In fact, it really does look as if the foundations of US capitalism have shattered. The World As We Know It Is Going Down
St Georges Day April 23rd
By Marc Pitzke in New York
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,578944,00.html
Panic is the word of the hour on Wall Street. Now even Morgan Stanley
is fighting for survival. The commercial bank Wachovia and China's
Bank Citic are being discussed as possible rescuers. The crisis has
led President Bush to cancel a trip.
The original plan actually called for humor. On Wednesday evening,
actress Christy Carlson Romano was supposed to ring the closing bell
on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to mark her debut
in the Broadway musical "Avenue Q." She plays two roles on stage -- a
romantic kindergarten assistant, and a slutty nightclub singer.
After that day on the floor, the stock traders could have used a bit
of comic relief. But it was not to be. Instead of Christy Carlson
Romano, a NYSE employee in a joyless gray suit stood on the balcony
and silently pressed a button. The bell rang and he disappeared. No
waving, no clapping, none of the usual jubilation.
By the end of Wednesday, no one here was in the mood for laughter. The
bad news on Wall Street was coming thick and fast. All the US indexes
were crashing again after Tuesday's brief and deceptive breather. In
its wild, rollercoaster ride, the Dow Jones lost about 450 points,
which was almost as much as it lost on Monday, the most catastrophic
day on US markets since 2001.
Investors were turning their back to the market in droves and fleeing
to safer pastures. The price of gold broke its record for the highest
increase in a one-day period.
Panic Is the Word of the Hour
Traders abandoned the NYSE temple visually defeated and immune to the
TV crews waiting. The disastrous closing prices were flickering on the
ticker above the NYSE entrance: American Express -8.4 percent;
Citigroup -10.9 percent; JPMorgan Chase -12.2 percent. American icons,
abused like stray dogs. Even Apple took a hit.
"I don't know what else to say," stammered one broker, who was
consoling himself with white wine and beer along with some colleagues
at an outdoor bar called Beckett's. Ties and jackets were off, but
despite the evening breeze, you could still make out the thin film of
sweat on his forehead. His words captured the speechlessness of an
industry.
Things got worse after the markets closed. Washington Mutual,
America's fourth-largest bank, announced that it had started the
process of putting itself up for sale. The Wall Street Journal
reported that both Wells Fargo and the banking giant Citigroup were
interested in taking over the battered American savings bank.
And then came the announcement that would dominate all of Thursday's
market activities: Morgan Stanley -- the venerable Wall Street
institution and one of the last two US investment banks left standing
-- had lost massive amounts and was fighting for survival. Media
reports were saying that it was even in talks about a possible bail-
out or merger. Rumor had it that possible suitors might include
Wachovia or China's Bank Citic.
China?
"Folks," economist Larry Kudlow, a host on the business channel CNBC
begged his viewers that evening, "don't give up on this great
country!"
End of an Era
In fact, it really does look as if the foundations of US capitalism
have shattered. Since 1864, American banking has been split into
commercial banks and investment banks. But now that's changing. Bear
Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch -- overnight, some of the
biggest names on Wall Street have disappeared into thin air. Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley are the only giants left standing. Despite
tolerable quarterly results, even they have been hurt by mysterious
slumps in prices and -- at least in Morgan Stanley's case -- have
prepared themselves for the end.
"Nothing will be like it was before," said James Allroy, a broker who
was brooding over his chai latte at a Starbucks on Wall Street. "The
world as we know it is going down."
Many are drawing comparisons with the Great Depression, the national
trauma that has been the benchmark for everything since. "I think it
has the chance to be the worst period of time since 1929," financing
legend Donald Trump told CNN. And the Wall Street Journal seconds that
opinion, giving one story the title: "Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No
End Yet in Sight."
But what's really happening? Experts have so far been unable to agree
on any conclusions. Is this the beginning of the end? Or is it just a
painful, but normal cycle correcting the excesses of recent years?
Does responsibility lie with the ratings agencies, which have been
overvaluing financial institutions for a long time? Or did dubious
short sellers manipulate stock prices -- after all, they were
suspected of having caused the last stock market crisis in July.
The only thing that is certain is that the era of the unbridled free-
market economy in the US has passed -- at least for now. The near
nationalization of AIG, America's largest insurance company, with an
$85 billion cash infusion -- a bill footed by taxpayers -- was a
staggering move. The sum is three times as high as the guarantee
provided by the Federal Reserve when Bear Stearns was sold to JPMorgan
Chase in March.
The most breathtaking aspect about this week's crisis, though, is that
the life raft -- which Washington had only previously used to bail out
the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- is being handed out
by a government whose party usually fights against any form of
government intervention. The policy is anchored in its party platform.
"I fear the government has passed the point of no return," financial
historian Ron Chernow told the New York Times. "We have the irony of a
free-market administration doing things that the most liberal
Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest
dreams."
Bush Cancels Trip
The situation appears to be so serious that George W. Bush cancelled
two domestic trips he had planned for Thursday on short notice.
Instead, the president will remain in Washington to discuss the
"serious challenges confronting US financial markets." He said the
president remained focused on "taking action to stabilize and
strengthen the markets." Bush had originally planned to travel to
events in Florida and Alabama.
So far, the US presidential candidates have made few helpful remarks
about the crisis other than the usual slogans. Both are vaguely
calling for "regulation" and "reform" -- bland catchphrases almost
universally welcomed with applause.
Republican Party presidential candidate John McCain had the most to
say. On Monday, he said "the foundation of our economy" was "strong,"
adding that he opposed a government-led bailout of US insurer AIG. But
now he's promising further government steps "to prevent the kind of
wild speculation that can put our markets at risk." McCain's
explanation for the current crisis: "unbridled corruption and greed."
But Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama didn't move past
superficialities, either. "We're Americans. We've met tough challenges
before and we can again."
What else are they supposed to say? After all, US presidents have very
little influence on stockmarkets. And Wall Street is expecting the
status quo for the next president. On Wednesday an almost palpable mix
of tension and melancholy filled the air above New York's Financial
District. The beloved trader bar Bull Run was half empty, and many
tables were free at fine-dining establishments like Cipriani, Mangia
and Bobby Van's, which are normally booked days in advance.
At the side entrance to Goldman Sachs on Pearl Street, limo chauffeurs
sat waiting for their customers, still above in their office towers
cowering over the accounts. "If they go under," said Rashid Amal, who
works as a chauffeur for a firm called Excelsior, "then I will soon be
out of a job, too."
Morton Davis
"St Georges Day April 23rd" <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote in
message
news:e2e9183e-0095-46af...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Over 97%of mortgages are being paid. Over 95% of banks are sound. Over 94%
of American workers are employed. This is a bump. We'll get over it. The
markets are rebounding, oil is down. Were it not for Ike my area would be
knocking on $3 a gallon for regular gas.
Sell your gloom and doom elsewhere.
Curly Surmudgeon
Sell your denials elsewhere.
Trends are all in the wrong direction and the economic disasters brought
upon us by the Bush Administration are rapidly spiraling downward with no
end in sight.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like Chickenhawks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Bill Smith
<curlysu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:07:41 +0000, Morton Davis wrote:
>
>>
>> "St Georges Day April 23rd" <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:e2e9183e-0095-46af...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Over 97%of mortgages are being paid. Over 95% of banks are sound. Over 94%
>> of American workers are employed. This is a bump. We'll get over it. The
>> markets are rebounding, oil is down. Were it not for Ike my area would be
>> knocking on $3 a gallon for regular gas.
>>
>> Sell your gloom and doom elsewhere.
