Are the Dems on this board concerned about Obama's economic policies?

[Mike Furley]

Setting aside our natural inclinations to either support or oppose someone strictly on party line, is anyone else on this board as terrified as me about Obama's agenda?

By that I mean, assume for the moment that I, as a conservative who has mostly voted for Republicans, can set aside my opposition to universal health care, cap & trade on carbon, card check, etc. Assume I think these programs deserve a trial by the victors of the election - is now the time to implement them given our current economic situation?

Our country currently has a national debt of $11,046,194,275,136.14

That's 11 Trillion Dollars we currently owe.

With around 300 million people in this country, each citizen's share of the national debt is $36,113.21

Our government has made financial promises to us for when we become senior citizens via Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Plan.

The baby boom generation consists of people born between the years 1946 and 1964 - roughly 78 million. That means in 21 months, the wave of people drawing entitlements from the federal government will start to balloon over the next 18 years.

The Congressional Budget Office projects deficits totaling $9.3 trillion over the next ten years - and that's if you believe their rosy forecast for economic growth.

Japan faced a similar credit crunch in the nineties and they had such stagnant growth that it was referred to as "The Lost Decade". When has Congress ever been on target with their estimates or overestimated something?

This would put our national debt at $20 Trillion in 2018.

Currently, our biggest creditor is China. They own about $700 billion worth of our debt. They are now concerned about our potential new spending under Obama's proposed budget and are debating whether or not they will continue to buy our debt.

Why are they concerned? They are concerned that all of our spending - like the Federal Reserve just printing one trillion dollars of paper money - will lead to inflation. Inflation means the dollar becomes worth less than it is today. The price of goods skyrocket, and our purchasing power goes down - and what they bought, our debt, becomes worthless. This is how banana republics have historically acted before they have defaulted on their debts.


This being the case, and most of the people on this board seeming to be under the age of sixty, are you okay with this?

Are you desirous of adding to our national debt to the tune of nearly doubling it in just ten years time?

Do you really believe the programs proposed by Obama are such a panacea they must be enacted right now?

I am terrified. Is anyone else? Are you even aware of how much worse this can get?

[RealSchool]

How could you not be. All those things h ewants will never happen that you can be sure of.

Read this http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover

[Mike Furley]

When will someone in our country, of either party, stand up and say this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

We are on a course of to have a $20 trillion national debt by 2018.

[The Michigan Man]

When will someone in our country, of either party, stand up and say this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

We are on a course of to have a $20 trillion national debt by 2018.

Another example of the disaster known as "change for change's sake". We chose a handsome guy without any experience that read effectively from a teleprompter over other candidates of substance and experience. Enjoy, it America, we are getting what we asked for.

[michAGAIN]

For laughs, let's look at the Administrations new name for the
"War on Terror". In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] The new lexicon is "Overseas Contingency Operation."

With this in mind I would propose we change the term "War on Drugs" to "Operation against Undocumented Pharmacists".

Please also note the new term for the "Bo vs. Woody Ten Year War"
will now be known as "Bo and Woody's Backyard Football Festival".

Thanks for your cooperation.

[RealSchool]

Just when I thought Palin was the republicans biggest joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPOR8a2_sMM&feature=related

First I saw of this, wow. Your party is doomed.

[Medic]

Not Jindle's best speech, but to hold him up as a figurehead for Republican party doom? lol! OK I can play that game too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

Maxine Waters....man she has been one for the ages. Barney Frank too, hahah I'd be hard pressed to find someone more foolish.

[Mike Furley]

The youtube clip I linked to has had over 700,000 views in less than 48 hours. It has officially gone viral because it's message is so plainly stated and so true that it strikes a chord with many.

If it strikes a chord with you, please forward it to your friends.

[Mike Furley]

I thought I'd revive this thread seeing as how our unemployment figures are now up to 9.4% and climbing when in pitching the bag of manure also known as the stimulus bill we were warned that if we did not enaact the stimulus bill we'd see an unemployment rate of 8%.

Thanks Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. For doubling our national debt we've mangaged to exceed the unemployment had we done nothing at all.

Watch the youtube clip again from the British politician. Listen to the line about squeezing the productive part of the economy dry for the benefit of the unproductive segment of the economy.

Obama touts his meaningless and phony statistic that with the stimulus bill he has "saved or created" 600,000 jobs. Great work Obama. That's real consolation to the 1.8 million people who've lost their jobs while on your watch.

For those of us who still have jobs, let's see how much buying power we have once inflation kicks in. If we thought $4 a gallon gas was bad last summer, just wait till we have $4 a gallon milk.

And now he wants to nationalize health care? He is the modern day rainmaker of yesteryear. When a town was suffering a drought some smooth talking charlatan would roll into town promising to make it rain if you'd only pay him. If it doesn't rain, then you need to pay him more. If and when it ever does rain, why then, he takes all the credit.

So doubling our national debt to $20 trillion hasn' fixed everything yet. Now we need to add to it for nationalized health care? How are we going to pay for that?

This group is driving an economy that was in the ditch straight over the cliff.

2010 is not getting here soon enough.

[zilla]

"For doubling our national debt we've mangaged to exceed the unemployment had we done nothing at all."


So you really think if the banks were not bailed out we would be in better shape right now? You need to read up on the great depression and learn what caused it before you conitnue with your uneducated posts.

[bluefan]

"For doubling our national debt we've mangaged to exceed the unemployment had we done nothing at all."


So you really think if the banks were not bailed out we would be in better shape right now? You need to read up on the great depression and learn what caused it before you conitnue with your uneducated posts.

Why don't you educate us? Tell us what you know about the Great Depression and its causes. I don't have the time to look it up so if you could summarize it in a few hundred words that'd be great.

[zilla]

bleufan, I know they don't teach you much in junior college but the great depression was caused first by wall street going wild (much like current times) and then complete government failure to do anything about it once the economy tanked.

I am sorry you don't have the time to actually educate yourself on issues but hey what can you expect from a mouth breathing conservative?

[bluefan]

bleufan, I know they don't teach you much in junior college but the great depression was caused first by wall street going wild (much like current times) and then complete government failure to do anything about it once the economy tanked.

I am sorry you don't have the time to actually educate yourself on issues but hey what can you expect from a mouth breathing conservative?

Great comeback.

Now, to the subject. So exactly what we have now, then? The libs have no f-ing clue how to get us out and they're making the economy tank even harder. Got it.
I was hoping you'd actually post something besides your anti-American, communism-supporting opinion for once. All you do is spout anti-conservative rhetoric so it's nice to see you have at least boilerplate knowledge of what this discussion is about.

[zilla]

Want to know what is un-american? People like you that "don't have the time" to know about American history and give Bush a free pass on 9-11 just because he is a Republican.

[Medic]

So you really think if the banks were not bailed out we would be in better shape right now?

Absolutely. The bailouts haven't changed anything except for the fact that the US government has tacked on another trillion in debt so far. What was the original reason for bailing out the banks? Was it to "save jobs" or keep long standing American institutions in business? Nope. The bailouts for the banks were supposed to do ONE thing, "free up credit". Anyone remember that popular buzz phrase from February?

Did it work? Laughably no. Banks are sitting on the money like a reserve and/or trying to give it back to the government. Credit is still basically frozen and the lack of it is continuing to kill market segments that depend on it. Manufacturing, retail, etc. All the evidence you need of the banks sitting on all this money is the following:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/Annual_Inflation_chart.jpg

Hard to imagine but yes, currently we are experiencing deflation and for all the worst possible reasons. Banks aren't lending. The Fed is pumping billions into the markets to artifically try and keep home values high to prevent more mortgage implosions and putting more stress on the banks. However, there are over 750 billion in ARMs coming due in the next 14 months 70% of which are expected to fail. We are printing money in volumes that by every economic model should scream massive inflation yet we're getting deflation. Why? The bottom line is we cannot print money fast enough to match the destruction of wealth occuring.

