veto and get it anyway.
I agree with the latter half of your post, but with respect to the first assumption, both sides confirmed earlier that they had discussed the situation. One of the reasons that Obama was going to have Bush ask for the money was because he could not get assurances from the congress to approve it. He didn't want one of the first things he did in office to be using the presidential veto. I think the congressional leaders have come around in the last few days and there are enough votes now.
That's what I read in the papers and saw on tv anyway. (too busy to look for it right now)
From The Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington -- President Bush today agreed to a request from President-elect Barack Obama to notify Congress to access the second half of the $700-billion financial bailout fund, starting a 15-day period in which lawmakers must act to block the money before it is automatically released.
In a letter to congressional leaders, one of Obama's top economic advisors told lawmakers "the need is imminent and urgent" for the remaining $350 billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
Bush said at his final news conference this morning that he would be willing to ask for the money on Obama's behalf to speed up the process for his incoming successor. But Bush said Obama had not asked him.
Within hours, however, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Obama formally asked Bush this morning to notify Congress for the remaining $350 billion from the program.
"President Bush agreed to the president-elect's request," she said. "We will continue our consultations with the president-elect's transition team, and with Congress, on how best to proceed in accordance with the requirements of the statute."
That article seems to have a very different spin than the was previously posted. This one seems to say that Obama asked and Bush agreed. Nothing sinister there.
Good to see the cooperation, but have they put the oversight into it yet?
That plan is apparently well under way and congress is going to be deeply involved in those discussions. That will take some time. To get that many people to agree on anything takes time.
So we just continue to throw money out there without the oversight? I thought they pointed that out last month as a huge issue. Didn't they even have a few Congressional hearings about it? the system is still broken and we are still throwing money at it.
What the hell are you talking about? They are dealing with the oversight and the logistics of how to implement them as we type.
But they don't have them in place and there is a bunch of those millions/billions unaccounted for.
that's on Bush's watch - He fucked that one up royally! He even alluded to that yesterday in an interview. This money is being asked for by Bush because of the 15 day period that congress has to approve the request. That way it will be ready for Obama to use in implementing his plan.
One article I read hinted that the request didn't come until today due to a miscommunication between Obama & Bush at the transition meetings. Bush brought up the issue again to Obama.
We will see. It has much less to do wtih Bush or Obama as it does with Congress. They need to provide the oversight and mandate reporting with dollar for dollar accountability. I have not seen that to date.
http://alaskakid.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/tarp-12-31-08-gao-report/And you won't - that money is G-O-N-E. That was a big part of the problem.
Tax breaks needed.
Economists Are Divided on Best Mix of Stimulus Article
By PHIL IZZO
Economists in the monthly Wall Street Journal forecasting survey generally agree with the size of President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus package but remain divided on where the money should be spent.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123195389790581947.htmlCongress clears way for second half of bailout
Senate approves infusion of bailout cash and an $825 billion stimulus bill
Congress laid the foundation for President-elect Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan on Thursday with remarkable speed, clearing the way for a new infusion of bailout cash for the financial industry while majority Democrats proposed spending increases and tax cuts totaling a whopping $825 billion.
It recommends tax cuts for businesses and individuals while pouring billions into areas such as health care, education, energy and highway construction.
At the same time, more traditional anti-recession spending was built in. There was more than $130 billion for health care, much of it to help states cope with the rising demand for Medicaid, the health care program for the low-income and a recession-era refuge for the newly laid-off.
More than $100 billion was ticketed for education, in part to help local school districts avoid the impact of state budget cuts. Billions more would increase spending for food stamps and unemployment benefits and finance expanded worker retraining programs.
A written summary showed $30 billion for highway construction, $10 billion for mass transit and rail, and $3 billion for airport improvements.
Looks like things are already happening and he hasn't even hit the oval office yet.
Then again:
From NBC's Mike Viqueira
It's on. The $825 billion stimulus package unveiled by Democrats this morning has Republicans literally speechless.
"Oh. My. God," said a stuttering Minority Leader John Boehner moments ago at a news conference. He was reacting after having just read the provisions outlined by Democrats today.
$1 billion for community development block grants. $650 million for digital TV coupons. Billions for universities.
Boehner says that much of it isn't going to do anything to help the economy in the short term. He says the approach by Democrats is to "clean out every dime from the taxpayer," and that the nation can't "borrow and spend it's way to prosperity."
House Republicans held their own forum today in an effort to talk about their ideas for an alternative, which are largely centered around tax cuts and credits.
The Democratic bill will see committee action on Wednesday, or, as Appropriations chairman Dave Obey put it today, "The day after the crown prince is sworn in."
An interesting turn of events
Bank of America Soars as Lewis, Directors Buy Shares
Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender by assets, gained 31 percent in New York trading after Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis and five directors bought more than 500,000 shares for at least $3 million.
Lewis bought 200,000 shares of the bank at prices ranging from $5.98 to $6.06 yesterday, while director Robert Tillman also bought 200,000 shares for $5.77 to $5.78, according to a filing today. Temple Sloan Jr., lead director of the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank, bought 41,800 shares. Buyers also included William Barnet III, Jacquelyn Ward and John Collins.
Purchases by insiders typically are seen as a vote of confidence, and the filing helped Bank of America stock regain some of the ground lost this week. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., also bought 500,000 shares of his bank valued at $11.5 million, according to a separate filing. Lewis bought his stake as the bank prepared to dismiss about 1,000 people, part of a reduction that may ultimately affect 35,000 jobs.
Bank of America shares advanced $1.58 to $6.68 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Earlier in the session, the shares reached $6.88. The company fell 29 percent yesterday to $5.10, a two-decade low, after Paul Miller, analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey Group Inc., said the bank needed to raise $80 billion of capital to reach adequate levels. JPMorgan added 25 percent today to $22.63.
Whats this all about? Anyone?
When my former employer was having financial issues, the CEO and several other execs invested heavily in the company's stock as a show of confidence. They filed chapter 7 a few months later. (The case is still languishing in the court system over 4 years later--but it doesn't matter because I really don't expect to get the $3000+ they owe me even after all the ducks have been sorted.)
Whats this all about? Anyone?
I can think of at least three possible interpretations.
First, stock prices looked like they were about to drop below December's new lows. A good time to buy(?) when management must proclaim buying decisions in advance.
Second, more Enron accounting was discovered in Merrill Lynch causing another complete loss of confidence in Bank of America. Either that was also another good reason to buy OR, well read the next paragraph.
Third, Lewis may be in for a proxy fight because of the Enron accounting and BAC now running to government for more welfare. Lewis's job may be on the line.
Well, yes, a vote of confidence may be another reason for the purchase. Or maybe the executives are still in denial as to how much trouble their institutions may be in. Reasons for the purchase could include parts of each above three points. Doubtful we will ever know their thinking. However even Bank of America and Citigroup have been sucked into a swirl around the drain.
Appreciate the problem. American financial institutions were running massive debt to equity ratios based only mythical accounting practices that claimed risk was under control. Europe demonstrates what better banking did. Bank of Scotland is in serious trouble because their ratio was 14:1. Most European banks were 5:1.
Morgan Stanley and others were operating at 30:1.
BTW, did anyone see 60 Minutes that demonstrated how Morgan Stanley, et al could run up the price of oil now that deregulation made it possible to manipulate markets with secret contracts? Enron accounting practices were alive and well for years. Why did Morgan Stanley own more oil than Exxon? Deregulation lobbied for in Congress in 2000 by Enron (that also made the mythical CA energy crisis possible) is still legal. Our banking and investment markets are a mess. Just another example of why finance markets must be so heavily regulated.
Does Lewis of BAC think things can only get better with regulation? Well how many more "Enron accounting" failures are there waiting to be exposed? How many more shoes will fall.
The Detroit auto show demonstrated that Chrysler has zero innovations in the pipeline and little hope of surviving as is. Nardelli is doing to Chrysler what he did to Home Depot. But then maybe we have already discounted the inevitable. Maybe that is but another reason why Lewis believes the bottom has been found.
Suggested are only a few reasons for his decisions. Nobody really knows how many more "Enron accounting" disasters await exposure. It is still a mess. We can only speculate what Lewis is speculating.
Imagine that...
Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions
Barney Frank Goes to Bat for Lender, and It Gets an Infusion
Troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston didn't look much like a candidate for aid from the Treasury Department's bank bailout fund last fall.
The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use.
Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258284337504295.html?mod=article-outset-box
A nice chart of where the money went:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_BANKMONEY_20081027.htmlWhat are you getting out of that Merc? I see nothing surprising there - Bush and the democratic leaders apparently threw the money to their bankin cronies.
I just believe that most people believe that the Dems in Congress have no part of this.
Bush and the democratic leaders apparently threw the money to their bankin cronies.
Under the excuse of 'systemic' risk, Paulson, et al literally threw money at a problem with no game plan. The theory was that credit markets had rusted frozen. So if we throw enough oil at it, then rust would liquefy? Of course, that did not happen (as best we can tell). They had no plan, no study, no grasp, and a belief that something must be done ad hoc and ASAP.
So Goldman Sachs got $10billion and immediately rewarded employees with more than $10billion in bonuses. But appreciate the problem. Enron accounting is so widespread that even Merrill Lynch has again discovered more hidden losses - causing Bank of America to again go running for government welfare using claims of 'systemic' risk.
Now is time to learn from what we always knew and what worked. For example, the CA energy crisis demonstrated what happens when markets are liberated from regulation; when most trading occurs outside of open markets and in secret. And so we relived that mistake with gasoline prices and so many other markets.
Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) demonstrated what happens when options are traded secretly. LTCM was a potential $1.2 trillion meltdown. What did we do? We completely ignore the problem and lesson. Do nothing. Same problem exists again on an even larger scale.
The S&L crisis was solved by not protecting corrupt management and stockholders. Instead, responsible banks were loaned money to buy, disassemble, and clean out bad (corrupt) banks. Problem solved. Today, we gave the most corrupt banks money to reward themselves. Even AIG was still paying bonuses.
Learn the lessons of so many mistakes. Clearly a $trillion has been spent .... and still a housing mortgage problem persists without any resolution (as ABC News and Representative Maxine Waters demonstrated with Bank of America). We have seen what not to do. Question remains whether our leaders have finally grasp those lessons.
Even Enron accounting is still industry acceptable. We have not even addressed that obvious problem.
What are you getting out of that Merc? I see nothing surprising there - Bush and the democratic leaders apparently threw the money to their bankin cronies.
How do you know, it all happened under a TARP? :haha:
Japan's big-works stimulus is lesson for U.S.
HAMADA, Japan: The Hamada Marine Bridge soars majestically over this small fishing harbor, so much larger than the squid boats anchored below that it seems out of place.
And it is not just the bridge. Two decades of generous public works spending have showered this city of 61,000 mostly graying residents with a highway, a two-lane bypass, a university, a prison, a children's art museum, the Sun Village Hamada sports center, a bright red welcome center, a ski resort and an aquarium featuring three ring-blowing Beluga whales.
Nor is this remote port in western Japan unusual. Japan's rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while failing to generate a convincing recovery.
Now, as the Obama administration embarks on a similar path, proposing to spend more than $820 billion to stimulate the sagging American economy, many economists are taking a fresh look at Japan's troubled experience. While Japan is not exactly comparable to the United States — especially as a late developer with a history of heavy state investment in infrastructure — economists say it can still offer important lessons about the pitfalls, and chances for success, of a stimulus package in an advanced economy.
Well that really sucks. It is a longish article with some telling historical basis. Perhaps we could learn what NOT to spend money we already don't have on.
There's a difference between building for buildings sake and fixing the shit we've got that's literally falling apart.
Absolutely Bruce, I agree 100%, but finding the bridges, for example, that need the least amount of work and can be repaired in the least amount of time is not a good plan. There are so many that need to be completely replaced and those won't be getting any of this money. Not to mention the infrastructure like the sewers and and water systems in many major cities which would disrupt too much for too long to be properly repaired or upgraded.
Absolutely Bruce, I agree 100%, but finding the bridges, for example, that need the least amount of work and can be repaired in the least amount of time is not a good plan.
Which means we are right back to the question of which jobs are 'making work' verses those that result in a productive return on investment. Arguing about some unnamed bridge or water project that can resulting quick returns today is nonsense because the bridge is not named and the water main is not cited. Such discussion can only occur at that level - pipe by pipe and bridge by bridge.
A solution starts only when each project is determined individually to have a real ROI. If we wanted short term stimulus, then simply declare war on Korea or build a bridge to nowhere. Both will accomplish same economic stimulus.
Any real solution cannot show productive economic results for four years. This recession is created by decisions four and more years ago. Anything that might show results this year only works by mortgaging part of a recovery four and more years later. And so arguments are circular because nobody is citing a solution bridge by bridge and water main by water main. Only useful economic stimulus plan discusses solutions at that level.
Which means we are right back to the question of which jobs are 'making work' verses those that result in a productive return on investment.
A solution starts only when each project is determined individually to have a real ROI. Only useful economic stimulus plan discusses solutions at that level.
And? Do you have some insight into this? Is there a plan that is doing this? I agree with your point, but this isn't an exact science, is it?
Is there a plan that is doing this? I agree with your point, but this isn't an exact science, is it?
No, it is not an exact science because the metrics used to measure are so poor - ie spread sheets. How do you identify something that is innovative? No spread sheet can ever measure an innovation. Accounting has not a clue; can only see symptoms. Finance is too far removed to actually see things that create real ROI.
Yes, it is not an exact science because the metrics are not really measuring productive economic activity - only measure economic activity.
When was the need for a Golden Gate bridge proven? When the traffic was more than willing to pay those tolls. Long after it was finished. Previously, the need was only speculation. Another example of the deficiency in those finance metric.
How do we indentify a productive and therefore real stimulus project? We must do it bridge by bridge and sewer by sewer - using metrics that are not very good. But even worse, Congressmen are trying to make these determinations school by school. Well, they are not. Too much information and not enough congressman. They are throwing money blindly in different directions hoping that some money hits a needed bridge, water pipe, sewer, and school. That was also called the great leap forward, a five year plan, or central planning.
It is not an exact science. Only people who can really identify a best projects are little people who devise those projects and then get capital to make those projects work. Best bankers are those who also worked previously in a construction business, engineering firm, or trucking. Only they can best loan money to upstarts with new ideas or good plans. No wonder bankers like John Doer are so innovative. No wonder the big banks must make money using money games - they cannot see innovation.
Unfortunately accountants and finance people without real world experience created this problem. Polticians are not better at channeling capital where it may be most productive. But when so many bankers act as MBAs - well even the spread sheets now cannot be trusted. Just another reason why government is throwing more money at the economy. The only people who really know best - who best understand the metrics - are the innovators who come from where the work gets done. But even they cannot get money due to so many banks who think their purpose is profits rather than serving the innovators. So government is throwing money hoping to hit innovators with cash.
Far from an exact science. But then it also explains why communism does not work.
Simplified by
clusterstock
You have two cows.
John Paulson borrows one cow so he can sell it for $100. He gives you $10 as collateral.
You buy your neighbors cow for $100, which you finance by taking out a $90 loan from the bank and use John's $10 to make up the rest.
You brag to everyone about your financial health. You have assets--two cows you own, plus one Paulson owes you--worth $300, and liabilities of just $100.
A third of the country goes vegetarian.
You thought your two cows were worth $200 and now they are worth $140.
You express confidence in your financial health. Your assets are now worth only $200--your two cows plus the one John owes you--but your liabilities are still only $100. If necessary, you could sell the assets at this distressed price and pay off all your loans.
You hold onto your cows because you are sure the market is "dislocated." Some day someone will want to eat beef again.
The rest of the country goes vegetarian. Your two cows are now worth $2 each to guys who want to make dog food.
John Paulson buys a cow in the market for $2 and he gives it to you as repayment of the loan. You now have three cows worth six bucks.
John wants his $10 back.
The bank calls. It wants its $90 back.
You call the Federal Reserve and ask for a bailout.
I know you all know that Wells Fargo bought Wachovia with bail out money.
Even though they say they didn't, you SO know they did.
jerks.
Some of these people are going to have to re-incarnate many, many times to pay for their sins; and they WON'T be coming back as rich WASPS, either. They'll be poor black children.
Another example of America selling off parts to pay for Enron accounting, war without purpose, and LTCM style hedge fund investing. From the
NY Times of 11 Feb 2009:
Advanced Micro Devices, Intel’s main competitor, has found the cost of building chip factories so prohibitive that it is trying to turn over that part of its operation to a newly created company to stay focused on design. On Tuesday, A.M.D. said it would need to delay a shareholder vote on the creation of the company, jointly owned by A.M.D. and an investment firm based in Abu Dhabi, until next week.
Why Obama’s new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks
bama’s presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much. If he fails to act decisively, the president risks being overwhelmed, like his predecessor. The costs to the US and the world of another failed presidency do not bear contemplating.
What is needed? The answer is: focus and ferocity. If Mr Obama does not fix this crisis, all he hopes from his presidency will be lost. If he does, he can reshape the agenda. Hoping for the best is foolish. He should expect the worst and act accordingly.
Yet hoping for the best is what one sees in the stimulus programme and – so far as I can judge from Tuesday’s sketchy announcement by Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary – also in the new plans for fixing the banking system. I commented on the former last week. I would merely add that it is extraordinary that a popular new president, confronting a once-in-80-years’ economic crisis, has let Congress shape the outcome.
The banking programme seems to be yet another child of the failed interventions of the past one and a half years: optimistic and indecisive. If this “progeny of the troubled asset relief programme” fails, Mr Obama’s credibility will be ruined. Now is the time for action that seems close to certain to resolve the problem; this, however, does not seem to be it.
A dark read.
Detroit Automakers Face Extinction
That is next week's story. Already Chrysler has sold off part of itself to Fiat and others. GM should be doing same. It will not. Instead it will make veiled appeals for more government welfare. It will want more money to buy back parts of Delphi.
Ford is a completely different story. A benchmark has long been the 70 horsepower per liter engine. After violent arguments between William Clay Ford and Jacques Nasser, Nasser was removed and Ford Motor finally started to fix itself. How long ago? Maybe seven years ago? So Ford has just started their recovery. Innovation, quality, and design take that long. That was when Ford finally developed 70 Hp/liter engines - a technology that was world standard in 1992 and why no car needs a V-8 engine.
Chrysler has nothing in the innovation pipeline. GM has a 400 horsepower Camaro and a hybrid - the Volt. So they will both go crying to government about how '_hard_' they are working. Maybe they will do it without the George Jr whine. But next week is when this story gets told. Congress probably will have no choice but the agree with Detroit and offer more corporate welfare when both companies should be replacing their top executives.
I think the Chrysler-Fiat deal has fallen through.
Say it isn't so. The Italians wised up?
Nope, they're still dumb, and broke from what I read. :haha:
Financing isn't exactly abundant at the moment.
Hell, just have them get a loan from Guido at the Mafia bank.
Or Tony Soprano...oh. Wait. He might be dead...
Or the Vatican Bank.
Ahhhh... the Pope, not a bad idea. Maybe they could cash in the gold fillings from the Jews.
This is a very interesting article.
Chomsky: Understanding the Crisis — Markets, the State and Hypocrisy
This is pretty elementary economics. They happen to discuss it in this book; others have discussed it too. And that's what's happening. Risks were under-priced, therefore more risks were taken than should have been, and sooner or later it was going to crash. Nobody predicted exactly when, and the depth of the crash is a little surprising. That's in part because of the creation of exotic financial instruments which were deregulated, meaning that nobody really knew who owed what to whom. It was all split up in crazy ways. So the depth of the crisis is pretty severe — we're not to the bottom yet — and the architects of this are the people who are now designing Obama's economic policies.
Dean Baker, one of the few economists who saw what was coming all along, pointed out that it's almost like appointing Osama bin Laden to run the so-called war on terror. Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, Clinton's treasury secretaries, are among the main architects of the crisis. Summers intervened strongly to prevent any regulation of derivatives and other exotic instruments. Rubin, who preceded him, was right in the lead of undermining the Glass-Steagall act, all of which is pretty ironic. The Glass-Steagall Act protected commercial banks from risky investment firms, insurance firms, and so on, which kind of protected the core of the economy. That was broken up in 1999 largely under Rubin's influence. He immediately left the treasury department and became a director of Citigroup, which benefited from the breakdown of Glass-Steagall by expanding and becoming a "financial supermarket" as they called it. Just to increase the irony (or the tragedy if you like) Citigroup is now getting huge taxpayer subsidies to try to keep it together and just in the last few weeks announced that it's breaking up. It's going back to trying to protect its commercial banking from risky side investments. Rubin resigned in disgrace — he's largely responsible for this. But he's one of Obama's major economic advisors, Summers is another one; Summer's protégé Tim Geithner is the Treasury Secretary.
None of this is really unanticipated. There were very good economists like say David Felix, an international economist who's been writing about this for years. And the reasons are known: markets are inefficient; they under-price social costs. And financial institutions underprice systemic risk. So say you're a CEO of Goldman Sachs. If you're doing your job correctly, when you make a loan you ensure that the risk to you is low. So if it collapses, you'll be able to handle it. You do care about the risk to yourself, you price that in. But you don't price in systemic risk, the risk that the whole financial system will erode. That's not part of your calculation.
Well that's intrinsic to markets — they're inefficient. Robin Hahnel had a couple of very good articles about this recently in economics journals. But this is first year economics course stuff — markets are inefficient; these are some of their inefficiencies; there are many others. They can be controlled by some degree of regulation, but that was dismantled under religious fanaticism about efficient markets, which lacked empirical support and theoretical basis; it was just based on religious fanaticism. So now it's collapsing.
People talk about a return to Keynesianism, but that's because of a systematic refusal to pay attention to the way the economy works. There's a lot of wailing now about "socializing" the economy by bailing out financial institutions. Yeah, in a way we are, but that's icing on the cake. The whole economy's been socialized since — well actually forever, but certainly since the Second World War. This mythology that the economy is based on entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice, well ok, to an extent it is. For example at the marketing end, you can choose one electronic device and not another. But the core of the economy relies very heavily on the state sector, and transparently so. So for example to take the last economic boom which was based on information technology — where did that come from? Computers and the Internet. Computers and the Internet were almost entirely within the state system for about 30 years — research, development, procurement, other devices — before they were finally handed over to private enterprise for profit-making. It wasn't an instantaneous switch, but that's roughly the picture. And that's the picture pretty much for the core of the economy.
So Rubin gets the law changed and then went into the sector to benefit from it. . . nice.
Absolutely Bruce, I agree 100%, but finding the bridges, for example, that need the least amount of work and can be repaired in the least amount of time is not a good plan. There are so many that need to be completely replaced and those won't be getting any of this money. Not to mention the infrastructure like the sewers and and water systems in many major cities which would disrupt too much for too long to be properly repaired or upgraded.
So we should just let them continue to rot, so we don't inconvenience people? My god, the cost of repairs when things break every year just keeps adding up. We should just systematically start to fix/replace things, starting with the things that are in the worst shape. Remember the bridge that collapsed a couple of years ago? Or the water main busting in DC a few of months ago? Apparently, they had already fixed over 300 pipes in DC that had burst before that happened, this winter alone. In Savannah, where I live, underground pipes have blown up twice this year.
About Japan, from what I've heard from numerous economists, including Paul Krugman, the whole reason why Japan was in a recession for so long is because they didn't put enough money into it initially, so they had to keep pumping more in. That is why we need to go big, from the beginning. Doing things piecemeal, and stopping too soon, is what causes big recessions to last longer.
For crying out loud, even the Chamber of Commerce is behind the stimulus, and they are hardly a liberal organization.
Why Obama’s new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks
A dark read.
I don't really think we should be bailing out the banks. They caused this mess. I DO, however, believe we should be using government money to create jobs for people by rebuilding our infrastructure, pumping money into alternative enregy (which I believe will create a whole new industry and supply millions of jobs while reduce our dependence on oil), and updating our schools and medical records.
On Fareed Zakaria's show this past weekend, he was at the World Economic Forum, and the finance minister of France said they only had to bail out one of their banks, and when they did, they got rid of all the management. Isn't that how it should be? Why would we leave people in charge who caused this to happen? People keep saying they are the smartest people in America, well, really? Because it doesn't seem very smart to me, what they were doing. It isn't rocket science, even though they want us to believe it is.
And some of the people Obama has advising him were a part of it, I believe, like Larry Summers?
That is next week's story. Already Chrysler has sold off part of itself to Fiat and others. GM should be doing same. It will not. Instead it will make veiled appeals for more government welfare. It will want more money to buy back parts of Delphi.
Ford is a completely different story. A benchmark has long been the 70 horsepower per liter engine. After violent arguments between William Clay Ford and Jacques Nasser, Nasser was removed and Ford Motor finally started to fix itself. How long ago? Maybe seven years ago? So Ford has just started their recovery. Innovation, quality, and design take that long. That was when Ford finally developed 70 Hp/liter engines - a technology that was world standard in 1992 and why no car needs a V-8 engine.
Chrysler has nothing in the innovation pipeline. GM has a 400 horsepower Camaro and a hybrid - the Volt. So they will both go crying to government about how '_hard_' they are working. Maybe they will do it without the George Jr whine. But next week is when this story gets told. Congress probably will have no choice but the agree with Detroit and offer more corporate welfare when both companies should be replacing their top executives.
GM made electric cars back in the 90s. They CHOSE to quit making them and focus on gas guzzling trucks and SUVs. Maybe those companies should be turned over to innovators making electric cars, or cars that run on compressed air or something. I don't even think we should be fosuing on hybrids, they still require gas. For sure the management should be gone.
This is a very interesting article.
Chomsky: Understanding the Crisis — Markets, the State and Hypocrisy
So Rubin gets the law changed and then went into the sector to benefit from it. . . nice.
I love Noam Chomsky. Paul Krugman also saw it coming. He wrote a book about it back in 1999.
I posted links a couple of weeks ago about how the repeal of Glass-Steagal caused the housing crisis. And we can't just focus on bailing out banks, which I don't think we should do anyway, but we also have to get strong regulations and oversight back into place.
Did you see the Congress questioning all the bank CEOs the other day? Even most of them agreed they need regulating. HA! Now they admit it...
So we should just let them continue to rot, so we don't inconvenience people? We should just systematically start to fix/replace things, starting with the things that are in the worst shape.
Not at all - that was MY point, and we are! What this money is being spent on is the stuff that can be fixed the easiest with the least amount of disruption. From what I have heard from DOT engineers in a local state, the bridges and roadways which need the most serious repair and are in the worst shape are NOT GETTING FIXED.
About Japan, from what I've heard from numerous economists, including Paul Krugman, the whole reason why Japan was in a recession for so long is because they didn't put enough money into it initially, so they had to keep pumping more in. That is why we need to go big, from the beginning. Doing things piecemeal, and stopping too soon, is what causes big recessions to last longer.
I have heard that too - that is but one analysis of the Japanese situation. Doesn't really matter at this point. All we can do now is hope and pray that this package works.
I love Noam Chomsky.
So you agree with him:
Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, Clinton's treasury secretaries, are among the main architects of the crisis.
So you agree with him:
I don't really know that much about Larry Summers or Robert Rubin, or the part they played in this fiasco, but I trust Noam Chomsky, and I believe that many of the people who we are trusting to get us out of this mess are the ones who caused it. I would include Tim Geitner in there as well. He was in charge of the Federal Reserve Bank in NY, correct?
I just don't understand how all these really, really (supposedly) smart people missed what was happening, or didn't know it WOULD HAPPEN when they started figuring out all these crazy, stupid ways to make money. For crying out loud, I would have known it would eventually come tumbling down, and I am nowhere near a genius when it comes to finance stuff.
Maybe they all knew and got theirs before it happened. I don't see any of them hurting too bad.
Maybe they all knew and got theirs before it happened. I don't see any of them hurting too bad.
Exactly. Do you think that is OK?
I just don't understand how all these really, really (supposedly) smart people missed what was happening, or didn't know it WOULD HAPPEN when they started figuring out all these crazy, stupid ways to make money.
So in 2005 when I warned of an obvious and major impending disaster in housing prices, you immediately saw the wisdom and agreed? Naive is to blame Tim Geitner. In fact, when you posted this, instead, you should have been watching Frontline to first learn the story.
Well, what are you waiting for:
Inside the Meltdown
Obvious is the arrogance where brains were smaller, bonuses largest, egos inflated, and MBA training is everywhere. Blaming Tim Geitner is silly. This problem is directly traceable to what we did to make it possible. (see the word we - not they). We ignored Enron accounting. LTCM made obvious the lack of transparency to let finance people enrich themselves at the expense of America. What also resulted was the CA energy crisis and (it now appears) $4 per gallon gasoline.
Why does an executive deserve more than $1million annually. Why do people who were the less intelligent in school but are big image salesman type easily making $1million a year on Wall Street?
How much of the problem do you understand? Do you know that a stock broker underperforms the market. So he sells mutual funds rather than stocks - to increase your costs and his profits. Traditionally stock brokers are poor investors. They know almost nothing about economics or products, and everything about making the sale and enriching themselves. Is your stock broker informed, or only a salesman? Did you even ask yourself that question? If not, then you too are part of the problem. A finance person is paid for image; not for knowledge and intelligence. But because he moves large sums, he feels he must take a larger percentage and that only he best knows how to direct capital.
The people with knowledge and intelligence come from where the work gets done. So we let lower intelligence finance people hide their mismanagement in the name of deregulation? But again, watch the frustration of Bernanke and Paulson when these so called geniuses only played money games and chicken to enrich themselves and mortgage America.
When Greenspan was first told that 20% of the mortgages were sub prime, he denied it. No way would so many approve or apply for that kind of mortgage. But with extremists pushing deregulation, Greenspan had no way of knowing the content of mortgages. Today's finance industry turned into outright deception and shady backroom deals. We even let George Jr completely lie about Saddam's WMDs - and said that was good.
Long before looking at Geitner, instead, first look at yourself. Do you know that most every stock brokers is a poor investor; little more than a salesman? If you did not even know that, you set yourself up to be part of the problem. Geitner had nothing to do with, for example, so many people even foolishly taking out loans to buy disposable items such as cars.
Let's see how much your grasp. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to make housing more affordable. That is the statement. Do you believe that? Yes? No?
Both make housing prices higher. Using basic economics, then you know that AND will then reply with the reason why. Long before you could blame Geitner, you must have the answer to that question AND know the why behind that answer. Otherwise, you are simply part of the problem.
In 2007, markets were crashing. Merrill Lynch's senior VP warned loudly of the problem in early 2008. So Merrill Lynch's president fired him. Is that an accident? Later that president was paid something around $200 milliion to leave. This is also acceptable?
With any grasp of these last six months, then you know widespread denial was routine even one year later at the CEO level in all 'now famous' finance companies. They were doing exactly what is taught in business schools.
If you blame Geitner for anything, he did not let Bear Stearns go bankrupt. IOW his bosses let the rest of Wall Street remain in denial. What is found everywhere in this crisis? Massive debts and risk were hidden in Enron accounting schemes. Long before blaming Geitner, explain why widespread accounting fraud is now legal in America.
Learn why every stock broker, investment banker, insurance broker, etc all must be highly regulated. Why so much corruption? Tell me. What is the purpose of a company? The third question.
Let's see how much you knew before you were blaming Geitner. Three questions that are easily answered. You saw the impending housing crash in 2005? What do Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac do and why? What is the purpose of a company?
You misunderstand. I was not blaming Geitner. I was saying I don't know that much about him (like I don't know much about Larry Summers or Robert Rubin), but he was in charge of one of the Federal Reserve Banks, and is supposedly one of those bright people, so what did he know? I was asking the question. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. From what I've heard/read about him, he is supposed to be one of the people most likely to get us out of this mess. But again, I don't know much about him, so I don't know. IF he helped create the mess, he should not be in charge of getting us out of it. Neither should Larry Summers or Ben Bernanke or Hank Paulson, or anyone else who created the problem.
I have been raging against Wall Street and CEOs for ages. I think they are way overpaid, I always have. I call them corporate pirates. I don't think most of them deserve the money they make. I have also been griping about deregulation, ever since Reagan started the deregulation boom. I do not now, nor have I ever, thought business would effectively police itself. It goes against reality. And the more we deregulate, the more corrupt things get.
I watched a show on CNBC called "House of Cards" the other night about the meltdown.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719 It was very informative. Fannie and Freddie did not invent the subprime mortgage, nor any of the other unethical and questionable (borderline illegal?) activities that collapsed the market. Those were invented by Wall Street corporate pirates and other vultures in the wake of the deregulation of commercial and investment banks.
What pisses me off, is there are people walking away from this with millions and millions of dollars. They knew what they were doing was questionable. How could they not know? But they did it anyway. And they collapsed the entire world economy. They should all go straight to prison, AND lose all their money. THEY should be the ones bailing us out, don'tcha think?
I think they hired him because he knows the system and the players... and they know him.
If he follows the program, he can be a valuable aid. If he doesn't, hopefully there will be enough transparency to nip him in the bud. We'll see what works and what doesn't, and I'll accept that but I don't want any secret under the table bullshit.
Geithner is a total insider. Ponzi turns itself inside out and gets a pass. The liberal press ignores it. If it was a Republickin Admin doing the same thing there would be a frigging riot. Double standard stinks.
You misunderstand. I was not blaming Geitner. I was saying I don't know that much about him (like I don't know much about Larry Summers or Robert Rubin), but he was in charge of one of the Federal Reserve Banks, and is supposedly one of those bright people, so what did he know?
It was not their job to know. It was their job to blow the whistle. However we built a system where accounting fraud (Enron accounting) is now legal. Look at what Geitner did when he finally walked into Bear Stearns to discover what was going on. He and his staff worked all night. Then at 4 o'clock AM, he called Benanke. Woke Bernanke up to announce ‘Pearl Harbor’. Bear Stearns was wall to wall junk.
Did the Wall Street executives know this years ago? Of course. What did they do? One (Merrill Lynch) even fired the messenger. They even created dummy companies to move losses into. Then claimed those companies as assets on their spread sheets. This is acceptable behavior if trained as a stock broker, investment banker, or MBA. Why are stock broker investment recommendations not to be trusted? Why do so many stock brokers recommend mutual funds to ignorant investors?
How do you know the company is in trouble? CEO comes from the finance department. Carly Fiorina who was running HP into the ground. She also was dumb because her education was MBA. Look at Rick Wagoner at GM. He never ran an single profitable operation in GM. But he was a finance guy his entire carrer. So they made him the top liar in GM. Look at the guys who replaced Herb Greenburg in AIG. The guy who created risk management was basically forced out so they could buy massive CDOs for increased profits and completely disregard the risks.
Again, I asked three important questions. Questions asked because the answers are paramount. Three questions. You saw the impending housing crash in 2005? What do Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac do and why? What is the purpose of a company? Three questions that make obvious what has happened. I await those answers that better define this mess.
Look over there. No the other way....
It was not their job to know. It was their job to blow the whistle. However we built a system where accounting fraud (Enron accounting) is now legal. Look at what Geitner did when he finally walked into Bear Stearns to discover what was going on. He and his staff worked all night. Then at 4 o'clock AM, he called Benanke. Woke Bernanke up to announce ‘Pearl Harbor’. Bear Stearns was wall to wall junk.
Did the Wall Street executives know this years ago? Of course. What did they do? One (Merrill Lynch) even fired the messenger. They even created dummy companies to move losses into. Then claimed those companies as assets on their spread sheets. This is acceptable behavior if trained as a stock broker, investment banker, or MBA. Why are stock broker investment recommendations not to be trusted? Why do so many stock brokers recommend mutual funds to ignorant investors?
How do you know the company is in trouble? CEO comes from the finance department. Carly Fiorina who was running HP into the ground. She also was dumb because her education was MBA. Look at Rick Wagoner at GM. He never ran an single profitable operation in GM. But he was a finance guy his entire carrer. So they made him the top liar in GM. Look at the guys who replaced Herb Greenburg in AIG. The guy who created risk management was basically forced out so they could buy massive CDOs for increased profits and completely disregard the risks.
Again, I asked three important questions. Questions asked because the answers are paramount. Three questions. You saw the impending housing crash in 2005? What do Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac do and why? What is the purpose of a company? Three questions that make obvious what has happened. I await those answers that better define this mess.
hey, I agree with you. But to answer your questions, did I see the crash in 2005? No, but I don't work in finance, banking or housing. IF I had known they were bundling mortgages and selling them over and over again, and they weren't checking people's income to see if they could even afford to buy a house, and mortgage lenders were creating loans where payments would balloon in a few years, and they were coercing some people into these loans who did not understand them, then I would have seen it, yes. Those are NOT good business practices, it is insanity.
My understanding of Fannie and Freddie is they were part private/part government mortgage companies. Fannie was created after the Great Depression to help lower income families own homes. It worked great for decades. From what I've read/heard, my understanding is the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, and the separation of investment banks and regular banks, is partly what caused this. The rest is the creation, by all those MBAs you talked about, of seriously flawed systems that enabled them to make lots and lots of money while risking the world economy.
IMO, the purpose of a company is to supply a need, and supply a living to people working there. Yes, it is also their business to make money, but not at the expense of the workers, the shareholders, or anyone else (I would include the environment there) by engaging in risky behavior so people can make money.
I watched the movie Wall Street earlier, and it is even more relevent today than it was in the 80s. People on Wall Street have gotten greedier and greedier, and the job they do is crap. They don't produce anything. You are right. All they are is glorified salesmen. And what they are selling, the foundation of the system, is fundamentally flawed. I don't presume to understand it, all I know is they continually cause all kinds of problems that effect society as a whole. I am all for free enterprise, when that's what it is. What we have now? It's not that.
Geithner is a total insider. Ponzi turns itself inside out and gets a pass. The liberal press ignores it. If it was a Republickin Admin doing the same thing there would be a frigging riot. Double standard stinks.
huh?
And ftr, I have stated many times that Clinton is the one who signed the repeal of Glass Steagal, and that many democrats also went along with the deregulation of the laws that allowed this to happen. They should ALL be held accountable for whatever their parts were in this faisco. I am sick of corruption and greed. I am sick of it in business, and I am sick of it in government, and I am sick to death of living in a society where people only care about themselves, damn the rest. THAT is the attitude that allows this kind of thing to grow. And I'm sorry Merc, I love you to pieces, but you have that attitude. That attitude is part of the problem.
Look over there. No the other way....
Illusion? Misdirection? Yes, they are sort of like magicians...
huh?
And ftr, I have stated many times that Clinton is the one who signed the repeal of Glass Steagal, and that many democrats also went along with the deregulation of the laws that allowed this to happen. They should ALL be held accountable for whatever their parts were in this faisco. I am sick of corruption and greed. I am sick of it in business, and I am sick of it in government, and I am sick to death of living in a society where people only care about themselves, damn the rest. THAT is the attitude that allows this kind of thing to grow. And I'm sorry Merc, I love you to pieces, but you have that attitude. That attitude is part of the problem.
That is a bit unfair because I care for people every day. I don't care for people coming into my life and telling me that I have to take my accomplishments and give them to others. I don't believe in wealth redistribution plans even though we already have that in the form of our tax system. It needs to be changed. I don't believe that we should make people who worked hard to get to a certain point and turn around and not give them an equal break to the asshole down the street who over mortgaged his life and bought into a home he never could have afforded. Nor do I think we should give people a break who sat on their ass screwing up their life while the rest of went to school and busted our assess. You make of life what it is and your failure to make the right choices are not my problem.
hey, I agree with you. But to answer your questions, did I see the crash in 2005? No, but I don't work in finance, banking or housing. IF I had known they were bundling mortgages and selling them over and over again, and they weren't checking people's income to see if they could even afford to buy a house, and mortgage lenders were creating loans where payments would balloon in a few years, and they were coercing some people into these loans who did not understand them, then I would have seen it, yes.
Posted in 7 Sept 2006 in
Which is your favorite paranoid fantasy?Has good news in this economy been based in productive activities? Well, incomes have been dropping for the past five years. So why the strong housing market? Was that housing market due to productive and necessary products - or just wild speculation? ...
Those who otherwise could not afford the home and those who were only buying on speculation will suffer. Big part of the American economy that has been its 'engine' may collapse. That is the economic fear to a flurry of bankruptcies, a collapse of industries that kept the American economy looking good, and maybe a major recession. ...
Any one of three things may happen. Housing prices drop leaving massive debts for homeowners - maybe a house worth less than its mortgage. Rents skyrocket. Third is inflation resulting in much higher interest rates. We already see inflation jolting upward AND massive American dollars overseas waiting for what?
Nobody really knew how much worse the economy had been made because Enron accounting and other money games were openly encouraged even at highest levels in government. Meanwhile, notice how many even denied that mild warning in 2006.
We knew a downturn was coming. We just had no idea how severe it would be because fraud was almost everywhere in the finance industry. Obvious in facts and numbers posted in those 2006 responses: downturn was pending. After all, that is what even tax cuts create once we eliminate rhetoric from those inspired by politicians. Any yet in the face of such facts, many (and from my perspective - most) still remained in denial.
Even Greenspan, who did not believe outrageous fraud had been all but encouraged by government, said finance people in free markets can be trusted. Greenspan could not believe people would promote or sign into an ARM. It just made no sense - except where political spin had even promoted houses as an investment. (If not yet obvious - housing never was investment.) Obvious was a pending downturn. But those who should have known it would remain openly in denial. Those who knew the entire financial industry was mostly wealth created by toxic (fictional) assets (ie CDOs, SIVs) attached to nothing of physical value - they were most in denial.
The lesson is obvious - your stock broker, investment banker, or financial consultant is typically the worst person to consult for financial advice. These people are mostly either ignorant of basic economics or have interested contrary to yours.
View that discussion even in July 2006 where I knew something bad was pending - with reasons why. Obvious even to me without any finance training or industry experience. But then I do not entertain my emotions AND do not listen to political hype, conclusions without reasons and numbers, and other junk science myths. One need not be in the industry to know something bad was coming. (Even I did not realize in 2006 how much worse it would be.)
Without finance knowledge, I did something I never do. Early last year (2008), I sold all investments. Without any financial knowledge and a contempt for brokers who really have no economic knowledge (who are only salesmen), I did something completely contrary to my investment philosophies - that I never did in generations. I got out because this market was obviously in a dangerous and unstable state due to too much MBA thinking and too few productive companies. Because I have contempt for political spin, the economy was in trouble.
The point: yes most who ignored facts and numbers - who were the problem and preached the party line - could not see it coming even thought facts and numbers were screaming otherwise. No, I too had no reason to know it would be this bad. But remember, finance people (some of the least economically knowledgeable and trustworthy) are promoting another obvious myth about a recovery in 2009 or 2010. Economists are saying otherwise. But again, finance people are not driven by knowledge even when facts and numbers bluntly say otherwise.
With basic knowledge (in or out of the finance industry), obvious was a housing bubble that had to crash because housing prices were 40% too high. Obvious was that all housing prices had to fall at least 20%. Obvious. And then we learned finance people did only what finance people routinely do - outright fraud and corruption. Mortgage backed securities and other intentional lies intended first or only to enrich finance people (despite what finance people said or believed).
Predicting a pending housing crisis in 2005 did not require finance wizardry. It required one to think logically and to not believe the so called experts who really don't understand basic economics (ie what was posted in mid July 2006) and whose interests are too often contrary to others.
This completes a response to question one. What you saw in 2005 is typical because we tend to deny facts and even listen to people whose interests are often contrary to America. A long reply because this quite simple concept still remains too new or radical to some. But again, read that 2006 discussion to appreciate why housing problem should have been obvious to laymen even in 2005.
You are suppose to say that a so called 'booming' economy was partially due to people taking houses they could not afford. A later resulting recession created by an economy today inflated by wild and irresponsible government spending and other financial instruments that create only paper wealth.
Thread title was Paranoid Fantasy? Yes, to so many in 2006 who remained in denial of facts that everyone could /should have known.
My understanding of Fannie and Freddie is they were part private/part government mortgage companies. Fannie was created after the Great Depression to help lower income families own homes. It worked great for decades. From what I've read/heard, my understanding is the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, and the separation of investment banks and regular banks, is partly what caused this.
Glass Stegall separated investment banks and commercial banks. But it was never completely repealed. For example, ask your commercial banker about your stock investments. He cannot access them. Investments are separted from commercial banking.
Fannie and Freddie were crated to help low income families more easily afford a home. Make homes affordable to the early comers and increase housing prices for everyone else. There is no free money. A lower interest rate for early applicants means homes now have more buyers: so home prices increase making homes just as less affordable. But now we have this massive government bureaucracy that also must be paid for. Worse, to put things back to normal - to eliminate Fannie and Freddie – home prices drop down to where they should have been. Home sellers take an unexpected price drop.
The intent (a popular belief) is not what Fannies and Freddie actually do. Did it worked great for decades? Or did people appreciate them while ignoring why Fannie and Freddie only caused higher housing prices and more government bureaucracy? Show me how Freddie and Fannie also capped housing prices?
Why would Fannie and Freddie be necessary? Because commercial banks would not make home loans? So we maintain massive government bureaucracies rather than fix the problem - bank loan officers? Yes, things like Freddie and Fannies had a purpose to fix a temporary problem during the Depression. However their continued existence does little productive. Their functions should have been passed back to commercial banks and other mortgage lenders long ago.
All that goodness by Fannie and Freddie ignores how both distort market prices – keep prices artificially higher – do not make houses any more affordable. IOW too many believe what they are told - ignore how the housing market compensates low interest Fannie and Freddie mortgages by raising prices.
THAT is the attitude that allows this kind of thing to grow. And I'm sorry Merc, I love you to pieces, but you have that attitude. That attitude is part of the problem.
Blind loyalty in any form is bad and allows manipulation.
The markets response to the first 30 days.
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1235163600000&chddm=8602&q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ntsp=0
It's still Bush's fault. The D's will ride that horse right through 2010 and 2012, bet on it.
IMO, the purpose of a company is to supply a need, and supply a living to people working there. Yes, it is also their business to make money, but not at the expense of the workers, the shareholders, or anyone else ...
I watched the movie Wall Street earlier, and it is even more relevent today than it was in the 80s. People on Wall Street have gotten greedier and greedier, and the job they do is crap.
Greed is good only when the greedy forget their purpose: forget to serve the economy. Your response to question three is the rare and accurate one. But Wall Street has not become greedier. We asked them to become greedier. Wall Street et al always needs heavy regulation because of the nature of a finance person is to enrich themselves first. To sell anybody anything as long as they reap a profit. All are greedy. Some less than others.
Derivatives and other such contracts have no business being traded outside of regulated markets. Worse, accounting has no right to consider them hard assets. 'Mark to market' being absolutely essential because finance people are forced to maintain a larger inventory of real collateral to back up those 'short' assets. 'Mark to market' also forces traders to have access to liquidity that day in case assets do what are normal in any market. In short, to have reserves so that today’s financial collapses could never happen.
The best part of 'mark to market' - the greedy finance man gets driven to bankruptcy now before he can cause even further and worse damage. Bankruptcy is especially essential to harm the greedy ones. But today, we even eliminated regulations and oversight. Some so love to destroy Wall Street responsibility as to even oppose 'mark to market' – which is especially brutal on the greediest.
Extremist Republicans got the economy they wanted - where the rich reap income increases sometimes by 60% and 100% annually. Where the middle class saw their incomes drop 2%. Where the most rewarded are finance people – not innovators who actually do productive work. How curious. This income redistribution only happened once previously in American history - just before the 1929 stock market crash.
They did not get greedier. Finance people - including those I went to school with - typically are not the bright ones. They are the greedy ( often conceited) ones who more often promoted themselves. Were chock full of vanity and self-promotion. In some cases, had no interest in knowing how anything worked.
People whose job is about promoting myth - whose wealth can increase if they can lie: over the past ten years we let them do that without oversight.
They did not get any greedier. When did everyone know the foxes controlled the hen house? When the Feds refused to investigate and prosecute Enron. When Harvey Pitts (George Jr's SEC commissioner) refused to take any additional money from Congress to do SEC investigations. They were as greedy as we wanted. Nobody could have ignored Harvey Pitts testimony (and his predecessors) unless they wanted foxes to control the hen house. Any additional greed is directly traceable to Cellar dwellers and other citizens who wanted greed to increase by staying silent and naive.
Why do venture capitalists create so many productive companies? And not Wall Street? The former invest by actually knowing how things work. The latter believe their personal wealth is more important and only know what any salesman would understand. Which ones reap profits by serving America? Which ones reap bonuses by inventing finanical instruments not even based in hard assets? George Jr encouraged the greed that we wanted.
The markets response to the first 30 days.
As the president so accurately noted, we will be paying for wacko extremist economics for the next 10 years. But too many with MBA training were predicting a recovery in 2009 or 2010. Anyone with minimal economic knowledge knows that is impossible. Markets are slowly realizing how destructive wacko extremists have been to America AND how deep the damage is. Slowly, those who predicted recovery in 2009 are realizing a recovery cannot happen. George Jr’s legacy is alive and well.
Expect at least another four years of George Jr "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" economics. Economic damage created by tax cuts, trickle down economics, destruction of science to make wackos happy, "Mission Accomplished" ... hell, he did not even bother to go after bin Laden. Just another bill we must pay for. We have yet to pay the bills just as Nixon's lies in 1969 & 70 caused economic damage in 1975 and 1979. We have yet to see how destructive George Jr has been to America. Slowly, even wacko extremist Republicans on Wall Street are coming to grips with the carnage. Who knows how much farther George Jr's intelligent will push down the Dow Jones. Pending are bills created by "Mission Accomplished". And then we must fight the Afghanistan war all over again.
That is a bit unfair because I care for people every day. I don't care for people coming into my life and telling me that I have to take my accomplishments and give them to others. I don't believe in wealth redistribution plans even though we already have that in the form of our tax system. It needs to be changed. I don't believe that we should make people who worked hard to get to a certain point and turn around and not give them an equal break to the asshole down the street who over mortgaged his life and bought into a home he never could have afforded. Nor do I think we should give people a break who sat on their ass screwing up their life while the rest of went to school and busted our assess. You make of life what it is and your failure to make the right choices are not my problem.
The world has changed significantly over the past few of decades, and it gets worse every year. It used to be perfectly acceptable to do something with your life other than spend years in school, and you could still make a decent living. People who worked in construction or factories, etc. made a decent wage, why is it their their fault that we have allowed corporations to go offshore in order to increase their profits by using cheap labor, or that corporations and rich people have chosen to hire illegals instead of giving jobs to Americans, so they can have cheap labor? Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or a lawyer, and the fucking people going to business school getting MBAs are a bunch of greedy morons who have crashed the entire world economy. Why do THEY deserve so much money, when teachers and cops and soldiers get crap pay? Why is OK that CEO pay has risen to almost 500x the amount of average workers, while salaries have been stagnant for their workers, and even gone down? Why is OK for profit to outweigh everything else?
As far as taxes go, our taxes pay for WalMart's employees healthcare, one of the richest, most successful corporations of all time. Our taxes pay for new stadiums owned by rich pricks who own sports teams, but we get nothing back from them, no benefit (yes, it may benefit the people in the city where they build them, but why is the rest of the country paying for that?). Our taxes pay for the R&D of most drugs, but pharmaceutical companies jack the prices up in to the stratoshpere and many people (whose taxes helped develop those drugs) cannot afford to buy them. IF you're going to be all pissed off about wealth redistribution, please, be angry at the right people. The rich have been stealing from the poor and middle class for decades now. It's time we got some equilibrium back.
It's disturbing to me how indifferent you are sometimes to the plight of people who are less fortunate than you are. What if something catastrophic happened to you, or someone in your family, and you lost your income and benefits (unlikely I know because you work in healthcare) and you were unable to support them? What if you lost your job, and your income, and you couldn't find another job, and you couldn't sell your house (assuming it's not paid for, which I know it probably is)? What the hell would you do?
I know you probably don't care, but I have 3 family members who are afraid of losing their jobs right now (one works for Chatham Steel, one works for Toyota, and one is a fireman). Yes, they are all educated. They all went to college. They have all had these jobs for many years. If something happens, and they lose their jobs, they will be in danger of losing their homes as well. Whose fault is that?
After the last bubble crash (the .coms), my cousin, who worked in IT and made a ton of money, lost her job. It took her over a year to find another one. Is that her fault? And a LOT of white collar jobs that require degrees are now also going byebye. If someone buys a house they can actually afford because they have a good job, and then a few years later they lose that job and can't find another one, because the economy crashed, why is that their fault? While it is true that a lot of people were living beyond their means, there are also a lot being hurt now who were not. Whose fault is that?
Glass Stegall separated investment banks and commercial banks. But it was never completely repealed. For example, ask your commercial banker about your stock investments. He cannot access them. Investments are separted from commercial banking.
Fannie and Freddie were crated to help low income families more easily afford a home. Make homes affordable to the early comers and increase housing prices for everyone else. There is no free money. A lower interest rate for early applicants means homes now have more buyers: so home prices increase making homes just as less affordable. But now we have this massive government bureaucracy that also must be paid for. Worse, to put things back to normal - to eliminate Fannie and Freddie – home prices drop down to where they should have been. Home sellers take an unexpected price drop.
The intent (a popular belief) is not what Fannies and Freddie actually do. Did it worked great for decades? Or did people appreciate them while ignoring why Fannie and Freddie only caused higher housing prices and more government bureaucracy? Show me how Freddie and Fannie also capped housing prices?
Why would Fannie and Freddie be necessary? Because commercial banks would not make home loans? So we maintain massive government bureaucracies rather than fix the problem - bank loan officers? Yes, things like Freddie and Fannies had a purpose to fix a temporary problem during the Depression. However their continued existence does little productive. Their functions should have been passed back to commercial banks and other mortgage lenders long ago.
All that goodness by Fannie and Freddie ignores how both distort market prices – keep prices artificially higher – do not make houses any more affordable. IOW too many believe what they are told - ignore how the housing market compensates low interest Fannie and Freddie mortgages by raising prices.
If they are so bad, why then did they only now crash? Fannie has been around since the 30s or 40s. Seems to have worked pretty well up until recently.
...Why do venture capitalists create so many productive companies? And not Wall Street? The former invest by actually knowing how things work. The latter believe their personal wealth is more important and only know what any salesman would understand. Which ones reap profits by serving America? Which ones reap bonuses by inventing finanical instruments not even based in hard assets? George Jr encouraged the greed that we wanted.
We could all learn something by listening to, and living by, the words and ideals of Benjamin Franklin...
"As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously." His inventions also included social innovations, such as "paying forward." Franklin's fascination with innovation could be viewed as altruistic; he wrote that his scientific works were to be used for increasing efficiency and human improvement.The world has changed significantly over the past few of decades, and it gets worse every year. It used to be perfectly acceptable to do something with your life other than spend years in school, and you could still make a decent living.
