I'd shiv him around the corner, pay off the other bums like me with cigarettes and Schlitz not to say anything, and then steal his food stamps. A doughy weak sister like Kavvek wouldn't stand a chance against me in a soup line.
Totem
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bailout didn't pass...
Bailout didn't pass...Follow
Yes, deregulation is a typical Republican platform. But deregulation willy-nilly has never been something anybody would espouse, regardless your side of the aisle, just as much as total regulation of our economy isn't either.
And I'd argue that deregulation in prinicple is a very good idea, particularly when implemented properly. This economic crisis obviously is a prime example of deregulation gone bad. To that end, placing the blame soley on Republican shoulders is incorrect-- and more likely, flat out wrong, if not lies by the likes of Charles Schumer and his buddies.
And, yes, I am still working on a link to all this in between flights. Should any of you care to look yourselves, if for no other reason that your own edification, I'd be grateful.
Totem
And I'd argue that deregulation in prinicple is a very good idea, particularly when implemented properly. This economic crisis obviously is a prime example of deregulation gone bad. To that end, placing the blame soley on Republican shoulders is incorrect-- and more likely, flat out wrong, if not lies by the likes of Charles Schumer and his buddies.
And, yes, I am still working on a link to all this in between flights. Should any of you care to look yourselves, if for no other reason that your own edification, I'd be grateful.
Totem
Passing the buck, eh?
Just as Planned.
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
I was just laughing at that picture! 
Panic monkey face mode engage!
Panic monkey face mode engage!
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Yeah, he's gotta be freaking out about now. His legacy is in question as it is from Iraq, but having the economy turn turtle as you leave office could make Hoover look like George Washington by comparison.
Totem
Totem
Totem wrote:
Yeah, he's gotta be freaking out about now. His legacy is in question as it is from Iraq, but having the economy turn turtle as you leave office could make Hoover look like George Washington by comparison.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Well, not exactly. He was the Mostest Awesomest Ever. But I changed my mind to him being just average.
;)
Totem
Edited, Sep 29th 2008 4:06pm by Totem
;)
Totem
Edited, Sep 29th 2008 4:06pm by Totem
The Dow plunged another 200 points in just the last 10 minutes. >.>
There is one basic thing I don't understand about the bailout: so the US government is going to buy these mortgage backed securities off the hands of large corporations. This will infuse them with the cash they need to operate on a day to day basis. The corporations, themselves, are OK, it is just that they have some bad debt.
The US is going to borrow the money from somebody. Why don't those folks just buy the corporations, themselves? Not buy out the corporation entirely, just buy stock in the companies to give them the cash needed to operate?
Here is what I think the natural course would be: corporations issue new stock, stock prices plummet, people buy into them at low prices, virtually guaranteed that they will rise, and the smart make the money.
I sort of vaguely follow the logic that the US government is the only entity large enough to buy these bad mortgages (I know, I know technically distinct from individual mortgages), hold them, and potentially make money off them in the future. I'm not questioning that. (Thus the bad mortgages can't be directly sold since they would not raise enough money to float the companies).
Yes, in my "natural course" theory people are buying into bad mortgages, but they are also buying into large corporations with other assets.
Were I in congress, with what I know, I would have voted for the bailout - that said, I am greatly afraid that the current administration will use it to pay off their political allies. And then pardon the folks who did it just before Bush leaves office. It really wouldn't take much. They are experts at war profiteering, and demonstratively have no respect for the law (see today's news) so at this point, why not?
Lastly, I'm virtually certain that this crisis could be ended by appropriate action via allowing judges to renegotiate loan rates. Yes, those mortgage back securities would not be worth what they are now, but they would not be worthless.
The US is going to borrow the money from somebody. Why don't those folks just buy the corporations, themselves? Not buy out the corporation entirely, just buy stock in the companies to give them the cash needed to operate?
Here is what I think the natural course would be: corporations issue new stock, stock prices plummet, people buy into them at low prices, virtually guaranteed that they will rise, and the smart make the money.
I sort of vaguely follow the logic that the US government is the only entity large enough to buy these bad mortgages (I know, I know technically distinct from individual mortgages), hold them, and potentially make money off them in the future. I'm not questioning that. (Thus the bad mortgages can't be directly sold since they would not raise enough money to float the companies).
Yes, in my "natural course" theory people are buying into bad mortgages, but they are also buying into large corporations with other assets.
Were I in congress, with what I know, I would have voted for the bailout - that said, I am greatly afraid that the current administration will use it to pay off their political allies. And then pardon the folks who did it just before Bush leaves office. It really wouldn't take much. They are experts at war profiteering, and demonstratively have no respect for the law (see today's news) so at this point, why not?
Lastly, I'm virtually certain that this crisis could be ended by appropriate action via allowing judges to renegotiate loan rates. Yes, those mortgage back securities would not be worth what they are now, but they would not be worthless.
Ow. It was down 705 earlier, rose to being 485 under the opening bell just prior to the bill being pulled from the floor and now it's dropping like flying piano. Day traders will be opening up their wrists with butter knives all across America's kitchens tonight.
Totem
Totem
I came across this list of headlines on CNN.com, in this order:
•Lawmaker apologizes for Palin remark
•Obama urges calm after bailout bill's failure
•Palin talks cheesesteak, Pakistan
Found it amusing.
Edited, Sep 29th 2008 3:21pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
•Lawmaker apologizes for Palin remark
•Obama urges calm after bailout bill's failure
•Palin talks cheesesteak, Pakistan
Found it amusing.
Edited, Sep 29th 2008 3:21pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
Totem wrote:
Yes, deregulation is a typical Republican platform. But deregulation willy-nilly has never been something anybody would espouse, regardless your side of the aisle, just as much as total regulation of our economy isn't either.
Let's also call a spade a spade. It wasn't the deregulation of those industries that led to this problem, but a "compromise" in which Republicans got some deregulation (sorta) while Democrats got to put their own regulation back in. The result was a semi-privatized lending industry which was required to provide loans to anyone who qualified for them under the CRA (basically, being poor and/or of the correct skin tone).
Privatizing the system didn't make it unregulated. What it really did in this case was make the regulatory requirements in play harder for the taxpayer to see. It hid the cost of these programs from us until the financial industries literally collapsed under their weight.
Quote:
And I'd argue that deregulation in prinicple is a very good idea, particularly when implemented properly. This economic crisis obviously is a prime example of deregulation gone bad. To that end, placing the blame soley on Republican shoulders is incorrect-- and more likely, flat out wrong, if not lies by the likes of Charles Schumer and his buddies.
Yup. The problem being that since we've got two parties in Congress, one can't usually get what they want without giving the other party something in exchange. I still say that the key point is to look at which party wanted which thing, and then assess which of those actually caused the problem here.
We could have privatized Fanny or Freddy and as long as we didn't include requirements for providing sub-prime loans to "needy" people, the problem facing us would not have happened. We could have allowed mergers between investment and commercial banks, and again as long as we didn't include requirements for them to buy up said sub-prime loans as bundled investments, the problem facing us would not have happened.
Heck. We could have created those programs, and if we'd just budgeted them directly, the problem facing us would not have happened. It was the process of hiding that cost inside the "private" financial system that led to this disaster. I think that it's absolutely correct for the Republicans to hold off on this bailout until they can get a version that hopefully prevents this in the future. If we just toss the money to fix it without changing the system, all we'll have done is effectively rewarded the Dems for using such an underhanded tactic to fund their social programs.
I think it's pretty darn clear which side is at fault here and why. How about we not repeat the mistakes we made that got us here?
Edited, Sep 29th 2008 1:26pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
yossarian wrote:
Lastly, I'm virtually certain that this crisis could be ended by appropriate action via allowing judges to renegotiate loan rates. Yes, those mortgage back securities would not be worth what they are now, but they would not be worthless.
This would be exactly the wrong thing to do. The problem is that you can't renegotiate a rate that was already too low.
I really do think that many of you still don't understand why this problem occurred. The government placed requirements on the lending industry that forced them to lend money at a rate that lost them money. It would be like if I required your business to sell its products at a cost lower than would be required for you to make a profit. Eventually, your business will go bankrupt, right? Same thing here. Simply adding more requirements for them to lend more money at a losing rate doesn't fix the problem.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Edward Gibbon said :
And, incidentally, has Palin pulled her head out of the bible long enough to offer an opinion yet??
I'm sure it would be entertaining on one level or another.
Quote:
"The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight,"
And, incidentally, has Palin pulled her head out of the bible long enough to offer an opinion yet??
I'm sure it would be entertaining on one level or another.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
So you think quoting Gibbon in one breath and deriding Palin in another makes you look intelligent?
Whats that you say Mr. Sub-default boy?? Oh yeah! Dinosaurs walked the Earth 4 thousand years ago! That opinion sure makes me look like the thicky around here.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
shadowrelm wrote:
all i can say is,
sometimes democracy works the way it is supposed to.
we ALMOST bit the bullet on yet another Bush disaster. Wasington worked the way it needed to. tax payers saved 700 billion dollars and finally the market can bottom out and we can start moving foward again.
let it fall. let free market prevail.
sometimes democracy works the way it is supposed to.
we ALMOST bit the bullet on yet another Bush disaster. Wasington worked the way it needed to. tax payers saved 700 billion dollars and finally the market can bottom out and we can start moving foward again.
let it fall. let free market prevail.
I imagine you as a homeless man, bedraggled and scruffy. Your clothes reek of **** and muck, yet your eyes hold the conviction of a zealot. You preach to whoever comes within earshot - most turn away from the ravings of a madman.
knoxsouthy wrote:
shadow,
LOL...the Dems would lynch any of their party members were they to say the same thing.
Quote:
let it fall. let free market prevail.
LOL...the Dems would lynch any of their party members were they to say the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
you really dont get democrats at all. probably from too much fox news and republican...err....national journal.
Dems are for free market. it is predatory bussiness practices that they want to regulate to protect the people.
Dems mostly are pro life. it is the concept of telling other people how to live that makes them vote pro choice.
no, they wouldnt lynch anyone in the democratic party preaching free market. infact, they would stand behind them and cheer.
"liberals are against free market" is a republican spinn sound bite to keep you ignorant sheep from swithcing sides. so is "liberals are for raising taxes". liberals are for FAIR taxes. that means the person making 500,000 a year pays the same 28 percent taxes as the person making 30,000 a year.....AFTER deductions. the only way to make that happen under the current tax code is to raise taxes on upper income people and LOWER taxes on lower income people, you know, the other 90 percent of the population of this country.
but you will never hear that unless you tune out of fox news and start reading something besides the national journal.
and untill you do, you will remain clueless.
Quote:
I'm virtually certain that this crisis could be ended by appropriate action via allowing judges to renegotiate loan rates.
You know that's a lose-lose situation, right?
If rates go up, more people default, thus loss in value.
If rates go down, worth even less, thus loss in value.
The issue here is there is not enough money to be paid in due to bad loans and shady business strategies that were based on the expectation of bailout if this situation were to occur. Look up the math if you don't believe me.
Just as Planned.
knoxsouthy wrote:
Paula,
So you think quoting Gibbon in one breath and deriding Palin in another makes you look intelligent?
So you think quoting Gibbon in one breath and deriding Palin in another makes you look intelligent?
Meh, at least it's better than making an "Aren't I cool thread" about buying a ******* Nissan Altima lolz.
knoxsouthy wrote:
Yossarian,
My credit is better than it was when I first bought this house over five years ago and I've never missed, or been late on a payment. Shouldn't I be allowed to have these judges go back to when I first bought the house and renegotiate my loan for a better rate retroactively; or should this just be for those who took out mortgages on houses they knew they couldn't afford?
Quote:
I'm virtually certain that this crisis could be ended by appropriate action via allowing judges to renegotiate loan rates.
My credit is better than it was when I first bought this house over five years ago and I've never missed, or been late on a payment. Shouldn't I be allowed to have these judges go back to when I first bought the house and renegotiate my loan for a better rate retroactively; or should this just be for those who took out mortgages on houses they knew they couldn't afford?
Of course everyone would be able to renegotiate.
Recent Visitors: 240
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (240)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bailout didn't pass...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC