The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > SHH Community > Politics

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-22-2008, 11:54 AM   #101
Batgort
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 349
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Goto the moneymasters.com or look at their documentary here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+masters&hl=en

If you look at the federal reserve system, and the people behind it, you will be scared ****less.

__________________
In Timm We Trust! <> Can't wait for B v S, SS!
Batgort is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 04:01 PM   #102
tzarinna
С новым годом!
 
tzarinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Россия
Posts: 24,115
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

It really is a scary time right now. About a month ago I went to see Wall-E and a guy walked in about 1/2 way into the film and shouts out that he wants to buy some popcorn for a few dollars. Talk about down and out. I have no idea what movie he came to see and he was quite frustrated at the lack of response to his request.

__________________
...возможно счастье что-то мы можем только последовать, и возможно фактически мы можем никогда не иметь его, независимо от того, какой..
tzarinna is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 06:20 PM   #103
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 28,553
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom'sDad View Post
...... but it won't happen
...except it has happened. A number of times in the last decade and 1980s. And it never worked. Ever.

DACrowe is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 06:24 PM   #104
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 28,553
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

A good article on the problems we are facing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/op...on&oref=slogin

Quote:

Cash for Trash
By Paul Krugman

Some skeptics are calling Henry Paulson’s $700 billion rescue plan for the U.S. financial system “cash for trash.” Others are calling the proposed legislation the Authorization for Use of Financial Force, after the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the infamous bill that gave the Bush administration the green light to invade Iraq.

There’s justice in the gibes. Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding extraordinary power for himself — and for his successor — to deploy taxpayers’ money on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesn’t make sense.

Some are saying that we should simply trust Mr. Paulson, because he’s a smart guy who knows what he’s doing. But that’s only half true: he is a smart guy, but what, exactly, in the experience of the past year and a half — a period during which Mr. Paulson repeatedly declared the financial crisis “contained,” and then offered a series of unsuccessful fixes — justifies the belief that he knows what he’s doing? He’s making it up as he goes along, just like the rest of us.

So let’s try to think this through for ourselves. I have a four-step view of the financial crisis:

1. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to a surge in defaults and foreclosures, which in turn has led to a plunge in the prices of mortgage-backed securities — assets whose value ultimately comes from mortgage payments.

2. These financial losses have left many financial institutions with too little capital — too few assets compared with their debt. This problem is especially severe because everyone took on so much debt during the bubble years.

3. Because financial institutions have too little capital relative to their debt, they haven’t been able or willing to provide the credit the economy needs.

4. Financial institutions have been trying to pay down their debt by selling assets, including those mortgage-backed securities, but this drives asset prices down and makes their financial position even worse. This vicious circle is what some call the “paradox of deleveraging.”

The Paulson plan calls for the federal government to buy up $700 billion worth of troubled assets, mainly mortgage-backed securities. How does this resolve the crisis?

Well, it might — might — break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step 4 in my capsule description. Even that isn’t clear: the prices of many assets, not just those the Treasury proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial system will still be crippled by inadequate capital.

Or rather, it will be crippled by inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys, giving financial firms — and their stockholders and executives — a giant windfall at taxpayer expense. Did I mention that I’m not happy with this plan?

The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step 4, but at step 2: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to — a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works don’t go to the people who made the mess in the first place.

That’s what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)

But Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a “clean” plan. “Clean,” in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached — no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency,” and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.

I’m aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now.

But I’d urge Congress to pause for a minute, take a deep breath, and try to seriously rework the structure of the plan, making it a plan that addresses the real problem. Don’t let yourself be railroaded — if this plan goes through in anything like its current form, we’ll all be very sorry in the not-too-distant future.
Now I don't agree with everything in it, but it was a very good read.

I will say that we risk an extra week to stipulate congressional oversight and that the Treasury does have to report its findings at the very least to a public committee for transparency's sake. Albeit if the $700 billion is poorly invested, as this article suggests, we just wasted a **** load of money, transparency or not.

DACrowe is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 06:28 PM   #105
Venom'sDad
Beware..Vultures nDa Hype
 
Venom'sDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,290
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACrowe View Post
...except it has happened. A number of times in the last decade and 1980s. And it never worked. Ever.
The combination of the two has nevered happen, don't fool yourself.

__________________
___________________________________
My JL Trailer * The Unholy Trinity of Venom * The Sinister 6 * Marvel's FNSM
Venom'sDad is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 06:38 PM   #106
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 28,553
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Ah. But isn't it interesting every president promises to decrease government spending and it doesn't happen? At any rate to afford large enough tax cuts to make a difference in the economy (which in no way would solve the mortgage/investment bank crisis we are currently undergoing), the cuts would have to be incredibly drastic. If that is what you want, support Ron Paul in 2012.

But the Repubs and Dems are not going to change on that front. And flat tax cuts, only slightly better than supply side/trickle down tax breaks (which the Bush tax cuts were in sheep's clothing) does not energize the economy. It is merely a good fiscal reaction to a recession, but does not create jobs or help a healthy economy with a shockingly small amount of regulation.

DACrowe is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 07:28 PM   #107
Superman4ever
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 7,408
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Quote:
How We Became the United States of France

This is the state of our great republic: We've nationalized the financial system, taking control from Wall Street bankers we no longer trust. We're about to quasi-nationalize the Detroit auto companies via massive loans because they're a source of American pride, and too many jobs — and votes — are at stake. Our Social Security system is going broke as we head for a future where too many retirees will be supported by too few workers. How long before we have national healthcare? Put it all together, and the America that emerges is a cartoonish version of the country most despised by red-meat red-state patriots: France. Only with worse food.
More Related

Admit it, mes amis, the rugged individualism and cutthroat capitalism that made America the land of unlimited opportunity has been shrink-wrapped by a half dozen short sellers in Greenwich, Conn. and FedExed to Washington D.C. to be spoon-fed back to life by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. We're now no different from any of those Western European semi-socialist welfare states that we love to deride. Italy? Sure, it's had four governments since last Thursday, but none of them would have allowed this to go on; the Italians know how to rig an economy.

You just know the Frogs have only increased their disdain for us, if that is indeed possible. And why shouldn't they? The average American is working two and half jobs, gets two weeks off, and has all the employment security of a one-armed trapeze artist. The Bush Administration has preached the "ownership society" to America: own your house, own your retirement account; you don't need the government in your way. So Americans mortgaged themselves to the hilt to buy overpriced houses they can no longer afford and signed up for 401k programs that put money where, exactly? In the stock market! Where rich Republicans fleeced them.

Now our laissez-faire (hey, a French word) regulation-averse Administration has made France's only Socialist president, Francois Mitterand, look like Adam Smith by comparison. All Mitterrand did was nationalize France's big banks and insurance companies in 1982; he didn't have to deal with bankers who didn't want to lend money, as Paulson does. When the state runs the banks, they are merely cows to be milked in the service of la patrie. France doesn't have the mortgage crisis that we do, either. In bailing out mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government has basically turned America into the largest subsidized housing project in the world. Sure, France has its banlieues, where it likes to warehouse people who aren't French enough (meaning, immigrants orAlgerians) in huge apartment blocks. But the bulk of French homeowners are curiously free of subprime mortgages foisted on them by fellow citizens, and they aren't over their heads in personal debt.

We've always dismissed the French as exquisitely fed wards of their welfare state. They work, what, 27 hours in a good week, have 19 holidays a month, go on strike for two days and enjoy a glass of wine every day with lunch — except for the 25% of the population that works for the government, who have an even sweeter deal. They retire before their kids finish high school, and they don't have to save for a $45,000-a-year college tuition because college is free. For this, they pay a tax rate of about 103%, and their labor laws are so restrictive that they haven't had a net gain in jobs since Napoleon. There is no way that the French government can pay for this lifestyle forever, except that it somehow does.

Mitterrand tried to create both job-growth and wage-growth by nationalizing huge swaths of the economy, including some big industries, including automaker Renault, for instance. You haven't driven a Renault lately because Renault couldn't sell them here. Imagine that. An auto company that couldn't compete with a Dodge Colt. But the Renault takeover ultimately proved successful and Renault became a private company again in 1996, although the government retains about 15% of the shares.

Now the U.S. is faced with the same prospect in the auto industry. GM and Ford need money to develop greener cars that can compete with Toyota and Honda. And they're looking to Uncle Sam for investment — an investment that could have been avoided had Washington imposed more stringent mileage standards years earlier. But we don't want to interfere with market forces like the French do — until we do.

