Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The economy - oops
#36
Quote:

Originally Posted by yt
View Post
I'm going to look into this and if Bush and McCain were purely honorable, then good for them, but don't forget that McCain's campaign chairman, Rick Davis, was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

You should look into it, but I find it funny that had these quotes been from a Democrat you wouldn't say this at all. Also, if you talk about lobbyists on this one issue, you should also bring up the fact that Obama received lots of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Reply
#37
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/tra...ying-ties.aspx

Former and future lobbyists are OK. The Obama campaign restricts current lobbyists from joining the campaign. But a bunch of former lobbyists have helped out—including deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand, Teal Baker, and Emmett Beliveau—who could easily slip back onto K Street once the campaign is over. Obama now has 14 bundlers who are also federally registered lobbyists, but they are currently inactive, according to Public Citizen.

Every side has it's lobbyists

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aVPBaUbYV_qQ

Seems like congress has no idea what to do huh..
Reply
#38
Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick
View Post
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/tra...ying-ties.aspx

Former and future lobbyists are OK. The Obama campaign restricts current lobbyists from joining the campaign. But a bunch of former lobbyists have helped out—including deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand, Teal Baker, and Emmett Beliveau—who could easily slip back onto K Street once the campaign is over. Obama now has 14 bundlers who are also federally registered lobbyists, but they are currently inactive, according to Public Citizen.

Every side has it's lobbyists

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aVPBaUbYV_qQ

Seems like congress has no idea what to do huh..

It's apples and oranges. McCain's core team of advisers and the head of his transition team are some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington. And the bulk of Obama's war chest is from individual donors, like all of those in this forum who have donated to his campaign in what was, for some of us, our first political campaign donations ever. As opposed to McCain.

And to ElCap's post, you're right. On this particular issue, I think it's deregulation-mad Republicans' cross to bear. On another issue, I might be more willing to contemplate Dem culpability, because as I've said many times over, Dems piss me off a lot too, but they're leagues closer to my ideals than Repubs.

And in looking back at congress' flirtation with addressing this looming disaster, I ran across this McCain interview from December 2007:
Quote:

Q: “Well the dimension of this problem may be surprising to a lot of people, but to many people, to many others there were feelings that there was something amiss, something was going too fast, something was a little too hot. Going back several years. Were you one of them? Or, I mean you’re a busy guy, you’re looking at a lot of things, maybe subprime mortgages wasn’t something you focused on every day. Were you surprised?

McCain: “Yeah. And I was surprised at the dot-com collapse and I was surprised at other times in our history. I don’t know if surprised is the word, but...

Q: “S&Ls?”

McCain: “I don’t -- what did you say?”

Q: “The S&Ls."

McCain: "Yeah, the S&Ls."

Q: "Is this bigger than that?

McCain: “I don’t know the dimensions of this. It’s hard to know what the dimensions are. As I say, I never thought I’d pick up the paper and see a city in Norway is somehow dramatically impacted by it. When I say ‘surprised’ I’m not surprised when in capitalist systems that there’s greed and excess. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who said ‘unfettered capitalism leads to corruption’ or something like that, that people have disputed for years.

“But so, in this whole new derivative stuff, and SIBs and all of this kind of new ways of packaging mortgages together and all that is something that frankly I don’t know a lot about.

"But I do rely on a lot of smart people that I have that are both in my employ and acquaintances of mine. And most of them did not anticipate this. Most of them, I mean I can find some that did. But, a guy that’s on my staff named Doug Holtz-Eakin, who was once the head of the Office of Management and Budget, said that there was nervousness out there. There’s nervousness. There was nervousness that we had such a long period of prosperity without a downturn because of the history of our economy. But I don’t know of hardly anybody, with the exception of a handful, that said ‘wait a minute, this thing is getting completely out of hand and is overheating.'

"So, I’d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not.


Source.