That is the point exactly. It will never be the same. People need to get over it and move on, come up with new and innovative ways to make a living as well as come up with new plans, be willing to change jobs, relearn, etc. But most people are not willing to do that. Why? Now just wait for the government to bail them out. I will not defend the corps that go off shore, but I find it hard to condemn them as well. IMHO that all started with Clinton and NAFTA. It is only because of the current round of massive layoffs that people are now willing to do anything to get by. You want to blame all of this on Corps and that is a simplistic view.
People who worked in construction or factories, etc. made a decent wage, why is it their their fault that we have allowed corporations to go offshore in order to increase their profits by using cheap labor, or that corporations and rich people have chosen to hire illegals instead of giving jobs to Americans, so they can have cheap labor?
Who says it is their fault? Not me. Who says that corps and "rich people have chosen to hire illegal’s instead of giving jobs to Americans". That is a pretty damm broad sweeping list of allegations on which to blame all of the countries economic ills. I doubt you can back most of it up. How about Corps have gone where labor is cheap because it is a profit driven industry. You have this hard on for anyone who makes money. How about the companies have given jobs to people who are willing to work hard, not the slackers who would rather sit on their ass and complain about how the man is keeping them down and enslaving them while they spit out another baby from some baby daddy? How do you explain the Korean immigrants who moved to the most depressed parts of cities in America and opened hugely successful chains of grocery stores? How about the waves of immigrants from India or Pakistan and have opened huge successful chains of hotels and motels? Where is the American drive to do that among those who started with or had very little to do that? You can't blame Corps and "rich people" for all the ills of this Nation. That is a ridiculous notion. This country was founded on the tenacity, innovation, and investment of "rich people".
[quotoe]Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or a lawyer, and the fucking people going to business school getting MBAs are a bunch of greedy morons who have crashed the entire world economy.[/quote]So people are greedy if they work hard to get an advanced education and take advantage of a system that rewards hard work? Wow. Envy much?
Why do THEY deserve so much money, when teachers and cops and soldiers get crap pay? Why is OK that CEO pay has risen to almost 500x the amount of average workers, while salaries have been stagnant for their workers, and even gone down? Why is OK for profit to outweigh everything else?
Who gets to say who deserves what in this life? I don't disgree that we have huge sectors of our society that is underpaid and under appreciated. You can't defend a socialist construct to me. I don't buy it.
As far as taxes go, our taxes pay for WalMart's employees healthcare, one of the richest, most successful corporations of all time.
And the millions of illegal aliens, and welfare mothers on the dole.
Our taxes pay for new stadiums owned by rich pricks who own sports teams, but we get nothing back from them, no benefit (yes, it may benefit the people in the city where they build them, but why is the rest of the country paying for that?).
Many people would disagree with that. You completely ignore the revenue that is gained from attracting millions of people to the events where they then spend money on the local economy.
Our taxes pay for the R&D of most drugs, but pharmaceutical companies jack the prices up in to the stratoshpere and many people (whose taxes helped develop those drugs) cannot afford to buy them.
Actually our high prices of medications pay for that, not our taxes. Get your facts straight.
IF you're going to be all pissed off about wealth redistribution, please, be angry at the right people. The rich have been stealing from the poor and middle class for decades now. It's time we got some equilibrium back.
I agree we need to get some equilibrium back and inact a flat tax so every single person pays the same rate, regardless of income. You make $1000, you pay $200 to tax. You make $100,000, you pay $20,000. No one gets a pass.
It's disturbing to me how indifferent you are sometimes to the plight of people who are less fortunate than you are.
It disturbs me that you judge me about what I do and how I feel. I take care of people everyday who are less fortunate than me.
What if something catastrophic happened to you, or someone in your family, and you lost your income and benefits (unlikely I know because you work in healthcare) and you were unable to support them? What if you lost your job, and your income, and you couldn't find another job, and you couldn't sell your house (assuming it's not paid for, which I know it probably is)? What the hell would you do?
What if I did? I would sell my assets and start over. And that is why I pay so much for insurance.
I know you probably don't care, but I have 3 family members who are afraid of losing their jobs right now (one works for Chatham Steel, one works for Toyota, and one is a fireman). Yes, they are all educated. They all went to college. They have all had these jobs for many years. If something happens, and they lose their jobs, they will be in danger of losing their homes as well. Whose fault is that?
Why are you judging my feelings again? There is much I could tell you about my family and their plights in life but it doesn't change the situation they find themselves in right now. And nothing I can say or do will change any of that. How for one fucking minute can you say that because of the plight of your family that I don't have my own issues to deal with concerning family members? What? Because I am not willing to put them on some public board? When times get tough we focus on our own families and issues, not yours. I have no responsibility for your problems or your families, my plate is full.
After the last bubble crash (the .coms), my cousin, who worked in IT and made a ton of money, lost her job. It took her over a year to find another one. Is that her fault?
Who said it was?
And a LOT of white collar jobs that require degrees are now also going byebye. If someone buys a house they can actually afford because they have a good job, and then a few years later they lose that job and can't find another one, because the economy crashed, why is that their fault? While it is true that a lot of people were living beyond their means, there are also a lot being hurt now who were not. Whose fault is that?
Well I know for one thing your simplistic view of who to blame is wrong.
They have all had these jobs for many years. If something happens, and they lose their jobs, they will be in danger of losing their homes as well. Whose fault is that?
You must acknowledge that the system that loses those jobs,
created those jobs in the first place. It's the same system.
Look at me. I was laid off the week after the crunch and I have a shitty mortgage in a house I can't afford, living on UI and charity. Sorry, it's not a tragedy, that I go around looking to
blame on something. Humbling maybe, but the worst that will happen is that I will have to sell the house and we'll move into an apartment or rent a townhouse. Sucks to be me?
Hell no, I will remain awesome (in a humble sort of way :D ) no matter what.
You must acknowledge that the system that loses those jobs, created those jobs in the first place. It's the same system.
Look at me. I was laid off the week after the crunch and I have a shitty mortgage in a house I can't afford, living on UI and charity. Sorry, it's not a tragedy that I go around looking to blame on something. Humbling maybe, but the worst that will happen is that I will have to sell the house and we'll move into an apartment or rent a townhouse. Sucks to be me? Hell no, I will remain awesome (in a humble sort of way :D ) no matter what.
The tenacity of the Great Toad embodies the American spirit so many lack.
People need to get over it and move on, come up with new and innovative ways to make a living as well as come up with new plans, be willing to change jobs, relearn, etc. But most people are not willing to do that. Why?
Maybe because they are over 45 or 50 and nobody will hire them no matter what they do. How many hotdog carts can survive?
Maybe because they are over 45 or 50 and nobody will hire them no matter what they do. How many hotdog carts can survive?
I hate to laugh but it made me LOL.
If they are so bad, why then did they only now crash? Fannie has been around since the 30s or 40s. Seems to have worked pretty well up until recently.
What they did and the reason for Fannie’s and Freddie's crash are different situations.
Fannie and Freddie crashed when recently doing something – finance 'toxic' mortgages. Mortgages that even Fannie and Freddie would never have touched 30 years ago.
Fannie and Freddie were established to make mortgages easier. As a result, home prices increased. Any bureaucratic solution to make mortgages easier was overridden by higher housing prices. Basic economics. Throwing money (ie lowering mortgage interest rates) does not make any economy wealthier or more productive. Throwing money makes a problem appear solved - short term ... then economics takes revenge – long term.
Fannie and Freddie should have been temporary solutions to a cash flow problem. When the problem was resolved, Fannie and Freddie were not longer necessary. Instead we added a new problem.
Something completely different are mortgages to anyone who could not afford them. Mortgages without any responsibility or due diligence. Even finance people 30 years ago would have never done this. The new mantra promoted by our wacko extremist’s political agenda: no responsibility got renamed deregulation. Short term money games - a ponzi scheme – that continued all through the 2000s also masked a 2004 downturn. What could have been a recession may now be a depression.
Fannie and Freddie, whose job should have been spun off to commercial banks, instead made things worse. Participated in another money game we now call mortgage backed securities and SIVs. But Fannie and Freddie were only doing what our wacko extremists politicians wanted. Encouraged by new Enron accounting techniques and corporate welfare. What Fannie and Freddie did are symptoms of a larger problem directly traceable to our 2000s government.
Ben Franklin's quote defines a patriotic American. Any great American from history innovated. Getting rich does not define a patriotic American. Any finance man who got rich only by financing - evil and corrupt.
A productive finance person is only a servant to the nation's patriots - people who actually innovate as Franklin defines. A finance person's job solves cash flow problems. Techniques such as investments, bridge loans, letters of credit, etc. are not innovations. A finance person deserves to be compensated as any servant or bureaucrat who pushes paper work. When the president of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan gets paid more than the president of Cisco or Hewlett Packard, then the economy has been corrupted by bean counters. The economy violates principles defined even by Franklin - where innovators deserve reward because they innovate rather than only push forms.
If we throw enough money at the economy - no matter where, will that really help?
If we throw enough money at the economy - no matter where, will that really help?
GM simply threw money like a grenade at problems for decades. Therefore GM deserved bankruptcy long ago. AT&T constantly threw money at problems and therefore completely self destructed - a good thing for America. Comcast profited from AT&T executives (MBAs) who were so stupid that Roberts Jr would routinely and publically insult AT&T's president. Part of the agreement for selling AT&T's cable companies at a 60% discount to Comcast - Roberts had to stop insulting the intelligence of AT&T's president.
In every case, they did what any MBA would do - throw money at problems rather than use money as scalpel. Nothing new. Perot defined this decades ago. Perot was GM's largest stock holder who discovered back then what has not changed in GM. GM being a perfect example of what MBAs do because they can only throw money at problems.
We threw $150billion into AIG. AIG is rumored to need another $60billion because we did not let bankruptcy attack America's greatest enemies - finance people who believe the purpose of a company is profits. (Why do these elite people get more government money than all welfare moms combined?) We reward people whose philosophy is also called communism.
We are throwing money at GM. Not only at government levels. Some in the Cellar so hated America as to buy GM products. Until we decide what makes America great, we will continue selling America off to the world to pay for more debts.
Due to "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter", Bernanke and the US Treasury now have no options left. We must print money (massive inflation and dollar devaluation) to pay for excessive George Jr spending, corporate welfare, and welfare to the rich. That's right. All sources of money are now down to printing more dollar bills or mortgaging American to foreigners.
We saved America by letting MBA dominated AT&T disappear. We saved America by letting IBM almost go under. So IBM fixed itself. But in the past decade, communism from wacko extremists in the past decade so hated America as to save big Steel, the traditionally anti-American auto companies, and now finance companies (all investment backs, the top five commercial banks, AIG, etc) while endorsing corruption or mismanagement such as the mythical CA energy crisis, First Energy, Enron, LTCM, etc. All of this by one administration driven only by an extremists political agenda, a low intelligence president, and a belief that enriching the elite (ie Halliburton) is good for American.
Wackos used political agendas to throw money at problems (ie tax cuts to the rich) rather than grasp reality. We have yet to see inevitable 10+% (probably 15%) interest rates, world record government debt (double or more), maybe 20% unemployment, record trade deficits, etc. All that may happen. Because we threw money at problems based upon political agendas, we now have massive bills coming due. The agenda was obvious, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Another $60billion for AIG. GM needs another $10billion. Citigroup needs who knows how much more money. And Wall Street executives need many tens of $billions in bonuses to preserve their standard of living.
Welcome to what happens when, for the past decade, we literally threw money at deserving parts of the economy - the elite rich and corporations. We have yet to see bills for "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" politics. Coming will be throwing more money as those bills come due. We have yet to see damage created by George Jr's "throw money at problems" solutions.
Obama has no choice but to pay those bills.
If we throw enough money at the economy - no matter where, will that really help?
Obama and the Demoncrats are trying.
You must acknowledge that the system that loses those jobs, created those jobs in the first place. It's the same system.
Look at me. I was laid off the week after the crunch and I have a shitty mortgage in a house I can't afford, living on UI and charity. Sorry, it's not a tragedy, that I go around looking to blame on something. Humbling maybe, but the worst that will happen is that I will have to sell the house and we'll move into an apartment or rent a townhouse. Sucks to be me? Hell no, I will remain awesome (in a humble sort of way :D ) no matter what.
Good luck selling your house. My mother had her house on the market for over a year, for significantly less than what it was worth. She took it off the market about 6 months ago. Really, I sincerely wish you luck, if it comes to that. I hope you get an accurate and honest value for its worth.
Originally Posted by Mercenary:
That is the point exactly. It will never be the same. People need to get over it and move on, come up with new and innovative ways to make a living as well as come up with new plans, be willing to change jobs, relearn, etc. But most people are not willing to do that. Why? Now just wait for the government to bail them out. I will not defend the corps that go off shore, but I find it hard to condemn them as well. IMHO that all started with Clinton and NAFTA. It is only because of the current round of massive layoffs that people are now willing to do anything to get by. You want to blame all of this on Corps and that is a simplistic view.
Maybe because they're too old? There is such a thing as ageism you know. Maybe there are no jobs out there. Some people cannot afford to move to places where jobs are more prevalent.
I have always blamed Clinton for the beginning of this. In addition, you don't seem to EVER want to lay the blame at the feet of greedy corporate pirates.
Who says it is their fault? Not me. Who says that corps and "rich people have chosen to hire illegal’s instead of giving jobs to Americans". That is a pretty damm broad sweeping list of allegations on which to blame all of the countries economic ills. I doubt you can back most of it up. How about Corps have gone where labor is cheap because it is a profit driven industry. You have this hard on for anyone who makes money. How about the companies have given jobs to people who are willing to work hard, not the slackers who would rather sit on their ass and complain about how the man is keeping them down and enslaving them while they spit out another baby from some baby daddy? How do you explain the Korean immigrants who moved to the most depressed parts of cities in America and opened hugely successful chains of grocery stores? How about the waves of immigrants from India or Pakistan and have opened huge successful chains of hotels and motels? Where is the American drive to do that among those who started with or had very little to do that? You can't blame Corps and "rich people" for all the ills of this Nation. That is a ridiculous notion. This country was founded on the tenacity, innovation, and investment of "rich people".
OMG. I am NOT defending women having babies when they are on welfare. Did you not READ my posts in the thread about that woman? Besides, you KNOW me better than that.
I have nothing but respect and goodwill toward immigrants who come here LEGALLY and make something of themselves. I DO have a beef with people who come here
illegally and take jobs away from Americans and drive down wages. And some of those Americans are hardworking, and do a BETTER job, but they won't work for ridiculous pay. You actually KNOW SOMEONE in that situation. You know I'm telling the truth.
And I'm sorry, but profits should not be the bottom line. Corporations (and the people who own/run them) are allowed to prosper in this country. They should not get tax breaks (which they do) for going overseas to create jobs for cheap labor, in the name of the allmighty dollar, when they are going to bring their products back into the United States to sell. We should learn from the whole crash that Argentina suffered.
Rich people have prospered for the past 3-4 decades while wages for most everyone else have stagnanted. It's time they paid something back.
So people are greedy if they work hard to get an advanced education and take advantage of a system that rewards hard work? Wow. Envy much?
I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. And why is any ONE kind of work any more worthy than another? IT'S NOT. You are a classist.
Who gets to say who deserves what in this life? I don't disgree that we have huge sectors of our society that is underpaid and under appreciated. You can't defend a socialist construct to me. I don't buy it.
Well apparently those in power get to decide for the masses. Since they are WAY in the minority, they shouldn't get to do that. Especially when they prosper at the expense of everyone else and society as a whole.
And the millions of illegal aliens, and welfare mothers on the dole.
And I am against paying for illegals. But you throw around the word "welfare" very freely. What you really mean is poor people or the middle class who can't afford to pay for health care on their own, because it's SO fucking ridiculously expensive. THAT is because health care costs have risen exponentially for years, since Nixon made health care a business for profit. It never should have happened, and that has caused a HUGE problem in this country, for the people, and also for business. That is another reason why so many corporations have fled offshore, because the health care costs are so high. They can't compete with corporations in other comparable countries because those countries have government-sponsored health care paid for with taxes.
Many people would disagree with that. You completely ignore the revenue that is gained from attracting millions of people to the events where they then spend money on the local economy.
Why is up to taxpayers to pay for stadiums that aren't even in their state? That is ridiculous. It creates revenue for that city, but no one else. I think most of the people who would disagree are people who are profiting from the practice. In fact, why should taxpayers pay for shit like this at all? You rant against taxes and wasteful spending and "pork," well, this is frivolous pork, obviously.
Actually our high prices of medications pay for that, not our taxes. Get your facts straight.
Bullshit. My brother's wife was a VP for a big pharmaceutical company for many, many years. They are highly corrupt, and they don't pay for most of the research, the NIH pays for the research, and they are a government agency paid for with taxes. The high prices we pay (but no other country on earth pays, surprise surprise) pays for the ADVERTISEMENTS, NOT the research.
I agree we need to get some equilibrium back and inact a flat tax so every single person pays the same rate, regardless of income. You make $1000, you pay $200 to tax. You make $100,000, you pay $20,000. No one gets a pass.
No, if you make more, you can afford to PAY more. That is how it works. Until the society we live in is actually equal for everyone, which it isn't, then people who make more should pay more. IF the flat tax was more fair, then I would support it.
It disturbs me that you judge me about what I do and how I feel. I take care of people everyday who are less fortunate than me.
I am not judging what you do, I am judging your words. I know you take care of people, but what if someone came in who was dying, or seriously ill, and they had no health insurance and no way to pay for treatment? What then? I don't think good health care is only for rich people, or people who are still fortunate enough to have insurance through their work. I think it should be for every citizen of this country. Health care should not be about profit, it should be about helping people.
What if I did? I would sell my assets and start over. And that is why I pay so much for insurance.
And what if your insurance company decided they wouldn't pay for some reason? It happens more often than you think, to people who think they have good benefits. And what if you couldn't sell your house? What if you ended up on the street? Wouldn't you want some compassion from your government? Don't you think your taxes should insure you don't end up on the street through no fault of your own?
Why are you judging my feelings again? There is much I could tell you about my family and their plights in life but it doesn't change the situation they find themselves in right now. And nothing I can say or do will change any of that. How for one fucking minute can you say that because of the plight of your family that I don't have my own issues to deal with concerning family members? What? Because I am not willing to put them on some public board? When times get tough we focus on our own families and issues, not yours. I have no responsibility for your problems or your families, my plate is full.
I am judging your feelings, because you are judging mine. I was just giving you an example of how bad things are for people who did nothing to cause these problems, and who have worked as hard as you have, because you seem to think the only people who are in trouble are people who have been living beyond their means, who have not taken the time to educate themselves, or who have not worked as hard as you have. You seem to think only slackers are being negatively affected. That is a serious misconception on your part. I am only trying to make you see that. I apologize if it seems too personal. You know I love you, I'm sorry if I made you feel bad. My belief though, is that as a society, we are all obligated to that society. Our taxes should pay for stuff like this. To me, this is way more important than paying for sports stadiums, or other frivolous stuff.
Who said it was?
You implied it is the fault of people who lose their jobs and can't find another one. You have implied, over an over, that the collapse of the economy is not the fault of corporations and the people who run them, but of the people who have lost their jobs.
Well I know for one thing your simplistic view of who to blame is wrong.
Really? Please explain. I have tried to give you examples to show you how your thinking is flawed. Please, show me how I'm wrong.
Rich Americans Sue UBS to Keep Names Secret
UBS was sued on Tuesday in a Swiss federal court by wealthy American clients seeking to prevent the disclosure of their identities as part of a tax-evasion investigation by the United States Justice Department.
The lawsuit accuses UBS and Switzerland’s financial regulator, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, or Finma, of violating Swiss bank secrecy laws and of conducting what Swiss law considers illegal activities with foreign authorities. It also named Peter Kurer, the chairman of UBS, and Eugen Haltiner, the chairman of Finma, as defendants.
The suit, filed by a lawyer in Zurich, Andreas Rued, on behalf of nearly a dozen American clients, underscores the growing clash between Swiss banking secrecy laws and those of the United States. Tax evasion is not considered a crime in Switzerland. Disclosing client names under Swiss law is a criminal offense and can expose bank executives and officers to fines, prison terms and other penalties.
UBS is the world’s largest private bank and Switzerland is the world’s largest offshore tax haven, with trillions of dollars in assets.
The lawsuit, which UBS described in an internal memo late Tuesday, stems from UBS’s agreement last week to turn over to federal authorities in Washington the names of 250 wealthy Americans suspected of using secret UBS offshore accounts and entities to evade taxes.
UBS reached a $780 million deferred-prosecution agreement to settle accusations that it used undisclosed offshore private banking services to help wealthy Americans evade taxes. But the bank is still under scrutiny by the Justice Department, which is seeking to force it to disclose the names of the 52,000 American clients it suspects may have evaded taxes.
Mr. Rued could not be reached for comment.
Copyright © 2009 NYTimes.com. All rights reserved.
These guys should be outed - Period.
I'm glad I pulled my millions when they got off the gold standard.
Rich Americans Sue UBS to Keep Names Secret
This actually could become a very big deal if the names are exosed. I would like to see who is on that list.
Yup - I hope they are a bunch of politicians and banking or Wall Street execs. Then we can actually hold them accountable.
I want to see the list of politicians, former and current that may be there. It would be perfect.
I hope they release ity as well. I'm sick to death of people getting away with crap like this, regardless of who they are (politicians, corporate pirates, etc.). I think they may be cooperating because rich pricks in America caused the economic collapse of the entire world.
I remember those UBS commercials that were advertising moving money overseas to reduce taxes. Back then, I was asking myself how UBS could do this and not invite government investigation. Well, today we know why. A fox was in the hen house. Legalized corruption renamed as deregulation.
UBS AG Helps Fill Lawmakers' Coffers
Swiss bank UBS AG agreed today to pay $780 million to settle claims by the U.S. Department of Treasury that it helped American customers evade paying taxes by hiding their Swiss bank accounts from U.S. tax authorities. But that's not the only help that UBS has provided Americans. In the 2008 election cycle, the foreign bank's employees and PAC contributed $3.1 million to federal candidates (including candidate committees and leadership PACs), parties and PACs, 54 percent of which went to Democrats. Among all finance, insurance and real estate companies, UBS has given more campaign donations than all but six other companies. It also spent nearly $1.3 million lobbying between 2007 and 2008.
UBS not only split its funds between Republicans and Democrats, it also made sure to help out more than one presidential candidate in the 2008 election cycle and directed its funds to a few of the higher ups of the finance-related congressional committees. Here are some of the notable recipients.
* President Obama collected more from employees of the company than any other candidate or party committee, bringing in $512,800 for his presidential bid. As a senator, Obama co-sponsored a bill, S. 681, in 2007 that would have gotten tougher on tax havens, and listed Switzerland, among others, as an "offshore secrecy jurisdiction." The bill didn't appear to make it past the Senate Committee on Finance.
* Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), came in second with $170,900.
* Former presidential candidate and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among the top 10 individual recipients ($108,500), in addition to former presidential candidates Mitt Romney ($123,350) and Rudy Giuliani ($111,300).
* Former congressman and current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel collected $64,700. Emanuel received more from UBS than any other member of the House in the 2008 cycle.
* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs brought in $61,500. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee collected $60,100.
And just as the company has invested in lawmakers, a few have invested their personal funds in the foreign bank and its subsidiaries. In 2007, seven members of Congress had between $207,187 and $500,180 of their own funds invested in the bank. (Members of Congress report the value of their assets in ranges, making it impossible to calculate their exact worth.)
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) had the most invested at between $100,001 and $250,000. Others with money wrapped up in the bank include:
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif),
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.),
Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.),
Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas),
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Clinton.
For the complete list of recipients in the 2008 election cycle, download this file:
UBS Chart.xls
Legalized corruption renamed as deregulation.
They gave to both parties, but heavily favored the D's. This had nothing to do with deregulation and everything to do with buying politicians.
Also -
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee collected $60,100.
How the heck is that legal? How can that not be the most blatant form of influence peddling? Conflict of interest anyone?
They gave to both parties, but heavily favored the D's.
Again you got it backwards to promote wacko extremism. Republicans were in power then. Republicans got most of the money. Why purchase the party that had no power? Convenient when a staunch Republican takes every opportunity to take cheap shots at Democrats and Obama. classicman lied again.
Those USB contributions are for 2007 and 2008. But those advertisements and money laundering were being promoted somewhere around 2002/3.
Did classicman forget a Jack Abramoff scandel that set new records for corruption - exceeding all previous corruption by a factor of 10? Record corruption directly almost exclusively at Republicans such as Tom Delay. USB would be only one taking advantage of 'deregulation'.
Many think of the Caymans as a haven for money laundering and tax evasion. But the list of largest money trafficer includes some Pacific Islands and Israel was in the top five back then. Caymans did not even make the top ten as I recall. Who was the party to buy? Republicans were pushing all this 'deregulation' then.
Great post classic! Quite telling. So much for the Demoncrats being the party of change. Well done.
Great post classic! Quite telling. So much for the Demoncrats being the party of change. Well done.
I think you will find that campaign contributions follow power. That should come as no surprise.
Lets see if it leads to as many Democrats being investigated for corruption as the Republicans when they last controlled Congress:
Below is a rundown of all 21 lawmakers, current and former. Ten of them are no longer in office. Investigations of seven are part of the Abramoff investigation. Seventeen are Republicans, four are Democrats.
http://www.propublica.org/article/pol-investigation-wrap-up
In fact, the one change that did occur was the Ethics/Lobbying Reform that the Democrats adopted as soon as they assumed control of Congress. The first such reform in more than 20 years.
It doesnt go nearly far enough, but it does bring more transparency so that it should be easier for you to nab those naughty Demoncrats!
One immediate result.....you're not likely to see another
K. Street Project ...the Republican blatant influence peddling scheme that was in place for 10+ years wont fly under the new regulations to prevent the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.
One immediate result.....you're not likely to see another K. Street Project ...the Republican blatant influence peddling scheme that was in place for 10+ years wont fly under the new regulations to prevent the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.
That was another good thing Obama did. But that was hardly a problem isolated to Republickins.
That was another good thing Obama did. But that was hardly a problem isolated to Republickins.
Both the Democrats in '07 when they assumed control of Congress and Obama in '09 when he assumed control of the Executive Branch adopted tougher and more transparent lobbying standards and standards to close the revolving door between government and lobbyists.
Isn't that change?
So why do you keep insisting that there has been no change?
I never stated there was no change. I only point out that since the Dems took over more than 2 years ago they did not change the way they have done business in Congress and after they left.
I never stated there was no change. I only point out that since the Dems took over more than 2 years ago they did not change the way they have done business in Congress and after they left.
And contrary to your opinion, I pointed out the fact that they did change the way they have done business in Congress and after they left...with the passage of more comprehensive and transparent ethics and lobbying reform.
It may be incremental change, but better than no change at all.
Again you got it backwards to promote wacko extremism. Convenient when a staunch Republican takes every opportunity to take cheap shots at Democrats and Obama. classicman lied again.
Nice attempt at another diversion from the truth you don't like to see.
Follow the thread there big boy. BTW, You crossed the line again tommy boy.
#1 - I never lied.
#2 - The only wacko in this thread is you.
#3 - I'm not a republican.
#4 - The D's got twice as much money as the R's.
As usual, the facts that don't conveniently fit into your preconceived notions get overlooked or ignored.
Republicans were in power then. Republicans got most of the money.
False - Read the link. This is 2007 & 2008 that WE are all discussing, not 2002. C'mon along with the rest of us.
Why purchase the party that had no power?
Because it was obvious to everyone who would be in power. They were simply planning ahead. If you notice they still threw a few bones to the R's to cover their ass, look bipartisan, and gave it to the key R's...... just in case.
Those USB contributions are for 2007 and 2008.
Thats the timeframe we are all talking about. Wanna join us? Great - wanna talk about something else? Start another thread.
Nice attempt at another diversion from the truth you don't like to see.
False - Read the link. This is 2007 & 2008 that WE are all discussing, not 2002. C'mon along with the rest of us.
And again you have it all backwards. USB was doing this asset hiding in the early 2000s. You are discussing 2007/2008 Congressional contributions. USB was moving assets even back in 2003 when it was advertised and all but permitted due to near zero enforcement.
When it comes to corruption, the wacko Republicans (not to be confuse with moderate and therefore partiotic Republicans) set new standards for corrupution. Let's not forget that USB, at the same time, was offering programs to move (hide) assets overseas. classicman is lying again to blame Democrats.
Nice attempt at another diversion from the truth you don't like to see.
Follow the thread there big boy. BTW, You crossed the line again tommy boy.
#4 - The D's got twice as much money as the R's.
In fact, UBSs contributions in the 08 election cycle were 54% - D and 46% - R.
Senate contributions: nearly twice as much to Republicans ($110K - R, $61K - D)
PAC to PAC contributions: more to Republicans.
In fact, UBSs contributions in the 08 election cycle were 54% - D and 46% - R.
[COLOR="Red"]
FALSE[/COLOR]
Based upon the numbers from the link within the article
the totals for each party were:
D - $1,710,767.00
R - $1,400,533.00
O - $26,975.00
Somehow one D got [COLOR="Red"]-$20[/COLOR] not sure about that one.
Based upon the attachment from the link within the article we were both wrong. As far as twice as much, I was incorrect. As far as the R's getting more than the D's you were incorrect.
The D's still got more although I think the amount more is rather insignificant. Perhaps to someone who knows who the specific recipients are, the info would mean more. I even broke it down by amounts and did donations >$500 and >$10,000 The percentages seemed to be about the same as the overall totals.
My conclusion - they were bribing everyone.
In fact, UBSs contributions in the 08 election cycle were 54% - D and 46% - R.
Senate contributions: nearly twice as much to Republicans ($110K - R, $61K - D)
PAC to PAC contributions: more to Republicans.
From your link the totals are:
Direct:
Total D - $426,500
Total R - $408,500
PAC:
Total D - $150,000
Total R - $206,500
Gross:
R - $615,000
D - $576,500
The R's got more in the Senate, but the D's got more in the House. With PAC's the R's got more.
51% to 49% - a statistical tie.
However, the totals from your link aren't even close to the total contribution from the original link in the article I posted which was well over $3,100,000. Where did the other $2,000,000 go?
One thing that I'm always curious about is the connection between political contributions by employees and lobbying-style efforts. I've made political contributions, and had to put my employer on the form, but my employer had nothing to do with it (other than paying my salary, of course). I wouldn't think that my contributions reflect the aims of my upper management, though I could be pleasantly surprised.
HM, isn't that what Unions do?
I don't know. There's no software engineers' union.
But if they do, then those employees' contributions would show up as coming from the employer in this type of analysis, making it seem like the views of the union were the views of the company.
However, the totals from your link aren't even close to the total contribution from the original link in the article I posted which was well over $3,100,000. Where did the other $2,000,000 go?
Classic...my link was contributions by the UBS PAC
The other $2 million, I assume are contributions by individual employees of UBS AND bundled contributions by those employees (generally, the top guys do the bundling).
One thing that I'm always curious about is the connection between political contributions by employees and lobbying-style efforts. I've made political contributions, and had to put my employer on the form, but my employer had nothing to do with it (other than paying my salary, of course). I wouldn't think that my contributions reflect the aims of my upper management, though I could be pleasantly surprised.
Its how the contribution data is manipulated...for better or worse
If you were an employee of UBS (in the above example), your contribution would be included in that $2+ million total...whether or not your decision to contribute was impacted or influenced by employment.
At least, that is my understanding of campaign finance reporting data.
I don't know. There's no software engineers' union.
But if they do, then those employees' contributions would show up as coming from the employer in this type of analysis, making it seem like the views of the union were the views of the company.
HM..if you are a software engineer, your contributions probably are counted as part of the
#13 industry group in campaign contributions.
Top 20 recipients:
D - $1,029,434
R - $ 798,223
Ok I'm done now.
Top 20 recipients:
D - $1,029,434
R - $ 798,223
Ok I'm done now.
I think it is widely known that more people contribute to democrats than republicans.
And that most are small contributors.
I do believe Obama had record contributions in the last election via on-line contributions.
This was news from Oct 08
The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.
"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign has no idea who the individuals are and has returned all the donations, using the credit-card numbers they gave to the campaign. (In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less.
Is that bad?
No, but they lack transparency. They refused to release the details.
The system needs greater transparency with more contributions coming via the web.
IMO, its not a partisan issue.
I dont know that either candidate had the capability to be more transparent on web contributions.
I think it is widely known that more people contribute to democrats than republicans.
And that most are small contributors.
Not that I care, but these are the LARGEST 20 recipients, with a minimum of $20,000.
You don't get to have it both ways.
"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)
This is the kind of thing that bothers me.
prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.
And he waited till when to return the money?
Is there any way to stop this shit from both sides?
I dont know that there is a real solution other than more transparency.
The courts have ruled consistently that campaign contributions generally are "protected" first amendment "right of association"
Which opens them up for a source of contributions by other countries, and large organizations that could hide large contributions broken down into small ones. This is a loop hole to hide who gave what.
Or you could just donate to your husband's charitable organization and funnel the money out of that - just sayin.
[COLOR="Red"]
...The D's still got more although I think the amount more is rather insignificant. Perhaps to someone who knows who the specific recipients are, the info would mean more. I even broke it down by amounts and did donations >$500 and >$10,000 The percentages seemed to be about the same as the overall totals.
My conclusion - they were bribing everyone.
That's news? They (corporations) have been doing that for YEARS. They want to make sure that, no matter who wins, they gave money to their campaign, especially to people on committees that will affect their business.
At least Obama is trying to do something about it. The first president in years (maybe ever) to try to stop it.
IMHO, the only way we will ever change the corruption in DC is to end lobbying and have campaigns funded by a public fund. NO donations. And freaking campaigns are out of control. They are already talking about who will be presidential candidates in the next election, and it is 4 years away. Politicians should be spending time working for their constituents, not campaigning constantly. I think a 4 month cycle should be sufficient. TV networks should be required to give equal access to all candidates, because the airwaves belong to the people. Candidates should then have a series of debates (maybe weekly over the 4 month period) so people can see where they stand. No more paid smear campaign advertisements by political parties or PACs. It's freaking ridiculous how much campaigns cost nowadays, and how long they last (neverending). I'm sick of it.
Top 20 recipients:
D - $1,029,434
R - $ 798,223
Which still makes those 2007/2008 contributions completely irrelevant. USB needed 'deregulation' from Republicans around 2003. 'Deregulation' purchased by buying Republicans so that USB could launder money; for the rich to avoid taxes.
Then post the numbers for that time frame tw - otherwise we can extrapolate that the same ratio's prevailed then as they did in my example.
Moving along...
Obama, Geithner get low grades from economists
U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
The economists' assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.
On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.
Economists were divided over whether the $787 billion economic-stimulus package passed last month is enough. Some 43% said the U.S. will need another stimulus package on the order of nearly $500 billion. Others were skeptical of the need for stimulus at all.
However, economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. "They overpromised and underdelivered," said Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. "Secretary Geithner scheduled a big speech and came out with just a vague blueprint. The uncertainty is hanging over everyone's head."
Mr. Geithner unveiled the Obama administration's plans Feb. 10, but he offered few details, and stocks sank on the news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down almost 20% since the announcement, as multiple issues have weighed on investors' confidence. The Treasury secretary has since appeared before Congress and offered more specifics but has said action on key parts of the plan still is weeks away.
Amid all the gloom, there is a bright spot: Four-fifths of the economists said now is a good time to buy equities, especially if the investor has a long-term view.
Yeh bet they'd love to sell you theirs.
er... probably not classic. if they don't have to sell their holding to raise capital the prices now are fantastic for a long term investor. wish i has more money right now, I'd definitely be buying. (well I might wait for a little pullback after the last two days but you know what I mean.)
Lookout, I have a little money now (15 to 20 thou, Australian) which is presently earning 3.75% in a government-guaranteed AA-rated capital secure bank account (me, paranoid? sometimes!). I plan to invest in something a bit more risky with the hope of riding the general economic recovery to a nice capital gain.
I am looking for some solid types of investment that (a) aren't going to up and die (b) whose buy in price has fallen a lot in the last 6 months (thus has a lot of potential to increase) and (c) should lead the way out of a recession, i.e. will be amongst the first to recover.
I am presently thinking of shares in oil producing companies, or the Big Four Australian banks, or wide base retailer (woolworths eg).
What exactly is it you are thinking of buying? Any suggestions?
If I had money to invest, I would invest in the green technologies of the future.
I can't name anything specific because I am legally liable in case any dumbass loses money and decides to sue me based on something they saw on the interwebz.
Questions you need to ask yourself:
How long before I plan on needing the money out of this investment?
Do I have the cajones to ride out any volatility that comes my way?
What percentage of my total assets should I put in any one asset class?
What asset classes tend to do well through multiple market cycles and currently are near their historic low P/E?
Answer those questions and you will find yourself most of the way to an appropriate answer for you.
If I had money to invest, I would invest in the green technologies of the future.
What political fads have come and gone in the past and how good are you at guessing when a fad ends in favor of something else?
What political fads have come and gone in the past and how good are you at guessing when a fad ends in favor of something else?
Well see, I don't believe green technologies ARE fads. I believe that is the way of the future. We cannot keep sustaining this planet with fuels that come from oil and coal and such. We should have been on this path for the past 40 years, but after Carter, Reagan threw it all out the window in favor of big oil, going so far as to take the solar panels off the White House. Just think where we would be now if we had continued on the path with solar and wind, et al. We would probably be completely free of our addiction to foreign oil. We would be much more self sufficient as a country, and as a people. I just think the people weren't ready for it because they didn't know enough about it. Then we had too many years of Reaganomics and Bush badmouthing green technology. Now, people are more savvy about this stuff. Younger generations KNOW we have to change our ways. I have been learning about alternative energy since the 70s when I worked at the Science Museum. It is no longer a dream. The future is here. Now.
OK. good luck with that. You might notice not a lot of serious investment money is chasing green...anything.
Lookout, do you think there will be any major trend shifts when the dust settles? Say in the next 5 years or so. (Generally speaking since you cant be specific. ) How do guys in finance go about forecasting in times like these?
OK. good luck with that. You might notice not a lot of serious investment money is chasing green...anything.
Well, considering where we are now, I wouldn't really be bragging about how smart financial wizards are.
Thanks for the thoughts, Lookout, your 4th question is exactly what I am trying to find. I appreciate your professional caution.
Well, considering where we are now, I wouldn't really be bragging about how smart financial wizards are.
Why? You don't believe some people are making money in this environment? Do you believe noone expected this downturn and put their money on the sidelines until things were more attractive?
Of course not, but respectfully, "financial wizards" caused this wreckage. And where were the people who saw it coming? Why didn't they warn us? Why didn't they do anything to stop it? Was it simply because they wanted to make more money?
More than a few people did warn people about this. People did see it coming. Those people will continue to 1) preserve assets, and 2) grow assets in any market environment because they don't get caught up with the crowd. The reason they didn't stop it is because it can't be stopped. People are greedy. People are stupid. People are sheep. Individuals who are quite intelligent become sheep when put into groups - welcome to human nature. That is why fortunes are made and lost in every economic cycle.
You may not have seen it coming or you may have ignored the warnings of those who saw it on the horizon, but that doesn't mean everyone was caught by surprise.
More than a few people did warn people about this. People did see it coming. Those people will continue to 1) preserve assets, and 2) grow assets in any market environment because they don't get caught up with the crowd. The reason they didn't stop it is because it can't be stopped. People are greedy. People are stupid. People are sheep. Individuals who are quite intelligent become sheep when put into groups - welcome to human nature. That is why fortunes are made and lost in every economic cycle.
Well, we certainly agree about that! :D
You may not have seen it coming or you may have ignored the warnings of those who saw it on the horizon, but that doesn't mean everyone was caught by surprise.
You realize when I made that crack about financial wizards I was joking, right? Well, half joking. I really need to start using smiley face icons.
Does "irrational exuberance" ring a bell?
Who? Moi? My exuberance is perfectly rational thank you very much.
Bank secrecy moves may force wealthy back onshore
Wealthy people who have stashed cash in undeclared accounts in Switzerland and other offshore centers may now seek ways to legitimize their money after Berne and other tax haven governments relaxed bank secrecy laws.
In landmark statements, bank secrecy strongholds Switzerland, Luxembourg and Austria offered on Friday more cooperation on tax evasion than ever before to avoid being blacklisted by G20 countries as unco-operative tax havens.
The decision, which comes on the heels of similar moves in other offshore centers, will not eliminate the principles of banking secrecy that have allowed the $7-trillion offshore industry to thrive, and the countries will offer help only on limited cases of suspected tax evasion.
"It is not an open door policy. It is an easing of access to information in respect to tax crime," Swiss President and Finance Minister Hans-Rudolf Merz said on Friday.
But Berne is already looking for a transitory solution to help its client come onshore, and did not rule out the option of negotiating tax amnesties with other jurisdictions.
"This is not a fantasy. It is more than appropriate to talk about amnesties," Merz told a news conference.
Liechtenstein, a tiny Alpine tax haven that also committed to more tax transparency on Thursday, has said it wants a legal solution to help its clients bring undeclared money onshore to stem the massive client withdrawals its banks have been suffering since a tax spat with Germany.
"Tax amnesties are the most attractive solution for banks and bank clients to get out of a problem," said Dirk Hoffmann-Becking, an analyst with Bernstein Research, who says the changes on the tax arena are coming at a faster pace that the industry originally anticipated.
"But it's not in Switzerland's hands to determine them."
There are a lot of people who have inherited undeclared money from their parents," he added. "The younger generations wants to use the money and they cannot do it if the money is not clean."
Swiss tax lawyers say it has become more and more difficult for holders of undeclared accounts to benefit from these as the money cannot be moved and can only be spent in Switzerland.
"This is dead money. It is money that burns under your fingers," said a tax lawyer who declined to be named.
Very interesting.
Who? Moi? My exuberance is perfectly rational thank you very much.
No, not you.
The legacy and attitude of MBAs and George Jr continue. From the NY Times of 14 Mar 2009:
A.I.G. Planning Huge Bonuses After $170 Billion Bailout
The American International Group, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, plans to pay about $165 million in bonuses by Sunday to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.
Word of the bonuses last week stirred such deep consternation inside the Obama administration that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the firm they were unacceptable and demanded they be renegotiated, a senior administration official said. But the bonuses will go forward because lawyers said the firm was contractually obligated to pay them.
The payments to A.I.G.’s financial products unit are in addition to $121 million in previously scheduled bonuses for the company’s senior executives and 6,400 employees across the sprawling corporation. Mr. Geithner last week pressured A.I.G. to cut the $9.6 million going to the top 50 executives in half and tie the rest to performance.
When GM was suffering losses some ten plus years ago, employees got no Christmas bonuses and executives reaped record bonuses. GM is also a company dominated by MBAs. When Nardelli was destroying Home Depot, he was given some $200million to leave. Their entitlement as educated financial wizards continues because so few still describe business school graduates properly.
Ironically Geithner is constantly criticized by wacko extremists because he is a threat to financial deregulation and their entitlements. Their attitude, so strongly promoted by George Jr and the extremists, has not changed. As John Stewart asks, where are the prosecutions?
Extremists so love this stuff as to even stifle the prosecution of Enron executives until all but forced to act even by the State of Oklahoma. And still those so often protected by extremists (anybody say Halliburton yet) know it is their right to hundreds of $millions in bonuses because they have an MBA degree; because they are finance people and are therefore superior.
Your stock broker is typically one of the less knowledgeable and yet successfully promotes himself as smart. Have you seen through him yet? If he was smart, he told you to bail last October. The smarter ones even said this last April. But they are not paid to be smart. They are paid to sell you something - whether it is good for you or not.
Legacy and entitlement still live on even in AIG. Wacko extremists would howl if we prosecute the problem. Who created the mythical CA energy crisis? Who ran a nuclear power plant with a potential Three Mile Island problem and a hole in the containment building – and then created the NE blackout – then were protected by extremists after a massive George Jr fund raiser? Legacy and attitude continues. It even explains extremist attacks on Geithner.
When will those extremists call for an investigation of Morgan Stanley and the suspected market manipulation to create $4 per gallon gasoline? Will not happen. Their power comes from promoting entitlement and a legacy agenda. These are the people who Rush Limbaugh praises. Thank you George Jr for creating this economy and its continuing legacy.
AIG knows they deserve bonuses because work by those executives four years ago have created today's spread sheets.
So has Fox News yet broken any of these stories? Did they report any of them? Does the wacko extremist propaganda machine ignore these AIG bonuses? After all, they know Obama is evil and Geithner is to blame.
nah - its all Bush's fault. He teleported into all those meetings and created this "entitlement" mentality. . . yeh thats it.
No, not you.
It's funny, because I just heard that expression today on TV for the first time. I of course thought of you. :D
Then you know who I was quoting.
Gee, I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy...
AIG, Larry Summers and the Politics of Deflection
The issue is over AIG announcing it was obligated to pay its traders in its high-risk London unit a sales bonus totaling $165 million for the year. Obama Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner has announced a novel strategy for ‘justice.’ AIG will ‘reimburse’ the taxpayers up to $165 million for bonuses the company is giving employees. AIG will pay the Treasury an amount equal to the bonuses, and the Treasury will deduct that amount from the $30 billion in government (taxpayer) assistance that will soon go to the company. But he said that the Obama administration hasn't given up on efforts to recoup the money from the employees who got the bonuses. Good luck.
Larry Summers is the man directly responsible for the mess. As Clinton Treasury Secretary from 1999-January 2001 he shaped and pushed the financial deregulation that unleashed the present crisis. He was Treasury Secretary after July 1999 when his boss, Robert Rubin left to become Vice Chairman of Citigroup, where Rubin went on to advance the colossal agenda of deregulated finance directly.
As Treasury Secretary in 1999, Summers played a decisive role in pushing through the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 that was instituted to guard against just this kind of banking abuses taxpayers now are having to bail out. Not only Glass-Steagall repeal. In 2000 Summers backed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that incredibly mandated that financial derivatives, including in energy, could be traded between financial institutions completely without government oversight, ‘Over-the-Counter’ as in where the taxpayer is now being dragged. Credit default Swaps, at the center of the current storm, would not have been possible without Larry Summers and the Commodity Modernization Act of 2000. He is now the White House Economic Council chairman, mandated to find a solution to the crisis he helped make along with Tim Geithner, his friend who is Treasury chief. Foxes should never be asked to guard the henhouse.
There is an awful lot of interesting stuff in this article.
Anyone know anything about the author - F. William Engdahl?
No classic, but the more I hear Larry Summers speak, the more full of shit I believe he is. I'm thinking Obama may have to replace some of his financial team.
The legacy and attitude of MBAs and George Jr continue. From the NY Times of 14 Mar 2009:
Geithner is constantly criticized by wacko extremists because he is a threat to financial deregulation and their entitlements.
Where are the prosecutions?
You calling for Geithner to resign or to be prosecuted?
And still those so often protected by extremists know it is their right to hundreds of $millions in bonuses
Legacy and entitlement still live on even in AIG. Wacko extremists would howl if we prosecute the problem. Legacy and attitude continues. It even explains extremist attacks on Geithner.
Their power comes from promoting entitlement and a legacy agenda.
AIG knows they deserve bonuses because work by those executives four years ago have created today's spread sheets. Does the wacko extremist propaganda machine ignore these AIG bonuses? After all, they know [COLOR="Silver"]Obama is evil and [/COLOR]Geithner is to blame.
Were they right?
Its not unusual to read tw posting about wacko extremist's. But it is when tw is referring to the D's as wacko extremists. Kinda refreshing actually.
You calling for Geithner to resign or to be prosecuted?
This is about classicman's left-right dichotomy. Geithner is not an issue. Extremism, mockery, and constant attacks on leaders dealing with unwinnable problems are the problem. Constant destructive attacks from classicman. We have the economy that he wanted. So he must blame others.
Even his Engdahl citation required classicman to dig deep. Editing what Engdahl says to promote wackos extremist attacks. classicman has even distorted Engdahl's comments - as any good political extremist would do. Geithner is not the issue. classicman is.
World bankers may drop the dollar as a world standard because the dollar must again drop in value significantly. More inevitable economic damage directly traceable to a previous wacko extremist government. Will classicman blame Geithner? Of course. Dispose of that left-right dichotomy to post honest facts? He will not. A dropping American dollar and a coming reduction of the American living standards are directly traceable to George Jr. That is obvious; but not to extremists.
Geithner admitted to one mistake. So classicman now wants him tortured. How right wing extremist of him.
So where was classicman when AIG was suspicious if not a threatening problem? While classicman was taking cheap shots, tw was openly suspicious of AIG even in 2005 and 2006:
Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
So classicman now wants to blame Geithner with more cheap shots from his left-right dichotomy.
This is about classicman's left-right dichotomy.
No it is not - Its about responsibility.
[QUOTE=tw;547212] Geithner is not an issue.
Extremism, mockery, and constant attacks on leaders
Constant destructive attacks So I must blame others.
Geithner is not the issue. classicman is.
Should classicman blame Geithner? Of course.
Geithner admitted to one mistake.
So classicman now wants him tortured. How right wing extremist of him.
So where was classicman when AIG was suspicious if not a threatening problem?
While classicman was taking cheap shots, tw was openly suspicious of AIG even in 2005 and 2006: Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
From your link which is a typical 1000+ word rant about everything and anything there is an obscure reference to AIG as copied below:
“tw said subverts SEC investigations of numerous companies such as Enron, AIG, Waste Management, those who intentionally created a CA energy crisis)”
So classicman now wants to blame Geithner.
Seems like more personal attacks on a poster than an actual response.
With all the crap you keep throwing out there I was sure that you would have had something better than that.
The diversionary tactics don’t play here anymore. Geithner, Dodd, Frank... did this. Not the evil R’s.
So again does tw want to hold Geithner responsible or would he rather attack a poster.
The answer is painfully obvious.
I love it when nutters refer to themselves in the third person.
And refuse to hold both parties to the same standard,
and refuse to answer the question,
and just go off on tangents to change the subject,
and keep posting the same ole dribble year after year...
And now this lovely little man makes billions off of others misfortune. How special. Wonder what he had to do with us getting in this mess in the first place.
'I'm having a very good crisis,' says Soros as hedge fund managers make billions off recession
A hedge fund manager who predicted the global credit crunch has said the financial crisis has been 'stimulating' and the culmination of his life's work.
George Soros, who predicted the global financial crisis twice before, was one of the few people to anticipate and prepare for the current economic collapse.
Mr Soros said his prediction meant he was better able to brace his Quantum investment fund against the gloabal storm.
But other investors failed to take notice of his prediction and his decision to come out of retirement in 2007 to manage the fund made him $US2.9 billion.
And while the financial crisis continued to deepen across the globe, the 78-year-old still managed to make $1.1 billion last year.
'It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work,' he told national newspaper The Australian.
Soros is one of 25, top hedge fund managers from across Wall Street who have defied the credit crunch crisis to reap a total of $11.6billion (£7.9bn) last year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164771/Im-having-good-crisis-says-hedge-fund-manager-1billion-world-plunged-recession.htmlI think hedge funds should be illegal. And short selling. And a lot of other things that have been done over the past 10 years.
There are some people who predicted this back in 1999, when Glass-Steagal was repealed.
Senator Byron Dorgan predicted the recession back in 99...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#29886298
So did Paul Krugman, in The Return of Depression Economics.
:rolleyes: He predicted it would happen in 10 years, and that is exactly when it did happen.
Go listen to the interview. I provided a link.
And refuse to hold both parties to the same standard,
and refuse to answer the question,
and just go off on tangents to change the subject,
and keep posting the same ole dribble year after year...
Mate, if we stop that kind of behaviour, we'd lose 85% of the cellar posts!
Who made YOU top management?????
Senator Byron Dorgan predicted the recession back in 99...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#29886298
So did Paul Krugman, in The Return of Depression Economics.
So did tw, but would y'all listen? Noooooo. :lol2:
Did he really? I wouldn't know. I wasn't around here back then.
Sure, regularly for as long as I can remember.
hmmmm. Maybe people shouldn't write him off so bad. I think he's quite astute, personally.
It isn't what he says, usually. It's the obnoxious, long winded, filled with irrelevant repeated crap, way he says it. Refusing to clarify his statements(even when asked politely), and attacking anyone who dares to ask.
Most people's eyes glaze over half way through his posts, if they don't ignore them completely. It's really a shame he shoots himself in the foot, because although I don't often agree with him, he usually has something valid to add. But sifting through a multi thousand word post to find the points that could be made in a sentence or two, is daunting.
As far as predicting a downturn, when your riding up a roller coaster it's fairly safe to predict a coming down. He didn't envision the hole we are in now though, I don't know anyone that did.
Well, click on the link I posted. There is a very interesting interview there between Rachel Maddow and Senator Byron Dorgan. Apparently he did.
But so what?
One of Limbaugh's favorite tricks is to play an old tape where he has predicted something years ago, and what he has predicted, has come true. This makes Rush seem like an amazingly brilliant analyst and prognosticator. Is it the case?
No. However it IS the case that if you speculate for hours every day, on air, that some of your speculations will come true. Bound to happen.
Senators are generally blowhards who love to hear the sound of their own voice. On any issue you can find Senators who blow hard one way about it, and others who blow hard the other way about it. And they're often on air.
Was Dorgan right about the policy matter, absolutely. Is he an amazingly brilliant analyst and prognosticator, no. He's a politician.
It isn't what he says, usually. It's the obnoxious, long winded, filled with irrelevant repeated crap, way he says it. Refusing to clarify his statements (even when asked politely), and attacking anyone who dares to ask.
Most people's eyes glaze over half way through his posts, if they don't ignore them completely. It's really a shame he shoots himself in the foot, because although I don't often agree with him, he usually has something valid to add. But sifting through a multi thousand word post to find the points that could be made in a sentence or two, is daunting.
Very well put.
So did tw, but would y'all listen? Noooooo.
I never predicted this depression. Only those who let 'reasons why' cause eyes to glaze over would assume otherwise. But I did predict the resulting downturn when a clear majority were even claiming the roller coaster was normal growth. Not in 1999 as you probably intentionally posted. Obviously, in early 2000 when most of the problems were create or had become obvious.
How many suddenly forget that they advocated putting SS money into the markets - because a majority or dominate minority did not see the obvious roller coaster? Don't remember - were you one of the many who advocated putting SS into private investments?
Long ago when right wing fools were citing Kennedy tax cuts, who was a few who also warned (correctly) of a resulting economic downturn predicted by that history? Those who advocated those Kennedy tax cuts should be admitting they ignored posted details, long posts necessary to explain those details, and realities from history.