Mitterand's nationalization program and other economic reforms failed, as the development of the European Market made a centrally planned economy obsolete. The Rothschilds got their bank back, a little worse for wear. These days, France sashays around the issue of protectionism in a supposedly unfettered EU by proclaiming some industries to be national champions worthy of extra consideration — you know, special needs kids. And we're not talking about pastry chefs, but the likes of GDF Suez, a major utility. I never thought of the stocks and junk securities sold by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as unique, but clearly Washington does. Morgan's John Mack calls SEC boss Chris Cox to whine about short sellers and bingo, the government obliges. The elite serve the elite. How French is that?

Even in the strongest sectors in the U.S., there's no getting away from the French influence. Nothing is more sacred to France than its farmers. They get whatever they demand, and they demand a lot. And if there are any issues about price supports, or feed costs being too high, or actual competition from other countries, French farmers simply shut down the country by marching their livestock up the Champs Elysee and piling up wheat on the highways. U.S. farmers would never resort to such behavior. They don't have to: they're the most coddled special interest group in U.S. history, lavished with $180 billion in subsidies by both parties, even when their products are fetching record prices. One consequence: U.S. consumers pay twice what the French pay for sugar, because of price guarantees. We're more French than France.

So yes, while we're still willing to work ourselves to death for the privilege of paying off our usurious credit cards, we can no longer look contemptuously at the land of 246 cheeses. Kraft Foods has replaced American International Group in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the insurance company having been added to Paulson's nationalized portfolio. Macaroni and cheese has supplanted credit default swaps at the fulcrum of capitalism. And one more thing: the food snob French love McDonalds, which does a fantastic business there. They know a good freedom fry when they taste one.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...iid=digg_share

Superman4ever is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 07:29 PM   #108
Superman4ever
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 7,408
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

This is very concerning:

Quote:
Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter



A critical - and radical - component of the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration has thus far failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press. Section 8 (which ironically reminds one of the popular name of the portion of the 1937 Housing Act that paved the way for subsidized affordable housing ) of this legislation is just a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch - who, we remind you, will have the incentive to act upon this privilege as quickly as possible, before they leave office. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay, and no fundamental means of holding those who fail to do so accountable.

Is this starting to sound familiar? Robert Kuttner cuts through much of the gloss in an article in today's American Prospect:

The deal proposed by Paulson is nothing short of outrageous. It includes no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gives congressional blessing and funding to what he has already been doing, ad hoc. He plans to retain Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper. There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital. Both Obama and McCain have opposed the provision denying any judicial review of decisions made by Paulson -- a provision that evokes the Bush administration's suspension of normal constitutional safeguards in its conduct of foreign policy and national security. [...]


The differences between this proposed bailout and the three closest historical equivalents are immense. When the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the 1930s pumped a total of $35 billion into U.S. corporations and financial institutions, there was close government supervision and quid pro quos at every step of the way. Much of the time, the RFC became a preferred shareholder, and often appointed board members. The Home Owners Loan Corporation, which eventually refinanced one in five mortgage loans, did not operate to bail out banks but to save homeowners. And the Resolution Trust Corporation of the 1980s, created to mop up the damage of the first speculative mortgage meltdown, the S&L collapse, did not pump in money to rescue bad investments; it sorted out good assets from bad after the fact, and made sure to purge bad executives as well as bad loans. And all three of these historic cases of public recapitalization were done without suspending judicial review.

Kuttner's opposition here is perhaps the strongest language I've seen used, pushing back on this piece of legislation, in any publication of repute, and even here, Section 8 is not cited by name or by content. McClatchy Newspapers also alludes to Section 8 with concern, citing the "unfettered authority" that Paulson would be granted, and noting that the "law also would preclude court review of steps Paulson might take, something Joshua Rosner, managing director of economic researcher Graham Fisher & Co. in New York, said could be used to mask previous illegal activity." Jack Balkin also gives the matter the sort of attention it deserves on his blog, Balkinization.

But elsewhere, the conversation is muted. The debate over whether Congress is going to pass the Paulson bailout package, or pass the Paulson bailout package really hard seems to have boiled down to a discussion of time and concessions. The White House has made it clear that they want this package passed yesterday. Congressional Democrats seem to be of different minds on the matter, with some pushing back hard, and others content to demand a small dollop of turd polish to make the package seem more aesthetically pleasing, at which point, they'll likely roll over and pass the bill. Neither candidate, John McCain or Barack Obama, seem all that amenable toward the bailout, but neither have either demonstrated that they are willing to risk their candidacies to do much more than exploit the issue for electoral purposes.

Sunday morning came and went, with Paulson traipsing dutifully from studio to studio, facing nary a question on Section 8. Front page articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal detail the wranglings, but make no mention of this section of the legislation. On TV, cable news networks are stuck in the fog of the ongoing presidential campaign.

Throughout the coverage, one catches a whiff of what seems like substantive pushback on this power grab, but it largely amounts to a facsimile of journalistic diligence. Most note, in general terms, that the bailout represents a set of "broad powers" that will be granted to the Department of the Treasury. Yet the coverage offsets these concerns through the constant hyping of the White House's overall message of "urgency."

But one cannot overstate this: Section 8 is a singularly transformative sentence of economic policy. It transfers a significant amount of power to the Executive Branch, while walling off any avenue for oversight, and offering no guarantees in return. And if the Democrats end up content with winning a few slight concessions, they risk not putting a stop-payment on the real "blank check" - the one in which they allow the erosion of their own powers.

Over in the Senate, Christopher Dodd has proposed a bailout legislation of his own, which critically calls for "an oversight board that not only includes the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the SEC, but congressionally appointed, non-governmental officials" and would require the President to appoint an "independent inspector general to investigate the Treasury asset program." In Dodd's legislation, Section 8 is effectively stripped from the bill.

Nevertheless, the fact that Section 8 of the Paulson plan seems to strike few as a de facto dealbreaker can and should astound. The failure of Congress to hold the line on this point would be truly embarrassing. But if we make it through this week with nobody in the press specifically informing the public about the implications of this single sentence - in the middle of a complicated bill, in the middle of a complicated time - then right there, you have the single largest media failure of this year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_128294.html

If this doesn't solidify Bush as the most abusive, horrific US President we have ever had, then I don't know what else could qualify him given nearly every decision this psycho has made has damaged the US in a considerable fashion. Seriously this bailout can NEVER be reviewed by the people, her representatives or the courts? How is that not concerning to "Libertarians" on this board? Or right-wingers?


Last edited by Superman4ever; 09-22-2008 at 07:34 PM.
Superman4ever is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 08:24 PM   #109
Venom'sDad
Beware..Vultures nDa Hype
 
Venom'sDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,290
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACrowe View Post
Ah. But isn't it interesting every president promises to decrease government spending and it doesn't happen? At any rate to afford large enough tax cuts to make a difference in the economy (which in no way would solve the mortgage/investment bank crisis we are currently undergoing), the cuts would have to be incredibly drastic. If that is what you want, support Ron Paul in 2012.
Jesus Christ... you obviously don't know WTF you're talking about.

Quote:
But the Repubs and Dems are not going to change on that front. And flat tax cuts, only slightly better than supply side/trickle down tax breaks (which the Bush tax cuts were in sheep's clothing) does not energize the economy. It is merely a good fiscal reaction to a recession, but does not create jobs or help a healthy economy with a shockingly small amount of regulation.
Get it through your thick skull people, IT IS YOU THAT GIVE THEM THEIR POWER! Don't tell me what they won't do. The problem is, Americans treat politician as "holy than thou" instead of demanding accountability. We have become so complacent that desire to be told what's good for us. Americans desire to be lead like sheep to totalitarianism, because many are to lazy to think for themselves. This country's people has lost its edge. This is why they do what the want, become career politicians, pass pay raises for themselves, give lip services, and totally ignore their supposen constituents. Cause many of you are apathetic and than want to complain. Until we all "TRUELY CHANGE" the culture amongst ourselves, we will never be in a position to demand our leaders to do likewise.

This what the founding fathers what trying to set up to prevent. They came from the old world where the Pope, King, or Ruler had complete control over the commoners everyday life. So they created a "Constitutional Republic".... and people like you are allowing the powers to be, legally turn this country into what the Kings of old from the old empire, wants.... the United Socialist States of America.... along with the rest of the world. We are getting what many of you desire.