>
>Sell your denials elsewhere.
>
>Trends are all in the wrong direction and the economic disasters brought
>upon us by the Bush Administration are rapidly spiraling downward with no
>end in sight.
You'd advise a panic then? That'll be useful.
Bill Smith
Curly Surmudgeon
Sarcasm not withstanding, where did I say such a thing, or did voices in
your head tell you that? You sound like the trolls in another newsgroup
who project their fantasies on anyone who doesn't agree with their reality
bubble.
Jeff
Let's see in the last week or so, the two largest Mortgage buyers,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have essentially been nationalized to save
them. One of the worlds largest insurers, AIG, has been rescued by the
FED, Only two of the five largest investment banks remain independent
and one of them is in talks with a Chinese firm from to bail it out.
Gold jumped $70 in one day. The FED is borrowing money...
Yes, it's all very lovely.
Jeff
>
>
Felix D.
"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:mJCdnewiF-ass07V...@earthlink.com...
> Let's see in the last week or so, the two largest Mortgage buyers,
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have essentially been nationalized to save
> them. One of the worlds largest insurers, AIG, has been rescued by the
> FED, Only two of the five largest investment banks remain independent and
> one of them is in talks with a Chinese firm from to bail it out. Gold
> jumped $70 in one day. The FED is borrowing money...
Well, if it all goes down the tubes, we all go down with it so who's to say
what might happen? Whether you think we'll pull together and see it through
or fall apart into warring tribes depends on how you view mankind to begin
with.
> Yes, it's all very lovely.
Isn't it? History is unfolding / being made right before our eyes.
Nicik Name
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curlysu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:48d31219$0$22236$a826...@news.titannews.com...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:07:41 +0000, Morton Davis wrote:
>
>>
>> "St Georges Day April 23rd" <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:e2e9183e-0095-46af...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Over 97%of mortgages are being paid. Over 95% of banks are sound. Over
>> 94%
>> of American workers are employed. This is a bump. We'll get over it. The
>> markets are rebounding, oil is down. Were it not for Ike my area would be
>> knocking on $3 a gallon for regular gas.
>>
>> Sell your gloom and doom elsewhere.
>
> Sell your denials elsewhere.
>
> Trends are all in the wrong direction and the economic disasters brought
> upon us by the Bush Administration are rapidly spiraling downward with no
> end in sight.
Not a President Of the United States
Jeff
stacked for a while. And yet, there were those who thought that years of
a negative savings rate could be balanced by easy credit. That that was
a solid foundation for an economy. To keep pumping in money that we
didn't really have.
And as financial giants fall, the leader of the free world watches from
the sidelines ready to give a cheer and an atta boy when the hometown
crowd needs it.
Jeff
Bill Smith
<curlysu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:06:39 -0700, Bill Smith wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:43:48 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
>> <curlysu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:07:41 +0000, Morton Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "St Georges Day April 23rd" <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> news:e2e9183e-0095-46af...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Over 97%of mortgages are being paid. Over 95% of banks are sound. Over
>>>> 94% of American workers are employed. This is a bump. We'll get over
>>>> it. The markets are rebounding, oil is down. Were it not for Ike my
>>>> area would be knocking on $3 a gallon for regular gas.
>>>>
>>>> Sell your gloom and doom elsewhere.
>>>
>>>Sell your denials elsewhere.
>>>
>>>Trends are all in the wrong direction and the economic disasters brought
>>>upon us by the Bush Administration are rapidly spiraling downward with no
>>>end in sight.
>>
>>
>> You'd advise a panic then? That'll be useful.
>>
>> Bill Smith
>
>Sarcasm not withstanding, where did I say such a thing, or did voices in
>your head tell you that? You sound like the trolls in another newsgroup
>who project their fantasies on anyone who doesn't agree with their reality
>bubble.
You can blame Bush if you like, and he certainly has contributed to
it, but the deregulation began with the Clinton Administration with
his shameless pandering to the Republicans. Phrases like "Rapidly
spiraling downward" sure looks like panic to me.
Things like "financial meltdown" shouted often enough and loudly
enough in the press, for example, tend to become self-fulfilling
prophesies. This really isn't useful. Neither is ignoring reality,
which doesn't appear to be the case. I'm not reading very much about
what's solid in our economy, why is that? I'll tell you; it doesn't
sell newspapers.
Bill Smith
John R. Carroll
clams_casino
>>
>>You can blame Bush if you like, and he certainly has contributed to
>>it, but the deregulation began with the Clinton Administration
>>
>>
>
>Nope, it was Reagan.
>
>
>
>
>
I don't know why they don't seek out expert advice from Palin - She can
see a bank right out her window.
Dennis
>And as financial giants fall, the leader of the free world watches from
>the sidelines ready to give a cheer and an atta boy when the hometown
>crowd needs it.
And the US Congress, who actually made all the rules that got us into
this, adjourns and slinks home, ducking and muttering "Not our
fault!".
Dennis (evil)
--
What government gives, it must first take away.
Bill Smith
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Bill Smith
Felix D.
All well and good until you try a little BushBash here. I'm always amused
when people claim that Bush is somehow, some way, running the economy and is
to blame when things go wrong.
John R. Carroll
You really have to go back even farther if you want to get to the academic
roots of current Republican economic underpinning.
About 1970 and the third Chicago Shool.
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/chicago.htm
George
Exactly, all of the talking heads love to declare it was Bush's fault,
Clinton's fault or maybe Rutherford B. Hayes' fault but Congress writes
the legislation and spends our money. It was interesting to see how
"both sides" "came together" to bail out their contributors and friends
to help the "average guy".
hchi...@hotmail.com
>On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:28:21 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>>And as financial giants fall, the leader of the free world watches from
>>the sidelines ready to give a cheer and an atta boy when the hometown
>>crowd needs it.
>
>And the US Congress, who actually made all the rules that got us into
>this, adjourns and slinks home, ducking and muttering "Not our
>fault!".
>
>
>Dennis (evil)
What just occurred with the bailouts is that the government put the
comfort of the current crop of the wealthy ahead of the core values of
the country.
Libertarians have been crying for less government and greater personal
responsibility, and politicians have claimed to share those values.
The truth is now out. What this bailout shows is that government has
only been paying lip service to those concepts as well as what our
forefathers died for.
We now have a government endorsing corporate socialism, where the
elite are protected from womb to grave, while relegating the common
citizen to serfdom, paying off the bailouts. We should round up all
the people responsible for the mess, chain 'em together, toss 'em in
Galveston, put up a fence around the place, and let FEMA take care of
them for ten years. I'd even recommend putting Brownie back in charge
of that task.
clams_casino
>
>
>All well and good until you try a little BushBash here. I'm always amused
>when people claim that Bush is somehow, some way, running the economy and is
>to blame when things go wrong.
>
>
>
>
You have a point. There has been nothing postive for which GW can
take any credit.
Jeff
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:28:21 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> And as financial giants fall, the leader of the free world watches from
>> the sidelines ready to give a cheer and an atta boy when the hometown
>> crowd needs it.
>
> And the US Congress, who actually made all the rules that got us into
> this, adjourns and slinks home, ducking and muttering "Not our
> fault!".
You've missed a couple of points.
Congress is not responsible for administering and executing the laws.
You've got an administration that has been doing everything it could to
do exactly what it wants. That goes from reinterpreting rules and
regulations, to signing statements to just plain foot dragging and
gutting government entities.
For example:
http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/envrollbacksreport.pdf
On January 20, 2001, the crowd that was gathered at the Capitol for
President Bush’s
Inauguration had barely dispersed when the President’s Chief of Staff
Andrew Card took one of
the most far-reaching and significant steps of the administration’s
early days: he issued a
directive to all Federal agency heads to immediately freeze the Federal
regulatory process in its
tracks. Although couched in terms more familiar to the bureaucracy than
the citizenry, the so called
Card memo had the potential to diminish the health and safety of tens of
millions of
Americans.
The second point you've missed is that it is the administration that
sets the agenda, and an intransigent president that does only what he
wants. It's all perfectly opaque and in some respects criminal.
Now, if you feel that the president has little to do in setting the
direction of the country, I suggest that you just don't cast a vote for
that office. Myself, I think it's better to have someone running the
government that doesn't hate the government.
Jeff
Rod Speed
It stopped being about selling newspapers a hell of a long time ago now.
John James
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:03:24 -0700, Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:28:21 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And as financial giants fall, the leader of the free world watches
>>> from the sidelines ready to give a cheer and an atta boy when the
>>> hometown crowd needs it.
>>
>> And the US Congress, who actually made all the rules that got us into
>> this, adjourns and slinks home, ducking and muttering "Not our
>> fault!".
>>
>>
>> Dennis (evil)
>
> What just occurred with the bailouts is that the government put the
> comfort of the current crop of the wealthy ahead of the core values of
> the country.
Ahead of the economy tanking, actually.
> Libertarians have been crying for less government and greater personal
> responsibility, and politicians have claimed to share those values.
> The truth is now out. What this bailout shows is that government has
> only been paying lip service to those concepts as well as what our
> forefathers died for.
Those forefathers got to wear a whole series of depressions in the
century before 1929 when their approach to government was all the rage.
> We now have a government endorsing corporate socialism,
> where the elite are protected from womb to grave,
The owners of Bear Stearns, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Lehmans might just disagree with that.
> while relegating the common
> citizen to serfdom, paying off the bailouts. We should round up all
> the people responsible for the mess, chain 'em together, toss 'em in
> Galveston, put up a fence around the place, and let FEMA take care of
> them for ten years. I'd even recommend putting Brownie back in charge
> of that task.
You could always return to lynch mobs.
Curly Surmudgeon
Where did I "advise a panic?" You're moving the target without retracting
or substantiating your attack.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush, a Disaster of Biblical Proportions
Bill Smith
<curlysu...@live.com> wrote:
When you said "rapidly spiraling downward" I took it as panic, and it
wasn't meant as an "attack". We probably agree about the cause of all
this if you think about it. A substantial number of the safeguards put
in place after the depression have been removed, some of which were
antiquated, but haven't been replaced with anything new. It wasn't a
leadership failure by just one side that caused this. I don't remember
who said it, but democracies don't tend to do anything about a problem
until it really hits the fan. Well it's hit the fan big time now. Both
candidates are talking regulation so maybe something will get done,
and you and I, as always, will pay for it.
Bill Smith
Rod Speed
They're completely irrelevant to that. Its Congress that matters, not those two candidates.
> and you and I, as always, will pay for it.
There aint anyone else.
Curly Surmudgeon
Pretty much, yeah, we agree. Sorry if I reacted adversely. The trolls in
misc.survivalism have been making shit up exaggerating or misrepresenting
my words of late.
More than just removing the safeguards, they've been lining their pockets
with the wealth of our middle class driving many into poverty. While me
may correct the causes, many lives have been destroyed by these pirates.
The wealth stolen will never be recovered and families injured never
repaid. I'm pretty irate over the disaster, it was obvious to many years
ago but journalism failed and became a mouthpiece for the Robber Barons
instead of the bastion it was supposed to be.
There are many culpable in this avoidable disaster, I'm bitter with the
damage done to our culture and nation.</rant>
Darth Impaler
>
> More than just removing the safeguards, they've been lining their pockets
> with the wealth of our middle class driving many into poverty. While me
> may correct the causes, many lives have been destroyed by these pirates.
> The wealth stolen will never be recovered and families injured never
> repaid. I'm pretty irate over the disaster, it was obvious to many years
> ago but journalism failed and became a mouthpiece for the Robber Barons
> instead of the bastion it was supposed to be.
>
> There are many culpable in this avoidable disaster, I'm bitter with the
> damage done to our culture and nation.</rant>
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bush, a Disaster of Biblical Proportions
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Pretty well sums it up.
Darth Impaler
news:NPDAk.294419$TT4.101921@attbi_s22...
>
> "St Georges Day April 23rd" <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:e2e9183e-0095-46af...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> Over 97%of mortgages are being paid. Over 95% of banks are sound. Over 94%
> of American workers are employed. This is a bump. We'll get over it. The
> markets are rebounding, oil is down. Were it not for Ike my area would be
> knocking on $3 a gallon for regular gas.
>
> Sell your gloom and doom elsewhere.
>
Unless you actually take the volume percentage of holdings into account,
instead of saying these grains of sand and these mountains are the same.
Bill Smith
>
>They're completely irrelevant to that. Its Congress that matters, not those two candidates.
That's true, but leadership matters. If a President wants something
badly enough he can put an awful lot of pressure on Congress to make
something happen. It's what Bush did to get us into the Iraq debacle.
Bill Smith
Rod Speed
>> They're completely irrelevant to that. Its Congress that matters, not those two candidates.
> That's true, but leadership matters.
Nope.
> If a President wants something badly enough he can put an
> awful lot of pressure on Congress to make something happen.
Nope. If Congress chooses to ignore what the Prez wants, he's fucked.
Thats what happened with Slick.
> It's what Bush did to get us into the Iraq debacle.
Nope, Congress decided that something had to be done post 9/11.
Bill Smith
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>> They're completely irrelevant to that. Its Congress that matters, not those two candidates.
>
>> That's true, but leadership matters.
>
>Nope.
We got a Constitution and the French got Robespierre and the terror.
Leadership does matter.
>> If a President wants something badly enough he can put an
>> awful lot of pressure on Congress to make something happen.
>
>Nope. If Congress chooses to ignore what the Prez wants, he's fucked.
>
>Thats what happened with Slick.
>
>> It's what Bush did to get us into the Iraq debacle.
>
>Nope, Congress decided that something had to be done post 9/11.
>
So you think they would have pressured Bush into invading Iraq if he
didn't want to?
John R. Carroll
You betcha!
<eye roll>
Tortured him with a pretzel they would have!
LOL
Dennis
All this partisan blaming one side over the other is simply a bunch of
crap. I do not defend anything the president did or didn't do. I'm
simply saying that with our form of government being what it is, there
is plenty of blame to go around. Congress makes the laws, and it was
Congress that insisted that the rules be loosened so that minorities
and low-income people would have better access to loans, regardless
of their ability to pay it back. So "It's not our fault!" doesn't
fly.
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote
>>>>> When you said "rapidly spiraling downward" I took it as panic, and it
>>>>> wasn't meant as an "attack". We probably agree about the cause of all
>>>>> this if you think about it. A substantial number of the safeguards put
>>>>> in place after the depression have been removed, some of which were
>>>>> antiquated, but haven't been replaced with anything new. It wasn't a
>>>>> leadership failure by just one side that caused this. I don't remember
>>>>> who said it, but democracies don't tend to do anything about a problem
>>>>> until it really hits the fan. Well it's hit the fan big time now. Both
>>>>> candidates are talking regulation so maybe something will get done,
>>>> They're completely irrelevant to that. Its Congress that matters, not those two candidates.
>>> That's true, but leadership matters.
>> Nope.
> We got a Constitution and the French got Robespierre and the terror.
> Leadership does matter.
Nope, not in the situation being discussed it doesnt.
Even FDR was completely irrelevant in the first years of WW2
until the Japs were actually stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor.
>>> If a President wants something badly enough he can put an
>>> awful lot of pressure on Congress to make something happen.
>> Nope. If Congress chooses to ignore what the Prez wants, he's fucked.
>> Thats what happened with Slick.
>>> It's what Bush did to get us into the Iraq debacle.
>> Nope, Congress decided that something had to be done post 9/11.
> So you think they would have pressured Bush into invading Iraq if he didn't want to?
Congress didnt care greatly about what exactly was done, it just wanted something dramatic done.
Jeff
I hadn't mentioned one party or the other. But this perfect storm could
not have been sailed into by a skipper that cared about oversight and
fiscal discipline. Just another trillion dollar unneeded expense to go
with the Iraq war and the medicare cost explosion whose real value was
carefully hidden in the wee hours of the night.
I do not defend anything the president did or didn't do. I'm
> simply saying that with our form of government being what it is, there
> is plenty of blame to go around. Congress makes the laws, and it was
> Congress that insisted that the rules be loosened so that minorities
> and low-income people would have better access to loans, regardless
> of their ability to pay it back. So "It's not our fault!" doesn't
> fly.
Trickle down does not work. Propping up trickle down with cheap money
and an attitude that capital markets will forget greed and act sensibly
has lead to this fiasco.
Congress has always had the same faults. This presidents faults will
be duly noted for generations.
Jeff
Gunner
wrote:
After all..the Shrug they claim is as dumb as a bag of rocks diverted
Katrina to kill all those blacks and destroy the levies.
Now they claim he is running the country as well.
Fascinating. But confusing. I wish they would make up their minds
If they had any.
Gunner
Gunner
wrote:
you mean he put pressure on these people?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and
is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Bill Smith
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> When you said "rapidly spiraling downward" I took it as panic, and it
>>>>>> wasn't meant as an "attack". We probably agree about the cause of all
>>>>>> this if you think about it. A substantial number of the safeguards put
>>>>>> in place after the depression have been removed, some of which were
>>>>>> antiquated, but haven't been replaced with anything new. It wasn't a
>>>>>> leadership failure by just one side that caused this. I don't remember
>>>>>> who said it, but democracies don't tend to do anything about a problem
>>>>>> until it really hits the fan. Well it's hit the fan big time now. Both
>>>>>> candidates are talking regulation so maybe something will get done,
>
>>>>> They're completely irrelevant to that. Its Congress that matters, not those two candidates.
>
>>>> That's true, but leadership matters.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> We got a Constitution and the French got Robespierre and the terror.
>> Leadership does matter.
>
>Nope, not in the situation being discussed it doesnt.
>
>Even FDR was completely irrelevant in the first years of WW2
>until the Japs were actually stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor.
He got Lend/Lease and other things he wanted through a largely hostile
Congress. Hardly completely irrelevant.
>>>> If a President wants something badly enough he can put an
>>>> awful lot of pressure on Congress to make something happen.
>
>>> Nope. If Congress chooses to ignore what the Prez wants, he's fucked.
>>> Thats what happened with Slick.
>
>>>> It's what Bush did to get us into the Iraq debacle.
>
>>> Nope, Congress decided that something had to be done post 9/11.
>
>> So you think they would have pressured Bush into invading Iraq if he didn't want to?
>
>Congress didnt care greatly about what exactly was done, it just wanted something dramatic done.
>
I did not say, nor did I imply that a President will get everything he
wants, merely that there are ways he can apply pressure. I doubt the
Iraq invasion would have taken place if Bush didn't want it.
Bill Smith
Dennis
Please don't insult us -- anyone who reads this group knows where your
politics lie.
And (once again) for the record, I support neither the Democrats nor
the Republicans. In their actions (beyond the rhetoric) I don't think
there is much difference between the current incarnations of the two
parties and I think the blame for this financial mess is spread pretty
evenly.
>But this perfect storm could
>not have been sailed into by a skipper that cared about oversight and
>fiscal discipline. Just another trillion dollar unneeded expense to go
>with the Iraq war and the medicare cost explosion whose real value was
>carefully hidden in the wee hours of the night.
Both items you mention were championed by the president and passed by
Congress. In particular, declaration of war is specifically called
out by the Constitution as Congress's job and members of both parties
passed the buck and wrote the president a blank check.
Again, for the record, I oppose both items you mention.
>
> I do not defend anything the president did or didn't do. I'm
>> simply saying that with our form of government being what it is, there
>> is plenty of blame to go around. Congress makes the laws, and it was
>> Congress that insisted that the rules be loosened so that minorities
>> and low-income people would have better access to loans, regardless
>> of their ability to pay it back. So "It's not our fault!" doesn't
>> fly.
>
> Trickle down does not work. Propping up trickle down with cheap money
>and an attitude that capital markets will forget greed and act sensibly
>has lead to this fiasco.
>
> Congress has always had the same faults. This presidents faults will
>be duly noted for generations.
I agree that the administration should be held accountable. I also
hope that the vacuum of leadership in a crisis shown by the spineless
Congress with sniveling statements like "It's not our fault!" (Nancy
Pelosi) and "Nobody knows what to do!" (Harry Reid) get noted in the
history books as well.
Curly Surmudgeon
> I did not say, nor did I imply that a President will get everything he
> wants, merely that there are ways he can apply pressure. I doubt the Iraq
> invasion would have taken place if Bush didn't want it.
>
> Bill Smith
Even that isn't close, the Iraq invasion was the idea of the Bush
Administration. They had to tell lies (sound familiar?) to deceive
congress into giving permission to invade. Cheney telling Army that
Saddam had suitcase nukes, the knowlingly forged yellowcake letter, the
500,000 liters of biotoxins, the fleet of arial drones, etc.
Congress wasn't interested in Iraq, that was solely a fabrication of the
neocons. Lying scumbags which are well represented in the dialog here.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote
>>>>>>> When you said "rapidly spiraling downward" I took it as panic,
>>>>>>> and it wasn't meant as an "attack". We probably agree about the
>>>>>>> cause of all this if you think about it. A substantial number
>>>>>>> of the safeguards put in place after the depression have been
>>>>>>> removed, some of which were antiquated, but haven't been
>>>>>>> replaced with anything new. It wasn't a leadership failure by
>>>>>>> just one side that caused this. I don't remember who said it,
>>>>>>> but democracies don't tend to do anything about a problem until
>>>>>>> it really hits the fan. Well it's hit the fan big time now.
>>>>>>> Both candidates are talking regulation so maybe something will get done,
>>>>>> They're completely irrelevant to that. Its Congress that matters, not those two candidates.
>>>>> That's true, but leadership matters.
>>>> Nope.
>>> We got a Constitution and the French got Robespierre and the terror.
>>> Leadership does matter.
>> Nope, not in the situation being discussed it doesnt.
We havent seen either candidate come up with a damned thing.
>> Even FDR was completely irrelevant in the first years of WW2
>> until the Japs were actually stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor.
> He got Lend/Lease and other things he wanted through a largely hostile Congress.
That last is a bare faced lie. If it was largely hostile, it wouldnt have got thru Congress.
> Hardly completely irrelevant.
He never had any luck at getting the US involved in that war until the Japs were stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor.
>>>>> If a President wants something badly enough he can put an
>>>>> awful lot of pressure on Congress to make something happen.
>>>> Nope. If Congress chooses to ignore what the Prez wants, he's fucked.
>>>> Thats what happened with Slick.
>>>>> It's what Bush did to get us into the Iraq debacle.
>>>> Nope, Congress decided that something had to be done post 9/11.
>>> So you think they would have pressured Bush into invading Iraq if he didn't want to?
>> Congress didnt care greatly about what exactly was done, it just wanted something dramatic done.
> I did not say, nor did I imply that a President will get everything
> he wants, merely that there are ways he can apply pressure.
He clearly didnt when Congress wanted something done post 9/11.
The only thing he actually did was decide on that particular detail after Aghanistan had been fucked over.
> I doubt the Iraq invasion would have taken place if Bush didn't want it.
The neocons would have just tried to convince Congress instead.
Felix D.
"Gunner" <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:p6k9d41f7kj30edhn...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:24:45 -0700, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>They're completely irrelevant to that. Its Congress that matters, not
>>>those two candidates.
>>
>>That's true, but leadership matters. If a President wants something
>>badly enough he can put an awful lot of pressure on Congress to make
>>something happen. It's what Bush did to get us into the Iraq debacle.
>>
You know these people aren't serious because if you take their assertions of
Bush the Evil But Stupid Machiavellian Genius to the logical conclusion,
you'd have to believe he'd gained total mind control of the Democrats two
years before he even ran for office. I mean, look at them here, all of them
saying Saddam has to go and the US has to do it.
(Memo to the libs: the memory hole isn't as deep as you think it is.)
Bert Hyman
St Georges Day April 23rd <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In fact, it really does look as if the foundations of US capitalism
> have shattered.
Shattered? More like blown up.
It's amazing that the system has stood as long as it has, having been
subjected to continuous attack since at least the 1930s.
The US economy operated as well as it did in spite of government help,
not because of it.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Rod Speed
> St Georges Day April 23rd <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote
>> In fact, it really does look as if the foundations of US capitalism have shattered.
> Shattered? More like blown up.
More like imploded.
> It's amazing that the system has stood as long as it has, having
> been subjected to continuous attack since at least the 1930s.
> The US economy operated as well as it did in spite of government help, not because of it.
Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with what got it out of the great depression.
Bert Hyman
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
As opposed to the government manipulation of the money supply that
caused the great depression?
Curly Surmudgeon
Memo to Felix: Google has archived history. Bush didn't consult Congress
until after he'd made up his mind then used scare tactics and secrecy to
give them only a glimpse at unsupported and fraudulent evidence.
The history is archived and unassailable.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote
>>> St Georges Day April 23rd <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote
>>>> In fact, it really does look as if the foundations of US capitalism have shattered.
>>> Shattered? More like blown up.
>> More like imploded.
>>> It's amazing that the system has stood as long as it has, having
>>> been subjected to continuous attack since at least the 1930s.
>>> The US economy operated as well as it did in spite of government help, not because of it.
>> Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with what got it out of the great depression.
> As opposed to the government manipulation of the money supply that caused the great depression?
Thats pure fantasy. Odd that it happened right thruout the first world, where
the US govt manipulation of the money supply was completely irrelevant.
Gray Ghost
$a826...@news.titannews.com:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:07:41 +0000, Morton Davis wrote:
>
>>
>> "St Georges Day April 23rd" <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:e2e9183e-0095-46af...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Over 97%of mortgages are being paid. Over 95% of banks are sound. Over 94%
>> of American workers are employed. This is a bump. We'll get over it. The
>> markets are rebounding, oil is down. Were it not for Ike my area would be
>> knocking on $3 a gallon for regular gas.
>>
>> Sell your gloom and doom elsewhere.
>
> Sell your denials elsewhere.
>
> Trends are all in the wrong direction and the economic disasters brought
> upon us by the Bush Administration are rapidly spiraling downward with no
> end in sight.
>
You be depressed, I'm to busy having a life.
--
Always remember:
Bull Connor was a Democrat!
Gray Ghost
news:sfl7d414l6cj3aut1...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:58:39 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
><curlysu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:06:39 -0700, Bill Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:43:48 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
>>> <curlysu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:07:41 +0000, Morton Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "St Georges Day April 23rd" <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote
>>>>> in message
>>>>> news:e2e9183e-0095-46af...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com..
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Over 97%of mortgages are being paid. Over 95% of banks are sound.
>>>>> Over 94% of American workers are employed. This is a bump. We'll get
>>>>> over it. The markets are rebounding, oil is down. Were it not for Ike
>>>>> my area would be knocking on $3 a gallon for regular gas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sell your gloom and doom elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>Sell your denials elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>Trends are all in the wrong direction and the economic disasters
>>>>brought upon us by the Bush Administration are rapidly spiraling
>>>>downward with no end in sight.
>>>
>>>
>>> You'd advise a panic then? That'll be useful.
>>>
>>> Bill Smith
>>
>>Sarcasm not withstanding, where did I say such a thing, or did voices in
>>your head tell you that? You sound like the trolls in another newsgroup
>>who project their fantasies on anyone who doesn't agree with their
>>reality bubble.
>
>
> You can blame Bush if you like, and he certainly has contributed to
> it, but the deregulation began with the Clinton Administration with
> his shameless pandering to the Republicans. Phrases like "Rapidly
> spiraling downward" sure looks like panic to me.
>
> Things like "financial meltdown" shouted often enough and loudly
> enough in the press, for example, tend to become self-fulfilling
> prophesies. This really isn't useful. Neither is ignoring reality,
> which doesn't appear to be the case. I'm not reading very much about
> what's solid in our economy, why is that? I'll tell you; it doesn't
> sell newspapers.
>
> Bill Smith
>
Actually this goes to both the Carter and Clinton years where Congress
mandated that mortgage loans be made top people who couldn't afford them.
Community Reincesrment Act anyone?
And while the Republicans were supposedly burning down the building where
were the Democrats?
The $190,000 contributed to Obama from Freddie and Fannie may give a clue.
clams_casino
Greatly unequal distribution of wealth, extreme speculation in the stock
market with borrowed money and extreme lack of credit / tightening of
money supply is generally believed to be the prime causes of the
depression. As the economy tanked, banks were calling in loans,
resulting in even less money supply / credit which forced the economy to
tank..
While it's quite unfair to bail out the default mortgages with tax
payers money, letting the financial community fold is quite a bit like
the Hoover approach in 1929/1930.
Bailing them out appears to be the lesser of two evils. Yes, expect to
pay more taxes to cover these losses as they get passed onto the
government, but what good is not paying those taxes if unemployment
doubles or triples due to lack of credit and retirement funds drop
another 50-70%.
No matter who wins the election, there are majors problems ahead.
Lose credit going into speculative housing in recent years is much
like the 20's speculation in the stock market. With a number of banks
folding this year, if banks & financial institutions are forced to call
back loans, expect a significant downturn in the economy.
Bailing out AIG will have its pain, but even GW realizes it's the better
of two evils. Letting AIG go belly up as many conservative republicans
are wanting is not much different than the Hoover approach that
decimated the economy for another ten years.
Bert Hyman
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote
>
>> As opposed to the government manipulation of the money supply that
>> caused the great depression?
>
> Thats pure fantasy.
Fed Chairman Bernanke disagrees (or at least, he used to):
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm
Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke
Curly Surmudgeon
You are trying to predict the future, a task fraught with uncertainty. On
other hand bailing out the criminals teaches no one anything. Letting
them walk with taxpayer money only encourages more of the same.
No matter who takes office, no matter what programs are put into place
America is in deep shit. It's better to bite the bullet now than to add
another few Trillion dollars to the National Debt.
Nobody has the slightest idea of the exposure of taking over AIG, Fannie
Mae, Freddy Mac, or insuring all the money market accounts being planned.
It could be 2-4x the claims and usually is. Remember when Bush and his
lackeys claimed that Iraq would cost less than $50 billion?
Let's take the hit now, while we know the exposure and costs. Rewarding
the crooks who precipitated this disaster with taxpayer money is not a
rational solution.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:43:48 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
>> <curlysu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:07:41 +0000, Morton Davis wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> "St Georges Day April 23rd" <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote
>> >> in message
>> >> news:e2e9183e-0095-46af...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com..
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >> Over 97%of mortgages are being paid. Over 95% of banks are sound.
>> >> Over 94% of American workers are employed. This is a bump. We'll get
>> >> over it. The markets are rebounding, oil is down. Were it not for Ike
>> >> my area would be knocking on $3 a gallon for regular gas.
>> >>
>> >> Sell your gloom and doom elsewhere.
>> >
>> >Sell your denials elsewhere.
>> >
>> >Trends are all in the wrong direction and the economic disasters
>> >brought upon us by the Bush Administration are rapidly spiraling
>> >downward with no end in sight.
>>
>> You'd advise a panic then? That'll be useful.
>
> How about revolution?
Seems like the sensible solution, you first.
Felix D.
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curlysu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:48d577ca$0$22238$a826...@news.titannews.com...
> Memo to Felix: Google has archived history. Bush didn't consult Congress
> until after he'd made up his mind then used scare tactics and secrecy to
> give them only a glimpse at unsupported and fraudulent evidence.
Well, then, if the Dems were so fukken spineless and gullible that they
never bothered to see if what they were being told was true or not, then too
bad to all of you on the left. You had your chance and you blew it.
Felix D.
"Drooling Idiot" <drooli...@live.com> wrote in message
news:20080920193341.333$3...@newsreader.com...
>>
>> > Let's see in the last week or so, the two largest Mortgage buyers,
>> > Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have essentially been nationalized to save
>> > them. One of the worlds largest insurers, AIG, has been rescued by the
>> > FED, Only two of the five largest investment banks remain independent
>> > and one of them is in talks with a Chinese firm from to bail it out.
>> > Gold jumped $70 in one day. The FED is borrowing money...
>>
>> Well, if it all goes down the tubes, we all go down with it so who's to
>> say what might happen? Whether you think we'll pull together and see it
>> through or fall apart into warring tribes depends on how you view mankind
>> to begin with.
>>
>> > Yes, it's all very lovely.
>>
>> Isn't it? History is unfolding / being made right before our eyes.
>
And what the Dems were saying 1939 - 1941.
Rod Speed
>>> As opposed to the government manipulation of the money supply that caused the great depression?
>> Thats pure fantasy.
> Fed Chairman Bernanke disagrees (or at least, he used to):
No he didnt ever.
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm
> Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke
Doesnt say anything like that. And if he did, he's just plain wrong anyway.
There is no universal agreement that that was the cause of the great depression.
Curly Surmudgeon
Me, on the left? Fuck off troll.
strabo
The crooks get away and the faulty structures remain.
This is just applying a band-aid and postponing a remedy. You'll not be
able to get rid of the problem until the system is collapsed.
>
> No matter who wins the election, there are majors problems ahead.
> Lose credit going into speculative housing in recent years is much
> like the 20's speculation in the stock market. With a number of banks
> folding this year, if banks & financial institutions are forced to call
> back loans, expect a significant downturn in the economy.
> Bailing out AIG will have its pain, but even GW realizes it's the better
> of two evils. Letting AIG go belly up as many conservative republicans
> are wanting is not much different than the Hoover approach that
> decimated the economy for another ten years.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
clams_casino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Greatly unequal distribution of wealth, extreme speculation in the
>> stock market with borrowed money and extreme lack of credit /
>> tightening of money supply is generally believed to be the prime
>> causes of the depression. As the economy tanked, banks were calling
>> in loans, resulting in even less money supply / credit which forced
>> the economy to tank..
>>
>> While it's quite unfair to bail out the default mortgages with tax
>> payers money, letting the financial community fold is quite a bit
>> like the Hoover approach in 1929/1930.
>>
>> Bailing them out appears to be the lesser of two evils. Yes, expect
>> to pay more taxes to cover these losses as they get passed onto the
>> government, but what good is not paying those taxes if unemployment
>> doubles or triples due to lack of credit and retirement funds drop
>> another 50-70%.
>
> >
>
> The crooks get away and the faulty structures remain.
>
> This is just applying a band-aid and postponing a remedy. You'll not be
> able to get rid of the problem until the system is collapsed.
>
>
So you favor the Herbert Hoover approach.
Could work. Most likely won't, but hopefully we won't find out the
hard way.
Jeff
I didn't bring it up here. For that matter I have reservations that this
belongs in frugal-living, but this is an informal group.
>
> And (once again) for the record, I support neither the Democrats nor
> the Republicans. In their actions (beyond the rhetoric) I don't think
> there is much difference between the current incarnations of the two
> parties and I think the blame for this financial mess is spread pretty
> evenly.
That's exactly the same kind of thinking that brought us 8 years of
George W Bush. That there was no difference between him and Al Gore or
the parties.
>
>> But this perfect storm could
>> not have been sailed into by a skipper that cared about oversight and
>> fiscal discipline. Just another trillion dollar unneeded expense to go
>> with the Iraq war and the medicare cost explosion whose real value was
>> carefully hidden in the wee hours of the night.
>
> Both items you mention were championed by the president and passed by
> Congress. In particular, declaration of war is specifically called
> out by the Constitution as Congress's job and members of both parties
> passed the buck and wrote the president a blank check.
The evidence is beyond strong that the WH manipulated the evidence. Go
read some of the books by White House insiders.
>
> Again, for the record, I oppose both items you mention.
>
>> I do not defend anything the president did or didn't do. I'm
>>> simply saying that with our form of government being what it is, there
>>> is plenty of blame to go around. Congress makes the laws, and it was
>>> Congress that insisted that the rules be loosened so that minorities
>>> and low-income people would have better access to loans, regardless
>>> of their ability to pay it back. So "It's not our fault!" doesn't
>>> fly.
>> Trickle down does not work. Propping up trickle down with cheap money
>> and an attitude that capital markets will forget greed and act sensibly
>> has lead to this fiasco.
>>
>> Congress has always had the same faults. This presidents faults will
>> be duly noted for generations.
>
> I agree that the administration should be held accountable. I also
> hope that the vacuum of leadership in a crisis shown by the spineless
> Congress with sniveling statements like "It's not our fault!" (Nancy
> Pelosi) and "Nobody knows what to do!" (Harry Reid) get noted in the
> history books as well.
I have no fondness for either. But you may as well put some context
in it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asked today what new regulatory
actions Congress can take, said, bluntly, "No one knows what to do. We
are in new territory here. This is a different game. We're not here
playing soccer, basketball or football, this is a new game and we're
going to have to figure out how to do it."
A Reid spokesman said neither Treasury Secretary Paulson nor Fed
Chairman Ben Bernanke offered up any suggestions for new regulatory
legislation when they met with Reid in the Capitol building Tuesday
night, either.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/senate-majority.html
BTW, that housing bill you put so much blame on was written by McCain
financial adviser Phil Gramm
And he seemed to forget how he voted on a now-controversial bill that
largely de-regulated the financial services industry in 1999. It was
written by Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, who has since retired and is a
McCain economic adviser. And Democrats, including Reid, opposed the bill
when it first passed the Senate with 54 votes.
Irregardless of what laws were written this crisis is due to a
systematic destruction of oversight by this administration. And the
party that rails against regulation and oversight is the Republican Party.
Jeff
Vic Smith
> Irregardless of what laws were written this crisis is due to a
>systematic destruction of oversight by this administration. And the
>party that rails against regulation and oversight is the Republican Party.
>
Paulson, who is pushing the huge bailout, is certainly a man with the
common touch and a certain disinterested viewpoint.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/43xRFhd1RRlnqg1H1BkmTP4?siteid=google&dist=TNMostMailed
He left Goldman-Sachs with $500 million in stocks in his pocket..
How sweet it is.
--Vic
Curly Surmudgeon
When faced with two bad choices it's folly to select the unknown. Bailing
out the robber barons, without any guarantee of stability, wihtout knowing
the exposure or cost, is the wrong choice.
It's better to bite the bullet now than to grant an unknown amount public
money.
almostcutm...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:49:56 -0700, Felix D. wrote:
>
> >news:48d577ca$0$22238$a826...@news.titannews.com...
>
> >> Memo to Felix: Google has archived history. Bush didn't consult
> >> Congress until after he'd made up his mind then used scare tactics and
> >> secrecy to give them only a glimpse at unsupported and fraudulent
> >> evidence.
>
> > Well, then, if the Dems were so fukken spineless and gullible that they
> > never bothered to see if what they were being told was true or not, then
> > too bad to all of you on the left. You had your chance and you blew it.
>
> Me, on the left? Fuck off troll.
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
Curly is a huge lefty. While he runs a scam on here trying to get
republicans to vote for Bobb Barr, he constantly apologizes for
Obama. He'll vote Obama in the election.
Felix D.
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:49:56 -0700, Felix D. wrote:
>
>>
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <curlysu...@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:48d577ca$0$22238$a826...@news.titannews.com...
>>
>>> Memo to Felix: Google has archived history. Bush didn't consult
>>> Congress until after he'd made up his mind then used scare tactics and
>>> secrecy to give them only a glimpse at unsupported and fraudulent
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Well, then, if the Dems were so fukken spineless and gullible that they
>> never bothered to see if what they were being told was true or not, then
>> too bad to all of you on the left. You had your chance and you blew it.
>
> Me, on the left? Fuck off troll.
Laugh laugh laugh
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:58:28 -0400, clams_casino wrote:
> > strabo wrote:
>
> >>> Greatly unequal distribution of wealth, extreme speculation in the
> >>> stock market with borrowed money and extreme lack of credit /
> >>> tightening of money supply is generally believed to be the prime causes
> >>> of the depression. As the economy tanked, banks were calling in
> >>> loans, resulting in even less money supply / credit which forced the
> >>> economy to tank..
>
> >>> While it's quite unfair to bail out the default mortgages with tax
> >>> payers money, letting the financial community fold is quite a bit like
> >>> the Hoover approach in 1929/1930.
>
> >>> Bailing them out appears to be the lesser of two evils. Yes, expect to
> >>> pay more taxes to cover these losses as they get passed onto the
> >>> government, but what good is not paying those taxes if unemployment
> >>> doubles or triples due to lack of credit and retirement funds drop
> >>> another 50-70%.
>
> >> The crooks get away and the faulty structures remain.
>
> >> This is just applying a band-aid and postponing a remedy. You'll not be
> >> able to get rid of the problem until the system is collapsed.
>
> > So you favor the Herbert Hoover approach.
>
> > Could work. Most likely won't, but hopefully we won't find out the hard
> > way.
>
> When faced with two bad choices it's folly to select the unknown.
Barack vs McCain... or who? Bobb Barr???
Yes, yes. I now see what you mean.
Curly Surmudgeon
You are lying again.
Why do you feel the need to misrepresent the words and positions of
others? It is cowardice to have no position of your own and solely
attack your betters.
You offer nothing to the dialog, like a fly on shit you just hoover
looking for a way to molest, disrupt, mislead, lie, and twist the words of
others.
Then you get your panties in a bunch when called out on your lies:
"From Raymond Lloyd Richmond, Ph.D. "Psychological Honesty": Even a
pathological liar carries deep in his heart a desire for goodness and
honesty and yet, because of painful emotional wounds, believes that the
world never has, and never will, recognize his pain. And so, to hide that
pain from himself, he uses all the lies he can concoct to hurl at the
world as he runs in fear from his own goodness."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:21:23 -0700, almostcutmyhairtoday wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 3:12 am, Curly Surmudgeon <curlysurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:49:56 -0700, Felix D. wrote:
>
> >> > "Curly Surmudgeon" <curlysurmudg...@live.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:48d577ca$0$22238$a826...@news.titannews.com...
>
> >> >> Memo to Felix: Google has archived history. Bush didn't consult
> >> >> Congress until after he'd made up his mind then used scare tactics
> >> >> and secrecy to give them only a glimpse at unsupported and fraudulent
> >> >> evidence.
>
> >> > Well, then, if the Dems were so fukken spineless and gullible that
> >> > they never bothered to see if what they were being told was true or
> >> > not, then too bad to all of you on the left. You had your chance and
> >> > you blew it.
>
> >> Me, on the left? Fuck off troll.
>
> >> --
> >> Regards, Curly
>
> > Curly is a huge lefty. While he runs a scam on here trying to get
> > republicans to vote for Bobb Barr, he constantly apologizes for Obama.
> > He'll vote Obama in the election.
>
> You are lying again.
Perhaps you're just not eleigible to vote, being a citizen of
Argentina and all. I meant legally allowed to vote.
> Why do you feel the need to misrepresent the words and positions of
> others?
Because you misrepresent yourself?
Curly Surmudgeon
Who writes this shit for you? Do you believe what you post?
>> Why do you feel the need to misrepresent the words and positions of
>> others?
>
> Because you misrepresent yourself?
So, to use your debating technique, you admit misrepresenting the words
and positions of others?
--
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Do you still want me to refer to you by your rightful name?
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Shirly seems to have forgottten that Pelosi etc etc etc were on the
House Intelligence Committee...the people who saw the raw data, even
before the President did.
And they voted for war.
It would appear that they lied to you.
Right?
Gunner
"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich
Jeff
Apparently!
What do you make of this?:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve said Sunday it had granted a
request by the country's last two major investment banks - Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley - to change their status to bank holding companies.
...
In the surprise announcement late Sunday, the central bank said that to
provide increase funding support to Goldman (GS, Fortune 500) and Morgan
(MS, Fortune 500) during the transition period, they would be allowed to
get short-term loans from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York against
various types of collateral.
No one will ever accuse Paulson, Bernanke and Cox of thinking small...
Jeff
> --Vic
Jerry
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9271040-5012-4777...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
He can vote in Chicago, no problem, as many times as he wants. "Vote early
and vote often" is the slogan.
Jeff
You seem to have swallowed that misdirection bit about appeasement that
Bush dished out. No surprise, I suppose.
The party of isolationism all throughout the thirties up to the
breakout of WWII was the Republican Party. Roosevelt was largely
hamstrung by isolationist such as the Lion of Idaho (William Borah).
Even Wilkie in his 1940 campaign against Roosevelt said that if
Roosevelt was reelected he would lead the country into war, and Wilkie
was the least isolationist of all Republicans.
Jeff
>
>
Curly Surmudgeon
We, therefore, can take that as a "Yes, HH&C intentionally misrepresents
the words and positions of others."
Vic Smith
>
> What do you make of this?:
>
>WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve said Sunday it had granted a
>request by the country's last two major investment banks - Goldman Sachs
>and Morgan Stanley - to change their status to bank holding companies.
>...
>In the surprise announcement late Sunday, the central bank said that to
>provide increase funding support to Goldman (GS, Fortune 500) and Morgan
>(MS, Fortune 500) during the transition period, they would be allowed to
>get short-term loans from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York against
>various types of collateral.
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/21/news/companies/fed_investmentbanks.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008092121
>
>No one will ever accuse Paulson, Bernanke and Cox of thinking small...
>
> Jeff
>
Commies, in essence. Guv and news media controlled by a cadre of
commissars who reap huge benefits from the labor of others.
I saw Paulson all over the TV this past weekend, and not one
interviewer mentioned his $500 million in Goldman Sachs take, or that
anybody with sense sees him as a fox with chicken blood sticking
feathers all over his face as he explains how he will protect the
coop.
My main political concern used to be that guv employment would get so
bloated that those workers would control every election, perpetuating
waste and featherbedding.
But what has happened is quite different, and I watched in amazement
as it transpired. Started with the lionization of CEO pukes like Jack
Welch on magazine covers all through the '90's.
Never could understand why accumulation of vast wealth is a desirable
trait, but it has been lately. Maybe that will change now, but I have
my doubts.
As long as "they" make sure "the folks" can afford cable TV and food
on the table, it won't change. Idle hands and hunger are the mother
of protest and change.
--Vic
Dennis
>Dennis wrote:
<snippage>
>>
>> And (once again) for the record, I support neither the Democrats nor
>> the Republicans. In their actions (beyond the rhetoric) I don't think
>> there is much difference between the current incarnations of the two
>> parties and I think the blame for this financial mess is spread pretty
>> evenly.
>
>That's exactly the same kind of thinking that brought us 8 years of
>George W Bush. That there was no difference between him and Al Gore or
>the parties.
Of course, neither of us knows what would have happened had the 2000
election turned out differently. But I'm not so sure that things
would have been all that different under Gore regarding the war. Gore
was a warhawk during the first Gulf war and the dustups in Africa and
the Balkans (the latter complete with manufactured evidence of
genocide as justification). And he picked an even bigger warhawk (and
lapdog of Israel) as a running mate. All of the candidates were/are
in the pockets of the various power brokers.
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
> BTW, that housing bill you put so much blame on was written by McCain
>financial adviser Phil Gramm
>
>And he seemed to forget how he voted on a now-controversial bill that
>largely de-regulated the financial services industry in 1999. It was
>written by Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, who has since retired and is a
>McCain economic adviser. And Democrats, including Reid, opposed the bill
>when it first passed the Senate with 54 votes.
Wrong bill. Look up the "Community Reinvestment Act". Wiki has a
nice history. Note in particular that the regulations were relaxed in
1995 (during the Clinton administration) and, in particular, note how
the Bush administration tried to beef up regulation in 2003, but was
defeated by Congress. At the time, none other than Barney Frank
(current chair of the House Banking Comittee) said:
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these
problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we
will see in terms of affordable housing.".
>
> Irregardless of what laws were written this crisis is due to a
>systematic destruction of oversight by this administration. And the
>party that rails against regulation and oversight is the Republican Party.
See above.
As I said, plenty of blame to go around.
Jeff
Hello Dennis,
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:33:45 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Dennis wrote:
> <snippage>
>>> And (once again) for the record, I support neither the Democrats nor
>>> the Republicans. In their actions (beyond the rhetoric) I don't think
>>> there is much difference between the current incarnations of the two
>>> parties and I think the blame for this financial mess is spread pretty
>>> evenly.
>> That's exactly the same kind of thinking that brought us 8 years of
>> George W Bush. That there was no difference between him and Al Gore or
>> the parties.
>
> Of course, neither of us knows what would have happened had the 2000
> election turned out differently. But I'm not so sure that things
> would have been all that different under Gore regarding the war. Gore
> was a warhawk during the first Gulf war and the dustups in Africa and
> the Balkans (the latter complete with manufactured evidence of
> genocide as justification). And he picked an even bigger warhawk (and
> lapdog of Israel) as a running mate. All of the candidates were/are
> in the pockets of the various power brokers.
What makes the Bush approach so disastrous is that they had all the
evidence not to go to war. Instead what they did was set up their own in
house analysis (including one run from the OVP) to look for anything
they thought proved their case. It was under their own analysis that
previously discredited reports from the aptly name Curve Ball came to
dominate. But they always wanted to go to war. Bush's first Treasury
Secretary, Paul Oneal (sp?), was struck by both that and the fact that
there were no policy discussion in the White House. This was a WH that
had already made up it's mind. No other WH, of either party, has
subjugated policy to politics to such a degree. Not even Nixons.
Then, of course, they had Rumsfeld run it with unparalleled
confidence and smugness. Cheney's hand in all this can not be
underestimated.
>
> Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
>
>> BTW, that housing bill you put so much blame on was written by McCain
>> financial adviser Phil Gramm
>>
>> And he seemed to forget how he voted on a now-controversial bill that
>> largely de-regulated the financial services industry in 1999. It was
>> written by Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, who has since retired and is a
>> McCain economic adviser. And Democrats, including Reid, opposed the bill
>> when it first passed the Senate with 54 votes.
>
> Wrong bill. Look up the "Community Reinvestment Act". Wiki has a
> nice history. Note in particular that the regulations were relaxed in
> 1995 (during the Clinton administration) and, in particular, note how
> the Bush administration tried to beef up regulation in 2003, but was
> defeated by Congress. At the time, none other than Barney Frank
> (current chair of the House Banking Comittee) said:
>
> "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
> any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these
> problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we
> will see in terms of affordable housing.".
Not that I believe that was the correct path, but the real problem is
what they did with these "assets". Creative highly leveraged financing
and CDO's of CDO's amongst other "creative" instruments. This is so
impenetrable and opaque that to this date no one knows what these
instruments are made of. And that is why these are illiquid. No one has
a clue what the value is. And then leverage these 20 or more times, even
a 5% loss wipes out the fund.
Jeff
Dennis
And likely as not, all these players would have had their counterparts
in a Gore administration. It was what the power brokers that pull the
strings wanted. And don't forget, most wars we've entered in the last
century had a Democratic administration leading the charge.
So we've got not deregulation, but targeted over-regulation forcing
lenders to make risky loans, along with an artificially low interest
rate making lots of cash available, combining to overheat the housing
market and form a bubble. Mix in plenty of corrupt officials making
the loans, hand-in-hand with (their bought and paid for) corrupt
officials overseeing the sector. With the inevitable bubble burst,
over-leveraging makes the losses snowball.
Again...
>> As I said, plenty of blame to go around.
I'm done here. If you want to continue counting the supreme evils of
one interchangeable party over the other, I'm afraid you'll have to
continue with someone else. ;-)
Bottom line: they're all a bunch of self-serving crooks.
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
h
"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6aiid411pctr9944n...@4ax.com...
>
> And likely as not, all these players would have had their counterparts
> in a Gore administration. It was what the power brokers that pull the
> strings wanted. And don't forget, most wars we've entered in the last
> century had a Democratic administration leading the charge.
Really? Math not your long suit?
Dennis
wrote:
Well, let's see...
WWI Woodrow Wilson (D)
WWII FDR (D)
Korea Harry Truman (D)
Vietnam JFK/LBJ (D)
Grenada Reagan (R)
Gulf War Bush I (R)
Somalia Clinton (D)
Serbia Clinton (D)
Afghanistan Bush II (R)
Iraq Bush II (R)
I admit I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure 6/10 qualifies as most.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally