How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 How Now, Down Dow?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

How Now, Down Dow?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


25 posted 03-15-2009 07:53 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I’m curious Mike.

Do you really believe that Cramer is a trustworthy source of information?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 03-15-2009 08:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Good question, grinch. He is a stock prognosticator, probably no better or worse than any of the others. I saw a review of his stock picks a couple of years ago and his bottom line after everything was around a 6% profit,if one were to follow his picks for the year, not bad but hardly putting him on a guru level. He did, however, echo sentiments that many others have offered lately, including Democrats in the administration, concerning the fear factor injected by the White house, and the ill-advised timing of tax increases. You may have noticed lately that Obama has backed off the pessimism and has begun talking about how the economy is actually sound and things  are not as bad as they appeared. One would think there have been his own people suggesting this change.

WASHINGTON – The economy is fundamentally sound despite the temporary "mess" it's in, the White House said Sunday in the kind of upbeat assessment that Barack Obama had mocked as a presidential candidate.

Obama's Democratic allies pleaded for patience with an administration hitting the two-month mark this week, while Republicans said the White House's plans ignore small business and the immediate need to fix what ails the economy. After weeks projecting a dismal outlook on the economy, administration officials — led by the president himself in recent days — swung their rhetoric toward optimism in what became Wall Street's best stretch since November.

During the fall campaign, Obama relentlessly criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, for declaring, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obama's team painted the veteran senator as out of touch and failing to grasp the challenges facing the country.

But on Sunday, that optimistic message came from economic adviser Christina Romer. When asked during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" if the fundamentals of the economy were sound, she replied: "Of course they are sound."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090315/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy;_ylt=AmQYk07GBjXQSQfcuwUyJGpI2ocA

Is Cramer right? can't tell you but I CAN tell you that he has always been a staunch democrat and I can't imagine any reason why he would come out with such comments unless he felt sincere about them. He had no axe to grind with wither Obama or the Democratic party.

The interesting part is how the Democrats turned against him for his comments. They used Jon Stewart as the bullet and the network news stations as the guns and they did their best to plaster him against the wall. They have given the message that if you're not for them, you're against them and that contrary opinions, even by Democrats, will not be taken without reprisal.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


27 posted 03-15-2009 09:18 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

They used Jon Stewart as the bullet and the network news stations as the guns and they did their best to plaster him against the wall.



Is that a fact?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


28 posted 03-15-2009 09:19 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

As I see it Mike, Cramer decided to turn an attack on a network by Stewart into a personal feud by claiming that Stewart didn’t know what he was talking about. The fact that he actually said what Stewart had suggested he’d said didn’t seem to deter him.

Cramer was caught on video admitting that he’d manipulated the market in the past to make a killing and suggested that other people should do the same.

The guy is an idiot and a jerk for three reasons, the first is he negatively affected a lot of innocent peoples long term investments every time he manipulated the market, all to make a fast buck for himself. The second reason is that he decided to shout from the highest steeple that he was innocent when he knew he wasn’t and the third is that he’s supposed to be a market expert and yet his picks average less than you’d get in a high interest account.

Anything Cramer says should be viewed as suspect. That’s before you get to the fact that his suggested short term indicator isn’t the right device for measuring a long term strategy.

Lets ignore Cramer for now, you say there are others who have doubts about Obama’s plans, I agree. I’ve read a lot of criticism from both parties and quite a bit from European leaders who disagree with some aspects of Obama’s plan, but the overall consensus seems to be that his plan is as likely to beat the recession as any other.

Now before I comment on Obama’s flip-flop as far as the extent of the recession is concerned I need to understand exactly how bad you think this recession is Mike?


.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


29 posted 03-15-2009 10:50 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Lets ignore Cramer for now, you say there are others who have doubts about Obama’s plans, I agree. I’ve read a lot of criticism from both parties and quite a bit from European leaders who disagree with some aspects of Obama’s plan, but the overall consensus seems to be that his plan is as likely to beat the recession as any other.

Now before I comment on Obama’s flip-flop as far as the extent of the recession is concerned I need to understand exactly how bad you think this recession is Mike?



I think the mistake here all along was picking Cramer to be the standard bearer -- if someone wanted to give Obama an 'F' on the handling of the economy so far there were more credible sources, let's turn to Rupert Murdoch's WSJ for instance...


quote:

The economists' assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.




But on the subject of 'how bad the economy is;

quote:

The economists, many of whom have been continually surprised by the depth of the downturn, also pushed back yet again their forecasts for when a recovery would begin. On average, they expect the downturn to end in October. Last month, they said the bottom would arrive in August.



But as to WHY they aren't giving the administration high marks;

quote:

Economists were divided over whether the $787 billion economic-stimulus package passed last month is enough. Some 43% said the U.S. will need another stimulus package on the order of nearly $500 billion. Others were skeptical of the need for stimulus at all.

However, economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. "They overpromised and underdelivered," said Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. "Secretary Geithner scheduled a big speech and came out with just a vague blueprint. The uncertainty is hanging over everyone's head."

Mr. Geithner unveiled the Obama administration's plans Feb. 10, but he offered few details, and stocks sank on the news.




Having said that -- is the Geithner plan that opaque?  It seems to me a bit more translucent with the intent being to 'stress test' each bank and tailor a specific remedy toward each one.  Of course -- it's under this 'threat' of the stress test that suddenly Citigroup has found itself to be liquid.  An interesting trick.

One has to wonder if they've actually marked all of their bad assets to market?  Any good CEO can make the books look good for a quarter.  Let's hope they actually are liquid and didn't just decide to manipulate the market themselves to make an opportunity to relieve themselves personally of some more irrational exuberance.

All in all though, it's a good thing that the market would wait for some actual hard news to rally instead of being willing to trade on Obama's smile (which is what Cramer, Buffet, Mike and many who have been losing value each day seemed to want).  The economy is more than Wall Street though.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


30 posted 03-16-2009 12:01 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LR,

Stewart bushwhacked Cramer after  his comments - fact.
The major networks carried it after it happened - fact.

Why did Stewart go after Cramer? He attacked him for his position on  Bear Sterns, which happened in the past. Why didn't he bring it up then? Why didn't the major news networks cover it then? He attacked him on past stock advice with insults and accusations. Why didn't he do it when they occured? By reasonable conjecture, this is more than just coincidence that it occured after Cramer had disputed Obama's positions in his stimulus package. Do I know for fact that Democratic higher-ups sicced Stewart on Cramer for results the news media could run with? No, but it is a reasonable assumption based on the facts. You don't always need to produce a body to know there was a murder.

I think the mistake here all along was picking Cramer to be the standard bearer

Curious...who do you think picked Cramer to be a standard bearer? Certainly not the Democrats. Certainly not the republicans. Cramer wouldn't do anything for them, being a solid democrat....so who do you refer to as picking him?.

.
.

Grinch, Cramer may indeed be an idiot and a jerk. I am certainly not defending him. I never watched his programs because the screaming and fist-pounding would give me a headache. You,however, are  doing exactly what the democrats are doing, digging up whatever dirt on Cramer you can use to prove his worthlessness. Fine, he's worthless..what does that have to do with his comments about the stimulus package and Obama's handling of it? He simply gave his opinion....and why? He is a democrat. He has no axe to grind with the democrat party or Obama that anyone has brought up. He simply gave his opinion and his opinion caused a strong backlash against him.  Why should his opinion make democrats feel so defensive that have to attack him? Why should his opinion make Jon Stewart so incensed he decided to go after him with barrels blazing? Do you have an answer for that?

How bad do I think the recession is, grinch? I'm no expert on the economy,sir, and don't even pretend to be. I only have two things to go by.....figures and my daily life. By the figures, it is certainly not as bad as the recession of the 80's. As far as the housing crisis is concerned, Glenn Beck came up with a very interesting chart, if you are interested. The video is here.....http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/02/26/glenn-becks-housing-price-chart/

My daily life? i live in a middle-class neighborhood and have 230 middle-class customers. With the exception of the deterioration of our retirement savings, which we can do nothing about, there is little change in our lives. Prices haven't gone up in the stores. There are still waiting lines at restaurants. The roads  are still filled with people going SOMEWHERE. At times, a customer will say to me, "Wow! What about this economy???"  I ask them which part is affecting them? They say something like "Well, the newspapers say it is really bad. Unemployment is bad. Businesses are failing,etc, etc, etc"....and I say, "Fine. Now what part is affecting YOU?" They don;t have an answer. Much of their distress about the economy comes from newspaper headlines and Obama speeches, that's it. You are not able to see that part, grinch. You need to rely on newspaper headlines, too, and perhaps friends you may have over here and what they say. LR said once in another thread that negativity breeds negativity. That's what we have here, more than anything - a negative administration creating more negativity. They are now trying to correct that. Hopefully they will.

Would I be upset is I were living in a town where unemployment was high due to the town factory closing down? Of couse - but the anger should be directed at the company that handled itself so badly it had to shut down. Would I be upset if my house were being foreclosed? Sure, unless I cared to admit that I bought a house I couldn't afford on my salary with a loan that i knew was too good to be true. Do I agree with the bailouts? No, I don't.

I believe that most of the cry wolf screams from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue were basically for the purpose of getting their stimulus packages, along with the pork and entitlements they contained, passed. Obama, who claimed on the campaign trail, stating that he would make the country good for our future generations, has created a debt that those generations will be saddled with for a long time. Now, after getting them passed, he claims that the economy is "really not that bad - actually sound". Democrats have a history of using crises to elevate their power and control. I see this as nothing more than another attempt to do just that.

As far as unemployment is concerned, I feel that the government is making it worse due to the bad side  of human nature. Let me clarify my thoughts on that. We have daily headlines bemoaning the high level of unemployment and the sad state of the economy. Let's say there is a small company owner with 20 employees, of which he pays a salary, medical insurance, unemployment, social security taxes, etc. He has an idea. He can fire four of those people, saving all of those expenses, and transfer their work among the other sixteen. Under normal circumstances, they might complain about the extra workload but they won't now, with the "economy" being so bad. They will do the extra work and even be thankful that they still have a job. Such a deal. The four people let go increase the unemployment figures. Call me cynical but I can see that happening.

I don't know if I've answered your question or not. I believe  much of the recession is of our own making. I believe that failing businesses should be allowed to fail and not have the luxury of knowing they can get the government to pay their bills and keep going. I do not believe in the gloom and doom rhetoric being shoved down everyone's throat. I believe in less government interference and fewer government fingers in my pocket. I believe that Obama, for all of his good intentions, really doesn't know what he's doing (despite his one term as a senator) and is trying to wing it, changing with public sentiment, such as going from a "desperate situation" to a "sound economy".

You have asked for my thoughts and here they are. There is certainly enough there for you to refute and pick apart if you like but that's ok. I don't need to defend them.....they are simply my thoughts and I don't see them being changed, regardless of contrary opinions. I'm really not going to get into back and forth repartee over them. If you would like to state your views on our economy or recession as you see it, I'll be glad to listen to it.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


31 posted 03-16-2009 12:43 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Curious...who do you think picked Cramer to be a standard bearer? Certainly not the Democrats. Certainly not the republicans. Cramer wouldn't do anything for them, being a solid democrat....so who do you refer to as picking him?.



You did.  Have you read your originating post?

quote:

Stewart bushwhacked Cramer after  his comments - fact.
The major networks carried it after it happened - fact.



Bushwhacked?  Is that a fact or an opinion?  -- after Cramer's comments -- made him a news item.  He drew attention to himself and then Stewart criticized him as a news item -- which is what Stewart does -- lampoons the news.

After being lampooned -- as Grinch has pointed out -- Cramer couldn't take it and called Stewart a liar. (and a comedian -- of all things )

Now, I happen to know for a fact that you don't like to be called a liar.  Nor does anyone -- so Stewart THEN ramped up his attack.

The networks all carried it because it was news, and because -- it's darn good television and this is March -- ratings season.

Now, those are the facts.  

quote:

By the figures, it is certainly not as bad as the recession of the 80's.



You mean the Reagan recession?  He had been President for a lot more than 50 days.  Are you sure about those figures?  

That recession where Reagan raised corporate taxes?

Or are you referring to Black Monday?

quote:

negativity breeds negativity. That's what we have here, more than anything



If you actually believe this -- then you're turning more Keynsian everyday.

And why don't you want to talk about that mortgage interest deduction?  I do.  You brought it up.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 03-16-2009 01:31 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Sure, unless I cared to admit that I bought a house I couldn't afford on my salary with a loan that i knew was too good to be true. Do I agree with the bailouts? No, I don't.



I'm curious -- you seem to be upset that people took out loans they couldn't afford -- but you don't seem to be expressing any ire toward the industry for devoloping these sub-prime instruments and bundling them up so tightly inside derivatives that it's impossible to even detangle them or know precisely where they are.

quote:

Democrats have a history of using crises to elevate their power and control.