__________________
___________________________________
My JL Trailer * The Unholy Trinity of Venom * The Sinister 6 * Marvel's FNSM
Venom'sDad is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 10:19 PM   #110
Batgort
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 349
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

I don't see how anyone - right, left, libertarian or otherwise could support this totalitarian stance on the bailout plan. Simply put, this level of direct and closed market control, coupled with the private interests of the Federal Reserve and banks gives a very small group of people total control over the United States and they could do whatever they wanted to crash the stock market, cause the second great depression, etc with no accountability.

The entire process needs to be open, accountable, and with enough meat on it to support both the interests of the tax paying public, private corporations, and the bankers. Anything less then that is like handing over the keys to the country to a private cabal.

__________________
In Timm We Trust! <> Can't wait for B v S, SS!
Batgort is offline  
Old 09-22-2008, 11:54 PM   #111
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 28,553
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom'sDad View Post
Jesus Christ... you obviously don't know WTF you're talking about.

Get it through your thick skull people, IT IS YOU THAT GIVE THEM THEIR POWER! Don't tell me what they won't do. The problem is, Americans treat politician as "holy than thou" instead of demanding accountability. We have become so complacent that desire to be told what's good for us. Americans desire to be lead like sheep to totalitarianism, because many are to lazy to think for themselves. This country's people has lost its edge. This is why they do what the want, become career politicians, pass pay raises for themselves, give lip services, and totally ignore their supposen constituents. Cause many of you are apathetic and than want to complain. Until we all "TRUELY CHANGE" the culture amongst ourselves, we will never be in a position to demand our leaders to do likewise.

This what the founding fathers what trying to set up to prevent. They came from the old world where the Pope, King, or Ruler had complete control over the commoners everyday life. So they created a "Constitutional Republic".... and people like you are allowing the powers to be, legally turn this country into what the Kings of old from the old empire, wants.... the United Socialist States of America.... along with the rest of the world. We are getting what many of you desire.

Insults? Calling me a socialist? Showing an appalling lack of comprehension or knowledge about American history? You just lost your argument.

All colonists came to the New World to start a republic after all and they were all craving revolution. The founding fathers were all God-fearing Christians who wanted to put the power in the hands of the people and blah blah blah. Come back when you're done with third grade.

Look up what Vice President John Adams (one of the great revolutionary voices) thought the president should be addressed as. Or the bitter debates in 1776 between him and the Tories of the south and middle states. Or the Federalist arguments between strong-federal-government Hamilton and individualist-Jefferson, who when he did become president bought the Louisiana Purchase (the first true act of the presidency stepping beyond the boundaries set up by the Constitution). But go on live, in your pipe dream.

You say I don't know what I talk about and I concede I do not have a great knowledge of economics and it was always one of my weaker subjects in college. At the same time, I understand that fair taxes and supply side/trickle down economics are terrible ideas that you seem to support and all would either have devastating effects on our country or have already done so. But go ahead, anything that is new or "progressive" you classify as different, other or dangerous, just as the Republicans were seen as when Lincoln came to power, civil rights activists were viewed as and anyone who disagreed with McCarthy becoming a communist. You just use the word socialist today. You're the worst order of conservatives. Those who close their ears and ignore reality and accept their beliefs will be considered quaint or offensive in 20 years or more.

For the record I suggested the plan needed to be changed, because giving the Treasury a $700 billion check with no oversight or transparency is a terrible idea. I think at the very least their actions must be documented and reviewed by public congressional hearings and committees with a clear guideline of when the companies will be sold back to the market and out of government-control. I also think the plan will not fix problems long-term. How do you fix our current crisis from devolving in the long-run? I don't know, I admit. I just know when you say cutting taxes and spending would solve the problem, you sound like a tool.

Have a nice day.


Last edited by DACrowe; 09-23-2008 at 12:00 AM.
DACrowe is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 12:14 AM   #112
The Senator
Banned User
 
The Senator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 12,294
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

What this country needs is more divorces, more sick kids, and more gas-guzzling SUVs to fix the economic crisis.

Who's with me?

The Senator is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 08:30 AM   #113
lazur
Banned User
 
lazur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,191
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DACrowe View Post
Insults? Calling me a socialist? Showing an appalling lack of comprehension or knowledge about American history? You just lost your argument.

All colonists came to the New World to start a republic after all and they were all craving revolution. The founding fathers were all God-fearing Christians who wanted to put the power in the hands of the people and blah blah blah. Come back when you're done with third grade.

Look up what Vice President John Adams (one of the great revolutionary voices) thought the president should be addressed as. Or the bitter debates in 1776 between him and the Tories of the south and middle states. Or the Federalist arguments between strong-federal-government Hamilton and individualist-Jefferson, who when he did become president bought the Louisiana Purchase (the first true act of the presidency stepping beyond the boundaries set up by the Constitution). But go on live, in your pipe dream.

You say I don't know what I talk about and I concede I do not have a great knowledge of economics and it was always one of my weaker subjects in college. At the same time, I understand that fair taxes and supply side/trickle down economics are terrible ideas that you seem to support and all would either have devastating effects on our country or have already done so. But go ahead, anything that is new or "progressive" you classify as different, other or dangerous, just as the Republicans were seen as when Lincoln came to power, civil rights activists were viewed as and anyone who disagreed with McCarthy becoming a communist. You just use the word socialist today. You're the worst order of conservatives. Those who close their ears and ignore reality and accept their beliefs will be considered quaint or offensive in 20 years or more.

For the record I suggested the plan needed to be changed, because giving the Treasury a $700 billion check with no oversight or transparency is a terrible idea. I think at the very least their actions must be documented and reviewed by public congressional hearings and committees with a clear guideline of when the companies will be sold back to the market and out of government-control. I also think the plan will not fix problems long-term. How do you fix our current crisis from devolving in the long-run? I don't know, I admit. I just know when you say cutting taxes and spending would solve the problem, you sound like a tool.

Have a nice day.
Venom's Dad is just frustrated at where our country is going, and people aren't making much of it except to say 'it's normal, get over it.'

It's not normal. You're talking about 700 billion going to the 'Treasury' when in reality it's coming FROM the Federal Reserve, the largest single corporation in the world that is owned by a bunch of PRIVATE bankers. Let me repeat that - our country, with its excessive spending, is beholden to rich, private bankers, most of whom don't even live in our borders. That isn't 'progressive' - that's just plain stupid.

The reality of how our government was supposed to work, and how it actually works, is hard to ignore. And it's not the fault of a single party - it's the fault of all Americans for not holding our government more accountable for its trespasses over our freedoms. It's the fault of Americans for considering 'social' issues to be higher in priority than freedom. That's not to say that social issues aren't important - but in order to improve social issues, we first have to have a free country, and that's just something we haven't had since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was enacted, and then later on when the IRS was enacted. The freedoms we enjoy in this country are determined by those who control the flow of money, and that is not our government.

lazur is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 10:09 AM   #114
The Overlord
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,593
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazur View Post
Venom's Dad is just frustrated at where our country is going, and people aren't making much of it except to say 'it's normal, get over it.'

It's not normal. You're talking about 700 billion going to the 'Treasury' when in reality it's coming FROM the Federal Reserve, the largest single corporation in the world that is owned by a bunch of PRIVATE bankers. Let me repeat that - our country, with its excessive spending, is beholden to rich, private bankers, most of whom don't even live in our borders. That isn't 'progressive' - that's just plain stupid.

The reality of how our government was supposed to work, and how it actually works, is hard to ignore. And it's not the fault of a single party - it's the fault of all Americans for not holding our government more accountable for its trespasses over our freedoms. It's the fault of Americans for considering 'social' issues to be higher in priority than freedom. That's not to say that social issues aren't important - but in order to improve social issues, we first have to have a free country, and that's just something we haven't had since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was enacted, and then later on when the IRS was enacted. The freedoms we enjoy in this country are determined by those who control the flow of money, and that is not our government.
Yeah because liberals love Bush and love this 700 billion corporate welfare scheme.

Who's fault is this, the GOP! This is Bush's plan and its Bush's policies that put this policies that caused this mess in the first place. The GOP created Bush and Bush created these problems and then created this "cure". Bush wants sweeping new powers to do this, is getting mad at the Congress for demanding oversight be put into place. Bush has never believed in accountible governemnt and anyone who did try to hold him responsibile was considered "unpatriotic" for the longest while.

This is just more proof the GOP doesn't believe in anything besides power, they oppose welfare for poor people, but support welfare for corporations, they believe corporations should keep their profts but their debts should be socialiazed.

The Overlord is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 10:30 AM   #115
Hobodeluxe
Banned User
 
Hobodeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,006
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?


Hobodeluxe is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 10:37 AM   #116
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 28,553
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

I'm not getting into a partisan argument. This issue goes beyond Republicans and Democrats. The government does need to step in, but I, as I have said twice now, do not support the $700 billion bailout in its current form. I think the money should go to paying off debts of the company and creating capital, not recharging executives' salaries. In any case, the theory of giving the Treasury immunity with a essientially a blank check (it can and likely will go up) scares me. Congressional oversight, public transparency and accountability must all be placed on the Treasury in its actions. And the plan as is, still needs a major overhaul as well as a guideline as to when a company can be sold back to the private sector and open markets. The less time it spends in government control the better, but currently the Fed wants to hold onto these businesses indef. I do not support that.

DACrowe is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 11:04 AM   #117
Matt
IKYN Guy Groupie
 
Matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 80,696
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

I'm with Crowe. The bailout is a neccessity...but we shouldn't be bailing out the shareholders and CEOs.

Matt is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 11:54 AM   #118
Hobodeluxe
Banned User
 
Hobodeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,006
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

For what is really gong on behind the scenes people should read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine.
This is Wall st.'s backhanded grab to get the Soc Sec nest egg Bush promised them. They couldn't get it one way now they are making a stab at it in a financial coup.
Don't think this is an accident or someone was asleep at the wheel.
It's theft. plain and simple.
It's also political suicide for Dems if they fall into the trap.

This crisis is because of asset devaluation. Not liquidity.
The bailout will not fix it.


Last edited by Hobodeluxe; 09-23-2008 at 11:59 AM.
Hobodeluxe is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 12:34 PM   #119
Marx
Pixelated
 
Marx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 55,034
Lightbulb Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Further proof that the area I live in is a LOST CAUSE...

The local media poll today has been asking 'Which party do you believe is responsible for the country's current economic crisis?'

The results:

Democrats - 55 percent
Republicans - 45 percent






(Somebody save me... )

__________________
It can't rain all the time.
Marx is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 12:42 PM   #120
Hobodeluxe
Banned User
 
Hobodeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,006
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marx View Post
Further proof that the area I live in is a LOST CAUSE...

The local media poll today has been asking 'Which party do you believe is responsible for the country's current economic crisis?'

The results:

Democrats - 55 percent
Republicans - 45 percent






(Somebody save me... )

Well they did lose the last two presidential elections.

Hobodeluxe is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 01:15 PM   #121
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 28,553
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

It is beyond partisan politics. It is about deregulation vs. a market that has still been recovering from the dot com bubble burst at the beginning of the decade which has caused a continual attempt to solve debts by devaluing assets and essentially creating no capital. The government should have stepped in and regulated this more closely, so in some sense the Republicans hands-off approach as well as their horrid tax cuts perpetuated the problem (which btw the latter is what Paulson is proposing on a large-scale), but it did not create it.

What people need to do is step away from politics right now and look at this as a pragmatic problem that needs to be solved. Assess blame when it is over.

DACrowe is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 01:16 PM   #122
DACrowe
Side-Kick
 
DACrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 28,553
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

It is beyond partisan politics. It is about deregulation vs. a market that has still been recovering from the dot com bubble burst at the beginning of the decade which has caused a continual attempt to solve debts by devaluing assets and essentially creating no capital. The government should have stepped in and regulated this more closely, so in some sense the Republicans hands-off approach as well as their horrid tax cuts perpetuated the problem (which btw the latter is what Paulson is proposing on a large-scale), but it did not create it.

What people need to do is step away from politics right now and look at this as a pragmatic problem that needs to be solved. Assess blame when it is over.

DACrowe is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 01:33 PM   #123
Marx
Pixelated
 
Marx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 55,034
Default Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobodeluxe View Post
Well they did lose the last two presidential elections.
Let's all just ignore that the Republicans have had complete control over the country for the last six of eight years.

__________________
It can't rain all the time.
Marx is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 01:59 PM   #124
Marx
Pixelated
 
Marx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 55,034
Lightbulb Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

POLL: GOP TAKES BRUNT OF BLAME FOR ECONOMY, OBAMA GAINS
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...oll/index.html

__________________
It can't rain all the time.
Marx is offline  
Old 09-23-2008, 02:01 PM   #125
Marx
Pixelated
 
Marx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 55,034
Lightbulb Re: The Economy - What the #@&$?!?

RON PAUL: DON'T BAIL OUT WALL STREET
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...out/index.html

__________________
It can't rain all the time.
Marx is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.