Now you can understand why the banks aren't lending the money the government gave them. They want to survive the next round of mortgage failures which are coming due. The other shoe is going to drop and it's merely a question of when:

http://market-ticker.org/uploads/tnx-x.png

People who understand treasuries would translate this graph into: oh fuck. I really hate sounding the harbringer of death on the economy, but folks this is what's out there (it's my job to know). The dollar is falling, oil prices have been rising steadily again, unemployment is continuing to grow and hasn't slowed down yet, which will continue to translate into more credit failures as folks who are unemployed can't pay their creditors. We are going to see a correction of epic proportions.

Conclusion: We should have let all of them fail. Every last bank and company that was supposed to fail should have. Let them reorganize in Chapter 11, fire shitloads of workers, write off the losses against their taxes, learn their lessons, get regulators to do their fucking jobs, and if the company was so far gone in debt that is was beyond help...sell off it's assests to creditors and let those products re-enter the marketplace as new, healthier debt products.

[Mich97c]

Conclusion: We should have let all of them fail. Every last bank and company that was supposed to fail should have. Let them reorganize in Chapter 11, fire shitloads of workers, write off the losses against their taxes, learn their lessons, get regulators to do their fucking jobs, and if the company was so far gone in debt that is was beyond help...sell off it's assests to creditors and let those products re-enter the marketplace as new, healthier debt products.

That's not going to get you elected.

[Medic]

lol true enough :) but I get paid well for it.

[Wolvrin704]

Want to know what is un-american? People like you that "don't have the time" to know about American history and give Bush a free pass on 9-11 just because he is a Republican.

I don't believe anyone is giving Bush a "free pass" for 9/11 but if you believe he bears the brunt of blame for it then perhaps you need to brush up on history. No one president can or should bear responsibilty for the attack as it goes much deeper than any presidential policies, in that case you may as well blame FDR for Pearl Harbor as he was President for what, 10 years leading up to it.

[Wolvrin704]

I couldn't agree more Medic about the bailouts. It was supposed to free up credit which it has not done at all. And now the knucleheads in Washington think they're going to do another great thing with their gas guzzler buyback program. They'll give up to $3500 or $4500, depending on who you talk to, for a vehicle that gets 18 mpg or less.There are so many unkowns and loopholes here its not funny.

1. Is this all you get for the vehicle you trade in? Or will it be a tax credit?
2. Since one of the objectives is for the enviroment what happens to the vehicle? Is it destroyed or resold?
3. For those with older cars which are really the worst ofenders how are they supposed to afford a new vehicle? How are they supposed to get credit thats not even available to buy a new car?
4. Again unrealistacally they expect this to stimulate the car industry because so many people are going to buy cars. Again, how are they going to buy cars when they have no or reduced income? How are they going to buy a car when they have there is no money to borrow?

Every sign out there is showing an economy sitting on the edge of a cliff and the rug is about to pulled out. If and when things start to turn around we're going to get slammed with exceedingly high inflation due to all the money being printed. Obama is a doomed President, his policies cannot possibly succeed and his PAYGO plan is an absolute joke. How can he possibly think that he can increase the size and scope of the national budget (ie national health care, bailout, etc) and be able to balance the budget. His only recourses are to cut SS/medicare, defense or soak everyone with taxes. Some money could be saved by leaving Iraq but now that he's the one in charge he's finding its a much more difficult propostion than he thought as a candidate.

[Medic]

NASA apparently had one more launch to make, The STS-Unemployment

http://www.lakeshorelaments.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may2.gif

edit: If you ever get the urge to believe anything the Obama administration says about jobs or the economy...don't. I'm glad to see that the panel of economic advisors has been so spot on with their forecasting projections. Being that wrong in the private sector would get you fired.

[Wolvrin704]

NASA apparently had one more launch to make, The STS-Unemployment

http://www.lakeshorelaments.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may2.gif

edit: If you ever get the urge to believe anything the Obama administration says about jobs or the economy...don't. I'm glad to see that the panel of economic advisors has been so spot on with their forecasting projections. Being that wrong in the private sector would get you fired.

WOW!!!!! They're only off by 2%. Thats freaking HUGE! :eek:

Thats academics for ya, nice theories, but they rarely work in the real world. Thats the problem with every White House, they hire too many of these kind of guys.