Please demonstrate.  The contrary is actually indicated.  It was the Bush Administration that expanded the Executive Branch If you wanted to change 'Democrats' to 'Politicians' -- then I'd be in agreement.

Of course the greatest power grab in American history was Nixon's 'War Powers' resolution veto.

quote:

As far as unemployment is concerned, I feel that the government is making it worse due to the bad side  of human nature. Let me clarify my thoughts on that. We have daily headlines bemoaning the high level of unemployment and the sad state of the economy. Let's say there is a small company owner with 20 employees, of which he pays a salary, medical insurance, unemployment, social security taxes, etc. He has an idea. He can fire four of those people, saving all of those expenses, and transfer their work among the other sixteen. Under normal circumstances, they might complain about the extra workload but they won't now, with the "economy" being so bad. They will do the extra work and even be thankful that they still have a job. Such a deal. The four people let go increase the unemployment figures. Call me cynical but I can see that happening.



It's exactly this kind of social engineering by the Fed (as I illustrated in the Beavis and Butthead thread) -- that of seeking to raise worker insecurity -- that our monetary policy has sought to bring about.  For the last 30 years it is better said that we've lived under 'Monetarism' than 'Capitalism'.

quote:

they are simply my thoughts and I don't see them being changed, regardless of contrary opinions



My opinions are always subject to change based upon presentation of 'facts'.  That, in my opinion, is why we should have conversations about facts and not merely see how many partisan memes and talking points we can regurgitate from the days talking heads.

If I want to listen to Rush -- I know where he is on the dial.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


33 posted 03-16-2009 07:59 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Thanks for to in-depth reply Mike

quote:
I'm really not going to get into back and forth repartee over them. If you would like to state your views on our economy or recession as you see it, I'll be glad to listen to it.


OK here goes:

I think the collapse of the world economy is really really bad and that it isn’t going to get any better in the short term and that any plans being put into place are designed with that in mind.

In the 80’s I opened and ran a successful glazing business, the recession as far as it affected me was a minor blip, business slowed a little and a couple of companies went to the wall taking money they owed me with them. I think that’s because the UK got off lightly along with the majority of European countries and that’s an important difference between that recession and this one - this recession is affecting every country and there’s no single economy to point to that’s likely to lead a rally.

Obama’s flip-flop?

He’s on the horns of a dilemma, he needs to explain to the people how bad the recession is likely to get and how big of a hole the US economy is actually in, while at the same time trying to convince foreign investors that their money is safe. If the foreign investors who fund America’s debt stop buying and start selling to prop up heir own economies the whole house of cards will collapse in on itself.

Hence the mixed messages.

.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


34 posted 03-16-2009 08:37 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

and that’s an important difference between that recession and this one - this recession is affecting every country and there’s no single economy to point to that’s likely to lead a rally.



Unlike Dick Cheney, who does recognize that this is a global recession -- the rest of the world understands that this recession is a domino effect started by the subprime mortgage crisis.  

Since this crisis began in the U.S. it seems most of the EU (not to mention the rest of the world) feel that it is up to the U.S. to fix this mess.

For a clearer understanding of how the housing bubble, subprime lending, and the resulting crash killed the banks go here:
http://baselinescenario.com/financial-crisis-for-beginners/

and particularly here:
http://baselinescenario.com/2009/01/03/sec-report-mark-to-market-accounting/

Mike said;

quote:

I don't know if I've answered your question or not. I believe  much of the recession is of our own making. I believe that failing businesses should be allowed to fail and not have the luxury of knowing they can get the government to pay their bills and keep going.



And what I said in 2001.

quote:

In reality -- what is a recession? It's the aggregate sum of bad decisions made by the CEO's of our leading companies. Nothing more, nothing less. We've already found out that the great superpower is vulnerable to physical threats of violence. It's time to realize we're even more vulnerable in our wallets.



But, we have to recognize also that the other part of this equation is the failure of the American people to demand more accountability from the institutions that 'we the people' empower with our financial health and security through the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

If we take down the speed limit signs, we needn't be surprised that people speed.  If we take down the greed limit signs....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 03-16-2009 09:34 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And why don't you want to talk about that mortgage interest deduction?  I do.

Then, by all means, do so. You don't need permission.

If I want to listen to Rush -- I know where he is on the dial.

I have no doubt you do, sir.

My opinions are always subject to change based upon presentation of 'facts'.

