Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
silatix

economy in crisis..

Recommended Posts

You can blame deregulation on the republicans, but I think this was ultimately caused by the american people's relentless appetite for borrowing and the american corporation's addiction to borrowed money.

 

I think Clinton actually started much of the deregulation, I believe I read somewhere (perhaps I'm mixing stories) that Clinton signed an act that allowed these top five banks to increase their debt ratio exorbitantly to the point where they were bound to crash. Ultimately though I agree that this is an American borrowing/spending problem. Narrowing this down to Bush is just ignorant and seems to misunderstand how large of a problem this is. I hate to ruin your fantasy (weikee) but Obama isn't going to sprinkle magical fairy dust all over this mess and correct the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what the hell ever happened to the 10th amendment? specifically relating to commerce....

 

10th Amendment

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

this is what happens when you go against the founding fathers... :P 3 cheers for smaller government. Go states rights!

Edited by mamurphy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is what happens when you go against the founding fathers...

 

Yes! Finally a tagline for my new screenplay.

 

It's a remake of The Terminator, and Pres Obama gets sent (by the american people) back in time to kill all the skinny tie cokehead wall street pricks in the 80's.

He'll drop that line when he lifts his sunglasses after blasting some greedies in the VIP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISSUE BARAK OBAMA

 

Favors new drilling offshore US No

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it No

Served in the US Armed Forces No

Amount of time served in the US Senate 173 DAYS

Will institute a socialized national health care plan Yes

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy Yes

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately Yes

Supports gun ownership rights No

Supports homosexual marriage Yes

Voted against making English the official language Yes

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals Yes

 

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

 

OBAMA

 

28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you

are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or

move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your

home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who

are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement

income.)

 

DIVIDEND TAX

 

OBAMA

 

39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly

40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would

crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

 

INCOME TAX

 

OBAMA

 

(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400

Single making 50K - tax $14,000

Single making 75K - tax $23,250

Married making 60K - tax $16,800

Married making 75K - tax $21,000

Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

 

INHERITANCE TAX

 

OBAMA

 

Restore the inheritance tax

Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have

been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose

them to these taxes.

 

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

 

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes, New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and

last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the

same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good place to start on this would be with a 1999 piece of legislation which repealed important parts of the Glass-Steagall act. Voting was along party lines, which is to say that it was a Republican bill. Then of course Clinton signed it, because Clinton is a politician with a capital P, and he was on the run from the Lewinsky mess. Here's the legislation (and the guy who sponsored it was and probably still is McCain's chief economic advisor):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

 

I've been reading about this impending crisis via the blogger Atrios since probably 2005. It's no surprise that it's happend; what's surprising is the size of it. $700 billion? Where'd the $700 billion number come from? Anyone wonder about that? (Beware! Link is to that liberal pinko red-symp rag commonly known as Forbes Magazine):

http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/23/bailout-p...923bailout.html

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

So they just pulled a number out of their asses. Shocker. Was Paulson hoping to accomplish in one throw of the dice the Fabled Big Republican Enchilada? Were they trying to succeed at the task they spent five months and millions of dollars trying and failing to achieve in 2005, when the push was on to 'privatize' Social Security and thereby throw a trillion bucks at their financial industry base? The rule of the past eight years is that whenever you suspect unworthy things of this crowd, your suspicions pay off, and in fact they're too modest.

 

Krugman as usual says it best (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/):

A sneaking suspicion

 

...[T]here’s another possible explanation, which I find terrifyingly plausible: the plan came first, and all this stuff about price discovery is an after-the-fact rationalization, invented when people started asking questions.

 

It has seemed very strange to me that such a supposedly crucial economic program would be based on such an exotic argument. My sneaking suspicion is that they started with a determination to throw money at the financial industry, and everything else is just an excuse.

My feeling is that after this, we can kiss goodbye any idea of reforming healthcare.

 

The biggest thing remaining to see is how this affects the dollar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm waiting for Govinda to explain the new depression away . . .

 

Hee hee, someone had it right earlier. Ira Glass's show:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5c7gze

 

Explains it all, and really well. I'm completely in awe of how good a job they did. Too much money chasing too little interest rate. Greenspan set the ball rolling by tacitly approving the housing bubble. Gramm-Leach allowed loan writers to look the other way. Gramm-Leach allowed tranch-buyers to look the other way. Everyone bought a piece of Big Shitpile.

 

Now it's like a virus, and no company wants to admit they have the sickness unto death, in the form of thousands of unperforming loan assets. The little bits that used to drip out from places like the former Bear Stearns were tantalizing. You could tell that companies were hiding things--and that they still are. NOBODY wants to own up to how bad things are, which is what makes putting a price tag on this so hard.

 

I never imagined I'd see the day when the term 'investment bank' left the vocabulary. The only two left standing after last week, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, applied on Friday to become regular banks. So much for that entire industry! I had ten friends go into that field after we got our MBAs, and I'm sure they're on their asses now. Why'd Morgan and Goldman get out of ibanking? So that they could borrow at the Fed's discount window, which is reserved for banks proper. They need the cheap recapitalization, because even though they're not as infected as most (along with BofA, Wells, Chase and a few others), they're slammed by assocation in an industry-wide calamity.

 

Can't leave this without some politics. To quote another guy, 'Remember when Bush was going to be the 'CEO President?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISSUE BARAK OBAMA

...

Supports homosexual marriage Yes

 

Anyone who knows anything about the economic crisis knows that it was caused by two dudes makin' out with each other. Just think...If we had a president that could go back in time and prevent Ellen Degeneres from coming out on her show, we would not be in this mess.

 

What this country needs is a president that is going to get down to the REAL issues. The REALLY REALLY important issues. We dont need any of this "economic" "educational" "health care" business put as a priority for our society. We need to get down to the important issues, the ones that REALLY REALLY MATTER...like:

 

1.Will I be able allowed to load my M4 with irradiated anti tank rounds and make sure it can hold 2000 bullets

2.Making sure I dont see any dudes holding hands in front of my precious snow flakes.

 

 

 

/turns of sarcasm\

seriously though, this thread has been a great read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
'Remember when Bush was going to be the 'CEO President?'

I think this is consistent with the results he got the other times he was a CEO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

Charles Krauthammer: “Just shoot a few investment bankers, give the rabble their bread and circus, and let's move on and save the rich.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charles Krauthammer: “Just shoot a few investment bankers, give the rabble their bread and circus, and let's move on and save the rich.”

 

I googled that quote and it led me to Dailykos, which linked to Krauthammer's WaPo article. FWIW, that line seems to be Kos' interpretation of his article, not an actual quote.

 

All of this is giving me a headache. The the more I watch and read of this the more I wonder if there's a way to get a provision into the bailout plan that includes bulldozing the entire congress into the ocean and starting over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The the more I watch and read of this the more I wonder if there's a way to get a provision into the bailout plan that includes bulldozing the entire congress into the ocean and starting over.

"Mr. Speaker, I will support the provision endorsed by Representative Frizzle in Section 2B of the Bailout plan if the house is willing to append 'with monkeys' to the aforementioned 'bulldozing the entire congress into the ocean and starting over'. I yield the remainder of my time."

 

-m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I bet you could get that into the bailout plan but the final terms they'd end up agreeing on would probably be a fraction of the original statement, thus everyone in congress would get a toy bulldozer for christmas this year as a result.

 

All of this is giving me a headache. The the more I watch and read of this the more I wonder if there's a way to get a provision into the bailout plan that includes bulldozing the entire congress into the ocean and starting over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Mr. Speaker, I will support the provision endorsed by Representative Frizzle in Section 2B of the Bailout plan if the house is willing to append 'with monkeys' to the aforementioned 'bulldozing the entire congress into the ocean and starting over'. I yield the remainder of my time."

 

-m

 

"And in other news, negotiations on the proposed bailout plan broke down to feces throwing today..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. I bet you could get that into the bailout plan but the final terms they'd end up agreeing on would probably be a fraction of the original statement, thus everyone in congress would get a toy bulldozer for christmas this year as a result.

 

dude, that made me laugh out loud for a good 30 seconds.....nice

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too much money chasing too little interest rate. Greenspan set the ball rolling by tacitly approving the housing bubble. Gramm-Leach allowed loan writers to look the other way. Gramm-Leach allowed tranch-buyers to look the other way. Everyone bought a piece of Big Shitpile.
.

.

who knew the aughts would be known as a GREED decade like the 80s...and may even end with a recession

NPR was definitely right on (extra points for sigur ros transitions)

Edited by apoK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a partisan for a reason, because I believe a C average is better than an F. In other words, I don't expect a lot from my elected leaders. I expect basic competence, average performance, no better. But this crisis sits squarely at the feet of the line of thinking that began with Reagan and has been tattooed on the forehead of every Republican who's put on a yellow power tie and blue blazer ever since then: regulations are always bad.

 

So when I read people say that both sides are equally to blame, I get very uncomfortable. The guys who get the F average are to much much more to blame. Not entirely, the C average guys helped a bit, but without the retards with the ® after their names, without their guiding anti-regulatory philosophy, without their condescension for the simplest responsibilities of government, this never in a million years would have happened. Yes I'm a partisan, but I'm not saying my guys are perfect--just that in fifty tries they'll do better on average ten or fifteen times. Anyone who wants better is dreaming.

 

Why do I delve into blame? Because this kind of thing keeps happening. It'll happen again unless we demand that our leaders do their freaking jobs. Demand that C average, dammit! And hope that the time never comes that we need a B or an A president, because they come along once a century. Obama ain't that guy, probably a B-minus at best especially in his first shaky year, but McCain, good god, he's an F-minus with a dimwit tagging along disguised as Caribou Barbie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that i don't agree with you about the realities of the situation gov, but yours is a pretty cynical position. I think we can, and should, demand better from our elected leaders. Until we do, we are going to keep seeing history repeat itself. We're going to keep reliving mistakes born from politicians (yes with a capitol P, and that's on both sides of the aisle) getting pressure from corporate lobbyists into making short term decisions that benefit only the upper echelon of the U.S. population. As we both know, deregulation is a bipartisan stance unfortunately.

 

I'm a partisan for a reason, because I believe a C average is better than an F. In other words, I don't expect a lot from my elected leaders. I expect basic competence, average performance, no better. But this crisis sits squarely at the feet of the line of thinking that began with Reagan and has been tattooed on the forehead of every Republican who's put on a yellow power tie and blue blazer ever since then: regulations are always bad.

 

So when I read people say that both sides are equally to blame, I get very uncomfortable. The guys who get the F average are to much much more to blame. Not entirely, the C average guys helped a bit, but without the retards with the ® after their names, without their guiding anti-regulatory philosophy, without their condescension for the simplest responsibilities of government, this never in a million years would have happened. Yes I'm a partisan, but I'm not saying my guys are perfect--just that in fifty tries they'll do better on average ten or fifteen times. Anyone who wants better is dreaming.

 

Why do I delve into blame? Because this kind of thing keeps happening. It'll happen again unless we demand that our leaders do their freaking jobs. Demand that C average, dammit! And hope that the time never comes that we need a B or an A president, because they come along once a century. Obama ain't that guy, probably a B-minus at best especially in his first shaky year, but McCain, good god, he's an F-minus with a dimwit tagging along disguised as Caribou Barbie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? That makes me 'cynical'?

 

Wanton deregulation is a right-wing tenet. Not all deregulation is bad--they had some good ideas in with the 90% of their terrible ideas. But yussuf, this is a challenge: find me the Democrats who want to dismantle the Department of Education. Find me a Democrat who promises to get rid of the United Nations. Then when you come back with those, let's talk about all those Dems who want worker safety laws repealed.

Edit: That was borderline unkind, my apologies. The thing is, there are many issues that cross over to some extent. For example, you'll find pro-environment Republicans. But environmental issues are a 'base value' for the Dems. Without them, it wouldn't be talked about. Same with deregulation--you'll find Dems who firmly believe in it; however, for Republicans it's a 'base value, and absent their for lack of a better term leadership it wouldn't be the big issue it is. You can come back with stories of Jimmy Carter supporting airline deregulation, Clinton signing Gramm-Leach, and Al Gore's 'Reinventing Government' project while he was VP, but the story doesn't change--one side leads this. One side was more right than the other, one side crazy wrong.

 

This is of a piece with my point. I get queasy when people blindly cast aspersions at the government because they might not look closely enough. They're all criminals. They're all corrupt. They're all in the tank. I think of these as being somewhat too convenient excuses for not taking the time to follow events closely. Or even not closely, because the simplest case is a big number: One trillion dollars. If there's no difference between the parties, than there's no difference between one trillion dollars and one penny, because that's the difference between going into Iraq and not going into Iraq. Dems wouldn't have, Republicans did. I've yet to find a person who thinks that one trillion equals a penny, not surprisingly, and yet I hear the mantra of 'there's no difference between the parties' all the time. In this financial crisis, the problem is probably 70% Republican doing, just like Katrina, just like Iraq, just like the US Attorney's scandal (actually that was 99.9%), just like warrantless wiretapping. If you don't care to look closely, you'll have the impression that both sides are to blame. If you do look closely, and you care to make the right choice when your simplest duty comes around, to cast your vote, you won't see that the apportionment of responsibility is usually quite skewed, and always skewed since about 1993 when the whackjobs took over on the right. In business or design or animation, if you choose to change the part of the problem that isn't a problem, and instead throw away good and bad equally, baby and bathwater both, you fail. Why should the wisdom be any different when our leadership is at stake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? That makes me 'cynical'?

 

Wanton deregulation is a right-wing tenet. Not all deregulation is bad--they had some good ideas in with the 90% of their terrible ideas. But yussuf, this is a challenge: find me the Democrats who want to dismantle the Department of Education. Find me a Democrat who promises to get rid of the United Nations. Then when you come back with those, let's talk about all those Dems who want worker safety laws repealed.

Edit: That was borderline unkind, my apologies. The thing is, there are many issues that cross over to some extent. For example, you'll find pro-environment Republicans. But environmental issues are a 'base value' for the Dems. Without them, it wouldn't be talked about. Same with deregulation--you'll find Dems who firmly believe in it; however, for Republicans it's a 'base value, and absent their for lack of a better term leadership it wouldn't be the big issue it is. You can come back with stories of Jimmy Carter supporting airline deregulation, Clinton signing Gramm-Leach, and Al Gore's 'Reinventing Government' project while he was VP, but the story doesn't change--one side leads this. One side was more right than the other, one side crazy wrong.

 

This is of a piece with my point. I get queasy when people blindly cast aspersions at the government because they might not look closely enough. They're all criminals. They're all corrupt. They're all in the tank. I think of these as being somewhat too convenient excuses for not taking the time to follow events closely. Or even not closely, because the simplest case is a big number: One trillion dollars. If there's no difference between the parties, than there's no difference between one trillion dollars and one penny, because that's the difference between going into Iraq and not going into Iraq. Dems wouldn't have, Republicans did. I've yet to find a person who thinks that one trillion equals a penny, not surprisingly, and yet I hear the mantra of 'there's no difference between the parties' all the time. In this financial crisis, the problem is probably 70% Republican doing, just like Katrina, just like Iraq, just like the US Attorney's scandal (actually that was 99.9%), just like warrantless wiretapping. If you don't care to look closely, you'll have the impression that both sides are to blame. If you do look closely, and you care to make the right choice when your simplest duty comes around, to cast your vote, you won't see that the apportionment of responsibility is usually quite skewed, and always skewed since about 1993 when the whackjobs took over on the right. In business or design or animation, if you choose to change the part of the problem that isn't a problem, and instead throw away good and bad equally, baby and bathwater both, you fail. Why should the wisdom be any different when our leadership is at stake?

 

I don't buy the 70/ 30 split. I also don't believe that both parties are the same and that they have achieved a perfect 50/50 responsibility level. I do believe that the problems we face are so systemic that if one party manages to convince the public that the problem lies within the other party that it's a guarantee that the real problems won't be solved. People need to be pissed on such a fundamental level that every elected government official fears for their jobs; otherwise this will be spun as something it's not and we'll end up in a worse place than we started.

 

The regulation vs deregulation argument is a serious oversimplification. You can have lots of crappy regulation (Sarbanes-Oxley) or a small amount of very effective regulation, so it's less about amount than quality. Since more regulation is analogous to more government, and the record of government at sucking at doing most anything is quite clear, I am extremely hesitant about solutions that involve giving more power to people that have proven little ability or desire to solve anything.

 

Anyway, there's too much to go into here than we all have time for, but the bottom line is that I'm pissed, and I hope everyone is. One thing I got right in my life was making responsible financial choices to provide security and a decent lifestyle for my family. Now it's looking like my kids and I will be on the hook for the mistakes of politicians since the 1970's who thought it was a good idea to pressure financial institutions into giving out money to people with no track record of being able to pay it back, and for the Wall Street types who gladly went along when they found a way to make billions on the scam. There's not much point in acting like an adult when all you get in the deal is bailing out the people who couldn't handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...