Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Financial crisis
FN Posted: Thu Sep 18 08:34:10 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  When did the USA become a communist state?


Jesus christ, I can't believe what I'm seeing.


 
addi Posted: Thu Sep 18 10:26:41 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Was just going to start a thread on the economic crisis here...ya beat me to it.
I don't know enough about economic subjects to speak intelligently on the topic (just like John McCain). All I know is that the deregulation that was practiced here for so many years has finally caught up to us, and exploded like a volcano. Without falling in to an alarmist mindset it doesn't look good. My gut tells me it's going to have more negative repercussions (internationally as well) and get worse before we see any signs of improvement.
I frequent another forum site (forgive me JQ) and there's a long thread about how so many members are now stockpiling on goods and guns and ammo. No kidding, they're deadly serious.

I think I'm moving to Belgiam.


 
SntSaturn Posted: Thu Sep 18 10:57:37 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'll admit I don't tend to watch the news. I get a couple doses of John Stewart and/or Steven Colbert.

Can you give me some more details on this economic crisis?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Sep 18 12:13:16 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:

>I frequent another forum site (forgive me JQ) and there's a long thread about how so many members are now stockpiling on goods and guns and ammo. No kidding, they're deadly serious.
>
Same thing happened in the 80's when everyone thought we would descend into anarchy and started survivalist camps everywhere.
In spite of the economic downturn, it's difficult to call it a crisis when you have yet to record a single quarter of negative growth. That means we have yet to officially be in a recession.
That being said, I'm a little pissed that the feds are bailing everybody out.
I think they should let the failures fail and let the sharks feed where they will.
I've heard a lot of people who are supposed to know about this stuff, say that Alan Greenspan is to blame for keeping interest rates too low for too long. This made money too easy to get and caused the subprime housing problems.

BTW, I'm back after a week without any power. IKE blew thru here last sunday with 82mph winds and dropped trees and power lines all across town.
Being in the midwest we are not supposed to get hurricanes here.
Over half a million folks suddenly without power half of our utilities workers were dispatched to Texas to help with relief down there put us in a helluva situation. Most folks lost whatever perishables they had in the fridge and freezers and have no way to cook whatever non perishables they have.
Gas was unavailable because the pumps woudn't work.
We are five days after the storm now and still two hundred thousand without power. Almost no traffic signals are working and the national guard is out directing traffic and patrolling for looters.
On top of all this, the Ryder Cup is in town this week. Looks like we're gonna pull it off though.


 
FN Posted: Thu Sep 18 12:17:01 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Long story short:

Faulty loans and other shenanigans is making half of the US financial system implode on itself, it's shocking. Some of the oldest and most famous companies in the sector have been going down within literally days of eachother.

The impact of it is worldwide because it's a deeprooted problem that stretches far beyond this and through its indirect ramifications it'll be getting worse before it'll get better.

It's not the end of the world obviously but some people with knowledge about it label it as a financial "extinction event", and alarmist as it sounds there's a grain of truth in it as far as my personal (and obviously all in all limited) interpretation of the events goes. A few years from now it'll be behind us but the psychological aspect of it at least is I think quite tremendous.

Especially in the US it seems to keep on going, but to a lesser extent it's trickling over to Europe as well, although banks over here in general are less prone to this particular type of damage that's at the root of this, but they deal in the blows too through dealings with their US counterparts and the climate this is creating.

I don't see too many European/Belgian banks sharing as dramatic a fate as some US ones in the direct future, but still... I'm not a panicky guy either but you do start to wonder about how much longer this can go on before you get a run on the banks.




Anyway, that's backstory; what's way more shocking to me is how the US is turning communist all of a sudden and nationalising all those financial firms.

I even read a few hours ago that now in Detroit and Chicago the car industry is throwing a tantrum because they want government aid as well, and chances are they'll be getting it since both Obama and McCain are trying to get votes there and from what I've read they've already been indirectly promised it or at least have had quite good hints at it being a possibility for both candidates.

That's pretty twisted, honestly. What happened to liberalism and economic freedom?


 
FN Posted: Thu Sep 18 12:24:18 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Glad you're ok Hif.



I wonder, who's going to bail out the feds with the crappy balance sheets they're taking over? We're talking about all in all *well* over a hundred billion dollars here, AIG alone is getting an 85 billion dollar loan that could potentially go down the toilet.


I agree with you, why aren't they letting the market do its thing and let failures fail to make way for new and better instead of nationalizing stuff. That tendency and the precedent it is setting, especially for the US as the supposed land of economic freedom, worries me more than any other part of this.


 
libra Posted: Thu Sep 18 12:33:47 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't know too much about economics, Chris, but I do know that for a long time in the US, businesses have expected special treatment from the government. Maybe these bailouts seem crazy to someone coming from a place where the free-market is actually free, but I must say, corporations here have relied on 'corporate socialism' for a long time now, which is part of what creates these problems.


 
FN Posted: Thu Sep 18 12:48:39 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The market isn't free here by a long shot, but the magnitude of what's going on in the US at the moment would be hard to imagine even here.

Anyway, I'm glad you also agree Libra that more capitalism and an actual free market is what's needed :)


 
libra Posted: Thu Sep 18 13:14:06 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>The market isn't free here by a long shot, but the magnitude of what's going on in the US at the moment would be hard to imagine even here.
>
>Anyway, I'm glad you also agree Libra that more capitalism and an actual free market is what's needed :)

Well, I think that its time we put the whole notion of free-market capitalism to the test for real, if people want to claim its the best system under the sun. Let actual competition happen, take away government bailouts and the gov't laws about labor organizing. If we're not going to regulate big business, at LEAST don't create laws that favor corporations over workers. And tax them the same way you tax anyone else.
Treating corporations like we're lucky to have them and need to work hard and not offend to keep them here makes me sick.


 
beetlebum Posted: Thu Sep 18 14:44:44 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So much of what has happened on Wall Street was a long-time coming. It's not just the faulty loans and the bundling of those loans-- it's the creation of derivatives of derivatives and all sorts of crazy shenanigans that stretch far beyond the shitty, irresponsible practice of loan-bundling. When the shareholders shoulder almost 100% of the risk of poor investments, I think bankers create their own paper lalaland where everything becomes so abstract. I mean, if your performance does not affect your multi-million dollar payout and severance package, why worry about the long-term performance and instead worry about making as much money (however risky) in as short a time as possible?

I also think that derivatives are dodgy at best, but derivatives of derivatives? WTF! I do not even understand how top hedge fund managers actually understood what they were trading and how they were making money. Bundling loans was a bad idea, but then to bundle the derivatives of the derivatives of the loans? Wowsers. I read some of this stuff and even I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. I have a friend who is a derivatives lawyer in the City in London, and even he had trouble understanding and explaining to me how this actually happened. Again, when the person doing the trading and bundling and creating the derivatives bears little of the risk of the investment, so many dodgy things become possible.

Then again, I think that creating the FDIC was a bad idea, because it is a fabulous get-out-of-jail free card for banks who are more focused on making money than remaining viable. Long before these crazy market shenanigans, the government stepped in to shoulder the trouble that comes from risky market behaviour. I also think that the recent bailouts are more trouble for the market (long term); at some point the shitty risk taking has to play out, even if it hurts investors. I am happy to hear the counter-argument, but as with the Asian financial crisis, the more the government steps in to correct the problem, the more investors learn that risky behaviour is rewarded. Either way the man on the street is screwed.

Anyway, there's nothing to be done now. The US government is committed to bailout because it cannot risk further instability. I imagine that the Fed is under pressure from the ECB and the ACB, because even if the bankers abroad know that the bailout is a bad idea in the long term, everyone is so panicked for the short term as panic creates panic.

That said, I think that the US has finally lost its financial dominance. If you look at the way other countries are behaving, they are pissed off (and with good reason) at what has gone on in NYC.

Just one more notch in the USA's decline as a world super power. Not that that bothers me at all, but what a freaking mess.

In terms of talking about liberal versus conservative, Democratic versus Republican... I think it is interesting to note that it is the Democratic party that receives the most support from Wall Street. I think this article does a great job in elucidating the relationship between Wall Street and political parties. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102301804.html

Please note that this article was written before the majority of this profound Wall Street turmoil (but after it became clear that home loan bundling was causing some scary issues.)
And I think that Nancy Pelosi calling for some sort of inquiry/hearings in October is so bloody stupid-- WHAT A WASTE. We all know how this happened-- it's pretty straightforward that greed, lack of transparency, and lack of regulation caused this havoc. Hell, the government even knows which individuals are responsible.

Joseph Stiglitz had some interesting things to say yesterday about this crisis and where the government should really be focused-- such a liberal economist saying highly critical things about the liberal politicians who are anti-big business and pro-equity and equality-- that made me think.





 
FN Posted: Thu Sep 18 16:53:35 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Well, I think that its time we put the whole notion of free-market capitalism to the test for real, if people want to claim its the best system under the sun. Let actual competition happen, take away government bailouts and the gov't laws about labor organizing

I agree


 
sweet p Posted: Thu Sep 18 18:46:45 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/30581266@N06/2864507526/sizes/o/

this photo made me chuckle and feel sad all at the same time.

[glad you're alright, hiffer!]


 
addi Posted: Thu Sep 18 21:52:29 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Was wondering where the hell you were, hif. Sounds like you were in hell. : )
Glad you came through it okay. I had no idea it came up that far north.

As far as the topic at hand goes I defer to B'Bum. There's no way I could sum it up as well as she did.
I will only add that while I believe both parties hand their hand in creating this mess for sure, I still put a larger share of this mess on the hands of the republicans (Bush in particular) for allowing these institutions to practice such questionable deals with little oversight happening from government. Way too much of a hands off policy and let them do what they want for too many years in my opinion.
As far as bailing them out I think if the government didn't we'd be screwed, and because we did we are screwed..it's just a matter of seeing down the road which decision would have screwed us less.
I also see a lot of hypocracy by McCain pointing fingers at Obama for being a socialist, and then he turns around and starts saying we have to have more government regulation of these businesses.
The stupid fuck.

: )
All done


 
FN Posted: Fri Sep 19 02:49:39 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah I agree, he isn't any better with what he's saying now.

That's the point of a free economy though, sometimes companies go down and they go down hard, that's the reality of it and the whole point: inefficiency in any form gets put down.

I don't like how this whole thing is being handled on emotion and with some hip shots instead of letting the market do its thing.


I don't get how US citizens aren't more in an uproar over turning into a socialist state. Pretty soon you might have to call yourself the Democratic People's Republic of the US :)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Sep 19 07:35:43 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And the mantra from the left grows ever louder - GOVERNMENT MUST SAVE US !


 
addi Posted: Fri Sep 19 11:17:28 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And the mantra from the left grows ever louder - GOVERNMENT MUST SAVE US !

Actually, good sir, if you were up to date on what's being said/done you'd know that it's coming from both sides.


 
beetlebum Posted: Fri Sep 19 12:00:01 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  and the SEC bans shorting!!

this has been such an exciting month. i can't wait to see if this is permanent or not.

but i can't find anything in the mainstream media about everything that went down yesterday.



i makes me so sad that most people do not even understand what happened yesterday with the world banks, the pension funds, and the SEC. this is big stuff.


 
addi Posted: Fri Sep 19 13:32:05 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:

>i makes me so sad that most people do not even understand what happened yesterday with the world banks, the pension funds, and the SEC. this is big stuff.

I try to get a handle on it all, B'Bum, but sadly some of the economic concepts seem to go over my head. It doesn't help when I listen to NPR and they get all these experts on, and one says, "It's terrible!", and another one says, "This was our only choice", and still another says something completely different. I mean if folks studying economics with advanced degrees and years of knowledge in the field can't agree on things then how the hell is this philosophy major supposed to figure things out?

Come to Atlanta and explain things to me. I'll buy you a beer.


 
beetlebum Posted: Fri Sep 19 14:16:39 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
It is not so much that I think that people need to understand or agree upon the actions of the Central Banks and, more specifically, the Federal Reserve-- instead, I just wish people took the time to understand very specific market actions and concepts that affect us all.

For example, I get the impression (well, my impression has been created by my friends and their parents) that very few people understanding what the shorting of stock entails, what 'leveraging' means, what happens to the market when huge pension funds refuse to lend stock (for leveraging and shorting), or even the most basic differences between mutual funds and hedge funds.

I imagine that most people do not think beyond their 401k, and I suppose that many do not even understand anything about retirement planning beyond a 401k. I am no expert, so it's not like I expect for everyone to understand the really complicated bits of the stock market, but I think it helps anyone to understand a bit, especially if retirement is a concern and he/she wants to save more than just that in his/her 401k.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Sep 19 15:03:04 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>beetlebum said:
>
>>i makes me so sad that most people do not even understand what happened yesterday with the world banks, the pension funds, and the SEC. this is big stuff.
>
>I try to get a handle on it all, B'Bum, but sadly some of the economic concepts seem to go over my head. It doesn't help when I listen to NPR and they get all these experts on, and one says, "It's terrible!", and another one says, "This was our only choice", and still another says something completely different. I mean if folks studying economics with advanced degrees and years of knowledge in the field can't agree on things then how the hell is this philosophy major supposed to figure things out?
>
>Come to Atlanta and explain things to me. I'll buy you a beer.
>
My feelings exactly and furthermore you could apply the same to climate change as well.
I can't explain it to you, but if I ever show up in Atlanta you damn well better buy me a beer !
:-)


 
Zacq Posted: Fri Sep 19 19:39:45 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:

>I also see a lot of hypocracy by McCain pointing fingers at Obama for being a socialist, and then he turns around and starts saying we have to have more government regulation of these businesses.

I feel that might not be accurate.

McCain responded to each of the major bailouts this year by saying that they were unfortunate necessities - the government had had to intervene to maintain stability when things got too far, but that this shouldn't be the government's job in general and that it needs to get the financial system back to where this kind of thing doesn't happen. He said today,

"The Federal Reserve should get back to its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation."

"It needs to get out of the business of bailouts."


 
addi Posted: Fri Sep 19 20:16:15 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I respectfully disagree, zacq. McCain speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He may be reluctant about having government involvement now, but he still thinks it's necessary. The same as those "socialist democrats".
The McCain of 2000 has disappeared and been replaced with a neocon during this election...all in the name of winning this election.

*and it goes without saying, hiffer, if you ever come down here I'd buy you 2 beers..as long as you wouldn't mind my sheep tagging along.


 
Ahriman Posted: Sat Sep 20 03:34:10 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Michael Bloomberg should just run for the presidency.


 
FN Posted: Sun Sep 21 16:40:10 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/9/did-we-say-500-billion-sorry-bailout-will-cost-1-trillion

"roughly, that's $3,333 for every person in the U.S. The bill comes to $7,246 if you only count actual taxpayers."


 
addi Posted: Sun Sep 21 17:38:14 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>"roughly, that's $3,333 for every person in the U.S. The bill comes to $7,246 if you only count actual taxpayers."

Thank god Crim has agreed to pick up my portion of the tab. He's a generous guy.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Sep 23 08:13:44 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Jimmy Carter started this rot.

From stoptheaclu.com sep 22, 2008 :

To hear today’s Democrats, you’d think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas. Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans. [...] Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called “CRA rating” that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was. [...] In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market. That’s how the contagion began. With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.






 
FN Posted: Wed Sep 24 13:55:10 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  quite sobering:


http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-things-have-changed.html


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Sep 29 15:56:02 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  YAY !
The bailout plan failed to pass.
The dems should have been able to pass this one on their own without republican help, but try as they might, they couldn't sell it to their own people.

Barney Frank out front scolding the republicans for not voting for it. HA !
He's nothing more than a clown in a congressmans' suit.

One more observation - I've noticed Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Dodd say many times that the time for finger pointing and placing blame can come later as we need to worry about solving this crisis now.
The reason for this is because they haven't been able to find any republican to hang it on. You can bet that if they could he would already have been in front of a commitee for questioning on national TV every day for the last several days.

This is not about de-regulation, it's about cooking the books at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's a criminal matter and we were warned about it several times since 2002 by John McCain and George Bush, but Barney Frank and Chris Dodd poo-pooed it and said there was no problem.
Now the guys that caused it with their lack of oversight are in charge of fixing it ?




 
addi Posted: Tue Sep 30 06:59:05 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>YAY !
>The bailout plan failed to pass.

Nothing personal, hif but this kind of attitude is exactly what's wrong with our polarized voting base, and our washington politicians. It's petty and ignorant. And you may want to rethink the angry monkey in a closet finger pointing at the dems, because this issue was significantly helped along by those you praise, Dubya and McCain. If you aren't aware of what they've done to assist this problem then you haven't been paying attention.
For sure the blame goes around to both parties, and even to previous administrations, but this "Yay!" stuff is uncalled for.
Just a prediction from one economic expert if it doesn't pass:

"More failed companies. Duke University finance Prof. Campbell Harvey predicts there could be 750 to 1,000 bank failures over the next six months because of billions in bad assets stemming from the housing meltdown. Scarce credit also threatens other types of companies that are already struggling and desperately need capital, such as the Detroit automakers and some of the airlines. The government will be able to deal with some of those companies one at a time, but without a comprehensive plan, others will fall through the cracks."

I am NOT argueing that the bailout needs to happen. I'm just saying that there very well could be even more serious consequences if it doesn't pass, and to shout "Hooray!" at the possibility of it not happening just demonstrates your petty political partisanship.
We're (the average joe) are being asked to drop trow and bend over. Our choices of who cornholes us are the pro bailout folks, and those against it. Either way we're still going to get it in the end. At this time you (and I) have no clue which of the two options are going to be more painful.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Sep 30 08:41:26 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>YAY !
>>The bailout plan failed to pass.
>
>Nothing personal, hif but this kind of attitude is exactly what's wrong with our polarized voting base, and our washington politicians. It's petty and ignorant. And you may want to rethink the angry monkey in a closet finger pointing at the dems, because this issue was significantly helped along by those you praise, Dubya and McCain. If you aren't aware of what they've done to assist this problem then you haven't been paying attention.
>For sure the blame goes around to both parties, and even to previous administrations, but this "Yay!" stuff is uncalled for.
>Just a prediction from one economic expert if it doesn't pass:
>
>"More failed companies. Duke University finance Prof. Campbell Harvey predicts there could be 750 to 1,000 bank failures over the next six months because of billions in bad assets stemming from the housing meltdown. Scarce credit also threatens other types of companies that are already struggling and desperately need capital, such as the Detroit automakers and some of the airlines. The government will be able to deal with some of those companies one at a time, but without a comprehensive plan, others will fall through the cracks."
>
>I am NOT argueing that the bailout needs to happen. I'm just saying that there very well could be even more serious consequences if it doesn't pass, and to shout "Hooray!" at the possibility of it not happening just demonstrates your petty political partisanship.
>We're (the average joe) are being asked to drop trow and bend over. Our choices of who cornholes us are the pro bailout folks, and those against it. Either way we're still going to get it in the end. At this time you (and I) have no clue which of the two options are going to be more painful.
>
My YAY ! has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with letting the market correct itself, albeit with some economic pain attached.
You are correct that we have no idea what might happen with or without the bailout, I just happen to prefer to let the market cure itself as it has in the past, rather than let government interference try to fix things, as that usually only serves to make things worse.
The government doesn't need to deal with those companies with bad assetts, they need to be allowed to fail.

The bailout will undoubtedly pass eventually, but most Americans are against it and this is an election year, so it will be especially painful to get it through. Ms. Pelosi probably killed it with her partisan speech right before the vote. What a douche bag !
As for partisanship, there are many good democrats out there, but their party leadership sucks. Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd - they all suck, they have accomplished nothing during their tenure and should be put out to pasture as soon as possible.

Btw, I fail to see how shouting Hooray for this bailout failing or passing demonstrates political partisanship.

And as for finger pointing, it was Dubya and McCain that warned of this very crisis years ago and pushed for more oversight and it was Barney Frank and the dems that blocked it from happening. Even Chris Dodd said just months ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just fine. Duh !


 
addi Posted: Tue Sep 30 09:31:24 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If your "Yay" had nothing to do with partisanship then leave the praise for Bush/McCain and the diss for the dems out of your comments then friend. Like I said, blame most certainly falls on both sides of the fence here..and if you took a look at the vote breakdown you'd have seen a significant number of dems voting against the bailout as it was written.
We, and I include myself, have no clue what effects a bailout would have on the economy. Also no one knows with any degree of certainty if not proceeding on it will end up opening Pandora's box and ultimately make matters much worse.
I listen to C-Span and a lot of other news sources (including internet sites) and they interview dozens of economic "experts", and they all have differing opinions on which of the two are the lesser of the evils facing us.
My reaction to your post (sorry if it was too strong) was that a "Yay!" is very premature at this point...and pointing a finger at either political party for being at fault is misguided. Everyone contributed to some extent to dig us into this hole.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Sep 30 11:53:06 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>If your "Yay" had nothing to do with partisanship then leave the praise for Bush/McCain and the diss for the dems out of your comments then friend. Like I said, blame most certainly falls on both sides of the fence here..and if you took a look at the vote breakdown you'd have seen a significant number of dems voting against the bailout as it was written.
>
Oh, I never denied any partisanship, I only denied that a "YAY" in either direction has nothing to do with partisanship as both parties voted it down.

>We, and I include myself, have no clue what effects a bailout would have on the economy. Also no one knows with any degree of certainty if not proceeding on it will end up opening Pandora's box and ultimately make matters much worse.
>I listen to C-Span and a lot of other news sources (including internet sites) and they interview dozens of economic "experts", and they all have differing opinions on which of the two are the lesser of the evils facing us.
>
Exactly my point. Why blow a trillion clams on something no one knows will work ?
Even more important, this bill would give even more power over our cash to the government, who have proven time and time again they have no idea how to mangage our money.

>My reaction to your post (sorry if it was too strong) was that a "Yay!" is very premature at this point...and pointing a finger at either political party for being at fault is misguided. Everyone contributed to some extent to dig us into this hole.
>
I disagree. I see the Carter administration at the beginning of this mess, then the Clinton administration and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd bringing us to where we are now.
The Clintons pressured the banks to give loans to folks who had no business getting them and before long, Fannie and Freddie had no assets but a bunch of paper with little or no value.
They've already been caught cooking their books twice and I'll bet this is just the tip of the iceberg.
When McCain and Dubya on seperate occassions warned congress about Fannie and Freddie and pressed for more oversight, they were blocked by Dodd and Frank. There were no republicans in opposition to this, only dems.



 
addi Posted: Tue Sep 30 14:35:27 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you start out so good in that post, and then blow all credibility with the last part. : )

so the poor republicans in congress (in control from 94 to 06, mind you) wanted more business government regulation, but those evil democrats wouldn't let them do it?
Do you know how silly that sounds?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Sep 30 15:54:23 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>you start out so good in that post, and then blow all credibility with the last part. : )
>
>so the poor republicans in congress (in control from 94 to 06, mind you) wanted more business government regulation, but those evil democrats wouldn't let them do it?
>Do you know how silly that sounds?
>
Are you saying it didn't happen ?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Sep 30 15:57:46 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addi said:
>>you start out so good in that post, and then blow all credibility with the last part. : )
>>
>>so the poor republicans in congress (in control from 94 to 06, mind you) wanted more business government regulation, but those evil democrats wouldn't let them do it?
>>Do you know how silly that sounds?
>>
>Are you saying it didn't happen ?
>
>http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1d70120a0a066c17


 
addi Posted: Tue Sep 30 21:44:59 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  No, sir. I'm not saying it didn't happen in reference to the particular piece you refer to. And you'll notice no where above do I say the democrats in congress are blameless.
What I'm saying is it's absurd to think all off the government business deregulation happened because of Carter and Clinton. To assert such a thing is silly.
First of all the dems have only had a majority since 06, and that's by what, one vote? And now Kennedy is basically out of the picture. The dems haven't been able to do diddley-squat because they don't have the numbers.
What your essentially telling me is the president with arguably the most executive power in decades handed to him on a silver platter; the same man that started a war costing us 1 trillion dollars; can't even get regulation passed on Fannie with all the republicans in congress since 2001? Btw...all your right-wing article states is that "congress" ignored his attempts since 2001.

As far as McCain goes the man has Phil Gramm as his chief economic advisor to his campaign. The same guy that pushed through the law in 1999 to deregulate the banking system here. From the same link you provided:
"Even so, by 1999 Phil Gramm -- who had entered the Senate two years after McCain and quickly become the economic guru of the Keating Five maverick -- put forward the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This Act passed out of the Senate on a party line vote with 100% Republican support, including that of John McCain."
I've watched video of McCain in 2000 even stating that we must leave government regulation out of the financial system. Don't even get me going on his involvement with Keating and the S&L scandal. But now the guy has flipped flopped so many times on so many issues that it's hard to say where he stands on anything (if you insist on proof of that I'll pass on the links).

So point your finger at the inept dems in congress on this issue, including Frank. It's justified. But please take off the blinders to your saintly republicans because they're just as guilty, if not more so, for the mess we're in.

That's what I'm saying. : )


 
addi Posted: Tue Sep 30 21:50:30 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ps...
please provide links from credible news sources if you want me to take anything you post seriously. The Gateway Pundit is a right wing rag blog and anything but newsworthy. It would be like me only posting op-ed articles from The daily Kos, or Huffington Report, and passing every word as gospel truth.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Oct 1 03:10:17 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ps...
>please provide links from credible news sources if you want me to take anything you post seriously. The Gateway Pundit is a right wing rag blog and anything but newsworthy. It would be like me only posting op-ed articles from The daily Kos, or Huffington Report, and passing every word as gospel truth.
>
Perhaps, but the article linked is nothing more than a recitation of facts, not too much op-ed.
It's also worth noting that the NYT has used the daily kos as source material many times.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Oct 1 03:11:20 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>No, sir. I'm not saying it didn't happen in reference to the particular piece you refer to. And you'll notice no where above do I say the democrats in congress are blameless.
>What I'm saying is it's absurd to think all off the government business deregulation happened because of Carter and Clinton. To assert such a thing is silly.
>First of all the dems have only had a majority since 06, and that's by what, one vote? And now Kennedy is basically out of the picture. The dems haven't been able to do diddley-squat because they don't have the numbers.
>What your essentially telling me is the president with arguably the most executive power in decades handed to him on a silver platter; the same man that started a war costing us 1 trillion dollars; can't even get regulation passed on Fannie with all the republicans in congress since 2001? Btw...all your right-wing article states is that "congress" ignored his attempts since 2001.
>
>As far as McCain goes the man has Phil Gramm as his chief economic advisor to his campaign. The same guy that pushed through the law in 1999 to deregulate the banking system here. From the same link you provided:
>"Even so, by 1999 Phil Gramm -- who had entered the Senate two years after McCain and quickly become the economic guru of the Keating Five maverick -- put forward the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This Act passed out of the Senate on a party line vote with 100% Republican support, including that of John McCain."
>I've watched video of McCain in 2000 even stating that we must leave government regulation out of the financial system. Don't even get me going on his involvement with Keating and the S&L scandal. But now the guy has flipped flopped so many times on so many issues that it's hard to say where he stands on anything (if you insist on proof of that I'll pass on the links).
>
>So point your finger at the inept dems in congress on this issue, including Frank. It's justified. But please take off the blinders to your saintly republicans because they're just as guilty, if not more so, for the mess we're in.
>
None of that matters, this isn't about deregulation.
>
>That's what I'm saying. : )


 
addi Posted: Wed Oct 1 07:46:38 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>None of that matters, this isn't about deregulation.

Oh
I'm getting old. What were we talking about again?
Oh yeah, something about hot GT chicks I think.


 
mat_j Posted: Wed Oct 1 11:46:47 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  All i'm gonna say on this one, as i don't have much time is-

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Free markets my arse!


 
erikagm Posted: Mon Oct 13 01:57:26 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And I guess I also have a small crush for the actresses playing Temperance (Bones), 13 and Cameron. (from House)


 
erikagm Posted: Mon Oct 13 01:58:32 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Stoopid Stoopid Stoopid verisign software!!!

ARRGHHH

Where was I then? Right...

How did I KNOW Cristophe HAD to be the one that created this topic???

Some things around here never change, I can see that!


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]