Which facts do you refer to? Facts to whom? Facts that go against points one is trying to make are often simply ignored or brushed aside by pointing fingers in other directions. I'm sure that YOU have never done that but it has happened many times here, I assure you, and will surely continue to do so. It's easy to change "facts" to fit your requirements, especially for a poet

But, we have to recognize also that the other part of this equation is the failure of the American people to demand more accountability from the institutions that 'we the people' empower with our financial health and security through the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

Bravo!! A statement I can agree with completely.


Grinch, I agree with your assessment of the flip-flops completely. He is in a quandry there for sure. The question is - which one of the two is he lying to?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


36 posted 03-16-2009 10:04 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
which one of the two is he lying to


The Chinese Mike.

The money China has invested in America is about as safe as a goldfish with a nose bleed in a tank of piranha. The only thing stopping China pulling the plug is that they’re likely to make a big loss if they do it now, that’s not to say they won’t bite that particular bullet. If their domestic economy gets any worse and they need to inject cash into their own economy they’ll swallow the loss.

At that point the argument won’t be do we let companies go to the wall it’ll be do we let countries go to the wall.


.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


37 posted 03-16-2009 03:09 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Then, by all means, do so. You don't need permission.



No, but I do need the answer to my question.  You've said yourself:

quote:

He wants to stimulate the housing market so he is cutting back mortgage deductions. He is showing daily that he has no idea what he is doing and has no experience to fall back on.



And now you've brought it up again in this thread with Cramer's quote.

You complain about socialism -- but you specifically see this as a government intervention in the free market -- that you're in favor of.  So, tell me how it works and why you're in favor of it.

quote:

Which facts do you refer to?



All of them.

quote:

Facts to whom? Facts that go against points one is trying to make are often simply ignored or brushed aside by pointing fingers in other directions. I'm sure that YOU have never done that but it has happened many times here, I assure you, and will surely continue to do so. It's easy to change "facts" to fit your requirements, especially for a poet



No. Facts are facts. One can omit facts.  One can lie.  One can exaggerate.  If your opinions are so strongly formed they must have a basis in facts -- and if you're so proud of your opinions that you want to publish them to the world then you shouldn't have a problem with also publishing the facts upon which you have formed them.  

We're still waiting for your answer on a lot of missing facts.  Like -- all of the pork in the stimulus bill for starters.

How about explaining how this MSM conspiracy works?  What are the facts there?  Who are the MSM?  Who owns the MSM?  Why, for instance, is it in General Electric's (a defense contractor) interest to 'be in the tank for Obama'?  And why are the NBC news programs and MSNBC 'attacking' Cramer -- from their sister network CNBC -- instead of defending him?

And since one can't know ALL facts... I'm always interested in a well formulated syllogism
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


38 posted 03-16-2009 08:47 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

all of the pork in the stimulus bill for starters.

Good example. You claimed there was none. Democratic senators acknowledged there was. It didn't change your mind. Obama asked Pelosi to cut down on it a little. It didn't change your mind. Obama acknowledged when signing the bill it was there but wouldn't be any more in the future. It didn't change your mind. Those things would certainly appear to make it factual and yet it didn't matter to you and didn't change your mind.  A video of Barney Frank being told that FannieMae was in trouble, to which he responded it was nothing more than a right-wing conspiracy was certainly factual. Did that change your mind about Frank? About placing any blame on him? I don;t think it did. It's easy to say that facts are facts and you opinion can be changed by them but your track record indicates otherwise.

For some reason you are making some kind of personal debate between you and I over this and presenting a list of questions, demanding answers as if your demands are my obligations. It's not going to work this way.

I'm going to give my opinions and base them any way I see fit. If you feel they are wrong, then present your own or else ignore them. These "interrogation" tactics won't make it and your demands carry little weight in my life, as I'm sure mine do in yours.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


39 posted 03-16-2009 09:22 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Good example. You claimed there was none. Democratic senators acknowledged there was. It didn't change your mind. Obama asked Pelosi to cut down on it a little. It didn't change your mind. Obama acknowledged when signing the bill it was there but wouldn't be any more in the future. It didn't change your mind. Those things would certainly appear to make it factual and yet it didn't matter to you and didn't change your mind.



It seems you are, again, co-mingling the Omnibus Spending Bill and the Stimulus Bill.  In which case -- you should re-check your facts.  What I said about the Omnibus Spending Bill was that it contains earmarks below the threshold of what Obama promised to keep them under on the campaign trail.  That he, and the Democrats on the Hill (so far), have acted to make the process more transparent is to their credit -- but I don't forsee a day when earmarks will be completely eliminated.

