Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
I have got a horsey

Stock Market Meltdown!

Recommended Posts

In my tax plans, everyone would get richer. That's the genius of lower taxes for all

As far as the stock market, I'm not dumping any right now. Sort of saving for college and bills doncha know :P That's the life of a college kid at work for ya

Although...I will be giving my old boss a call to see what sort of moves he's making so I may just copy him B)

And I'm just saying that it's not a good idea in the long run. But I'm just some annoying teenager. :P

Welcome to the club :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they will borrow $700 billion and just add to the pile of debt we already have.

awesome...

Same as we borrowed and continue to borrow to fund our little foray into Iraq. What's more important to you? I can say for myself - hands down, our nations economy. But..that's just me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same as we borrowed and continue to borrow to fund our little foray into Iraq. What's more important to you? I can say for myself - hands down, our nations economy. But..that's just me :)

Agreed.

We spend what we don't have...that's simply retarded thinking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the Great Depression the federal government took control of depreciated assets, which eventually appreciated in value, thus earning a profit for the American public; that is the goal of the current bailout proposal.

Edited by eternal light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
During the Great Depression the federal government took control of depreciated assets, which eventually appreciated in value, thus earning a profit for the American public; that is the goal of the current bailout proposal.

We also created the colossal failure known as Social Security during the Great Depression.

Governmental regulation blows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We also created the colossal failure known as Social Security during the Great Depression.

Governmental regulation blows

Social security may have been necessary for those times. In those days it was more successful, but it was relative to those economic and social conditions.

Interestingly enough, Hank Williams Sr. wrote a song called WPA Blues that criticized the government's Works Progress Administration that put unemployed people to work at something like $4.00 an hour. I'm not sure how the program worked in Alabama, where Hank Sr lived, but he wasn't too please with it apparently.

A local park in my area still bears a plaque remembering those who labored to establish it, with credit going to the WPA sponsorship. I guess some people viewed WPA jobs as busy work or as dead end positions not leading to careers. I'm not sure.

The abolition of gold clauses in bonds in 1933 (which allowed creditors to repay their debts in depreciated paper dollars rather than in a fixed quantity of gold) was not, as Shlaes argues, merely a redistribution of wealth from creditors to debtors; as the economist and current Federal Reserve governor, Randall Kroszner, has shown, the measure benefited creditors -- and the whole economy -- by increasing the likelihood that depreciated debt would be repaid.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901fare...a-raw-deal.html

W.P.A. Blues by Odetta

They both have that faraway look in their eyes in these photos.

272223496_821261.gif272237785_752938.gif

http://images.main.uab.edu/mediarelations/..._williams_2.jpg

Hank Williams, Sr. as a young man

Caption:

Walking the streets of Montgomery singing “The WPA Blues.”

Copyright:

George Merritt (release signed 7/11/03)

Edited by eternal light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of FDR's prgrams ever really worked. They couldn't turn over the Great Depression, even making it worse in some cases. WWII got us out of it, that's it. Nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of FDR's prgrams ever really worked. They couldn't turn over the Great Depression, even making it worse in some cases. WWII got us out of it, that's it. Nothing else.

His program to get re-elected worked 3 times. He had 4 terms, pretty impressive for not ever having any successful programs. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His program to get re-elected worked 3 times. He had 4 terms, pretty impressive for not ever having any successful programs. :lol:

Yeah, because he was an outstanding public officer. I mean how hard can it be? Bush did it :rolleyes:

That's terrible evidence for your argument...

As far as his programs, we're still recovering from them to this day. He was a great president, but economically he fucked us up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, because he was an outstanding public officer. I mean how hard can it be? Bush did it :rolleyes:

That's terrible evidence for your argument...

As far as his programs, we're still recovering from them to this day. He was a great president, but economically he fucked us up

No one has ever been elected to 4 terms as president except FDR, Bush didn't. I wasn't arguing, just pointing out the fact that his program to be re-elected was VERY successful. That fact can't be disputed.

Are you saying the TVA was a economic fuck-up? Seems to be going strong to this day.

Edited by alucard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one has ever been elected to 4 terms as president except FDR, Bush didn't. I wasn't arguing, just pointing out the fact that his program to be re-elected was VERY successful. That fact can't be disputed.

Are you saying the TVA was a economic fuck-up? Seems to be going strong to this day.

Ok let's try this again. I'm not saying he wasn't a great president. Anyone who can lead a nation through the Great Depression and World War II and come out the worlds superpower is no doubt a mighty figure. BUT, his economic plans did not really help us get through anything and were not why he got reelected.

Oh, and he made the federal government a billion times more powerful so that's also a negative IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Del,

Lets just check the facts.

Who are the leaders in this bill.

Barney Frank

Nancy Pelosi

Chuck Schumer.

Barrack Obama.

Hmmm. Those seem to be all democrats.

Did that 20% go to ACORN in this bill, a dem. stronghold.

Who ran Freddie and Fannie?

Who is also Barrack economic adviser and helped pick his VP.

Still, Im glad this bill failed. It is a bad bill. We need it, but we don't need all those extra goodies.

whats funny, this is a bill that the dems should be cumming all over for. Its big goverment. It is a socialist tenet. Its barrack Obama whole plan.

I honestly think that this whole thing is going to end up backfiring right in their faces. Pelosi and Reid lied about the bill being pretty much "ready to pass" and then they tried to add all their goodies to it. It was stricktly partisan politics on their part, and I believe the American people are going to see right through this in the next few days.

Yes, I don't think Pelosi helped the situation at ALL with her unscripted remarks, however, to rebel against the entire plan based on those remarks seem like a bit of an over reaction.

I can't see where House Speaker Pelosi has helped anything in the last year. I'm actually convinced that she is never even speaking for herself, and that she is sent out by the powers that be in the far left to do these hatchet jobs on a regular basis. And Harry Reid is not any better. Last week he was preaching gloom and doom saying that there is "nothing congress can do to fix this."

Obviously they want the economy to be bad. It's almost as they are salivating for the stock market to crash. The only other thing they are hoping for even more, would be for the Iraq war to go bad too.

Their conduct has been shameful. I don't know why more democrats don't see them for what they are?

Interesting....maybe McCain was a little premature for reveling in the glory of saving the day.

Actually McCain has shown more leadership on this than either Bush or Obama. If not for McCain showing support for the House Republicans in opposing all the special political goodies that Pelosi, Frank and Shummer wanted tossed into this bill -- the American taxpayers would be paying for all of that.

McCain is disapointed that the "Impoved Bill" did not pass in the house. But show me where Obama has shown any leadership at all on this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain is disapointed that the "Impoved Bill" did not pass in the house. But show me where Obama has shown any leadership at all on this issue?

Obama was the first of the two candidates to publicly address the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama was the first of the two candidates to publicly address the issue.

What does that mean -- "Publicly address the issue"?

What has he done, other than say he wanted home owners bailed out as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over $3 Billion Paid By Largest 5 Wall Street Firms To CEOs The Past 5 Years

Washington, D.C. - As more Wall Street firms face distress and Congress tackles a $700 billion rescue package for ailing financial institutions, additional data about excessive chief executive officer pay is cropping up.

According to Bloomberg, Wall Street's five largest companies paid over $3 billion in the past five years to their high-ranking executives while they made decisions that included extension of loans instrumental to the collapse of many investment banking companies.

On top of the list is Merrill Lynch which paid CEO Stanley O'Neal $172 million from 2003 to 2007 and John Thain $86 million which included a signing bonus for working for Merrill since December. Before Bear Stearns collapsed, James Cayne received $161 million compensation.

The financial bailout proposed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pushed for a cap on executive pay. The former Goldman Sachs Group CEO who got $111 million from 2003 to 2006, in a testimony to Congress last week, agreed to place a limit, although he initially opposed the idea.

Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, concurred with the idea. "Shareholders and boards should have done something about this a long time ago... They justified these levels of pay on the idea that they're all geniuses. I think that balloon has burst," Elson told Bloomberg.

The generosity of Wall Street firms prior to the financial crisis was not limited to CEOs. Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill, Lehman Brothers Holdings and Bear Stearns compensated their 185,687 workers $66 billion in 2007, which included $39 billion bonuses. The fat pay boils down to $353,089 per employee

and an average bonus of $211,849.

In his testimony before a House panel on Sept. 24, Paulson said, "The American people are angry about executive compensation, and rightfully so... We must find a way to address this in the legislation, but without undermining the effectiveness of this program."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might note that oil prices are also plummeting..."W' is losing millions in potential profits!! Wonder why he's going against basic Republican ideals to try to bail out his rich buddies?

I'm voting for Ron Paul. Even if it means that my vote is ineffective, I'll be voting for the only candidate that is sticking to his principles in a crisis. Obama and McCain both stink of political game playing, while our country suffers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might note that oil prices are also plummeting..."W' is losing millions in potential profits!! Wonder why he's going against basic Republican ideals to try to bail out his rich buddies?

I'm voting for Ron Paul. Even if it means that my vote is ineffective, I'll be voting for the only candidate that is sticking to his principles in a crisis. Obama and McCain both stink of political game playing, while our country suffers.

Although I respect your opinion and your certainly intitled to it, I think your vote will be wasted. Save that for another election. Your next president needs a clear mandate. Take your pick but choose one of the two likely winners. A wasted vote is not sending a message that will be heard. Not at the moment at least :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We also created the colossal failure known as Social Security during the Great Depression.

Governmental regulation blows

And yet you look at countries with a higher level of taxation and government involvement in social life such as Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia etc These countries always come out higher up than the USA on the Human Development Index and the Global Life Expectancies Lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the way both McCain and Obama handled this situation was pathetic. Especially Obama, who made it clear he was one of "top architects" of the bill, yet it does little to change what happens on Wall Street. A slap on the wrist to CEOs. HA! What did you really expect? The Democrats as a whole really blundered this one, especially with Pelosi and Reid up there Sunday night sucking each other off infront of the world, calling the "eminent signing" a good thing.

Like I said before, get rid of the fuckin' lot. We don't need them. They do nothing for the American people. This just continues to show us. "The plan isn't our best, but its what we have to work with." Isn't your best? Then what the hell are you doing in Congress if you won't do your best to save the economy? Is it because if everything collapses, you'll still be well off?

This whole mess shows that both sides of government, Republicans and Democrats, continue to fail to break from the big wig corporations that puppet them around and call the shots. It's embarrassing to the world that our government can't agree on saving face, and we the American people have pretty much given up on them. Nuke 'em. Start over with a clean slate.

Edited by bigstickbonzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEXT PLAN WON'T BE MADE IN USA

john.crudele@nypost.com

NOW what? Congress and the White House did their best - I guess - to come up with a way to rescue the teetering banking system and Wall Street reacted with a big, wet Bronx cheer.

In case you aren't from The Bronx, that means the financial markets didn't approve - either when the bailout looked like a sure thing in the morning (Dow down 350) or when the plan later seemed dead (Dow down more than 700).

So what's going wrong with the $700 billion experiment in bailout capitalism?

Well, Wall Street is running the show, which automatically engenders suspicion and skepticism.

To me, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, seems more interested in taking toxic securities off the books of Wall Street firms than in providing the banking system with the lifeblood it needs - capital.

Here's the problem.

Even if Paulson manages to use the $700 billion to acquire billions in bad mortgage securities from banks, it doesn't mean the banks are going to be willing to increase loans.

In fact, banks might be so scared - and grateful that Paulson got them off the hook - that they might just sit back and watch the disaster unfold.

Lost in the panic of a nearly 800-point drop in the Dow is a scary back story. And it's the reason why Washington yesterday had to pump $330 billion in liquidity into the frozen financial system - not only to the US banking system but also to Europe.

Put simply, it's that we are no longer in control of our own financial markets.

Japanese and Chinese investors, including the governments of both countries, are said to have pressed for our government's takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several weeks ago.

The threat, it has been reported, was that foreign government money from so-called sovereign wealth funds would no longer buy Fannie and Freddie's bonds if the feds didn't stand firmly behind them.

Foreign investments have enabled the US to expand its economy over the years, even though Americans have been saving and investing less.

These sovereign funds came to the aid of several US institutions early this year, but not lately.

Given the number of emergency bank deals that have just been accomplished through private transactions, it raises a question that was likely brought up by congressional members: Why did Washington need to kick in another $700 billion when private sources of finance seem to be stepping forward?

Are that many more banks in trouble? Was the Treasury secretary merely looking for an insurance policy if these private deals fail? Or was it, as I suspect, that the White House was being strong-armed by foreign interests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House Roll Call from Monday, September 29, 2008

By The Associated Press

The 228-205 roll call Monday of the vote by which the House rejected a $700 billion emergency bailout for the nation's financial system.

A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of the bailout package.

Voting yes were 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans.

Voting no were 95 Democrats and 133 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There is 1 vacancy in the 435-member House

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...