And again, there's the Gramm-Leach-Billey act during Clinton's administration in which the Republicans in Congress stripped away the Glass-Steagall act which protected Americans from exactly this kind of disaster. McCain was one of the Senators that voted for it, giving it a veto-proof majority. His best pal Phil Gramm was one of the sponsors. Phil Gramm and his wife, who went to work for Enron and made a killing. Phil Gramm who is even now a lobbyist for French bank UBS, in addition to being McCain's shadow economic adviser.
Reply
#39
For those who're so inclined, here's a neat flash anim about CDOs.
Reply
#40
This is depressing.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/...us/tent_cities

Return of Hoovervilles?
Reply
#41
That McCain quote from 2005 regarding Fannie and Freddie could seem like political posturing without knowing the strength of the submitted bill. There are plenty of examples of McCain taking political stances that felt right but had no substance to back them up. That's part of what has made McCain a likable but infuriating politician throughout the years. His conduct before and after the Keating 5 scandal says a lot about his character.
Reply
#42
Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamotv
View Post
This is depressing.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/...us/tent_cities

Return of Hoovervilles?

Sounds like they could use some change.

(you're damned if you never saw that episode, it was classic!)
Reply
#43
Quote:

That McCain quote from 2005 regarding Fannie and Freddie could seem like political posturing without knowing the strength of the submitted bill. There are plenty of examples of McCain taking political stances that felt right but had no substance to back them up. That's part of what has made McCain a likable but infuriating politician throughout the years.

I don't understand, so you mean he's kind of like a political Mr. Magoo, an old blind guy occasionally stumbling upon the right decision and bill to support without really knowing what is going on?

'Always for Less Regulation'?
John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803159_pf.html

Quote:

However, when it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporate misconduct, Mr. McCain's record is more in keeping with his current rhetoric. In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. "I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation," he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. "But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor -- and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years -- can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work."


Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he "seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government's demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well."


In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," Mr. McCain warned at the time.

Reply
#44
I'm not one to agree with the regulators, but this is a bit much.

I would rather have my government regulating businesses more than they have than bailing them out when THEY fuck up.
Reply
#45
I'm curious, what companies have we bailed out? In your opinion.
Reply
#46
Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
View Post
I don't understand, so you mean he's kind of like a political Mr. Magoo, an old blind guy occasionally stumbling upon the right decision and bill to support without really knowing what is going on?

'Always for Less Regulation'?
John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803159_pf.html

No. John McCain is a partisan politician first and foremost. He does occasionally take a "good" position on an issue, but the motivation is almost always partisan politics, not out any genuine sense of doing good. This is borne out by the fact that he rarely sees an issue to its end.

The only times he's called for more regulation, seemingly, is when Democrats were the ones who were pushing for deregulating more vociferously. (Fannie and Freddie) Or when something's obviously gone fubar and he needs to do a mea culpa. (Energy dereg and Enron) Otherwise he's been doctrinaire conservative/deregulator in his economic policies, espousing a philosophy that has directly lead to many of these crises.

But ultimately, what's more important than John McCain occasionally taking on "corruption" within the Democratic ranks is his utter inability to take on the corruption within his own ranks. In fact, he was often a cheerleader for terrible policy that originated from his side. This goes to the heart of what kind of politician McCain is. He might say the right things about an issue, but his motivation is really to make the other side look bad, not necessarily to do right because otherwise, he'd have more follow-through and just be more consistent.
Reply
#47
So, ignore the vote and statements regarding Fannie Mae and attribute that to being a partisan hack. Only interested in making Democrats look bad.

Also, any bi-partisan legislation he's ever worked with, is for show. All of these efforts should be viewed as cynical attempts to undermine the Democrats.

Did I get it right?
Reply
#48
I'd like to know more about what he was getting at, because as he explains in his 2007 interview, he "didn't see it coming."

But I have a question for you and Snaieke: are you saying that McCain is historically pro-government regulation?
Reply
#49
Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
View Post
So, ignore the vote and statements regarding Fannie Mae and attribute that to being a partisan hack. Only interested in making Democrats look bad.

Also, any bi-partisan legislation he's ever worked with, is for show. All of these efforts should be viewed as cynical attempts to undermine the Democrats.

Did I get it right?

Sorta. You're obviously free to make your own determination as to why McCain only supported regulation on these 2 issues throughout his entire 26 year career of deregulation.

I'm not saying there isn't a hint of honesty in what he's saying. I'm saying that the John McCain who voted correctly on these issues and the John McCain who as voted incorrectly dozens of times do not make any sense when placed together. Why that is the case is certainly up for debate.