Now, if a Democrat says there's pork in the Stimulus Bill (and I'm not saying one or more didn't) -- wouldn't it be more helpful to fill in a detail or two?  And, (hold the presses) -- just because a Democrat says it doesn't make it TRUE!  

quote:

A video of Barney Frank being told that FannieMae was in trouble, to which he responded it was nothing more than a right-wing conspiracy was certainly factual. Did that change your mind about Frank? About placing any blame on him? I don;t think it did. It's easy to say that facts are facts and you opinion can be changed by them but your track record indicates otherwise.



I'm sorry Mike.  You now seem to be co-mingling me with someone else.  I've never had a discussion with you about Barney Frank.

quote:

For some reason you are making some kind of personal debate between you and I over this and presenting a list of questions, demanding answers as if your demands are my obligations. It's not going to work this way.



I'm posting to whomever is posting.  It seems that you originated this thread -- If you don't want to discuss the details -- that's an answer.

quote:

your track record indicates otherwise.



Yes, I do have a nasty habit of using sources other than WND -- Like... factcheck.org.  Or Politifact.  

The gall of me!  

Helen Reddy said it Mike.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 03-16-2009 09:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You are woman?????
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 03-17-2009 08:52 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

just because a Democrat says it doesn't make it TRUE!

You left out the word congressmen, lr. Thank you for proving my point. Democratic congressmen, with no reason to lie about the topic, could be lying if they disagree with your claim. Obama, who acknowledged the same, must also be lying if he disagrees with your claim. What did you type into factcheck.org to come up with those conclusions?

I use an online source also. It's called ifitwalkslikeaduck.org.

Try it sometime..

I have a date with  a man with a scalpel today so carry on without me for a bit...see you soon.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


42 posted 03-17-2009 02:21 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Good luck with your date with a man with a scalpel.  I hope everything turns out well.  

     Do you think you'll get a discount if you tell him you're Republican?  Try that first; and if he makes a sour face, tell him you're a Republican and you want a discount under the Endangered Species Act:  That ought to bring him around, even if he's a Democrat.  

     You've got me a little worried.  Good luck, Guy.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


43 posted 03-19-2009 08:49 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Ah, well I have a knife-thing in my future too... hope yours went well.

If you tried factcheck.org or Politifact -- instead of ifitwalkslikeaduck -- you might be interested in the results.

But of course you'd have to give up on hyperbole.  What fun would that be?



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


44 posted 03-19-2009 09:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

hmmmm..well, ifitwalkslikeaduck.com gave the following facts..

(1) Chris Dodd stated on 3/17 that he did not add anything to the AIG bailout pkg, did not change anything, did not touch anything, and anyone who claims he did is a liar.

(2) chris Dodd stated on 3/18 that he did indeed change things and make revisions, but at the urging of the White House

(3) congress approved AIG's bonus handouts

(4) congress is screaming about AIG's bonus handouts

(5) congress is passing laws to get the bonus money back that they authorized granting in the first place.

(6) congress and the president have initiated a hate campaign which has caused thousands of pieces of hate mail and death threats against the receiptients of bonus handouts, which congress authorized.

(7) congress is frothing at the mouth about the 173m in bonus handouts but has little to say about the 93 billion AIG gave to overseas banks.

Does this administration have any idea what it's doing? ifitwalkslikeaduck.com responds..."If it walks like a duck...."

I'd say that's closer to the truth than your fatchick.org.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


45 posted 03-20-2009 01:32 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary. "

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


46 posted 03-20-2009 01:34 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          I can't find your ifitwalkslikeaduck.com website, the one you suggested we try out.  I'd like a listing that I could use to turn up some of the source materials on the facts you've been using.

     Apparently your spell-check isn't working.  "Fact checking" has gotten confused with "fat chicks," and I think that you'd want to make sure the mistake didn't happen again.  Women and facts have enough problems these days, after all, don't they, without us adding to them.

     I am happy that you're visit with the doctor turned out well.  You did have me worried.  I've had friends with similar issues.  My sister, in New Mexico, finds the sun there difficult because combination of the high altitude and possible other recent atmospheric events makes the sun there pretty dangerous, too, even though the range of temperatures is wider and they actually get snow.  Who knew?  

     All my best.  Bob Kaven.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


47 posted 03-20-2009 04:02 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well Bob, fatchicks.org sounds like a lot more fun to me than politics -- or even this place -- so I'm definitely going to check it out.

But, Mike's ifitwalkslikeaduck is parked at godaddy.... he's just using that as a euphemism for his real main source which is fatcats.greed.  

And Mike is almost amazingly accurate in post 44 of this thread -- which seems to have nothing to do with this thread -- unless he's broadened it to just be about anything that bashes a Democrat or the Obama Admin.

But that's ok...it's his thread.

On claim '1' & '2';

Dodd did push for much tougher provisions to cap executive pay that would be added to the stim bill -- that Geithner and Republicans opposed.  Geithner's concerns centered on the legality of Dodd's language -- and it possibly would have amounted to a bill of attainder  and most likely would have been judged as ex post facto.

So Dodd's original language that read;

quote:

H.R. 1, Senate version: ... a prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period that the obligation is outstanding to at least the 25 most highly compensated employees, or such higher number as the Secretary may determine is in the public interest ...




was changed, by Dodd, under pressure from the White House to;

quote:

H.R. 1, Final version: ... shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.




But, to be fair let's remember what the Republican language was at the same time;

quote:

President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as child-porn producers and subprime mortgage brokers.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.

"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/gop-opposes-pay-limits-on_n_164544.html



Further, it was feared by Geithner that Dodd's bonus limits would cause the banks to give back the TARP funds -- and future banks to not want to participate.

Now?  Would that be such a bad thing?  Let's stop and consider.  Probably -- and Barney Frank was likely an idiot to say that he'd be happy to take the money back.  Why?  Because if the Congress didn't approve real money to bail out the banks the Fed would just go ahead and print the money (which would be inflationary) and charge us for it (because the Fed charges us interest on all the money it prints) and hand it over to the banks anyway to keep them afloat -- that's part of the Fed's charter.

And -- if the Fed didn't do that then the FDIC (us) would be left holding the bag whilst all the executives just bailed themselves out with golden parachutes.

And now, Pelosi has put the House Republicans into a conundrum with it's clawback plan to tax those AIG bonuses -- because they either vote for the populist bill (over an issue they've been crying crocodile tears over) which means they vote to raise taxes -- something they've pledged not to do -- or they vote against the public sentiment.

quote:

Despite vehement criticism by Republicans, the House passed legislation Thursday that would slap a 90 percent tax on employee bonuses paid this year by companies receiving substantial federal bailout money.

The bill (HR 1586) is the first legislative response to the public outrage surrounding battered insurance giant American International Group, Inc. It targets a narrow group of individuals, topped by executives and other employees at AIG on the receiving end of $165 million in bonus checks.

The final vote was 328-93, surpassing the two-thirds majority needed to pass the bill under suspension of the rules, an expedited procedure that bars amendments and limits debate.

In the end, 85 Republicans voted for the bill while 87 voted no. Numerous GOP members changed their votes from “no” to “yes” as the roll call proceeded.

Six Democrats voted “no”: Melissa Bean , Ill.; Larry Kissell , N.C.; Michael E. McMahon , N.Y.; Walt Minnick , Idaho; Harry E. Mitchell , Ariz., and Vic Snyder , Ark.

Later in the evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., moved to bring up the House-passed bill for a floor vote, but Arizona Republican Jon Kyl objected, saying senators needed time to study the measure and perhaps hold hearings to discuss it.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003079443



I doubt it ever gets out of the Senate since it is most certainly a Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto.  But hey, it feels good doesn't it?

I think that covers us through claim '5'.

On claim '6' -- I don't think we can lay that blame at Congress or the President's feet -- the villiage seems to have had the torches out far in advance of the government on this one.

On claim '7' -- I completely agree, but, with the caveat -- so far.

So Geithner has now taken full responsibility  And, the President has said the buck stops with him.  So... ok... he's in charge.

Ultimately -- I'd like to know if you're for or against the AIG bonuses Mike (and John and Bob)-- and why(or not).

Personally -- I think Geithner is right -- we can't get that money back -- even if the final language is interpreted to mean that the Secretary can determine whether or not the contracts are valid -- that's still ex-post facto to the TARP.

But I am in favor of shareholder limiting of executive compensation in general (for publicly traded companies) and specifically for bailed out banks (since we're the shareholders).

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


48 posted 03-20-2009 09:49 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sorry, Bob. Fatchicks.org was a play on words to Factcheck.org, which sounds similar. Foster Brooks made it work. Even Norm Crosby used to be able to pull that off to standing ovulations but, apparently, I can't. Such is life

LR..claim 6 still stands for me. The public grumbled before now, even a small bit of outrage that wouldn't hit 2 on the Richter scale but, after Obama's flaming rhetoric, Congress's play-for-audience outrage, network news stations and talk shows giving it lead-in status, it turned from a small smoulder to a forest fire of public hatred. There were no thousands of hate mails before, no descriptive death threats aimed and every receiptient, no congressional witch trials and to say the president's and congress's impetus in this really did nothing to fuel this vigilanteeism is a little on the absurd side, in my view.

Why did he do it in such a fashion? There can be only one valid reason. He WANTED to fuel this fire. He knew it was a "hot spot" that would fire up the public and he could be the man holding the lead torch. It's a good diversionary tactic. Obama's ratings have been going down. Geitner has been very unimpressive and is under scrutiny. Congress is faring no better. What better time than to unite everyone in a cause against someone else? Seems a little ridiculous, I know, to use an issue that congress, the president, and Geitner actually allowed to happen but they count on that being overlooked and the hatred and disdain going straight past them and to the bonus getters....and they are right. Americans are kind, generous, giving and of a decent moral character.....nobody said they were that smart.

Am I for the bonuses? Absolutely not. I think it's ridicuous for bonus money to be paid out from a company that did so poorly it had to be bailed out and I share the anger of many at the insanity of it. My anger doesn't go to the receiptients, though, as much as the persons who gave it to them and to whoever allowed it to happen. Congress, Obama and Geitner have acted like "the gang who couldn't shoot straight" throughout this whole thing, handing out the billions with no accountability, no monitoring and no responsibility attached. The headlines of the nation's papers should be showing outrage at the 93 billion that left the country, more so than the 1M that went to Joe Schmoe. I've seen no flaming rhetoric over that yet. You may believe this or not but, with a Republican president and congress in this same situation, I would be saying this same thing against them. It's an insane situation.

I do have uneasy feelings about congress passing the "new" taxes to get the money back, though. That could be a precedent that I'm not sure I like to see...call it a bad gut feeling and I'm not ever sure it's legal. I never like to see congress disregard the constitution, if that's what they are doing here. It reminds me of the McCarthy trials, where the 5th amendment was thrown out and those who refused to answer were sent to jail. Never a good sign when congress considers itself that powerful...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


49 posted 03-20-2009 07:42 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     "Bill of Attainder" is never great language to be used about congress, and even worse when accurate.  Designed specifically to nail executives at A.I.G. and their bonuses, this does sound very much like the sort of law the constitution does prohibit.  It comes up in the House, which is where such a bill would be expected to come up, and it appears to be being quietly made to go away in the Senate, which is why the Senate is there, at least in part.  I don't see this as the Congress acting out of control, but as acting as it should be acting, for a change.

     As for the AIG bonuses themselves, we're all riding a wave of rage about business right now, much of it justified.  That doesn't mean that this outrage is justified, only that we've heard the most outrageous part of the case from the prosecution, as it were, and nothing of substance from the defense.  I'd rather have decent information from both sides before I offer a judgement on the business practices here.  Right now, they don't seem very defensible, I must say, but we might hold off on booking the date for the hanging until we know more about what AIG was thinking at the time.

     Beyond that, it's a principle in doing psychotherapy, that you don't want to take a piece of craziness away from somebody until you have something healthy that works at least as well on line and happily ready for all parties concerned to replace it.  Psychotherapists have learned this lesson from bitter experience, and it may be general enough a rule to apply to the way systems in general work.  In this case, I mean economic systems.  AIG is a vast enterprise that does a lot of things for the economy of this and other nations.  Those who would let it and some of the other larger players in the economy go down the tubes may in fact prove correct, but I would suspect that they have not run a good engineering systems failure analysis on their hope for a good outcome.  The complexity of the problem is potentially as large or larger than long range prediction of weather systems.  The outcome is likely to prove more a guess than anything else.  

     I for one would rather that as little doctrine and political philosophy go into decisions such as this as possible and as much hard data and reliably proved modeling as possible.  Call me a dreamer.

     The sound of folks baying after the blood of the miscreants may work well in werewolf movies, but I'n not sure government by rage is as useful as government by reason.  In other words, Insufficient Data; and Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> How Now, Down Dow?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors