I have got a horsey Posted September 19, 2008 Author Share Posted September 19, 2008 Kind of like the way Bubba Clinton took no action against terroism for 8 years. Why don't you just move on over to the U.S. You "act" like you know so much about our Country. Maybe you should consider moving to North Korea, since you're so apt to believe resolutely in propaganda and 'the great leader'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I wish he'd move to the US......we need more educated voters like him registered and active. Shit, he's not even from this country and he can carry on an intelligent, well thought out conversation about our political system better than probably 2/3 of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marolyn Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge. is it not the lender's job to turn down an unqualified applicant for a home loan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 This guy has some good ideas about how to fix this mess..... Seriously!!! http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Michael Savage is pure, unadulterated shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Just watching a McCain speech where he's linking Obama to profiting from Mae/Mac involvement. So desperate. Blaming previous and existing governments for current financial downfall. On the one hand, saying his government will ensure financial institutions will not be allowed to do this again, but then says government should stay out of financial bail outs. Did he always have an 'economic recovery plan' or is this something they came up with last night? [edited for typos, I'm anal about them bleh] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pickenpieces Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 The ole steady as she goes has lost its meaning. Up one day 400 points, down the next 500!! Such bullshit. And each time it makes headlines. Flash and excitement!!! Shock and Awe, pagentry to the fullest! Everyone wants to be a STAR!! Why dont we all just go play guitar at the opening bell of the Stock Market? To heck with Hollywood or even the Olympics, Wall Street is the trendy stage now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Of course there is blame to go all around. On this board however all you will see is Bush Bashing. So, I bring up the other side. I think that President Bush has done an outstanding job on National Security. After the first Gulf war there were sanctions in place and no fly zones over Iraq. Sadam Insane violated these daily. Instead of Bubba doing something about it, he did other "Things". In many other parts of the world terroists built up strong holds. Bubba did nothing. Bubba talked tough but did nothing. He could have taken Bin Laden out and did not. President Bush had to face 9/11 because the terroists no longer respected us. Since 9/11 nothing else has blown up on U.S. soil. This is amazing and is a testimony to President Bush's resolve and our incredible military. There is no telling how many foiled attempts have been made at us. President Bush will never get any credit. The major media outlets have made him a laughing stock and this is very sad. Terroism and war is nasty bussiness, but our President has stayed the course (realizing that he would get trashed for it) and now we have all but won. Thank God that he does not care what the Anti American major media thinks about him or what they have made people think of him. He cares about our country and has proven it. Now go ahead, pile on with your best Anti Bush shots. To me, you all sound pathetic. Ok so you're bitter and defensive. But you still haven't answered the question - what has Bush failed at and Clinton succeeded at? What blame is to go 'all around'? I don't really care what Clinton had going on in the Oral Office, so long as it didn't affect his ability to do his job. That's a private matter. Bush was given extensive reports about an impending attack on U.S. soil in the summer of '01. Zip was done. RE: "...and now we have all but won" - you mean this? Mission Accomplished It's too bad you think all Dems are the same, but that's your choice. It's not about anti-Bush shots, it's about trying to present both (or all) positions with some back up and forethought. I respect anyone who can do that and make me think of things in a different way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 The Real Culprits In This Meltdown By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it. Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend. But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties. The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory." Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck. And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America. As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud. Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million. Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses. In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk. But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America. At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households. The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope. There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road. But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts. Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions. While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge. Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...306370789279709 Well, however much blame can be laid on Clinton, lenders and home buyers also have a hand. But then, so does Bush. The reason for the previous inclusion of the Mission Accomplished article was not to reiterate that the war in Iraq is far from over,but that the mission that WAS accomplished was to save the dollar peg, maintaining for the time being its status as the prime reserve currency. Control rising oil prices, control currency. But that could only be held off for so long. Here's some more info. It's a bit of reading but important to view the global impact, which in turn impacts us: Operation Iraqi Freedom May 1 2003 "In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world." Mission Accomplished! by Karen Kwiatkowski "Federal Reserve bankers could quietly worry that the money we have wasted in Iraq (and funneled into friendly pockets) was printed on paper, devaluing today’s dollar at home, and paupering the average working class American family in coming decades." Fears of Dollar Collapse as Saudis Take Fright 2007 "Saudi Arabia has refused to cut interest rates in lockstep with the US Federal Reserve for the first time, signalling that the oil-rich Gulf kingdom is preparing to break the dollar currency peg in a move that risks setting off a stampede out of the dollar across the Middle East." What Comes After the Dollar? Emergence of the Euro on the global economic scene This is unprecedented p.s. anyone know if I can upload a powerpoint slide show file on here? and if so, how? thanks P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricmage Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Maybe you should consider moving to North Korea, since you're so apt to believe resolutely in propaganda and 'the great leader'. Burn... Why do you have to live in a certain country to have a certain knowledge of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhb Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Burn... Why do you have to live in a certain country to have a certain knowledge of it? srplane is just bitter because an Australian knows more about our country than he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 The ole steady as she goes has lost its meaning. Up one day 400 points, down the next 500!! In the financial world, it's known as market volatility. The Week That Broke Wall Street by David Goldman Saturday, September 20, 2008 A shocking series of events that forever changed the financial markets Sunday - Trouble Brews News that Lehman Brothers was on the brink of collapse and scrambling for a buyer first surfaced on Friday. But by Sunday, there were still no suitors for the 158-year old investment bank, and bankruptcy seemed inevitable. Indeed, just after midnight, in Monday's early hours, the firm officially announced its intention to file for Chapter 11. Equally as staggering, just hours after reports surfaced that Bank of America broke off of talks to buy Lehman, BofA unleashed the news that it would pay $50 billion to scoop up Merrill Lynch, another iconic Wall Street name. As if that weren't enough, American International Group, the nation's largest insurer, said that it planned to sell some of its troubled assets in order to raise cash and boost investor confidence. Concerns about the credit crisis grew increasingly dire, even though the government had already pledged to backstop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac up to $200 billion just one week ago, and months earlier engineered JP Morgan's purchase of Bear Stearns with a $29 billion guarantee. But it looked like that wouldn't be enough, so Sunday afternoon the Federal Reserve, along with 10 banks, announced a $70 billion pool of funds to aid troubled financial firms. The U.S. central bank also loosened its lending restrictions. Monday - The Collapse As traders sold off stocks on the weekend's dour news, rumors began to circulate that AIG was struggling to raise enough capital to fend off a downgrade. As a result, New York Governor David Paterson bent intra-corporation lending rules, allowing the company to loan itself $20 billion from a subsidiary. In the worst day on Wall Street in seven years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tanked more than 500 points after Lehman Brothers' epic collapse and the buyout of Merrill Lynch. By Monday night, AIG was in fact hit with a downgrade, as Fitch bumped the insurance group down a notch. With $1.1 trillion in assets and 74 million clients in 130 countries, investors feared AIG's collapse would severely hurt consumers and further tighten already strangled credit. Also Monday, news cropped up that the nation's largest savings bank, Washington Mutual was in search of a white knight. Tuesday - The Fed Steps In Stocks saw another sharp drop on Tuesday morning as worries mounted that the financial system was broken beyond repair. Investors poured money into bonds, and the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell to a 5-year low. Next, several rock-solid money market funds began to falter, dipping below the $1 per share benchmark. Meanwhile the Fed was scheduled to meet on Tuesday afternoon. Wall Street analysts, who just a week ago expected the Fed to hold rates steady, began to anticipate a rate cut. But the central bank chose not to succumb to panic and unanimously decided to hold rates steady at 2%. Markets cheered the decision, and the Dow jumped 140 points at the close. After the bell, British bank Barclays agreed to buy up $2 billion worth of Lehman's brokerage assets and real estate holdings, and Morgan Stanley reported better-than-expected earnings. But the big news came later that night when the government announced that it would stage a staggering $85 billion bailout of AIG, and take an 80% stake in the company. Wednesday - Another Free Fall Investors gave an enormous thumbs-down to the AIG news, sending stocks plummeting, while traders piled funds into safer havens. Gold rose $70, a new record. Oil rose $6, its second-largest jump ever. And the yield on the three-month Treasury sank to 0.02%, the lowest level since 1940. The Dow dropped 450 points by the end of the day, dragged down by bank stocks in a tail-spin. Despite reporting better-than-expected results, Goldman Sachs shares dipped below $100 a share for the first time since 2005. Morgan Stanley took a tumble as well, as rumors circulated that it would merge with troubled bank Wachovia. Many Wall Street analysts blamed the stock market's collapses on so-called "naked" short sellers, who short stocks without ever buying the security. Subsequently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stepped in and banned naked short selling. Thursday - The Bailout With a crisis on its hands, the Fed convinced five other central banks around the world to invest a total of $180 billion in global financial markets. Meanwhile, AIG was tossed out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and replaced with food giant Kraft. The stock market soared towards the close of the session, with financial stocks rebounding. The Dow added more than 400 points on rumors that an even more extensive federal bailout of the banking industry was in the making. Investors cheered early these reports that the Treasury would create an independent federal agency to take bad loans off bank of balance sheets. Late Thursday night, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson met with Congressional leaders to hammer out the details of a large-scale bailout. Friday - The Confidence Boost As Wall Street eagerly awaited the details of Secretary Paulson's plan, the SEC took what it called "emergency action" Friday morning and temporarily banned investors from short-selling 799 financial companies. The Treasury also said it would insure up to $50 billion in struggling money market fund investments at financial companies, guaranteeing that the funds' value will not fall below the standard $1 a share. The Fed also said it would make unlimited funds available to banks to finance purchases of asset-backed commercial paper from money market funds. In a press conference, Treasury Secretary Paulson outlined the government's plan to put up hundreds of billions of dollars to help stem the crisis, saying "the financial security of all Americans ... depends on our ability to restore our financial institutions to a sound footing." Later, President Bush held a separate press conference, flanked by Paulson, SEC Commissioner Christopher Cox and Fed chief Ben Bernanke, saying it was "essential" that the government step in to save the economy. Investors cheered the moves, sending stocks soaring throughout the day. Although the U.S. government had set various bailouts in motion to the tune of roughly $1 trillion, investors finished the week with renewed confidence that Wall Street may be broken - but not beyond repair. Copyrighted, CNNMoney. All Rights Reserved. http://finance.yahoo.com//banking-budgetin...oke-Wall-Street Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 It's nice to know when America has run out of money, Congress can be bi-partisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 if one was smart and had money in their stock then one would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Maybe all those smart stockholders should foot the bill for the bailout.. I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Well all I need is your votes and I can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pickenpieces Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Everyone of the CEOs in those corporations should be held accountable and personally bankrupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 If we, the taxpayers, have to pay to bail out huge corporations when they fail, shouldn't we also get a slice of the profits when they're doing well *cough*Exxon Mobil*cough*? That's the idea the government had when it decided to take over the troubled companies, manage, repackage and remarket their assets so the American people would profit. In view of the massive home foreclosures and the market meltdown, the government took the measures to prevent a more catastrophic event that would impact the average consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 In the financial world, it's known as market volatility. Volatility is one thing - that's part of a natural cycle - but for the government to step in to rescue the economy (ahem, whose money do you think they're using?) is entirely another. I'm not trying to be the grim gloom and doom reaper, but holy shit these events may actually initiate a new way of running things. Not only can the dollar lose its position as the leading international banking currency. I'm not sure if people realize the impact of this shift -- oil, imports, exports, investment in the U.S., travel for U.S. citizens -- will all be adversely affected. There are actually some advantages for some companies (hell, some people got rich during the Great Depression), but on the whole, these are precipice-type events. And another thing - the government bailing the economy out is fundamentally a political move, with resulting fall outs in the economy, not the other way around. This is important because earlier today the U. S. government imposed a temporary ban on short selling of stocks. While this protects stocks from dropping too low in value ("Short sellers bet that a stock's price will fall so that they can profit from it. They borrow shares of the stock and sell them. If the price drops, they buy cheaper actual shares to cover the borrowed ones, pocketing the difference.") But some economists have already expressed concern that this is a 'temporary' move that might become part of the way of doing business (and so the political influence). This fundamentally disrupts the cycle, or volatility you mentioned, that the market needs, well, to function. Then again, it could all blow over in a week ahahaha! But I think this economic turn is symptomatic of larger U.S. problems (many of which are being discussed here) and of a larger global shift. Just my two cents (probably worth a cent and a half now ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Government bailouts are complete and utter bullshit. Taking citizens' money to fix the market? The market only works without governmental interference like this so all that this does is jack it all up. Government stupidity FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Volatility is one thing - that's part of a natural cycle - but for the government to step in to rescue the economy (ahem, whose money do you think they're using?) is entirely another. I'm not trying to be the grim gloom and doom reaper, but holy shit these events may actually initiate a new way of running things. Not only can the dollar lose its position as the leading international banking currency. I'm not sure if people realize the impact of this shift -- oil, imports, exports, investment in the U.S., travel for U.S. citizens -- will all be adversely affected. There are actually some advantages for some companies (hell, some people got rich during the Great Depression), but on the whole, these are precipice-type events. And another thing - the government bailing the economy out is fundamentally a political move, with resulting fall outs in the economy, not the other way around. This is important because earlier today the U. S. government imposed a temporary ban on short selling of stocks. While this protects stocks from dropping too low in value ("Short sellers bet that a stock's price will fall so that they can profit from it. They borrow shares of the stock and sell them. If the price drops, they buy cheaper actual shares to cover the borrowed ones, pocketing the difference.") But some economists have already expressed concern that this is a 'temporary' move that might become part of the way of doing business (and so the political influence). This fundamentally disrupts the cycle, or volatility you mentioned, that the market needs, well, to function. Then again, it could all blow over in a week ahahaha! But I think this economic turn is symptomatic of larger U.S. problems (many of which are being discussed here) and of a larger global shift. Just my two cents (probably worth a cent and a half now ) Apparently there were abuses by naked short sellers who did not actually buy the securities. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has now banned naked short selling. The government was concerned enough to step in this time because it believed that to do otherwise would be to preside over a deeper collapse of the financial system. All of the managers of large funds that I have seen interviewed so far agree with the government's action, even those who generally prefer to allow the market to move freely. Board approves two interim final rules in connection with its initiative to provide liquidity to markets September 19, 2008 Federal Reserve Board announces two enhancements to its programs to provide liquidity to markets September 19, 2008 Release Date: September 18, 2008 For release at 3:00 a.m. EDT Today, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, and the Swiss National Bank are announcing coordinated measures designed to address the continued elevated pressures in U.S. dollar short-term funding markets. These measures, together with other actions taken in the last few days by individual central banks, are designed to improve the liquidity conditions in global financial markets. The central banks continue to work together closely and will take appropriate steps to address the ongoing pressures. Federal Reserve and other central banks announce further measures to address elevated pressures in funding markets September 18, 2008 Federal Reserve Board, with full support of the Treasury Department, authorizes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend up to $85 billion to the American International Group (AIG) September 16, 2008 federalreserve.gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Government bailouts are complete and utter bullshit. Taking citizens' money to fix the market? The market only works without governmental interference like this so all that this does is jack it all up. Government stupidity FTW! Well if the government didn't let the companies get so big in the first place...and now corporations can pull such strings. But I think in this case it was necessary for it to step in, otherwise the alternative would've been devastating. Still, just a stop-gap, imo... Apparently there were abuses by naked short sellers who did not actually buy the securities. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has now banned naked short selling. The government was concerned enough to step in this time because it believed that to do otherwise would be to preside over a deeper collapse of the financial system. All of the managers of large funds that I have seen interviewed so far agree with the government's action, even those who generally prefer to allow the market to move freely. Yep, forgot about that, thanks. But again, they're symptoms of a larger dilemma. Abuses with naked short selling, abuses with mortgage lending, sending $4B of federal reserve to Iraq...it all adds up, and now we have the conflation of many forces (economic and political) that were so far away from one another that people didn't see how they could connect. Well now they are, and it's causing a big shift (steps off her soapbox for a sip of suds). By the way, when's the last time the federal reserve had to step in like this? Not having a go, I really don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Well if the government didn't let the companies get so big in the first place...and now corporations can pull such strings. But I think in this case it was necessary for it to step in, otherwise the alternative would've been devastating. Still, just a stop-gap, imo... Why should the government determine how big a corporation can get? That's comepletly against everything free market stands for. Government should let the economy go without interrupting it at all every possible turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Why should the government determine how big a corporation can get? That's comepletly against everything free market stands for. Government should let the economy go without interrupting it at all every possible turn. It's not that there shouldn't be corporations, it's just that they're not held accountable. They were originally only allowed by the government for a project too large for one company to handle. So the government would gather a group of companies, put them under a contract for the duration of the project, and at its completion the 'corporation' would disband. But then lawyers got together and said it was unconstitutional (basically for the reason you cited above). Fine. But through legal wrangling, the courts essentially accorded corporations the rights of persons.But corporations are not held to the same accountability that people are. That not only attacks liberalism in which rights are inherent to people, actual human beings, but also handcuffs political and economic systems with their rampant abuse. (By the way, all of this is available in "The Corporation". Cool doc). If they were held accountable, we wouldn't be in a mess of this magnitude. So let them go and make their money. But it shouldn't be at any cost. Certainly not at ours, or at those of the poor bastards making a dollar a week on the other side of the planet. But if not for this gov bail out, what would you suggest ought to have been done? It seems the best short term solution in a baaad situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 If people are willing spend to money on something, why should a company not make as much off the people as it can? Why can the government just come in and say no? That's anti-growith, that does nothing but decrease the flow of money and decrease the number of jobs. People hate the big corporations but without them, we'd have nothing right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.