My ultimate point here is that the John McCain that has been running this campaign, the craven opportunist and, yeah, partisan that has bubbled up to the surface, is perhaps the real John McCain. Its just more obvious and splayed out there for all to see now that he is running a national general election campaign.

You like McCain. I get that. (I kinda sorta did too at one point.) But at this moment before we're asked to vote for him, can anyone really say with any confidence that they know what he stands for? Its a genuinely troubling situation that is entirely of his own making. All I'm saying is that the clues to the McCain we're seeing today are there in his past, if you want to see them.
Reply
#50
Quote:

Originally Posted by yt
View Post
I'd like to know more about what he was getting at, because as he explains in his 2007 interview, he "didn't see it coming."

But I have a question for you and Snaieke: are you saying that McCain is historically pro-government regulation?

I didn't say anything. I only asked Muharulz what companies he thought we bailed out.

Here's the catch YT. Everyone SAW it coming the real question was when the music would stop and who would be left without chairs and no one knew that answer.

McCain isn't an economic dynomo but he's been on the ball this week, we do need some regulations and Cox should have been fired and he took the bullet and said the fundamentals of our economy are sound. It doesn't matter if the fundamentals of our economy are sound when there is a disaster on Wall Street. What matters is leaders SAYING the fundamentals are sound so Johnny the teacher doesn't take his money out of the bank in a panic and turn his 401k from funds to CASH. That was why I was so very disappointed in the partisan politics Obama was playing on Monday..then Tuesday... then Wednesday.. You don't come out and say the fundamentals are bad when we're in a financial crisis.. that's to be said later on after it is over.

Apparently, Obama got the memo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080919/...a_financial_dc
Reply
#51
Ah. The Bush Dichotomy. Is McCain ignorant, or lying?
Reply
#52
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
McCain isn't an economic dynomo but he's been on the ball this week, we do need some regulations and Cox should have been fired and he took the bullet and said the fundamentals of our economy are sound.

Oxy + moron = oxymoron

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke

That was why I was so very disappointed in the partisan politics Obama was playing on Monday..then Tuesday... then Wednesday.. You don't come out and say the fundamentals are bad when we're in a financial crisis.. that's to be said later on after it is over.

Come on dude, give me a break. Really? McCain calls the fundamentals of our economy strong on our worst economic day in years and you expect the Obama campaign to play nice after weeks of being charged with teaching kindergarten kids about sex, sexism, and someone who's going to raise taxes for all Americans (which are all lies, I might add). I bet you wouldn't be pissed at Hoover either. We're headed towards a great depression, but the important thing is that he just say that everything's fine and do nothing. Nice thinking...
Reply
#53
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker
View Post
Oxy + moron = oxymoron



Come on dude, give me a break. Really? McCain calls the fundamentals of our economy strong on our worst economic day in years and you expect the Obama campaign to play nice after weeks of being charged with teaching kindergarten kids about sex, sexism, and someone who's going to raise taxes for all Americans (which are all lies, I might add). I bet you wouldn't be pissed at Hoover either. We're headed towards a great depression, but the important thing is that he just say that everything's fine and do nothing. Nice thinking...

I expect a leader to not take down the economy in an attempt to win an office. Obama and McCain are perceived as leaders at this point until one of them wins in November and for either one of them to say our economy is faltering when we're in the midst of a crisis is catastrophic and would only lend to panic selling and exacerbating the situation. There is a time and a place for partisan politics and when our economy is faltering, it is not the time.

Look what happened wtih Chuck Schumer and IndyMac.
Reply
#54
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
There is a time and a place for partisan politics and when our economy is faltering, it is not the time.

Yeah, but Snaieke, they've tried that lame shit before.


Stank then. Stinks now. Nobody buys it, so why bother even pretending.

If I know that's dogshit on the sidewalk. And Obama knows it's dogshit. And McCain knows it's dogshit. And Obama says "It sucks but that there is dog fuckin shit." And McCain says "I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America. What about dogshit what?" Whom should I respect more?

Almost every bad thing that has happened in our history can be traced to "that's not something we can talk about now!"
Reply
#55
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
I expect a leader to not take down the economy in an attempt to win an office. Obama and McCain are perceived as leaders at this point until one of them wins in November and for either one of them to say our economy is faltering when we're in the midst of a crisis is catastrophic and would only lend to panic selling and exacerbating the situation. There is a time and a place for partisan politics and when our economy is faltering, it is not the time.

Look what happened wtih Chuck Schumer and IndyMac.

I fail to see the connection between observing the severe problems with the economy and partisan politics. If anything, presidents that have been successful during economics downturns HAVE recognized it (See FDR and Reagan). It would be dishonest to say anything other than our economy is faltering and it is certainly not an attempt to "take down the economy". What's needed is a President who is strong enough to recognize the problems, address them, and present the populace with reasonable solutions that provide confidence that the economy can be repaired. (Again, see FDR and Reagan)
Reply
#56
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
I expect a leader to not take down the economy in an attempt to win an office. Obama and McCain are perceived as leaders at this point until one of them wins in November and for either one of them to say our economy is faltering when we're in the midst of a crisis is catastrophic and would only lend to panic selling and exacerbating the situation. There is a time and a place for partisan politics and when our economy is faltering, it is not the time.

You expect our leading politicians to be ignorant while the nation watches the walls come down? I'm serious, what kind of thinking is that? What happened to the John McCain that was full of "straight talk," telling people in Michigan that their jobs weren't coming back? This is a tremendously serious problem and everybody with two working eyes and a working brain knows it. They're not getting this information straight from Obama...it's in the news, it's in their bank accounts, it's effecting their lives every moment. Simply staying positive is not the solution. Being honest and coming up with a game plan is. And I'm not talking about playing the blame game either (which is the only thing McCain has been able to do since trying to amend his "strong" stance...fire the head of the SEC, come up with a 9/11 type commission report, and blame the democrats). So don't give me that "rise above" bullshit.
Reply
#57
Quote:

Originally Posted by The LD
View Post
I fail to see the connection between observing the severe problems with the economy and partisan politics. If anything, presidents that have been successful during economics downturns HAVE recognized it (See FDR and Reagan). It would be dishonest to say anything other than our economy is faltering and it is certainly not an attempt to "take down the economy". What's needed is a President who is strong enough to recognize the problems, address them, and present the populace with reasonable solutions that provide confidence that the economy can be repaired. (Again, see FDR and Reagan)

You're making this out to be political, when it is all about economics and how they work. You're also talking about sitting Presidents who had the ability to address the situation vs. someone who is running for President who had no control over the situation aside from his words and what were his words? The economy is not fundamentally sound. He jumped in early in the morning before anyone who had direct control had actually addressed the situation, including the sitting President and the Fed Chairman etc.. . He didn't offer suggestions, other then vote for me.

I honestly don't care what you think we need. The election isn't until November 4th and whomever wins this isn't in charge until January 29th and it's a long long time between now and then for our economy and we don't need partisan politics to be destroying it. If Obama or McCain want to make suggestions, that's fine but to sit on the sidelines and erode away the American confidence isn't helpful and it certainly isn't called leadership.
Reply
#58
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
You're also talking about sitting Presidents who had the ability to address the situation vs. someone who is running for President who had no control over the situation aside from his words and what were his words?

Are you here suggesting that neither Reagan nor Roosevelt campaigned on the poor condition of the economy? That is absolutely false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
The economy is not fundamentally sound. He jumped in early in the morning before anyone who had direct control had actually addressed the situation, including the sitting President and the Fed Chairman etc.. . He didn't offer suggestions, other then vote for me.

I also take issue with this. If we have to wait for Bush to make a substantive address, neither candidate could comment yet. To suggest that Obama offered no suggestions is also patently false. He cut a two minute long speech, widely available on the internet, that offered suggestions regarding his ideas for the economy. If you disagree with his ideas, that's one thing. To suggest he offered none is another, and not grounded in reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
The election isn't until November 4th and whomever wins this isn't in charge until January 29th and it's a long long time between now and then for our economy and we don't need partisan politics to be destroying it. If Obama or McCain want to make suggestions, that's fine but to sit on the sidelines and erode away the American confidence isn't helpful and it certainly isn't called leadership.

