Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 78
|
|
16
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: How did we get here?
|
on: December 26, 2008, 01:25:26 PM
|
Is there a chance this is more ideological then political? The way "credit" turned into fake money used to buy what we want and not what need?
Sure it's vague, but I see a problem developing that's not being properly addressed. We seem all to eager to blame politicians, bankers and the all-together greedy, but not ourselves who have a systemic problem with money? Maybe it's too nebulous of a thing to really make an issue of, but maybe it's something woth considering?
It's a lot less sexy then blaming the "powerful"... but it seems more responsible.
It is a cultural problem, sure.
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
Political Discussions / United States / America's getting more ignoranter...
|
on: December 26, 2008, 01:22:42 PM
|
"It surely is merry Christmas for Barack Obama with Santa raining goodies, this time in the form of an all-time high rating of 82 per cent Americans approving his handling of presidential transition..." "Obama's approval is higher than George W Bush's 65 per cent approval rating during his transition eight years ago with Bill Clinton at 67 per cent in 1992. Less than a month to go before Obama assumes office in the teeth of a looming recession, a CNN Opinion Research Poll shows that more than eight in 10 or 82 per cent of the respondents approve of the way he is handling his presidential transition." http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/uspolls2008/Election_Story.aspx?ID=NEWEN20080077741&type=topstoryBetter numbers than Reagan, Clinton et al, by the the theories of the Rocket scientists of howobamagotelected.com, America must be getting more ignoranter and more ignoranter. Oh, save us, you Republican intellectual giants, from the ignorance of Obama, by the light of Sarah Palin.
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Huh.. change.. Hold on it will may take 8 -10-umm 50 years!! :P
|
on: December 26, 2008, 12:56:38 PM
|
Ah, yes, more failed arguments from you, covered up with twisted words and smarminess.
Yep, do you even understand your own conservative philosophy? Reagan popularized the principle that Bush followed to the letter. GREED IS GOOD.
Reagan claimed tax cuts would cure all ills. He raised taxes twice. Bush, not once, and cut taxes for the wealthy several times. Bush: More Reagan than Reagan. Reagan liked wars. Bush started two. More Reagan than Reagan. Churching the State. Reagan Reagan Reagan. Reagan ran up the deficit on military spending, so did Bush. Reagan supported amnesty for illegals. So did Bush. Reagan had a net increase in the size of the Federal government. Bush expanded it, too.
Reagan deregulated and gutted government departments he didn't like. Bush gutted the SEC, privatized vital government services, and deregulated like crazy. Because you are a wind-up Bush-bot you can't see that Bush and his Reaganite philosophy have been to blame for this crisis.
Sorry you can't understand what 75% of Americans already know, Bush is a failed president who has destroyed the Reagan Revolution for a generation. Clinton's mistake was in accepting some of the precepts of that Revolution of lies, because the Congress went to Republicans.
Lenin started the Revolution in Russia. That doesn't mean that anyone but Stalin was responsible for the purges. Reagan started the Revolution, but bungling Bush finished it. Get it, stupid?
No...I await who in the Congress is and the media is to blame for poor George's failure' Good assesment of the Reagan /Bush /contract with America that has led to the downfall of our country and economy Irwin. You connect the dots...Well said. Thanx. And I am pretty sure the revolution has been totally repudiated this time. The stakes are high for Republicans. The only way they can keep the horseshit train rolling is if Obama fucks up. They never had actual good ideas for the country, just a self-serving, short-sighted con game. They will do their best to obstruct and destroy. I'm of the belief that this will only drive them deeper into the wilderness.
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Huh.. change.. Hold on it will may take 8 -10-umm 50 years!! :P
|
on: December 26, 2008, 12:48:27 PM
|
The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies... So you now admitting Bush backed regulation? Because earlier, you said he 'deregulated like crazy' ... although you never really went into specifics. Which is it? Oh, Zippy, you are hilarious. I love it when you think you have me cornered. Usually it is because you are too eager to defend Bush to read what was said. I'll repeat again simpler this time. Fannie and Freddie were the ONLY targets (not the mortgage or the financial industry) and then...nothing happened...Bush's crony said they were jus' fine. Read the quote again, Zippy: But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: We the people have been robbed...
|
on: December 26, 2008, 12:33:20 PM
|
The banks kept in bussiness by tarp money...your tax money, will not reveal what any of the hundreds of billions has been used for. Bush and Paulson have perpertrated the largest robbery ever recorded in history and no one seems to be bothered by it. Never before has so much been stolen from so many and given to so few. The Treasury Department is rumored to have committed nearly half of the $700 billion in taxpayer funds allocated by Congress in their economic recovery bill. Congressman, financial reporters, and private citizens have been increasing their questions of where the funds are actually going. Many major banks, which have received multi-billions in TARP dollars, have declined to account for their capital injections other than recording them on their balance sheets. The $700 billion was originally targeted for buying toxic mortgage securities, but morphed into direct investments in the nation's largest banks. Congressmen have been outspoken about ensuring that TARP funds are not used for bank executive bonuses, but the funds have not directly flowed into easier credit for auto loans, home loans, and credit cards for cash-strapped Americans. While rates on bank savings accounts, money market accounts, and CDs have dropped to below 5%, banks have been slow to drop many of their lending rates which are not directly indexed to the prime rate. Expectations are that the TARP-gifted banks will face more questions in 2009.
The Top 20 TARP Recipients (1) Citigroup $45 billion (2) AIG $40 billion (3) Wells Fargo $25 billion (4) Bank of America $25 billion (5) JPMorgan Chase $25 billion (6) Goldman Sachs $10 billion (7) Morgan Stanley $10 billion ( 8.) PNC Financial Services $7.7 billion (9) U.S. Bancorp $6.6 billion (10) SunTrust $4.9 billion (11) Capital One Financial Corp. $3.6 billion (12) Regions Financial Corp. $3.5 billion (13) Fifth Third Bancorp $3.5 billion (14) BB&T $3.1 billion (15) Bank of New York Mellon $3.0 billion (16) KeyCorp $2.5 billion (17) Comerica Incorporated $2.3 billion (18) State Street $2.0 billion (19) Marshall & Ilsley $1.7 billion (20) Northern Trust $1.6 billion http://www.savings-investor.com/2008/12/what-are-banks-doing-with-tarp-money.html Remember how none of it was supposed to be used for exec pay and bonuses...well guess what: Goldman Sachs will pay $12.4 billion in executive bonuses after receiving $12.5 billion in bailout funds from TARP. Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch will pay another $8 billion in bonuses and Citigroup will pay $26 billion. Each bank received $12.5 billion in bailout money. The banks say the bailout money did not go to bonuses because they have "traced" the bailout money, but money is fungible -- funds are funds. Would the banks have paid the bonuses without the equity cushion provided by the bailout money?? One has to wonder. What are they thinking at these banks?? http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2008/11/investment-bank.htmlLack of accountability is the hallmark of the Bush Administration. They are incompetent to the level of not even doing the basics: "Where is this money going. You need to be able to show you are loaning it out. Nope. It is a part of a philosophy that business can do no wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: On This Date in Bush History
|
on: December 26, 2008, 12:15:09 PM
|
You then tell us that because the prosecutor knew who leaked, he should have stopped the investigation. His investigation was to find who leaked, wasn't it? When someone lies to investigators of a crime (the leak), it is customary to investigate why he lied. When you lie to investigators, it's called obstruction of justice. So...you gonna explain to me how Whitewater, the travel office, FBI files, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky are linked? You made the Libby and Clinton investigations seem comparable. I think that sounds another one of your fact-free moments, but maybe you can explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Freedom of Religion
|
on: December 24, 2008, 01:41:13 PM
|
I think this is not a religious issue The complaint of the lady herself was one of her right to practice her religion. You are perhaps right that it was exacerbated by cursing the courthouse employee. But if you are going to have an asshole with no common sense, he is going to crop up in the South. If the rule is no headgear in the courthouse, common sense or no, that is the rule and should be applied to all throughout. I don't know that one is allowed to make judgment calls as to WHO can wear headgear and who cannot...or why. There is no such rule. It is at the discretion of the judge. Each judge has a certain amount of say in his/her court. The guy was just being a dick.
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: On This Date in Bush History
|
on: December 24, 2008, 01:22:23 PM
|
Fitz stopped after the matter at hand was closed Fitz knew Armitage was the leak yet his investigation went for another year. So no, he didn't stop. Perjury and obstruction of justice. As was Clinton. No, he took a plea on perjury, not obstruction. Perjury in the Lewinsky deposition, which was dredged up out of the Paula Jones lawsuit, which was a part of a cluster of investigations having no relationship to one another, including Whitewater (real estate), Filegate, (FBI documents) travelgate (accusations of improper firings in the travel office) It was a six year investigation in search of a crime and though every oportunistic Clinton-hater was invited to the party, not one damn thing was found. PRICE TAG: 40 MILLION DOLLARS. You compare that to a year of investigation for, in your own words 'A CRIME.' [caps mine for emphasis.] Singular, ONE crime. You then tell us that because the prosecutor knew who leaked, he should have stopped the investigation. Libby got busted for perjury because he lied to investigators about his conversations with reporters. Ah, the Republican mind. Iron delusions.
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: How did we get here?
|
on: December 24, 2008, 12:52:55 PM
|
You didn't finish your sentence. Here, I'll do it for you, "...Clinton did it..." There ya go brax, debate over, Clinton did it. Anyway, as I said in another post, the ARM loans alone would not have caused such widespread damage, had they not been turned into widely sold securities which were sold as "safe." To fill demand for these securities, millions of bad loans were issued by all mortgagers, which resulted in massive losses in the financial industry. Clinton pushing for relaxed rules in Fannie Mae in 1999, is a far cry from encouraging the growth of the MBS disaster-in-waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
|
on: December 24, 2008, 12:28:54 PM
|
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. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 President Bush's philosophy... He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards. Like so many other liberal policies, the intent is often good but in practice, fails miserably. The intent to help people gain a slice of the American dream is a great thing. The road to this economic hell was paved with good intentions started well before Bush. Bush was in a no-win situation...he could have stopped the lending practices and been called a racist bigot by the left or let it go. We know where that's got us. Wha? Are you blaming Clinton? I'm shocked. SHOCKED! Leave it to you to reply to an entire article about how Bush stoked the crisis and find a way to blame Clinton. Fannie Mae is not the entire mortgage industry. It wasn't trying to expand home ownership that was the problem, it was "[Bush's] housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards," in the ENTIRE industry. Not just Fannie Mae. Further, the collapse of the financial industry was caused by something called a mortgage-backed security. That was the real problem. "The nationwide mortgage-default crisis has harshly punished many of the participants in the mortgage-backed-securities market. As subprime lenders failed, Wall Street firms such as Bear Stearns, which underwrote the issuance of such securities, saw their revenues fall. Hedge funds that traded mortgage-backed securities using lots of borrowed money suffered heavy losses as the value of the bonds fell." http://www.slate.com/id/2186801/I await how the growth of this sort of security in the last 8 years is Clinton's fault. Or Poppy's fault. Why the Mortgage-backed Security Went the Way of the Dinosaur --- Prior to the first decade of the 21st century, it was customary for a U.S. bank to exercise due diligence (an investigation into the applicant's history) when considering lending money for a mortgage. Banks wanted to know all about an applicant's financial stability -- income, debt, credit rating -- and they wanted it verified. This changed after the mortgage-backed security (MBS) was introduced. Eventually, the most desirable, qualified customers dried up; they all had homes. So banks turned to customers they'd traditionally shunned -- subprime borrowers. These are borrowers with low credit ratings who pose a high risk of defaulting on their loan. But lenders of all stripes bent over backwards in the early 2000s to get this type of borrower into homes. The no-document loan was created, a type of loan for which the lender didn't ask for any information and the borrower didn't offer it. People who may have been unemployed as far as the lender knew received loans for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why?--- http://money.howstuffworks.com/mortgage-backed-security1.htm
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Huh.. change.. Hold on it will may take 8 -10-umm 50 years!! :P
|
on: December 23, 2008, 02:32:18 PM
|
Holy hell, what are you going to do when it's on Obama and you've run out of excuses? Since you can't blame Reagan, since he's been out of office for 20 years (and we know you don't like blaming in retrospect), you create a mythical 'Reagan Revolution' so strong even the vaunted Clinton couldn't overcome...because 'the Congress went to Republicans'...more excuses. Then Democrats take Congress along with the chairs of all the committees, but they are helpless and hapless to stop the vaunted Bush...or was it the Reagan Revolution...or... Bush gutted the SEC, privatized vital government services, and deregulated like crazy. So cool sounding until, well, someone checks the facts. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=printoooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh, Bush was calling FOR regulation, that damn big deregulator. Better sharpen up on those excuses, you're going to need them. Get it, stupid? You are HILARIOUS when you talk about checking facts. Read the article from this month that I just posted (as opposed to your three month old thing.) ---He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Mr. Bush chose to oversee them — an old prep school buddy — pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”--- Yep, he wanted to regulate Fannie and Freddie JUST Fannie and Freddie, and ultimately put in a crony who pronounced them sound.You are always wrong and so smarmy about it. Obama doesn't need excuses. Never will.
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Recession Official: Bush Sorry..
|
on: December 23, 2008, 02:22:33 PM
|
You are right. Bush is to blame for everything, including every sentence uttered by Dick Cheney. He is to blame for what happened before him and likely what will happen after him. Hell, he's been blamed for creating hurricanes, so throw the weather in the mix too.
Frankly, I'm a little pissed at him for causing the winds in New York last night that blew John Casey's field goal off line. Clean coal technology, if implemented in 2001, would have stemmed the global warming that is causing these frigid temperatures...and, of course, the wind.
You've convinced me. You've won.
Obama gets a clean slate in a month. I'm sure he'll do swell.
Stop being a child. He is responsible for what his vice says, unless he disavows it. He IS either blaming Clinton or his father but Clinton had eight of those years. Why can't you understand the concept of personal responsibility when it comes to the president? This crisis started with housing. The "innovations" that caused it began in the Bush years. Bush once claimed the bubble...until it burst. http://www.itsallpolitics.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,26/topic,3190.0/
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Huh.. change.. Hold on it will may take 8 -10-umm 50 years!! :P
|
on: December 23, 2008, 02:04:12 PM
|
Nice little words ya put put in my mouth. You are the sort of moron who thinks it is a choice between everybody to blame but Bush and only Bush is to blame. Actually, the Reagan Revolution, deregulation, the culture of greed and corruption encouraged by it are to blame. But this particular crisis began with the implosion of ARM securities, which did not exist before the Bush administration. It has also been intensified by an incompetent SEC, unwilling to enforce strict oversite. The SEC and the attitude of letting business run amok are directly the fault of Bush. So is Iraq, Katrina, and the low confidence in the US, which has fueled the downturn. Grow up. Get over it. How does Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's lack of oversight...their rebellion to reform, if you will...figure into the picture? Actually, the Reagan Revolution, deregulation, the culture of greed and corruption encouraged by it are to blame. Almost seems like you're blaming a dead man for the problems. Where was Clinton to put his finger into the dike of the Reagan Revolution run amok? Ah, yes, more failed arguments from you, covered up with twisted words and smarminess. Yep, do you even understand your own conservative philosophy? Reagan popularized the principle that Bush followed to the letter. GREED IS GOOD. Reagan claimed tax cuts would cure all ills. He raised taxes twice. Bush, not once, and cut taxes for the wealthy several times. Bush: More Reagan than Reagan. Reagan liked wars. Bush started two. More Reagan than Reagan. Churching the State. Reagan Reagan Reagan. Reagan ran up the deficit on military spending, so did Bush. Reagan supported amnesty for illegals. So did Bush. Reagan had a net increase in the size of the Federal government. Bush expanded it, too. Reagan deregulated and gutted government departments he didn't like. Bush gutted the SEC, privatized vital government services, and deregulated like crazy. Because you are a wind-up Bush-bot you can't see that Bush and his Reaganite philosophy have been to blame for this crisis. Sorry you can't understand what 75% of Americans already know, Bush is a failed president who has destroyed the Reagan Revolution for a generation. Clinton's mistake was in accepting some of the precepts of that Revolution of lies, because the Congress went to Republicans. Lenin started the Revolution in Russia. That doesn't mean that anyone but Stalin was responsible for the purges. Reagan started the Revolution, but bungling Bush finished it. Get it, stupid? No...I await who in the Congress is and the media is to blame for poor George's failure'... You are sad.
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Outlines of Economic Stimulus Package Now Visible
|
on: December 23, 2008, 01:41:01 PM
|
|
Tiny bit of perspective:
Our current debt is ~60% of GDP.
After WWII, it was ~120%.
The deficit is bad. Not spending is worse. Right now, private lenders don't want to lend anything to private business. They will, however lend to the US government because they know the money is guaranteed. When private industry holds tight to their money only the government has it to spend. This country has gone to shit in the last thirty years, there is plenty of useful spending to be done.
Now, of course, if you are one of those buttplugs who thinks this is the US of You. Tough. Deal with it. If you don't want to pay your taxes, go somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|