How can he dare?
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
The fact that Paulson is against makes me view it favorably
I couldn't agree more. His performance, not just since the crisis, but since he took over the job, has been abysmal.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
IMHO, the sooner that clown Paulson is out of there, the sooner we can get back to solving the financial crisis.
I've gotten a kick out of watching Jim Cramer froth at the mouth while uttering the same sentiments.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The fact that Paulson is against makes me view it favorably.
Paulson told reporters on Wednesday, "That (foreclosure plan) is a subsidy, or spending, program. The TARP was investment, not spending."
IMHO, the sooner that clown Paulson is out of there, the sooner we can get back to solving the financial crisis.
Paulson doesn't like it because there's nothing in it for Goldman Sachs... I agree, the sooner we get the incompetent cronies that Bush appointed out, the better.
-
Wasn't it the "government" (our lawmakers, mainly DEMOCRATS) who passed laws instituting that everyone should be able to own a home, regardless of whether or not they could pay for it?????? Wake the hell up!! Is this GOVERNMENT CONTROL??? The "government" was telling the mortgage lenders to make these asinine loans in the first place. In order to try and protect themselves, they came up with these awful "credit default swaps". And you innocent Europeans dabbled in them too! that's why your asses are in the fire as well as ours!
AF Pilot
Reagan Conservative wrote:
Wasn't it the "government" (our lawmakers, mainly DEMOCRATS) who passed laws instituting that everyone should be able to own a home
Actually, no. It was George Bush in 2004 while pandering for re-election. In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.[^]
-
"History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market,"... "If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go"[^] This guy led a country for eight years. During that time, the economy of this country went so out of touch that it triggered a worldwide crisis with an amplitude similar to 1929, at least. During this 8 years the country which knew the biggest expansion of its economy is China, which policy cannot be defined as 'laissez-faire'. But no problem, this guy denies all and in front of his friends of Wall Street, the same ones whose greed led us to today's situation, claims that he was right all along....how can he dare?
Anyone who is not a misanthropist at 40 never loved men at any time Fold with us! ¤ flickr
The human capacity for silliness never ceases to amaze me. Consider: A president from a party you dislike is in office: The economy goes bad: you blame the president for the state of the free market economy The economy does well: you suddenly remember it's a free market economy and assign no credit to the president A president from a party you like is in office: The economy goes bad: you suddenly remember it's a free market economy and assign no blame to the president The economy does well: suddenly you re-believe that the sitting president is somehow in control of the free market economy It's just awesome. Such people are also, generally, the sort who think there's a difference between "Wall street" and "Main street".
-- Abort, Retry, Hurl computer into the hellfire in which it was forged?
-
B-S. We are talking here about a worldwide crisis, not an american one. You forget conveniently all the parameters which transformed this local crisis in global crisis, starting with securitization. - Freddie and Fanny as they are are the consequences of deregulation, when Fannie Mae was transformed into a private shareholder-owned corporation, and Freddie Mac created to compete with Fanne Mae. - you exonerate the banks, which lended money to people knowing they may not be able to refund - you exonerate the housing bubble, and all the speculations made around. - you exonerate the rating companies, who lied in exchange of money.
Anyone who is not a misanthropist at 40 never loved men at any time Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Its only world wide, and even that is limited, because the inability of most banks to determine just what debt they had bought that originated in the US. One bank in particular has been barely wffected by all this, and its a huge bank. HSBC. Check its share price. The manager there knew what they were doing. However there are some countries, such as the UK, that have lent equally as irresponsibnly as the US. In the UKs case on credit cards especially. Mortages in the UK, though a joke by French standards, have been more controled than in the US.
KaЯl wrote:
you exonerate the banks, which lended money to people knowing they may not be able to refund
Someone on this NG posted that US banks were taken to court for failing to lend monoey via Fannie and Freddie. This implies the banks didnt have a choice in the matter. The government wanted houses for all, and forced the banks to cooperate. What there has been is a lot of stupidity by banks in not knowing the extent of the risk they put themselves at. And to counter that those responsible should be accountable for their actions but I doubt they will be.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
There are 1 million mortgage foreclosures in the United States in 2008. At a median home value of $202,000, that is $202 billion dollars worth of foreclosed mortgages. Assuming there is NO residual value to these properties, which is unlikely, the U.S. government could have bought every single foreclosed 2008 mortgage with just 2 weeks worth of the money spent so far on the bailout of Wall Street. So, no, fat_head. It has very little to do with "Something thought up by the Democrats" and very much to do with greed and mismanagement of the financial system by Republicans.