Snaieke, you have yet to connect the dots between observing the state of the economy and partisan politics. You wouldn't suggest that the economy is in good shape, correct? Unless observing the condition of the economy is now partisan, I don't think you're on the right track here.

I also think you may be picking the wrong battle. Could Obama's statement have eroded some confidence? I suppose so. Could McCain's statement have boosted confidence? I doubt it. The reason is because people will base their responses on the reality with which they are presented. If AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't clearly in trouble, people would laugh at Obama for saying the economy was weak, and rightly so. When he says it and it agrees with what they see, they may well appreciate that a politician understands the problems that they're observing.
Reply
#59
Reply
#60
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
You're making this out to be political, when it is all about economics and how they work. You're also talking about sitting Presidents who had the ability to address the situation vs. someone who is running for President who had no control over the situation aside from his words and what were his words? The economy is not fundamentally sound. He jumped in early in the morning before anyone who had direct control had actually addressed the situation, including the sitting President and the Fed Chairman etc.. . He didn't offer suggestions, other then vote for me.

I honestly don't care what you think we need. The election isn't until November 4th and whomever wins this isn't in charge until January 29th and it's a long long time between now and then for our economy and we don't need partisan politics to be destroying it. If Obama or McCain want to make suggestions, that's fine but to sit on the sidelines and erode away the American confidence isn't helpful and it certainly isn't called leadership.

And John McCain isn't trying to score some political points with the whole guilt by association game with Obama and execs from Fannie May? Come on.....

As far as solutions go, Obama seems to be more serious about this crisis than McCain seems to be. All McCain seems to want to do is kick it over to a commision to study. Not smart when the economy is in meltdown mode.
Reply
#61
Quote:

Originally Posted by The LD
View Post
Are you here suggesting that neither Reagan nor Roosevelt campaigned on the poor condition of the economy? That is absolutely false.

You're still not reading what I wrote. There is a time and a place for economic discussions, in the morning when a major company announces they're going bankrupt is not the time. It will make the situation worse and it did.

Quote:

I also take issue with this. If we have to wait for Bush to make a substantive address, neither candidate could comment yet. To suggest that Obama offered no suggestions is also patently false. He cut a two minute long speech, widely available on the internet, that offered suggestions regarding his ideas for the economy. If you disagree with his ideas, that's one thing. To suggest he offered none is another, and not grounded in reality.

The two minute speech was the day after the event in question. You're still not reading what I wrote.


Quote:

Snaieke, you have yet to connect the dots between observing the state of the economy and partisan politics. You wouldn't suggest that the economy is in good shape, correct? Unless observing the condition of the economy is now partisan, I don't think you're on the right track here.

The conditions of the economy are perfectly relevant in an election and they can talk about it until they run out of breath AFTER a crisis has happened. You didn't see politicians coming out playing partisan politics DURING the disaster(see 9/11, Katrina etc..), that's when you tow the company line and say everything will work out, we're working on it and then afterwards you wag the finger and assign blame.

Quote:

I also think you may be picking the wrong battle. Could Obama's statement have eroded some confidence? I suppose so. Could McCain's statement have boosted confidence? I doubt it. The reason is because people will base their responses on the reality with which they are presented. If AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't clearly in trouble, people would laugh at Obama for saying the economy was weak, and rightly so. When he says it and it agrees with what they see, they may well appreciate that a politician understands the problems that they're observing.

The point wasn't for McCain to boost confidence, the point was for him to NOT erode away at consumer and investor confidence. Investors had been prepped for Lehman bothers for months, everyone and their brother had come out saying a big one will fall soon just a week prior. Everyone knew what was coming the key here was damage control. If it spirals out of control the market tumbles, people cash out their 401k's, they pull their money out of their banks and the banks lose liquidity, which means no more loans.. no more money for you to withdrawal.

Did you know that gold and precious metals increased dramatically this week? That means people cashed out.

Like I said, look at Chuck Shumer and IndyMac.
Reply
#62
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker
View Post
You expect our leading politicians to be ignorant while the nation watches the walls come down? I'm serious, what kind of thinking is that? What happened to the John McCain that was full of "straight talk," telling people in Michigan that their jobs weren't coming back? This is a tremendously serious problem and everybody with two working eyes and a working brain knows it. They're not getting this information straight from Obama...it's in the news, it's in their bank accounts, it's effecting their lives every moment. Simply staying positive is not the solution. Being honest and coming up with a game plan is. And I'm not talking about playing the blame game either (which is the only thing McCain has been able to do since trying to amend his "strong" stance...fire the head of the SEC, come up with a 9/11 type commission report, and blame the democrats). So don't give me that "rise above" bullshit.

Oh, in the news huh? Why don't we lose 500 points every day?

edit -

For the record, Cox put an end to short selling after McCain called him out on it and we rebounded today because of it. Also, the Deomcrats should be condemned for suggesting taking an early recess on Wednesday. I still don't think McCain is some economic dynomo but I certainly think he'd be better for America than Obama and if you want to get into that discussion we can but I'm mostly talking about the economy in here. I don't think anyone is going to be swayed one way or the other at this point in which candidate is getting their vote and there is little point in discussing it.
Reply
#63
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
Oh, in the news huh? Why don't we lose 500 points every day?

edit -

For the record, Cox put an end to short selling after McCain called him out

That would be before McCain "called him out."
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
on it and we rebounded today because of it. Also, the Deomcrats should be condemned for suggesting taking an early recess on Wednesday.

Snaieke, what is it about these talking points they send you? They're completely irrelevant. Haven't you been reading about all these emergency meetings with Bernanke and Paulson? Don't you realize this is all happening in real time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
I still don't think McCain is some economic dynomo but I certainly think he'd be better for America than Obama and if you want to get into that discussion we can but I'm mostly talking about the economy in here.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

Snaieke, do you acknowledge that McCain's chief economic adviser is Phil Gramm? Do you acknowledge that he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar with the Keating 5? Do you realize that his central core of advisers have all lobbied for all these welfare case "too big to fail" institutions? THIS is the guy you put forward as better than Obama for this economic apocalypse? Shouldn't the new Republican talking points be that they're going to let Democrats take the job and therefore have to clean up the mess?

All joking aside, do you understand the scope of what's happening, and what will continue to happen over the coming weeks? Do you realize the economic philosophy that made financial ruin a fait accompli is the very same one McCain has long championed, especially during his recent far right conversion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
I don't think anyone is going to be swayed one way or the other at this point in which candidate is getting their vote and there is little point in discussing it.

Snaieke, you are obviously a McCain voter. I am obviously an Obama voter. We're both reasonably informed. There are a lot of people out there who are utterly uninformed about what's happening, but as the emergency room team goes to work on the critical patient that our economy has become after a 30 year pummeling by greedy, back-slapping free-market Republicans, I think a lot of people are going to get wise to exactly what crimes were committed and which side is better equipped to resuscitate.

Edited to add: Here's one more piece of evidence of McCain's proximity to the financial meltdown: Bankrupt AIG was a major underwriter for McCain's "Reform Institute."

Quote:

The "Reform Institute" has taken a lot of heat as a front organization designed to funnel money to McCain's political career. As Ari Berman wrote, McCain's campaign co-chair, Rick Davis, served as the president of the nonprofit Reform Institute for three years, earning $395,000 in salary. Davis also headquartered his lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, in the Reform Institute's offices at that time. He is just one of several McCain people who passed through the Reform Institute's revolving door while McCain prepared for the 2008 campaign. McCain formally stepped down from his own institute in 2005, but he remains deeply linked to the Reform Institute to this day.

So when McCain declared this week that "The government was forced to commit $85 billion" to his mega-donor AIG, the question becomes, "What forced you to do it?" The American taxpayers never got a red cent in donations from AIG--but now, they're being forced by people like McCain, whose career profited from AIG donations, to buy his backer's massively indebted trash heap in what can only be described as the worst business deal in this nation's history, or the worst example of crony nationalization. AIG isn't just funding McCain's policy think tank, it's also quite literally thinking for the presidential hopeful. Martin Feldstein, who serves on the board of AIG, is one of McCain's top economic advisers. Earlier this month, Feldstein gushed in the Wall Street Journal over McCain's plans to cut taxes even further, and to shift healthcare costs from employers to employees in a "tax credit" scheme that many believe will solely benefit insurance companies, at the expense of workers. Since AIG is--or was--the world's largest insurance company, it stood to gain from McCain's policies.

The rest of the story is here.
Reply
#64
So are we gonna hit the 2nd Great Depression in the coming days? What scares me about this whole situation is that everyone says we're at the end times but no one is really explaining what it's going to look like? Are we Beyond Thunderdome? It can't look like 1931 again because the world doesn't look like that anymore. So what's the worst case scenario and how does tomorrow look different than today?
Reply
#65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
View Post
So are we gonna hit the 2nd Great Depression in the coming days? What scares me about this whole situation is that everyone says we're at the end times but no one is really explaining what it's going to look like? Are we Beyond Thunderdome? It can't look like 1931 again because the world doesn't look like that anymore. So what's the worst case scenario and how does tomorrow look different than today?

I was watching the Rachel Maddow Show and the nutshell is that banks might not be able to lend money because the credit system is fucked which leads to little to no expansion of businesses and which leads to lay offs and no jobs being created. Plus it makes it hard for people to buy houses.

From everything I've heard in the press and from experts on this, it sounds like it's a matter of days before our country is fucked and fucked hard if we don't do something about it.

Edit: Here's the NYT article on it.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/wa...gewanted=print

Quote:

Congressional Leaders Stunned by Warnings
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — It was a room full of people who rarely hold their tongues. But as the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, laid out the potentially devastating ramifications of the financial crisis before congressional leaders on Thursday night, there was a stunned silence at first.

Mr. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had made an urgent and unusual evening visit to Capitol Hill, and they were gathered around a conference table in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“When you listened to him describe it you gulped," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

As Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, put it Friday morning on the ABC program “Good Morning America,” the congressional leaders were told “that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally.”

Mr. Schumer added, “History was sort of hanging over it, like this was a moment.”

When Mr. Schumer described the meeting as “somber,” Mr. Dodd cut in. “Somber doesn’t begin to justify the words,” he said. “We have never heard language like this.”

“What you heard last evening,” he added, “is one of those rare moments, certainly rare in my experience here, is Democrats and Republicans deciding we need to work together quickly.”

Although Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dodd and other participants declined to repeat precisely what they were told by Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson, they said the two men described the financial system as effectively bound in a knot that was being pulled tighter and tighter by the day.

“You have the credit lines in America, which are the lifeblood of the economy, frozen.” Mr. Schumer said. “That hasn’t happened before. It’s a brave new world. You are in uncharted territory, but the one thing you do know is you can’t leave them frozen or the economy will just head south at a rapid rate.”

As he spoke, Mr. Schumer swooped his hand, to make the gesture of a plummeting bird. “You know we’d be lucky ...” he said as his voice trailed off. “Well, I’ll leave it at that.”

As officials at the Treasury Department raced on Friday to draft legislative language for an ambitious plan for the government to buy billions of dollars of illiquid debt from ailing American financial institutions, legislators on Capitol Hill said they planned to work through the weekend reviewing the proposal and making efforts to bring a package of measures to the floor of the House and Senate by the end of next week.

Lawmakers in both parties described the meeting in Ms. Pelosi’s office on Thursday night with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke as collaborative, and that they were prepared to put politics aside to address the needs of the American people.

While Democrats initially said after the meeting that they planned to use the administration’s proposal of a huge rescue effort to win support for an economic stimulus package, they pulled back slightly on Friday morning, saying that their top priority was to help put together the bailout package and stabilize the economy.

But it was clear they continued to examine ways to make clear that the government was stepping up not just to help the major financial firms but also to protect the interests of American taxpayers and families by safeguarding their pensions and college savings, and by preventing any further drying up of consumer credit.

In addition to potential stimulus measures, which could include an extension of unemployment benefits and spending on public infrastructure projects, Democrats said they intended to consider measures to help stem home foreclosures and stabilize real estate values.

Among the potential steps Congress can take include approving legislation to allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of primary mortgages — authority that the bankruptcy laws do not currently allow and that the banking industry has strenuously opposed.

But the Democrats said it was too soon to discuss such details, and that they were awaiting a draft of the proposal from the Treasury Department.

“We have got to deal with the foreclosure issue,” Mr. Dodd said. “You have got to stop that hemorrhaging..If you don’t, the problem doesn’t go away. Ben Bernanke has said it over and over again. Hank Paulson recognizes it. This problem began with bad lending practices. Those are his words, not mine, and so this plan must address that or I’ll be back here in front of a bank of microphones at some point explaining the next failure.”

Even before the drafting of the plan was complete, the Bush administration and the Fed began efforts to sell the idea of a huge rescue to potentially skeptical rank-and-file members of Congress. Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke held a conference call with House Republicans to explain their thinking.

Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Senate banking committee, said in a television interview that cost to the government of purchasing bad debt could run to $1 trillion — a potential warning sign since Mr. Shelby is a longtime skeptic of government intervention in the private market.

Until Mr. Shelby was interviewed on Friday morning, officials on Capitol Hill had been careful not to discuss specific figures, though the rescue envisioned by the Treasury Department clearly entails a government appropriation of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Reply
#66
I do know one thing. George W Bush's legacy will not only be the war in Iraq but also the architect of our country's biggest shift to Socialism since the Great Depression.
Reply
#67
I gleefully await the potential nationalisation of ~ $700 billion worth of our country's financial industry. Socialism from the mouth of the Capitalist beast.

I hear Greenspan's still defending his deregulatory mantra regarding the housing industry, by the way. I sincerely hope his reputation gets a huge shit taken on it as the next Depression rolls our way.
Reply
#68
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke
View Post
I'm curious, what companies have we bailed out? In your opinion.

Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and now AIG.

Yeah, I know AIG still owes us the money at a high interest rate. Doesn't matter. We won't see it for years and we will be the ones that will have to pay it back.

This government has fucked up so bad and now we are slowly turning into a socialist state. The government bails out large banks that made terrible business decisions... this happens every day to mom and pop stores and there are no real security measures dedicated to helping those small business owners. The big guys get help because they have the money... oh wait. No they don't. They got greedy and preyed on people who wanted to own houses that had no business owning them. They deserve to fail miserably and not be in business.

Would that fuck up the economy? Sure. Our fault for not doing anything to stop it. I'd rather go into recession because companies fucked up than our government creating wealth making our currency fucking worthless and pumping up immoral and unethical banks.

Now my kids are gonna have to pay for it. Not me anymore. My kids. That's a fucking shame.
Reply
#69
Quote:

Originally Posted by Muharulz
View Post
Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and now AIG.

Yeah, I know AIG still owes us the money at a high interest rate. Doesn't matter. We won't see it for years and we will be the ones that will have to pay it back.

This government has fucked up so bad and now we are slowly turning into a socialist state. The government bails out large banks that made terrible business decisions... this happens every day to mom and pop stores and there are no real security measures dedicated to helping those small business owners. The big guys get help because they have the money... oh wait. No they don't. They got greedy and preyed on people who wanted to own houses that had no business owning them. They deserve to fail miserably and not be in business.

Would that fuck up the economy? Sure. Our fault for not doing anything to stop it. I'd rather go into recession because companies fucked up than our government creating wealth making our currency fucking worthless and pumping up immoral and unethical banks.

Now my kids are gonna have to pay for it. Not me anymore. My kids. That's a fucking shame.

I hate that we had to bail out all these companies but wouldn't the alternative have been worse? Wouldn't we be spiralling into an economic depression if the government didn't step in?

The problem is that, in my understanding, the GOP has been systematically reversing depression era regulatory laws that were enacted so we wouldn't be in this mess. Surprise, surprise, guess what happened as a result of that?
Reply
#70
On the one hand, we kinda have to bail these companies out for the good of the global economy. On the other hand, deregulation has set up this system where the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized. The whole thing is completely unfair to taxpayers and worst of it could've been avoided with better government to be sure. But I just want to be clear that free market capitalism is inherently amoral and needs to be regulated. To expect it to do anything else is to repeat the same mistake. Again, for a third fucking time.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)