Eyes also glazed over when many denied a housing crisis in 2005. Many only want to see a soundbyte declaration (which is why Rush Limbaugh is so popular); cannot be bothered to read the extra 1000 words necessary to understand that problem. But then even I did not expect it to be this bad. I was only predicting a 20% or greater drop. A majority ignored details (because the post was too long) and now forget who was again accurate on the big stuff - and making extremists angry.
tw also defined GM long ago as a crappy company with clearly inferior products. Today, so many who were in denial back then must now admit reality. Unfortunately that reality - especially the many reasons why - were not posted enough times.
A benchmark for GM was posted what - more than a decade ago when a majority were in denial? The 70 Horsepower per liter engine. So many disagreed only because they *felt* it was wrong. Again, facts posted long ago with numbers that cause eyes to glaze over.
Continuing on the topic: Rick Wagoner never ran a successful operation. So they made him chairman because MBAs dominate and destroy that company. Is that a repeat? Does not matter. A statement must also include supporting reasons why to avoid being a soundbyte lie.
Someone who has been more destructive to America than Saddam Hussein was told to leave. Good.
G.M. Chief Is Said to Be Resigning in Deal With U.S.. Pressure from a real leader finally made a solution possible because GM top management, its BoDs, and the still too many customers demonstrated contempt for America. Even so hateful as to even blame employees. Today, GM's first step to rescue began because, as history has proven, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to ... Again, a longer post that also repeats a fact because only good posts also say why - even if why was said before.
A long list of major facts from destruction of science, "Mission Accomplished", an "America does not do nation building" lie, the auto industry, housing crisis, finance people and the heavy regulation that must always exist, factors necessary to justify any war, dangers of wacko extremism and its similarity to Hitler's brown shirts, welfare to the rich, destruction of America's worldwide integrity, Enron accounting, destruction of international treaties, Saddam's WMDs, corporate welfare (ie 40% higher drug prices), the greatest threat to America (which is obviously Pakistan), American torture and extraordinary rendition (which means some George Jr administration people need to answer to subpoenas for their arrest), global warming, where 85% of all problems are created, mythical Al Qaeda in Iraq, or even the obvious and simple "when do we go after bin Laden". That's quite a long list of accurate challenges to extremism.
Even I did not foresee an economy this bad. And I did not post the reasons for it in 1999 as was intentionally posted to deceive. Those reasons and supporting facts posted in early 2000s and after.
But again, another detail that might make eyes glaze over. tw identified GMs #1 problem long ago when it was not popular - just accurate. Finally someone with a centrists attitude has done what nobody in GM or its customers would demand. Rick Wagoner has been removed from GM meaning another part of the American economy is being fixed by removing another early 2000 problem. The list of things necessary to save the American economy is long and has long been ignored by the powers that once were.
And so the recovery slowly begins despite what wacko extremists even post here. Some of the reasons why we know - posted above.
The Big Takeover... A RollingStone review.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
Shit Merc, you just
want to piss me off more than I already am don'tcha? Well, at least this article gives me some satisfaction in knowing there are still people out there who agree with me about rich pricks on Wall Street.
: eyes glazing :
FTR, I agree with ... well, not quite 85%, but ... more than half of what TW posts. When I can be bothered to read it all. Learn to edit, bro. ;)
Learn to edit, bro.
Which sentences would you remove?
Which sentences would you remove?
These...
A benchmark for GM was posted what - more than a decade ago when a majority were in denial? The 70 Horsepower per liter engine. So many disagreed only because they *felt* it was wrong.
... because it's still bullshit.
But you did a good job on the rest of the post. :thumb:
Actually, that post was pretty good, but various refinements in the form of rearranging, rephrasing, signposting... crap, this is what happens to teachers.
Now I have to make myself stay after class and write on the blackboard "I must not edit TW's posts" over and over.
As he was already the heir apparent, he's suspect.
And as the current CFO he had to know the the shenanigans were going on.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
While I'm glad Wagoner is out, it's just a political public perception move on Obama's part. That said, I suppose Obama dictating Wagoner's replacement would have been too much. [SIZE="1"]sigh[/SIZE]
While I'm glad Wagoner is out, it's just a political public perception move on Obama's part. That said, I suppose Obama dictating Wagoner's replacement would have been too much. [SIZE="1"]sigh[/SIZE]
What makes you think he didn't? Oh and he is there on an "interim basis." Careful he may get a retention payment at the end of a certain period of time too. (serious)
Those damm Anglo-Saxons!
Mr Sarkozy, who blames the “Anglo-Saxons” for causing the economic crisis, told his ministers last week that he would leave Mr Brown’s summit “if it does not work out”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/G20/article6005810.eceGood: Wagoner out
Also interesting is what that firing did in GM. Shock. GM management still believed what Wagoner said. First he said GM had no problems other than a bad economy. Then he gets his ass handed back by Congress when he cannot even say how many $billions GM really needs. So he says GM has some problems and he is going to fix it. Well those solutions must be on the scale of closing whole divisions – Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn, Saab, GMC . GM’s attitude is Wagoner's decree - they will simply seek concessions from employees and suppliers. 85% of all problems ….
Finally Obama put into the management, stock holders, bond holders, and BoDs the seriousness of their plight. First he had to remove a person who was optimistic and who foolishly insisted GM had good products. When Obama forced him out, news reports suggested it shocked everyone in GM management back to reality. Good. Their attitude is directly traceable to Wagoner’s decades of lying.
The new guy is only a transition. (More interesting – who will take the Iacocca job?) Even the BoDs need wholesale replacement. GM bonds are now selling for 17 cents on the dollar - $64 billion in outstanding debts - and bond holders still were not demanding change. Under Wagoner, everyone even foolishly believed GM was too big to fail; that bankruptcy was not an option.
Obama gave them time to fix themselves. They did nothing. They pretended GM was OK. 30 years earlier, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter made the situation obvious to Chrysler and Ford who in turn immediately fired their only problems - top management. But the White House for most of the past few years has all but promised protection everywhere. Remember George Jr's protection of anti-American steel companies? The protection of 40% higher prices for prescriptions? Finally Obama has (hopefully) put the fear of economic forces into GM and Chrysler management.
Meanwhile Nardelli is negotiating with Fiat as if he has options. Cerebus Capital (private investors) believed they ‘deserve’ government protection. Under Nardelli, Chrysler does not even have one new product in development. Fiat probably only wants Chrysler dealers anyway. Remember how Iacocca saved Chrysler? K-car. Mini-van. New product after new product because the threat of bankruptcy was galloping right behind Chrysler. Today, neither Wagoner nor Nardelli heard that threat (Ford did). So Nardelli will not even sell off his disaster to Fiat. Instead, both are rich and overpaid men who also believe in corporate welfare from the government.
Hopefully, Obama just sent a message to all American corporations that have been stifling innovation for so long in the name of cost controls, money games, and greater profits. Protection of the rich and anti-innovative has ended. How many heard it today? Finally, someone may have stood up for free market capitalism when it is most necessary.
Yea, he sent a message to all corporations tw, except financial ones. So the workers and unions will have to give up more, yet again, while banks keep getting more and more and more money, and the execs are still in place. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Wagoner is gone, but putting the next in line may not be all that smart, if he's been there a long time.
I'm not feeling the love anymore.
I hope, at this G20 (or whatever it's called), that obscene executive pay is addressed, because there are certainly people there protesting that.
Yea, he sent a message to all corporations tw, except financial ones.
The message of government will protect you did not come from Obama. That was the previous administration. Obama simply gave them (ie GM) time to submit a plan. George Jr never demanded any plans. When GM's plan was an obvious joke (and even the BoDs, stockholders, and bond holders did not complain), then Obama set the new standard.
It has only been two months. He had to give corporate America time to prove they are fixing themselves. Time to do what George Jr never demanded. GM is the first one that had to commit to a restructuring plan (big steel, big pharma, etc never had to). Two months and no plan. Boom. The #1 reason for problems: the top man's head rolls like it was on a guillotine. Hopefully that beheading was violent enough to shake up BoDs everywhere.
Its only been two months and already he has beheaded one of this nation's worst companies. Good. Leadership finally in Washington. "Let the message go out far and wide. Economic forces will now take revenge on those who forget the purpose of a company." Hopefully.
Read the article Merc posted in Rolling Stone.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
Obama keeps giving more advantages to banks, and big investors, and financial institutions, some of which were responsible for the meltdown in the first place. I think more money should be going to stimulate the economy and help actual people, you know, like more money for infrastructure, more money to refinance homes at low interest rates, less money to banks. Now they are getting another bailout, with most of the risk being put on the taxpayers, with this plan to buy their toxic assets. Meanwhile, they are crushing the very people bailing them out by charging exhorbitant fees and interest rates on things like cars. And the interest rates were supposed to go down on mortgages so people could refinance, but they went up again last week after the stock market went up. It isn't right. They are so worried about recouping the losses that THEY INCURRED by making bad buiness decisions, and while taxpayers keep having to bail them out, they are doing almost nothing to help the very people who are bailing them out.
Read the article Merc posted in Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
Obama keeps giving more advantages to banks, and big investors, and financial institutions, some of which were responsible for the meltdown in the first place.
Well why do you think that is?
In the top 20 investors to the Obama campaign we have Securities & Investment, Misc Finance, Commercial Banks, Insurance.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638Well why do you think that is?
In the top 20 investors to the Obama campaign we have Securities & Investment, Misc Finance, Commercial Banks, Insurance.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
And yet Obama proposed sweeping new regulations last week, much to the dislike of those contributors:
The Obama administration's aggressive plan for strict scrutiny of hedge funds and other freewheeling investors, part of the biggest expansion of financial restraints since the Great Depression, is drawing instant opposition from Republican lawmakers and the rules' targets. And skeptics are questioning whether the new rulebook would work anyway.
The administration's proposals, which require congressional approval, include:
_ Imposing tougher standards on financial institutions that are judged to be so big that their failure would threaten the entire system.
_ Extending federal regulation for the first time to all trading in financial derivatives — exotic instruments such as credit default swaps that are blamed for much of the economic carnage.
_ Requiring larger hedge funds and other private pools of capital, including private equity and venture capital funds, to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
_ Creating a regulator to monitor the biggest institutions. Geithner did not say which agency should wield such authority, but the administration is expected to favor the Federal Reserve.
_ Empowering the government to take over major nonbank financial firms such as insurers and hedge funds if deemed necessary.
Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., and many Democrats on the panel backed the proposals, while Republicans assailed them as too far-reaching.
Financial overhaul plan draws GOP opposition
The Republicans, who also got significant contributions from the financial services industry, response?
The same old line whenever regs are proposed...."We dont need new regulations....just enforce the regulations on the books."
They sure didnt do a very good job of enforcing existing regulations between 2000-2006. Bush's last SEC chairman, a former Republican congressman, admitted much like Dodd, that he fucked up.
I dont know if this new regulatory approach is the right way forward. I dont like given more power to the Fed Reserve and I dont doubt there will be loopholes.
Is the better solution simply to enforce existing regs? I dont think so.
But I havent seen a better alternative than the one outlined above.
I don't know why we can just put some of the regulations back in place that worked after the Great Depression. Of course we would also need new regulations for some of the new, irresponsible ways financial institutions make money nowadays. Maybe they should just criminalize them.
Well why do you think that is?
In the top 20 investors to the Obama campaign we have Securities & Investment, Misc Finance, Commercial Banks, Insurance.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
It makes me want to throw up the way banks and financial institutions are being treated, while unions and workers are getting the shaft.
I don't know why we can just put some of the regulations back in place that worked after the Great Depression. Of course we would also need new regulations for some of the new, irresponsible ways financial institutions make money nowadays. Maybe they should just criminalize them.
One reason it will be difficult to put some regs back in place is that Republicans in the Senate will do whatever they can to block it.
The next step?
I would hope that Obama meets his
campaign pledge on credit card reform that at the very least would immediately outlaw the practices defined by the Federal Reserve Board as unfair or deceptive and include restrictions on the size of credit card fees and on the size and duration of penalty interest rates.
Obama on Jay Leon:
[INDENT]Obama: Most of the stuff that got us into trouble was perfectly legal. And that's a sign of how much we've got to change our laws. We were talking earlier about credit cards. It's legal to charge somebody 30% on their credit card and charge fees and so forth that people don't always know what they are getting into. So the answer is to deal with those laws in a way that gives the average consumer a break. When you buy a toaster, if it explodes in your face, there's a law that says your toasters need to be safe. But When you get a credit card or you get a mortgage, there's no law on the books that says if that explodes in your face financially, somehow you're going to be protected. So this is the need for getting back to some common sense regulations. There's nothing wrong with innovation in the financial markets, we want people to be successful, we want people to be able to make a profit, banks are critical to our economy and we want credit to flow again, but we just want to make sure there's enough regulatory common sense in place that ordinary Americans are not taken advantage of and taxpayers at the back end are not taken care of.[/INDENT]
Makes sense to me.
Who introduced the
Federal Housing Reform Act of 2007 (including provisions on executive compensation)? That would be Barney Frank.
What prevented it from being enacted? That would be Republicans in the Senate along with a Bush veto pledge.
The Republicans, who also got significant contributions from the financial services industry, response?
They sure didnt do a very good job Bush's last SEC chairman, a former Republican congressman
Republicans in the Senate will do whatever they can to block it.
Federal Housing Reform Act of 2007
What prevented it from being enacted? That would be Republicans in the Senate along with a Bush veto pledge.
Looks like the partisan blame game you were talking about last night - no?
Looks like the partisan blame game you were talking about last night - no?
Absolutely...I plead guilty :)
In response to Merc's (and your) constant focus only on Obama and Dodd.
In the top 20 investors to the Obama campaign we have Securities & Investment, Misc Finance, Commercial Banks, Insurance.
And still no response from you guys on Obama's proposed sweeping regulations and support from Dodd, despite all those contributions and negative reaction from those contributors.
Rather than bitch more about Obama and Dodd....how about a more constructive discussion of the proposed regs?
If you think they suck and reward those who contributed to Obama and Dodd....what would you suggest as an alternative?
Absolutely...I plead guily :)
In response to Merc's (and your) constant focus only on Obama and Dodd.
And still no response from you guys on Obama's proposed sweeping regulations and support from Dodd, despite all those contributions and negative reaction from those contributors.
Rather than bitch more about Obama and Dodd....how about a more constructive discussion of the proposed regs?
If you think they suck and reward those who contributed to Obama and Dodd....what would suggest as an alternative?
I personally have no problem with Obama's attempts to deal with the issue even though I disagree with much of it. My issues are with Congress. My issues are the way people like you have become apologists for the responsiblities that the supposed democratic members share in this.
And I do have a problem with throwing money at many of these problems instead of letting them just go into receivership.
I personally have no problem with Obama's attempts to deal with the issue even though I disagree with much of it. My issues are with Congress. My issues are the way people like you have become apologists for the responsiblities that the supposed democratic members share in this.
And I do have a problem with throwing money at many of these problems instead of letting them just go into receivership.
I have said repeatedly that Dodd and Frank should be accountable for their share of the blame.
And IMO, they should be given credit when they act to address the problems like the legislation Frank introduced in 07 and their support for these new regs.
Who is not supporting these new regs or accepting any responsibility for past actions...that would be the Republicans in Congress.
So, if you disagree with much of Obama's proposed regs and you don't want to throw more money at the problem....what do you propose? What have the Republicans proposed.
I know that requires a bit more independent thinking than just pointing fingers just in the direction of one party.
I am ready to make it non-partrisan and focus on the issues and solutions any time you are. :)
Well first of all the spending bills passed to date still have not produced "shovel ready jobs" and the employment of "millions of people". I would start by not spending money on any project that does not produce jobs and they should be prioritized and spent in a prioritized fashion. Instead we have a the current Congressional approach of a shotgun spending package, hoping we do some good in the end. This approach is destined to ensure that they will not reach their goals and blame will follow. IMHO the dems have really stuck their necks out on this one and I see blades being sharpened.
Well first of all the spending bills passed to date still have not produced "shovel ready jobs" and the employment of "millions of people". I would start by not spending money on any project that does not produce jobs and they should be prioritized and spent in a prioritized fashion. Instead we have a the current Congressional approach of a shotgun spending package, hoping we do some good in the end. This approach is destined to ensure that they will not reach their goals and blame will follow. IMHO the dems have really stuck their necks out on this one and I see blades being sharpened.
IMO, its a bit disingenuous to say the stimulus bill hasnt produced "shovel ready jobs" to date or the "employment of millions of people"....damn...its been just over one month and the law has procedures to follow, including safeguards against the potential abuse that concerns you.
It has for a fact already saved teachers and police jobs....not "shovel ready", but jobs that were to be cut in my cities as a result of local government budget constraints.
At the same time, there are steps being taken by federal agencies (DOT, DOE, HUD, etc) to put procedures in place for the awarding of those funds with criteria to verify "shovel ready"...that proper oversight is expected to take another month or so.....I can live with that.
Well I can tell you that many people cannot wait another 30 days. And if the general public does not begin to see some concrete changes and the markets do not begin to level off very soon it will be viewed as a short term failure. History may prove that notion to incorrect but the risk is that the damage to the image may be done. This is of course all just my opinion but you can see stress among previous die hard supporters of Obama and the Dems beginning to develop.
You complain if they just throw money at the problem with no oversight and you complain if they take a month or two to impose proper funding criteria first.
They cant win.
You complain if they just throw money at the problem with no oversight and you complain if they take a month or two to impose proper funding criteria first.
They cant win.
Actually I do believe that I said they need to ensure that money should be thrown only at projects which produce jobs now. Obama pleged to start putting money into "shovel ready" jobs. Where are they? Much money has already been spent and disbursed.
Actually I do believe that I said they need to ensure that money should be thrown only at projects which produce jobs now. Obama pleged to start putting money into "shovel ready" jobs. Where are they? Much money has already been spent and disbursed.
I can see we are not getting anywhere here.
Shovel ready jobs need to be verified by the funding agencies to meet minimum qualification standards....that doesnt happen overnight. A month or two is not an unreasonable time frame, IMO....I guess it is for you.
And as far as I know, the only money that has been disbursed so far are the state/local emergency relief funds to support expansion of unemployment comp or to prevent layoffs of teachers and police and other similar priorities.
Read the article Merc posted in Rolling Stone.
I am not happy about that part. However, appreciate his objectives. Do you throw more money at the rich (as George Jr did) to create more yachts, expensive vacations, and obese homes? Or do you channel that same money into capital items that create universal wealth, increased living standards, innovative technology, new industries, etc?
If the money is not channeled through banks who now are obliged to vete their loans, then where do you suggest investing in America?
New demands for responsibility are places even on bankers who were now told that big bonuses means they were charging excessive service charges or that their 1% fees are too high. Not only must their operations be exposed to public scrutiny, they must also rechannel cash to the fewer things that make jobs, products, capital equipment, etc. Not into mythical assets such as CDOs, SIVs, etc.
I don't like banks getting government money. But I love it when finance people must act more like what they really are - bureaucrats whose job is to service the economies only innovators.
Bankers that got money now must learn what their true purpose is. There are string attached to that money. Later, we will apply even more and necessary regulations to the few parts of the American economy that require heavy oversight.
Well I can tell you that many people cannot wait another 30 days. And if the general public does not begin to see some concrete changes and the markets do not begin to level off very soon it will be viewed as a short term failure.
That's the classic bean counter mentality. Any useful solution to this mess will happen many years later. Only corrupt finance types believe economic solutions occur within the quarterly report period.
The meltdowns today are from investment scams mostly of four and more years ago. We still have to pay for "Mission Accomplished". Only extremists or bean counter mentalities would be disappointed because solutions did not appear two months later. It will take years just more scams from years ago to adversely appear in economic data.
We still have other things that must occur such as selling off significant parts of America to pay for bills such as "Mission Accomplished". Chrysler may be one example of what we must do because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". We have yet to see all that resulting damage.
Meanwhile, they are crushing the very people bailing them out by charging exhorbitant fees and interest rates on things like cars. And the interest rates were supposed to go down on mortgages so people could refinance, but they went up again last week after the stock market went up.
Interest rates are ridiculously low. You may not realize that interest rates this low for this long was almost never seen. Also appreciate what is coming because we spent the last ten years spending wildly. Nixon did it in 1968 and 1970. Therefore the debts came due in 1975 and 1979. Do you remember what Paul Volker finally did to fix the economy? Interest rates of 20% were common. We still have either massive inertest rate increases or devaluation of the dollar to look forward to. Or both.
Appreciate where we are. The stock market crashed in 1929. Therefore the resulting economic turmoil got ugly many years later - 1933. You have let to see the damage created by the money games of this last eight years. You are still living the good times. If you think this is bad, you have no clue what even the 1970s were like.
I have said repeatedly that Dodd and Frank should be accountable for their share of the blame.
Agreed
Who is not supporting these new regs or accepting any responsibility for past actions...that would be the Republicans in Congress.
What have the Republicans proposed.
S.O.S.
I am ready to make it non-partrisan and focus on the issues and solutions any time you are.
Now is fine, but remember since this is a very liberal board some may hesitate to call out their own.
It has for a fact already saved teachers and police jobs....not "shovel ready", but jobs that were to be cut in my cities as a result of local government budget constraints.
This is a sticky political point for me - Jobs created is quantifiable. Jobs saved is not quite as much. IMO that is why the Admin. changed the terminology from created to saved or created. Also, I'm ok with jobs being saved.
At the same time, there are steps being taken by federal agencies (DOT, DOE, HUD, etc) to put procedures in place for the awarding of those funds with criteria to verify "shovel ready"...that proper oversight is expected to take another month or so.....I can live with that.
Some of these are already done and waiting for weather, permits and such. From what I have heard, the engineers have already done their part.
Some of these are already done and waiting for weather, permits and such. From what I have heard, the engineers have already done their part.
In the case of the infrastructure funds, as an example, nearly all the funds go through the states.
It is not like Joe the Plumber can say he is now Joe the Road Builder and has a shovel ready project and "where's my check"?
It is not an issue of weather or permits but more a matter of the states first agreeing to accept the funds (they have until April 3 to notify the White House), then submitting various forms, including prioritizing the projects and other compliance details.
If the infrastructure funding is coming through DOT, the states have
these compliance certifications.
All of this is to satisfy readiness, prioritization and (for Merc)
transparency!
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/
http://news.stimuluswatch.org/post/76941950/most-active-projects-scrutinized-in-the-press
These are the "wish lists" from cities across the country compiled by the US Conference of Mayors. None of these are on any "approved" list.
Each governor still has to prioritize, deny many of those on the lists and provide that certification and
transparency to the feds.
Yea, it is a pretty good way to see how they are wasting money trying to create a few jobs.
Yea, it is a pretty good way to see how they are wasting money trying to create a few jobs.
LOL
You scream "where's the transparency" when there was clearly no transparency issue to anyone other than you (the still ongoing transparent deliberations in Congress on the Obama 2010 budget proposal and the threat of reconciliation) and you mock transparency when it exists in the stimulus bill.
About what I expected.
LOL
You scream "where's the transparency" when there was clearly no transparency issue (the deliberations on the Obama 2010 budget proposal and the threat of reconciliation) and you mock transparency when it exists in the stimulus bill.
About what I expected.
Actually, no in this exchange we we talking about jobs and I said were are the jobs and where are the "shovel ready" jobs that Obama promised. They are no where.
So you are ok spend hundreds of thousands for a few jobs? Who pays when the money runs out?
Actually, no in this exchange we we talking about jobs and I said were are the jobs and where are the "shovel ready" jobs that Obama promised. They are no where.
So you are ok spend hundreds of thousands for a few jobs? Who pays when the money runs out?
I dont think reasonable people expected, nor did Obama promise, millions of jobs in the first 30-60 days after the bill's enactment.
I dont think reasonable people expected, nor did Obama promise, millions of jobs in the first 30-60 days after the bill's enactment.
Really? Tell it to the unemployed.
Really? Tell it to the unemployed.
That was why the first funds released were for the extension of unemployment benefits to those who have reached the limit and more funds to the states to cope with the greater number of newly unemployed.
Beyond that, you and I have reached an impasse......again.
I have no problem with our impasse. It is an expected end.
Really? Tell it to the unemployed.
Hey, all you unemployed people surfing the web in the library! The stimulus plan won't work immediately!
You probably knew that already, but Merc wanted to make sure.
:lol2: Ha, ha, ha... you so funny. Oy, and clever too.
Interest rates are ridiculously low. You may not realize that interest rates this low for this long was almost never seen....
Not with credit cards. Rates are going up.
Not with credit cards. Rates are going up.
And you have not yet seen how high they may go. 22% interest rates were typical in the 1970s. The rates are going up and are still low.
Merc, some jobs have been created and have already started. Maybe not a lot yet, but don't act is if none have, because that isn't so. MANY have been saved, and more will start up as time goes on.
classic, the terminology was changed because the job loss grew much faster than anyone predicted, so saving jobs became synonomous with creating jobs.
Redux, there hasn't been much transparency yet, especially with regard to the banks. And speaking of banks, I think this administration isn't putting the regulations we had back in place NOT because of republicans, but because they are too buddy-buddy with banks and Wall Street execs. Just look at the double standard that is being used for those who shower before work, and those who shower after. They should not be afraid of Wall Street execs, they should be afraid of the people. But you know, politicians will always favor where the money flows.
tw, banks AREN"T lending like they should be, or refinancing mortgages, and they are not being transparent AT ALL about the money they've received. I wish Obama would hang a few of those Wall Street execs, like they did Wagoner. Maybe then they would get the message. So far, I don't think they have gotten anything, except their own way.
And you have not yet seen how high they may go. 22% interest rates were typical in the 1970s. The rates are going up and are still low.
Some people have higher rates than that.
Much higher. I know one person whose rate went up to 49.5%. WTF?
Merc, some jobs have been created and have already started. Maybe not a lot yet, but don't act is if none have, because that isn't so. MANY have been saved, and more will start up as time goes on.
When you compare the amount of money spent by congress to "stimulate the economy" and look at how many jobs have been directly created for the money spent, it is criminal. Where are the "millions of jobs"?
When you compare the amount of money spent by congress to "stimulate the economy" and look at how many jobs have been directly created for the money spent, it is criminal. Where are the "millions of jobs"?
I'm starting to agree with you, not about the stimulus, but the money being spent on banks and fiancial institutions.
Did you see this in the news today?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/03/credit-card-rates----senate-democrats-are-making-a-new-stab-at-limiting-credit-card-interest-rates----fueling-bankers-thre.html
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200903301215DOWJONESDJONLINE000420_FORTUNE5.htm
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/35049/
No I didn't, but this pisses me off.
"Senate Democrats are making a new stab at limiting credit card interest rates -- fueling bankers’ threats that the measure will further reduce consumers’ access to credit..."
So we give them billions of dollars and they hold us hostage with our own money. Fucking bankers. I wish they would all die.
In the case of the infrastructure funds, as an example, nearly all the funds go through the states.
I know engineers in two states who told me what I posted earlier. They are and have been directly involved in getting these projects started. Just passin along what those involved told me. You may now do with it as you will. Kinda like statistics.
Redux.....speaking of banks, I think this administration isn't putting the regulations we had back in place NOT because of republicans, but because they are too buddy-buddy with banks and Wall Street execs. Just look at the double standard that is being used for those who shower before work, and those who shower after. They should not be afraid of Wall Street execs, they should be afraid of the people. But you know, politicians will always favor where the money flows.
I understand the anger at the banks.
I dont understand the suggestion that Obama isnt putting new regs in place on banks/financial services because of his contributions from "buddies in the industry"....when in fact, he proposed sweeping regulations last week despite the opposition of those buddies.
In order for the regs to be adopted, they will need to be approved in legislation by Congress and the Republicans are certainly not jumping on board, to say the least.
No I didn't, but this pisses me off. "Senate Democrats are making a new stab at limiting credit card interest rates -- fueling bankers’ threats that the measure will further reduce consumers’ access to credit..."
So we give them billions of dollars and they hold us hostage with our own money. Fucking bankers. I wish they would all die.
IMO, the bill voted out of Dodd's committee yesterday (on a party line vote) to ban abusive credit practices and enhance consumer disclosures,
Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 is a good first step.
Again, its hard for me to understand how this is Dodd sucking up to his contributors (as some here suggest repeatedly), when they oppose it.
I know engineers in two states who told me what I posted earlier. They are and have been directly involved in getting these projects started. Just passin along what those involved told me. You may now do with it as you will. Kinda like statistics.
I thought the money came through subsidies? I don't know what you posted earlier so it might be the same, might not.
Redux, my understanding is those CC regs don't take effect until 2010. Why the hell can't they pass something that will take effect immediately and give people some relief from these loan sharks?
I heard on CNN last night that 1000 jobs were created for something, but since I was half asleep I can't remember what the jobs were.
Redux, my understanding is those CC regs don't take effect until 2010. Why the hell can't they pass something that will take effect immediately and give people some relief from these loan sharks?....
sugar...its not that easy, particularly if the Senate Republicans block it (the full Senate hasnt voted on it yet).
Even in the best case scenario, it would still require months for the Dept of Treasury to draft the regulations and then at least 90 days for public comments.
But you have to start somewhere.
Its almost like a drag race in a tank.
California road projects
Caltrans adopts a list of 57 transportation projects totaling $625 million to be the first in line to receive federal infrastructure money.
Getting started in California
A list of 57 transportation projects totaling $625 million has been adopted by Caltrans as the first in line to receive federal infrastructure money. The projects include:
$75 million to repave three miles of rough pavement on Interstate 710 in Los Angeles.
$50 million to help reconstruct Doyle Drive, the southern access to the Golden Gate Bridge.
$46.7 million to replace two aging bridges on Highway 99 in Merced County.
$17 million to rehabilitate a stretch of Highway 99 in Butte County.
$16.8 million to construct two new lanes on Interstate 805 in Chula Vista to ease traffic congestion.
$13 million to replace the Russian River Bridge in Mendocino County near Ukiah.
13 Million to replace a bridge ... that seems like too little. guess its a tiny bridge or something ...
75 Million for 3 miles of road? Is it just me or does that sound a bit excessive?
Nope.
It cost $234 million to rebuild the I35W bridge.
That sounds more like it - this one is only 13 million. I don't know the specifics about either one...
That sounds more like it - this one is only 13 million. I don't know the specifics about either one...
The cost really depends on how it is made. It doesn't seem that small and I don't know if its a full replacement or just parts of the bridge are being replaced.
That 3 miles of road is on an interstate. There is no telling where it is. It could be on an overpass or something. You can't really judge if something is excessive simply by what is printed.
13 million does seem like a small amount for a bridge. Here is the proposal though...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/envinternet/rusriver/finalis.pdfCool - thanks for the link.
Still 25 million for a mile of highway! That sure as hell sounds like a lot to me. Whether it is exorbitant or not - I dunno.
I agree, it does sound like a lot. But maybe it has to do with the cost of shutting down part of a major freeway in order to do the work.
And maybe it has something to do with worrying about some nasty old weeds might grow on 0.43 god damn acres of riparian zone. This shit is out of control.
You'll have to click on the pfd in sugarpop's post, because I just spent 20 fucking minutes trying to post a screen grab but steaming pile of shit Comcast wouldn't let me, because they are too fucking busy sucking the dick's of their fucking commercial customers, to allow me to do anything after midnight every fucking night. :mad2:
And maybe it has something to do with worrying about some nasty old weeds might grow on 0.43 god damn acres of riparian zone. This shit is out of control.
Her link was to the bridge, which seems like a bargain, not to the highway, which seems kind of expensive. So I don't think the wetland mitigation for half an acre is out of control at all. It's only $13 Million for all the bridge work, including the minor wetland stuff.
The real question, is why is the highway so expensive?
"Minor wetland stuff"? Reread the damn thing. :eyebrow:
"Minor wetland stuff"? Reread the damn thing. :eyebrow:
Yes, minor relative to the highway project, and relative to the overall bridge project. It sounds like a bargain to me to replace a two lane bridge for only $13 million. Sure, it would bankrupt me personally, but it's chump change for a bridge.
"Only $13 million"? You Sir, like much of America, have been desensitized to how much money a million dollars actually is. :rolleyes:
That's very possible. I've never built a bridge and don't know the cost breakdown.
But I do hear about things like the $398 million "bridge to nowhere," and that makes me think that bridges cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So when I see one for $13 million, it sounds like a bargain.
You know, that bridge looks perfectly fine to me. $13 Million to replace a perfectly fine 2 lane bridge with another 2 lane bride that has wider shoulders seems like a waste.
If the only reason to replace it is to widen the shoulders, I agree. But looking fine on top isn't in itself a good indicator that there is no other reason to replace it.
*pffft* it's not like bridges fall down very often. ;)
After speaking with a mechanical engineer today who works for the DOT on the East coast...
Both the bridge and the road price can be either extremely expensive very cheap or just about right. It completely depends on the situation -
The road is certainly on the high end, but if it is 3 miles of elevated road, a road that is from an engineers perspective more like a bridge, then that could be really cheap.
"Remember" he says, "The guy layin the rebar on a Sunday is getting $140 an hour. Costs like that add up fast." :eek:
Having someone monitor the damn weeds for the next 5 years adds up too. :rolleyes:
Is that S.O.P. or is all that different than any other roadway project? Does anyone here know?
I would guess it's SOP for any construction in areas designated for environmental protection, but that's just a guess.
Good guess, and that's the problem.
Every one of these construction projects has the same problem as every pentagon materials buy. They are so steeped in SOP, needed or not, it triples the cost of everything. It makes everything so expensive many things that should be done, and could be done simply for a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time frame, simply don't get done.
Well, they don't get done until something tragic happens anyway.
Ahhhh - thats another unforeseen cost - the glatts err, lawyers. Risk of suits and all.
Standard Operating Procedure
ahhh, OK, thanks classic.
I am HOPING that Obama puts an end to SOP. He has vowed to cut waste, and that sounds like a lot of money going out simply because contractors have always gotten away with it. Just because something is being paid for by the govenment doesn't mean contractors should get a blank check. They have gotten away with robbing us blind for decades. It's time for that to stop. And Obama said as much in a speech he made not too long ago. so yea Obama!
The other night we were discussing at work why the man-hours per unit has crept up better than 5k. Basically it's because the customer is demanding the place look like no work is being done, 100% of the time. After I retire I'll be able to expound at length. :mad:
This guy bailed.
Freddie Mac Exec Found Dead At Home
David Kellermann, Acting Chief Financial Officer Of Embattled Mortgage Company, Dead In Apparent Suicide
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/22/business/main4961169.shtmlI saw that. I wonder if had committed some kind of fraud or something and he couldn't live with it anymore. That's what came to my mind. Of course, it could have absolutely nothing to do with that. He could just be depressed because his relationship was tanking or something.
Of course, he's now on the right wingers' Obama Death List.
Did he know the Clintons?
just add him to the list.
j/k
It's his wifes fault, she said she wanted a man that's hung.
Meltdown 101: How do bank 'stress tests' work?
WASHINGTON – After weeks of speculation, regulators led by the Federal Reserve are telling banks how they fared in the "stress tests" at the center of the Obama administration's financial rescue plan.
Markets rallied and investors breathed a little easier Friday after a Fed news release on the methods underlying the stress tests. But the white paper, which one former bank examiner for the Fed called "not for mass consumption," left lay people wondering what it all means.
Here are a few questions and answers about the stress test's methods and the next steps for shoring up the financial system.
Q: What is this "stress test"?
A: The "stress test" is actually two tests measuring how much value banks' assets — loans it's made along with various other investments — would lose over the next two years under different economic scenarios.
The first scenario was based on predictions about the current recession. It assumed unemployment will reach 8.8 percent in 2010 and house prices will decline by 14 percent this year. The second scenario was for a worse-than-expected downturn. It said unemployment will reach 10.3 percent in 2010 and house prices will drop by 22 percent this year.
After testing banks' assets to see how much value they could lose, officials compared the losses to the banks' capital cushions — basically, the money they've got in reserve — to see if the banks could survive a bad recession.
Q: Who participated?
A: The tests were run on 19 large bank holding companies, including an insurer, an auto finance company, a credit card company and banks ranging from massive Wall Street houses like Citigroup to regional banks like KeyCorp and PNC Financial Services. The banks all have $100 billion in assets, and together hold half the loans in the U.S. banking system and two-thirds of the assets, according to the Fed.
The tests were performed by the banks' regulators, including the Federal Reserve banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
In case you're curious, here's a full list of the Big 19: JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, MetLife Inc., PNC Financial Services Group Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Bank of New York Mellon Corp., GMAC LLC, SunTrust Banks Inc., State Street Corp., Capital One Financial Corp., BB&T Corp., Regions Financial Corp., American Express Co., Fifth Third Bancorp and KeyCorp.
Q: What did the regulators find out?
Nice article in laymans terms of what it is and whatnot.
So many have already criticized this stress test. Not one critic knew what it was - at all - until last Friday (24 April 2009). And still, little is known.
We do know this. A stress test has already caused banks to reassess their financial stability. Anybody who was not doing that most certainly took a second and third look. Some undiscovered new problem would be employment suicide for the bank's management. A good thing considering how widespread their denials were in those big banks.
It says this...
But the truth is, we just don't know. Larger credit problems or a severe downturn still could threaten these banks, especially regional banks that own a lot of risky mortgages. If the banks go down, the government may have to spend more money forcing them to merge — and that could set off a whole new cycle of uncertainty.
Q: Does that mean we're staying on the bailout train?
A: For the foreseeable future. Regulators have decided these banks are "too big to fail." In other words, their failures could wreak havoc on the financial system, like what happened last fall when Lehman Bros. declared bankruptcy. By all indications, the Fed is ready to do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen again.
So let me get this straight, these banks are too big to fail, but if one or more is unable to weather the economy, they will have to merge with other big banks too big to fail? Aren't we exacerbating the problem? Shouldn't they broken down into smaller banks instead?
Geez, the way smart people think sometimes is beyond my reasoning. :headshake
So let me get this straight, these banks are too big to fail, but if one or more is unable to weather the economy, they will have to merge with other big banks too big to fail? Aren't we exacerbating the problem? Shouldn't they broken down into smaller banks instead?
A common believe is that Citigroup will eventually be broken up. But now is not the time to be doing these reforms. We have been told we will be living with this problem for ten years. Exactly. The banks are being preserved as institutions to serve other parts of the economy. That is the short term solution. Long term discussions are about resizing banks so that they are not too large to fail AND to make their operations more transparent.
Among other long term solutions - what hedge fund do must move to regulated markets. No more $trillion tied up on secret deals.
And, of course, a fundamental statement by Obama on 14 Apr. Financial companies are there to serve the economy; not for profits. In short, banks must now do what any company is required to do - provide products and services. That should be part of the many changes in the next ten years.
And, of course, a fundamental statement by Obama on 14 Apr. Financial companies are there to serve the economy; not for profits.
ORLY?
Imagine this:
Bank of America, Citigroup, GMAC Need More Capital
May 6 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and GMAC LLC are among the companies judged to need additional capital according to results of regulators’ stress tests on the 19 largest U.S. banks.
Bank of America has the biggest shortfall, at $34 billion, according to people familiar with the matter. Citigroup’s requirement for deeper reserves to offset potential losses over the coming two years is about $5 billion, people with knowledge of that bank’s results said. Wells Fargo requires about $15 billion, while GMAC’s need is $11.5 billion, one person said.
Morgan Stanley may need between $1 billion and $2 billion, according to people familiar with the matter. Earlier today, Bloomberg News reported that Morgan Stanley needed no new capital, citing a person familiar with the matter. Any capital requirement would result from Morgan Stanley’s plans to pay $2.7 billion to take control of Citigroup’s Smith Barney brokerage venture, one of the people said.
The Federal Reserve and other regulators said today that banks that have to bolster their capital will have until June 8 to develop a plan. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., MetLife Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., American Express Co., BB&T Corp. and Capital One Financial Corp. were deemed not to need additional funds, the results show.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ax42ejKB7gAs&refer=worldwide
Who'd a thunk it?
6 life insurers qualify for bailout money
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Six life insurance companies have qualified to receive billions of dollars in bailout money under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
Allstate is one of six life insurance companies who are qualified to receive TARP money.
Treasury Department spokesman Andrew Williams said Allstate, Ameriprise Financial, Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Lincoln National Corp., Principal Financial and Prudential Financial Inc. have qualified for TARP money.
"These life insurers met the requirements for the Capital Purchase Program because of their bank holding company status and each applied for CPP capital investments by the deadline of November 14, 2008," Williams said.
Last year, the Office of Thrift Supervision approved applications from Hartford and Lincoln to become bank holding companies, because of their planned bank purchases.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based Lincoln is buying Newton County Loan & Savings FSB in Goodland, Indiana. Hartford, based in Hartford, Connecticut, is buying Federal Trust Bank in Sanford, Florida.
That last part makes me wonder if there is any benefit to these companies buying these banks to get TARP money. Anyone know?
My employer said no, thanks:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-14-TARP-insurance-companies_N.htm
Sounds like a bunch of folks are getting on about their scheme. And I thank the Gods for it. We don't need more gobberment control.
Scheme? You mean attaching conditions to the money, instead of leaving a self serve barrel on the porch?
Good, make it as distasteful and unpleasant as possible, so they only stick their hand out as a last resort. Back during the S&L bailouts and the early part of this one, billions were handed out with no accountability, We got a few peeks at what they did with that money. :(
Certainly. But it needs to be balanced against corps that maybe really need it and the strong arm tactics of the gobberment. Obviously nothing is for free, and it shouldn't be, but there is a balance that is not served by the gobberment in control of private enterprise. If that is the only choice left I say let them fail or file for bankruptcy and let the chips fall where they may.
That's the recipients choice. If they want their asses saved they get chaperoned, to make sure they are not just pissing down the same hole, until they get their shit together and pay back the money. Then they are free to go forth and sin no more.
I still prefer death of the company over control by the gobberment.
But it's not your company.
true dat. But it sure the fuck is my money.
All the more reason to want it accounted for. You can't stop 'em, so be glad they are trying to keep track of it.
All the more reason to want it accounted for. You can't stop 'em, so be glad they are trying to keep track of it.
True, but that really sux.
Greenspan Slept as Off-Books Debt Escaped Scrutiny
`Magic Trick'
``I've always regarded it as a bit of a magic trick,'' Pauline Wallace, a partner at PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP and team leader in London for financial instruments, said of off-balance- sheet accounting. ``Magicians come to parties, and they make things seem to disappear. The risk is somewhere, but you never knew where.''
Pushed by taxpayers angry about financing a bailout of Wall Street while their retirement accounts wither, Congress is likely to shake up bank and securities regulation, giving the Federal Reserve more power.
``I wouldn't be surprised if the Fed ends up officially becoming our systemic-risk regulator,'' said Robert Litan, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
That's ironic to Donald Young, an investor advocate and FASB board member from 2005 until June 30. He testified at the same Senate hearing on Sept. 18 that both the Fed and the SEC joined the banks they oversaw in resisting proposals for more disclosure of off-the-books assets.
``There was an unending lobbying of FASB'' by companies and regulators, Young told the committee.
`Lack of Transparency'
The former FASB board member made a similar point in a June 26 letter to Senator Reed. ``We lacked the ability to overcome the lobbying efforts that effectively argued that if we made substantive changes we would hamper the credit markets and hurt business,'' Young wrote. ``Our inaction did not hamper credit markets -- it helped to destroy them.''
The issue, Young said in an interview, was the ``lack of transparency'' that comes with off-the-books accounting.
``There is a perceived free lunch that they can take on risk and not reflect it, and make things look better than they are,'' he said. ``That encourages them to do it more and more.''
A spokesman for FASB, Neal McGarity, said in an e-mail that Young voted with the majority of the board in a January 2005 decision to expand the use of an off-balance-sheet vehicle.
UBS Writedowns
Regulators outside the U.S. didn't do a good job policing investments in subprime-mortgage assets either. Zurich-based UBS AG, hurt the most in Europe with writedowns and losses totaling $44 billion, told the Swiss Federal Banking Commission early last year that it was ``fully hedged, yes, even overhedged,'' director Daniel Zuberbuehler said at a press conference in April.
``This answer subsequently proved to be wrong, because UBS did not correctly capture its actual risk exposure and seriously overestimated its hedges,'' Zuberbuehler said. The Swiss commission now says it will force the bank to hold more capital in reserve and is negotiating with UBS over new capital requirements.
An International Monetary Fund report in April described how the housing turmoil in the U.S. ``spread quickly to Europe, prompting bank rescues and capital injections.'' It said that as of March, European banks still had $173 billion in subprime mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, about the same amount as U.S. banks.
The accounting standards board, housed in a corporate office park in Norwalk, Connecticut, an hour northeast of New York City, operates in an unusual position between the public and private sectors. It was set up in 1973 as an independent rulemaking group, though the SEC gets a say in who is named to the board and can override its rules.
That same year Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt opposed an attempt by Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to study regulating over-the-counter derivatives.
In 2000, Congress passed a law keeping them unregulated.
Levitt said he went along with concerns by Greenspan and Rubin that Born's action might throw derivatives contracts into ``legal uncertainty.'' He said he now regrets that he didn't press a presidential advisory group ``to take a closer look'' at the issue. Rubin said in an interview that ``you could have had chaos'' if Born's plan found existing derivatives contracts invalid because they weren't traded on an exchange. Both Born and Greenspan declined to comment.
A sober and informative read.
Interesting. I am no financial whiz but this sounds like an unstable situation that the experts can't decifer.
Federal Reserve puzzled by yield curve steepening
By Alister Bull - Analysis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve is studying significant moves in the U.S. government bond market last week that could have big implications for the central bank's strategy to combat the country's recession.
But the Fed is not really sure what is driving the sharp rise in long-dated bond yields, and especially a widening gap between short and long term yields.
Do rising U.S. Treasury yields and a steepening yield curve suggest an economic recovery is more certain, meaning less need for safe haven government bonds and a healthy demand for credit? If so, there might be less need for the Fed to expand the money supply by buying more U.S. Treasuries.
Or does the steepening yield curve mean investors are worried about the deterioration in the U.S. fiscal outlook, or the potential for a collapse in the U.S. dollar as the Fed floods the world with newly minted currency as part of its quantitative easing program. This might be an argument to augment to step up asset purchases.
Another possibility is that China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury debt, has decided to refocus its portfolio by leaning more heavily on shorter-term maturities.
With officials still grappling to divine the factors steepening the yield curve, a speedy decision on whether to ramp up the Treasury debt purchase program or the related plan to snap up mortgage-related debt seems unlikely.
"I'm in wait-and-see mode," said one Fed official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We laid out the asset purchase plan and we're following it. That is going to have some affect on various interest rates, but together with a hundred other things. So I don't think we should be chasing a long-term interest rate," the official said.
continues:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE54U1NZ20090531Which is roughly equivalent to saying: the cards predict that you will have an unexpected encounter with a stranger who seems helpful at first, but whose motives might be very different ...
Goldman to make record bonus payout
Staff at Goldman Sachs staff can look forward to the biggest bonus payouts in the firm's 140-year history after a spectacular first half of the year, sparking concern that the big investment banks which survived the credit crunch will derail financial regulation reforms.
A lack of competition and a surge in revenues from trading foreign currency, bonds and fixed-income products has sent profits at Goldman Sachs soaring, according to insiders at the firm.
Goldman is expected to be the biggest winner in the race for revenues that, in 2006, reached £186bn across the entire industry. While this figure is expected to fall to £160bn in 2009, it will be split among a smaller number of firms.
Barclays Capital, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank are among the European firms expected to register bumper profits, along with US banks JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley following the near collapse and government rescue of major trading houses including Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland.
"These banks are intermediaries in the bond markets where governments and companies are raising billions of pounds of new money. There is also a lack of competition that means they can charge huge sums for doing business."
Last week, the firm predicted that President Barack Obama's government could issue $3.25tn of debt before September, almost four times last year's sum. Goldman, a prime broker of US government bonds, is expected to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from selling and dealing in the bonds.
How about this little bit of info from Sept 30th 1999? Remarkable. If nothing more than for historical reference.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: Thursday, September 30, 1999
Sign in to Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?scp=1&sq=Fannie%20Mae%20eases%20credit%20Sept%2030,%201999&st=cseInteresting. I never thought anyone would take the time to look into this. IMHO I was just going to chalk it up to what the lengths they would go to in getting things done in the bailout. It is good to see them holding someone's feet to the fire and trying to get some answers to the mess of the bailout mergers.
Bernanke Defends His Role in Merrill Sale
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/business/26fed.html?_r=1&ref=global-home“Importantly, the decision to go forward with the merger rightly remained in the hands of Bank of America’s board and management, and they were obligated to make the choice they believed was in the best interests of the shareholders and company.”
He sounded guilty as hell. It was like something from Atlas Shrugged.
I still believe they pressured the hell out of BOA to do the deal. Now they are just covering their collective asses.
“Much of what the Fed, the Treasury and other agencies did in these transactions remains shrouded in secrecy,” said Representative Edolphus Towns, Democrat of New York and chairman of the oversight committee, said in his opening statement. “It’s time to yank the shroud off the Fed and shine some light on these events.”
Unhappy about the huge bank bailouts that the Fed arranged with the Treasury Department during the Bush administration, many Republicans are even more displeased that Mr. Bernanke is now working hand-in-glove with the Obama administration.
other e-mail between Fed officials shows that Bank of America executives were pressuring the Fed and the Treasury up to the last minute on Dec. 30, when the deal was scheduled to close, to provide written promises that the government would provide billions in new capital and other protection.
Wow - interesting stuff.
Treasury's Reform plan gives the credit raters a pass.
If world-class lobbying could win a Stanley Cup, the credit-ratings caucus would be skating a victory lap this week. The Obama plan for financial re-regulation leaves unscathed this favored class of businesses whose fingerprints are all over the credit meltdown.
The government-anointed judges of risk at Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch inflicted upon investors the AAA-rated subprime mortgage-backed security. They also inflicted upon the world's nest eggs the even more opaque AAA-rated collateralized debt obligation (CDO). Without the ratings agency seal of approval -- required by SEC, Federal Reserve and state regulation for many institutional investors -- it would have been nearly impossible to market the structured financial products at the heart of the crisis. Yet Team Obama suggests only that regulators reduce the agencies' favored role "wherever possible."
It's a revealing phrase, implying that there are situations when it's appropriate to rely on ratings from the big three instead of actually analyzing a potential investment. Can anyone name one? Probably not, which makes one wonder how the ratings-agency lobby could be so effective.
The truth is that the strongest defenders of this flawed system are mutual funds, state pension administrators and the federal regulators now managing the various bailout programs. Digging into the underlying assets in a pool of mortgages or judging the credit risk in a collection of auto loans is hard work. But putting taxpayer or investor money in something labeled "triple-A" is easy. Everyone is covered if the government's favorite credit raters have signed off.
The Obama plan also calls for regulators to "minimize" the ability of banks to use highly-rated securities to reduce their capital requirements when they have not actually reduced their risks. Minimize, not eliminate? Does the Treasury believe that some baseline level of fakery is acceptable in bank financial statements? To review, a critical ingredient in the meltdown was the Basel banking standards pushed by the Federal Reserve. Among other problems, Basel allowed Wall Street firms to claim that highly-rated mortgage-backed securities on their books were almost as good as cash as a capital standard.
The Obama plan does make plenty of vague suggestions, similar to those proposed by the rating agencies themselves, to improve oversight of the ratings process and better manage conflicts of interest. The Obama Treasury has even adopted the favorite public relations strategy of the ratings agency lobby: Blame the victim. "Market discipline broke down as investors relied excessively on credit rating agencies," says this week's Treasury reform white paper. After regulators spent decades explicitly demanding that banks and mutual funds hold securities rated by the big rating agencies, regulators now have the nerve to blame investors for paying attention to the ratings.
Even the Fed, which until recently would accept as collateral only securities that had been rated by S&P, Moody's or Fitch, has lately acknowledged the flaws in this approach. The New York Fed has anointed two more firms, DBRS and Realpoint, to judge the default risk of commercial mortgage-backed securities eligible for the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). Since the passage of a 2006 law intended to promote competition, the SEC has also approved new firms to rate securities that money market funds and brokerages are required to hold.
But inviting more firms to become members of this exclusive club isn't the answer. As long as government requires investors to pay for a service, and then selects which businesses may provide it, it's unlikely investors will get their money's worth. History says it's more likely that investors who use the agencies' "investment-grade" ratings as a guide will be exposed to severe losses -- ask people who went long on Enron and WorldCom.
It's time to let markets decide how to judge creditworthiness. One lesson of the crisis is that the unregulated credit default swap (CDS) market provided a more accurate measurement of the risk of financial firms than the government's chosen ratings system. Apparently even the largest provider of these government-required ratings, S&P, has taken this lesson to heart. The company recently introduced a new "Market Derived Signals" model that incorporates the prices of CDS contracts "to create a measure that facilitates the interpretation of market information."
This looks like a signal that even the prime beneficiaries of a government policy believe that the policy failed. So why won't the Obama Administration embrace real reform?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562476664835519.htmlAccording to the OECD, Australia is in the best shape in the developed world financially, and they've put it down to the govt stimulus packages, along with fairly strict regulations on banking and investments.
My point is of course that it might be too soon to tell if the stimulus package put together by your govt will boost your economy due to its size.
I still believe they pressured the hell out of BOA to do the deal. Now they are just covering their collective asses.
Which is what Lewis (of BOA) was saying in December when the losses (when the spread sheets were corrected to report reality) became obvious. Ken Lewis is no longer saying that now that Merrill Lynch is becoming profitable again.
All this criticism of Bernanke sound like chasing Clinton's penis. As soon as Clinton was out of office, Paula Jones sudden had to pay her own bills. When Clinton was out of office, Paula Jones suddenly discovered her car registration was not even paid for. She did not even know she must register her car because political extremists no longer needed her. This Bernanke nonsense is classic politics rather than addressing the real problems such as Enron accounting.
If they were being honest, most criticism would be at Paulsen and Paulsen’s boss who approved all this. But there is no political advantage to addressing the real issue. The most ignorant among us get inspired when we chase Clinton's penis or how a near entire economic meltdown was averted ASAP.
Never forget faces on those Congressmen when they came out of a meeting with Paulsen and Bernanke. Even deer caught in the headlights do not show that much fear. What they did back then was that desperate and necessary. Only a political agenda would have us forget that reality.
Quoted from The Mercenary's WSJ quote:
To review, a critical ingredient in the meltdown was the Basel banking standards pushed by the Federal Reserve. Among other problems, Basel allowed Wall Street firms to claim that highly-rated mortgage-backed securities on their books were almost as good as cash as a capital standard.
How conveniently they rewrite history. But then the WSJ that reports the news is into facts. The WSJ that has opinions can forget those facts. They are two separate organizations.
Basel did not *allow* Wall Street firms to run up a 30:1 ratio. Basel I (that the George Jr administration impeded) required banks to maintain equity. Meanwhile, Wall Street got exemptions from the George Jr administration and created new financial instruments (Credit Default obligations, SIVs, etc) to bypass regulations and Basel I. For example, AIG wrote insurance policies so complicated as to make them exempt from insurance regulation. Today we know what those loopholes created.
Basel II was designed to close those loopholes. But again, George Jr's administration refused to let Basel II be implemented. That WSJ opinion also forgets to mention that part. But then the opinion is about promoting a political agenda - and therefore forgets all the facts.
As any MBA or stock broker will tell us, profits (not servicing America) is the only purpose of business. Basel II would have diminished profits by protecting banking stabity. MBAs and their political extremist supporters feared responsible policies - even delayed or subverts Basel I & II. The opinion even conveniently forgets to mention both Basels.
Basel I did not *permit* those economic threats. Those threats were created to get around Basel I and other regulations. Basel II, that would have addressed those new financial instruments, was simply subverted by the George Jr administration ... so that Wall Street banks could run up 30 to 1 debt to equity ratios.
Funny Cartoon from the years of the past. Sound familiar?
“Importantly, the decision to go forward with the merger rightly remained in the hands of Bank of America’s board and management, and they were obligated to make the choice they believed was in the best interests of the shareholders and company.”
He sounded guilty as hell. It was like something from Atlas Shrugged.
I agree they should not have been forced to go through with the deal, but according to Ken Lewis, the CEO of BoA, during the hearings about this issue, he said it was right decision, and that he wasn't forced to do it. In fact, in his opening statement, he said they had turned around and had brought in quite a bit of revenue from the deal.
Quote:
“Much of what the Fed, the Treasury and other agencies did in these transactions remains shrouded in secrecy,” said Representative Edolphus Towns, Democrat of New York and chairman of the oversight committee, said in his opening statement. “It’s time to yank the shroud off the Fed and shine some light on these events.”
Unhappy about the huge bank bailouts that the Fed arranged with the Treasury Department during the Bush administration, many Republicans are even more displeased that Mr. Bernanke is now working hand-in-glove with the Obama administration.
other e-mail between Fed officials shows that Bank of America executives were pressuring the Fed and the Treasury up to the last minute on Dec. 30, when the deal was scheduled to close, to provide written promises that the government would provide billions in new capital and other protection.
Wow - interesting stuff.
Did you watch any of the hearings about this stuff? Apparently the reason WHY Paulson was pushing for the deal to go through is because of what happened after Lehman Bros was allowed to fail. Do you
remember what happened after Lehman failed? They really thought if Merril failed as well, the economy would have gone off the deep end, like,
for real. We would be in another great depression, like during the 30s. In fact, in a documentary I watched recently (I believe it was on Frontline), Paulson was shocked at how fast things spiralled out of control, because originally he had gotten all the biggest CEOs in a room together and told them to work it out, that they would get no government help. That all changed after what happened with Lehman Bros.
*edit* here is the link...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/breakingthebank/According to the OECD, Australia is in the best shape in the developed world financially, and they've put it down to the govt stimulus packages, along with fairly strict regulations on banking and investments.
My point is of course that it might be too soon to tell if the stimulus package put together by your govt will boost your economy due to its size.
People here won't give it time, and they won't take into account how many people
weren't laid off or fired because of the stimulus. All they do is quote how many jobs have not been created. When Obama said those things, it was before we knew how bad it was going to be.
And it's looking like we didn't do enough, like we might need another stimulus, which is what some economists were saying from the beginning, that it wasn't big enough. I just hope, if they do another one, it is all about jobs and infrastructure, and not about tax cuts.
We should be building highspeed rail systems, and hydrogen highways, and giving money to people who are building green cars and green energy companies, and giving money to people to solarize their homes or put in personal wind machines. THAT would create jobs, LOTS of them. Fuck the "cap and trade" legislation, just give the money to people who will create the alternatives, and it will work itself out. I think if people had a choice, most of them would choose to get their power from a green source.
Sounds like the D's learned very well from the R's how to peddle "fear" and get the public sheep to follow along.
Just keep on giving all that money away sugar.
Sounds like the D's learned very well from the R's how to peddle "fear" and get the public sheep to follow along.
WOW! you hit the nail on the head. Where are all the liberal sheepel? Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....
Funny. A republican from SC said on the news last night (in a conversation about Gov. Sanders) that they had to fight him on the stimulus. He (sanders) didn't want to take the money, but if they did take it, he wanted to use it to pay down the debt, NOT to SAVE the jobs of teachers and police, etc., which ultimately they used it to save many jobs of people who otherwise would have been laid off. And many other politicians have said the exact same thing. If they hadn't had access to that money, more jobs would have been lost.
See, I believe this is where we are at fault with regard to capitalism. We don't have a problem with the small percentage of people earning the majority of the money, even though good jobs are more scarce and pay significantly less than they used to. And we are always concerned about growth. We MUST grow the economy. How about creating a truly sustainable economy? It is unsustainable to keep allowing the top to grow astronomically while everything else stagnates, especially since the population is also growing, which is also unsustainable. It is more sustainable to have a more level playing field, where there are plenty of jobs that pay well enough so everyone can afford to live comfortably. (I did not say lavishly, I said comfortably.) It is better for everyone if NO ONE has all the concentrated wealth to the extent a small percentage do now.
It is unsustainable to keep allowing the top to grow astronomically while everything else stagnates, especially since the population is also growing, which is also unsustainable. It is more sustainable to have a more level playing field, where there are plenty of jobs that pay well enough so everyone can afford to live comfortably. (I did not say lavishly, I said comfortably.) It is better for everyone if NO ONE has all the concentrated wealth to the extent a small percentage do now.
So... what, are you actually agreeing with me?
Who says the Feds aren't in the business of taking over private industry?
WASHINGTON — The House approved a spending bill on Thursday that would impede efforts by General Motors and Chrysler to close thousands of their dealerships.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17autos.htmlWatchdog: Gov't may have overpaid to bail out AIG
Officials handling the multibillion dollar bailout of insurance giant American International Group Inc. mismanaged an initial rescue attempt and may have overpaid other banks to wind down AIG's business relationships, a government watchdog says.
lationships, a government watchdog says.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York — headed at the time by now-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner — paid AIG's business partners full face value for securities so they would cancel insurance contracts AIG had written in order to ease the firm's liquidity crunch. But at least one of those partner banks offered to canceled the contracts for less, according to a report Monday from Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the $700 billion financial bailout Congress approved last October.
That means officials may have spent billions more than necessary to cancel debt insurance contracts with banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and others, the report says.
The New York Fed also weakened its bargaining position by refusing to threaten that AIG would go bankrupt after an initial $85 billion bailout proved too small to save the firm, the report says. Furthermore, negotiators led by Geithner told the banks that any concessions would be purely voluntary, the report says.
The result, the report says, was a weak negotiating strategy with little chance of success in obtaining concessions from the banks. It says the initial bailout "was done with almost no independent consideration of the terms of the transaction or the impact that those terms might have on the future of AIG."
As president of the New York Fed, Geithner signed off on many key decisions concerning AIG's bailouts — including the move to pay in full for securities held by other banks, the report says. Also involved were officials from Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
The report says Geithner denied that officials intended to give other banks a "backdoor bailout." Yet it says decisions Geithner approved — "indeed, the very design" of AIG's rescue — meant that billions of taxpayer dollars were "funneled inexorably and directly" to other banks.
It acknowledges that officials had good reasons to save AIG, and were appropriately reluctant to break contracts the company had with other companies. But it says those decisions "came with a cost — they led directly to a negotiating strategy that even ... Geithner acknowledged had little likelihood of success."
How easy is it to hide a few million bucks in a transaction this large. I wonder where all this money actually went.
Oh, and good job there Timmy. . . Not.
Watchdog: Gov't may have overpaid to bail out AIG
How easy is it to hide a few million bucks in a transaction this large. I wonder where all this money actually went.
Oh, and good job there Timmy. . . Not.
Yay for bailing out bankers! You'd hate to see society leveled a bit due to market forces.
Private equity firms buy undervalued or underappreciated companies, impose short-term improvements and sell them for a fast profit. Some of the companies they've bought include Hertz, La Quinta, Dunkin Donuts, and Toys R Us. Josh Kosman, a private equity expert, says that the way the firms have been able to buy these businesses — through leveraged buyouts — means the majority of the money for the buyout has come from loans that the firms dump on the company they're supposedly fixing.
Now burdened with debt, many of those companies owned by private equity firms are in danger of defaulting. In a new book, Kosman writes that it's likely half of the 3,188 American companies bought by private equity firms between 2000 and 2008 could collapse. His book is called The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Will Cause the Next Great Credit Crisis.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120391729
Here is a highly interesting and spooky story from NPR.
~snip
In December 2008, the Boston Consulting Group, which advises PE firms, predicted that almost 50 percent of PE-owned companies would probably default on their debt by the end of 2011. It also believed there would be significant restructuring at these companies leading to massive cost cuts and difficult layoffs.
A rain of defaults is already starting. From January 1 through October 31, 2009, 175 American companies defaulted on their debt. That is almost double the number for all of 2008. Half of those companies have been involved in transactions with PE firms at some point in their corporate life, according to the Standard & Poor's rating agency.
If this analyst is correct today’s economy could look like a picnic by comparison with what's coming down the road. :(
Here is a highly interesting and spooky story from NPR.
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." And then the bills come due four and ten years later. We must still pay for "Mission Accomplished". GM is still dumping more expenses on the American public having used GMAC and 0 percent financing to maintain fictional profits. GMAC will now go to the government for what - maybe another $5billion? Because wackos all but protected bin Laden and handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban, we will now spend $1million per soldier per year to refight the entire Afghan war.
We have yet to see many of the debts incurred over the previous ten years. Do not for one minute think the stock market proves a recession is over. The crash in 1929 resulted in job losses mostly in 1933. It takes that long for money games and 'welfare to the rich' to appear as expenses.
Some 15 million Americans are not sure if or where their next meal will come from. One in six Americans is now living in poverty levels. The average American income has dropped 2% in the past eight years. This is not a time to believe things are getting better. We were warned by moderates and economists (using history from some maybe 13 other recessions) that we will be paying for these problems for the next 10 years. We have not yet begun to sell off America to pay our debts.
Most read here in 2005 that a severe housing crisis was pending. When did it finally arrive? 2008. It is difficult to say when or how severe the resulting economic crisis may happen. But we know from history that it is not yet over.
An outside chance says things will not get worse. But nobody has any logical reason to believe so especially due to overt financial mismanagement throughout the 2000s. Any responsible person should be prepared for what could get very bad - for the same reason that a real estate crisis apparent in 2005 finally appeared in 2008.
Yay for bailing out bankers! You'd hate to see society leveled a bit due to market forces.
If we would have allowed that to happen the weak ones would have just filed for bankruptcy or outright failed. That would be true leveling.
If we would have allowed that to happen the weak ones would have just filed for bankruptcy or outright failed. That would be true leveling.
Failure of some banks were discovered (after the fact) to be so deeply embedded into this nation's economy as to require bailouts. One that should have never been rescued is GMAC.
How did GM keep selling cars that would otherwise never sell - to avoid bankruptcy? GM mortgaged another asset - GMAC. Zero percent financing was the mortgaging of GMAC. In addition to the $60billion given to GM, the Feds also gave GMAC something like $12billion. More 'backdoor' corporate welfare to GM. Private investors who took a 50% stake in GMAC after GM so deeply mortgaged that bank should have taken a loss. Those private investors should have done due diligence - and did not. Therefore should have lost their shirt.
GMAC is example of one bank that should never have been bailed out. But, in the fear and turmoil created in almost entirely in a month by almost a decade of fiscal mismanagement, GMAC was one of the lucky ones that got saved - and shouldn't. In that month, few had time to do sufficient research.
GMAC was not necessary to this nation's economic survival. GMAC was how GM corporate management saved their jobs and reaped massive bonuses at the expense of every American.
A problem that could have been avert years or even decades ago if so many Americans did not buy what was so obviously crap. Had the problem been forced upon GM early enough (because consumers stopped buying crap that needed two extra pistons to get the same horsepower), then bankruptcy (even in 1991) could have averted this problem. Bankruptcy applied early only eliminates what creates 85% of all problems - in this case GM management.
GMAC is probably one bank that should have been bankrupt - then sold to more responsible management for pennies. Unfortunately, GMAC got saved when the only solution to complete economic freeze was more oil – massive liquidity.
GMAC was sold to Cerberus Capital Management in 2006.
Chrysler was sold to Cerberus Capital Management in 2007.
Seems Cerberus Capital Management was at the bailout trough, bigtime.:eyebrow:
Also seems that Cerberus Capital Management are not wise shoppers.
Not necessarily. They bought so cheap, and set it up so Cerberus remained healthy, regardless of what happened to their purchases. That's why those purchases were bailed out by us, instead of Cerberus. They're very smart, or well connected, or both.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf
The Government Accountability Office released a report [1] (PDF) today criticizing the quality of the data used to calculate how many jobs have been generated by the stimulus.
Welcome to the club [2], GAO. Here are some of the highlights:
Nearly 4,000 reports filed by recipients of stimulus money showed no dollar amount received. Yet those same reports claimed to have created or saved more than 50,000 jobs.
Some 9,200 reports showed no jobs, even though they spent a total of almost $1 billion in stimulus money.
Nearly one in 10 stimulus recipients failed to file reports.
Almost one quarter of reports from primary stimulus recipients were not reviewed by a federal agency.
Recipients used different formulas to calculate how many jobs they had created or saved.
Recipients used different formulas to calculate how many jobs they had created or saved.
I wonder how many used the PFA method. I'm afraid more than we'd like to think.
A very insightful look at the economic collapse and it's roots...
In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.
"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."
Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.
"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"
Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."
Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.
"It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/themes/derivatives.htmlGood God...
The Obama Administration is touting that their stimulus program has saved or created 640,329 jobs since it was enacted back in February through the end of October. This number is updated and posted on the Administration’s recovery.gov web site. That amounts to $246,436 per job based on the $157.8bn that has been awarded so far! Total compensation earned by the average payroll employee during October, on an annualized basis, was $59,867. If the government had simply used the funds awarded so far to pay for a year’s worth of labor, that would have paid for 2.6mn jobs!
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/12/07/cost-benefit-analysis-of-jobs-stimulus/give a man/ teach a man and all that. Hope for Change...
I heard a similar thing about the mortgages too - If they had just paid off x million of them the banks would have money and people would have homes paid for and more disposable income would flow back into the economy...... <shrug>
People way smarter than I are making decisions . . . I hope
A company I'm involved with got a contract to develop tracking software for a southern city. They wanted to measure the job creation from the stimulus training dollars they got. After a couple of months, they killed the effort, saying the resulting numbers might "confuse the public."
I saw the numbers. No confusion, much ugliness.
This municipality decided that in order to meet the mandate to spend this money fast, they'd better give it all away to local universities and colleges and let them worry about training. So they did, spending something north of $20 million. The mandate to invest quickly was met.
There's no reporting due back from those schools. And they're all public. No private schools got a nickel. Of course private schools have higher job placement records than the public outfits. Go figure.
OK, enough. I confess to having not read all 2,000 pages of this bill. In fact, I wouldn't have known about Section 2521 if a friend hadn't pointed it out to me.
But you've got to wonder how many other toxic paragraphs are threaded through this mammoth thing.
Link
Just a piece from one man's perspective on the "job creation"
A very good friend of mine just got a grant from the stimulus money to put a fence around 50 acres of property and run water to it from an existing well for....
3 cows.
Go figure. It was for something like 25k.
Did he pay a contractor to do it? Did it thus create even a short-term job? Did he buy the fencing materials from his local store?
All this talk about "documented jobs created" seems to me to be missing the point.
If you spend, say, ten million, even if you directly employ a few dozen people, that ten million is out there flowing around the economy, and every time it gets spent and respent, someone's job is made a little safer.
Until the money flows to China, of course.
Did he pay a contractor to do it? Did it thus create even a short-term job? Did he buy the fencing materials from his local store?
All this talk about "documented jobs created" seems to me to be missing the point.
If you spend, say, ten million, even if you directly employ a few dozen people, that ten million is out there flowing around the economy, and every time it gets spent and respent, someone's job is made a little safer.
Until the money flows to China, of course.
I would buy that if so much of the money has been documented to not have created any jobs. They may hire one guy to help them put in the fence. He is one of the undocumented helpers they have on hand. Maybe he can feed his wife and kids for another week. I guess you could say they did help by the purchase of goods, I mean help the guy in China, since almost all the steel posts, wire, and PVC comes from there. Sure we just stimulated China's economy again.
If you spend, say, ten million, even if you directly employ a few dozen people, that ten million is out there flowing around the economy, and every time it gets spent and respent, someone's job is made a little safer.
Until the money flows to China, of course.
. . .or back to the politicians. They never pay for anything.
How would that differ from paying off the mortgages for people thus freeing up capital? Would people then have additional money to spend & respend without the worry of defaults?
I mean help the guy in China, since almost all the steel posts, wire, and PVC comes from there
And China buys lots of iron ore from ... Australia! STIMULATED!
Thanks guys, love you! (Hope you figure out a way to pay it all off!)
TOKYO -- Just over four years since it clawed its way out of a consumption-sapping cycle of price slides that sucked the vitality out of Asia's biggest economy, Japan is back in deflation, officially at least.
The feeling of deflation deja vu was compound by the nation's central bank response, which amounted to more of the same. The Bank of Japan is keeping the nation awash in corpuscles of cash in the hope that like an over-oxygenated athlete, the Japanese economy might burst into a sprint.
Many are happy to keep it that way -- after all, how many shoppers are going to complain when goods get cheaper? When wages are shrinking and taxation and social welfare costs are ballooning, people will insist on value for money, especially when they have been overpaying for goods and services for years.
The upside is that it will force Japan into the kind of structural change needed to boost productivity that its political leaders dare not suggest.
Their response to the latest bout of deflation from the top has been predictable and disappointing. The spend-our-way-out-of-trouble mantra is again being chanted in the cloisters of power and another government stimulus package to kick-start the domestic economy is on its inevitable way.
The new Democratic Party of Japan seems intent on shifting away from pouring concrete into roads, dams, ports and bridges to shore up the economy in favor of giving the money to consumers through subsidies and benefits, although bickering among ministers about how many billions of dollars it should splurge has delayed the package.
Link
Wow - is this the future for our bailout? We'll just bail our way out again. How many times has this already been done in Japan now?
Japan has its own problems, but I know some people who specialise in studying the Japanese economy and at least one insists that Japan is doing fine.
Their GDP is the same as it was 20 years ago. But since their population is also steady, their per-capita GDP is unchanged, and still very high. Unemployment is low, inflation is near zero, the vast majority of people are living comfortable lives ... what's the problem?
Adam Smith style economists demand permanent growth. In Smith's day (late 1700s) this made sense, because poverty was a great cause of human misery; poor food and water, bad housing, disease, infant mortality, etc. But once these problems have been addressed ... how much richer do we need to be? Why do we need permanent growth? Is, eg Japan, rich enough?
Another part of the problem (if there is one) in Japan is that they are pursuing extremely low interest rates - less than 1% - and have been for years. The idea is to make it easier to borrow and invest in new enterprises in Japan.
Millions of Japanese people have realised that they can borrow a big bucket of Yen at 1%, convert it into some foreign currency, and deposit it overseas and earn maybe 5%, thus skimming 4% of someone else's money. Australia and New Zealand are favourites for this "carry trade". Which is fine but it means a huge outflow of capital from Japan, which completely defeats the purpose of low interest rates, which was to make it easier to invest in Japan by making capital cheaper.
Scott Talbott, who represents some of the country's largest financial firms at Financial Services Roundtable, said banks are still lending, but they've gotten more wary of potential risk.
"You've seen an increase or a tightening of the credit standards," Talbott said. "So banks are cautious now about lending in terms of who our borrower is.
We're looking to make good, solid loans that can be repaid."
Link
What a concept!
"Fat Cats", Obama last night on 60 minutes. That should help foster relations.
He was trying to mend fences with his supporters after disillusioning them by ramping up the war. Bash some bankers and the public will love you again.
NPR said the very same thing this am. I tend to agree with them.
It's obvious that Wall Street is back to business as usual, max profit at the expense of anything and anyone. They need a good whuppin.:eyebrow:
How the Subprime Scam Works
By Chip Parker, Jacksonville Bankruptcy Attorney
I have written a few articles about the crash and burn of the subprime lending market, but why am I so gleeful about the suffering of lenders, such as the recently-bankrupt New Century Financial Group? After all, the subprime lenders were heralded by our presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic, as the broker of the middle-class American Dream. In reality, these lenders are breaking the American Dream for the middle class.
The subprime scam goes like this: Subprime lenders offer “teaser” interest rates that jump significantly after two years or so, known as a “reset.” Additionally, many loans allow for the payment of interest only and terms of up to 50 years. The idea is to suck the borrower in with a low monthly payment. These loans usually have high closing costs and a large pre-payment penalty. So, when the loan “resets” after a couple of years, the monthly payment will skyrocket, as much as 50%, forcing the borrower to refinance. However, the borrower rarely has the cash to pay the prepayment penalties or the closing costs. No worries, however. The mortgage company happily rolls these fees and penalties into the new adjustable rate mortgage with the “teaser” interest rate that resets in two years. Ultimately, these loans are designed to require the borrower to refinance every couple of years, handing over home equity to the bank.
At first, the new loan programs boosted home ownership to an all-time high, but the entire industry relied on ever-increasing home values. Much like a Ponzi scheme, as soon as the bottom fell out of the housing market, home equity disappeared altogether. This means that these subprime lenders are no longer willing to roll the penalties and fees into a new mortgage. Without the ability to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket, most homeowners are realizing that they have bitten off more than they can chew. These homeowners cannot sell their homes in this housing market, and they cannot make the payments on their bloated mortgages. This “payment shock” is the reason that 60% of all foreclosures are subprime loans, even though they only account for 12.5% of all mortgages, and at least $300 billion in subprime adjustable-rate mortgages will reset this year to higher interest rates.
I recently had a bankruptcy consultation with a 14-year underwriter for the subprime mortgage industry who is sure that she will be out of a job by the end of summer. Like so many others, she was not even interested in keeping her house because her mortgage payments were unmanageable. She told me that, right around the new millennium, lenders “lost their minds.” “They completely forgot about the risk side of the equation. They were only interested big commissions,” she recalled.
Link
I just thought I'd share this persons opinion. You may take out of it what you will.
I was about to post a snarky "what, you only just figured this out?" type comment, but first I checked the link ... article seems to date from 2007/04/09. It is a good clear explanation though.
It must have sucked being able to see this coming and not being able to convince anyone about it.
The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that the House passed last week addresses:
[INDENT]sub-prime lending - The bill outlaws many of the egregious and predatory industry practices that fueled the subprime lending boom and establishes a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold
ponzi schemes - the bill strengthens the SEC’s powers so that it can better protect investors from Madoff type frauds
derivatives - the bill regulates the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace, requiring all standardized swap transactions to be cleared and traded on an exchange
bail-outs - the bill requires big banks and other financial institutions (with $50 billion in assets) to foot the bill for any bailouts in the future. These institutions would pay assessments based on a company’s potential risk to the whole financial system if they were to fail.
consumer protections - the bill creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers and small businesses by ensuring that bank loans, mortgages, credit cards are fair, affordable, understandable, and transparent.[/INDENT]
The House bill had
ZERO republican votes. (
link)
Color me skeptical.
No matter what kind of laws they pass, the crooks will find end-runs and loopholes. Or they'll dream up some new scam that's not covered by the laws, and off they go again. What needs to happen is a change of attitude, a change of culture, and I don't see that happening.
The only thing we can do is stop dealing with these piggies. But that's as likely to happen as us voting out piggies. We're truly fucked.:(
All we do is trade one pen of piggies for another pen of piggies. Nothing ever changes. It is funny to see the piggies get defended as not really being piggies. Maybe they are sheep in piggie clothing. :)
This little piggy crashed the market
This little piggy lost his home
This little piggy had a bailout
This little piggy got a bonus
And this little piggy went wee wee wee all over the concept of individuals accepting the consequences of their own actions.
I get it.....regulations never work....so Congress should do nothing.
Lets trust the free market to control its own actions. It worked so well since the repeal of banking/financial services regulations 10 years ago.
It's easy to say its just more of the same or throw them all out....it's tougher to propose a constructive solution.
Oh stop it, for Christ's sake. Nobody said that. :eyebrow:
Oh stop it, for Christ's sake. Nobody said that. :eyebrow:
SKeptism is fine.....but hardly a constructive comment.
What dont you like about the bill to re-regulate banks and financial services?
What would you propose as an alternative?
Its easy to be a skeptic (in your case) and a blatant partisan (mercenary) critic ....but I rarely, if ever, see anything offered for discussion here in the way of a positive solution from those who consistently just bitch and moan.
For Christ's sake...how about something more than bitching and moaning and complaining for a change. :eyebrow:
. . . or a partisan poster who just tows the party line. Whats the difference?
. . . or a partisan poster who just tows the party line. Whats the difference?
In a pissy mood today?
Any time you want to discuss issues rather than just post a link with a comment of "interesting"......let me know or offer something constructive for a change.
So what dont you like about the bill to re-regulate banks and financial services?
What would you propose as an alternative?
. . . or a partisan poster who just tows the party line. Whats the difference?
:lol2:
:thumb:
:lol2:
:thumb:
Pat each other on the back if it makes you feel better.....thats a very constructive response as well. :thumb:
Pat each other on the back if it makes you feel better.....thats a very constructive response as well. :thumb:
Fuck off Partisan Demoncratic Mouth Piece. Peddle your snake oil somewhere else. :D
Fuck off Partisan Demoncratic Mouth Piece. Peddle your snake oil somewhere else. :D
So you really dont want to discuss how to prevent future tax-payer ball-outs or sub-prime lending or high risk unregulated derivatives or fraudulent investment schemes.
Why am I not surprised.
So you really dont want to discuss how to prevent future tax-payer ball-outs or sub-prime lending or high risk unregulated derivatives or fraudulent investment schemes.
Why am I not surprised.
Your Demoncratic White House Packaged Talking Points have no merit. Take your Snake Oil Sales somewhere else.
If you want to discuss Sub-Prime Lending start with Barney Frank and the pressure of the Demoncrats in the late 1990's and then maybe we can talk.
Your Demoncratic White House Packaged Talking Points have no merit. Take your Snake Oil Sales somewhere else.
If you want to discuss Sub-Prime Lending start with Barney Frank and the pressure of the Demoncrats in the late 1990's and then maybe we can talk.
In fact, it was the pressure of the Republican majority Congress in 1999, led by Phil Gramm in the Senate and Jim Leach and Tom Biley in the House (thus the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act) along with Clinton's acquiescence, that resulted in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that opened up the market to the abuses and excesses of the banks, securities companies and insurance companies that occurred in the early 2000s.
Barney Frank voted against it.
SKeptism is fine.....but hardly a constructive comment.
I stated, I didn't think it wouldn't work, and why.
What dont you like about the bill to re-regulate banks and financial services?
I don't think it will accomplish what is needed to fix the problem.
What would you propose as an alternative?
I told you...
What needs to happen is a change of attitude, a change of culture.
Its easy to be a skeptic (in your case) and a blatant partisan (mercenary) critic ....but I rarely, if ever, see anything offered for discussion here in the way of a positive solution from those who consistently just bitch and moan.
Positive solution? Kill half the fuckers and the other half will change their attitude. I guaranty that will work better than any pie in the sky legislation.
Do you really think that hoard of Junior Madoffs give a shit about rules? No fucking way, it's all about the Benjamins.
They call themselves a bank, but they're about as far from a bank as possible. Banks profit by providing a service to the public, those piggies profit by manipulating and bleeding the public, and the taxpayer.
For Christ's sake...how about something more than bitching and moaning and complaining for a change. :eyebrow:
Fuck you, I gave you the solution...
The only thing we can do is stop dealing with these piggies.
Starve the fuckers to death. But you're all wrapped up in making more fucking rules for them to twist, vault, and end run.
You sound like a high school teacher in the ghetto.... "Oh, they're really good boys, they just need a firm hand, a little guidance, and they won't kill anyone else, your honor." Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
I stated, I didn't think it wouldn't work, and why.
I don't think it will accomplish what is needed to fix the problem.
I told you...
Positive solution? Kill half the fuckers and the other half will change their attitude. I guaranty that will work better than any pie in the sky legislation.
Do you really think that hoard of Junior Madoffs give a shit about rules? No fucking way, it's all about the Benjamins.
They call themselves a bank, but they're about as far from a bank as possible. Banks profit by providing a service to the public, those piggies profit by manipulating and bleeding the public, and the taxpayer.
Fuck you, I gave you the solution... Starve the fuckers to death. But you're all wrapped up in making more fucking rules for them to twist, vault, and end run.
You sound like a high school teacher in the ghetto.... "Oh, they're really good boys, they just need a firm hand, a little guidance, and they won't kill anyone else, your honor." Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Sounds like more bitching and moaning to me.
Kill half the fuckers and the rest will change? Starve the fuckers to death? No need to rules.
Very practical solutions.
Carry on.
how about something more than bitching and moaning and complaining for a change.
. . . or a partisan poster who just tows the party line. Whats the difference?
You took a shot a very well respected poster which was uncalled for. You have been posting the party line incessantly since you got back here.
You try to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with "your party" and what they are doing. FSM forbid any others who disagree. You seem to act/post as though anyone who doesn't like what "your party" is doing must be stupid or a neo-con. Its the same old tired "D" is good "R" is bad. Thats the culture and attitude that created the environment we are in and many Americans are unhappy with. Unfortunately you ARE part of that culture. Perhaps thats the problem.
Any time you want to discuss issues rather than just post a link with a comment of "interesting"......let me know or offer something constructive for a change.
If I find articles "interesting" to me, I share them. No different than reading and rewriting their points as some do.
You took a shot a very well respected poster which was uncalled for. You have been posting the party line incessantly since you got back here.
You try to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with "your party" and what they are doing. FSM forbid any others who disagree. You seem to act/post as though anyone who doesn't like what "your party" is doing must be stupid or a neo-con. Its the same old tired "D" is good "R" is bad. Thats the culture and attitude that created the environment we are in and many Americans are unhappy with. Unfortunately you ARE part of that culture. Perhaps thats the problem.
If I find articles "interesting" to me, I share them. No different than reading and rewriting their points as some do.
My issue is not about agreeing with me. It is about having a contructive discussion.
(hmmmm and you and Merc dont repeatedly discredit those who disagree with you...with your "same old parisan D bullshit"....sound familiar)
Pot calling kettle!
Sorry but I dont find a commenty of "Kill half the fuckers and the rest will change? Starve the fuckers to death" very helpful.
If that is a shot at a well respected member...too fucking bad.
I know its easier for you and Merc to take your shots at me then to actually engage in a discussion.
Fine.. have at it!
I can get as down and dirty as you if you want to go that way.
sigh. Way to not address any of the points made and to twist the conversation, paint with the broadest of brushes and ignore other opinions.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I like reading your posts and respect your opinions, well most of the time, but lately you seem to be doing nothing more that regurgitating your party's line so much that I can get EXACTLY what you say from any liberal rag or website.
sigh. Way to not address any of the points made and to twist the conversation, paint with the broadest of brushes and ignore other opinions.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I like reading your posts and respect your opinions, well most of the time, but lately you seem to be doing nothing more that regurgitating your party's line so much that I can get EXACTLY what you say from any liberal rag or website.
Facts are a stubborn thing...and so is your double slandard.
No one else, including you, regurgitates partisan sites or talking points? Bullshit.
Or Merc's blatanly false posts (the Dems in the 90s and Barney Frank forced the issue that resulted in the sub-prime fiasco and all his health care crap) should go w/o a challenge? Bullshit.
Where is your "sigh" when Merc plays the Nazi card? Or when UG characterizes everyone left of him as a socialist?
Or a response of "Kill half the fuckers and the rest will change? Starve the fuckers to death" from Bruce is a constructive response to my quesiton...if you dont like the Democratic proposal, what would you suggest as an alternative? Bullshit.
Talking points repeatedly posted still do not become facts.
Merc is his own man and I've called him out plenty of times.
Nice try though.
Talking points repeatedly posted still do not become facts.
Merc is his own man and I've called him out plenty of times.
Nice try though.
I get it.
I bring up the fact there is now a bill in Congress to address the issue of bail-outs, sub-primes, etc.
Bruce offers a response of ""Kill half the fuckers and the rest will change? Starve the fuckers to death" as a solution.
Merc screams snake oil salesman.
And I'm the disruptive partisan when I all I suggested was that it be discussed and others can offer other solutions.
But its clear that some dont want a discussion.
Well, in the words used often around here....FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE!
I don't know about you, but I can't recall me ever saying that to anyone - maybe tw, but that was years ago. Heck I even sent him a Christmas card this year.
BTW, People made a few jokes on here (SHOCK) and you got all pissy. I never said you were disruptive. I thought your attack on Bruce was uncalled for and said so.
Wacko Republican trying to have an informed discussion? Hardly. Instead is the sniping from caves – complete with a denial of the problem and zero solutions.
We know corruption in the finance industry is widespread. Directly traceable to a philosophy encouraged by a wacko political agenda. "The purpose of a company is profits." So we all suffer the consequences ten (ie AIG, Enron) and thirty (GM) years later. And then blame anybody but wacko extremists who wanted it? More sniping from their caves.
One of the greatest frauds were derivatives. To reap profits in this money game, the fraudsters must hide it in complex (hundreds of pages) contracts and in secret bi-lateral deals (CDOs, SIVs). And then pervert the accounting since, as one executive once told me (after drinking too much beer), "He makes the spread sheets say what they have to say." After all, only profit are important (and the resulting K Street brides).
The problems Redux has accurately identified were obvious even with Long Term Capital Management. Some ten years ago when wacko extremist Republicans were actively subverting the regulations even back then. Instead we encouraged even more corruption - along with the back room K Street corruption that made so much of it possible. K Street deals greased the wheels for any Congressman whose philosophy was, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Number one and most essential to undoing this disaster - part of a solution that will take at least ten years: derivatives must be traded on open markets. Essential so that Enrong accounting cannot continue - economic clamity not hidden in secret derivatives. Only then will counter-parties really know who is and who is not fiscally stable. Absolutely necessary so that another liquidity crisis does not occur when money will (and it is coming probably starting first quarter next year) get tighter.
The world is worth somewhere between $7trillion and $8trillion dollars. Takes assets (ie homes). Bundle those mortgages into mortgage backed securities. Then declare those mortgages as another asset (corrupt accounting). Automatically, the economy is richer. Then bundle those new assets into another derivative - SIV (special investment vehicles) cloaked in massive (unreadable) contracts. Then declare that an asset on manipulated spread sheets (ie Enron accounting that is still legal). Then insure those contracts with CDOs. And relabel that insurance as 'not insurance' (thanks to Republican congress subversion of regulation); as another asset. All this made possible by wacko extremist attacks on regulators.
IOW a world worth maybe $7.5 trillion now has $604 trillion new wealth created by derivatives. Money games openly encouraged by those who fear regulation. The world still has only $7 some trillion in actual things. But the finance industry has reaped massive profits by inventing assets. Using spread sheet games to claim the world is worth another $604 trillion. Notice the numbers what wacko extremists never provide when sniping from caves.
Wackos said this was good. Said we should not reign in fiscal prostitution. After all, perversion (SIVs, CDOs, etc) is a business that should not be regulated even after LTCM proved otherwise. Resulting campaign contributions to both Democrats and mostly to Republicans were too large. Wackos from both parties told their worshippers what to parrot from their caves.
The one industry that is historically most corrupt is the finance industry. Bankers are nothing more than sophisticated tellers. Why should the teller make more money than those who actually produce things? Finance never produces useful products. Finance has only one purpose - a servant to those who actually make America great. To provide liquidity and economic stability so that finance markets do not corrupt the creation and production of innovations.
First subvert the mortgage industry. Then blame the customers who bought the products. Then dump the entire mess only anyone but the finance people – who in turn take massive bonuses. And from the caves, “This is good”.
Many American industries need little regulation. History has repeatedly identified the finance industry needing most regulation. Finance people are productive when they are paid less than worker in other industries. After all, bankers and stock brokers are nothing more than better trained tellers and salesmen.
Which industries need least regulation? Ones in which the product is more important. “The purpose of a company is its products. To service the customer – not top management.” Which industries advance mankind, make America economically powerful, raise the American standard of living, and create jobs? This nation’s most responsible industries that provide products; that do not play finance games (as GM did). Companies and industries that need the least regulation also work for the customer and therefore advance America.
A responsible finance industry means stock brokers outperform the market. But that means they work for the customer; not maximize profits with finance games and salesman myths. Exactly why the finance industry needs heavy regulation and the transparency created by open markets. Exactly why international standards (opposed by political extremists) such as Basel 1 and Basel 2 were so important. Exactly why business school graduates (Wagoner, Skilling, Allen, Nardelli, Fiorina, Naser, Akers, Ford, etc) subvert America for their own benefit. Then blame everything or foreigners so that we will ignore their “purpose of a company is profits” corruption.
Who are some of America’s greatest assets? Immigrants. And so extremists deny any company TARP money if they hire H1B immigrants – the same employees that the Silicon Valley most needs. But then extremist want TARP to be a profit center; not advance America.
Redux has identified where problems lay. And has offered viable solutions.
Details are subject to scrutiny. But the bottom line – this economic meltdown is directly traceable to American wackos who said, “the purpose of a company is profits”. Extremists with no solutions are the same who cheered Harvey Pitts as he subverted the SEC – as only extremists wanted. Subvert regulations to make Maddof possible. And who now take cheap shots at regulation necessary to make LTCM, Enron, the CA energy crisis, and a thirty to one debt to equity ratio impossible. My god. Suddenly investment banks must also meet Basel 2? Extremists called that foreigners trying to subvert America!
From LTCM management even a decade ago – derivatives must be traded on open markets. Essential for transparency to keep markets stable. So that markets do not again freeze – which is still possible if we do not fix the problem before paying back that $700 billion. Yes, we will pay back the $700 billion that was borrowed from where – with interest? Before that happens, we must regulate and impose transparency on those created this mess. Extremists don’t like that. It says they were wrong. It says "Deficits do matter." Which is why extremists can only snipe from their caves and offer no solutions.
Ahh, it was like he was never away.
I get it.
I bring up the fact there is now a bill in Congress to address the issue of bail-outs, sub-primes, etc.
Bruce offers a response of ""Kill half the fuckers and the rest will change? Starve the fuckers to death" as a solution.
No you don't, you still don't get it. You want to craft carefully constructed bills to address the past. That's not going to help keep a bunch of self entitled mother fuckers from coming up with new ways to steal.
But Chrysler, now known as Old Carco L.L.C., filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan in which the company said it planned on giving nothing back to the government for its $3.7-billion claim, which comes from loans under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But the plan, filed in New York, said the company will repay some other lenders in full.
Cerberus Capital Management of New York, who owned Chrysler and was flush with cash, took the money, sold the good shit to Fiat, named the bad shit that was left Old Carco L.L.C.,(get it, old car company), filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and said Fuck You to the taxpayers.
Oh sure, they're worried about your stinkin' rules. :rolleyes:
No you don't, you still don't get it. You want to craft carefully constructed bills to address the past. That's not going to help keep a bunch of self entitled mother fuckers from coming up with new ways to steal.....
No. I get it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to be of the belief that regulations wont be 100% successful, so whats the use. IMO, that is not skeptical, but cynical.
I agree some will find a way to circumvent regulations just as those intent on committing armed robbery are not deterred by laws.
So we should not even attempt to regulate abuses?
That should never preclude us from learning from past abuses and imposing regulations that provide greater assurances that they cannot be repeated.
It sure as hell makes more sense and offers a more constructive approach than ""Kill half the fuckers and the rest will change? Starve the fuckers to death" (oh, I get it, that was supposed to be humerous) :mad:
*waiting for Classic to tell me that I am picking on Bruce again.*
No. I get it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to be of the belief that regulations wont be 100% successful, so whats the use.
Your wrong. I never said, "so whats the use". They're beating around the bush.
In my last post I described how Cerberus blackmailed the administration out of $3.7 Billion by threatening to lay off all the Chrysler workers, and screw Chrysler's suppliers, causing more layoffs, while Cerberus was in fat city. Now Cerberus/Fiat/Mercedes owns the good shit(Jeep), the bad shit(Old Carco) goes belly up screwing investors/suppliers, and Cerberus pockets billions
of our fucking money!
When are they going to put a stop to these thieves, and their slick lawyers, screwing everybody with dirty rotten, but legal, shenanigans?
Clue... they're not.
For the first time in my journey here in the Cellar, I agree with some of TWs post. But it is more like getting back to basics. Regulating derivatives etc won't stop the abuse. Doing away with most instruments that don't have a sound product/service behind them will stop them. No more futures speculating, return to the gold standard. Ordinarily, these steps would cause job losses in the short run, but we're already in a 10+% unemployment now, having nowhere to invest but solid products, the only ones who would lose would be the same ones we are all bitching about.
Now if we could only find someone to regulate government.
Senate passage of a $446.8 billion spending bill which, with required funding of Medicare and Social Security, will put nonmilitary federal expenditures for the fiscal year at $1.1 trillion, is a lot. The Pentagon appropriation, which is still to come, will amount to another $626 billion.
All that spending is so much above anticipated revenues as to require a $1.8 trillion increase in the country's legal debt limit, up to a stunning $13.9 trillion.
For Americans who give any thought to the national debt, the reaction is likely to be the same as when one holds out a credit card to cover some enormous holiday purchase and, in doing so, pictures the bill arriving in the mail in January. In this case, there are at least two ways to look at it.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09351/1021540-192.stm
Ain't that the damm truth. Does anyone else feel like the Congressional spending is akin to a drunken sailor on payday night? Here, let me apply for another credit card.
Wait for it...
oh hai t-dub!
shush you wacko extremist!
Regulating derivatives etc won't stop the abuse. Doing away with most instruments that don't have a sound product/service behind them will stop them.
Derivatives are essential to performing bank functions. The problem - derivatives are sold in back alleys. So many that nobody realized how Long Term Capital Management could have nearly harmed the entire nation's economy. Nobody knew those obligations existed until LTCM went running to the government for welfare. And then government says, "Oh My God. How much money do you need?" Nobody had ever seen the need for anywhere near that large.
You would think we learned. Of course not. LTCM is not a footnote. Others were threatening the American economy with even larger scams. And still we did nothing.
It's not government regulation. Problem is back room secret deals. Why are publically traded stocks a safe investment? Stocks trade on open markets. Subject to regulation by the industry. Subject to reports that everyone can see. It’s not government regulation, per say. Its all about *transparency*. So that everyone knows what and how much is out there. That is oversight by far more than just government. That is the oversight that must apply to all derivatives. Transparency means public markets – no more $1trillion of secret AIG deals written to be opaque and completely unreported.
Markets froze only because transparency did not exist. Once everyone realized others were also doing Enron accounting, then nobody dared loan money to anyone. Even after Enron, we still did nothing to address the lies and deceit that is normal business on Wall Street.
The entire American financial system almost completely froze up. Nobody could do any business anymore because money was no longer available. All traceable to fear due to spread sheets that lie - because that was and still is legal. The solution always starts by open and regulated markets. And international standards such a Basel 2 and other even better standards - that Wall Streeters so hate.
Well, the Feds now hold something like $1trillion of mortgages. We have now bought that much questionable paper (promoted as assets) because the American economy was that close to the brink of disaster. We had no choice but to save America from the scumbags. My very Republican friend says that was only rich people doing it to themselves. Nonsense. We have yet to pay the debts they incurred. And only the American public will pay.
Nobody has a clue how to all that paper will be unraveled, divested, sold, or written off. See that number? That's $1trillion of derivatives that nobody really knew existed until bankruptcy forced honesty. How much of that $1trillion is total myth. The derivatives are so many and so large that it will easily take another ten years to resolve. That's ten years that the public will pay for Wall Street.
Anyone reading this and only asking how does this affect me: if you have any credit cards with balances, you are playing with fire. This economy is still that unstable. Unemployment created by Wall Street money games has yet to be seen in dollars. Secret derivatives - because these deals were never conducted in open markets - are massive, looming, and must still be paid for by the American public. For mortgages, that might begin in February.
Don't remember when it comes out. About once a month, a long list of convicted traders appears in the Wall Street Journal. Finance people are that corrupt. Must constantly be threatened with prosecution. That is why Wall Street so hates regulation and open markets. Most fun and massive profits are in back alley deals where transparency and this nation's interests never exist.
Regulation that work: when transparency is required in derivative contracts. When deals can only exist in public markets with public oversight. Where everyone knows how much money is tied up with whom - just like the stock market (no more liquidity crisis because nobody knew how massive the problem was). Where derivative contracts cannot be hidden using Enron style accounting. We have yet to address issues made so obvious a decade ago with LTCM - because that is what Wall Street wanted. Welcome to the resulting meltdown because Wall Street forgot they work for America. America does not work for Wall Street. Wall Street does not make America rich even though Wall Streeters will routinely deny it. IOW why Wall Street must always be heavily regulated. Why derivatives must only be traded in public and transparent markets.
I shoulda read that at bedtime.
I shoulda read that at bedtime.
Start with something easy.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Then pass it on to Merc and give him a break from all the tin foil hat bloggers he likes to post as factual.
The role of Barney Frank and his contributions to the housing and financial meltdown.
Seven wingnut columnists and bloggers want to blame the guy who voted against the legislation that repealed most banking/financial services regulations in 1999 and who was in the minority in Congress, with little or no influence with the Republican majority or the Bush administration, from 1994-2007.
I can top that.
I can find 50 wingnut columnists and bloggers who insist that Obama is not an American citizen.
Seven wingnut columnists and bloggers want to blame the guy who voted against the legislation that repealed most banking/financial services regulations in 1999 and who was in the minority in Congress, with little or no influence with the Republican majority or the Bush administration, from 1994-2007.
All the links have some form or the other of original quotes and facts related to ole Purple Barney's contributions and attempts to block reform or push for less stringent lending practices to help the "not fully qualified" get loans they never should have gotten. The majority are from mainstream respected not partisan publications. The non-demoncrats know this scumbag was in it up to his white ass in the downfall of the financial housing failure. You can't change history with your demoncratic talking points.
All the links have some form or the other of original quotes and facts related to ole Purple Barney's contributions and attempts to block reform or push for less stringent lending practices to help the "not fully qualified" get loans they never should have gotten. The majority are from mainstream respected not partisan publications. The non-demoncrats know this scumbag was in it up to his white ass in the downfall of the financial housing failure. You can't change history with your demoncratic talking points.
Failed again, moron.
There was plenty of blame to go around, including Clinton and many Democrats who capitulated. But Frank was one of the few who attempted to prevent the de-regulation of the banking/financial services industries in 1999 and was repeatedly blocked by the Republican majority on several attempts at oversight hearings between 2000 and 2006, when he was in the minority on the financial services committee.
Or maybe you and they are just closet homophobes. :eek:
Facts are a stubborn thing...even for the most ignorant wingnuts with an agenda.
In fact, it was Frank, in one of his first acts as the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2007, who pushed through, with wide bi-partisan support (291-127), the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act that among other things:
[INDENT]
"sets minimum standards for residential mortgages so that no creditor could make a residential mortgage loan unless he first makes a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that, at the time the loan is consummated the consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan under its terms and to pay all applicable taxes, insurance, and assessments"[/INDENT]It stalled (was blocked) in the Senate, reportedly at the urging of Bush, who had promised a veto.
Keep posting your partisan opinion writers and bloggers as if they are facutal and calling out those who disagree with you as partisan....no double standard there, hypocrite.
I'll keep chewing you up and spitting you out as I always do...until I get tired of the the taste of ignoramus....bitter, old ignoramus leaves a particularly nasty aftertaste.
I will even provide an opportunity for you to offer something constructive for a change.
Instead of look back and falsely attribute blame to one person or one party, what don't you like about The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that the House passed last week that addresses:
[INDENT]* sub-prime lending - The bill outlaws many of the egregious and predatory industry practices that fueled the subprime lending boom and establishes a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold
* ponzi schemes - the bill strengthens the SEC’s powers so that it can better protect investors from Madoff type frauds
* derivatives - the bill regulates the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace, requiring all standardized swap transactions to be cleared and traded on an exchange
* bail-outs - the bill requires big banks and other financial institutions (with $50 billion in assets) to foot the bill for any bailouts in the future. These institutions would pay assessments based on a company’s potential risk to the whole financial system if they were to fail.
* consumer protections - the bill creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers and small businesses by ensuring that bank loans, mortgages, credit cards are fair, affordable, understandable, and transparent.[/INDENT]
Why is it "snake oil" and what would you propose as an alternative.
There was plenty of blame to go around, including Clinton and many Democrats who capitulated.
Never said there wasn't.
But Frank was one of the few who attempted to prevent the de-regulation of the banking/financial services industries in 1999 and was repeatedly blocked by the Republican majority on several attempts at oversight hearings between 2000 and 2006, when he was in the minority on the financial services committee.
Frank repeatedly blocked attempts to reform the regulations.
Or maybe you and they are just closet homophobes.
Why would you say such a thing? :eek:
Facts are a stubborn thing...even for the most ignorant wingnuts with an agenda.
Sure are, why are you ignoring the actual interviews and statements posted by Frank?
In fact, it was Frank, in one of his first acts as the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2007
In fact, 2007 is when he finally came to his senses and wanted get on the record as doing something after 10 years of stonewalling and encouraging the lending to under and un-qualified persons for home loans. 2007 is and was to late, the damage was done, no matter how much you want to protect this dumb fuck from responsibility, you can't rewrite history.
You failed.:p
I will even provide an opportunity for you to offer something constructive for a change.
We were discussing the history, not how the demoncrats want to try to right the wrongs of the whores in Congress.
Frank repeatedly blocked attempts to reform the regulations.
In fact, 2007 is when he finally came to his senses and wanted get on the record as doing something after 10 years of stonewalling and encouraging the lending to under and un-qualified persons for home loans. 2007 is and was to late, the damage was done, no matter how much you want to protect this dumb fuck from responsibility...
Repeatedly blocked attempts to reform the regulations....stonewalled?
One member of the minority party in the House for the 12+ years (most of which was with a Republican president) when the damage was done couldn't block or stonewall anything even if he wanted to.
His "crime" was voting against a Fannie/Freddie sham of a reform bill in 2005 that had no teeth (at the direction of the White House) after his attempts to provide greater regulation and transparency were rebuffed by the Republican majority.
"spitting out more bitter, nasty merc-infested ignoramus"
One member of the minority party in the House for the 12+ years (most of which was with a Republican president) when the damage was done couldn't stonewall anything even if he wanted to.
His "crime" was voting against a Fannie/Freddie sham of a reform bill in 2005 that had no teeth (at the direction of the White House) after his attempts to provide greater regulation and transparency were rebuffed by the Republican majority.
"spitting out more bitter, nasty merc-infested ignoramus"
Why do you ignore the facts? Why do you want to rewrite history and hide this scumbags contributions to the Crisis?
Why do you ignore the facts? Why do you want to rewrite history and hide this scumbags contributions to the Crisis?
I know the facts.
And I know an ignoramus when I see one.
But I'll give you one last chance to show that you are really not that ignorant......post
one link to a source document (not an opinion) of how Frank "blocked" or "stonewalled" any reform.
Or at least
explain to me how one guy in the minority party in the House can block or stonewall anything. There is no filibuster in the House, no placing a "hold" on a bill in committee, no parliamentary procedures like the Senate that gives one member of the minority party that much power.
As I noted, the best you could hope to come up with was his vote against the sham of a Fannie/Freddie reform bill in 2005 after having his alternate bill/proposed amendments blocked in committee.
Why are you so intent on making this all about one guy, Barney Frank? Particularly when it solely based on lies, misinformation, and a smear campaign.
I know the facts.
Then why do you try to hide them and cover for this scumbag?
And I know an ignoramus when I see one.
You know Frank?
But I'll give you one last chance to show
Fuck off, you don't get to issue me ultimatums.
Why are you so intent on making this all about one guy, Barney Frank? Particularly when it solely based on misinformation, lies and a smear campaign.
I never said it was about one guy. It is based solely on factual information and truth. Why are you protecting this scumbag?
Then why do you try to hide them and cover for this scumbag?
Just as I figured...you have no source facts or no explanation of how one guy in the minority party has the power to block or stonewall anything.
Fuck off, you don't get to issue me ultimatums.
Oh...I get to do what ever I want to show you up as an ignoramus.
The links are there. Anyone can read them.
The links are there. Anyone can read them.
Typical Merc links...no primary sources, just partisan wingnut opinions with quotes (if any) with no context provided or taken completely out of context....and certainly no explanation of how one guy in the minority party in the House has the power to block or stonewall anything.
Failed, moron.
Typical Merc links...no primary sources, just partisan wingnut opinions with quotes (if any) with no context provided or taken completely out of context....and certainly no explanation of how one guy in the minority party in the House has the power to block or stonewall anything.
Failed, moron.
Why do you want to protect this scumbag from his contributions to the crisis? Is your name Herb Moses and did you work for Fannie Mae? Come on, fess up.
Why you do post more partisan opinions/op eds/blogs than anyone else and insist that you are not a partisan, then attack others as partisan when they present facts that prove your posts to be less than truthful or accurate.
Are you really Rush or Glenn? Come on, fess up.
bla, bla, bla.
Why do you care so much that you feel you have to defend these tax and spend scumbags like Pelosi, Frank, and Reid?
blah blah blah
I support most, but not all, of the Democratic agenda...like tens of millions of voters.
I've never hidden that fact....unlike you who still claim to be non-partisan.
But unlike you, I dont support lies, intentional misrepresentation of the facts and character assassination being spread through opinion columns and blogs....on either side.
When you make comments like this....:
[INDENT]
If you want to discuss Sub-Prime Lending start with Barney Frank and the pressure of the Demoncrats in the late 1990's [/INDENT]
...I will call you out on your partisan misrepresentation of the facts.
When you post seven partisan opinions/blogs that are false and/or blatantly and intentionally misleading....I will call you out on your partisan misrepresentation of the facts.
When you can explain how one guy in the minority party in the House blocked or stonewalled anything, we can talk further.
INDENTIIf you want to discuss Sub-Prime Lending start with Barney Frank and the pressure of the Demoncrats in the late 1990's IINDENT
...I will call you out on your partisan misrepresentation of the facts.
Neither partisan nor a misrepresentation. It just doesn't support your whore's party line.
When you post seven partisan opinions/blogs that are false and/or blatantly and intentionally misleading....I will call you out on your partisan misrepresentation of the facts.
They are none of those things, they just don't support your whore house.
When you can explain how one guy in the minority party in the House blocked or stonewalled anything, we can talk further.
I have stated from the beginning that he "contributed to".
Anyone hear Nanci the dumbass Pelosi talk about jobs today? She tried to twist the climate agreements around job creation in the US. What a frigging idiot.
How about all those jobs you promised us in Feb you bitch? Where are those? Now that you have taxed and spent on that bill? HA!
Anyone hear Nanci the dumbass Pelosi talk about jobs today?
Who was the dumbass who promoted George Jr and voted for him? Massive problems directly traceable to dumbasses who advocated and voted for, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". How curious. TheMercenary does exactly what Rush Limbaugh has ordered. Attack others so we will forget who the dumbasses are who sent 4,500 good American soldiers uselessly to their death. Who stuck us with $1 trillion in useless wars. Only a wacko extremist have so much contempt of America to even all but protect bin Laden. Then insult others to mask their contempt.
Who would attack Pelosi rather than apologize for massive destruction to the American economy? TheMercenary loves what wackos have done to this nation. Would have us do more damage. That is his political agenda. Attack. Insult. Promote a political agenda at the expense of America. Do not discuss what Redux has posted. Otherwise TheMercenary would have to admit how wacko extremists routinely subvert science, the economy, the US military, all budgets, American popularity and respect, American power, the American standard of living, and … well, the list of what wacko extremists have not harmed is so much shorter.
Wacko extremist can only snipe while drooling in their caves. Post after post from TheMercenary does only that. Constant hate and contempt is constant because most good people now know that wackos are also obsessive liars. Will say only what promotes an extremist political agenda. Wacko extremists don’t have solutions – as post after post from TheMercenary demonstrate. Extremists understand that power and influence comes from insulting and attacking others. Limbaugh does it. It worked even for Hitler.
Impossible here is a discussion of Redux's facts and ideas. Extremists attack others rather than discuss reality. Pelosi did not squander America's wealth, soldiers, popularity, standard of living, and safety. TheMercenary advocated and encouraged that. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Only wackos who so harmed America believe that. No wonder Redux cannot have an honest discussion. Otherwise TheMercenary would have to admit how extremists have created America’s worst problems. So TheMercenary must blame everyone else – as Limbaugh tells him to do.
Snipe from caves. Subvert facts and honest discussion. That is the extremist agenda. Show me an extremist that does not do that? Hitler did the same thing. It is how extremists gain power and subverted America. "Mission Accomplished".
could a translator please intervene. Thanks.
could a translator please intervene. Thanks.
Wait for Limbaugh to tell you how to reply. Or maybe get a more intelliigent reply from George Jr. I did say maybe.
Well Tommy, perhaps you've conveniently forgotten your attacks not only on other posters, but also on their wives - other people haven't.
Shall we take a little trip down memory lane?
Do you really wanna go there?
Shall we take a little trip down memory lane?
Do you really wanna go there?
Yes I do. We should remember you started it because that is what extremist do. And have no problem again going after those who would post demeaning personal attacks to avoid reality. Shame that it had to come to that. As a wacko extremist, you were only posting personal attacks and insults. Only attacking because you could not defend what you were told to think. I do not apologize for posts that you made necessary.
Redux discusses how to address the long list of disasters created by extremists, George Jr supporters, and the "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" philosophy. His ideas have merit. So extremist attack him, and Pelosi, et al rather than deal with the reason for our economic malise. Economic problems that in some cases were identified (warned of) years before they happened. So destructive as to even create a $1 trillion debt we have yet to start paying for - Mission Accomplished.
Even bin Laden is still alive because wackos subverted numerous attempts to get bin Laden. So you will attack Obama? Probably.
When was the last year you had an original thought? Silence or lies will follow. Or post more Redux attacks.
Yes I do. We should remember I started it As a wacko extremist, I only post personal attacks and insults. Only attacking because I could not defend what I was told to think.
Yes, Tommyboy, you came in late and attacked - goodie for you.
I however had naught to do with it. So take your bitter, bile-laden posts and stick 'em.
Silence or lies will follow. Or post more Redux attacks.
Or more questions which you again cannot answer asking you to
back up your lies. As usual your accusations have zero merit. Redux has posted things, some of which I agreed with and other I didn't. But that is not the point and your diversions will not stray from the fact that you Tommyboy, tw, called another posters wife a gonorrhea dripping whore.
Here is
one and
another
There are more, but I just remembered something - you aren't worth my time.
Oh, on top of that you're still too small a man to apologize. Why I ever took you off ignore, I do not know.
Shall we take a little trip down memory lane?
Do you really wanna go there?
Do you think ANYONE does???
Not really, but it isn't right for him to come out of nowhere and start shit, act like he's never said anything like that and drag me into it, when I had nothing to do with it. I could not tw's hypocrisy go unchecked.
My point was made - back on ignore he goes.
Not really, but it isn't right for him to come out of nowhere and start shit,
So you attack people rather than contribute facts and knowledge. Your recite Rush Limbaugh rhetoric. Then attack others (ie Redux) using Limbaugh techniques. When called out for doing so, you cry that is unfair?
Why a double standard? Because you are doing exactly what Limbaugh does. After all, extremists are god’s chosen people. How dare they be exposed for attacking others – and having no facts. Fair is to go after those who do as you do - with vindication. I only apologize to others for not exposing your techniques and political agenda often enough.
Redux tried to have a logical discussion. So wackos subverted it with attacks on a ‘liberal agenda’. Same techniques used by Nazis to subvert Germany. “Disparage the bourgeois and intelligencia”. Attack others. Then logical thinking cannot happen. Then political extremism can thrive. How unfair that I would identify what you (and TheMercenary) are doing.
But that is not the point and your diversions will not stray from the fact that tw, you called another posters wife a gonorrhea dripping whore.
You aren't worth my time. Please stop addressing me. You are completely wrong and have added nothing constructive. Good day, I said GOOD DAY!
After many years, economic data is reporting what really happened. From the Washington Post of 1 Jan 2010:
U.S. economy took a dive in the 2000s, a lost decade for workers
For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.
The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.
It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. A decade that began in a moment of triumphalism and the idea among some economists that recessions were a thing of the past has included two of them -- bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.
There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.
Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009.
Average American has seen his incoming drop 2% while the richest have seen salaries increase less than 100 times.
The first decade of the new century was an experiment in what happens when an economy comes to rely heavily on borrowed money.
"A big part of what happened this decade was that people engaged in excessively risky behavior without realizing the risks associated," said Karen Dynan, co-director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "It's true not just among consumers but among regulators, financial institutions, lenders, everyone."
The experiment has ended badly. While the stock market bubble that popped in 2000 caused only a mild recession, the housing and credit bubble has had a much greater punch -- driving the unemployment rate to a high, so far, of 10.2 percent, compared with a peak of 6.3 percent following the last such downturn.
But then our leaders said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". We were told how to think. Time to start paying for those who spent money recklessly.
Well according to that logic the current administrations spending, which is making Reagan's look like pocket change comparatively, sure isn't going to help the next decade.
Well, it took the idiots in the Bush White House eight years to get us into this mess. What makes you think that someone can wave a magic wand and all our problems will be over yesterday? :eyebrow:
Well according to that logic the current administrations spending, which is making Reagan's look like pocket change comparatively, sure isn't going to help the next decade.
Then add facts you always forget. Spending is only a symptom. Who created those debts years earlier. Extremists always forget that to take cheap shots at Obama.
Not only did extremists subvert the Clinton surplus. Now we begin paying for Mission Accomplished, tax cuts to the wealthy, K Street corruption, science rewritten by White House lawyers (and the resulting stifled innovations), 'Axis of Evil', a space program in such disarray as even almost destroy Hubble, subversion of world respect for America, and ...
Why were seven largest American banks told they had eight hours to save the American economy? After eight years of extremism management and welfare to the rich, the banks only had eight hours warming? Even short term economic activity was subverted. By openly permitting Enron style accounting (extremists even refused to prosecute Lay and Skilling), finance people could no longer trust anyone. How bad is that when even the crooks will not loan money.
Reality means facts, numbers, and honesty as reported in The Washington Post. Which only confirms what the middle class has known. Even Harvey Pitts refused to increase the SEC budget - since Madoff, et al was so good for America. Or do you also blame that debt on Obama? Obama did not mortgage the American economy? Why do you again forget reality? The George Jr decade is the only post war decade to subvert American wealth and economy.
I believe Cheney called it "Mission Accomplished".
Try not to be so overtly sensitive this time. No more blame game. What is the recurrent spending of this administration going to do to the future?
I think its quite clear that there is PLENTY of blame to spread around as to how we got to this point.
Try not to be so overtly sensitive this time. No more blame game. What is the recurrent spending of this administration going to do to the future?
I think its quite clear that there is PLENTY of blame to spread around as to how we got to this point.
Putting aside the blame....the proposed solutions dont come without a price and the price is steep because the problems were deep.
I would also suggest, they come with a long-term outlook and not a quick fix approach......leaving it open to short-term criticism.
And those who oppose the solutions do nothing but criticize and rarely if ever offer a solution of their own....whether its economy recovery, banking reform, health reform.....
added:
Why not attempt to make the criticism more constructive, at least in this corner of the universe, rather than flooding the discussion with the never-ending negative opinions of columnists or partisans with an agenda of their own.
Four pages ago, I posted a bill that is now on the table to address future bail-outs, sub-prime lending, questionable unregulated financial activities, etc. and with the exception of tw, there was little interest in having a serious discussion.
So...I would ask again, if you dont like it, why not and what would you propose? And by that I mean
your opinion and not snips from columnists with an agenda, who more often than not, distort or misrepresent the facts to support their agenda.
And those who oppose the solutions do nothing but criticize and rarely if ever offer a solution of their own....whether its economy recovery, banking reform, health reform.....
They are actually making things worse, by undermining the restoration of consumer confidence which is a huge part of actual recovery.
added:
Why not attempt to make the criticism more constructive, at least in this corner of the universe, rather than flooding the discussion with the never-ending negative opinions of columnists or partisans with an agenda of their own.
Four pages ago, I posted a bill that is now on the table to address future bail-outs, sub-prime lending, questionable unregulated financial activities, etc. and with the exception of tw, there was little interest in having a serious discussion.
Just because you chose to dismiss my skepticism of it being effective, without some serious punishment of the thieves, scaring them straight, doesn't mean I wasn't serious. :p
They are actually making things worse, by undermining the restoration of consumer confidence which is a huge part of actual recovery.
Agreed.
IMO, the worst culprits are those members of Congress who voted against the recovery act and continue to suggest it was financially irresponsible while, at the same time, waving recovery checks in front of constituents at home, and taking credit for bringing jobs to the district.
Just because you chose to dismiss my skepticism of it being effective, without some serious punishment of the thieves, scaring them straight, doesn't mean I wasn't serious. :p
I agree any solution needs strong sanctions and enforcement provisions and this bill probably doesnt go far enough in the that respect...giving more power to the SEC, which has demonstrated its conflict of interest in the past, is not the best solution.
IMO. it also doesnt go far enough to restoring the walls between commercial banking and investment banking that were torn down with the last deregulation.
But it does address the unregulated derivatives market, credit default swaps and hedge funds, and to some extent, the irresponsible sub-prime lending, with tougher regulations.
Is it enough? Perhaps not, but you have to start somewhere.
It appears the Senate might be taking a different approach, starting with a bi-partisan bill sponsored by McCain and Cantwell that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, the depression era law that created the wall between commercial banks and investment banks that was torn down in the 1999 legislation and, in large part, led to the failures of AIG, Lehman Bros, Citigroup, etc.
It appears the Senate might be taking a different approach, starting with a bi-partisan bill sponsored by McCain and Cantwell that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, ...
I asked my bankers - people in adjacent offices - about Glass-Stegall (1.5 years ago). Amazingly, they did not even know what Glass-Stegall was. And could not tell me if any of its provisions were still in force.
Well, parts of Glass-Stegall do exist - if only because many banks keep the investment group separate from commercial banking.
For example, Commerce Bank is now called TD (something). Same company also owns TD Ameritrade. But the two businesses still operate separately. Whether by law or just because some bankers were smarter - some banks still keep their investment groups separate from their commercial banking divisions.
Among the many problems are the large numbers of insolvent loans that were literally 'misplaced' on spread sheets. Today we still have numbers that do not add up. If 14% of the mortgages are non-performing and if something like 250,000 new mortgages are joining that list; then why are these banks showing profits?
If GMAC is that deep in debt, then why are 'powers that be' not discussing bankruptcy or the liquidation of many assets? Whereas the stock market has been saying, "Don't worry, be happy"; these looming details are quite troubling.
As usual the discussion need not include people with political agendas. This is about America, the interests of patriotic Americans (who are independents or party moderates), and a serious problem that remains not addressed. Problems (that I suspect) a majority do not even realize exist especially when stock market pundits are only promoting "Feel good" agendas.
I have a troubling feeling that another shoe will fall in February. Not a catastrophic one. But never forget the lessons of history. Stock market crashed in 1929. Jobs are lost in 1933. Stock market crashed in 2008. Jobs ...
I would also suggest, they come with a long-term outlook and not a quick fix approach......leaving it open to short-term criticism.
What is that a joke? The last year has been filled with nothing but "quick fix" approaches. And the scumbags in Congress are planning another round of "quick fix" approaches this year. We just had all these planning groups trying to address the problems with the unemployed after promising us "millions of shovel ready jobs" back in Feb. They failed after spending billions of taxpayer dollars on pet projects in the Demoncratic home states that produced a small number of jobs. They would have been better off sending the estimated $200 per job produced to every person who was on employment. It would have had a bigger and more lasting impact than the failure of the current whorish spending.
What is that a joke? The last year has been filled with nothing but "quick fix" approaches....
While some of the funds were to "jump start" an economy that was on the brink of collapse (and contributed to mitigating that collapse, according to many (most?) economists and created or saved over 600,000 jobs, according to CBO and GAO), the bulk of the grants and contracts have yet to be awarded (by design) and are dedicated to programs like building a national broadband network, alternative energy development projects, national infrastructure improvement, etc.
These programs are in the country's long-term economic interests and provide long-term economic benefits.
Added:
I know you like to pick and chose articles and opinions. I can do that too:
New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy
....with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.
BUT, the issue under discussion here is how to prevent future bail-outs, shady investment practices, and questionable home mortgage loans.
IMO, simply calling the proposal on the table
"snake oil" hardly contributes to a constructive discussion.
SO what is your solution?
BUT, the issue under discussion here is how to prevent future bail-outs, shady investment practices, and questionable home mortgage loans.
They are already planning another bailout. They have floated trial balloons and are assessing how it will be received politically.
They are already planning another bailout. They have floated trial balloons and are assessing how it will be received politically.
The proposal floated by the White House is not another bailout but additional stimulus.....using the leftover $200 billion from the TARP fund for both deficit reduction and more infrastructure funding, small business tax cuts and a home energy conservation (or cash for clunker refrigerators type program).
We can discuss the pros and cons of that, but again, it is not addressing the issue of how to prevent future bailouts, shady investment practices, and questionable home mortgage loans..which is where I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to focus the discussion.
Maybe that's because Congress is doing it, and they don't care what we think? They couldn't possibly upset their buddies anyway, because they might lose the next election and are counting on those buddies to keep them fat. It's always been that way, they are just aren't bothering to be sneaky anymore.
Yes, I know, my attitude makes me an enabler, but I've been watching this shit since I started working 55 years ago. For 55 years I've been pissing in the wind, bailing against the tide, and talking to the trees.
They still piss me off, but my time is better spent, more productive, killing Hobos.
how to prevent future bailouts
Let them fail and actually put the fooking bastards in jail and take every penny they have.
shady investment practices,
Good luck with that. Aside from regulating everything to the point of nothing getting done, there is going to be some level of corruption/shadiness. What amount is acceptable?
questionable home mortgage loans..
This is the easiest one of all. Do not force lenders top qualify those that will not be able to afford the loan.
which is where I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to focus the discussion.
Why?
Let them fail and actually put the fooking bastards in jail and take every penny they have.
Letting banks fail has a significant adverse impact on the credit market and the economy as a whole. The solution, IMO, is to have them pay for potential failures up front, with guarantee funds. Aside from that, you cant put the bastards in jail if they dont break the law...that is why we need new laws.
Good luck with that. Aside from regulating everything to the point of nothing getting done, there is going to be some level of corruption/shadiness. What amount is acceptable?
We're talking about regulating the mostly unregulated derivatives market, credit default swaps and hedge funds.
I dont know how that translates into getting nothing done.
And because there will always be some level of corruption seems to me to be a poor excuse to not regulate. There will also be crime and unethical practices in any industry (and in crime and shadiness on a personal level). The goal of laws and regulations is to minimize the opportunity for illegal and unethical actions and maximize the penalty.
This is the easiest one of all. Do not force lenders top qualify those that will not be able to afford the loan.
Sub-prime lenders were not forced to quality loans to those who could not afford it...they willingly offered loans to persons they had reason to suspect were not qualified.
This too should be regulated.
Why?
Agreed...there is obviously no interest in further discussion.
While some of the funds were to "jump start" an economy that was on the brink of collapse (and contributed to mitigating that collapse, according to many (most?) economists and created or saved over 600,000 jobs, according to CBO and GAO), the bulk of the grants and contracts have yet to be awarded (by design) and are dedicated to programs like building a national broadband network, alternative energy development projects, national infrastructure improvement, etc.
First of all the 600k number is right out of the White House talking points, the number is easily disputed. The CBO only takes the numbers Congress gives them and produces a result, and as such if you put BS in BS comes out. And even if 600k was accurate it would be pissing in the wind compared to the number of jobs lost. There were NOT 600k jobs produced, and the millions of jobs to be created as promised by Pelosi and Obama never happened, after they spent all the taxpayer money.
These programs are in the country's long-term economic interests and provide long-term economic benefits.
Well that is what the Demoncrats want you to believe. The public is beginning to see through your smoke and mirrors spending spree.
BUT, the issue under discussion here is how to prevent future bail-outs, shady investment practices, and questionable home mortgage loans.
And continuing to throw good money at bad investments and programs is not the answer.
First of all the 600k number is right out of the White House talking points, the number is easily disputed. The CBO only takes the numbers Congress gives them and produces a result, and as such if you put BS in BS comes out. And even if 600k was accurate it would be pissing in the wind compared to the number of jobs lost. There were NOT 600k jobs produced, and the millions of jobs to be created as promised by Pelosi and Obama never happened, after they spent all the taxpayer money.
Well that is what the Demoncrats want you to believe. The public is beginning to see through your smoke and mirrors spending spree.
And continuing to throw good money at bad investments and programs is not the answer.
Thanks for your opinion. :thumb:
Fact:
The administration last month claimed that 150,000 jobs had already been saved or created due to the stimulus bill, though that number is based on a theoretical projection and not an actual count.
As ABC News’ David Kerley points out, last week Keith Hall, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, told a House subcommittee that he could not substantiate the claim.
“No,” Hall said. “That would be a very difficult thing for anybody to substantiate…We're busy just counting jobs.”
In January, when the Obama team began presenting their pitch for the stimulus plan, they denied an overly rosy scenario. But the chart then-President-elect Obama’s economic team provided to the public indicates that the unemployment rate, which is currently 9.4%, is higher than the Obama team forecast it would be even if the stimulus plan had not become law.
Back then Council of Economic Advisers chair Christine Romer predicted that with the stimulus bill, the unemployment rate right now would be under 8%. Without the $787 billion stimulus package, Romer predicted an unemployment rate of just over 8%.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/amidst-questions-about-their-numbers-white-house-says-stimulus-will-save-or-create-600000-jobs-in-the-next-100-days.html
The Obama Administration is touting that their stimulus program has saved or created 640,329 jobs since it was enacted back in February through the end of October. This number is updated and posted on the Administration’s recovery.gov web site. That amounts to $246,436 per job based on the $157.8bn that has been awarded so far! Total compensation earned by the average payroll employee during October, on an annualized basis, was $59,867. If the government had simply used the funds awarded so far to pay for a year’s worth of labor, that would have paid for 2.6mn jobs!
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/12/07/cost-benefit-analysis-of-jobs-stimulus/
600k is a smoke and mirrors propaganda number to make all the unemployed feel better about still being unemployed. And yet they still ask, were are all the jobs you promised with the stimulus bill passed in Feb?
The solution, IMO, is to have them pay for potential failures up front, with guarantee funds.
On the face that sounds reasonable.
We're talking about regulating the mostly unregulated derivatives market, credit default swaps and hedge funds.
How are we going to regulate this? Who is going to be responsible for it?
Sub-prime lenders were not forced to quality loans to those who could not afford it...they willingly offered loans to persons they had reason to suspect were not qualified.
This too should be regulated.
Lenders were STRONGLY encouraged to lend to the lower end of the market.
Agreed...there is obviously no interest in further discussion.
I asked because I am curious why you wanted to steer the subject toward that particular direction.
:spam2:
My new years resolution was to point out spam when I see it and move on to the next post.
How are we going to regulate this? Who is going to be responsible for it?
The same way we regulate all other securities.
Lenders were STRONGLY encouraged to lend to the lower end of the market.
A riight wing myth - blame the low income borrowers and the Community Reinventment Act (CRA) -- that has been debunked by the Federal Reserve, Congresional Research Service, Bush's HUD, National Association of Housing Officials. Urban Institute.....
Most sub-prime loans were not in the lower end of the market, unless you think homes in the $500k - $1 million are low end.
And those loans that were in the lower end market under the CRA were more highly regulated.
Call it what it was....predatory and/or unethical lending, mostly by unregulated mortgage companies rather than commercial banks.....with the blame shared by borrowers who knew they could not realistically afford the new home.
I asked because I am curious why you wanted to steer the subject toward that particular direction.
I dont know what I was thinking.....perhaps having a constructive discussion on the issue of how to prevent future bailouts, shady investment schemes, predatory or unethical sub-prime lending?
My new years resolution was to point out spam when I see it and move on to the next post.
WOW. You think a quote to a Congressional hearing by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is spam? OK.
I dont know what I was thinking.
Uh ok - I was asking why that particular aspect.
Jeebus, why so touchy?
Uh ok - I was asking why that particular aspect.
Jeebus, why so touchy?
Why is it so hard to have a constructive discussion on current events without the same old finger pointing, inane statements (eg....Aside from regulating everything to the point of nothing getting done?) and baseless allegations?
Lenders get most of the blame in the subprime lending crisis... Partners In Crime were homebuyers. Anyone who thinks that the homebuyer was nothing but a victim is feeding you more propaganda and fending off the responsibility of the role of Congressional pressure to ease lending for those who couldn't afford the loans in the first place. The bottom line is they need to tighten up lending practices in the future and not release the money to unqualified borrowers in the future. Get an apartment.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-blame.asp?viewed=1Why is it so hard to have a constructive discussion on current events?
It isn't, usually.
In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.
Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.
Housing experts and some congressional leaders now view those decisions as mistakes that contributed to an escalation of subprime lending that is roiling the U.S. economy.
The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.
Today, 3 million to 4 million families are expected to lose their homes to foreclosure because they cannot afford their high-interest subprime loans. Lower-income and minority home buyers -- those who were supposed to benefit from HUD's actions -- are falling into default at a rate at least three times that of other borrowers.
"For HUD to be indifferent as to whether these loans were hurting people or helping them is really an abject failure to regulate," said Michael Barr, a University of Michigan law professor who is advising Congress. "It was just irresponsible."
Congress is expected to vote before its Fourth of July recess on legislation that would strip HUD of its regulatory authority over Fannie and Freddie and give it to a stronger regulator.
Fannie and Freddie finance about 40 percent of all U.S. mortgages, with $5.3 trillion in outstanding debt. Owned by private shareholders but chartered by Congress, they are exempt from state and local taxes and receive an estimated $6.5 billion-a-year federal subsidy because they can borrow money more cheaply than other investors. In return, they are expected to serve "public purposes," including helping to make home buying more affordable.
In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.
HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.
That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not disclose its number.
In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans.
"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said.
But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.
That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more."
For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.
"That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster."
In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals.
"They chose not to put the brakes on this dangerous lending when they could have,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.htmlLower-income and minority home buyers -- those who were supposed to benefit from HUD's actions --
are falling into default at a rate at least three times that of other borrowers.
I wonder what these figures are now. This article is 18 months old.
My guess is that since the whole thing came to a screeching halt the numbers are quite a bit different. But now that we basically own/control the two companies the dog is long gone from the yard and the damage has been done.
Crhist......the sub prime crisis coincided with the housing boom than began in 2000 and primarily as a result of shady mortgage loans originated between 2004 and 2007 and was across the board, with more in higher priced mortgages and those not offered by regulated commercial banks.
The details is in the data required in reports required by 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).
But have it your way.
Do you always keep your head so deep in the sand? There are plenty of experts who have looked at this issue. The problems began LONG before 2004.
Sub prime loans were certainly around before 2000......the massive failures began with those issued after 2004....and again, were more from unregulated financial institutions than commercial banks subject to federal regulation.
Failures generally occur within the first few years of a sub-prime loan....not from those paying regularly for 10-15+ years.
That according to many experts from the Federal Reserve, the MBA, the HDMA analysts, the CRS and others
And the Federal Institutions Examination Council:
CRA regulated banks started filling the void in 06 and 07 and were more highly regulated.
The failures were primarily a result of the overwhelming majority of those loans not being subject to federal regulation.
The issue again is how do you prevent it from reoccurring without such federal regulation...on both the lending institutions and the borrowers?
The point is that the institutions, Fanny and Freddie, took on more and more of this bad debt, beginning in 2000, increasing throughout the years and finally busting.
The failures were primarily a result of the overwhelming majority of those loans not being subject to federal regulation.
The issue again is how do you prevent it from reoccurring without such federal regulation...on both the lending institutions and the borrowers?
Allow them to fail completely and start over. Stop throwing money at them, like we are about to do, again.
Allow them to fail completely and start over. Stop throwing money at them, like we are about to do, again.
Many of the most recent failures, since 2008, are the result of external circumstances, ie unemployment.
Throw them out on the streets?
But beyond that, how will starting over, without stronger federal regulations, particularly of non-commerical banks (ie the Countrywide type lenders not subject to strict federal regs), prevent or minimize the same thing happening again?
By disolving them you eliminate their ways of doing business. Do as they have done with all the Bank failures and take overs in the last year. Fold the loans into reputable lending institutions. Eliminate them. Take the money and prop up the reputable institutions. They need to fail and go out of business. Period. Many more people are going to lose their homes anyway. That is not the point. Stop using emotion to deal with it. This is a business transaction.
additionally: Eliminate non-commerical banks abilities to provide low cost loans to people who never could have afforded them in the first place. The barrowers will have to assume some responsibilities for their bad choices.
Wait wasn't a big part of the problem the ARM mortgages? Those mortgages whose payments increase after 3-5 years? People got into these with payments they could handle and then when the rates went up they were screwed? It was ok if they kept refinancing or property values increased, but when that stopped ...
It seems that yes the subprime mortgages are the biggest issue, but even with the other types of mortgages, the ARM's default at more than double the level of the others.
Also, the credit score of the borrower is of immense significance.
It seems that yes the subprime mortgages are the biggest issue, but even with the other types of mortgages, the ARM's default at more than double the level of the others.
Most sub prime loans, particularly those after 2000, when sub primes soared with the housing boom from well below 10 percent of mortgages in the 1990s to nearly 20 percent by 2007, were adjustable rate....and were un(under)regulated.
Link for the above post. I didn't realize that the charts were not identified. Take a look at the link to see which is which.
It seems as though subprime is less the issue than credit score. Additionally the ARM's became more attractive as people were becoming more transient and housing values were increasing so rapidly. I think those factors combined created somewhat of a "perfect storm" in the industry.
To say that none of these banks were forced/coerced/encouraged to lend to more people seems unbelievable to me. This reeks of a wink-wink nudge-nudge deal. As long as the property values increased everyone on the lending side was getting rich, including the lobbyists and the politicians. However, once the shit hit the fan they all scattered like ants and they were all point their fingers at each other. I believe they were in it together. No proof, just an opinion.
...It seems as though subprime is less the issue than credit score
....To say that none of these banks were forced/coerced/encouraged to lend to more people seems unbelievable to me.....
You cant separate the sub prime from credit scores since most with bad credit became the market for the un (under) regulated sub prime lenders during the post-2000 housing boom...and most were with an adjusted rate.
I would agree with encouraged...but certainly not forced or coerced.
And again, it still ignores the question of the necessity (or not) of better regulation of both the lender and borrower.
IIRC we, had the discussion previously about the the lenders being more than just encouraged. Thats splitting hairs. . .
If the lenders profits were tied into their default rates perhaps that would deter some questionable lending. I know that if I don't get paid on a sale there is no commission earned, perhaps they should be compensated in some similar fashion. Bailing them out and leaving them go without severe penalties certainly isn't the answer. I understand what the philosophy was on the bailouts, but still. It let a lot of guilty mofo's get off scott free.
I also found this which I think is an interesting read. I meant to post it earlier and forgot.
[CENTER]FROM 2007[/CENTER]
While doing some research on delinquencies, I just happened to stumble across a recent release from Freddie Mac on delinquencies.
Following is a chart and it shows that delinquencies at Freddie Mac are falling dramatically:
That is pretty stunning. Freddie Mac says delinquencies are dropping, but everything else I can find shows delinquencies are rising dramatically. OK, Mish, what gives?
US mortgage defaults: it pays(sic) to read the footnotes
Essentially, Footnote No. 12 says that if Freddie Mac renegotiates the terms of the loan with someone who is delinquent, then, voila, that person is no longer delinquent. It seems to me that since about June of 2006, Freddie Mac is struggling to keep this Ponzi scheme afloat.
Fannie Mae has its own guidance on delinquencies:
“First and foremost, Fannie Mae tries to avoid foreclosure. There are no winners when a home mortgage is foreclosed. It is the least desirable way to resolve a problem loan, and a terrible ordeal for the homeowner. It also is costly for Fannie Mae, as the investor, and for the loan servicer.
“Homeowners who are having difficulties making their mortgage payments should immediately contact their mortgage loan servicer (the company to which they send their monthly payments) to discuss options.
“Fannie Mae has instructed its lenders and servicers to avoid foreclosure whenever possible by offering borrowers who get behind in their mortgage payments various alternatives, including temporary forbearance, loan modification, and preforeclosure sales.”
Mish Translation: Keep this stuff off the books as long as you can. Cross your fingers and toes with David Lereah and hope the bottom is in.
Link[CENTER][/CENTER]
No plan to date supports continuing to throw money at Fannie and Freddie. None. More regulation is not the solution. That is stupid.
...More regulation is not the solution. That is stupid.
But here you call for more regulation (or legislation):
....additionally: Eliminate non-commercial banks abilities to provide low cost loans to people who never could have afforded them in the first place....
Unless you know of another way to eliminate those non-commercial banks.
Why do you hate it when Americans stand up and dissent?
[QUOTE=Redux;623762]
QUOTE]But America generally does not agree with what your party is doing. How are you going to survive the next election cycle?
Why do you hate it when Americans stand up and dissent?
I'm not sure why you drifted from the fact that you said you were against regulations after implying we need regulations....to I hate it when Americans dissent....other than to post silly pics.
Focus, dude.
Thank you very much for your comments. The majority of Americans who now are against the Demoncratic reforms of Healthcare and other supposed reforms by the Demoncrats welcome the minority view.
Thanks again for your minority views about reform in Americka. I will be sure to pass them on to the minority who support you.
Hey, I'm just trying to understand how on one hand you say
"More regulation is not the solution. That is stupid" but on the other hand, you want to
"eliminate non-commercial banks abilities to provide low cost loans to people who never could have afforded them in the first place"
Seems like a contradiction to me. I simply
asked how you could accomplish that.
I fail to see how that means I
"hate it when Americans stand up and dissent."
added:
BTW, my personal opinions on policy issues are not based on popularity, although I think most Americans favor a greater federal regulatory role over banks and financial services, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
I think most Americans favor a greater federal regulatory role over banks and financial services, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
I think that IS the discussion. (see thread title) :p
I think that IS the discussion. (see thread title) :p
That is why I have been asking others how they would reform the banking/financial services sector. :p
If not with greater federal regulation, then how?
I have never suggested that regulations will eliminate all the crooks and greedy manipulators in the industry. I do think new regulations will minimize these practices and punish those who abuse the system more than they can be punished now.
But if you disagree, I am open to other suggestions. How would you prevent future questionable housing loans? or prevent future Madoff type rip-offs? or shaky financial instruments like derivatives?
CHARLIE ROSE
What will economic growth look like in 2010?
PAUL VOLCKER
Economists are terrible at forecasting, but it's going to be a slog. The most recent figures are a little bit better than we would have expected, but that doesn't mean they're very strong.
And jobs?
Jobs are going to be slow to recover.
A permanent loss of jobs?
No, we shouldn't have a permanent loss of jobs, but we have a considerable adjustment process to go through here. We've got to restore investment, we've got to restore our manufacturing industry, not the old-fashioned manufacturing industry, but we have to do a better job at the new industries that are coming along—the so-called green economy. Other countries are ahead of us in production that's related to change.
How did that happen?
What happened is our best and brightest got attracted to Wall Street. You've read about those big bonuses. These are generalizations, but I do think that the pull of Wall Street on bright young people, ambitious young people, has been tremendous.
Will it change?
I think we're in the process of change now. Wall Street hasn't got quite the glamor that it had a few years ago.
Yes, but I hear bonuses are coming back.
Well, I hope you'll get more competition on Wall Street and get some reforms, and profitability won't seem quite so great. At one point, Wall Street had almost 40% of all the profits in the country. And, you know, its contribution to the welfare of the country does not approach 40%. Something's out of line here.
Let's talk about the financial system. You have said it failed the test of the marketplace.
Yes. It collapsed on us. And I think that's the test of a financial system—is it facilitating reasonable stability and growth? No, it's had a breakdown at great risk to the economy. It became dysfunctional, and it is still largely dependent upon government assistance.
How should we create a well-oiled financial system?
The kind of reform I've been advocating is acceptance of the fact that the core of the system remains commercial banking. If that breaks down then you have an enormous crisis. And commercial banks have expanded into areas I don't think are so central. I would cut back their so-called capital market activities—hedge funds, equity funds, commodities trading, trading in derivatives. They're all legitimate functions, but they're not so central. And I don't want to protect all those functions. I don't want to protect everybody because when people act like they're protected, you get in trouble. So let's leave the capital markets to their own devices without any expectation of government protection and keep the existing safety net for the commercial banking system.
In my judgment we don't need to regulate the capital markets so heavily. You have some extreme cases where individual institutions are so big and so vulnerable, yes, you might want some regulation of capital and leverage, but that would be the exception. But if they fail, let 'em fail. We will have some kind of a new resolution process. Some agency will go in there and say, "You're going to fail, but we're going to provide a more orderly exit."
More hereIn my judgment we don't need to regulate the capital markets so heavily. You have some extreme cases where individual institutions are so big and so vulnerable, yes, you might want some regulation of capital and leverage, but that would be the exception. But if they fail, let 'em fail. We will have some kind of a new resolution process. Some agency will go in there and say, "You're going to fail, but we're going to provide a more orderly exit."
God Damm right.
The kind of reform I've been advocating is acceptance of the fact that the core of the system remains commercial banking. If that breaks down then you have an enormous crisis. And commercial banks have expanded into areas I don't think are so central.
I agree.
This is what happened as the result of the '99 legislation that effectively repealed most of the Glass–Steagall Act and blurred the lines far too much between commercial banking and investment banking.
What he also said in the same interview:
what I propose is somewhat in the spirit of Glass-Steagall in making a distinction between capital-market activities and trading activities and banking activities. But it is not specifically going back to Glass-Steagall.
Depending on the details, that sounds reasonable.
In my judgment we don't need to regulate the capital markets so heavily. You have some extreme cases where individual institutions are so big and so vulnerable, yes, you might want some regulation of capital and leverage,
I dont see where he is saying no regulation...but not heavy regulation.,....with the exception of possbily heavier (?) regs regarding the out of control leveraging that took place.
And derivatives? No regulation, IMO, is asking for more problems.
added:
Another recent statement by Volcker:
Paul A. Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve and an adviser to President Obama, told a room packed with banking executives on Tuesday to “wake up” to the need for more drastic regulatory changes....
....Mr. Volcker criticized suggestions, made by executives at an earlier panel discussion, to strengthen financial markets primarily by giving more power to company boards to control risk. The chances that management boards would “understand the products you come up with” are slim, he said.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/volcker-criticizes-calls-to-limit-financial-regulation/
Regulation does not necessarily mean restrictions. Major banks could not fail because nobody knew reality until it was too late. Using deceit and camouflage, the big financial institutions tied themselves heavily into all other major institutions. One secret tool that did this was derivatives. AIG wrote insurance policies that even insurance regulators did not know existed.
With transparency, that could not happen. Complete lack of transparency is why the powers that be are now saying the demise (bankruptcy) of Lehman Bros was a mistake. Nobody knew how Lehman's was interconnected because the spread sheets were intentionally opaque. Designed to deceive.
We now make it legal to hide the true financial solvency. Laws (regulations) that require transparency do not exist. And regulators who could blow the whistle – well the Congress wanted to double the SEC budget just after 2000 – and the George Jr administration would not permit it. (So Madoff hosted another expensive party.)
With transparency, financial markets would not seize. Counterparties would see problems approaching long before markets collapsed. Why did the US economy virtually seize for a few weeks? Nobody knew who was solvent. Nobody could trust anyone's accounting. Laws still permit Enron accounting. The lessons from LTCM were completely ignored.
Financial industry problems are directly traceable to a corrupt concept. The purpose of the business is profit. Had its purpose been the product - serving customers - then Enron accounting would not be situation normal.
Transparency. Banks will fight this because they cannot make massive profits using money games. Instead they must do what Smith Barney advocated. "They make money the old-fashioned way. They earn it."
Transparency. That means derivatives must trade on regulated markets. With market oversight. Everyone knows how large the counterparty's risks are. That means nobody can hide risk and losses in Enron accounting – ie SIVs. That means everyone would have known AIG’s irresponsible contracts in mid 2000s. Instead, AIG management worried, did nothing, and hoped the problem would disappear. By early 2007, AIG management feared they were already bankrupts. Nobody knew. No requirements for transparency meant AIG management could continue to deceive.
Our economic meltdown is directly traceable to opaque institutions - Enron accounting techniques - because making money from games is more important than serving the American economy.
Regulation - properly applied - means transparency. That means accounting must be honest. Heavy regulation means transparency so that, for example, everyone knew AT&T was going bankrupt. Instead, even AT&T's board of Directors (ie Sandy Weil) did not know AT&T was on the verge of bankruptcy until two months AT&T could not meet even their three month debt obligations.
Even GM's Board of Directors who were not GM officers were only permitted 45 minutes to study the spread sheets. Corruption is GM accounting was also routine.
Corrupt accounting remains situation normal. Transparency means open markets. Bankers who must meet international accounting standards.
TW...that is the best description of the problem and need for solutions that I have seen!
Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist
Human Error Blamed for Crediting New Stimulus Jobs to Nonexistent Places
By JONATHAN KARL (ABC)
Nov. 16, 2009—
Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
[ $761,420 / 30 jobs created = $25,380.67 per job ]
There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.
"We report what the recipients submit to us," said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.
Pound told ABC News the board receives declarations from the recipients - state governments, federal agencies and universities - of stimulus money about what program is being funded.
"Some recipients clearly don't know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on jobs numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes," Pound said.
The issue has raised hackles on Capitol Hill.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc, who chairs the powerful House appropriations Committee, issued a paper statement demanding that the recovery.gov Web site be updated.
"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."
ABC News was able to locate several examples on the government's Web site outlining hundreds of millions of dollars spent and jobs created in Congressional districts that have been misidentified.
For example, recovery.gov says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district.
Click Here to Track the $787 Billion Stimulus Plan
The reporting problems are not limited to Arizona, ABC News found.
In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.
[ $19 million / 15 jobs created = $1,266,666.67 per job ]
In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts.
[ $10.6 million / 39 jobs created = $271,794.87 per job ]
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
[ hmmm...how did they do that? or, how come the others couldn't do that too?...]
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
[ $8.4 million / 40.3 = $208,436.72 per job ]
$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.
[ $1.5 million / .3 jobs created = $5,000,000.00; $35 million / 142 jobs created = $246,478.87 per job ]
$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district.
[ $47.7 million / 291 jobs created = $163,917.53 per job ]
Stimulus Fund Mystery
Interesting facts and figures, but none of these districts exist.
The recovery.gov Web site was established as part of the stimulus bill "to foster greater accountability and transparency" in the use of the money spent through the stimulus program. The site is a well-funded enterprise; the General Services Administration updated it earlier this year with an $18 million grant.
ABC News' Zach Wolf contributed to this report.
tw - You're entire premise is based upon the assumption that regulators and politicians were ignorant of what was going on. If that is true, its a rather good description.
However, the whole bailout could have been a huge cover-up so that those in positions of power and influence, who knew all along what was going on and were basically on the take, were protected. Did anyone else notice that paper shredder sales went up dramatically during that time? :tinfoil:
Our economic meltdown is directly traceable to . . . opaque institutions
Wait what??? What happened to "top management"?
It looks like there will be 1.2 million hired as census workers - that'll cover some of the job losses. :headshake
Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist .
It looks like there will be 1.2 million hired as census workers - that'll cover some of the job losses. :headshake
And these are related to bank/financial services bail-outs? sub-prime lending? derivatives?
How?
I think that IS the discussion. (see thread title) :p
:confused:
It looks like there will be 1.2 million hired as census workers - that'll cover some of the job losses. :headshake
And just like the jobs "created" in the last month they reflect nothing more than seasonal hiring. Not long term job growth. More smoke and mirrors.
And just like the jobs "created" in the last month they reflect nothing more than seasonal hiring. Not long term job growth. More smoke and mirrors.
Census workers are hired n large numbers every ten years...regardless of the state of the economy.
And that is related to bank/financial services bail-outs? sub-prime lending? derivatives?
How?
Whats the with this latest deflection?
tw - You're entire premise is based upon the assumption that regulators and politicians were ignorant of what was going on. If that is true, it’s a rather good description.
Surprise and shock was literally the problem in case after case. Nobody knew LTCM was happening until they called within days of disaster. Anybody even running 30:1 is and should be declared bankrupt. But under Enron accounting, that can be conducted by simply moving the losses to off-balance-sheet vehicles. Enron accounting that was still normal ten years later.
Bear Stearns was a complete surprise to everyone in early 2008 – because the accounting never showed the firm already bankrupt. That is what MBA are trained to do – maximize profits. “He makes the spread sheets say what they have to say.”
None of the big bank presidents knew why the Fed called them in for a meeting with only hours notice. Only then discovered who was also in the meeting. So blindsided that most of them did not bring any assistants. And then were told they had only hours to save the American economy.
Nobody outside of AIG realized how large AIGs contracts were and how deeply embedded AIG was everywhere in the economy. Even AIG top management many years previous - see the many stories from 70 Pine - could not get a handle on how bad things were. Enron accounting virtually makes fraud legal. How do “off-balance-sheet vehicles” exist? Transparency must be subverted.
Enron would simply invent off-balance-sheet vehicles, put massive losses in them, then declare them as profitable entries on spread sheets. Of course, anyone who did not know that is complicit in the problem. At this point everyone over the age of 18 should know that story. Even Arthur Andersen called that acceptable accounting. Why?
In a world that has under $8trilion of actual things, how could these bankers invent $604trillion of financial assets? Easy. Lying in the accounting is acceptable because the purpose of a business is profits – not the product. No regulator can see how bad it is when even the accountant (Arthur Andersen) call that legal.
So what did we do to avert Enron accounting. Apparently nothing. Doing so would have violated a political agenda with included tax cuts to the rich.
From Marketwatch of 3 April 2008 describing Bear Stearns:
Off-balance-sheet vehicles of various forms proliferated, and increased concentrations of longer-dated assets were held in funding vehicles with substantial liquidity risk.
And nobody could know anything more. Accounting made it impossible to even know those risks existed – let alone measure them.
How do the AT&T’s Board of Directors not know AT&T was virtually bankrupt until months before they could not even pay its short term debt? Spread sheets said what they had to say so that nobody outside the company and so that no regulators knew how unproductive AT&T had been for over a decade. Sandy Weil, president of Citibank and an AT&T BoD, did not know AT&T was essentially bankrupt until a corporate officer whispered it to him – a leak that nobody was supposed to tell the BoDs.
Even Sandy Weil, the famous Citibank president who built Citibank into what it is today, even he could not see AT&T's demise. Because the spread sheets only said what they had to say. Honesty is not a trait found on Wall Street - because like the mafia - the purpose of a company is only its profits.
Wait what??? What happened to "top management"?
Who do you think told me "He makes the spread sheets say what they have to say"? The corporate president. He got the job because he was hired from a major accounting firm - Peat Marwick and Mitchell. He was only doing what he was trained to do. Obviously fraud is directly traceable to top management - which is why so much destruction (and the massive job losses that we can expect) are traceable to MBAs as top management - ie George Jr.
ok tw, for a minute there I thought you had been abducted by aliens or something. :borg:
And these are related to bank/financial services bail-outs? sub-prime lending? derivatives?
How?
I posted it in the wrong thread - my bad.
I posted it in the wrong thread - my bad.
You should move it to the ACORN thread since we know that most of those 1.2 million Census workers are associated with ACORN. ;)
You should move it to the ACORN thread since we know that most of those 1.2 million Census workers are associated with ACORN. ;)
I don't believe that for one minute. Just that the ones associated with voter registration are associated with Fraud as is the leadership of ACORNhole.
SO...are you for or against regulating banking and financial services
...More regulation is not the solution. That is stupid.
...Eliminate non-commerical banks abilities to provide low cost loans to people who never could have afforded them in the first place...
You still havent addressed the apparent contradiction in those statements unless you know of a way to eliminate non-commercial banks from the housing finance market w/o regulation?
Do you only agree with Volcker that we should
"let financial institutions fail" or do you agree with him that we also need
"somewhat in the spirit of Glass-Steagall in making a distinction between capital-market activities and trading activities and banking activities."Threads are like paper boats, you can't steer them, you can only watch them drift.
Threads are like paper boats, you can't steer them, you can only watch them drift.
Or disintegrate like a dollar bill.
Naw, bills are waterproof.
Naw, bills are waterproof.
But not liberals in the land of Merc who hate dissent.
I"'m melting, melting. Oh, what a world."
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=624042&postcount=984But not liberals in the land of Merc who hate dissent.
I"'m melting, melting. Oh, what a world."
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=624042&postcount=984
Or anyone that disagrees with Redux White House Talking Points responses... ;)
Round three is coming - Just heard from a friend that they are researching more of those ever elusive "shovel-ready" jobs.
Round three is coming - Just heard from a friend that they are researching more of those ever elusive "shovel-ready" jobs.
Sounds to me like you are confusing bailout with stimulus.
Since there hasnt been a round two of stimulus funding yet, its hard for me to understand how round three is coming.
As I understand it, there is consideration for a second stimulus using the left-over TARP (bail out) funds for more targeted jobs creation as well as using some of those left-over TARP funds for deficit reduction.
If you think additional stimulus funds will not be helpful (in the short term), what would you suggest to address the continued high unemployment?
Sounds to me like you are confusing bailout with stimulus.
At this point, whatever. These threads have been drifting and crossing so much that they've basically melded together.
If you think additional stimulus funds will not be helpful (in the short term), what would you suggest to address the continued high unemployment?
Do you think it worked? With underemployment and unemployment at what now 17-18% ? Do you think it worked?
At this point, whatever. These threads have been drifting and crossing so much that they've basically melded together.
Do you think it worked? With underemployment and unemployment at what now 17-18% ? Do you think it worked?
Hey, my question was just a discussion stimulus, but you can bail out and not respond. ;)
And, yes, I think we had to do something to stimulate the economy that was on the brink of disaster and, I agree with many economists who believe it has contributed to slowing the economic downtown and ending the recession sooner than otherwise would have occurred. Employment is always the last to recover.
We can quibble on the numbers, but there is no doubt that it helped save or create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
IMO, government action was necessary and is still needed.
Do you think it worked? With underemployment and unemployment at what now 17-18% ? Do you think it worked?
We know due to economic mismanagement in the 2000s (ie tax cuts for the rich, Enron accounting without any prosecution, etc) that we created a 2008 meltdown. History says massive jobs losses will occur in 2012. That is inevitable due to money games played and encouraged throughout the 2000s.
The question is - and nobody can answer it - is how bad the inevitable job losses will be. With intelligent people replacing political extremists, we have seen a major economic disaster averted. Now we will learn how expensive it was to avert disaster.
Only wackos would blame Obama for this - as they are lining up to do. As Obama accurately said when he took office (and the overwhelming consensus from the Jan 2009 Economist's convention in San Francisco), we will be paying for the 2000s for the next ten years.
A concept repeated repeatedly. Money games result in economics taking revenge. That revenge is ongoing due to a $trillion wasted in Mission Accomplished, et al, welfare for the rich, welfare to industries such as big Pharma, protection for some of America's least productive industries (ie big steel), all but open encouragement of Enron accounting, subversion of the SEC, a ten year 2% reduction of American incomes, etc. Whereas problems could have been solved at the source (ie bankruptcy of big steel, proper regulation and oversight of finance institutions, innovation required from big auto, honesty about threats to America, mythical tax cuts, the lessons from LTCM, etc). Now everyone becomes innocent victims as economics takes revenge. Lessons learned from history.
We must sell off major parts of America to pay for those money games. Or bankrupt many corporations. Or massively downsize the military. Or further depreciate the American dollar (below the already 40% drop compared to the Euro). Or massive unemployment. Or increase foreign debts. All examples of how the American economy may have to suffer to correct economic money games through the 2000s.
How high must unemployment rise when economics takes revenge? Nobody can say. But we do know this. The American standard of living is expected to drop in response to so much economic mismanagement ten years previous. No way around reality and the lessons of history. It has hardly begun.
The lies of Vietnam in 68 and 70 resulted in misery - years centered about 1979. 30 years later, a new public is doomed to relive the lessons of history. Nobody can say how large unemployment might be to pay for the 2000s. We know this. It would have been a hell of a lot worse if not for intervention at the highest levels of government.
They were given eight hours to save the American economy. It was no exaggeration.
We can quibble on the numbers, but there is no doubt that it helped save or create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
:thumb: Great job. To bad we have lost millions of jobs. Hundreds of thousands is just pissing in the wind.
We know due to economic mismanagement in the 2000s (ie tax cuts for the rich, Enron accounting without any prosecution, etc) that we created a 2008 meltdown. History says massive jobs losses will occur in 2012. That is inevitable due to money games played and encouraged throughout the 2000s.
The
2000s were a lost decade, but some, particularly the critics, obviously chose to ignore that.
Many economists see job growth returning by this summer, but that still wont address the long-term need to retool and restructure the economy on a much larger scale.
Repeating myself (from my link on the lost decade):
[INDENT]
Most of the recovery money has yet to be spent (by intent) and is directed towards retooling the economy by focusing on developing new energy technologies, a national broadband network, wide spread infrastructure improvement, investments in health technology, investments in education...all critical if you're interest is looking forward to be better positioned to compete in a global economy in which we may have lost the competitive edge that we enjoyed for decades.
[/INDENT]
I still havent heard a better approach from the critics here...they just keep on bailing out.
I still havent heard a better approach from the critics here...they just keep on bailing out.
I would love to believe the stimulus has cured everything. But I am not that naive that any stimulus could. This recession current appears in patches. Among some groups - no significant adverse effect and no job losses. Among others - massive adverse effects.
For example, a construction machine company owner told me he could not sell his Case backhoe - only give it away. The recession has been that destructive to his business.
In another company - a wholesaler - business is down. But not enough to lay anyone off. Even a few restaurants say they have seen less business - but not enough to reduce staff.
Too many contradictory numbers confirm what history suggest. The massive job losses should occur years from now.
Meanwhile, it is possible that Bernanke's solution has been more successful than expected. Economics data does not and cannot predict. The next five years will be an economist's dream - an opportunity to (maybe) learn things about economics that nobody has even seen. One fact we do know. No two recessions pan out the same.
I would love to believe the stimulus has cured everything. But I am not that naive that any stimulus could. This recession current appears in patches. Among some groups - no significant adverse effect and no job losses. Among others - massive adverse effects.
For example, a construction machine company owner told me he could not sell his Case backhoe - only give it away. The recession has been that destructive to his business.
In another company - a wholesaler - business is down. But not enough to lay anyone off. Even a few restaurants say they have seen less business - but not enough to reduce staff.
Too many contradictory numbers confirm what history suggest. The massive job losses should occur years from now.
Meanwhile, it is possible that Bernanke's solution has been more successful than expected. Economics data does not and cannot predict. The next five years will be an economist's dream - an opportunity to (maybe) learn things about economics that nobody has even seen. One fact we do know. No two recessions pan out the same.
I'm not suggesting the stimulus plan cured anything, but simply helped keep the economy from further collapse, particularly the state/local stabilization funds. I talk to local officials all the time and the adverse impact w/o those funds would have been significantly worse.
Jobs in many sectors will never come back, which is why I think the bulk of the unspent stimulus funds committed to a national broadband network, developing new energy technologies, wide spread infrastructure improvement, health technology and other high tech investments, education and job re-training, etc. are a step in the right direction.
And I cant say I have firm grasp on Bernanke's monetary policy, but i do think it helped keep the flow of credit from drying up, particularly to consumers and small business....but then again, the level of irresponsible personal (consumer) debt is unsustainable and another meltdown waiting to happen.
I'm under no illusion....we're in deep shit after wasting years built on the promises of an economic plan based on tax cuts that would lead to economic prosperity for all, at a cost of more than $1 trillion, no job creation and the stagnation of middle-class real income.
It will be a long, slow haul and those opposed will politicize it every step of the way w/o offering a better way forward.
added:
Thanks for your insight. You always offer something to consider.
Just got off the phone with my wife. We had some CDs that matured, so she went down to the bank to see what they were offering. The rates on the new CDs are a joke. But that's not why I'm posting this. The thing that struck me was that she said they pushed very hard to get us to borrow money. They wanted to give us a line of credit on our house. We didn't even ask, nor do we want one.
I thought the banks stopped throwing money at people. Isn't that what got us into this mess?
Isn't that what got us into this mess?
Pushing loans on people
who were not qualified to repay them got us into this mess. I'm sure you're qualified to repay.
Pushing loans on people who were not qualified to repay them got us into this mess. I'm sure you're qualified to repay.
I'm actually not, which is why I don't want one. I think they probably figure anyone who doesn't want a loan is showing responsibility, and is therefor a good risk. But being responsible AND having that nice income is what they should be looking for.
Maybe they are going to really start to get pushy on enticing people to take out loans based on known credit scores or payment history. We get offers in the mail to refinace our house at least once per week. There is no way in hell I would take out such a loan at this point.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]Icqrx0OimSs[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
We can quibble on the numbers, but there is no doubt that it helped save or create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
How many? Lets ask three members of the administration. . .
White House advisers appearing on the Sunday talk shows gave three different estimates of how many jobs could be credited to President Obama’s Recovery Act.
Valerie Jarrett had the most conservative count, saying “the Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs,” while David Axelrod gave the bill the most credit, saying it has “created more than – or saved more than 2 million jobs.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs came in between them, saying the plan had “saved or created 1.5 million jobs.”
Their remarks in context:
Axelrod, on CNN’s State of the Union: “But understand that, in this recession that began at the beginning of 2007, we've lost 7 million jobs. Now, the Recovery Act the president passed has created more than — or saved more than 2 million jobs. But against 7 million, you know, that — that is — it is cold comfort to those who still are looking.”
Jarrett, on NBC’s Meet the Press: “The Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs. There are schoolteachers and firemen and— and— teachers all across our country, policemen, who have jobs today because of that recovery act. We're investing in infrastructure. We're investing in public education so that our kids can compete going forth into the next— generation.”
Gibbs, on “Fox News Sunday”: “Well, Chris, let's take for instance the example you just used of the stimulus package. We had four quarters of economic regression in terms of growth, right? Just last quarter, we finally saw the first positive economic job growth in more than a year. Largely as a result of the recovery plan that's put money back into our economy, that saved or created 1.5 million jobs.”
Link
IMO, government action was necessary and is still needed.
Most of the recovery money has yet to be spent (by intent) and is directed towards retooling the economy by focusing on developing new energy technologies, a national broadband network, wide spread infrastructure improvement, investments in health technology, investments in education...
I agree that action was and now still is needed, but it should have addressed actually creating jobs first. As you said the first phase of this money was NOT directed at that. I believe that is where it should have been.
Just got off the phone with my wife. We had some CDs that matured, so she went down to the bank to see what they were offering. The rates on the new CDs are a joke.
Whatever you do, I suggest you consider something that is not in US$. With the debt, that might well depreciate over the next half decade or so. Just a thought.
Bruce that video is GREAT!!! Im already there...our money is in local banks.
So what happens to all these supposed new jobs created by the pork barrel stimulus package when that money is no longer being supplied by the government?
Hopefully, the private sector will be picking up by then.
Hopefully, the private sector will be picking up by then.
Pretty big hope there. The record on the Government artifically propping up the economy is dismal. But boy it sure makes the socialists feel better about how many fake jobs have been created!
One
guy in Washington gets it.
The problems that led to the last crisis have not yet been addressed, and in some cases have grown worse, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the trouble asset relief program, or TARP. The quarterly report to Congress was released Sunday.
"Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car," Barofsky wrote.
Since Congress passed $700 billion financial bailout, the remaining institutions considered "too big to fail" have grown larger and failed to restrain the lavish pay for their executives, Barofsky wrote. He said the banks still have an incentive to take on risk because they know the government will save them rather than bring down the financial system.So what happens to all these supposed new jobs created by the pork barrel stimulus package when that money is no longer being supplied by the government?
Propaganda always stated for the many who need to feel good. Reality - jobs created by throwing money are temporary. Same technique is created by requiring everyone to replace their lawn annually. That also creates jobs. Economics takes revenge years later. Those temporary jobs are about lessening severe job losses today while accepting lesser job losses distributed over a longer future period. IOW we well be paying for the 2000 for then next ten years.
No government creates jobs. Only innovation creates jobs. We have yet to see severe job loses. History says serious job losses are expected. Spend money today to lessen that inevitable blow. And nobody knows if it will work.
A problem created by wacko extremist economics such as tax cuts to the rich. Tax cuts without spending cuts. Subverting Basel 1 and 2 requirements. Subverting the SEC to protect people such as Maddof. Telling rich bankers they could pay themselves massive wealth and run up 30 to 1 debt to equity ratios as long as they also purchased politicians. Even let GM quash their hybrids. How many times do these same people not discuss K Street - the largest government bribery in the history of America?
Economics takes revenge for economic money games. Lies in 1968 and 1970 Viet Nam created massive job losses and recession in 1975 and 1979. Lies from irresponsible government in the 2000s will be the malaise in 2009 and 2014. Only those told how to think by a political agenda argue TARP myths - so that their political agenda will not get blamed. The TARP was not a problem. The political agenda created this mess - complete with "Mission Accomplished". And surrendering Afghanistan to the Taliban. Taking cheap shots is now the political agenda.
Those whose political agenda said Saddam had WMDS - now we will begin to pay for those overt and venomous lies. Who warned us all back in 2003 that it would happen? Who predicted when that the bills would come due four and more years later?
I made one mistake. I said it would cost about $400billion when the political agenda said it would only costs $2billion. Well, the bill is now $1000 billion - a trillion. I under estimated how destructive that 2000s political agenda would be. Maddof and Enron accounting are just two trophy's earned by that political agenda - that we all have only started to pay for.
So instead the political agenda takes cheap shots at TARP - so that we forget what and who created this mess. So who predicted it back when the political agenda even lied about Saddam's WMDs?
Geithner: U.S. Will Not Lose AAA Bond Rating
Moody’s Investors Service warned on Wednesday that the triple-A rating of U.S. treasury bonds could be in peril unless the federal budget deficit is reduced or the economy grows more vigorously than expected.
So on THIS WEEK, during our exclusive interview with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, I asked if the U.S. is at risk of losing its triple-A bond rating.
He responded bluntly: “Absolutely not. And that will never happen to this country.”
“When people were most worried about the stability of the world, they still found safety in the Treasuries and the dollar," he continued. "That is a very, very important sign of basic confidence in our capacity as a country to work together to fix these problems.”
I'm worried about the rating. Several other sources have indicated otherwise. What makes him so sure?
Doesn't matter if he's sure or not, he has no option but to give that answer.
Doesn't matter if he's sure or not, he has no option but to give that answer.
Meanwhile, Cheney proved that deficits do matter.
I know your probably right Clod - but still.
Contract: Small Turkey Deli Breasts $5,379,000 Willmar MN Jobs created...unreported. Great accounting.
I wish I could find out how this works, $5 million plus... for turkey breasts? nice going.
Contract: Lake View Towers Apartments $1,831,121 Chicago.
ZERO jobs created. This was to pay the owners of subsidized rental apartments. Don't they already get paid from our tax dollars?
Yea but that Failed Stimulus Package will sure get you a great view of the Lake if you can afford the rent!
Contract: The City of Miami to hire 50 police officers. $11,086,850 Jobs created so far...Zero
Um - thats like over $200,000 per officer. WTH?
Contract: Small Turkey Deli Breasts $5,379,000 Willmar MN Jobs created...unreported. Great accounting.
I wish I could find out how this works, $5 million plus... for turkey breasts? nice going.
Project report .... $5 million for 2.9 million lbs for domestic food assistance programs....less than $2/lb....seems like a reasonable price.
Jobs created - 285.
Carry on with your crusade. :eek:
Contract: The City of Miami to hire 50 police officers. $11,086,850 Jobs created so far...Zero
Um - thats like over $200,000 per officer. WTH?
The grants will provide 100 percent of the approved
salary and benefits for entry level officer positions over a three year period. Police departments receiving the grants will then be required to retain the grant funded positions for a fourth year.
Fifty more cops for four years.
http://www.miamigov.com/cms/comm/1724_6589.aspContract: The City of Miami to hire 50 police officers. $11,086,850 Jobs created so far...Zero
Um - thats like over $200,000 per officer. WTH?
Police officers make a lot of money don't cha know....:yelgreedy
so its only $70,000 per. Thats more reasonable.
The grants will provide 100 percent of the approved salary and benefits for entry level officer positions over a three year period. Police departments receiving the grants will then be required to retain the grant funded positions for a fourth year.
Fifty more cops for four years.
http://www.miamigov.com/cms/comm/1724_6589.asp
And when the money runs out then what? They all get fired that's what. :bandaid:
Project report .... $5 million for 2.9 million lbs for domestic food assistance programs....less than $2/lb....seems like a reasonable price.
Jobs created - 285.
Carry on with your crusade. :eek:
recovery.gov??? oh wait, those are the same people who lied about how many jobs they made a few months ago. Talk about partisan bullshit... :lol:
*shrug*
Your minds are completely closed on this one.
Classic has his sources and Merc had declared the stimulus program a failure despite all the evidence to the contrary that it has created and saved jobs and helped end (or at least, slow down) the recession.
It's all yours, guys!
My sources???? WTF?? My source is stimulus watch.com Try it sometime. Then again, you better not, you probably won't like what you see.
Classic has his sources and Merc had declared the stimulus program a failure despite all the evidence to the contrary that it has created and saved jobs and helped end (or at least, slow down) the recession.
Which jobs? The "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs" they lied about in Feb 09 to get the Failed Stimulus Package passed or the ones the lied about in the fall of 09?:rolleyes:
My sources???? WTF?? My source is stimulus watch.com Try it sometime. Then again, you better not, you probably won't like what you see.
My point was that if you had taken two more minutes, you could have found the details of the turkey breasts and cop funding that outraged you.
But all the facts would spoil that outrage.
Why spoil a good outrage. I mean, really....
The Nazi's need to be eliminated from the Congress.
My point was that if you had taken two more minutes, you could have found the details of the turkey breasts and cop funding that outraged you.
Your minds are completely closed on this one.
Oh I'm sorry - How could I have possibly misinterpreted you. :eyebrow:
I'll still take the word of the independent source over the biased one.
Looking over stimuluswatch.com, there seems to be many many such programs. Yes there are some related to infrastructure, but there are so many that seem to have nothing to do with building anything. I wonder how many of these organizations/companies/corporations that got these grants are "friends" of political people. I would guess a whole bunch of them.
And for what its worth, I would have preferred to spend 5.3 MILLION on virtually anything other than fuckin ham. Ham sucks. If not roast beef at least turkey - sheesh!
5.3 MILLION would have gone a long way to pay down some bad debts.
Concerning...
For the world’s biggest economy, the US, the day of reckoning still seems reassuringly remote. The worse things get in the eurozone, the more the US dollar rallies as nervous investors park their cash in the “safe haven” of American government debt. This effect may persist for some months, just as the dollar and Treasuries rallied in the depths of the banking panic in late 2008.
Yet even a casual look at the fiscal position of the federal government (not to mention the states) makes a nonsense of the phrase “safe haven”. US government debt is a safe haven the way Pearl Harbor was a safe haven in 1941.
Even according to the White House’s new budget projections, the gross federal debt in public hands will exceed 100 per cent of GDP in just two years’ time. This year, like last year, the federal deficit will be around 10 per cent of GDP. The long-run projections of the Congressional Budget Office suggest that the US will never again run a balanced budget. That’s right, never.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f90bca10-1679-11df-bf44-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1Even according to the White House’s new budget projections, the gross federal debt in public hands will exceed 100 per cent of GDP in just two years’ time. This year, like last year, the federal deficit will be around 10 per cent of GDP. The long-run projections of the Congressional Budget Office suggest that the US will never again run a balanced budget. That’s right, never.
Huh?
We have had a balanced budget only once in the last 50 years...in 1999 - 2000.
THE CBO projections:
Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting: Projected deficits average about $600 billion per year over the 2011–2020 period despite an anticipated economic recovery, albeit a slow and tentative one. In the baseline projections, deficits drop markedly in the next few years but remain high—at 6.5 percent of GDP in 2011 and 4.1 percent in 2012, the first full fiscal year after certain tax provisions originally enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009 are scheduled to expire.1 Thereafter, deficits in CBO’s baseline are projected to range between 2.6 percent and 3.2 percent of GDP through 2020.
Those accumulating deficits will push total federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. In 2009, debt held by the public jumped from $5.8 trillion to $7.5 trillion. CBO projects that by the end of 2010, that figure will rise to $8.8 trillion—at 60 percent of GDP, the highest level since 1952. Under the assumptions of the baseline, federal debt is projected to continue its upward climb, reaching $15 trillion (67 percent of GDP) by the end of 2020. With such a large increase in debt, plus an expected rise in interest rates as the economic recovery strengthens, interest payments on the debt are likely to skyrocket. CBO projects that the government’s annual net interest spending will more than triple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal terms (from $207 billion a year to $723 billion) and will more than double as a share of GDP (from 1.4 percent to 3.2 percent)
Total Deficit or Surplus, 1970 to 2020
(Percentage of gross domestic product)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter1.shtml
So whats your solution to fix the economy that completely broke down during the "lost decade" (the worst in 70 years) and generate economic growth?
If you
"stand for something"....how do you fix it or recover from that lost decade?
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Do you stand for anything positive?
I mean something other than a
"good outrage and removing Nazis from Congress"
Just wondering?
I know this much. Continuing to print money and throw it around like the whores in Congress on a spending spree with very little to show for it is not a solution. Lying to the American Public to spend money on programs that do not actually create jobs is not a solution.
It is impossible to have a balanced budget without almost doubling taxes or completely cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security payments, or military spending. By 2030, mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and natural disaster spending) will be larger than our incoming revenue.
Below is a the breakdown of the 2010 budget:
This also means that Obama's "budget freeze" will have very little impact if any. It will be a "its not as bad as it could be" temporary "solution". This also means that Obama has very little control over a balanced budget without going into politically suicidal territories.
how do you fix it or recover from that lost decade?
You keep posting that graph. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Well isn't that part of the problem HP? It may take this Congress from all parties to commit political suicide, which none of them are willing to do. Why? Power. They don't want to let it go.
You keep posting that graph. I don't think it means what you think it means.
So what do you think it means?
Or how about the chart that
Happy Monkey posted, showing unemployment in a nose dive in 08 and slowing turning around?
The CBO also projects a 4% growth in GDP in 2011 and 4-5% annually over the next 10 years, based in large part, on the current economic plan.
Seems to me to be moving in the right direction....in part, because of short-term deficit spending.
So how do you stimulate jobs and economic growth?
Tax cuts? Tried that last decade at a cost of over $1 trillion...didnt work.
Leave it to the free market to correct itself?
Well isn't that part of the problem HP? It may take this Congress from all parties to commit political suicide, which none of them are willing to do. Why? Power. They don't want to let it go.
Yes, I agree completely. I read an article that said the only way our budget problem will be solved is from a "youth revolution". Our budget problem will not be solved anytime soon.
Yes, I agree completely. I read an article that said the only way our budget problem will be solved is from a "youth revolution". Our budget problem will not be solved anytime soon.
We absolutely need entitlement reform, but that wont fix a broken economy.
IMO, the long term economic problem requires a re-investment in R&D, emerging technologies, and as TW says...innovation. We have fallen behind China, India, and most developed countries.
Along with an investment in education/job re-training to have a better prepared workforce.
You have to spend money to make money.
Yes, I agree completely. I read an article that said the only way our budget problem will be solved is from a "youth revolution". Our budget problem will not be solved anytime soon.
I think we are just going to have to accept some really painful choices. But right now the Dems are not willing to spread that pain around and until they do the problems will persist and the real pain is only being delayed for a future date. There has been a lot of talk in the last week about a new real estate crisis, 1) a huge surge in foreclosures on the personal homes, and 2) a huge surge in foreclosures in the Commercial realestate.
Apparently a good percentage of those who got their loans "fixed" with the help of the Feds are going to foreclose anyway.
Check this out:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123173050You have to spend money to make money.
That won't even come close to covering the future costs of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and debt payments. I agree with investing in those sectors but something needs to be done with our Mandatory Spending section in the future or will get exponentially worse.
We absolutely need entitlement reform, but that wont fix a broken economy.
IMO, the long term economic problem requires a re-investment in R&D, emerging technologies, and as TW says...innovation. We have fallen behind China, India, and most developed countries.
Along with an investment in education/job re-training to have a better prepared workforce.
You have to spend money to make money.
I agree to a degree. But right now this Congress is out of control and not spending responsibly.
This idea of spending in "emerging technology" sounds like nothing more than a black hole where taxpayer dollars flow down and very little comes out of it. It makes for good political theater and speech but that will not fix the problems. This Congress has failed the American Public.
The stimulus program, while far from perfect (in order to attract 3 Repub votes to ensure passage in the Senate at the time) has had a positive impact on stopping or slowing down the short-term bleeding.
Economists across the spectrum have acknowledged that...you dont.
A long-term economic fix will still require more investment and that means short term deficits (5-10 years) for long term growth.
And the entitlement programs need to be addressed...but not while in a recession or on a shaky foundation and just coming out of one.
Unless you have a better idea.
The stimulus program, while far from perfect (in order to attract 3 Repub votes to ensure passage in the Senate at the time) has had a positive impact on stopping or slowing down the short-term bleeding.
Maybe.
Economists across the spectrum have acknowledged that...you dont.
Economists across the spectrum do not agree with you. Believe that if you want to.
A long-term economic fix will still require more investment and that means short term deficits (5-10 years) for long term growth.
Economists do not agree. And the
massive short term deficits which are developing are doing little to address the problems facing our nation today.
And the entitlement programs need to be addressed...but not while in a recession or on a shaky foundation and just coming out of one.
Why not? All this Congress is doing is thowing good money at bad. And a lot of it. They need to start over and come up with a new plan.
The graph means nothing. It is not useful information.
They have chosen to display it as percentage by decade, starting at the first year of the decade, not a useful frame of reference. This has the result of painting the 00s in the worst possible light. Why: because the decade started with a bubble that popped just after the decade began - and ended a year after the popping of another bubble.
Let's say you had a graph like this:
And you decided to measure this section of it:
The green line shows your growth. Great success!
But oh no, you wanted a negative narrative. Not a problem, just use the same distance between the red lines, and measure a different section of the graph:
Zero growth!
Also, they have chosen to graph number of jobs created - generally not the most interesting measure of employment, and useless to measure the state of the economy. For example, before the 50s-60s boom, unemployment numbers were low, jobs created high, but the poverty rates were often around 30%. The Times graph (I assume it's Times by its style) doesn't come close to giving us an accurate narrative on the state of things.
Economists across the spectrum do not agree with you. Believe that if you want to.
"New Consensus Views Stimulus Package as Worthy Step"
with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html?_r=1
"Obama stimulus reduced our pain, experts say"
President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm
Also economists at the Business Roundtable (representing big corporations) and the US Chamber of Commerce (representing small businesses) have said that the stimulus program, despite it not being their preferred program, has helped.
Even the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation has grudgingly agreed.
Historically deficit spending has not worked. It failed for Hoover, Roosevelt, Ford, Bush, and even for the country of Japan. The only thing that goes up is national debt. It is Keynesian economics. Taking the money out of the pockets of the public and putting it into the pocket of the government to spend with reckless abandon is not going to get us out of this mess. Stimulus packages do not work in the long term.
Falling flat
More evidence that America is experiencing a jobless recovery
Feb 5th 2010
A WEEK ago, Americans were told that their economy had expanded for a second consecutive quarter, and rapidly at that: output grew at an annual rate of 5.7%. This week, they are reminded that a return to growth has yet to benefit the jobless. The economy lost 20,000 jobs in January, a decline driven by the loss of 75,000 jobs in the construction sector. Economists had forecast an increase in employment of around 15,000. The unemployment rate, based on household rather than establishment data, showed a slight improvement, dropping from 10% to 9.7%, but nearly 15m Americans remain unemployed. As Larry Summers put it in Davos last week, the American economy is experiencing “a statistical recovery and a human recession”.
Several positive trends continued in January. Firms added 52,000 temporary workers and increased hours, just as they did in December, hinting at growing if cautious optimism. Employment rose in health, education and professional services, and retail employment grew by 42,000 in January, on a seasonally adjusted basis, after declining in December. Manufacturing employment also grew, by 11,000, the first increase since the beginning of recession. Analysts point out that the adjustment of the data is tricky around the holiday season, and actual underlying employment may have grown in January.
But many economists may view this release as more disappointing than the previous month's figure. The Labour Department published the results of its annual benchmark revision of previous employment data. Through the 12 months to March 2009, the American economy lost 930,000 more jobs than had been previously estimated. It now appears that over 700,000 jobs were lost in each of the first three months of last year, a significantly worse performance than originally thought. Meanwhile, data for the last two months of 2009 were revised to show a larger increase in employment in November, but a larger decline in December, for a net drop of 5,000 jobs relative to previous reports.
And while the employment-population ratio increased slightly from December to January, and off record lows, the problem of the long-term unemployed continues to grow. Just over 41% of all unemployed workers, over 6.3m workers, have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.
Most troubling of all is the continued failure of economic growth to benefit the labour market. Employment fell by over 300,000 jobs during the last three months of 2009, despite strong expansion in GDP. The first quarter of 2010 is unlikely to show as big an output gain, suggesting that the pace of improvement in employment may be slowing, even as regular job growth has yet to return. And the situation may be more dire still; initial jobless claims have grown in recent weeks, indicating that what momentum there was in labour markets has been lost.
The January data will increase the pressure on the Senate to pass a jobs bill. The House of Representatives assented in December to a measure designed to boost hiring, worth $154 billion, and the president outlined a number of policies to encourage employers to hire in his state-of-the-union address and budget proposal. At the centre of the package is a $33 billion tax credit, available to firms that add employees or increase hours or wages. The policy may be just the kick firms need to take on new help. In the fourth quarter, labour productivity rose by 6.2% as businesses expanded output while maintaining lean payrolls. The government will hope to provide an incentive to begin handling rising orders with new workers, who will then use their earnings to shore up consumption and the recovery as a whole.
But with the revelation that labour markets early last year were far weaker than expected and the growing indications that the recovery will be jobless, the country's leaders may be wishing they had done more to boost the economy sooner. The longer it takes to achieve steady job creation, the more uncertain recovery will become.
http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15473802Historically deficit spending has not worked. It failed for Hoover, Roosevelt, Ford, Bush, and even for the country of Japan. The only thing that goes up is national debt. It is Keynesian economics. Taking the money out of the pockets of the public and putting it into the pocket of the government to spend with reckless abandon is not going to get us out of this mess. Stimulus packages do not work in the long term.
Of course it worked for Roosevelt... in the first 3 years of the New Deal programs, unemployment was cut in half and the GDP increased at nearly a similar rate.
And this was well before ('32-35) any WW II spendng, so that old argument that it was war spending doesnt fly in light of the facts and data. It restored and rebuilt the economic base on which war-related industries were later created.
The others you list never applied such an economic plan.
What didnt work was Bush's $1 trillion tax cuts.
*shrug*
You just dont agree with all those economists in the articles I posted that the stimulus has helped...so they must be wrong.
Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.....some things never change.
Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute has acknowledged it helped
The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.
but, in their opinion, is not the long-term solution.
Of course it worked for Roosevelt... in the first 3 years of the New Deal programs, unemployment was cut in half and the GDP increased at nearly a similar rate.
And this was well before ('32-35) any WW II spendng, so that old argument that it was war spending doesnt fly in light of the facts and data. It restored and rebuilt the economic base on which war-related industries were later created..
Roosevelt boosted the top tax rate to the 70% range, unemployment was around 17%, and it was not until WW2 that things changed.
The others you list never applied such an economic plan.
Sure they did, in one form or another. It is all about thowing good money at an attempt to stimulate the economy. Bush tried it with tax rebates; Hoover increased tax rates significantly and inacted protectionist policies, and deficit spending was born. Japan is the model of deficit spending and stimulus packages.
You just dont agree with all those economists in the articles I posted that the stimulus has helped...so they must be wrong.
Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.....some things never change.
:lol: You are no fucking different Pot.
Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute has acknowledged it helped
but, in their opinion, is not the long-term solution.
No shit. That is what I have been saying all along.
Roosevelt boosted the top tax rate to the 70% range, unemployment was around 17%, and it was not until WW2 that things changed.
Sure they did, in one form or another. It is all about thowing good money at an attempt to stimulate the economy. Bush tried it with tax rebates; Hoover increased tax rates significantly and inacted protectionist policies, and deficit spending was born. Japan is the model of deficit spending and stimulus packages.
:lol: You are no fucking different Pot.
No shit. That is what I have been saying all along.
I can agree to disagree w/o insisting that your approach is a failure....particularly before it has been fully implemented.
That is the difference between us.
Along with the fact that I dont feel a need to characterize anyone as Nazis, cunts, whores.... or calling other members liars...and prefer focusing on the issues.
And you still havent offered a better solution. Tax cuts? Leave it to the free market? Focus on short term deficit reduction rather than long term economic growth?
The graph means nothing. It is not useful information.
.
How would you measure the economy...if not GDP increases/decreases and employment.
In the 2000s....manufacturing declined, wholesale trade declined, retail trade was flat, unemployment rose, stock market dropped,....resulting in the worst recession in 75 years.
What indicators do you need ?
Or better yet, do you think calling a program a failure before it evens have a chance to succeed is helpful...despite the fact that many economists have said it has helped?
Or characterizing political leaders you dont like as Nazis, whores, cunts is helpful?
Or never offering a positive, constructive contribution to a discussion is helpful?
In the 2000s...
Again, the decade started with a bubble that popped just after the decade began - and ended a year after the popping of another bubble.
If you want to reply to my stuff you have to keep reading after the first sentence.
ETA: if you want to reply to the thread you have to remember who said what.
Again, the decade started with a bubble that popped just after the decade began - and ended a year after the popping of another bubble.
If you want to reply to my stuff you have to keep reading after the first sentence.
ETA: if you want to reply to the thread you have to remember who said what.
OK.
I'll keep it simple.
Do you think the economy needs a short-term fix and/or a long-term restructuring?
How would you do it?
I would let failing companies fail.
Repeated attempts at ill-advised a "short term fix" have put us where we are.
I can agree to disagree w/o insisting that your approach is a failure....particularly before it has been fully implemented.
It is a failure because they promised us that it would avoid a 10% unemployment rate. Fail. They promised us millions of jobs. Fail
Along with the fact that I dont feel a need to characterize anyone as Nazis, cunts, whores.... or calling other members liars...and prefer focusing on the issues.
I have not called other members that I have called members of Congress that, but only because they are. Everyone of them should be fired. And I do think that the Demoncrats are in for a few changes if they don't kill each other off first.
And you still havent offered a better solution. Tax cuts? Leave it to the free market? Focus on short term deficit reduction rather than long term economic growth?
I have offered plenty of suggestions. You can go back and re-read my posts.
I am fine with Keynes, except that Keynes never took deficits into account. Nevertheless, I think the stimulus has been somewhat successful, and a good idea - we had a super 4th quarter 2009. There is no need for an additional stimulus. I don't believe the government can do much for job creation.
Bush's spending hurt more than the tax cuts; if you're going to cut tax, you also cut spending when better times come around. That's Keynesian too.
Imagine if we had started the bursting bubble with a budget surplus. That's where we should have been. Then we could have spent to stimulate without walking the deficit tightrope.
It may take this Congress from all parties to commit political suicide, which none of them are willing to do. Why? Power.can
But can't they still blame Bush and get away with it.
Along with the fact that I dont feel a need to characterize anyone as Nazis, cunts, whores....
True - except for your signature which is in EVERY post. . .
"Always with the negative waves MerClassic, always with the negative waves."
True - except for your signature which is in EVERY post. . .
Someone's a little touchy today.
You post a series of "gotcha" with the stimulus funding...that doesnt tell the whole story.
So, I provide additional details...and that pisses you off so your
comeback is that the facts I provided are "biased" (very Merc like).
You bitch about the banks...then attack me when I point out proposed legislation that address the problem...and then go silent when I ask what you would propose. Again, very Merc like (who, btw, was
both for and against bank/financial services regulations in the turn of two posts earlier in this thread.)
I can play "gotcha" right back at you. You dont like it? Too bad. :D
You post a series of "gotcha" with the stimulus funding...that doesnt tell the whole story.
Incorrect - BIASED PARTISAN SPIN - Strike 1
I posted information available from the stimuluswatch.com site.
I found it interesting what some of the money was spent on.
You got all bent out of shape about it.
You bitch about the banks...
Incorrect again - Strike two
I posted that Obama is playing both sides of the fence. You again got all defensive...
then attack me
Strike three - you're out
Incorrect - BIASED PARTISAN SPIN - Strike 1
I posted information available from the stimuluswatch.com site.
I found it interesting what some of the money was spent on.
You got all bent out of shape about it.
No...you got all bent out of shape when I provided factual information to supplement your "gotcha" posts....and played the Merc "anything the Obama govt says is lies or biased" card.
Incorrect again - Strike two
I posted that Obama is playing both sides of the fence. You again got all defensive...
The record speaks for itself...
Read back through the discussion of banking regulations earlier on this thread and the part where you got all bent out of shape and accused me of attacking a "respected member of the community" and then starting whining when I asked you for your solution.
You attack people and then come back with a "who me...i was just joking" when you're called out on it.
When you attempt to play "gotcha"...dont be such a fucking baby when I play back.
....and played the Merc "anything the Obama govt says is lies or biased"
That is because it is pretty much a true statement out of this groups of scumbags.
And when you attempt to play "gotcha"...dont be such a fucking baby when I play back.
Watch out now Classic, he said fuck.:p
Watch out now Classic, he said fuck.:p
Classic is safe..he hides beyond you and plays the innocent victim.
You're beyond hope for any objective discussion. Classic is a still a work in progress...but he has been edging closer to the dark side lately. :)
No...you got all bent out of shape when I provided factual information to supplement your "gotcha" posts....
sorry - that is a distortion of the truth - your bias is showing again. I won't repeat myself again.
When you attempt to play "gotcha"...dont be such a fucking baby when I play back.
Should I go the tw route and call your wife a "gonorrhea dripping whore?" Is that what you'd prefer? Is that what you are into.
I'm getting tired, REALLY tired of your word games.
Classic is safe..he hides beyond you and plays the innocent victim.
I'm not a victim at all.
Classic is a still a work in progress...but he has been edging closer to the dark side lately.
With assholes like you, I welcome the dark side right about now.
I'll make it simple for you.
Show me how this
DoAg report is biased or not factual...post the evidence
Or do you have any evidence that it was a payoff to an Obama supporter as you suggested.....then post that evidence.
Or the
self-reporting by the company as required by law. You have evidence that the job figures are wrong...post the evidence.
To suggest they are biased or Obama administration lies is just bullshit.
Personally, I'm getting REALLY tired of reading from you and Merc that anything from the Obama administration is a lie or biased.
Back it up with facts or I will keep calling you out on it.....and you can cry me a river. :bawling:
I'll make it simple for you.
Show me how this DoAg report is biased or not factual...biased or not factual
Show us all where the stimulus.org info is biased or not factual... biased or not factual
Or do you have any evidence that it was a payoff to an Obama supporter......then post that evidence.
Where'd that one come from?
Or the www.recovery.gov You have evidence that the job figures are wrong...post the evidence.
I already reported what I read from an independent link. Are you hard of reading or what?
To suggest they are biased or Obama administration lies is just bullshit. I cry me a river.
Personally, I'm getting REALLY tired of reading from you and Merc that anything from the Obama administration is a lie or biased.
There ya go again. Take up your issues with Merc on his posts.
Back it up or shut the fuck up or I will keep calling you out on it.....and you can cry me a river.
Ohhhh weeee, I'm skeered now. Whatcha gonna do post an animated punch.gif?
You are losing your composure. We disagree - we have posted conflicting information. Yours comes from your administration/coworkers/lobbyist friends . . . so you CHOOSE to believe it. I got mine from an independent source, so I CHOOSE to believe that. Are you hard of reading? Shall I post in all caps for you.
Show us all where the stimulus.org info is biased or not factual... biased or not factual
I never disputed the factual nature of the Stimulus Watch site...just the fact that it does not tell the full story.
Why are you so afraid of more facts or a more complete picture to supplement (not contradict) that site or immediately question the validity of the supplemental information I provided?
Your words:
I'll still take the word of the independent source over the biased one.
Looking over stimuluswatch.com, there seems to be many many such programs. Yes there are some related to infrastructure, but there are so many that seem to have nothing to do with building anything. I wonder how many of these organizations/companies/corporations that got these grants are "friends" of political people. I would guess a whole bunch of them.
Where is the evidence of "bias" in that DoAG report or the filing from the company (not govt figures on jobs, but from the company that is required to report those figures)?
Where is the evidence of "friends" of political people.
It is typical Merc (and UG) bullshit and you've evidently joined the club. You're great at posting links that may be factual but only tell half the story.
added:
BTW, you also made an ignorant, uninformed comment on the cops funding in Miami based on your factual source:
Contract: The City of Miami to hire 50 police officers. $11,086,850 Jobs created so far...Zero
Um - thats like over $200,000 per officer. WTH?
You jumped right on the "facts" (less than complete) from the site and assumed the worst because it fit your agenda.
Thats what you do. Half truths or a less than complete set of facts are evidently enough for you to make an "informed" decision.
More of those negative waves, dude.
I corrected you on that one as well....
And I didnt call anyone an asshole or make comments about anyone's wife...that was you, dude.
Where is the evidence of "friends" of political people.
I never said there was - I simply asaid I wondered about who got these grants and opened the possibility of it to discussion. You took offense and screamed bloody murder. You act as though it never happens. I call Bullshit on that. It happens every day and you probably make your living from it. You've already acmitted to being associated with a lobbyist firm.
You jumped right on the "facts" (less than complete) from the site and assumed the worst because it fit your agenda.
See thats your problem - you have an agenda and incorrectly assume everyone else does as well.
And I didnt call anyone an asshole or make comments about anyone's wife...that was you, dude.
Wrong again - that was tw - it happened right here and is well documented.
I'll still take the word of the independent source over the biased one.
Where is the evidence of "bias" in that DoAG report or the filing from the company (not govt figures on jobs, but from the company that is required to report those figures)?
You certainly should be able to answer that if the source is biased.
Why is telling the more complete story mean having an agenda as opposed to telling a less complete story or providing less documented information?
Your interpretation:
[INDENT]Contract: Small Turkey Deli Breasts $5,379,000 Willmar MN Jobs created...unreported. Great accounting (
no agenda?) ....I wish I could find out how this works, $5 million plus ...for turkey breasts? (
no agenda?) nice going. (
no agenda?)[/INDENT]
No agenda....bullshit.
My interpretation:
[INDENT]Project Report:$5 million for 2.9 million lbs for domestic food assistance programs....less than $2/lb....seems like a reasonable price...Jobs created - 285.[/INDENT]
Now who has an agenda(based on less than a full picture of the project) and who provided more factual information, unless you have evidence to the contrary?
You have made your disdain for the stimulus program clear in numerous negative posts, which is your right; just man up to it.
This was just the latest example.
Everyone has an agenda with the exception of you and Merc.....same old story.
I never said there was - I simply asaid I wondered about who got these grants and opened the possibility of it to discussion. You took offense and screamed bloody murder.
Why do you again post accusations and never any facts. When do you post something factual that must stand scrutiny? You never do. You are very good as subliminal attacks and subjective claims. When you cannot prove something, then you challenge others to provide facts.
Put up some facts for your claims. You are not the victim here. You are the problem. Post some facts rather than taking cheap shots at reality. Your challenges used to mask a shortage of facts is tiring. And what Limbaugh encourages neocons to do.
Or was it all Clintons fault - as you are routinely posting in so many threads. That is your political agenda showing. You could at least put your skirt back on and cover it up.
I posted facts tommy - try reading for a change, instead of writing.
Redux, still itching eh? I posted all I have to say on this - You have your opinion and I have mine. Do you not realize that no matter how many times you repeat the same thing that will not change?
I posted facts tommy - try reading for a change, instead of writing.
Redux, still itching eh? I posted all I have to say on this - You have your opinion and I have mine. Do you not realize that no matter how many times you repeat the same thing that will not change?
Right..you dont have an agenda.....you just assume that the data from the DoAg and the company in question is biased....but of course, you cant provide any documentation.
And everyone else has an agenda.
You are right..I have an agenda...exposing your bullshit for what it is!
uh, that would you be repeating yourself again. Me and my bullshit??? Yeh right! Perhaps you should contact the independent source, stimuluswatch.org, I quoted and take it up with them. Perhaps you can talk down to them and they'll listen.
By the way - Posting, re-posting and re-re-posting the same thing doesn't work - Aside from tw, most here read it the first time.
uh, that would you be repeating yourself again. Me and my bullshit??? Yeh right! Perhaps you should contact the independent source, stimuluswatch.org, I quoted and take it up with them. Perhaps you can talk down to them and they'll listen.
By the way - Posting, re-posting and re-re-posting the same thing doesn't work - Aside from tw, most here read it the first time.
Hey...no problem.
You post less than complete information...bitch and whine when it is supplemented and your assumptions exposed as false...call the supplemental information biased..but cant document that bias.
You've been exposed for all to see.
added:
you certainly didnt complain about my perspective or sources when you PM me wanting suggestions to help with someone's school paper. got an A on that paper if I recall.
fucking hypocrite.
Gee now my feelings are hurt. I've been called a "fucking hypocrite" on the internet by a self admitted lobbyist.
No reason for hurt feelings.
Just put your skirt back on as TW suggested...your agenda has been exposed and may experience snow blindness to match your blind accusations and false assumptions.
Maybe Merc can help you with your next school paper.
Redux, give it up. You'll never make him see what a fucking senseless hypocrite he is. You helped his kid get an A on a paper (had to be his kid, who the fuck else would he need to help with a school paper, merc?). Yep, using, lying, and the need to be what he considers "in" negates any personal conviction or integrity.
You would think the effort on your part, and the fact he thought you knew enough that you could help his kid with his homework, would have warranted a "hey you guys, this guy ain't so bad after all....listen how he helped me!" In-fucking-grate of the highest magnitude, and then he would have to admit an alliance with an outsider.
Sometimes it just boils over. Don't you get it yet class? Your line of senseless posts and your circling around looking for a place to shit and your jumping up in the tall grass to see what all the other dogs are doing has been exposed. You should be ashamed, except you're not self-aware enough to realize your idiocy is a flashing neon light to most except yourself and those who love that you're their sycophant. Your friends, my friend (HA!) keep you around for reasons like needing to be worshipped and needing your business. That, and nothing else.
And now, I'm out.
About time for spexxie to jump in too
Why not? Your jumpers will be here any time now. This is YOUR typical MO. Patience, we take longer to catch on to what everyone else is doing, being free-thinking and without the need for the acceptance of the masses.
I don't have any jumpers. Just lil ole me with my own opinions.
I try not to get into political conversations. No point. After all - it's those damn liberals fault anyway.
They did create sin and everything else that's bad. :p:
Why not? Your jumpers will be here any time now. This is YOUR typical MO. Patience, we take longer to catch on to what everyone else is doing, being free-thinking and without the need for the acceptance of the masses.
What I find most appalling ...not at the Cellar-level where I dont give a crap what MerClassic thinks..but in the larger political arena, that there are so many who will rely on one source of information and proclam they have the facts, even knowing that while it may be factual, it does not tell the whole story.
Its the Fox "fair and balanced" approach to discourse.
But it suits their agenda and they can claim they have the facts...just not all the facts.
To limit your knowledge in that manner for fear of learing more that may lead you to *gasp* rethink your position is a self-imposed sentence of ignorance.
Sad commentary that plays out even in this corner of the world.
Or maybe they are just afraid of offending their buddies here or demonstrating a little independent thinking...a sign of weakness?
..but in the larger political arena, that there are so many who will rely on one source of information and proclaim they have the facts, even knowing that while it may be factual, it does not tell the whole story.
Even worse, it makes insightful and analytic discussion mostly impossible. Always necessary are the reasons why. When one is posting a political mantra - without reasons why – the diatribe insults all who learn why before knowing something. Turns discussions nasty. Cheap shots make no contribution to interesting or relevant conversation.
Cheap shots and hateful propaganda is what Sharon did to restart the Intifada. Serbs did it to incite hate in the Balkans. How a massacre was justified in Rwanda and Brunei. Of course an early master was Hitler. Disparage the bourgeois and intelligencia. Then the resulting breakdown of analytic discussion simply empowered his Brownshirts.
Morethanpretty noted this attitude in
Choosing network adapter in the Technology board.
The cheapshot at TW before he ever even posted in this thread was very unwarranted and bad taste. I don't appreciate it in the politics threads (any of the cheap shots taken by anyone), but shit like that needs to stay in those threads. I generally stay away from them because I don't like all the personal attacks. I hate that the politics threads are so immature and unpleasant because of it,
To all non-American Cellar dwellers. Years ago, was a warning how confrontational Fox News/Limbaugh rhetoric has made America. The resulting silence told me back then that nobody outside of America appreciated the confrontational attitude. Why "Mission Accomplished" was so necessary when it was so obviously a lie. And why so many Americans thought nothing of kidnapping any other foreigners (extraordinary rendition) because they 'might be evil'. How many back then did not realize a confrontational Fox News, Limbaugh, et al even consider American allies as second class and subordinate peoples? How many did not realize back in 2003 and 2005 how confrontational and adversarial America has become?
Scary how many just know from only one source of information. When Fox News anchormen snicker during news stories so that you know what political agenda to believe. Snickering news anchormen – even Radio Moscow’s 1960 cold war commentators did not snicker.
It was not a accident that we almost got into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. How many non-American understand a dangerous that mindset of a large American minority that even consider torture to be normal and acceptable behavior.
I don't know about Fox news, but heartily enjoy and endorse torture. I further deduce you do as well. How else to explain your posts?
There has been much debate — and plenty of criticism — lately about how successful the federal government’s economic stimulus plan has been in creating new jobs. And a recent ABC News report regarding the issue is sure to add fuel to the fire.
According to the network, a West Texas wind farm project is scheduled to receive $450 million in stimulus money, a project that is expected to create 300 construction jobs and roughly 2,000 manufacturing jobs. But those manufacturing jobs — the building of the turbine engines — will not be in the United States. A Chinese company is building them.
The language in the economic stimulus bill designates money for alternative energy projects but does not restrict where the equipment is made, or how the money can be spent in purchasing it.
Nearly $8 out of every $10 in stimulus dollars for wind projects is being spent overseas, according to the ABC report, a disturbing statistic especially in light of a national unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent.
Missed mark
We support alternative energy programs and governmental efforts to create jobs to put American workers back to work. But this is clearly not the way to achieve either goal.
Many economists credit the stimulus package with saving jobs, but falling far short of creating the new jobs as promised when the initial measure was approved a year ago.
There is evidence of an economic recovery, but that has yet to translate into jobs. The only bright spot is a decline in job losses, but unemployment remains high. As a result, there is renewed talk in Washington of yet another stimulus package.
LinkYou only needed to have watched ABC News Feb. 9 to find another reason that the average, working, or in this case, not-working American, has to be furious with our leadership in Washington, D.C. Two billion dollars of stimulus money has been appropriated for the building of wind turbines, one step on our way to cleaner energy.
Eighty percent, yes, 80 percent, of that money has already or will go to China to manufacture these machines. China is employing thousands of workers to meet the demand, while workers here in that field of manufacturing go begging for work.
A new wind farm just being built in west Texas was used as an example.
Only 300 construction jobs, installing the turbines here, will go to American workers. The machines are being made in China by a facility that employs 2,000 workers.
LinkOld news. The West Texas wind project has been controversial since it was announced last November.
Should it be canceled? Maybe.
But it also resulted in a long-term agreement between US Renewable Energy Group and A Power Energy Generation Systems (the China company) to:
... construct "a new production and assembly plant in the United States that will supply highly advanced wind energy turbines to renewable energy projects throughout North and South America.... produce 1,100 megawatts of wind energy turbines annually, enough to power 330,000 homes. Upon completion, the facility is expected to employ approximately 1,000 American workers and will create additional jobs during the construction process.
http://www.us-reg.com/news/
It is true that the turbines for the West Texas project will come from China and not this yet-to-be-built facility.
But would this long-term agreement have come about w/o the initial stimulus funding? I dont know? Do you?
Right now, we cant compete with Chinese on wind turbine technology. Will this new facility help make the US more competitive or at least become the manufacturing source for turbines on other US wind projects in the future? I would hope so but I dont know? Do you?
Welcome to the world of multi-national companies.
If your agenda is to find questionable projects among the thousands awarded.....you win!
If you are suggesting the stimulus program has been a failure in its first year (with less than half the funds spent) and hasnt created jobs and contributed to slowing/ending the recession.....many economists will disagree.
IMt certainly hasnt been perfect, but its been good for the economy.
added:
Once again, a single article/opinion column or news report will often not tell the whole story, by design, laziness or incompetence. If one stops inquiring after reading just one article/opinion column...is it by design because it fits one's agenda or laziness and a preference for looking at issues as black or white and never considering shades of gray?
This is a particular example, in my opinion, of a really shitty situation. Having that much money go to China?
Our stimulus money was to be spent creating jobs here and investing in America. We shouldn't be sending 80% of the money to China of all places. 1,600,000 for China and 400,000 for American workers?
What is wrong with you, where is the outrage? Why are you so silent on these types of things. Isn't it an Americans responsibility to hold their Gov't accountable? Shouldn't we be trying to stop this?
If we are going to spend untold billions stimulating OUR economy, then we should be utilizing it here in our country for our people, not sending it to China of all places.
Your thoughts? "Old news", a "maybe" and "I don't know" and a few backhanded cheapshots. Bravo.
Personally, I thought you were more objective than that.
ETA:
By the way - Do you know who "the team" is from your link? You may find it interesting. It should answer a lot of questions as to why this is happening. Google the
names from your link.
I'll make it simple for you.
Show me how this DoAg report is biased or not factual...post the evidence
Or do you have any evidence that it was a payoff to an Obama supporter as you suggested.....then post that evidence.
Or the self-reporting by the company as required by law. You have evidence that the job figures are wrong...post the evidence.
To suggest they are biased or Obama administration lies is just bullshit.
Personally, I'm getting REALLY tired of reading from you and Merc that anything from the Obama administration is a lie or biased.
Back it up with facts or I will keep calling you out on it.....and you can cry me a river. :bawling:
First stimulus package:
"Millions of shovel ready jobs." = Lie.
The list is really pretty solid.:D
This administration is so full of bullshit. And now this is how they are going to manipulate the job numbers....
The initial guidance captured jobs for a period of time longer than a quarter (February through September). The new guidance captures jobs for a single quarter (e.g., October through December). In addition, the new guidance eliminates the distinction between a job created and a job retained. Jobs are now simply based on the number of hours worked in a quarter that were paid for by Recovery funds.
What a load of crap.
And sooner or later the money will be gone... as I asked before then what?
Well here ya go...
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The nation's public schools are falling under severe financial stress as states slash education spending and drain federal stimulus money that staved off deep classroom cuts and widespread job losses.
School districts have already suffered big budget cuts since the recession began two years ago, but experts say the cash crunch will get a lot worse as states run out of stimulus dollars.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100214/D9DS59VG0.html
Right back where they started before millions of taxpayer dollars.
I understand completely.
You live in a black and white world when it comes to anything this administration does.
Either it has to be 100% perfect or it is a failure.
Try applying that same standard to your own lives....which might explain why you (Merc) are so bitter and angry.
classic:
you didnt answer my questions.
Will that agreement to build a turbine facility in the US have come about w/o the stimulus first? That new facility will certainly create jobs and make the US more competitive in the long run.
It is called gray areas...something evidently, you refuse to consider.
I said, if your agenda is to find questionable stimulus projects among the thousands awarded, you will.
You can apply the same standard to other large govt program - using that standard, TANF (welfare), SNAP (food stamps) are failures because a very small percentage of recipients abuse the system and should be abolished. The same wingnut ideological arguments.
Black and white ideological thinking.
IMO, it is a failed way of thinking.
And please dont talk to me about objectivity when you are so narrow minded in your own thinking.
My "agenda" if there is one, is to note the waste and abuse of my tax dollars and those of my children's and at this point THEIR children's. Obama doesn't need any more cheerleaders. If you expect me to rah rah all day, you will certainly be sadly mistaken.
However, if and when I find abuse or something that seems as though it is a waste, I will certainly bring it up for dissection and discussion.
You questions - lets see.
Will that agreement to build a turbine facility in the US have come about w/o the stimulus first?
How the hell would I know? A guess, probably not. Congress has apparently been too busy focused on healthcare to do much of anything else.
Will this new facility help make the US more competitive or at least become the manufacturing source for turbines on other US wind projects in the future? I would hope so but I dont know? Do you?
Same answer as your first question. Would the 1.4 BILLION be better spent going towards that same goal? Being spent here in America or sent to China. I can't see how it wouldn't.
Now its your turn to answer mine from post #1117 and give detailed info on the "team" from your link in post #1116.
My "agenda" if there is one, is to note the waste and abuse of my tax dollars and those of my children's and at this point THEIR children's. Obama doesn't need any more cheerleaders. If you expect me to rah rah all day, you will certainly be sadly mistaken.
However, if and when I find abuse or something that seems as though it is a waste, I will certainly bring it up for dissection and discussion.
You questions - lets see.
How the hell would I know? A guess, probably not. Congress has apparently been too busy focused on healthcare to do much of anything else.
Same answer as your first question. Would the 1.4 BILLION be better spent going towards that same goal? Being spent here in America or sent to China. I can't see how it wouldn't.
Now its your turn to answer mine from post #1117 and give detailed info on the "team" from your link in post #1116.
You made my point....you're a black and white kinda guy....looking for the easy answers...and its not that easy.
And dont give me that crap that your noble agenda is looking after the taxpayers money. I care just as much about the economy and the country. I just try to look from a more comprehensive perspective.
Your question? So the company in question has Washington experience? Nothing new.
You want to focus on the negatives rather than the positives and find failure in every Obama program...have at it, dude.
I look for the good and understand and accept that it wont be perfect, but am comfortable with the outcome as long as the good is much greater than the bad.
'
And, IMO, and the opinion of many economists, the stimulus program has been good for the economy. You dont agree with me and those economists....fine.....but dont suggest that your shallow black and white approach to thinking is better.
As to respect...from one who asks for my help privately on one occasion and my understanding of issues on another occasion and then mocks my sources and attacks me publicly? That is respect? Take it somewhere else, dude.
What a cop-out. You again avoided the questions, attacked the poster and then try to discuss respect? :headshake
What is this "Washington experience" you mentioned? Please elaborate. I don't want to, how did you put it,
If one stops inquiring after reading just one article/opinion column...is it by design because it fits one's agenda or laziness and a preference for looking at issues as black or white and never considering shades of gray?
. . .seems like that shoe is on your foot.
What a cop-out. You again avoided the questions, attacked the poster and then try to discuss respect? :headshake
Right back at you.....yes, I mean you, fucking hypocrite.
What is this "Washington experience" you mentioned? Please elaborate. I don't want to, how did you put it,
I got a $500,000 grant from the GHW Bush DoJ when I worked at the NCPC. Does that make it a political payoff or make me a Bush supporter?
Shallow thinking again, dude...or just ignorant.
sorry I edited my post while you were insulting me.
sorry I edited my post while you were insulting me.
facts...you ask me for help privately and insult me publicly. should I post the PMs?
Well that would be unfortunate, but you do what you gotta do. For what its worth, the P in PM stands for private. I never denied asking if you had any links for a kid who was writing a paper for a school project. Nor do I know why that has become applicable here. Trust me, it will be the last PM you ever get from me. Knowing now that you cannot be trusted to keep something private.
Well that would be unfortunate, but you do what you gotta do. For what its worth, the P in PM stands for private.
Private? Sorta like videotaping private conservations (with leading questions) at ACORN offices that you had no problem with being exposed publicly?
Hypocrite?
While trying to stay on topic, here is what I found about this group.
Cappy McGarr - Began his career at Goldman, Sachs & Co
He runs McGarr Capital Holdings. He's a big-time donor to the Democratic Party.
Link
Link
Cappy R. McGarr campaign contributions:
(Donations of $3,000 or more during 2007-2008 cycle)
Obama for America - $8,000 on 6/24/2008
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - $10,000 on 6/28/2007
Great Plains Leadership Fund - $5,000 on 3/2/2007
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - $10,000 on 3/27/2008
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - $10,000 on 10/31/2007
Democratic National Committee - $10,000 on 9/27/2007
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - $5,000 on 4/17/2008
Contributions to political organizations (other than PACs or campaigns):
Barack Obama inauguration - $50,000
09/24/2008 Committee for Change $28,500
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ed Cunningham - serving as
a member of President Barack Obama’s National Finance Committee, the Presidential Advisory Committee (Technology), the U.S. Foreign Affairs Budget Project Advisory Committee, the American Academy of Diplomacy (Co-Director of International Negotiations Program), the Democratic National Committee National Advisory Committee, a U.S. Senate Candidate and a City Councilman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Moses Boyd -
2010 Democratic Political Donations 12/$43,100
2008 Democratic Political Donations 20/$24,850
Combined total 10 years prior - - - - - - $1,500
ISG Government Relations Consultants -
[B]Washington Lobbying and Government Relations Firm
[/B]
G. John O'Hanlon — ISG Washington, D.C.
Moses Boyd — ISG Washington, D.C.
Adam S. Olsen — ISG Washington, D.C.
Brian Murphy — ISG Washington, D.C.
Mychal S. Boyd — ISG Washington, D.C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
G. John O’Hanlon
Co-founded The Washing Group. Mr. O’Hanlon was a hands-on manager of this
well-known Washington, D.C. lobbying firm. Board member of the Democratic National Committee’s Jefferson Trust, Trustee for the Kerry/DNC for President Campaign and has remained active with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Also affiliated with the lobbying firm - Clark & Weinstock who states
We work hard to introduce clients to key policy makers, helping clients build their reputation, and become a well-known and trusted resource among the most important policy makers - impacting public policy outcomes.
Like maybe getting a 2 billion dollar deal to your own company perhaps?
Clients include - Goldman Sachs, Federal Home Loan Mortgage (Freddie Mac), Health Net Federal Services, Health Net, Inc., Capital Blue Cross...
Link
One could spend hours documenting the affiliations of these people within the current administration. Everything I have seen proves to me that these people are Democratic lobbyists, insiders and campaign donors who are abusing the system and the stimulus program for their own personal gain.
Perhaps you know some of these people, Redux? Perhaps you are one of them? Why do you so hate America as to not say anything about this? Why are you not outraged?
So the stimulus program is a failure because in one (or even a few) documented cases, "friends" got grants!
Even if the grant leveraged the construction of a new facility to expand US wind tunnel technology to make the US more competitive in the long term....it sucks!
You obviously think this particular project should be canceled. I dont think it is that black and white or that simple..if it would risk losing a huge $billion investment in wind turbine technology for the US.
A couple of questionable smelling apples in the barrel and in your judgment, the whole barrel stinks.
And the earlier outrage in your "taxpayers" crusade...the turkey breasts and the cops grants that created jobs and provided services.....were a fucking joke.
It doesnt a change a damn thing about your cheap and cowardly and hypocritical tactics of criticizing me repeatedly publicly on policy sources after asking for my advice privately for such "biased" sources. You certainly didnt complain about the "bias" when you needed it.
For the record, that is what pissed me off.
Respect? You lost it with that (and evidently, not just from me) and I'll criticize posts that I think are shallow and ideological and keep calling you out.
I try not to get into political conversations. No point. After all - it's those damn liberals fault anyway.
They did create sin and everything else that's bad. :p:
Without us Liberals, there'd be no fun at all.:D
So the stimulus program is a failure because in one (or even a few) documented cases, "friends" got grants!
Is that an admission? finally.
You obviously think this particular project should be canceled.
False - I simply want the money going to American companies not China.
I dont think it is that black and white or that simple..if it would risk losing a huge $billion investment in wind turbine technology for the US.
CHINA is getting the $1.4 BILLION
America is only getting $600million
That disparity is my issue.
It doesnt a change a damn thing about your cheap and cowardly and hypocritical tactics of criticizing me repeatedly publicly on policy sources after asking for my advice privately for such "biased" sources. You certainly didn't complain about the "bias" when you needed it.
Insult, insult, insult and then the PM again - look either post it or shut up about it.
Respect? You lost it with that (and evidently, not just from me)
Oh well. Trust me no tears will be shed on my end.
CHINA is getting the $1.4 BILLION
America is only getting $600million
That disparity is my issue.
You have a source link (not AU/ABC) that China is getting $1.4 billion? You accept it as factual because an AU/ABC report said so..even though it is not what the report even said?
You should be able to provide the grant award docs if they exist....unless you think official award documents are biased like the DoAg doc.
A Chinese company is getting that .4 billion for the West Texas project and as a result, it will leverage more than $1 billion to build a new wind turbine facility in the US that will result in long-term jobs and making the US more competitive.
Where is that other $1 billion to China? It may exist, but I cant find it.
In the West Texas project, the grant is exporting jobs to a Chinese company for one project, on a one-time basis, to supply the turbines. I agree that is bad.
And in return the Chinese company is exporting the wind turbine technology to a US company as well as funding to build a facility in the US to manufacture the turbines in the future that will provide more jobs on more projects in the US and make the US more competitive. I think that is very good.
IMO, the very good outweighs the bad and the US is getting the better end of the deal in the long term.
In the West Texas project, the grant is exporting jobs to a Chinese company for one project, on a one-time basis, to supply the turbines. I agree that is bad.
thank you.
And in return the Chinese company is exporting the wind turbine technology to a US company as well as funding to build a facility in the US to manufacture the turbines in the future that will provide more jobs in the US and make the US more competitive. I think that is very good.
IMO, the very good outweighs the bad.
I have more difficulty determining that, but I cannot disagree as I just don't know.
I spent the last hour trying to find out what the deal is. I was unsuccessful.
/cheapshot/ so much for transparency /end cheapshot/
I still have a hard time giving all that money to Obama's lobbyist cronies company. No matter how you slice it thats even worse. Even if it is "the way things work" thats still really fucked up.
My final point on this.
Having a different perspective than you or relying on government sources/docs doesnt make those docs biased or my perspective any less objective than yours.
Fair enough, However, when questioning a Gov't, citing that same Gov't seems somewhat illogical to me.
Fair enough, However, when questioning a Gov't, citing that same Gov't seems somewhat illogical to me.
Fair enough. Then document or provide evidence that the
DoAg project award document or the
company's self-reporting data (not govt data) is biased.
Blanket assertions of bias seem somewhat illogical (and biased) to me.
After all, that is what started the disagreement.
I understand what you are saying. No blanket assertions. How about some independent corroboration though?
Taking the defendant's statements and ignoring the witnesses is kinda how I'm looking at it. I don't trust gov't enough for that.
I understand what you are saying. No blanket assertions. How about some independent corroboration though?
Taking the defendant's statements and ignoring the witnesses is kinda how I'm looking at it. I don't trust gov't enough for that.
If you insist on a legal analogy, how about "innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to "guilty until corroborated independently"
The burden of proof should be on the one making the accusation of bias....not the other way around.
Yeh ok. Lets just miss the point entirely - again.
I'm not comfortable believing only the one with the most to gain/lose. To me, an independent source is preferable.
Yeh ok. Lets just miss the point entirely - again.
I'm not comfortable believing only the one with the most to gain/lose. To me, an independent source is preferable.
Nope...I got it.
You just confirmed the point that tw makes repeatedly.
Conservatives take the position that they are in the right to make accusations but dont have to back those accusations up with facts. Its the Limbaugh tactic.
Un*fucking*believable.
I understand completely.
You live in a black and white world when it comes to anything this administration does.
Either it has to be 100% perfect or it is a failure.
Try applying that same standard to your own lives....which might explain why you (Merc) are so bitter and angry.
For example? Please describe what you understand about my life and what makes me bitter and angry?
Why wouldn't you take the independent source of information over one that has much to gain/lose which is thereby inherently biased towards their own agenda?
I really don't get that.
ETA - I am not saying that the information doesn't need to be backed up at all. All I am saying that I would prefer an independent source of information.
Why don't you?
Why wouldn't you take the independent source of information over one that has much to gain/lose which is thereby inherently biased towards their own agenda?
I really don't get that.
ETA - I am not saying that the information doesn't need to be backed up at all. All I am saying that I would prefer an independent source of information.
Why don't you?
You are twisting the argument again.
Look back at the first example.
You described the source documents I provided as being biased and/or false and yet, you would not or could not provide evidence of such bias...but rather imposed the burden of evidence on me to prove it wasnt biased.
If you make the charge that a source is biased...PROVE IT!
I am all for holding the government accountable...with FACTS, not rumors, innuendos and/or unsubstantiated allegations.
That is a typical "School of Limbaugh" tactic - claim "bias/false/lies" but cannot or will not prove it or substantiate the charge.
And, yes...still un*fucking*believable...no matter how you attempt to twist it.
Anything published by the Administration and this Congress is biased. It is as true now as it was before. Maybe that is why Bayh is quitting.
Perhaps I was unclear - If so, sorry. I'm not trying to twist anything. I'm trying to get information from independent sources, sources other than the Gov't. If you get what I'm saying now, please respond to that. If not. . .dunno.
And for the record, again, I don't watch/see/hear/read....Limbaugh so I'll defer to you & tw who seem to know much more about him & whatever his opinions are.
Perhaps I was unclear - If so, sorry. I'm not trying to twist anything. I'm trying to get information from independent sources, sources other than the Gov't. If you get what I'm saying now, please respond to that. If not. . .dunno.
Nope...I dont "get it".
You are making unfounded or undocumented allegations against any government source document and, by extension, not only discrediting the source w/o proof, but the person posting as well.
Its cheap and disengenuous.
As I said...I am all for holding the government accountable...with FACTS, not rumors, innuendos and/or unsubstantiated allegations.
And I give up trying to "get it".
You are making unfounded or undocumented allegations against any government source document and, by extension, not only discrediting the source w/o proof, but the person posting as well.
Its cheap and disengenuous.
And I give up trying to "get it".
:nadkick:
Nope...I dont "get it".
And I give up trying to "get it".
Gotcha. Trying to use INDEPENDENT SOURCES is a bad thing. One must accept the Gov't for what they say. Thats your plan - ok.
Now I understand where we differ.
You want to use them as your only source of information and I want other corroborating information from independent sources.
Gotcha. Trying to use INDEPENDENT SOURCES is a bad thing. One must accept the Gov't for what they say. Thats your plan - ok.
Now I understand where we differ.
You want to use them as your only source of information and I want other corroborating information from independent sources.
Damn, dude. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
That is not what I said at all.
Please read my post objectively.
I am all for holding the government accountable...with FACTS, not rumors, innuendos and/or unsubstantiated allegations.
BUT...if you are making unfounded or undocumented allegations against any government source document...PROVE iT!
Now it is totaly un*fucking" believeable.
Sorry - I was simply following your lead.
All I am saying is that I want unbiased, independent information from someone other than the Gov't. What the hell is wrong with that?
I give up.
You have worn me out on this one.
take two aspirin and we'll start again in the morning.
I'll do that.
And I'll also be waiting for you to post any evidence from your lead:
I'll still take the word of the independent source over the biased one.
Not mine/ You suggested
bias in the
DoAg report and
company filing..which, in fact was what started it all.
Where is the
bias in either of these documents that you alleged?
That was my question and it was really a simple question and you twisted it and turned it and dodged the question and continue to dodge it.
You made a charge....back it up!
I'll do that.
And I'll also be waiting for you to post any evidence from your lead:
Where is the bias in either of those documents.
Not mine -- suggesting bias in the DoAg report and company filing..which, in fact was what started it all.
Where is the bias in either of these documents that you alleged?
Its really a simple question.
What a fucking cock.
You ask Classic to step up but you can't do the same your self. Go crawl back under your rock you Policy Wanker.:p:
One simple question.
Where is the evidence of bias in either of those docs.
Classic made the allegation. I asked it to be documented.
What is so fucking hard to understand about that?
I understand the trick to turn it back on me...it sure beats having to come up with the evidence.
I'm on to your tricks...and so are others
You guys didnt invent them....but the tricks are getting stale and you both have been exposed...again.;)
What a fucking cock.
Wacko extremists who know - and forget to first learn reality ... must then post profanity. You obscenities only confirm lower intelligence. Stop it. Or we must discuss which head your thoughts come from. You have nothing to contribute. So keep your cheap shot, extremist inspired profanity to yourself.
.
I actually think it is pretty funny.
Classic goes on a "gotcha" raid and finds the grant to Jennie-O Foods for $5+ million and proceeds to make sarcastic uninformed comments:
Contract: Small Turkey Deli Breasts $5,379,000 Willmar MN Jobs created...unreported. Great accounting.
I wish I could find out how this works, $5 million plus... for turkey breasts? nice going.
I provide him with details that does not not contradict his source..but supplements it to "explain how it worked"
Project report .... $5 million for 2.9 million lbs for domestic food assistance programs....less than $2/lb....seems like a reasonable price.
Jobs created - 285.
Rather then acknowledge the information, or God forbid, thank me for the additional details....he then proceeds with more sacasm and to trash the source as biased:
Oh I'm sorry - How could I have possibly misinterpreted you. :eyebrow:
I'll still take the word of the independent source over the biased one.
.
Come on...now thats funny...in a wingnut sorta way.
Then it became a matter of more twisting and dodging...still unwilling to acknowledge the additional information....digging his heals in on the unsubstantiated "bias" charge.
And at that point it went from funny to pathetic, particularly with the added hypocrisy.
Then back to funny again with even more twisting and dodging....and the insightful contributions from Merc.
Promises are made to be broken...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QoG5u_6kjI
John Stossel......one of those "objective, independent" sources?
:rotflol:
Pardon me for borrowing one of your laughs.
How convenient for him to start with a "broken promise" on middle class tax cuts yet ignore the
$288 billion in tax cuts in the stimulus bill (about
1/3 of the entire bill) that will benefit, to some extent, most American taxpayers
Including:
[INDENT]$116 billion in new payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010.
$70 billion for a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009
$15 billion for expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families
$14 billion for expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010
and tax cuts for small businesses:
$15 billion to companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds.[/INDENT]
How could Stossel miss this and instead focus on legislation (cap and trade, health care) in which he asserts there were middle class tax increases (wrong) when those final bills didnt even exist.
Caution: Fox fair and balanced at play!
What makes this so funny is the fact that most of the tea baggers and other extremists probably dont even know that many of them got or are getting these tax cuts
*snort out loud*
Snorting is allowed....but no feeding the wingnuts in this zoo!
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Hell no, but if they get wet will they melt or something, or are they like gremlins? Let me know, I can get buckets of water.
Classic:
Are these economic research firms independent enough:
Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.
Yet I’m guessing you don’t think of the stimulus bill as a big success. You’ve read columns (by me, for example) complaining that it should have spent money more quickly. Or you’ve heard about the phantom ZIP code scandal: the fact that a government Web site mistakenly reported money being spent in nonexistent ZIP codes.
And many of the criticisms are valid. The program has had its flaws. But the attention they have received is wildly disproportionate to their importance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1266418846-FZXUDw3YfLqV0XZM6WOE0A
I agree the program has its flaws (less than perfect) and one can quibble with the exact numbers, but to continue to deny that it created or saved hundreds of thousands of jobs or more to-date is simply ideological ignorance.
This is important to note as well:
But the billions of dollars in tax cuts, food stamps and jobless benefits in the stimulus have still made a difference. Since February, aggregate wages and salaries have fallen, while consumer spending has risen. The difference between the two — some $100 billion — has essentially come from stimulus checks.
Hey, Merc ....Dont you think someone should tell Stossel....tax cuts (and other benefits) going back into the economy!
What makes this so funny is the fact that most of the tea baggers and other extremists probably dont even know that many of them got or are getting these tax cuts
True. Sort of like your lot with good ol' W's tax cuts "for the rich".
True. Sort of like your lot with good ol' W's tax cuts "for the rich".
Oh, I was fully aware of the 01 and 03 tax cuts for the top 1%, at a cost of over $1 trillion, and sunsetted in 2010 in the law by Bush and the Republican Congress.
But perhaps you can explain how they provided any economic stimulus?
You have nothing to contribute. So keep your cheap shot, extremist inspired profanity to yourself..
This coming from one who attacked a posters wife by calling her a "gonorrhea dripping whore" and never apologizing?
Where is the bias?
OK I feel as though I have said this a dozen times. . .
I would prefer independent verification from an uninvolved party. When questioning something the Gov't says/does/claims... I would prefer not to just take the Gov'ts word for it or use the same Gov't as proof that what the say is factual/correct/true. Instead I would like corroborating evidence/proof/input from an outside source.
That is all.
This coming from one who attacked a posters wife by calling her a "gonorrhea dripping whore" and never apologizing?
Selective outrage.
I never heard you complain about Merc's constant comparison of a member of Congress to those who committed the worst atrocities of the 20 century...or Lookout's frequent macho need to refer to cunts.
And a broken record:
OK I feel as though I have said this a dozen times. . .
I would prefer independent verification from an uninvolved party. When questioning something the Gov't says/does/claims... I would prefer not to just take the Gov'ts word for it or use the same Gov't as proof that what the say is factual/correct/true. Instead I would like corroborating evidence/proof/input from an outside source.
That is all.
I got it.....just wanted to give you one more chance to answer a direct question in response to your sarcastic, uninformed post on that particular grant in question.
But evidently you prefer making sweeps claims of bias w/o proof. It is certainly more convenient.
Guilty until proven innocent....nice! Not the American way....the MerClassic way!
added:
What? no comment on those independent, objective economic research firms and the jobs created?
John Stossel......one of those "objective, independent" sources?
Not the guy who basically defined consumer watchdog groups, no not him...
How convenient for him to start with a "broken promise" on middle class tax cuts yet ignore the $288 billion in tax cuts in the stimulus bill (about 1/3 of the entire bill) that will benefit, to some extent, most American taxpayers
Which of the lies by Obama, whom was quoted by his own video appearences did you disagree with?
Caution: Fox fair and balanced at play!
Obviously you didnt watch it to the end where they hammered the Republickins...
What makes this so funny is the fact that most of the tea baggers and other extremists probably dont even know that many of them got or are getting these tax cuts
What makes it so ironic is that the Demoncrats don't know how much trouble they are going to be in come Nov and how the electorate is on to their spend, spend, spend, and eventually tax the shit out of the those with jobs to cover their whorish spending. See you in Nov! :D
I never heard you complain about Merc's constant comparison of a member of Congress to those who committed the worst atrocities of the 20 century...
Maybe it is because most of the people are beginning to see (p)elosi for what she really is, a whore of the 21st Century. Spending millions on her jaunts in AirForce jets to tour Italy and Europe. She needs to be tarred and feathered out of D.C. on a pole.:D
I agree the program has its flaws (less than perfect) and one can quibble with the exact numbers...
Well at least you can agree that your people lied to the electorate and tried to bull shit us with their number... and they still are.
Your people are fucked come Nov.;)
Not the guy who basically defined consumer watchdog groups, no not him...
nice dodged....all of the above!
Honest journalism? No mention of $288 billion in tax cuts and yet claiming a broken promise on middle class tax relief. :headshake
Now how about those independent, objective economic research firms?
[IMG]Hey, Merc ....Dont you think someone should tell Stossel....tax cuts (and other benefits) going back into the economy!
Prove it. It is all smoke and mirrors by the Demoncrats and they re-fuck the people in 2010.:rolleyes::blush:
nice dodged....all of the above!
Honest journalism? No mention of $288 billion in tax cuts and yet claiming a broken promise on middle class tax relief. :headshake
Now how about those independent, objective economic research firms?
You can't claim $288 billion in tax cuts while you screw us with fees, cuts to tax relief programs, and tell us you are doing us a favor. Deficit spending abounds.
Pelosi and Obama promised us "Millions of Shovel ready jobs", they lied to get their pork barrel spending voted for. Obama promised us "Transparency", he lied as all of the healthcare bills and the Pelosi Pork Package was developed behind closed doors. Obama promised us "Every bill that comes across my desk with have 5 days where the American Public can read it before I sign it." Another lie.... you boat is sinking and even your party hopefuls are jumping ship...:lol:
Sitting back and watching you rant and rage all over the board and make an ass of yourself! :corn:
Now you just need your lapdog to join you.
:lol2:
Sitting back and watching you rant and rage all over the board and make an ass of yourself! :corn:
Now you just need your lapdog to join you.
See you in November (See Mass election results).
How's that Hopey Changey thing working out for you? :lol:
See you in November (See Mass election results).
How's that Hopey Changey thing working out for you? :lol:
We'll see what happens in November..... I predicted a loss of 20-30 seats in the House and 6-7 in the Senate. It may well be more, but highly unlikely to overturn either majority....particularly if the Republicans run extremist tea baggers or wingnuts.
But that doesnt change the hilarity of you denying the facts ($288 billion enacted in tax cuts) and independent objective reports on job creation from the stimulus....or your even more hilarious attempts at rationalizing your outrage at those facts and reports.
Now take a deep breath and relax for a second before you continue your rant and make yourself look even more foolish and wing-nutty!
We'll see what happens in November..... I predicted a loss of 20-30 seats in the House and 6-7 in the Senate.
But that doesnt change the hilarity of you denying the facts ($288 billion enacted in tax cuts) and independent objective reports on job creation from the stimulus....or your even hilarious attempts at rationalizing your outrage at those facts and reports.
Now take a deep breath and relax for a second before you continue your rant and make yourself look even more foolish and wing-nutty!
Now take a deep breath and relax for a second before you continue your rant and make yourself look even more foolish and wing-nutty! You can't butt fuck the electorate on the one hand with deficit spending to levels and repealing tax breaks like never seen in history with no plan to repay it and try to tell everyone you are doing them a favor and not to worry about how you are going repay it.;)
Come Nov, your party is screwed.
Come Nov, your party is screwed.
That may be....I dont think it will be catastrophic in terms of losing the majority in either house...I could be wrong, alot can happen between now and Nov, but that is not the issue here.
That you cant even acknowledge facts ($288 billion in tax cuts) and objective/independent reports on job creation from the stimulus is just bizarre. :eek:
More evidence that the Demoncratic party is buttfucking the American electorate.. BOHICA.
The federal deficit this fiscal year will be $1.6 trillion, or about 10.6% of gross domestic product. That is the largest deficit since World War II, and even President Obama's optimistic estimates show our deficits will not return to sustainable levels for at least the next decade.
The administration's projection of total federal spending over those 10 years (2011-20) is $45.8 trillion, while expected taxes and other receipts will be $37.3 trillion. The $8.5 trillion deficit is about 20% of spending. And all of these numbers are based on a full and lasting economic recovery, which, based on current experience, is a pretty optimistic projection.
Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page did an analysis of the federal government's debt that will be held by the public over the coming decade. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the debt held by the public was 36.2% of GDP. It rose to 40.2% the next year. This year it will be about 63.6%, next year 68.6%, then 77% of GDP in 2020. And the Obama administration's budget estimates 218% in 2050.
The reason for these rising deficits is the huge increases in federal spending--the intended growth of the federal government--that Congress and the president are pushing. The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.
To the White House and congressional Democrats, these large figures are not a surprise, a mistake or a worry. They are part of a strategy to Europeanize America, to make the government larger, broader and in charge of almost everything. And that would of course require broad and massive tax increases. The Washington Post's Robert Samuelson calculated that to fund all the future deficit expenditures would require taxes to increase "by roughly 50 percent from the average 1970-2009 tax burden." A 50% tax increase would become a permanent part of a declining America, just as such tax increases have become a permanent part of declining European countries.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431404575067350881049536.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion[QUOTE....They are part of a strategy to Europeanize America[/QUOTE]
OH NO!
The "socialists are coming" mantra!
:lol2:
That may be....I dont think it will be catastrophic in terms of losing the majority in either house...I could be wrong, alot can happen between now and Nov, but that is not the issue here.
That you cant even acknowledge facts ($288 billion in tax cuts) and objective/independent reports on job creation from the stimulus is just bizarre. :eek:
The fact that you attempt to continue to spread the lies of this Administration about job creation is just bizarre. The only thing you have to back up your assertions are biased sources or the scumbags themselves who have been proven to have cooked the numbers. Obama and that scumbag Pelosi lied to the American people to get their pork spending package passed in Feb of 2009 to create millions of jobs. They lied. They knew it would never create the jobs they said it would. And our children and grandchildren are stuck with the bill of your parties failure. The people have taken notice.
[QUOTE]....They are part of a strategy to Europeanize America
OH NO!
The "socialists are coming" mantra!
:lol2:
The electorate is on to you. Come Nov, your party is screwed.
And I don't even want the Republickins to be in charge. :lol2:
Pelosi and Obama promised us "Millions of Shovel ready jobs", they lied to get their pork barrel spending voted for.
Considering the near complete meltdown of the American economy, we are now doing quite well. It should have been much worse. And, as Obama warned us when he took office, it will take about ten years to fix this mess.
Hank Paulson told Congressmen of a economic malaise so serious that (according to reporters outside) Congressmen left the room “white faced”. Paulson, et al told eight major bank presidents earlier (on Friday) that they had eight hours to save the American economy. He was not kidding. Eight years of a political agenda was that destructive.
Then we got a new president with economic programs to bluntly avert that meltdown. As a major paper from the American Economists Association noted last year (using studies of some 114 previous recessions in the OECD), this type of recession created by financial and fiscal mismanagement takes about 12 quarters to recover. Compared to two to four quarters for a traditional recession. The created damage by economic mismanagement is traditionally that severe. Economic history says the damage is so severe as to take that long to recover.
But those are numbers. Extremists do not listen to numbers. Profanity justified by a political agenda is what Limbaugh encourages. The fact that eight years of financial fraud was made legal somehow gets forgotten in their rhetoric.
Based upon how serious the recession should have been. Based upon how close we came to a complete economic meltdown - due to eight years of neocon economics including tax cuts for the rich - due to zero growth for 2000 through 2009 . We are damn lucky to still have a working economy. We came that close to a complete 1929 meltdown. Because extremists who ignore facts and who are told to take cheap shots will not admit what their 'welfare to the rich' economics has done to America.
This is the first decade in 70 years that America has seen no growth. The average American income fell 2% in that period. While the richest incomes rose massively. Numbers so large that nobody is quite sure how large. That has only happened once in American history. Just before the 1929 stock market crash. But George Jr neocons are smarter? No wonder profanity and cheap shots are posted. Then others will not notice extremist politics nearly destroyed the entire American economy.
How strange that extremists will ignore this reality that starts:
U.S. economy took a dive in the 2000s, a lost decade for workers
The actual article describing zero American growth during George Jr's tenure is from the Washington Post on 1 Jan 2010:
For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.
The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.
Somehow we should believe extremists because this mess was created by their political agenda AND because their spokemen include Sarah Palin?
Thank god we all still have jobs because informed thinkers finally took hold the reins. And did the massive spending necessary to minimize the damage. It should have been as bad as "Mission Accomplished" - another disaster created by the same political agenda.
So what do extremists do? Do they apologize for the neocon economics that nearly destroyed the American economy? First time since WWII that America has seen virtually no growth. So extremist post cheap shots even at Obama.
“Cheap shots in the name of liberty is no vice”. Even Goldwater would not say what extremists believe.
Oh, yea everything is just rosey!
One year later, political battle rages over stimulus' effectiveness
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obama-stimulus18-2010feb18,0,6738826.storyOh, yea everything is just rosey!
Eight years of your wacko extremism nearly destroyed everything. Anything bad is directly traceable to that neocon agenda that you promoted repeatedly with lies, insults, and denials. But then you are doing exactly what Rush Limbaugh tells his disciples to preach. Cheap shots. And not admitting that your politics created these messes - including the protection of Enron accounting.
Even Goldwaster did not say "Cheap shots in the name of liberty is not a vice". But you do.
More evidence that the Demoncratic party is buttfucking the American electorate.. BOHICA.
You know that argument is complete bullshit. The reason Obama's budget is so high is because of mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest) and not discretionary spending (military plus other). The trend of higher discretionary spending was started by *suspense* George!
Graph of discretionary spending from 1977- 2008 (note, Obama's 2009 budget is a bit higher than Bush's 2008 but the 2010 budget and those after will be lower).
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Discretionary%20spending%201977-2007
2003 prediction of government spending:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0306-15.pdfDude, it is so high because of the false Stimulus Bill and bailouts.
Your first link does not reflect that.
Cato is a huge fan of mine, but 2003 is a bit dated.
Not satisfied taking cheap shots in the Current Event board. Now TheMercenary has move on to taking cheap shots in the Technology board.
The internet is over!.
A discussion of net neutrality - he has nothing to contribute but more Limbaugh insults.
Ted is on a roll, what did he rant?
These are the people who cheered when Cheney said, "deficits don't matter". And who now will not admit the George Jr years were the first decade in seventy without growth. Welfare to the rich. They were ordered what to believe. And post it with profanity and insult everywhere in the Cellar.
Quick, someone tell me if Ted said anything of importance. I am going with not.
As you read through it see how much refers to the "Recovery Act".
http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/federal-budget-broken-down/Somewhere around 70% of the federal budget is for defense, entitlements (SS, Medicare), other mandatory spending (Veterans, TANF, Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid/SCHIP....) and another 5 % is interest on the debt.....and for the first time in seven years, Iraq/Afghanistan spending is included in the budget.
Perhaps a little comedy will help . . .
Happy American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Day! While Democrats fanned out across the country to make the case that the stimulus is actually stimulating something -- namely, jobs -- local yokels celebrated the one-year mark at home. Except for GOP strategist Ron Bonjean, who was smart enough to light out for less snow-bound climes.
Nora McAlvanah, a HuffPoster who's putting together a Capitol Hill newsletter, Punch Out, that'll launch March 1, quizzed a bunch of District politicos (are we still allowed to use that word without legal repercussions?) about their plans for the festivities. We thank them for gracing us with their wit:
----
Washington Post's Dana Milbank: "This morning I sent flowers to Larry Summers. Tonight I'm going to save or create jobs in the liquor industry."
West Wing Writer Jeff Nussbaum: "First, I'm celebrating by reading Joe Biden's great op-ed in the USA Today the effectiveness of the Recovery Act. And in the joy that follows from that report, I intend to save or create .17 American jobs through my celebration, in which I will eschew French champagne and instead pop the cork on some domestic sparkling wine."
Salon's Mike Madden: "Obviously, the only proper way to celebrate would be to borrow a ton of money to buy stimulus drinks somewhere (which Republicans would be welcome to enjoy as well as Democrats, as long as they also find time to complain about the cost). But since the journalism economy is recovering even slower than the economy for real people, it may be tough to find a bank willing to front that kind of cash to a writer. So instead, I'll just pretend I'm riding a fancy new high-speed rail line while I'm stuck in a tunnel on Metro on the way home later tonight."
GOP strategist Ron Bonjean: "Coincidentally by dining in a great sushi place tonight at this wonderful sunny resort here in Playa del Carmen, Mexico. I don't think the country received any stimulus money, but it sure did know how to throw a Mardi Gras celebration last night. Also, there is no snow. Have a feeling the Democratic majority might send a delegation to look into this now. "
NPR political editor Ken Rudin: "It's hard to celebrate anything these days, considering all the people unemployed since the stimulus package was enacted. Martha Coakley, for one."
Comedian/Onion web editor Baratunde Thurston: "I'll take the extended unemployment benefits and use the funds to create a combination commercial/investment/insurance/hedge fund bank. I'll use the deposits from this Frankenstein institution to buy the regulators and place ridiculous bets on a ponzi scheme called "economic growth," and just as I am about to go under, I will collect a few billion dollars from the taxpayers and give myself a bonus."
Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "Like I celebrate all anniversaries: by working."
NRA's Stephen Aaron: "Going to the shooting range, I get a lot more bang for my buck firing my money out the end of a rifle barrel than I did out of the stimulus."
New America Foundation's Steve Clemons: "I am going to go stop by the National Academy of Sciences and talk to folks there about the amazing, high wage job-generating, national innovative technology efforts we might have had if we had invested in next gen science....Then, I'm going to blog at Huffington Post about the many number of great alternatives that HuffPost and Washington Note readers suggested to take the spots of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers. And then I'm going to an ATM and ponder whether I should make a withdrawal and help the economy or a savings deposit and help the economy."
Real Clear Politics' Mike Memoli: "Since it's also Ash Wednesday I'm abstaining from meat and alcohol, and saying one rosary for every GOP "'Where are the jobs?' press release."
RNC communications director Doug Heye: "Since more people believe Elvis is still alive than believe the stimulus bill has created jobs, I'll play some of The King's classics on my ipod. 'If I Can Dream' seems appropriate."
LinkAs you read through it see how much refers to the "Recovery Act".
http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/federal-budget-broken-down/
Lets have a late night class on the Recovery Act.
The total package was under $800 billion (but lets use ballpark figure of $900 billion cuz its late and easier to divide by three):
-- $300 billion in tax cuts (personal and business)
-- $300 billion in social safety net program increases (COBRA extension, UI extensions, etc)
-- $300 billion in grants, contracts, etc. (jobs)
Now remember that this total $900 billion is spread over (half of) FY 09, FY 10 and FY 11.
Using the ballparks again....$300 billion/yr over 3 years (in reality, much less in 09, more than half in 10 and the rest in 11)
Now take out one=third for the tax cuts - $100 billion/yr (lost revenue, which adds to the deficit)
That means about $200 billion/year additional spending out of a budget of over $3 trillion.
Now take out the social safety net spending (unless you want those folks and their kids on the streets).
And you're left with about $100 billion/year in spending on grants/contracts through DOE, DOT, HUD, DoEd, etc.....less than 5% of a $3+ trillion budget.
And this was offset in part by cuts in other programs in DOE, DOT, HUD, DoEd, etc.
To suggest the Recovery Act is a major contributor to the budget or deficits is just not reflected in the numbers....ballpark or real.
Make sense?
Dude, it is so high because of the false Stimulus Bill and bailouts.
Your first link does not reflect that.
That is why I added my own notes. 2009 Obama will spend more than any president in history but that number will be lowered after that. Not that it will have much effect since most of the budget is going to mandatory spending and the military.
Cato is a huge fan of mine, but 2003 is a bit dated.
I posted that article because the predictions they made are coming true. The point was that medicare, social security, and other health benefits are going to go out of control and that is obviously starting to happen and nothing suggests that anything is going to change soon.
Until mandatory spending is reformed, every president from here on out will be forced to spend even more then their predecessor.
I posted that article because the predictions they made are coming true. The point was that medicare, social security, and other health benefits are going to go out of control and that is obviously starting to happen and nothing suggests that anything is going to change soon.
Until mandatory spending is reformed, every president from here on out will be forced to spend even more then their predecessor.
Ok, I see your point now. But I don't believe that each and every president will have to spend more and more. Spending is done by Congress mostly. Congress is the one to blame. Congress can control spending. And deep cuts will have to be made. The continual deficit spending is out of control.
Ok, I see your point now. But I don't believe that each and every president will have to spend more and more. Spending is done by Congress mostly. Congress is the one to blame. Congress can control spending. And deep cuts will have to be made. The continual deficit spending is out of control.
This prediction has no real base to it but generational political divides might become very large in the upcoming decades. Unless there is some effective reform, the US might face the choice of cutting large amounts of social security, medicare, etc or face extremely large deficits.
Though of course, congress isn't going to do shit about it until the political pressures are too high. Republicans and Democrats are fighting over the captain's chair in a sinking ship.
This prediction has no real base to it but generational political divides might become very large in the upcoming decades. Unless there is some effective reform, the US might face the choice of cutting large amounts of social security, medicare, etc or face extremely large deficits.
Though of course, congress isn't going to do shit about it until the political pressures are too high. Republicans and Democrats are fighting over the captain's chair in a sinking ship.
I think you are right on target. I can't agree more.
I think you are right on target. I can't agree more.
You might also stop blaming the recovery program for the growing deficits.
This is pretty good. Pretty funny video too. :D
http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-national-debt-road-trip/
In this video, I wanted to take a close look at the historical nature of the US debt. Unfortunately, I couldn’t say all I wanted to say or it would have been three times as long and I would have bored myself to death trying to make it.
First of all, I would like to state that I am not trying to defend President Bush’s spending. I personally think Bush was spending far too much. My preference would be to reduce the debt… or at least stay put and let inflation take it’s toll on the debt. My point in this video is that it is the most absurd hypocrisy for someone to complain about how much Bush spent and then yawn when Obama is spending so much more.
A close look at the numbers reveals that this isn’t even a “We’re in a recession, we have to spend that money” issue. Obama’s high deficit plans continue long after the recession is projected to end.
Next, I want to give some pointers to the data I used and then I want to clear up some of the muddier issues in the video.
This video uses the US Treasury’s data on the national debt for the debt numbers and adjusts each year for inflation using the inflation numbers on this site.
In order to understand where the debt would be in 2016, I used the the President’s estimate in his latest budget proposal. These numbers are generally accepted to be optimistic (the Congressional Budget Office has them pegged at much higher), but I didn’t want to put the president at an unfair advantage.
Actually (and I would do this over again if I could) I calculated the future debt with regards to inflation (I assumed about 1.0% inflation per year) so that President Obama is going slower than if I just used his own numbers. I tried to bend the numbers to Obama’s advantage, not because I agree with him, but so that there is no room for the accusation of number fudging.
In retrospect, I think it would have been more fair to assume that the President’s team had already assumed the inflation calculation and that their 2016 debt data was calculated in 2016 money and not 2008 money.
So that’s all about the calculations… now I’d like to make a note about some other decisions I made. I thought it was important to keep in mind which party held Congress. The reason is because it is actually more accurate to say
“Under President So-and-so, the debt increased by X amount”
due to the fact that the president only proposes the budget and must work with Congress in order to get a budget passed.
In 1994, we voted in a Congress that was remarkably fiscally conservative… so much so that they fought a protracted battle with President Clinton in 1995 trying desperately to get him to agree to a lower budget. The press ripped the Republican Congress (particularly Newt Gingrich) to shreds over it and they (the Republicans) ended up conceeding the matter.
On the other side of things, Reagan tried to pass smaller budgets, but the House of Representitives was heavily Democratic and added to his proposed budget until he refused to sign, leading to another government shutdown.
Long story short, the budget is a combined effort of what the president proposes and what the Congress decides, so I thought it was only fair to mention both sides of the equation once the debt really started increasing drastically. This, of course, is only more damning to Bush and Obama, since both of them have (or had) a situation in which their party is in complete control of the government.
This is pretty good. Pretty funny video too. :D
http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-national-debt-road-trip/
So do you still blame the Recovery Act for the growing deficits?
I don't know. I saw the "long story short" heading the last paragraph, and didn't bother reading any of it.
Experience tells me when anyone says "long story short" it's always wayyyyy too late.
So do you still blame the Recovery Act for the growing deficits?
Are you still trying to defend the spending of the last 13 months by this Congress as not having an astronomical increase in our deficit?
Are you still trying to defend the spending of the last 13 months by this Congress as not having an astronomical increase in our deficit?
I am just asking you how to explain your claim that the Recovery Act was responsible for the deficit....when in fact, it represents a small percentage of the budget, depending on whether you include the social safety net programs or just the grant programs.
Feel free to review my
night class and dispute it if you believe it is incorrect.
The overwhelming contributions to the deficit increase are entitlements, the inclusion of Iraq/Afghanistan funding for the first time, and other mandatory programs.
The CBO reported in October 2009 reasons for the difference between the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1,410 billion, respectively. Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945. The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.
2/3rds of the increase was due to spending by this Congress, pretty commonly known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budgetPretty much what I said... it is not primarily attributable to the Recovery Act ($100 b in lost revenue from tax cuts and $100 b spending)....but to entitlements (SS/Medicare), other mandatory programs (medicaid, UI, etc), Defense (includes Iraq/Afghanistan funding for the first time) and TARP.
SO you really havent explained your claim that it was due to Recovery act funding.
'
Do you even understand that the biggest single piece of the Recovery pie is not spending...but tax cuts -- $288 out of $787... And yes, tax cuts impact the deficit as lost revenue. But both the tax cuts and the spending are spread out over 3 fiscal years.
Pretty much what I said... it is not primarily attributable to the Recovery Act ($100 b in lost revenue from tax cuts and $100 b spending)....but to entitlements (SS/Medicare), other mandatory programs (medicaid, UI, etc), Defense (includes Iraq/Afghanistan funding for the first time) and TARP.
SO you really havent explained your claim that it was due to Recovery act funding.
So what are you trying to say? That this Congress and Administration is not responsible the deficit? Or just that The Recovery Act is such a small part that it has nothing to do with the Trillion dollar deficit?
So what are you trying to say? That this Congress and Administration is not responsible the deficit? Or just that The Recovery Act is such a small part that it has nothing to do with the Trillion dollar deficit?
Just saying that you FAILED when you claimed the increasing deficit was due primarily to the Recovery Act.
The biggest increases in the budget: Defense (up 13% due in large part to including Iraq/Afghanistan funding)....Social Security (up 5% - entitlement - Congress cant cut), Medicare (up 7% - entitlement - Congress cant cut).....Medicaid (up 12% due to 2+ years of increasing unemployment...you want to cut?)....oh, TARP funding (phased out)
You can't ignore the TARP, Bail out of Fanny and Freddie, and the Recovery Reinvestment Act. Those three things pushed the deficit over the edge.
You can't ignore the TARP, Bail out of Fanny and Freddie, and the Recovery Reinvestment Act. Those three things pushed the deficit over the edge.
TARP spending was phased out in FY 10.
I never said you can ignore ARRA ...but that you were incorrect to suggest it was the primary cause of the increase in deficits.
And again....the biggest single piece of ARRA contributing to the deficit are the tax cuts.
According the very link that I posted it made up a minor part of the overall deficit.
Maximum Amount: $66.13 billion
Deficit Impact: $17.76 billion
According the very link that I posted it made up a minor part of the overall deficit.
Maximum Amount: $66.13 billion
Deficit Impact: $17.76 billion
What link?
This link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
That is the 09 budget not 10.
The biggest increases in the 2010 budget: Defense (up 13% due in large part to including Iraq/Afghanistan funding)....State Dept. (up 40% due to Iraq/Afghanistan funding included for the first time) Social Security (up 5% - entitlement - Congress cant cut), Veterans Affairs (up 10% - result of Iraq - you want to cut?), Medicare (up 7% - entitlement - Congress cant cut).....Medicaid (up 12% due to 2+ years of increasing unemployment...you want to cut?)....oh, TARP funding (phased out)
I am using the link that you quoted me on. stimulus.org 2010 is money projected. 2009 is money spent.
One more time:
The biggest increases in the 2010 budget:
[INDENT]Defense (up 13% due in large part to including Iraq/Afghanistan war funding for the first time)
State Dept. (up 40% due primarily to Iraq/Afghanistan aid funding included for the first time or expanding for Afghanistan)
Social Security (up 5% - entitlement - Congress cant cut)
Medicare (up 7% - entitlement - Congress cant cut)
Interest on Debt (up 5% - Congress cant cut)
Veterans Affairs (up 10% - result of Iraq) ...want to cut?
Medicaid (up 12% due to 2+ years of increasing unemployment)...want to cut?
TARP funding (phased out) [/INDENT]
These are the biggest ticket (most costly) items. Defense, Social Security/Medicare and interest on debt, these three alone, are nearly 60% of the total budget.
Many of those elements are in included in the Bill in 2009:
Energy
$32 billion: Funding for “smart electricity grid” to reduce waste
$16 billion: Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit
$6 billion: Funding to weatherize modest-income homes
Science and Technology
$10 billion: Science facilities
$6 billion: High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas
Infrastructure
$30 billion: Transportation projects
$31 billion: Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure
$19 billion: Water projects
$10 billion: Rail and mass transit projects
Education
$41 billion: Grants to local school districts
$79 billion: State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid
$21 billion: School modernization ($15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500; $6 billion for higher education modernization)
Health Care
$39 billion: Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid
$87 billion: Help to states with Medicaid
$20 billion: Modernization of health-information technology systems
$4.1 billion: Preventative care
Jobless Benefits
$43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training.
$39 billion to support those who lose their jobs by helping them to pay the cost of keeping their employer provided healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid.
$20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs.
Taxes
Individuals:
*$500 per worker, $1,000 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion.
*Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor.
*Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children
*A $2,500 college tuition tax credit.
*Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time.
Businesses:
*An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two.
*Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment
*Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases.
*Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans
OK.
You obviously dont get it.
Do you not understand how Defense, Social Security/Medicare and interest on debt, these three alone, are nearly 60% of the total budget.
You want to cut Veterans, Medicaid?
These are the BIG TICKET items!
Or no stimulus funding to other agencies at all and risk the recession getting worse?
Perhaps this is where you want cuts since you dont accept the fact that the stimulus program budgeted in those other agencies did in fact create hundreds of thousands of jobs and help end (or slow down) the recession -- according to many economists across the spectrum, including the latest reports from numerous independent economic research firms.
OK.
You obviously dont get it.
Do you not understand how Defense, Social Security/Medicare and interest on debt, these three alone, are nearly 60% of the total budget.
You want to cut Veterans, Medicaid...or no stimulus funding to other agencies at all and risk the recession getting worse?
Everyone should feel the pain equally. Everyone, no breaks based on income.
Perhaps this is where you want cuts since you dont accept the fact that the stimulus program budgeted in those other agencies did in fact create hundreds of thousands of jobs and help end (or slow down) the recession -- according to many economists across the spectrum, including the latest reports from numerous independent economic research firms.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs is pissing in the wind compared to the numbers lost. Your party has failed this country. Although I will give Obama more praise than I will his party.
OK.
You obviously dont get it.
Do you not understand how Defense, Social Security/Medicare and interest on debt, these three alone, are nearly 60% of the total budget.
You want to cut Veterans, Medicaid?
These are the BIG TICKET items!
Or no stimulus funding to other agencies at all and risk the recession getting worse?
Perhaps this is where you want cuts since you dont accept the fact that the stimulus program budgeted in those other agencies did in fact create hundreds of thousands of jobs and help end (or slow down) the recession -- according to many economists across the spectrum, including the latest reports from numerous independent economic research firms.
Looks like Obama agrees with me, everything is on the table. Everything.
A new federal commission will consider raising Americans' retirement age and increasing taxes to attack a record U.S. budget deficit, the co-chairmen of the panel said Thursday.
"The great thing the president has told us [is that] everything's on the table," said Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's former chief of staff. "If we don't do something about it [the deficit], it will gobble this budget up."
Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson told NPR's Melissa Block that they will consider cutting beloved entitlement programs — including Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security — and all other measures as they take over the leadership of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, a bipartisan panel charged with finding ways to lower the deficit.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123848421Looks like Obama agrees with me, everything is on the table. Everything.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123848421
I agree with it as well. We absolutely have to address entitlements.
But it still has nothing to do with your ignorance and false assumptions about the current budget.
But it still has nothing to do with your ignorance and false assumptions about the current budget.
You mean about the lies that this Administration and Congress has tried to pass off to the American public while they run up the deficit?
Great job there on the Stimulus jobs result...
The number of U.S. workers filing new applications for unemployment insurance unexpectedly surged last week, while producer prices increased sharply in January, raising potential hurdles for the economic recovery.
AP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 31,000 to 473,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. That compared to market expectations for 430,000.
Another report from the department showed prices paid at the farm and factory gate rose a faster than expected 1.4 percent from December after a 0.4 percent gain in December, as higher gasoline prices and unusually cold temperatures helped boost energy costs.
"When you have PPI moving up and still no progress in the jobs situation, that doesn't bode well for continued improvement in equity prices," said Alan Lancz, president at Alan B. Lancz & Associates in Toledo, Ohio.
Last week was the survey week for the employment report for February, which is scheduled for release in early March.
The labor market, hardest hit by the worst recession in seven decades, has lagged the economic recovery that started in the second half of 2009. The economy has lost 8.4 million jobs since the start of the downturn in December 2007.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35457298You may have noticed an increasing number of businesses closing their doors. Commerical real estate has yet to take its turn in a recession create by a decade of overt fiscal mismanagement. From the Washington Post of 19 Feb 2010:
In D.C., more evidence that commercial real estate headed for foreclosure crisis
The new round of financial pain, which some had anticipated but hoped to avoid, now seems all but certain. "There's been an enormous bubble in commercial real estate, and it has to come down," said Elizabeth Warren, chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, the watchdog created by Congress to monitor the financial bailout. "There will be significant bankruptcies among developers and significant failures among community banks."
Unlike the largest banks, such as Citigroup and Wachovia, that got into so much trouble early on, the community banks in general fared better in the residential mortgage crisis. But their turn is coming: Not only did community banks issue a higher proportion of commercial loans, but they also have held on to them rather than sell them to other investors.
Nearly 3,000 community banks -- 40 percent of the banking system -- have a high proportion of commercial real estate loans relative to their capital, said Warren, whose committee issued a report on commercial real estate last week. "Every dollar they lose in commercial real estate is a dollar they can't use for small businesses," she said. Individuals -- who saw their home values drop in the residential mortgage crisis -- would not feel that kind of loss, but, Warren said, a large-scale failure would "throw sand into the gears of economic recovery." ...
Whether the commercial real estate bubble bursts in a catastrophic event or subsides slowly and less dangerously will be determined during the next year. An immediate crisis was postponed when domestic and foreign investors began snatching up troubled properties at bargain prices. And banks more and more are renegotiating loans, extending the terms by a year or two in the hope that conditions will improve rather than calling in mortgages that cannot be paid.
How much has been averted? We know damage to the American economy has been so severe that we are lucky (or had proper response) to avert a complete meltdown. Economic stimulus has slowed this enough to avert a complete collapse - no doubt about that. Still, economics will take revenge for money games of that past decade. We will all pay for welfare to the rich. How severe? Commercial real estate may predict how severe this maybe three year calamity could be. We do not even know if the worst has yet happened. We don't even know how much damage was created. But we do know the commercial real estate market has not yet had its bubble burst.
What cheap shots will extremists post to deny this reality?
This pretty much sums it up...
Early on, committee Chairman Barney Frank asked {Mr. BERNANKE} whether concern about the deficit should trump all other government priorities, like passing another stimulus package - something many Democrats advocate. Bernanke dodged the question saying only, there are difficult tradeoffs that have to be made.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124052166The Stimulus Evidence One Year On
Over five years, my research shows an extra $600 billion of public spending at the cost of $900 billion in private expenditure. That's a bad deal.
The first anniversary of the Obama stimulus package generated a lot of discussion about whether and how much the package (originally estimated at $787 billion but now priced at $862 billion) moderated the recession. These are complex questions, and their answers require more than merely counting the quantity of goods and services that the government purchased or the number of people that the government hired.
We need to ask whether the government's spending reduced or enhanced private spending and whether public-sector hiring lowered or raised private hiring. This requires an empirical model based on the history of past fiscal actions in the U.S. or other countries. The administration must have such a model, but my own analysis makes me skeptical about the numbers they've reported about GDP increases and saved jobs.
Mr. Barro is a professor of economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704751304575079260144504040.htmlBarro is certainly a qualified and respected economist. He is also widely known as one of the leading anti-stimulus economists and the Hoover institute is a leading proponent of the "tax cuts are better than govt spending" school of economics.
So why do you think Barro's economic modeling is more accurate or less "biased" than CBO economists or Nobel-economist Paul Krugman? Why are CBO studies "government" propaganda and Barro's is not "Hoover/libertarian" propaganda?
Great, this shit has to stop sooner or later...
Fannie Taps Treasury for $15.3 Billion More After a 10th Loss
Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Fannie Mae will seek $15.3 billion in U.S. aid, bringing the total owed under a government lifeline to $76.2 billion, after its 10th consecutive quarterly loss.
The mortgage-finance company posted a fourth-quarter net loss of $16.3 billion, or $2.87 a share, Washington-based Fannie Mae said in a filing yesterday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Fannie Mae, which owns or guarantees about 28 percent of the $11.8 trillion U.S. home-loan market, has been hobbled by a three-year housing slump that wiped 28 percent from home values nationwide and led to record foreclosures. The company, which posted $120.5 billion in losses over the previous nine quarters, and rival Freddie Mac were seized by regulators in September 2008.
“Our financial results for 2009 reflected the continued adverse impact of the weak economy and housing market, which has resulted in record mortgage delinquencies and contributed to our recording significant credit-related expenses and net losses during each quarter of the year,” Fannie Mae said in the filing.
For the full year, Fannie Mae’s loss widened to $74.4 billion from $59.8 billion in 2008.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alet_UTqF04MGreat, this shit has to stop sooner or later...
It was. Cheney types are no longer saying, "Deficits don't matter". Now we must wait for the resulting flood to withdrawal. According economists who studied these events some 114 times in al OECD economies, we still have maybe eight more quarters of this until improvement begins. Cheney proved that deficits do matter. And cause massive economic malaise four or ten years later when economic forces takes revenge on fiscally mismanaged economies.
Time to complain about our economics mistakes was when this could have been averted and was being created in and after 2003.
Time to complain about our economics mistakes was when this could have been averted and was being created in and after 2003.
You mean the Bush tax reform that was pushed through Congress through the reconciliation process:
[INDENT]Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001
and
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003[/INDENT]
and which contributed an estimated $1+ trillion to deficits and did not result in either economic growth or jobs?
You mean the Bush tax reform that was pushed through Congress through the reconciliation process:
[INDENT]Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001
and
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003[/INDENT]
and which contributed an estimated $1+ trillion to deficits and did not result in either economic growth or jobs?
As Warren Buffet so accurately noted, the only tax cut is one that cuts spending.
Cutting taxes (welfare to the rich) means economics takes revenge on everyone typically four and ten years later. Deja vue.
A government report released Thursday warned that local officials are shorthanded and some states lack proper oversight in handling the deluge of new funding from the $787 billion economic stimulus.
The report also revealed that three states — Florida, Georgia and Ohio — have appropriated zero dollars for highway development despite being granted billions in road construction funds meant to spur job creation.
"Due to fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff, limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds," the Government Accountability Office report said.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21642.htmlGM has paid off the last of its bailout loans:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors has made a final payment of $5.8 billion to the U.S. and Canadian governments, paying off the last of its $6.7 billion in loans, the company said Wednesday.
Overall, GM received $50 billion in federal help.
In return, the government got $2 billion in preferred stock and 61% of the company's privately held common shares.
Taxpayers could recoup money from a possible sale of GM stock to the public in the future.
OK, so you and I, gave them $50 Billion and they gave us back $6.7Billion.
Thats great... or is it?
What is the value of that stock today? $.63 a share and the other stock, I cannot find. The last few articles I saw mentioned zero, but I can't believe that...Why? I dunno.
Yeah, I read the article.
It's only part of the grander scheme, but it's something. More than everyone was crying about in the beginning "boohoo we'll never see any money back."
Oh hell, let's just post the whole article.
GM pays off its bailout loans
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, senior writer April 21, 2010: 1:13 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors has made a final payment of $5.8 billion to the U.S. and Canadian governments, paying off the last of its $6.7 billion in loans, the company said Wednesday.
"I am very pleased to announce that, as of today, General Motors has repaid, in full and with interest, the loans made last July by the U.S. Treasury and Export Development Canada," said GM chief executive Ed Whitacre, speaking at a plant in Fairfax, Kan., where GM builds Chevrolet Malibu and Buick LaCrosse sedans.
Whitacre also announced that GM would make two big investments for production of the next-generation Malibu: $136 million in the Fairfax facility, which will become the primary production point for the car, and $121 million in its Detroit-Hamtramck plant, which will provide additional production at times of peak demand.
GM has already begun manufacturing the Chevrolet Volt electric car in Hamtramck, where it also makes the Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS large cars.
On Tuesday night, the automaker wired $4.7 billion to the U.S. Treasury Department and $1.1 billion to Canada.
"GM's ability to pay back our loans ahead of schedule is a sign that our plan is working," Whitacre said.
But the loan money is only a fraction of the financial support that the federal government gave to GM over the past 12 months to stop it from going out of business.
Overall, GM received $50 billion in federal help. In return, the government got $2 billion in preferred stock and 61% of the company's privately held common shares.
Taxpayers could recoup money from a possible sale of GM stock to the public in the future.
A White House report issued shortly after GM's announcement was upbeat on the progress that both General Motors and Chrysler have made since coming out of bankruptcy but noted that the government would likely not make a profit on the funds it had invested.
"Overall, the investments made by the prior and current administration in GM, Chrysler, and GMAC will likely result in some loss, but the U.S. Treasury anticipates it to be much lower than forecast last year," the report said.
Mark Reuss, president of GM's North American operations, said in an interview with CNNMoney.com that he was "positive" that GM's stock would ultimately be profitable for taxpayers.
This was only the first payment of the larger loan. They are still owned by the US Government, Government Motors.
Incorrect Merc, That is their final payment - We can only hope that the virtually worthless stock we currently own makes up the difference between the $50 billion given and the $6.7 billion that GM paid back. If I understand this correctly, basically we need this stock to equal $43 Billion just to break even.
Doesn't this mean that the Gov't now has a vested interest in giving GM all the advantages they can even over other American car companies, especially Ford who took no money?
JPMorgan credit analyst Eric Selle wrote in a client presentation last week that a public GM could have a market value of $63 billion. That could be aggressive, but $50 billion is a real possibility. After its near-death experience, GM finally has an excellent balance sheet, with $42 billion in cash at the end of the third quarter, against $29 billion in debt and preferred stock. This admittedly reflects Uncle Sam's largess in pumping $50 billion into GM in late 2008 and 2009, plus obligations the automaker shed through its restructuring.
LinkLink
You mean if the government sells GM for $63 billion, the taxpayers could make a $13 billion profit from the deal? It'll never happen...
Not my words and the link is from msnbc so you know the numbers are probably "enhanced"
The govt. has made a nice profit from most of the TARP bank bailouts.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/90643-survey-tarp-driving-85-percent-profit
The biggest payback is in the works. Treasury Dept is expecting to start selling off 1.5 billions shares in Citi that it acquired in return for its $45 billion bailout of Citi.
It purchased the equity shares at $3.25/share at the time. The selling price of Citi stock (as of last week) was $4.61/share. Expect another $7+ billion profit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042602106.html
BUT, the GM and AIG bailouts still overshadow the entire TARP program.
Would the impact on the economy of NOT bailing out GM and AIG have been only marginal, thus not worth the attempt to save the companies in order to keep the economy from tanking? We'll never know.
Unemployment at 9%, where are all the Shovel Ready Jobs the scumbags promised?
Only after several rounds of back-and-forth did he agree with Representative Chet Edwards, Democrat of Texas, that tax cuts do not entirely pay for themselves. And he danced around with Representative Gerald E. Connolly, a Virginia Democrat,
on whether the Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus package last year was “necessary.”
Mr. Bernanke would only say it was “useful.”
“It must be nice to be an economist,” Mr. Connolly replied.
Link
That's an interesting choice of words - useful.
Link
That's an interesting choice of words - useful.
Numerous economists would disagree.
But the larger issue is what would have happened w/o the stimulus and no one knows.
I am one of those who believed at the time, and still believe, that is was far better than the risk of do nothing and hoping the economy did not continue to tank.
And, I still havent heard any better solution from those who criticize the program.
BTW..... Bernanke also said, “This very moment is not the time to radically reduce our spending or raise our taxes, because the economy is still in a recovery mode and needs that support.”
And, I agree. Short term spending to stabilize the economy should take precedent for now over dealing with long term debt. The recovery has started, but it is not yet complete or fully stabilized. When the economy is growing again at a healthy rate, the precedent should change.
So the recession is over. Great news.
So the recession is over. Great news.
When did I say the recession is over?
I said the recovery has started...and gdp growth over the last 4 quarters would support that. Nearly all economists will also tell you that jobs are the last to recovery from a recession.
Misrepresenting my post again?
A cycle following a recession, during which the GDP rises.
Isn't that the definition of a recovery?
Isn't that the definition of a recovery?
Recessions are generally considered over when sustainable gdp growth is achieved over a period of 12-18 months (or 4-6 quarters). Those 5th and 6th quarters also allow for job recovery, again, recognizing that jobs are the last to recovery.
Officially, we should be out of the recession this summer or fall.
So what do you think?
Should we stop spending now and make debt reduction the top priority?
Or, should we continue spending for a little longer on programs that many (certainly not all) economists think will continue to help the still fragile economy and job creation, including tax cuts to small businesses, significant infrastructure funding, etc....and programs to help the unemployed, including UI extensions and COBRA subsidies that were in the recovery act.
My opinion has and still is that there is/was too much waste. That the deal was done and money which was used to buy votes and/or return favors would have been better allocated elsewhere, used later or not at all.
I think there were projects that had very little stimulus effect and/or job creation potential.
As somewhat of a side note, the creation of private sector jobs appears to be dismal. Many of the jobs created were Gov't related. Additionally, it looks like the numbers there are less than accurate as well. Apparently the census jobs (which I don't think should have counted at all) have been inflated.
No cites no links - nothing. Just my opinion.
Regarding the deficit ... That should have been a priority 5-10 years ago.
I have a personal aversion to owing money.
ETA - didn't they just cut 40mil/bil from medi-care/caid? IIRC, the cobra extension was eliminated as well.
Recessions are generally considered over when sustainable gdp growth is achieved over a period of 12-18 months (or 4-6 quarters).
And that type of recession is the third type - a type directly traceable to massive economic mismanagement. Other type recessions are not as severe and not as long.
Historically, jobs do not start coming back until quarters after the recession has ended. Jobs are a lagging indicator. And lost due to massive fiscal mismanagement typically four and more years earlier.
Regarding the deficit ... That should have been a priority 5-10 years ago.
It was. The solutions were in place. The 30 years Treasury Notes were discontinues because government no longer had to borrow as much money. And the solution, if left in place in 2000, would have solved the deficit.
Then some fool said tax cuts (money games) create economic wealth. As Buffet said, the only real tax cut is one that cut spending. So wackos increased spending massively, gave welfare to the rich, and reduced the American income by 2% from 2000 to 2008. Welcome to the resulting job losses today.
We discussed this almost ten years ago - the Kennedy tax cuts. The spin was Kennedy cut taxes to boost the economy. Spin works on those who believe only what they are told to believe. Posted was the reality. Those Kennedy tax cuts cause an economic boost - followed by recession in the Johnson administration. That is what tax cuts really do. Massively increase debts that result in recession and job losses four and more years later. And still so many know tax cuts are good because extremist politicians said so.
Learn from reality. The deficit was being solved. Then wacko politicians decided to 'fix' the economy. They were so dumb as to even recommend putting social security into the stock market.
And that type of recession is the third type - a type directly traceable to massive economic mismanagement. Other type recessions are not as severe and not as long.
Historically, jobs do not start coming back until quarters after the recession has ended. Jobs are a lagging indicator. And lost due to massive fiscal mismsanagement typically four and more years earlier.
I dont disagree.
We are a long, long way from full employment....and that will take significant economic restructuring.
And IMO, that has to include, in part, govt investments in emerging industries/technologies. At the same time, there can some deficit reduction with freezes or cuts on some discretionary programs AND allowing the temporary 01 and 03 tax cuts on the top bracket to expire, returning to the pre-2000 rate....a rate which certainly did not stifle economic development.
...
As somewhat of a side note, the creation of private sector jobs appears to be dismal....
And you have to question why.
The rich are getting richer. As the world recovers from the global economic crisis, the global wealth staged a remarkable comeback in 2009, increasing by 11.5 per cent to $111.5 trillion, just short of the year-end peak set in 2007.
Less than 1 per cent of all households were millionaires, but they owned about 38 per cent of the world's wealth, up from about 36 per cent in 2008, according to a new study by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Households with more than $5 million in wealth represented 0.1 per cent of households but owned about 21 percent, or $23 trillion, of the world's wealth, up from 19 percent in 2008.
The number of millionaire households rose by about 14 percent in 2009, to 11.2 million -about where it stood at the end of 2007
from
here
It seems that, in general, the people who have the ability to create jobs are not creating jobs.
And you have to question why.
It seems that, in general, the people who have the ability to create jobs are not creating jobs.
OK, Why?
OK, Why?
Because we are now paying for the boondoggles. Bills from Mission Accomplished are just starting to flow in. We now have a massive interest payments on debts used four and nine years ago to finance money games. Because GM was told after 2000 that they did not have to innovate; did not have to manufacturer the hybrid that was paid for by the US government starting in 1994. Because shorting pension funds to claim profits was suddenly legal. And now those funds are short $tens of billions. Because welfare to the rich never creates productive jobs. Because money games means jobs must be lost four and ten years later. Because any and all protection for secure investements (ie Glass Stegall) was removed in the name of "finance people can always be trusted". Because the American government had so much contempt for thing that create jobs (science, innovation) as to even have White House lawyers rewrite the science papers. Because America was openly encouraged to massively increase energy consumption (ie SUVs) so as to increase profits rather than make new jobs and inefficient industries. Because the people who destroy innovation were not removed as long as they played money games to hide the massive losses (ie Nardelli in Home Depot, Merril Lynch, AIG, the banks). Because money games (Enron, LTCM, Madoff, AIG, mortgage back securities) were how wealth was created and encouraged - and the bills have now just starting arriving. Because the nation’s incomes have dropped 2% while economic fiscal mismanagement and money games were masking the inevitable in the name of a voodoo economics. And because Tax Cuts and George Jr stimulus plans are now doing to the economy exactly what they were predicted to do by this author how many times how many years ago.
The rich do not create jobs - no matter how many times that myth is promoted. Only innovation creates jobs. And innovation only comes from the little people - who have suffered a 2% reduction in their incomes after 2000. That has never happened since 1929 when the same money games also created an economic disaster.
Only innovation creates jobs. And innovation only comes from the little people .
I agree...and I would only add that government spending on innovation stimulates private spending.
Ask them.
One reason.....investing versus trading.
Investing produces or enhances tangible products or services.
Trading is a form of legalized gambling for the wealthy and produces nothing.
[CENTER]"Capitalism as we knew it is dead."[/CENTER]
Yes, "capitalism as we knew it is dead." Who killed it? The usual suspects. Everybody. And it was easy. First we killed democracy. Yes, democracy as we knew it is also dead.
Next question: What'll take its place? In "The Road from Ruin," Matthew Bishop, the Economist's business editor and co-author Michael Green tell us "capitalism as we knew it" died on "Sept. 15, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers went bust. That much is clear. What we don't know yet is what will replace it and whether that version will be any better than what went before."
Wrong: We do know exactly what will replace it. We also know it won't be better. In fact, far worse, far more self-destructive. The "Doomsday Capitalism" virus is spreading:
1. The Economist's doomed Capitalism 2.0
Start with "The Road From Ruin." Four "big ideas," a grand vision of what a revival of capitalism must have to succeed: First, "rethink economics." Second: "redesign global governance," including loss of the dollar's reserve currency status to create "a stabler global financial system." Third, "capitalism must rediscover its soul," put "values back into business," and "serve the greater good." Fourth, "promote financial literacy."
Four "Big Ideas." All doomed. Why? America hates them. Everyone: Palin, McConnell, Beck, the GOP's Tea Party of No-No. Yes, even the White House, Congress, Geithner, Bernanke and Dodd. And certainly the Goldman Conspiracy of Wall Street too-greedy-to-fail fat-cat bankers. All guaranteed to hate the four big ideas, hate them more than Cormac McCarthy's bleak post-apocalyptic "The Road."
Hate? Yes, here's why: The GOP does not want to "rethink" economics. No compromise. They want to reinstate their beloved free-market Reaganomics ideology. Period. Also non-negotiable: They'll never surrender the dollar as reserve currency. Un-American. Worse than surrendering America's divine right as the world's sole superpower.
What about "soul?" Wharton economists warn: Washington's financial reforms are not "game-changers," will leave "plenty of risk in the system," thanks to hundreds of millions spent by Wall Street lobbyists. So America will continue sliding deeper into an economic sinkhole with no-soul, no-values, no 'Invisible Hand.'
Fourth: The big idea of "promoting financial literacy" is a perennial hoax, a cleverly disguised Wall Street marketing gimmick. As Richard Thaler, the godfather of behavioral economics puts it: The last thing Wall Street wants is an informed, rational investor wise to their con game.
Sorry, folks, but these four big ideas will only mislead us into letting our guard down, make us more vulnerable to "Doomsday Capitalism," a viral WMD along "The Road."
Link
Not a very pretty picture no matter which side of the fence you are on.
One reason.....investing versus trading.
Investing produces or enhances tangible products or services.
Trading is a form of legalized gambling for the wealthy and produces nothing.
In my experience, most traders are on the lower end of the investment ladder whereas the wealthiest tend to genuinely invest in companies.
In my experience, most traders are on the lower end of the investment ladder whereas the wealthiest tend to genuinely invest in companies.
You're the investment guy, but data I have seen would suggest that most of those on the little end invest in mutual funds, munis, or perhaps stock tips from friends/advisors and the financial instruments that are not based on anything real are the playthings of the wealthy and the wall street mavens.
In my experience, most traders are on the lower end of the investment ladder whereas the wealthiest tend to genuinely invest in companies.
Does not matter where one is on that ladder. A good business deal means both parties prosper.
What is a business deal with the mafia? They prosper at your expense. Any business where one party is a winner and the other party is a victim is not business. And yet that is what so many Wall Streeters now call a normal business deal.
One mans perspective of things from the Seattle area . . .
"We opened the window behind me and threw eight hundred billion dollars out of it."
That was how an aide to a local congressman described to me the economic-stimulus act when it passed in the winter of 2009.
The aide didn't mean it would all be a waste. Or would fail to boost a cratering economy.
He meant that what was unusual about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, other than its staggering cost, was that it was a smorgasbord. A huge experiment in infusing borrowed cash into a gazillion pre-existing channels, from government social programs to grants for road construction to walking-around money in worker paychecks.
It was an emergency. Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott described it as "Congress flying blind."
So here we are a year and a half later. It seems obvious the experiment helped stop a free fall. You can see that in areas where the stimulus has ended. The housing market, for instance, propped up for months by stimulus tax credits, has dropped sharply since that program expired.
But you don't have to be an economist to see that Congress swung and missed on the issue of jobs.
All that spending hasn't gotten many back to work. Take the freshest data for Seattle and King County. In the first three months of 2010, the act is credited with paying for 2,712 jobs here. That's in a county with a labor force of 1.1 million and 90,000 more currently jobless.
A few thousand jobs in three months is better than nothing. But it's also not much. It shifts King County's unemployment rate by only two-tenths of a percentage point.
Why hasn't the stimulus stimulated us more? I poked around at the "track the money" website, recovery.gov. That answer is pretty simple: Most of the money isn't going to jobs.
A third of the $800 billion was for tax cuts. A huge mistake, in my view, as it largely gave payroll-tax refunds to people, like me, who already have jobs.
Another third went to shore up the states' health and education budgets. I'm OK with this part — thousands of schoolteachers, health-care workers and researchers at the University of Washington have kept their jobs, at least for now.
advertising
The last third was sent out as grants to try to create actual jobs.
The best success there has been in road construction. But elsewhere, most stimulus jobs haven't gone to the jobless. Usually workers were spared from being laid off. That's a good thing, but even there the results were mixed.
Here's a typical example: A group of local cities got $4.9 million in stimulus for community crime prevention. It hasn't all been spent yet, but so far here's what they say they did with it:
"Bellevue sent two officers to 'Force Science Certification Course.' Des Moines purchased a transport van. Federal Way purchased 4 tasers and software. Kenmore purchased equipment for their Active Shooter and patrol/SECTOR program. Kent hired a Population Manager. Kirkland had officers working OT for courtroom security. SeaTac purchased 5 tasers. Seattle retained victims advocates and grant staff positions."
The cities were saved from laying off 24 staffers. But the punch line is that for this stimulus grant, covering 18 cities, the grand total of new jobs created was: One.
That stimulus cash is being used to buy stun guns and vans points to a larger problem. Which is that little of lasting value is being created by the most expensive piece of legislation in American history.
link[B][CENTER]"Capitalism as we knew it is dead."
Good post classic.
The cities were saved from laying off 24 staffers. But the punch line is that for this stimulus grant, covering 18 cities, the grand total of new jobs created was: One.
That stimulus cash is being used to buy stun guns and vans points to a larger problem. Which is that little of lasting value is being created by the most expensive piece of legislation in American history.
I wonder how prevalent this description of stimulus funding is. Since the jobs saved was added as a descriptor, it seems to have muddied the feedback - intentionally or otherwise.
It may be that the last people in America who believe that the $862 billion economic stimulus of February 2009 created millions of net new jobs are Vice President Joe Biden and the staff economists in the White House. Yesterday, President Obama's chief economist announced that the plan had "created or saved" between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs and raised GDP by 2.7% to 3.2% through June 30. Don't you feel better already?
Christina Romer went so far as to claim that the 3.5 million new jobs that she promised while the stimulus was being debated in Congress will arrive "two quarters earlier than anticipated." Yup, the official White House line is that the plan is working better than even they had hoped.
We almost feel sorry for Ms. Romer having to make this argument given that since February 2009 the U.S. economy has lost a net 2.35 million jobs. Using the White House "created or saved" measure means that even if there were only three million Americans left with jobs today, the White House could claim that every one was saved by the stimulus.
The White House also naturally insists that things would be much worse without the stimulus billions spent on the likes of Medicaid payments, high speed rail projects, unemployment benefits and windmills. Mr. Obama said recently in Racine, Wisconsin that the economy "would have been a lot worse" and the unemployment rate would have gone to "12 or 13, or 15 [percent]" if government hadn't spent all of that money.
This is called a counterfactual: a what would have happened scenario that can't be refuted. What we do know is what White House economists at the time said would happen if the stimulus didn't pass. They said the unemployment rate would peak at 9% without the stimulus (there's your counterfactual) and that with the stimulus the rate would stay at 8% or below. (See the nearby chart.) In other words, today there are 700,000 fewer jobs than Ms. Romer predicted we would have if we had done nothing at all. If this is a job creation success, what does failure look like?
All of these White House jobs estimates are based on the increasingly discredited Keynesian spending "multiplier," which according to White House economist Larry Summers means that every $1 of government spending will yield roughly $1.50 in higher GDP. Ms. Romer thus plugs her spending data into the Keynesian computer models and, presto, out come 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs, even if the real economy has lost jobs. To adapt Groucho Marx: Who are you going to believe, the White House computer models, or your own eyes?
Or, as Milton Friedman used to say, "there's no such thing as a free lunch." The money government spends does create some jobs—the folks working on road projects, say—but that money has to come from somewhere, which means taxing or borrowing it from areas of the private economy that are nearly always more productive. This doesn't mean that government spending is always a bad idea, but it does mean that government spending as economic stimulus is fanciful.
Harvard economist Robert Barro first blew apart Keynesian assumptions with his famous 1974 essay, "Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?" He and Charles J. Redlick, also of Harvard, recently updated this demolition in a new study for the Mercatus Center examining 50 years of defense spending in various countries. They find a multiplier effect of between 0.4 and 0.7. This means that government spending shrinks the private economy, because it "crowds out other components of GDP, particularly investment."
This would certainly explain better than Ms. Romer's computer models why a nearly $1 trillion stimulus has been followed by a mediocre economic recovery, a 9.5% unemployment rate, and almost no net new private job creation.
Link
Just another partisan opinion piece ... move a long nothing to see here.
Oh yeah, and wait for the trickle down.:rolleyes:
I don't think we will get anything more than a tinkle down from this crowd of scumbags.
http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/
Take a look at how things are going ... Some seem to be doing well others, not so much.
You can sort it however you like. I sorted by $$$ and the millions upon millions that were spent creating few, if any, jobs is really troubling. I'm chalking this up to bureaucracy, but seriously - DAYUM.
ETA - weird - the sort by "jobs" doesn't seem to be working...
ETA II Fuggit - none of the sorts really work. They shoulda hired UT to make the stupid thing operate properly.
[YOUTUBE]qOP2V_np2c0&feature[/YOUTUBE]
This months installment about the last stimulus
"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," said Wendy Greuel, the city's controller. "With our local unemployment rate over 12 percent we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work."
Disappointed? ARE you freakin kidding me? Shoot yourself fercrissakes.
According to the audit, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works
spent $70 million in stimulus funds -- in return, it created seven private sector jobs and saved seven workers from layoffs. Taxpayer cost per job: $1.5 million.
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation created even fewer jobs per dollar, spending $40 million but netting just nine jobs. Taxpayer cost per job: $4.4 million.
This is beyond pathetic.
Greuel blamed the dismal numbers on several factors:
1. Bureaucratic red tape: Four highway projects did not even go out to bid until seven months after they were authorized.
2. Projects that were supposed to be competitively bid in the private sector went instead went to city workers.
3. Stimulus money was not properly tracked within departments
4. Both departments could not report the jobs
created and retained in a timely fashion..
"I would say maybe in a grade, a B- in creating the jobs,"
A "B-" Hmmm - maybe thats the problem we need someone to oversee the oversee-ers... I would thinnk thats more like a D- maybe that was a typo.
From FauxI'm glad you posted this, I mean really, who in their right mind thinks that 55 jobs at a cost of our tax payer monies is really a good deal. I would love to watch Pelosi defend that one.
I was actually trying to figure out what a good number is for job creation. There is the salary of course, but there is a lot more than that including the benefits.
Does anyone know?
I was actually trying to figure out what a good number is for job creation.
1-800-JOB-CRTN?
Tried calling - that reaches Steve Lowry - some sales rep in Alabama...
I gave him your email ;)
[SIZE="4"]Recession Ended in June 2009[/SIZE]
The National Bureau of Economic Research, the arbiter of the start and end dates of a recession, determined that the recession that began in December 2007 ended in June 2009.
The business-cycle dating committee met by phone on Sunday and came to the determination. “In determining that a trough occurred in June 2009, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity.
The decision by the NBER means that any future downturn in the economy would be considered a new recession and not a continuation of the recession that began in 2007.
from WSJ
Does their decision to call any future downturn a "new" recession really mean anything? I can see where the GOP would like that politically, but it seems wrong to me. With the current unemployment rate and the housing market still extremely volatile, it would seem logical that it would be related instead of new.
The GOP may like to be able to blame future downturns on Obama, but they wouldn't like the idea that the last one ended under Obama.
The GOP may like to be able to blame future downturns on Obama, but they wouldn't like the idea that the last one ended under Obama.
I have heard this but you and I know that it was much more complicated than that. Bills passed by Bush, Congress dominated by the Dems since 2007, and yet they all continue to fail the electorate. There is no middle ground in this country anymore, and I don't see any in the immediate future.
That goes without saying HM. I think this administration would like to say that it ended under their reign as well.
I agree with Ariana Huffington when she said that politicians from both parties have been screwing the middle class for thirty years.
I have heard this but you and I know that it was much more complicated than that. Bills passed by Bush, Congress dominated by the Dems since 2007, and yet they all continue to fail the electorate. There is no middle ground in this country anymore, and I don't see any in the immediate future.
:corn:
I have heard this but you and I know that it was much more complicated than that. Bills passed by Bush, Congress dominated by the Dems since 2007,
The recession started in 2007, so it must have been caused before that. So Democrats dominated Congress during the entire process of ending the recession?
I agree that it's always more complicated than a soundbite, but the data you provide isn't quite a counterpoint to "Obama fixed it!", especially since the current Republican party would like to disavow all knowledge of Bush's role in stimulus and bailouts at the end of his term.
The recession started in 2007, so it must have been caused before that. So Democrats dominated Congress during the entire process of ending the recession?
I agree that it's always more complicated than a soundbite, but the data you provide isn't quite a counterpoint to "Obama fixed it!", especially since the current Republican party would like to disavow all knowledge of Bush's role in stimulus and bailouts at the end of his term.
The Republickins are no better than the Demoncrats. Based on your logic the Demoncrats want to get all of the accolades of ending the recession and none of the responsibility for all of it's failures. I am going to go and photo shop a pic of Obama standing on a carrier with a banner in the background saying mission accomplished. Tell that to the millions still out of work in a nation of deficit spending and no plan to pay for them.
Obama Administration Gave General Electric—Parent Company of NBC--$24.9 Million in ‘Stimulus’ Grants
Despite getting $24.9 million from U.S. taxpayers, GE decreased its U.S.-based employees by 18,000 in 2009, according to the company’s 2009 annual report.
According to Standard & Poor's, GE took in $156 billion in revenue in 2009.
All of these federal stimulus grants went to GE’s Global Research Center.
The earliest of the stimulus grants went to GE in July 2009 and the latest in April 2010.
CNSNews.com asked a GE spokesperson if the company contested Recovery.gov’s representation that GE had received 14 stimulus grants worth $24.9 million, and also whether the company now employed more or fewer workers as a result of receiving the grants.
In an e-mail response, GE spokeswoman Anne Eisele said, “I’m afraid I must politely decline to comment.”
What did all the money to GE go for? Recovery.gov posts brief explanations of each grant. For example, the Department of Justice gave GE $999,955 in stimulus money. “The goal of this program,” said Recovery.gov, “is to develop a comprehensive reasoning system for event and scenario recognition for an intelligent video system.”
In addition to the $24.9 million it received in stimulus grants, GE was also awarded $5 million in federal contracts under the economic stimulus law. These contracts were payment for services provided by the company.
Link
Somehow I missed this one. I've perused that site a number of times. I'm constantly amazed at what/where money was spent on/for.
What's amazing about this? A subsidiary of a big company ran some projects using stimulus money? Did they do the things they got the grants for?
I guess the "NBC" mention is to bring up the "GE owns NBC which owns MSNBC which employs Olbermann and Maddow, who are liberal!" angle, but the article says the money went to the "Global Research Center". A generic name, but I'd guess it isn't part of NBC.
You didn't quote the most damning bit in the article, where GE kept outsourcing while accepting stimulus funds. Unfortunately, to get rid of tax incentives for outsourcing, we'd have to get rid of the legislators who most vociferously decry the stimulus.
nah - I was more interested in this...
Despite getting $24.9 million from U.S. taxpayers, GE decreased its U.S.-based employees by 18,000 in 2009, according to the company’s 2009 annual report.
They got money to "stimulate" jobs and they shed 18,000 workers.
That's what my third paragraph was in reference to. I'm all for disincentivising outsourcing, but GE is an insanely huge company, and the outsourced/eliminated jobs are probably unrelated to the "Global Research Center". Heck, there were probably more than a few job losses in the NBC division that CNS News hates so much.
GE Global Research is one of the world's largest and most diversified industrial research organizations, providing innovative technology for all of GE's business. Global Research has been the cornerstone of GE technology for more than 100 years, and is now focused on developing breakthrough innovations in areas such as molecular imaging and diagnostics, energy conversion, nanotechnology, advanced propulsion and security technologies. GE Global Research is headquartered in Niskayuna, NY, and has facilities in Bangalore, India, Shanghai, China, and Munich, Germany.
Employees
Worldwide:more than 2,800 (more than 1,000 PhDs)
They do research on new shit that's commercially viable for GE. They also are brains for hire, to anyone that wants research or development done. This isn't a gift to GE, it's a contract for services with Global Research Division.
Lots of goverment agencies hire them for projects, and apparently used some stimulous money to do so.
That's what my third paragraph was in reference to. I'm all for disincentivising outsourcing, but GE is an insanely huge company, and the outsourced/eliminated jobs are probably unrelated to the "Global Research Center". Heck, there were probably more than a few job losses in the NBC division that CNS News hates so much.
Is that the same GE that took a huge chunk of bailout money from Obama and the Demoncrats?
The first part is about electric cars. If that doesn't interest you the
bailout starts about 3:40.
He was doing relatively well until he said that the bailout saved a billion jobs.
According to the GM Corporate Website, GM only employs 252,000 people globally.
Too bad.
He was doing relatively well until he said that the bailout saved a billion jobs.
According to the GM Corporate Website, GM only employs 252,000 people globally.
First he said a million; not a billion.
Second, most of GM's work is done by contractors. First tier contractors may be about 5 for every one GM employee. These are people who work only on products and parts that go into GM cars.
The Economist noted this problem. To maintain sales, GM was offering cars to contractor employees with same discounted prices that employees get to buy them. It amounted to something approaching one out of every two GM cars were sold to employees or their contractors at discount. The Economist called this socialism.
GM employed that many people - most of whom were not GM employees. IOW his number at one million is probably too low.
The auto industry employs about 10% of all American workers.
It sounded to me like he mistakenly said billion the second time. But he was talking about both GM, and the entire program, so he may have been referring to jobs saved worldwide, by keeping the banks from playing dominos.
But he was talking about both GM, and the entire program, so he may have been referring to jobs saved worldwide, by keeping the banks from playing dominos.
A worldwide auto industry was not at risk. Only companies such as GM and Chrysler had been playing fast and lose with the spread sheets to appear solvent. Even Ford, by that time, had admitted their management was then enemy of mankind. After multiple physical confrontations between William Clay Ford and Jaques Nasser. Rumored violence saved Ford by eliminating the problem in 2000.
It took government to finally force GM and Chrysler fix their only problem - top management. Even their own Board of Directors would not do what obviously had to be done. These companies were so corrupt that it literally took an order from the White House to fix them.
So many American workers still have jobs because, for example, Obama finally fired Wagoner. The entire corporate structure in GM could not even see why that was so obviously necessary. An alternative was an America, full of healthy foreign auto companies, employing their people while Americans were waiting for those responsible companies to eventually hire Americans. That would have been the worst nightmare scenario leaving Ford as the only solvent American car company left.
Obama did not save jobs worldwide. World jobs were not at risk. Mostly at risk were jobs intentionally destroyed by scumbags in Detriot. Especially by Wagoner and Nardelli. Those Chrysler and GM workers have jobs only because the White House finally forced what Detroit management would not do. Be intelligent.
GM was only something like 55 Billion, of the 787 Billion in that package.
First he said a million; not a billion.
I listened to it several times for just that reason. Still sounds like Billion to me.
Second, most of GM's work is done by contractors.
Many large companies operate this way now. They hire contractors to reduce costs and avoid paying additional benefits.
There will be a lot more of this in the near future.
Bottom line is MSNBC is owned by GE.
GE is one of the big outsourcing companies in the US today.
They are using MSNBC as their mouth piece. Everything out of that news source is suspect.
Calif borrows $40M a day to pay unemployment
With one in every eight workers unemployed and empty state coffers, California is borrowing billions of dollars from the federal government to pay unemployment insurance.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the state owes $8.6 billion already, and will have to come up with a $362-million payment to Washington by the end of next September.
The continued borrowing means federal unemployment insurance taxes are going to increase, upping the annual payroll costs $21 a year per worker.
California tops the list of 32 states that have borrowed a total of $41 billion to pay claims.
The state took out its first loan from the federal government early last year, to deal with rising payment of benefits and number of claims.
Read more:
The debt, now at $8.6 billion, is expected to reach $10.3 billion for the year, two-thirds greater than last year. Worse, the deficit is projected to hit $13.4 billion by the end of next year and $16 billion in 2012, according to the California Employment Development Department, which runs the program.
Interest on that debt will soon start piling up, forcing the state to come up with a $362-million payment to Washington by the end of next September.
That's money that otherwise would go into the state's general fund, where it could be spent to hire new teachers, provide healthcare to children and beef up law enforcement.
Continued borrowing, meanwhile, means that employers face an automatic hike in their federal unemployment insurance taxes, pushing up annual payroll costs $21 a year for each worker.
Those costs are expected to more than double over the next five years if California continues to borrow from the federal government.
From Here
Now things are only going to get worse as interest on top of debt with more interest continues to accrue and then come due.
Get used to it, business will make sure unemployment won't go down any more than necessary, until after the next election.
:(:rolleyes::eyebrow::yelgreedy
[VIMEO]16716790[/VIMEO]
This can't be new news to anyone, but I'm wondering if conservatives will have any good words for the events so far ?
As an aside, some retired employees of GM have taken a real beating in all this
because part of their retirement package included the "old GM stock".
My Dad was a lifetime employee of GM and the stock he held was at $90+/share at one time.
NY Times
U.S. Taxpayers Recover Billions in Sale of G.M. Stock
American taxpayers’ ownership of General Motors was halved on Wednesday,
and billions of dollars in bailout money was returned to the federal government,
as a result of the nation’s largest initial stock offering ever.
With the offering, G.M. is shedding its ties to the government faster than expected,
cutting the Treasury Department’s ownership stake to 26 percent, from nearly 61 percent.
For the government, more complicated demands are in play.
Its bailout of the automaker was premised not on making money, but on preserving jobs.
Still, it is under pressure to minimize losses — or even to eke out a profit — by selling its shares at high enough prices.
The government has already recovered more than $7.4 billion from G.M., including interest and dividends.
When the new G.M. begins trading on Thursday — under its old “GM” ticker on the New York Stock Exchange
and “GMM” on the Toronto Stock Exchange — its shares will initially be held by a wide array of investors.
(Shares of the old G.M. — the bad assets that were split off in bankruptcy as the Motors Liquidation Company
— still trade for pennies, essentially worthless.)
Apparently so few understood THE most important action during that entire period. There has no been an innovation in a GM product in 30 years except when that innovation was required by government regulation. And so Obama had to do what so many anti-American GM stockholders and GM Board of Directors would not do. Obama fired someone who did more to harm the American standard of living than bin Laden. He had to fire Wagoner because GM was dominated by so many anti-Americans.
GM started designing the Volt. Then went bankrupt. Then came out of bankruptcy. Then went public again. And still is not selling the Volt. Why. Well how long ago did Obama fire Wagoner? Finally obstruction to innovation was removed. The Volt, that was suppose to be introduced (after setting the date back so many times) in 2010 is still not yet for sale. Of course. So many Americans so hated America as to keep buying GM products. Why should GM advance America when the public so encouraged GM to harm America.
GM increasingly has been the enemy of every American for 30 years. A problem that could never end until bankruptcy and then Obama fixed the #1 problem. GM still has crappy products. It will take years. Even the Volt is nothing more than a hybrid. Patriotic companies such as Toyota and Honda have been selling hybrids for how long? A car that Clinton originally paid GM to design 16 years ago. Another example of how anti-American GM has been.
Wagoner was fired because rattner didn't like him.
Wagoner was not a perfect manager, by any means. Unlike Alan Mulally, the C.E.O. at Ford, he failed to build up cash reserves in anticipation of the economic downturn, which might have kept his company out of bankruptcy. He can be faulted for riding the S.U.V. wave too long, and for being too slow to develop a credible small-car alternative. But, especially given the mess that Wagoner inherited when he took over, in 2000—and the inherent difficulty of running a company that had to pay pension and medical benefits to half a million retirees—he accomplished a tremendous amount during his eight-year tenure. He cut the workforce from three hundred and ninety thousand to two hundred and seventeen thousand. He built a hugely profitable business in China almost from scratch: a G.M. joint venture is the leading automaker in what is now the world’s largest automobile market. In 1995, it took forty-six man-hours to build the typical G.M. car, versus twenty-nine hours for the typical Toyota. Under Wagoner’s watch, the productivity gap closed almost entirely.
Most important, Wagoner—along with his counterparts at Ford and Chrysler—was responsible for a historic agreement with the United Auto Workers. Under that contract, which was concluded in 2007, new hires at G.M. receive between fourteen and seventeen dollars an hour—instead of the twenty-eight to thirty-three dollars an hour that preëxisting employees get—and give up all rights to the traditional retiree benefit package. The 2007 deal also transferred all responsibility for paying for the health care of G.M.’s retirees to a special fund, administered by the U.A.W. It is hard to overstate the importance of that second provision. G.M. has five hundred and seventeen thousand retirees. Between 1993 and 2007, the company paid out a hundred and three billion dollars to those former workers—a burden unimaginable to its foreign competitors. In the 2007 deal, G.M. agreed to make a series of lump-sum payments to the U.A.W. over ten years, worth some thirty-two billion dollars—at which point the company would be free of its outsized retiree health-care burden. It is estimated that, within a few years, G.M.’s labor costs—which were once almost fifty per cent higher than the domestic operations of Toyota, Nissan, and Honda—will be lower than its competitors’.
In the same period, G.M.’s product line was transformed. In 1989, to give one example, Chevrolet’s main midsize sedan had something like twice as many reported defects as its competitors at Honda and Toyota, according to the J. D. Power “initial quality” metrics. Those differences no longer exist. The first major new car built on Wagoner’s watch—the midsize Chevy Malibu—scores equal to or better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry. G.M. earned more than a billion dollars in profits in the last quarter because American consumers have started to buy the cars that Wagoner brought to market—the Buick Regal and LaCrosse, the Envoy, the Cadillac CTS, the Chevy Malibu and Cruze, and others. They represent the most competitive lineup that G.M. has fielded since the nineteen-sixties. (Both the CTS and the Malibu have been named to Car and Driver’s annual “10 Best Cars” list.)
linkWagoner was fired because rattner didn't like him.[QUOTE]Wagoner was not a perfect manager, by any means. Unlike Alan Mulally, the C.E.O. at Ford, he failed to build up cash reserves in anticipation of the economic downturn, which might have kept his company out of bankruptcy.
Mulally did not build up cash reserves. But an MBA hyping money game myths would order you to believe it. And you did. It is called brainwashing.
Mulally had profits because his products were designed/ modified by engineers. Even the Malibu - the best GM could do under Wagoner - made almost no profits. Other vehicles were selling at a loss. Mulally was selling Fords that were profitable. Wagoner was inventing profits by even shorting the pension funds. Oh. Your citation forgot to mention that to, instead, blame the unions? Honda and Toyota make the same 'just as large' pension contributions - and still have profits.
Wagoner did not inherit anything. He created it. How did GM avert bankruptcy in 1991? GM stopped funding the pension funds. Incurred $billions in obligations to claim only $millions in profits. Wagoner did not inherit this. He create the accounting that made fraud legal. He did this first in 1991 so that GM - only four hours from bankruptcy - suddenly had profits on their spread sheets.
No cash flow (or cash reserve) exists when most GM cars sell at a loss. Why did your article forget to mention reality? Mulally did not create cash reserves. It is called cash flow. There is none when corporate management does not even drive cars.
GM management so screwed all products that every Saturn could never make a profit. Unions did not put crappy 1968 engines in GM cars. 25 man-hours per car did not create those extra $thousands for each Saturn. Did you do the math? 25 man-hours is all labor for one patriotic car. How does a union wage times 20 man-hours increase costs per car by $thousands? Your citation is called brainwashing.
Wagoner went back to Detriot. Got on WDAS TV that weekend. Said that GM is in the best shape it has ever been. That GM's only problem is the economy, unions, unfair Japanese competition, ... the usual suspects. Also called lies that work becasue so many Americans fear to do simple arithmetic. 20 man-hours times how much per hour?
GM submitted their recovery plan. Every Democrat and Republican on the recovery committee was flabbergasted. After 20 years of corporate analysis, one Republican member never saw a corporation so incompetetnt and so in denial. Chrysler managemenet understood their position. But every top GM manager was in complete denial. GM's plan to the government was to do nothing. To wait for the economy to recover. GM was in the best condition in 30 years, as Michelle Maynard reported. That was Wagoner's entire recovery plan to obtain TARP assistance.
Why does your article forget to mention any of this? And provide no numbers. Was it written for brainwashing the most ignorant. Apparently. Reality and numbers say no cash reserve exists when the car cost more to build than it sells for.
Wagoner did not inherit anything as you well knew. And you quite well knew that. GM management was in a 20 year program to reap cash using spread sheet games. Wagoner is personally credited with created the legalized fraud that averted bankruptcy in 1991. Once GM had successfully mortgaged GMAC for cash, then Wagoner had nothing left to rape. And owed the pension funds $20billion. Wagoner had nothing left to rape for cash.
GM cars costs more to build than what they were selling for. Withheld $billions from the pension funds to pay for defective cars that earned no profits. So your a business school graduate ignored that in his article. And you call it credible?
Now do some arithmetic. A patriotic car takes twenty some man-hours to make and assemble every part. 20 man-hours in a car times how many dollars per hour? How does that cause some GM models to cost many $thousands more? Oh. An MBA told you it was only a cash flow problem. Numbers say otherwise. So your citation avoided those numbers. Where does that article also claim to be "Fair and Balanced".
Rick Wagoner did when he said GM was in the best condition in 30 years. Your ariticle all but agreed. Meanwhile, we should be prosceuting him for fraud. Unfortunately, the list of bankers about to be prosecuted next year for the same spread sheet games is believe to be in the hundreds.
The article didn't say GM was in good shape, it said Rattner wanted Wagoner out because he personally didn't like him. They went on to describe the good things Wagoner had accomplished for GM, although it was too little, too late. They were pointing out Wagoner was maybe even better than his predecessors, although thats not saying much.
We're all aware of your personal vendetta against GM, so you don't have to keep repeating the same diatribe ad nauseum. :rolleyes:
The article didn't say GM was in good shape, it said Rattner wanted Wagoner out because he personally didn't like him.
The article repeats so many MBA lies as to have zero credibility. If you disagree, then post facts that defend its claims and its so many intentionally missing facts.
Wagoner said GM was in the best shape in 30 years. Even the Malibu - the best GM could do - has higher failure rates in only three years. Why does your citation forget that damning fact? GM's recovery plan from both Wagoner and other top GM executives repeated the same lie.
When Democrat and Republican staffers interviewed many GM managers, managers repeated and believed that lie. GM management was that much in denial and was that incompetent. As one Republican notes, he had never seen a company with management that incompetent.
Wagoner was removed because he created many of GMs disasters, and denied those disasters existed. Does anyone remember the EV-1 (and who killed the electric car)? He even shorted pension fund of $billions to claim profits and reap personal bonuses. Then lied again about the legacy costs. Lying to blame the unions says management is most corrupt. Wagoner routinely destroyed capital assets to claims profits - ie the sale of Hughes Electronics. Lying spread sheets were acceptable behavior in GM for 30 years. Wagoner was so corrupt as to think Enron accounting practices were good and acceptable. And xoxoxBruce apparently agrees.
Who said GM products were so crappy even 20 years ago? Who's statements were then proven years later. Constantly because facts and numbers were also provided. Because I keep being accurate, you call that a personal vendetta? If you understood before posting, then you know my every post is very pro-GM. And very negative about those who were destroying both GM and America. But apparently something crawled up your ass and died recently.
If comprehending the always required reasons why, then you knew I was a greatest fan of GM. I even worked there. So, where are your 'always required' reasons why? Instead you take a cheapshot because you defend your emotions? Posted for decades was why so many of America's best workers were making the world's worst cars. If you had read what was posted, then you knew my every post cheered American patriots - engineers, car guys, and union workers. And advocate prison sentences for the enemies of America - both bin Laden and Wagoner.
Apparently you are now so emotional (illogical) as to be blind to realities I have defined for decades - with the 'always required' reasons why.
What would have saved all patriotic American jobs? GM in bankruptcy in 1991 could have eliminated all problems. So the enemies of America, instead, shorted the pension funds. Then blamed the unions. And xoxoxBruce apparently approves.
GM was in such bad shape that the Volt, finally reschedule for a 2010 first model, is now being relabeled as a 2011 Volt.
GM was in such bad shape that the Volt, finally reschedule for a 2010 first model, is now being relabeled as a 2011 Volt.
Yes. The Volt will be a flopping dud.
Praised by the main stream media, natch, the Volt will be another Studebaker or Yugo.
Gubmint Motors.
I actually suggest buying one. It will be worth it's weight in gold in 70 years.
Yes. The Volt will be a flopping dud.
I don't believe it will be a dud. But it will not be the major sales success that spin was promoting it. Volt is GMs first hybrid - almost ten years after Honda and Toyota were selling same. But then all GM products are typically eight and twenty years obsolete.
Volt has some major flaws directly traceable to Wagoner and his ship of corporate fools. For example, Volt cannot recharge its own battery. A decision made in some corporate board room - not by engineers. Once its battery runs down, then operation is 100% gasoline engine power - not a hybrid.
Once 40 miles has drained the battery, then one must find a 240 volt outlet to recharge it. A recharge will take 8 to 12 hours from a conventional AC 240 VAC receptacle.
The Volt weighs almost 2 tons. That approaches SUV or largest car weight.
Well Clinton paid for GM's original hybrid in 1994. Prototype was ready to take to production in 1999. Then GM quashed all future development when Wagoner took over.
A concept car that became Volt was demonstrated in 2007. Then it took another four years to redesign and existing design into a working model. Meanwhile, Nissan, who had never before built a car of its size and complexity, developed and marketed the Maxima from scratch in only four years. A difference between a product done right the first time and a compromise obstructed by a technically ignorant management.
It may not be a major sales success. But Volt may have been a breakthrough for some of GMs so many stifled innovators. Whereas EV-1 should have had NiMH batteries, the corporate enemies of America replaced it with lead acid (1930 technology) batteries. Those same Rick Wagoner types tried to replace the Lithium batteries in Volt with NiMH. But this time, car guys appear to have finally won one battle (a war that only exists in anti-Americans companies).
Whether the car sells well at $40,000 is not relevant. All future GM products must be hybrids - variations of technologies found in Volt. And no, I am not just discussing electric power. Important gain for GM is that bean counters lost a few battles. And the bean counters must start losing every battle for GM to succeed.
Searching for an island of excellence in a sea of scum, I suspect something good happened in the Chevy Cruze. This is built in a factory that once made some of GM's crappiest cars - Vega, Cimarron, Sunbird, Cavalier , and Cobalt. Bits and pieces suggest that the Cruze may contain some long stifled GM technology that must start appearing in every GM car in the next eight years if GM is to be patriotic.
The good news is Obama let GM be saved. He fired Wagoner. It is not yet clear if Wagoner was replaced by a car guy. But car guys did something that rarely happened in GM. They won some battles.
If true, hopefully that is also happening in a few other American industries so that we can, in ten years, start seeing our debts to the world diminish as Clinton so successfully did. The only thing that will do that is American companies who let the world's best innovators (people who earn less than $250,000 annually) do their jobs.
Cookie generator just threw this up:
Students in schools of business in America are taught that there is a profession of management; that they are ready to step into top jobs.
This is a cruel hoax. Most students have had no experience in production or in sales. To work on the factory floor with pay equal to half what he hoped to get upon receipt of the MBA, just to get experience, is a horrible thought to an MBA, not the American way of life. As a consequence, he struggles on, unaware of his limitations, or unable to face the need to fill the gaps. The result is obvious.
- W. Edwards Deming
:lol:
Cookie generator is wise.
but this:
Volt cannot recharge its own battery. A decision made in some corporate board room - not by engineers. Once its battery runs down, then operation is 100% gasoline engine power - not a hybrid.
Once 40 miles has drained the battery, then one must find a 240 volt outlet to recharge it. A recharge will take 8 to 12 hours from a conventional AC 240 VAC receptacle.
The #$%& WHAT? Are you cereal?
And how easy is it to find a 240 volt outlet in the US? Don't you guys use 110 or something? How is that supposed to work? (first question ... IS that supposed to work?
Don't you guys use 110 or something?
But two cylider ('C') batteries in series. Each batttery is 1.5 volts. Both batteries in series are 3 volts.
Now tap those batteries at each end and in the middle. Now you can power something from one 1.5 volt battery. Other things from the other 1.5 volt battery. And a third groups from 3 volts.
Same is done in AC power. Half the house is powered by one 120 volt wire. Other half by the other 120 volt wire. And heavy appliances (air conditioner, electric dryer) from 240 volts.
So that proper voltage and currents are provided (to foolproof things), then each
receptacle is shaped accordingly.
Volt will need an extension cord maybe designed for NEMA 6 or NEMA 15 receptacles. Or, more likely, a type that locks (NEMA L6 or NEMA L15) to the receptacle.
How many will forget to unplug before driving out the garage? That will also have to be part of the design. Does the car come with an electrician visit?
You know that thing tw's always referencing, how Warren Buffet says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary?
Turns out, not only does he say it, he has
recently challenged every other billionaire on the Forbes 400 list: he will pay a million dollars to any one of them who can show they pay a higher tax rate than their own receptionist. So far he says only three of his close friends have admitted to making the calculations, and they all found they didn't qualify for the money.
And xoxoxBruce apparently agrees.
But apparently something crawled up your ass and died recently.
Apparently you are now so emotional (illogical) as to be blind to realities I have defined for decades - with the 'always required' reasons why.
And xoxoxBruce apparently approves.
Look you lying motherfucker, stop putting words in my mouth, and claiming I support anything. You got that Tom?:eyebrow:
I clearly posted what was written, and who wrote it, neither of which was me.
I posted it because it's an interesting footnote, that in spite of Wagoner's performance before Congress, and the real condition of GM, he would have been retained if Rattner hadn't taken a personal dislike to him.
I hate to interrupt you calling out tw, but I thought this was a very interesting statistic.
bold mine.
In a New York Times profile of J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, author Roger Lowenstein wrote:
"America's five biggest banks, including Dimon's, now control 46 percent of all deposits, up from a mere 12 percent in the early '90s. Since the financial crisis, a sort of Jacksonian animosity toward big financial institutions has overtaken the public -- witness that, in the recent election, no fewer than 200 candidates spent money on ads attacking Wall Street. 'Big banks don't have a lot of friends right now,' says Nancy Bush, an analyst with NAB Research. 'Europe loves its big banks. America hates them.' "
linkResurrection ... just FYI
NY Times
Financial Crisis Was Avoidable, Inquiry Finds
By SEWELL CHAN
Published: January 25, 2011
WASHINGTON — The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster
caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and
heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a federal inquiry.
“The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen this coming
and thus nothing could have been done,” the panel wrote in the report’s conclusions,
which were read by The New York Times.
“If we accept this notion, it will happen again.”
The majority report finds fault with two Fed chairmen:
Alan Greenspan, who led the central bank as the housing bubble expanded,
and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, who did not foresee the crisis
but played a crucial role in the response.
It criticizes Mr. Greenspan for advocating deregulation and cites a
“pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” under his
leadership as a “prime example” of negligence.
It also criticizes the Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” to the crisis [/B
— allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse in September 2008
after earlier bailing out another bank, Bear Stearns,
with Fed help — as having “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.
Democrats also come under fire. [B]The decision in 2000 to shield
the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation
made during the last year of President Bill Clinton’s term, is called
“a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.”
The report does knock down — at least partly — several early theories for the financial crisis.
It says the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession;
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and
the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part
of a “philosophy of opportunity” were [SIZE="3"]not[/SIZE] major culprits.
It says the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates some banks,
and the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings and loans,
blocked states from curbing abuses because they were “caught up in turf wars.”
Of the banks that bought, created, packaged and sold trillions of dollars
in mortgage-related securities, it says:
“Like Icarus, they never feared flying ever closer to the sun.”
Another relevant article concerning Fannie and Freddie and the current mess of the financial climate.... It makes for an interesting read, if for nothing else a nice synopsis of where it all started.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/01/26/the_troubled_fannie__freddie_omission.html#Here is the motto:
The government can fuck things up, and the private sector can fuck things up, but to majorly fuck everything up requires a partnership between both of them.
Housing crash is getting worse: report
What a foolish boondoggle those tax breaks for home buyers have turned out to be. The government spent an estimated $22 billion between 2008 and 2010 on tax breaks to prop up the housing market. All it achieved was a brief suckers’ rally that ended last summer.
“As we said at the time, it was a giant waste of money,” says Mark Calabria, economist at the conservative Cato Institute. “None of these things really turned the housing market around. They just put off the adjustment for awhile.”
It’s hard to overestimate the scale of the carnage in the housing market. Zillow found prices fell in all but four U.S. metro areas.
Falling real-estate prices mean spiraling hidden losses throughout the economy, from banks to homeowners.
Remember Japan’s “zombie banks”? These were the financial institutions that haunted that country’s economic recovery after the 1990 crash. They staggered on with huge losses they could never repay — the walking dead.
Link
I thought that things were turning around in the housing market.
WTF?
Based on my unscientific observations, the housing market is picking up. At least sellers are more confident now. In the last few months, I've seen a lot of new houses enter the market here, and they seem to be selling. Our neighbors moved and sold their house in a couple days.
Thats what I was noticing in my area as well, then I spoke with a real estate friend and she told me that things had slowed considerably in the last few weeks when it normally would be picking up.
Goofing around on google and I saw this. Whats it like in other areas of the country? Anyone?
<glatt - you and I are pretty close, geographically speaking.>
I thought that things were turning around in the housing market.
Depends upon who is doing the talking. Nationally, a housing oversupply. Builders are hurting except where specialty demands exist or regional problems were not so severe. Banks have done virtually nothing to clear a backlog of foreclosures. That has just begun. Will finally encourage all prices to drop. With so many underwater, many workers (especially, for some reason, males) cannot go elsewhere for new jobs. They are stuck in houses in towns where jobs are less available. Those venues could remain a stagnant market.
Also required was time for many to admit to and take their losses.
Some markets (ie NJ, PA) were not hit badly. Other markets (ie CA, Vegas) still have serious problems. Therefore some prices will fall more than others.
I have been watching a nearby home once offered for something like $4million. Apparently (due to divorse), it is something less than $2million. Still not sold after two years. But the homeowner will be (and can afford) to sell for less. That one will probably move soon. Some needed time to admit how much they must surrender to the market.
Market must be judged from real estate agents, builders, and homeowners at various prices and in various states. All will see something different as the market changes to adapt to new realities.
They built far too many housing units during the real estate boom, so there is a glut there. And people are being foreclosed on a lot, so there's a glut there. It'll take a little while for population increases to absorb the glut.
They built far too many housing units during the real estate boom, so there is a glut there.
Meanwhile, in a few towns where the richest reside, I am watching construction continue with maybe a 10 or 20 percent cutback.
Meanwhile, I am watching construction continue with maybe an 85 percent cutback.
FTFY
Not sure where to dump this so its going here...
That's the going rate for Zimbabwe's highest denomination note, the biggest ever produced for legal tender—and a national symbol of monetary policy run amok. At one point in 2009, a hundred-trillion-dollar bill couldn't buy a bus ticket in the capital of Harare.
But since then the value of the Zimbabwe dollar has soared. Not in Zimbabwe, where the currency has been abandoned, but on eBay.
The notes are a hot commodity among currency collectors and novelty buyers, fetching 15 times what they were officially worth in circulation. In the past decade, President Robert Mugabe and his allies attempted to prop up the economy—and their government—by printing money. Instead, the country's central bankers sparked hyperinflation by issuing bills with more zeros.
The 100-trillion-dollar note, circulated for just a few months before the Zimbabwe dollar was officially abandoned as the country's legal currency in 2009, marked the daily limit people were allowed to withdraw from their bank accounts. Prices rose, wreaking havoc.
The runaway inflation forced Zimbabweans to wait in line to buy bread, toothpaste and other essentials. They often carried bigger bags for their money than the few items they could afford with a devalued currency.
Today, all transactions are in foreign currencies, mainly the U.S. dollar and the South African rand. But Zimbabwe's worthless bills are valuable—at least outside the country. That Zimbabwe's currency happened to be denoted in dollars has amplified appeal, say currency dealers and collectors, particularly after the global financial crisis and mounting public debts sparked inflationary fears in the U.S.
"People pick them up and make jokes about when that's going to happen here," says David Laties, owner of the Educational Coin Company, a currency wholesaler based in Highland, N.Y
Honey? I'm running out to get some bread...
LinkPffft, that'll never happen in the US! The dollar is the world's currency.
[COLOR="White"]*leaves to stock up on tuna, beans, and toilet paper*[/COLOR]
I always got a kick out of the Zimbabwe story. I don't think it has any relevance as an allegory (or, I'm not interested in buying into the paranoia and fear that the allegory hints at), but I love how the story ends:
In 2009, Gideon Gono, governor of Zimbabwe’s Reserve Bank, was awarded the Ig Nobel prize for Mathematics "for giving people a simple, everyday way to cope with a wide range of numbers — from very small to very big — by having his bank print bank notes with denominations ranging from one cent ($.01) to one hundred trillion dollars ($100,000,000,000,000)."
Pffft, that'll never happen in the US! The dollar is the world's currency.
*leaves to stock up on tuna, beans, and toilet paper*
Yes to the tuna and beans, but you've got
plenty of toilet paper. I just hope you're not allergic to the ink.
Seriously, the US$ shouldn't go crazy like that - the US economy has a lot of real activity going on in it, and the trump card is that most US debt is denominated in US$. So devaluing the currency also devalues the debt. For other cases (Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany) debt was denominated in foreign currency, so devaluing thier own currency meant they needed more and more of their own currency for trade, and that is how the spiral goes.