[gator]

Anyone ever notice how zilla kind of quits posting after undeniable evidence is presented?:D

[zilla]

Anyone ever notice how zilla kind of quits posting after undeniable evidence is presented?:D

Unlike I have a job and can't post every 5 minutes. Plus the "evidence" is nothing more than medic the dope pretending he knows what he is talking about.

[gator]

Unlike I have a job and can't post every 5 minutes. Plus the "evidence" is nothing more than medic the dope pretending he knows what he is talking about.

Alright, so you are busy. Any thoughts on the clusterfuck Obama is creating after seeing the data?

[Mich97c]

Conclusion: We should have let all of them fail. Every last bank and company that was supposed to fail should have. Let them reorganize in Chapter 11, fire shitloads of workers, write off the losses against their taxes, learn their lessons, get regulators to do their fucking jobs, and if the company was so far gone in debt that is was beyond help...sell off it's assests to creditors and let those products re-enter the marketplace as new, healthier debt products.

Hey Medic, I had a thought the other day and want to hear what you think. If you let banks like Citigroup and Bank of America fail, then the FDIC has to step in to cover depositers. I believe BofA had over $1 trillion in deposits. When a bank fails the FDIC tries to broker a deal for another bank to buy it like Washington Mutual's sale to Wells Fargo. However, BofA and Citi through their aggressive buying and deregulation became to big to fail because you can't sell it to anyone and no way the FDIC has enough money to pay all the depositers. So I guess my question is, wouldn't it seem to have cost us more to let them fail in paying for FDIC coverage or more in the TARP plan where there is a possibilty of getting paid back?

[zilla]

Hey Medic, I had a thought the other day and want to hear what you think. If you let banks like Citigroup and Bank of America fail, then the FDIC has to step in to cover depositers. I believe BofA had over $1 trillion in deposits. When a bank fails the FDIC tries to broker a deal for another bank to buy it like Washington Mutual's sale to Wells Fargo. However, BofA and Citi through their aggressive buying and deregulation became to big to fail because you can't sell it to anyone and no way the FDIC has enough money to pay all the depositers. So I guess my question is, wouldn't it seem to have cost us more to let them fail in paying for FDIC coverage or more in the TARP plan where there is a possibilty of getting paid back?

Yeah but Obama is in office and even though he did the right thing, people like Medic can't go beyond their tired liberal bashing biased opinions.

Are we in bad shape? Oh yeah. Would we be better off under medics idea? The clear answer is no.

[Mich97c]

Yeah but Obama is in office and even though he did the right thing, people like Medic can't go beyond their tired liberal bashing biased opinions.

Are we in bad shape? Oh yeah. Would we be better off under medics idea? The clear answer is no.

Remember TARP was passed under Bush. I believe government intervention was absolutely necessary. Now the concern is how they’re doing it. What’s tough for them is trying to figure out how leveraged we really were and what is a toxic asset and what isn’t. I’m not sure I totally trust Geitner is up for the job. I have been disappointed that they seem to being do a patchwork job with it rather than totally reconstructing the banking system so we are not so leveraged with more transparency in the market place. Medic showed we are in a deflationary market – this a great opportunity to break up the banks into smaller institutions so they can’t ever get “to big to fail”. What we’re teaching them now is go ahead and continue doing what you’re doing – if you get into trouble don’t worry the government will bail you out.

[zilla]

"Remember TARP was passed under Bush."


Trust me I remember. This fact is what makes it so funny when the dopes cry out socialism under Obama. I won't pretend I have the answers to solving this problem, but one thing seems clear we need more regulation of Wall Street to make sure this never happens again.

[Medic]

Unlike I have a job and can't post every 5 minutes. Plus the "evidence" is nothing more than medic the dope pretending he knows what he is talking about.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know you worked 24 hours a day, presumably in a mailroom somewhere (which gives you no time to post!) given your penchant for fallacy based arguments, anecdotal evidence of "Hey guys ur dumb and I R SMART! Obama rules!11!1!", and constant need to insult people you disagree with. Fine. I can come down to your level.

You seem awfully desperate to cast me as a "liberal bashing" myopian. I didn't realize that discussing economic policies and their impact on the status quo and the upheveal in markets was liberal bashing. Insecure much?

And to your last point calling for more regulation. To what degree then? Do you even realize what that means in relative terms? Which SEC laws should be overhauled? Should capital and small business investment products be moved into the NSMIA Act under SEC to provide more control to government auditors? My guess is you don't know shit but since "omg more regulation!" is a common message vomitted out by ignorant bloggers, I'm not surprised to hear you say it. There is plenty of regulation, the problem is the people in the key positions are so utterly corrupt that there is no longer a system of checks and balances to serve as a watchdog for Wall Street. You can regulate the system all you want but ultimately it depends on people, and that is always a risk.

Color me shocked if you manage to google your way through SEC securities laws and regulations and understand them.

I'm officially dubbing you the 1OSUnut of the political board. Congrats Troll.

[Medic]

Hey Medic, I had a thought the other day and want to hear what you think. If you let banks like Citigroup and Bank of America fail, then the FDIC has to step in to cover depositers. I believe BofA had over $1 trillion in deposits. When a bank fails the FDIC tries to broker a deal for another bank to buy it like Washington Mutual's sale to Wells Fargo. However, BofA and Citi through their aggressive buying and deregulation became to big to fail because you can't sell it to anyone and no way the FDIC has enough money to pay all the depositers. So I guess my question is, wouldn't it seem to have cost us more to let them fail in paying for FDIC coverage or more in the TARP plan where there is a possibilty of getting paid back?

Excellent question. Let's decontruct the premiss of being "too big to fail" first though. I think the easiest way to deal with this is ask the question. What happens if AIG fails?

Chapter 11. AIG's creditors, counterparties, and it's derivative parties would all receive company assets. Based on the balance of assets, derivative default swaps, and other investments...they would all get 50 cents on the dollar. That's not bad for a BK. The threat of smaller banks becoming insolvent was a red herring and domestic commerical banks were never at risk. Everyone walks away a little poorer, and the government doesn't assume the responsibility for a 1.6 trillion liability in "notional dirivatives exposure".

That's about as simple as I can make it. If you would really like to know more about how derivatives, credit swapping, unfunded insurance liabilities work and their impact on the solvency of investment banks. I would encourage you to read the following:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751263240591203.html

More directly to your question though. Despositors were at some risk but not to the degree that many thought they were. The assumption that if you let BofA and Citigroup fail is somewhat a false choice. Given that they have already failed and have been bailed out. Even if the banks became insolvent, you are not talking about the FDIC having to secure 100% liabilties on behalf of the depositors, probably more like 20% and is far less than the forecasted 3.8 trillion the government has assumed in bank liabilities.

TARP is nothing more than the rich saving the rich by putting the rest of us in terminal debt. With a wink and a nudge they shoved it through congress and bailed out foreign security and banking interests rather than some of our own. You think Americans own most of these investment vehicles with AIG? Less than a quarter do. Bush and Paulson exposed themselves for the glad handing whores of executive pals when they suggested TARP, and the democrats were all too willing to go along with TARP as long as it meant more control over private institutions.

What you're seeing now is banks desperate to find any possible way to give the money back to the government ASAP (Oh so you *didn't* need all those billions after all?). Even at the risk of not being able to cover their derivative losses, domestic banks are trying to get the government out of their business. Foreign banks never had to worry about centralization and got a nice free ride at the american taxpayers expense and the goverment has insured their liabilities 100%. A nice "fuck you" from the government to the people.

[gator]

Unlike I have a job and can't post every 5 minutes. Plus the "evidence" is nothing more than medic the dope pretending he knows what he is talking about.

And your evidence is no more than the Obama pole smokers of NPR say so. Hell, I wouldn't even think this argument requires evidence. Obams has spent trillions of dollars more than the government receives, promised that he wouldn't raise taxes (cough...bullshit), is making money out of thin air, and started taking over every private industry he can get his hands on.

Your argument about more regulation, sounds like the liberal argument about gun control. If we get more regulation on guns or just take them all away, there won't be any gun crimes. BS! Every male in my family has owned a handgun since they were in their early teens and have never hurt anyone. We don't need to worry about the law abiding citizen, we need to concentrate on criminals. Well, we already have laws that make it illegal for any felon or person charged with domestic battery to own a firearm. The fact that they still get them regularly just shows that the current laws aren't being enforced properly, i.e., the government is made of people who, sadly, are either very incompetent, corrupt, or both. Please, don't be blinded by the liberal argument that more regulation is ALWAYS the answer. For the most part, more regulation only leads to futher intrusion into private industry or personal freedoms.

[Mich97c]

More directly to your question though. Despositors were at some risk but not to the degree that many thought they were. The assumption that if you let BofA and Citigroup fail is somewhat a false choice. Given that they have already failed and have been bailed out. Even if the banks became insolvent, you are not talking about the FDIC having to secure 100% liabilties on behalf of the depositors, probably more like 20% and is far less than the forecasted 3.8 trillion the government has assumed in bank liabilities.



Thanks man - Wouldn't the FDIC just pay out that number and take the loss vs. buying toxic assets at a discount and then once the market returns make a profit. Even that article suggested the government should infuse capital in return for shares giving the taxpayer a chance to actually make a profit on these bailouts. The other day the government became a 60% owner of Citi at 3.60 a share. 5 years from now if the price is $20 a share and the government sells out - wouldn't we make a profit? Seems like it could work.

I think the huge fear here is that no one knows how many CDS are out there and how leveraged it is. Plus, which CDS is securing which asset? If these toxic assets were just mortgage backed securities, then you would know there is an actual asset behind it like someone's home. Homes don't go to zero - if you foreclose you actually can sell it or rent it out to produce cash flow. The problem is these things have been diced up - no one knows which ones are actually performing and then leveraged through CDS. Some of these bonds are owned by pension funds, state retirement plans so the CDS were doing what they were suppose to. However, the unregulation in the CDS market allowed these things to be leveraged almost 100 to 1 which meant a big upside for a trader, and a horrible downside for an investor.

So gator, you're right that too much regulation is bad - but no regulation like in the CDS market was way worse.

[Medic]

Thanks man - Wouldn't the FDIC just pay out that number and take the loss vs. buying toxic assets at a discount and then once the market returns make a profit. Even that article suggested the government should infuse capital in return for shares giving the taxpayer a chance to actually make a profit on these bailouts. The other day the government became a 60% owner of Citi at 3.60 a share. 5 years from now if the price is $20 a share and the government sells out - wouldn't we make a profit? Seems like it could work.



I don't have any evidence, but I have heard that there is something like 75ish trillion in leverage against CDS. Which seems high, even by apocalyptic standards :)

I am extremely concerned with the government taking a vested interest in the banking system. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the bell weathers of governments' ability to navigate the private sector we are in serious trouble. Furthermore, the government having such a large stake in the company means divestment will be extremely difficult. What if the government becomes insolvent? This is not currently out of the realm of possibility.

The U.S. has actually tried central banking before, this is not a new concept, and I should point out that we aren't there yet, but we are inching towards it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States

Just remember:

http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/government.jpg

[gator]

So gator, you're right that too much regulation is bad - but no regulation like in the CDS market was way worse.

I don't think you were suggesting this, but just to be clear...I'm not against all regulation. Just like with guns, I think a restriction for felons is just plain common sense. You have rights until......you do something that shows you can't be trusted with them. This latest economic debacle has certainly given us all pause. Lessons should certainly be learned and corrections should be made. All I'm suggesting is that we think long and hard about any new restrictions being proposed by our government, especially when that charge is being lead with a warchant from the left to assume control of various private industries.

[zilla]

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know you worked 24 hours a day, presumably in a mailroom somewhere (which gives you no time to post!) given your penchant for fallacy based arguments, anecdotal evidence of "Hey guys ur dumb and I R SMART! Obama rules!11!1!", and constant need to insult people you disagree with. Fine. I can come down to your level.

You seem awfully desperate to cast me as a "liberal bashing" myopian. I didn't realize that discussing economic policies and their impact on the status quo and the upheveal in markets was liberal bashing. Insecure much?

And to your last point calling for more regulation. To what degree then? Do you even realize what that means in relative terms? Which SEC laws should be overhauled? Should capital and small business investment products be moved into the NSMIA Act under SEC to provide more control to government auditors? My guess is you don't know shit but since "omg more regulation!" is a common message vomitted out by ignorant bloggers, I'm not surprised to hear you say it. There is plenty of regulation, the problem is the people in the key positions are so utterly corrupt that there is no longer a system of checks and balances to serve as a watchdog for Wall Street. You can regulate the system all you want but ultimately it depends on people, and that is always a risk.

Color me shocked if you manage to google your way through SEC securities laws and regulations and understand them.

I'm officially dubbing you the 1OSUnut of the political board. Congrats Troll.

Wow, all this and you didn't even give me another negative rep point? What would your fellow dorks think of that?

I love how fools like yourself think this was some hiccup in the capilist system. It was an all out failure of regualtion to keep everyone honest.

For your continued education please read: http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx

To think you "lol true enough but I get paid well for it" scares me to death.

[zilla]

Gator wrote:
"Hell, I wouldn't even think this argument requires evidence."


The mantra of a conservative ^^^^^

[Medic]

Wow, all this and you didn't even give me another negative rep point? What would your fellow dorks think of that?

I love how fools like yourself think this was some hiccup in the capilist system. It was an all out failure of regualtion to keep everyone honest.

For your continued education please read: http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx

To think you "lol true enough but I get paid well for it" scares me to death.

Without disregarding the source for whatever argument for more regulation you're tying to put forth (a trial lawyers blog? really?), I'll try to address it. Mr. Keisel's assertions cleverly leave the reader with the distinct impression that the housing implosion is the direct responsibility of Phil Gramm and his republican friends. His presentation of the information is severely perverted.

Foremost, the bill (Glass-Steagall repeal) was a bipartisan approved bill, and signed by Clinton. Had the SEC actually been doing it's job for the last decade, and congress given proper oversight to the FHA, none of this would have ever happened. Leveraged to the hilt or not. Again, this goes back to corrupt people being in positions of power, not entirely a system bereft of regulation as many love to claim.

He makes sure to mention Gramm's wife was on the board at Enron but conveniently disregards the fact that the Enron lobbyist in question is none other than Linda Robertson, who now works for the Fed. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZjQKyLci1AM&refer=us Yes, THAT Linda Robertson who is now lobbying on behalf of the fed because they know they're screwed and about to get audited. Which may (hopefully) result in it being dissolved. "She was also an adviser to all three of the Clinton administration's Treasury secretaries" (oh the incestuous webs we weave). Furthermore, the insinuation that Phil Gramm is somehow more tainted or bought and paid for than any other US Senator is laughable. Leaving Christopher Dodd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dodd) out of the sphere of influence in this whole mess completely discredits whatever point this trial lawyer had hoped to make in my mind.

WOW! I feel so educated! A liberal blogger sourcing another liberal blog to make liberal points and educate us lowly proletariat fools! The bottom line is that individuals were central in causing the meltdown, you'd never know that from reading zilla's link.

Get off the blogs zilla its poisoning your mind.

[gator]

Gator wrote:
"Hell, I wouldn't even think this argument requires evidence."


The mantra of a conservative ^^^^^

Well, I was trying to make an appeal to common sense (in regards to the sentence that followed that quote).....of which, you apparently have none.

P.S. I'm still waiting on the post I suggested about your ideal state of government. It's Friday...hell, all of us could use a good laugh.

[zilla]

Well, I was trying to make an appeal to common sense (in regards to the sentence that followed that quote).....of which, you apparently have none.

P.S. I'm still waiting on the post I suggested about your ideal state of government. It's Friday...hell, all of us could use a good laugh.


My government:

Govermnet minds its own business in regard to everything that involves a persons freedom. That includes guns, gays being able to marry, and abortion.

Education above anything else is key. Except for hippie phd's that bug me.

Protect the enviroment. Whether you believe in global warming or not a clean enviroment benefits us all.

Send all Catholics back to Rome to slobber over the Pope.

Regulate Medic and his greed.

No medical insurance for fat people. We don't have a healthcare crisis but a health one.

Nuke Ohio

[gator]

My government:

Govermnet minds its own business in regard to everything that involves a persons freedom. That includes guns, gays being able to marry, and abortion.

Education above anything else is key. Except for hippie phd's that bug me.

Protect the enviroment. Whether you believe in global warming or not a clean enviroment benefits us all.

Send all Catholics back to Rome to slobber over the Pope.

Regulate Medic and his greed.

No medical insurance for fat people. We don't have a healthcare crisis but a health one.

Nuke Ohio

OK, now we have something to work with, and right off the bat I congratulate you for stepping up and answering a question directly. Good post, zilla, on that basis alone.

1) I almost completely agree with your first statement. I would like to rephrase though as, "anything is legal as long as it does not harm or interfere with other peoples rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." That means pot and drugs, as long as the user is non-violent, could go unpunished (but not advocated). Similarly for gays; I don't personally agree with the lifestyle but don't let me tell someone else what they can do in their own bedroom. I do disagree with getting married though on the basis of the repricussions to society. If same sex marriage is allowed, where do we draw the line on what marriage defines: 1 man and 19 women, 2 men and 1 woman, incest, etc. It gets to be a long nightmare and the traditional family fabric loses it identity. Abortion is always a tough issue for me. I find it appalling, but it's your life and who is the authority of when life starts. My only qualm is the late term abortions performed for trivial reasons. I mean these are fetuses that could survive, in large proportions, outside the womb. How do you suck out its brains or inject a saline solution into the embryonic sac to sufficate what is, IMO, the most precious thing in this world.

2) Education is great! Do I think everyone should get a free college education on the government's tab? Hell no! If you've been in a HS recently, you know the schools are basically bribing kids to pass their basic government-santioned evaluation exams. These kids are there because they have to be; they aren't trying. You have to want it; I didn't get this far by accident (no matter what you think of me). I was salutatorian of my high-school while working to save money for my first vehicle and my college expenses. I didn't have enough money after buying my first vehicle (with cash) to go straight to UF, so I lived at home and went to CC. I was valedictorian while basically working a full-time job. During the summer semesters, I worked two full-time jobs. I went on to UF, continued working, and graduated with highest honors while also receiving my department's (Electrical Engineering) highest honor for academic achievement (approximately 2 people per graduating class receive it). I took it upon myself to research every lab in my department, show my face, and get interviews with every professor I was interested in until I found someone who could pay me as an RA in something I wanted to do. But you just go on thinking I'm wasting away here on your dime. What's funny about the whole thing is I couldn't buy a scholarship. I always wonder who was landing those damn things because nobody had better grades than I did. I guess I didn't have enough minority in me. As far as hippie.....ha ha ha....you got me waaaayyyy wrong. I don't know if you were serious about that, but I assure you that I don't indulge in the *put synonym here*. It's a real drag (pun intended) to some of my friends because they've never seen me hit it. If you want to label me, I'll at least give you some accurate ammo: I probably...ummm...scratch that...I drink more than I should these days, but you live a week or two in my shoes then judge that.

3. Fuck the environment. I'm so sick of hearing about global warming that I'm thinking about becoming a litter bug and buying the biggest vehicle I can find when I graduate. No, I'm not that bad but you have to laugh at some of the claims of these treehugger's (especially predictions from a decade or more ago). We can't figure out a way to become oil independent, but we got a stranglehold on the earth's climate that we've been monitoring all of 100 years. Being in scientific research, you would be suprised at how much speculation is passed off as fact, especially when the facts are few.

4. It didn't get much play in liberal circles, but I once heard something about freedom of religion.

5. Medic has, IMO, provided sound basis for his economic arguments. Unfortunately, that's more than I can say for you. Get in there and lay out your best logical argument; you know, with facts and stuff. Just because Medic has an opinion, based on facts, that happens to show fallicies in the Obama plan, how do you make the jump to greedy? Seriously, I'm curious. It must have been that post where he said, "I hope those poor bastards don't get shit.":D

6. I guess you're hero, Michael Moore would be SOL, huh? Funny, no mention of refusing medical care to people who aren't even citizens of this country. Thoughts?

7. Nuke Ohio? Personally, I would vote for California