Please Ed, dont be so offensive. Lets not degrade this thread like so many in the soapbox. I agree that the banks acted irresponsible, and the level of risk just wasnt understood, except by some banks, such as HSBC. But you canot deny that subprime mortgages were the root cause of todays problems, and this was a Democrat creation.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
"History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market,"... "If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go"[^] This guy led a country for eight years. During that time, the economy of this country went so out of touch that it triggered a worldwide crisis with an amplitude similar to 1929, at least. During this 8 years the country which knew the biggest expansion of its economy is China, which policy cannot be defined as 'laissez-faire'. But no problem, this guy denies all and in front of his friends of Wall Street, the same ones whose greed led us to today's situation, claims that he was right all along....how can he dare?
Anyone who is not a misanthropist at 40 never loved men at any time Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Please Ed, dont be so offensive. Lets not degrade this thread like so many in the soapbox. I agree that the banks acted irresponsible, and the level of risk just wasnt understood, except by some banks, such as HSBC. But you canot deny that subprime mortgages were the root cause of todays problems, and this was a Democrat creation.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Please Ed, dont be so offensive.
Sorry. My bad.
fat_boy wrote:
But you canot deny that subprime mortgages were the root cause of todays problems
I can, because every single mortgage in the United States is valued at only $10.5 trillion yet financial manipulators created leveraged paper valued at $62 trillion. That is the root of the problem -- holders of the now worthless $62 trillion do not want to write those phony assets down to their true value: $0. Instead, they want taxpayers to bail them out and prop up their phony assets. If the problem were subprime mortgages, that problem could be permanently fixed with less than $500 billion.
fat_boy wrote:
this was a Democrat creation
This was a Democrat + Republican creation. Ronald Reagan played a hand in it, as did George Bush, as did Bill Clinton. Republican Senator Phil Gramm pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) which forbid regulation of swaps (for example, Credit Default Swaps), thus allowing the rampant speculation and over-leveraging that has pushed us to the edge of financial collapse.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Please Ed, dont be so offensive.
Sorry. My bad.
fat_boy wrote:
But you canot deny that subprime mortgages were the root cause of todays problems
I can, because every single mortgage in the United States is valued at only $10.5 trillion yet financial manipulators created leveraged paper valued at $62 trillion. That is the root of the problem -- holders of the now worthless $62 trillion do not want to write those phony assets down to their true value: $0. Instead, they want taxpayers to bail them out and prop up their phony assets. If the problem were subprime mortgages, that problem could be permanently fixed with less than $500 billion.
fat_boy wrote:
this was a Democrat creation
This was a Democrat + Republican creation. Ronald Reagan played a hand in it, as did George Bush, as did Bill Clinton. Republican Senator Phil Gramm pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) which forbid regulation of swaps (for example, Credit Default Swaps), thus allowing the rampant speculation and over-leveraging that has pushed us to the edge of financial collapse.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
This was a Democrat + Republican creation. Ronald Reagan played a hand in it, as did George Bush, as did Bill Clinton. Republican Senator Phil Gramm pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) which forbid regulation of swaps (for example, Credit Default Swaps), thus allowing the rampant speculation and over-leveraging that has pushed us to the edge of financial collapse.
You have summed it up perfectly. Trying to absolve this one or that one of blame by dredging up any one aspect of this mess is like trying to salvage the lookout's reputaion while the Titanic is sinking. It appears that the Brits were able to fix the Libor, the stock market seems to be trading in the 8300 - 8700 range with occasional daytrips outside those parameters, the CDS's seem to have done their damage already, but the the American consumer, whether its because he's lost his job, thinks he may lose his job, or has a friend down the street who lost his job isn't spending any more money than he must. That's 2/3rds of the US economy slamming on the brakes. And if the US isn't buying, China is in the toilet. It could be a death spiral.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Paulson doesn't like it because there's nothing in it for Goldman Sachs... I agree, the sooner we get the incompetent cronies that Bush appointed out, the better.
Rob Graham wrote:
I agree, the sooner we get the incompetent cronies that Bush appointed out, the better.
Naturally, you got unabombed for that. I guess that once someone drinks the koolaid, there's nothing left for them but to declare Jim Jones George Bush to be beyond reproach. Wanna bet on how many 1-votes I just picked up? ;) I suspect that Paulson looked like a great choice to Bush - beloved by China, able to rise to the top at Goldman-Sachs, not too bright, but not too dumb and willing to fill out the last couple of years at Treasury after all the heavy lifting had been done by John Snow, just so he could be called "mr. Secretary" for the rest of his life. Yesterday, while watching his press conference, I kept thinking that I had seen someone else explain things in exactly the same way that Paulson was doing. This morning, I remembered who: [Miss S.C.^] By the way, today he is strongly in favor of the Automaker's bailout that he was unwilling to commit to yesterday. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Well Jon, you'll be loving to comment on this U.S. Economy: Retail Sales Drop in October by Most on Record [^]. Things are certainly looking a lot poorer than I had imagined just a few days ago.
I guess I anticipated this in my response to Ed. Once the American consumer stops buying, we're all screwed -- globally, not just in the US or in the West. Meanwhile the G20 are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, while the Bush administration is playing "nearer My God, to Thee." Not that Obama will do any better. There was a conspiracy theory going around among the Democrats for awhile that Reagan's real goal in outspending the USSR to the point where that country declared defacto bankruptcy was to put the US so deep in the hole financially that the liberals wouldn't be able to fund any of their pet projects. Whether it was true or not, then, Bush has pretty much done it. Obama can print money, of course, but unlike FDR who tried to spend his way out of a depresion, our money is already worthless not simply less valuable than before. The only bright spot I can see is that the price of oil is cutting the gonads off of Chavez, Amadinijhad, the Saudis and Putin.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The human capacity for silliness never ceases to amaze me. Consider: A president from a party you dislike is in office: The economy goes bad: you blame the president for the state of the free market economy The economy does well: you suddenly remember it's a free market economy and assign no credit to the president A president from a party you like is in office: The economy goes bad: you suddenly remember it's a free market economy and assign no blame to the president The economy does well: suddenly you re-believe that the sitting president is somehow in control of the free market economy It's just awesome. Such people are also, generally, the sort who think there's a difference between "Wall street" and "Main street".
-- Abort, Retry, Hurl computer into the hellfire in which it was forged?
Scott Bruno wrote:
The human capacity for silliness never ceases to amaze me.
Me, too.
Scott Bruno wrote:
Such people are also, generally, the sort who think there's a difference between "Wall street" and "Main street".
There is, but folks who hang out on Wall Street don't know it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
This was a Democrat + Republican creation. Ronald Reagan played a hand in it, as did George Bush, as did Bill Clinton. Republican Senator Phil Gramm pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) which forbid regulation of swaps (for example, Credit Default Swaps), thus allowing the rampant speculation and over-leveraging that has pushed us to the edge of financial collapse.
You have summed it up perfectly. Trying to absolve this one or that one of blame by dredging up any one aspect of this mess is like trying to salvage the lookout's reputaion while the Titanic is sinking. It appears that the Brits were able to fix the Libor, the stock market seems to be trading in the 8300 - 8700 range with occasional daytrips outside those parameters, the CDS's seem to have done their damage already, but the the American consumer, whether its because he's lost his job, thinks he may lose his job, or has a friend down the street who lost his job isn't spending any more money than he must. That's 2/3rds of the US economy slamming on the brakes. And if the US isn't buying, China is in the toilet. It could be a death spiral.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And if the US isn't buying, China is in the toilet
China's trying to prevent that with their $585 billion domestic stimulus package. I don't know if it will work, but domestic production for domestic consumption played a major role in the success of the U.S. once upon a time.
-
Scott Bruno wrote:
The human capacity for silliness never ceases to amaze me.
Me, too.
Scott Bruno wrote:
Such people are also, generally, the sort who think there's a difference between "Wall street" and "Main street".
There is, but folks who hang out on Wall Street don't know it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
There is, but folks who hang out on Wall Street don't know it.
Case in point. I wonder if you're old enough to be one of those guys who thought Clinton had something to do with the upturn during his time in office?
-- Abort, Retry, Hurl computer into the hellfire in which it was forged?
-
Oakman wrote:
And if the US isn't buying, China is in the toilet
China's trying to prevent that with their $585 billion domestic stimulus package. I don't know if it will work, but domestic production for domestic consumption played a major role in the success of the U.S. once upon a time.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
domestic production for domestic consumption played a major role in the success of the U.S. once upon a time.
But it never has in China, IIRC - at least not on the scale that China operates with now. On the other hand, a lot of their stimulus package is coming from state owned corporations which have a lot of cash, so - unlike the US - they aren't just printing money. Maybe it will work and they could be the base which the global economy uses to rebound.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
There is, but folks who hang out on Wall Street don't know it.
Case in point. I wonder if you're old enough to be one of those guys who thought Clinton had something to do with the upturn during his time in office?
-- Abort, Retry, Hurl computer into the hellfire in which it was forged?
Scott Bruno wrote:
Case in point. I wonder if you're old enough to be one of those guys who thought Clinton had something to do with the upturn during his time in office?
I'm old enough to remember the day the last pterodactyl died, but don't put words in my mouth. If you want to fight strawmen, do so, but I'll be laughing at you all the way.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
There is, but folks who hang out on Wall Street don't know it.
Case in point. I wonder if you're old enough to be one of those guys who thought Clinton had something to do with the upturn during his time in office?
-- Abort, Retry, Hurl computer into the hellfire in which it was forged?
Scott Bruno wrote:
I wonder if you're old enough to be one of those guys who thought Clinton had something to do with the upturn during his time in office?
He did, mostly through benign neglect. He pretty much left things alone, and they recovered from Carter's and HGB's mucking around. Sometimes consciously doing nothing is the best prescription.
-
OK, if the Democrats had been in power for the last four years whould they have done anything about this?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
They were, in Congress, at least for the last two. Since the first mortgage shocks began in 2007, and they won the majority in 2006, I guess you have your answer.
-
Oakman wrote:
And if the US isn't buying, China is in the toilet
China's trying to prevent that with their $585 billion domestic stimulus package. I don't know if it will work, but domestic production for domestic consumption played a major role in the success of the U.S. once upon a time.
Have to be careful that domestic production for domestic consumption does not become domestic protectionism. Some references on how domestic protectionism might be played out ... Protectionism: Protecting Whom?[^], A protectionist stance for one industry at home only invites pleas from other industries and retaliation abroad[^], The Frontier of National Sovereignty - an on-line readable book[^]
-
I guess I anticipated this in my response to Ed. Once the American consumer stops buying, we're all screwed -- globally, not just in the US or in the West. Meanwhile the G20 are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, while the Bush administration is playing "nearer My God, to Thee." Not that Obama will do any better. There was a conspiracy theory going around among the Democrats for awhile that Reagan's real goal in outspending the USSR to the point where that country declared defacto bankruptcy was to put the US so deep in the hole financially that the liberals wouldn't be able to fund any of their pet projects. Whether it was true or not, then, Bush has pretty much done it. Obama can print money, of course, but unlike FDR who tried to spend his way out of a depresion, our money is already worthless not simply less valuable than before. The only bright spot I can see is that the price of oil is cutting the gonads off of Chavez, Amadinijhad, the Saudis and Putin.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The only bright spot I can see is that the price of oil is cutting the gonads off of Chavez, Amadinijhad, the Saudis and Putin.
Don't seem to be much movement in the UK prices for petrol, diesel, natural gas and electricity to reflect these reduced prices.
Oakman wrote:
outspending the USSR
Arguably, it was the right policy at that time, but with Russia becoming ever more powerful today in terms of energy provision, and Europe needing that energy, the pendulum has again swung eastwards. Looks like the US Treasury is somewhat busy tonight set to receive a flood of last-minute applications from firms seeking government rescue funds by the Nov. 14 deadline[^]
Last modified: 17mins after originally posted --