»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
How Now, Down Dow?
| The Alley |
|
How Now, Down Dow? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Self-described "middle-of-the-road Democrat, Obama supporter and CNBC analyst Jim Cramer: Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people. The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have. ... But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity and that help eliminate the excess supply of homes. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/3/5/jim-cramer-to-barack-obama-youve-made-things-worse.html WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is comparing the stock market to the daily tracking polls used during campaigns, saying that paying too close attention to Wall Street's "fits and starts" could lead to bad long-term policy. Obama spoke to reporters Tuesday after meeting in the Oval Office with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Obama said he is not measuring policies against "the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market," but by whether lending is flowing more freely, businesses are investing and the unemployed are going back to work. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MMP3O3&show_article=1 Will someone please remind the community organizer that the stock market is not a tracking poll and these "day to day gyrations" are better described as a nosedive? |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
turtle Senior Member
since 2009-01-23
Posts 548Harbor |
Hi Balladeer, Yeah, I'm pretty much seeing the same thing on CNN as well. Quote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ but by whether lending is flowing more freely, businesses are investing and the unemployed are going back to work. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lets see, what part of this WASHINGTON (AP) release do I think is wishful thinking....  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
let's see indeed, turtle..... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think Kramer (regardless of his track record) brings up some good points for discussion. quote: Why should middle class homeowners live in socialized housing? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I agree, your President is a waste of space. he's clearly responsible for creating and fuelling perhaps the biggest financial collapse in economic history. Err.. hang on, the stock market has just posted a massive rally in share prices. I take it all back, Obama’s plan seems to be working, but if it share prices fall again tomorrow I reserve my right to change my mind again. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! I was waiting for that...one gain in the past week after week of the market doing it's best Titanic impersonation and someone will some along to say all is well (even tongue in cheek  )Let's see how long that will last....personally, i'd like to see it last for months and possibly salvage something out of what once was considered an IRA. Having see the track record up to this point, however, it's more likely that it will only last until someone from the administration opens their mouth with the next ridiculous comment to send it dropping again. Poor Kramer...they're really after him now. He's finding out that even having been a solid Democrat in good standing for years, that won't save him from the media hounds being unleased at anyone who would dare claim Obama is screwing up. We could have told him that's their normal modus operandi. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
So you’re saying that Cramer is wrong and Obama is right, that we should ignore daily gyrations in the stock market and look at the underlying trends. I agree. quote: If Cramer is as wrong as you suggest Mike are the negative comments he’s getting not deserved? Besides after his "Buy Bear Stearns" advice seven weeks before it collapsed the guy deserves a mauling. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The fact that you can take my words and come up with the exact opposite of what I am saying (intentionally) is proof, I suppose , that you and I will never be able to communicate effectively. No, I don't think that Kramer is wrong and I don't believe Obama is right. Kramer has voiced the opinions of Buffett and many money experts in the field and for a president to say he doesn't pay that much attention to the market is an imbecile. Does Kramer deserve to be jumped on? According to the Democrats, certainly. After all, he spoke against Obama. That's a sin, even for a democrat like he is. That sounds the bugle, rallies the troops, tells the talk shows to target him and get the presses rolling to bury him. How ironic that a solid Democrat like Kramer would find himself villified by his own party and defended by someone like Limbaugh, simply for speaking his own mind. Perhaps Kramer does deserve a mauling after his Bear Sterns advice but why wasn't he mauled when it happened instead of now digging back to resurrect it for ammunition? You know why. It all part of an orchestrated smear campaign. Going along that way of thinking Barney Frank must certainly deserve a mauling, too, for his "Fannie and Freddie are fine" comment while being warned they weren't.....but that must be different to you, I suppose. Interesting to see that the Bash Kramer movement has traveled all the way to England.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Yeah. I agree. It's shamefull how the Democrats take faithful followers and trash them after simple screw-ups. Like Rob Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer(a personal friend and school chum of Cramer's), Roland Burris... Instead it should take its' shamed and stand by them like the Republicans do.. like David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Micheal Steele, GW.... Of Course the real question is -- would you buy a used car from Jim Cramer? (and Mike -- it is spelled with a 'C' as you spelled it in your originating post. I used a 'K' as a sarcastic spelling comparing the motormouthed daytrader to Sienfeld's Zany neighbor Cosmo'Kramer') I'm afraid you're going to have to substantiate the claim though that the 'Democrats are trashing Cramer'. I see a fued with Jon Stewart and Frank Rich with some opportunistic digging from Faux News mogul Roger Ailes; quote: The only real damage done to Cramer though has come through his own lips. But, now, what about that wealth re-distribution from renters to middle class home-owners that it seems you're in favor of? Have you gone socialist on us? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nice talking to ya, reb. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: What are you saying Mike? Cramer said we should track Obama’s success by the daily movements of the stock market. Obama said we should measure success by the underlying signs and long term trends and not the daily gyrations of the stock market. You seem to agree with Cramer when the market is down and Obama when the market is up, or put another way you move the goalposts to score a goal against Obama. It’s a nice trick but it isn’t what you might call fair. quote: What can I say.. The guy is wrong, he has a history of being wrong, and if pointing that out is Cramer bashing I’m guilty as charged whether I come from England, Uzbekistan or Mars. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Cramer said we should track Obama’s success by the daily movements of the stock market. Please point out where he said that. I see nothing in his comments about daily movements of the market. What I do see is Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president That covers the block of time since Obama took charge, not a "daily movement" (even though the daily movement of that block of time has been primarily down) Obama said we should measure success by the underlying signs and long term trends Well, the underlying signs so far have been negative and the long term trend has been down. you seem to agree with Cramer when the market is down and Obama when the market is up I don't understand that statement. Since Obama is only interested in long term trends, are you saying that one day up is a long term trend? Why would i agree with Obama due to the market going up one day,when Obama claims those fluctuations don't interest him? Obama is fashioning his retorts the only way he can. Had the market shown an upward trend since his taking over as chief, he would be the first to say, "Just look at the market. The country believes in my actions."Since it has shown an incredible downward trend, he is forced to say the market's actions are not really important to him because he is going for the "long term" trend. How long is that? As long as he wants it to be. It's his definition. He likens the market to a 'tracking poll". Well, in some ways it IS a poll - a poll of those with money to invest showing their lack of confidence in the economy and in his plans to make it better. Maybe, in his spare time, it would be in his interest to actually pay a little attention to it. (thank you for acknowledging the possibility that you may actually be from Mars. That would explain a lot.) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
 I know this isn't the stock market but it might give us some perspective. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
crashingcomparisons This is too big to post here but if you want to look at the stock market crash in comparison to others. The cut off is Oct. 2008. crashingcomparisons2 Here is a second one. This charts the last 17 months. The cut off date here is March 11 -- I think. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting, Brad. Thank you. I couldn't get the link to work.. Curious that in a Rasmussen poll conducted today 53% polled claimed they believe we are headed toward a depression equal to the one in the 1930's. I'd say we have a ways to go, no? Why do they think that? Maybe that's because that's what's been drummed into their heads for the past month. Negativity breeds negativity and that's been the steady diet of Democratic rhetoric...total destruction UNLESS their bills are passed immediately. Funny thing is that,now that they have seen the bills, they are STILL negative. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, You don’t like my reference to daily stock market movements Mike fine, change it to weekly, fortnightly, monthly it doesn’t really matter. That’s because none of them are good indicators of the success of Obama’s recovery plan because, to be blunt, no recovery is likely to happen in those timescales. It’s going to be a long hard slog and the markets are likely to continue in a downward trend before they bottom out and start to turn. [Edited - Ron] What Cramer is doing is, in effect, like trying to convince everyone that the fire department is to blame for his house fire while they’re still trying to connect the hoses. To do that he’s pointing at the flames as evidence of their culpability insisting that they’ve been getting worse in the ten minutes it took the firemen to arrive and start tackling the blaze. quote: ... we’re in a recession, what does Cramer expect, massive gains? [Edited - Ron] quote: Did the downturn in the markets start on the day of the inauguration? Is Obama suddenly to blame for instigating the nosedive? Obama has inherited a recession that will continue under it’s own steam in the short term regardless of what anyone does. It can possibly be slowed in the medium term but will only be reversed, if at all, in the long term AFTER the solutions put in place are given a chance to take effect. . [This message has been edited by Ron (03-11-2009 06:48 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
none of them are good indicators of the success of Obama’s recovery plan No, they are indicators of investor confidence in Obama's abilities to create a solution. Having said that, I'm done. If we are at the point where Ron has to step in and clean up your comments (which normally doesn't occur until the second or third page, at least), I'm not interested in continuing. Have fun without me  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m a little mystified as to why Ron edited my comments Mike, he seems to have removed the parts where I described Cramer’s claims as stupid and silly and a light-hearted dig at myself as being a “mere martian” which as far as understand them don’t breach any of the guidelines. But I guess the discussion is over, see you around. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama startled reporters on Tuesday by seeming to encourage stock buying after his top aides had said for weeks that they were unconcerned over short-term drops in the markets. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19741.html |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Thursday, March 12, 2009 A Hugely Important Upturn in Retail Sales [Larry Kudlow] Doom-and-gloom crowd take notice: Today’s retail-sales report showed far more strength than Wall Street economists dreamed possible. Overall, February was down slightly, but January was revised up to a 1.8 percent gain. Excluding autos, February was up 0.7 percent and January was up 1.6 percent. In terms of core retail sales (ex autos, gas, and building materials), which feed into the GDP reports, February was up 0.5 percent and January was up 1.7 percent. In fact, consumer spending in first-quarter GDP could turn positive. Overall, GDP will be down because of a massive inventory liquidation, but the sooner that draw-down is complete the faster we’ll get positive GDP growth — maybe even in Q2. Meanwhile, the retail-sales upturn is hugely important. I suspect two factors are at work. First is the energy tax-cut plunge — most especially with retail gas prices going from over $4 to under $2 since last summer. This means the existing level of personal income is worth more to consumers in terms of buying power because of zero inflation and the energy tax cut, which probably amounts to $400 billion annually. Second is the rapid buildup of the M2 money supply over the past six months. M2 is growing at a double-digit annual rate, following on the Fed’s big liquidity expansion of its balance sheet. With commodities in the open market now stabilizing, the turnover of money (velocity) is also probably stabilizing, and M2 will be a huge economic stimulant in the months ahead. In other words, even before one dime of the Obama spending package goes into play, the economy is beginning to show the first signs of recovery. Stocks, by the way, are up 240 points at this writing — their third-straight daily rise on the shoulders of new banking profit reports and today’s positive retail-sales numbers. Tuesday, March 10, 2009 A Yield-Curve Rally on Wall Street [Larry Kudlow] The upward-sloped yield curve has come to Wall Street for a real bailout of the big banks. Today, Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit told Bloomberg that the bank has turned profitable with its best numbers since 2007. This echoes what BofA CEO Ken Lewis told CNBC about two weeks ago. At the heart of this newfound profitability is a very simple but powerful idea: When short-term Treasury rates are well under long-term rates, banks profit. This is principally because banks borrow short to lend longer. Back in 2006 and 2007 the yield curve was inverted, and it took its toll on the banking system — playing a major role in the credit crunch. Now, however, Citi, BofA, and probably many others are experiencing good trading profits and good money on their various servicing functions for consumers, corporations, and governments. Net interest margins are rising. Short-term money is almost free these days, with the fed funds rate near zero and T-bills around 25 basis points. But the rest of the curve is 2 to 3 percent. Additionally, FDIC-guaranteed deposits are surging at all the major banks, providing a strong lending base. All of this has created a huge 300-point rally in Wall Street trading — led by the financials, but extending across-the-board to all sectors on strong volume. The banks do have plenty of underwater toxic assets. But there is too much obsessing about these assets, which are held for long-run investment and should not be marked to market as there is no distressed market. Instead, investors should look at positive cash flows — and the strong profitability from these cash flows — in the new interest-rate environment of the upward-sloping Treasury curve. What’s more, the banks are funding their daily positions with no trouble. When Bear and Lehman failed it was because they couldn’t finance their daily positions. Obviously the banks are in better shape. Helping today’s trading, Rep. Barney Frank announced that the SEC would be restoring the uptick rule for short sellers, which had been in place for a long time until the SEC’s Chris Cox repealed it in 2007. This means bear raids on banks will be tougher since traders will have to wait for a stock to go up in price before they short it. But selling shares on a downtick in price greases the skids towards ridiculously low share prices for banks and others (think GE). There also is a lot of rumbling about a liberalization of the mark-to-market rule, which has wreaked so much havoc on bank profits and capital. One way out is to ask the banks for a market mark, but to amortize the implied losses over a period of five-to-seven years for regulatory capital purposes. This also would buy plenty of time for better bank earnings to bolster bank capital positions. Whether today’s big rally marks a turnaround or just a dead-cat bounce from an oversold market remains to be seen. But surely the return to profitability of America’s biggest banks is a good sign for economic recovery.” http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/ Again: “In other words, even before one dime of the Obama spending package goes into play, the economy is beginning to show the first signs of recovery.” And now that that spending package has been passed,(after suggestions the universe would collapse if it didn’t), there’s a change in tune; now things are really not that bad after all. Anyone notice the Chinese getting involved? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
People should, and some do, see how this whole thing has been orchestrated. Obama comes to the White House with very negative statements about the economy. He references the banking crisis, the housing crisis, the education crisis, the health care crisis and claims that the country is headed into a downfall in which it may not survive...UNLESS CONGRESS PASSES HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE IMMEDIATELY!! Immediately after having his stimulus bill passed, he then claims (yesterday) that "perhaps the economy is not as bad as originally thought". P.T. Barnum would be proud of Obama..... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So, exactly what is the conspiracy theory here? That Bush purposely engineered the weakest recovery in history wherein the middle class actually lost ground by $2000 per year during his term in office -- then through continuation of Reagan's move toward de-regulation and failing to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust act -- not to mention the Clinton removal of Glass/Steagal -- that allowed banks to become -- 'too big to fail' -- all so that the financial system could collapse -- we could funnel billions into them so that CEo's could keep thier huge bonuses -- John McCain would walk into the trap and 'suspend' his campaign to fix a crisis he obviously wasn't prepared to fix or even know anything about -- thereby the public would be furious with the Republicans, elect Obama -- and then he could pass his huge stimulus package and omnibus spending bills, kiss it, and say... all better....? But, of course -- we know what you'll be saying next week when the new unemployment numbers come out and the Dow drops again...I think you're right Mike -- P.T. Barnum said it right. There seem to be about 30% of them in the U.S. population -- not sure how that translates into minutes. And here's one that surely has had his 15 minutes; Cramer vs. Shamer (sorry couldn't embed it in PIPboard for some reason...) quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
But, of course -- we know what you'll be saying next week Just can't help yourself, LR? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh, I don't know Mike -- I usually help myself well enough. Help others all the time too. Here's some help for you. Wanna win more debates? Pick the argument that's supported by facts. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No one wins debates here, LR. The Alley is a place where we can talk about what bugs us and present facts as we see them. I am satisfied with the facts I have presented and you are surely satisfied with yours. I am satisfied with my opinions as you are. No one comes to the Alley for a debate tournament. The fact that Cramer is a Democrat is valid. The fact he spoke against Obama's economic plan is valid. The fact that Cramer, along with other prominent individuals, feel that raising taxes at this time is the wrong way to go is valid. The fact that Jon Stewart ambushed Cramer on his his show in an interview which was immediately reproduced on every major network is valid. There is nothing there to refute. I have presented my views on this thread. I have not initially singled out any one individual, nor have I initially used and sarcasm, insults or inuendos aimed at any individual. You can agree with my views or not. You can present your own views or not. I've tried to make my comments non-personal. It appears you can't do that....give it a try sometime. We can save Ron some trouble... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m curious Mike. Do you really believe that Cramer is a trustworthy source of information? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Is that a fact? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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: But on the subject of 'how bad the economy is; quote: But as to WHY they aren't giving the administration high marks; quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: You did. Have you read your originating post? quote: 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: 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: 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Thanks for to in-depth reply Mike quote: 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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: And what I said in 2001. quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: No, but I do need the answer to my question. You've said yourself: quote: 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: All of them. quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You are woman?????  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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: was changed, by Dodd, under pressure from the White House to; quote: But, to be fair let's remember what the Republican language was at the same time; quote: 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: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
"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 |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Hmmmm... it seems you're actually accusing the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats of being leaders here.. Although you've made it clear there's nothing I can say to change your mind about anything -- something or someone seems to have changed your mind about three times in this one thread -- from the Obama administration is incompetent -- to masterminding the entire recession -- to being incompetent -- to orchestrating a populist uprising... Of course -- this makes no sense to me-- because the Obama administration is in charge of the government. Populist uprisings are anathema to a sitting government. Because -- they have to govern. One of FDR's biggest banes was Huey Long's populism from the left... and Father Coughlin's right wing populism. Why would you feel the Republicans in the house who voted yea on the clawback tax did so because the administration and Barney Frank made them do it? This began simmering in the blogosphere my friend. And then it boiled over into the press, and by the time the Sunday talkers hit--the pitchforks and torches were in the street. That's when the Obama camp rolled out trying to calm things down by with Trumanish 'Mea Culpa -- now let's move on'. You point to a drop in Obama's numbers -- (which has only been visible at the end of this week) -- but that betrays your thesis -- the fire was already burning. Of course -- the House being the instrument of the people's passions -- the members are much more sensitive to voter sentiment -- which is why you saw them behaving the way they were. Now all of this could have been avoided if Geithner and team Obama had done what the drug-addict from Florida kept accusing them of doing -- which was nationalizing the banks -- instead they continued with the Hank Paulson model of a voluntary bail-out plan (and Obama's reason for picking Geithner since he was there at the inception --to provide continuity) -- which is why the whole recovery could have started to unravel if banks handed the money back. This stands to illustrate too, how detached from the real world the financial sector is -- Geightner's world of seven figure incomes gave him and the Wall Street executives a tin ear as to how this was going to play to the electorate -- or even his boss. Again though, like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo -- you point to the reporting and the debate in Congress as the problem -- instead of recognizing that those are just dominoes set in motion by the perpetrators. It is the burden of the press and the Congress to react. This is the price of freedom Mike. Our outrages are played out in real time for everyone to see. Decide which product it is that you want me to buy though. Incompetent and inexperienced Obama and friends -- or Obama the master Machiavellian. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Although you've made it clear there's nothing I can say to change your mind about anything - Well, LR, with this last entry of yours, it appears that applies equally to you as well. As I mentioned before, whatever facts or common sense deductions that do not agree with your way of thinking are either disregarded or refuted. So be it. Democrats are in charge of the White House and Congress. Whether or not they are competent (which they are not), the fact remains they are in charge. They are proving how incompetent they really are with this "take your bonus - give your bonus back!" fiasco. You don't want to recognize that is exactly what happened? Fine. You don't want to acknowledge that Chris Dodd came out with a bold-faced lie when he claimed he didn't change anything in the bill (which he had to recant)...fine. You don't want to acknowledge that Geitner's claim that he didn't know anything about the bonuses until March 17, which was recanted after a video came out on Youtube showing him being advised by a member of congress of the bonuses on March 10th, which made that another bold-faced lie fed to the American people,,,,,fine. You don't want to acknowledge that Obama going on national television ranting about the bonuses and Pelosi standing in front of congress ranting about the bonuses had as much to do with the hatred and death threats now directed at bonus receivers as the "internet groundswell"...fine. Far be it from me to interfere with PollyannaLand. Enjoy your world.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And perhaps this feigned outrage by our "leaders" (I use that term extremely lightly) over the bonuses, which Geitner, Obama, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, et al, knew were coming down the pike, and condoned, and legislativly facilitated, was merely a smokescreen to divert attention away from the $1.2 trillion that the Fed printed this past Wednesday, that will further devalue the dollar. I didn't see any MSM coverage on that. Keep everyone's attention glued to an outrageous situation while an infinitely more outrageous situation goes virtually unnoticed. These people would be comical if they weren't destroying this country. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I take it that you don’t agree that quantitative easing is the right thing to do Denise, what would you recommend as an alternative? . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: We agree they are in charge. Competence is a relative term and the question is competent at what and compared to what? Compared to the competence of those who brought us to this dance -- I don't want to go home with the ones who brung us. On the other hand I think the clawback tax is a mistake of Constitutional proportion. I think I said that already. Didn't I? quote: I don't think that what happened is that simplistic. The Republicans and the Treasury department didn't want to put these kind of restrictions on the financial institutions that are participating in TARP. I think it was an epic mistake for the Congress to have gone along with the Bush administrations 'just trust us' approach yet again -- as they did with the war in Iraq. Hank Paulson's doling out of 200 billion dollars with no strings attached brought us to this point where not one single toxic asset has been purchased -- but yet we're expecting a brand new administration to know what the compensation packages are at every single company -- how much more complaining of micro-managing and socialism would there be if they actually were making these kinds of decisions? quote: I don't? Maybe I do. You haven't really presented any factual information on this. I'm also not sure what Dodd claimed on Tuesday that he didn't have anything to do with -- was he talking about his own amendment or was he talking about the death of the Wyden/Snowe amendment? All that I'm sure of factually is the information I posted before -- which is more of an indictment of Geithner than Dodd. quote: I don't? Hmmmm... you'll have to show me where I don't. quote: Well. I've seen Obama say he understands that people are outraged -- and seen him calmly say we need to channel that anger in a positive direction. I don't know a single quote that's come from Pelosi on this matter. I do know that it was Republican Senator Charles Grassley who said the top executives of AIG should follow the Japanese model and kill themselves. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What would I do? Glad you asked, Grinch! First, I'd give the taxpayers a 3 to 6 month tax holiday. The people would kick start the economy much more effectively with that money than the government seems able to do. And during the tax holiday I'd start to push for the fair tax (tax on expenditures, not earnings). I'd also cut the capital gains tax, and make sure that the death tax is not reinstituted. Then I'd immediately stop any and all future bail outs of private companies with tax dollars. Sink or swim, let the chips fall where they may. Next, I'd stop the obscene increase in spending in Washington. I'd freeze all spending at last year's rate and go through everything with a fine tooth comb to see what else could be cut, where money could be saved and further reduce expenditures, you know, like we private citizens are being forced to do right now in our own personal budgets. I'd then rescind the pay increases (8%, I believe) that Congress just voted themselves and the increase in expense money they were given (about $90,000 additional per year per Congressperson, I believe it was, for their district offices and expenses). I'd then stop flying around in Air Force One campaigning for 2012, save about $30,000 in fuel (not to mention the additional fuel expense of the decoy plane) and cut down on the coctail parties, to say maybe once a month at the most. I'd also forego serving $100 per pound beef to the guests while the rest of us eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for dinner. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I applaud your willingness Denise to go on the record with your opinions.... however... let's keep facts straight, Congress has received an automatic pay raise of 8% since 1989 unless voted otherwise. They voted in 2007 to fore go the automatic raise and have voted to fore go it in 2010 -- while some Congress members and Senators (such as Reid) would like to do away with the automatic raise -- Pelosi isn't interested in bringing it up in the House at this time... and... why should she? The Republicans, after all, had between 1994 and 2006 to stop the automatic raise and they didn't. For the time being the raise for next year is off the table -- so why bother with legislation to remove it forever when there are obviously bigger fish to fry? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think it was an epic mistake for the Congress to have gone along with the Bush administrations 'just trust us' approach yet again Of course! The Bush administration! Not the democratic congress...Bush! I should have known. You haven't really presented any factual information on this. I'm also not sure what Dodd claimed on Tuesday that he didn't have anything to do with Why not look it up on your factcheck.org and then you won't have to claim you're not sure? It got enough word-for-word exposure for anuyone to not have to claim to be "not sure". and seen him calmly say we need to channel that anger in a positive direction I see. Then you haven't seen the newsclips of his outrage about such an abomination occurring, which was carried by all of the major news media? I don't know a single quote that's come from Pelosi on this matter. I see. Then you haven't seen the video od Pelosi standing before congress with her face twisted in anger, ranting about how she will not accept that same abomination and how they will not get away with it? It's interesting that, when you want to prove your points, you do great research on factcheck.org but with facts that may go against your arguments, you "don't know" or are "not sure" or "haven't seen" and yet you claim you would change your opinions based on facts. That dog won't hunt any more.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m not sure that your budget would work Denise. quote: Presumably you’d lay off all the people that the government pay with that revenue. Or are you going to keep paying them and borrow the money? Or you could just print some more money I suppose. quote: This would increase prices and reduce consumer spending, the opposite of what you need at the moment. Reduced spending means lower sales, lower sales means businesses go bust or reduce their workforce requirements and that means higher unemployment. Higher unemployment means more people need government support from tax revenue but you don’t have any because of the tax holiday. You could just print some more money I suppose. quote: Mass unemployment and bankruptcies being the most likely. More people on government support, no tax revenue. Print more money? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
if you would really like to know what Dodd said so that you can be sure, here it is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZKqp14Szco&NR=1 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
here's the entire cast... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xehVYNaqqzM |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks for the clarification on the Congressional pay raises, L.R. I think it's time to abolish it altogether. The more fish we can fry right now the better. If they want a raise let them vote for it every year. I don't think a tax holiday would bankrupt the country, Grinch. It would give us all a little breathing room and thereby increase spending, which is what the economy needs at this point in time (and not credit card spending, but cold hard cash). And a permanent decrease in tax liability to the folks who create jobs would also help get things moving in the right direction again. I also think a Federal sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a much better way to go. Without a tax on our wages we'd have much more disposable income. I don't think sales would go down, but just the opposite. Of course the government may have less money under their control, but I don't see that as a bad thing, just the opposite in fact. We need a smaller Federal government that gets back to the basic essentials and keeps its hands out of our pockets. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Was there some other administration in charge back in September of 2008? Did AIG's first Fed bailout and the subsequent TARP bill come into being under a ghost regime? Was Obama already President? Even before the election? quote: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/20/national-republican-senatorial-committee/Dodd-failed-to-halt-bailout-bonuses/ http://www.factcheck.org/politics/blame_dodd_attacks_ignore_facts.html Ok I've seen the CNN clip now... thanks. I don't see a bold-faced lie there. That would imply some level of engagement on Dodd's part. What I saw was an idiot who didn't know what his staff was doing -- or did -- or what he agreed to. In my opinion that's worse than prevarication. That's plain old dereliction of duty. Still -- the point remains -- idiot or not -- the important thing to note was that the change was coming from the White House and Geithner. quote: I saw the newsclip of him clumsily trying to be 'choked up' with anger -- and his faux pounding of the lectern? Is that what you're refering to? In every clip you showed me in your montage -- he's calm, collected, and reflecting views you've offered yourself. quote: No. quote: You're leveling an accusation at me for not searching to prove -- your points? If you want to make a point Mike -- isn't the burden of proof on you? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, not really. In an actual search for truth, examining facts should be conducted by all concerned, regardless of who presents them initially. If i want to say I'm right, I should submit proof. If you want to say I'm wrong, you should submit proof that i am. Just saying "I don't know about that" is weak in this internet superhighway age. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So, then, it's my job to anticipate all of your source material before you submit an opinion so that I make sure I'm familiar with it prior to your posting? Please show me where I've ever said 'you're wrong' without pointing you to the correct information. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t either, it would bankrupt the government though who rely on tax revenue to pay staff and supply services, think of them as a business Denise. What you’re suggesting is that you can cut off the revenue of a business and still expect it to continue trading. I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation. Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of worrying side effects to quantitative easing. A tendency to rapid inflation somewhere down the line being the biggest, but I’ve not heard anyone suggest anything better so far. Reducing tax, however good an idea it sounds isn’t an effective tool right now, it doesn’t take much to see that if you really think about it. People suggest that if you reduce the tax burden on employers they’ll employ more people. Does that make any sense? Since when has it been common practice to employ more people than you actually need to do business? That’s totally contrary to business and common sense. Businesses employ more people when the demand for their goods and services requires that they increase output. Some might say that giving rich people more money will allow them spend more. Will it? Well rich people do spend a lot of money, you see it all the time they buy whatever they want or need. So what the heck are they going to spend their tax bonus on Denise? Stuff they don’t want? No they’re going to stick it into a high interest account and add the interest to the pile of money they already haven’t spent. Rich people are rich because they don’t spend all their money, if they did they’d be poor people. If you want to increase spending give the money to the poor folk - they’re experts at spending - they spend every penny they can get their hands just to survive day to day. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nor sure I understand your point, grinch. Leaving more money in people's pockets will certainly increase spending. Increased spending will lead to more sales. More sales will lead to more production. More production will lead to more jobs. is there something wrong with that way of thinking? |
||
|
Artic Wind Member Rara Avis
since 2007-09-16
Posts 8080Realm of Supernatural |
actually Balladeer, I agree very much ARCTIC WIND |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Have you heard of any success stories when quantitative easing has been employed, Grinch? Isn't hyper-inflation a reality in countries where it has been tried, where people need wheelbarrows of money to buy a loaf of bread? And people burning their paper money for heating and cooking fuel because it is basically worthless as money? Didn't that happen recently in Botswana, I think? The government would still get tax revenue, just not through wages, but rather through people spending their wages on goods and services. If you permanently reduce the tax rate on the business people you give them the capital and incentive to grow their businesses, without fear of punitive increases in taxation the more successful they get, and put them in the position to become more confident to invest more of their earnings in expanding their businesses, without the fear of the government penalizing them for creating more wealth. Increased demand for goods and services goes hand in hand with the ability of regular folks to afford those goods and services, and that would come through increased employment and also increased disposable income. And the less the government interferes in this cycle, the better it tends to function as it should. I believe that rich people and poor people, and all of us in between, should spend the money that we've earned, and no one else's. I no more want a tax reduction that comes at the expense of someone else's hard earned money, than I want a tax increase to provide free services to those the government deems eligible. Government aid to the truly needy should be minimal. The family, community, churches, synagogues and mosques should be the primary providers of charity to the needy, not the government, in my opinion. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No it won‘t Mike, getting people to put their hand in their pocket and actually spending the money will increase spending. If someone gave me a tax cut I’d put it to one side for the predicted rainy days ahead. All that does is remove the money from circulation, that’s what happens in a recession, the monetary conveyor belt grinds to a halt and if you don’t get it going the machine explodes. quote: Yes. There are hundreds of them, quantitative easing is just a fancy name for devaluation of a fiat currency or just plain devaluation if you like. It’s been used successfully by almost every economy in the past - including the US. quote: No. Quantitative easing is used in two cases, the first is when you need to increase the flow of credit, such as during a recession and which is normally during a period of deflation such as we have now. Quantitative easing however is sometimes used during inflation, to basically ensure that there’s enough money out there to fill demand. Unfortunately this tends to fuel inflation leading to hyper-inflation. quote: Err.. Sales are down across the board Denise, people aren’t spending and unemployment is rising which means less tax revenue and more unemployment benefits to pay from a reducing pot. Is it really a good idea to raise the price of goods and reduce the tax revenue in those circumstances? quote: How? Businesses grow by selling more, the more they sell the more they need to produce and the more people they need to employ. Businesses are shedding jobs right now because sales have dropped and they don’t need to produce as much. How many are going to expand production in the face of reduced demand? None if they have any sense whatsoever. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If someone gave me a tax cut I’d put it to one side for the predicted rainy days ahead. All that does is remove the money from circulation, We will have to agree to disagree on this one, grinch. People aren't putting aside for rainy days. They are paying for what they need NOW. People have had to cut back on expenses. people are having a hard time making payments. People have cut back on anything that can be considered an "extra". They are not thinking about rainy days. THIS is their rainy day. You know what business grew the most during the Depression? The movie industry...look it up. People found a way to take whatever money they could and go to the movies. They needed an escape and spent their money to get it. People would do the same today. People with more money will spend it and the economy will benefit from it. If you don't want to believe that, then that's your choice.. |
||
|
Dark Star Member
since 2008-02-20
Posts 392Lost in your eyes |
yah, but people in the great depression were less civilized than soceity is now. we now-a-days have a smarter financial plan and how to deal with our money balladeer. we didn't make the same mistakes people did back then, they used there money non-stop for entertainment purposes. I think that we are not that bad in money spending on entertainment that put us all in dept but i do agree with you on the part that we have to be prepared for the "rain day" ahead Lana |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You think people who lived through during the Great Depression were less civilized than today's generation, Lana? I think people today who have that "smarter financial plan" are now wishing that they had followed in their grandparent's/parent's footsteps and hid their money in their mattresses and cookie jars and wish they had never heard of such a thing as a credit card. |
||
|
Dark Star Member
since 2008-02-20
Posts 392Lost in your eyes |
I know Denise, I agree with that I mean about the entertainment issues, and how some people believe that people could go into a depression because we were spending money on entertainment, more less, government.I just believe that we are dealing with our money a little better than before. But the government is essentially greedy, and wanted lots more money these past years, therefore, dept. What annoys me is that, why can't they put there money out for saving the planet, they may have some where in the world, but that's not enough. Global warming is serious stuff. Thanks for this Denise, I do agree with you. Lana ***** |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: What does 'earned' mean Denise? Does that include inheriting it from your parents? Irrational exuberance? Winnings from gambling? Didn't the executives at AIG 'legally' earn their bonuses? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It means working for it, inheriting it, winning it, however it came to be yours, it's yours, bonuses and all. However it was gotten legally. I heard these financial institutions were encouraged by the government to structure their executive salaries so the majority of it would be in bonuses. I guess it was more beneficial to the government for some reason. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: And you see -- therein lies the problem with approaching the subject from a point of pure ideology. How much of it is mine to keep? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
For another view of the situation that seems somewhat different than that of either the Democrats or Republicans http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/05/taxes_matter_but_the_dollar_ma.html This article suggests that the problem may lie with other than taxes but with the state of the dollar, and it seems to make a pretty good case for it. It also points out how the state of the dollar is inflationary, and how this is an unnamed tax that can hit folks pretty hard. From my own partisan Democratic point of view, I have additional things to say, but I want to keep them distinct from this article whose point of view to my uneducated economic mind seems more strictly economic than anything else. Perhaps I'm overly naive, at least about this piece of writing, since I do have a fair to so-so shot at telling Freedman from Keynes. I'm interested in reactions. I'd like to point out as well that we seem to have fallen into the habit of dealing with people as if there was something real called The Economic Man. Economists have given up that thought. There is no more an Economic Man than there is a Psychological Man, or a Political Man or a Religious Man or A Playing Man; and pretending that we can predict what folks will do by looking at mass behavior through these lenses will yield limited and somewhat distorted data. I fear that if I go into much detail here, I'll get people talking off the point I wanted to make, which was about the solidity of the dollar and the article I found. A different approach, as I suggested. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama tries to temper furor over AIG bonuses By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 24, 7:44 am ET WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is trying to dampen a fire he once stoked, urging a more tempered response to public furor over bonuses paid to executives of the publicly rescued insurance giant American International Group. Obama's tone changed dramatically after the House voted last week for targeted taxes to take back most of the $165 million in bonuses paid to AIG executives. Many lawmakers felt Obama had encouraged their step, because he called the bonuses reckless, outrageous and unjustified. Apparently Obama's actions were not only in my mind, LR. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I believe that everything a person earns should be theirs to keep. That's why I believe in the Fair Tax, being taxed on the expenditures of a person's own choosing, thereby determining how much or how little tax they pay. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
.Last week, he was asked by reporters on the White House South Lawn whether anger was getting in the way of pushing through banking reforms. "I don't want to quell anger," he replied. "I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123785266231219605.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_itp actually, that entire article should be read to show how the Obama administration feels about Wall Street, including such views as: The administration's initial approach contrasted with those of the last two White Houses. Robert Rubin left Goldman Sachs Group to become one of Bill Clinton's top economic advisers, and convinced the new president that what was good for Wall Street was good for America. Under President George W. Bush, the administration "looked up to and admired Wall Street," says one banker. "The Obama folks don't even like us." The class warfare I had mentioned lately is coming to fruition. Gangs with pitchforks and torches have picketed AIG bonus receipient houses, some of them reportedly bussed in by ACORN. Too bad Obama doesn't know anybody in ACORN. Maybe he could get them to stop??? But, then, why would he want to? |
||
|
Dark Star Member
since 2008-02-20
Posts 392Lost in your eyes |
thank the government for tax return |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Sorry Mike, I saw this and I simply have trouble following it. Where'd you get the the attribution? This makes no sense at all. Quote: quote: Who "reported" this "reportedly bussed in by ACORN business" that you won't source here? Is it some organization that uses multiple and named sources such as the Conservative but reputable The Economist? Perhaps The Christian Science Monitor? The Atlantic? Or might it be somebody during the second hour of Rush Limbaugh, who has returned from his golf tour today (3/24/09) with comments about ACORN that he hasn't bothered to source? Not meaning to be mysterious here, I mean Limbaugh himself. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (03-25-2009 06:10 AM).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Any number of media outlets, local and national, carried versions of the story about ACORN's involvement. Maybe it was just coincidental the "tour" commenced at the ACORN offices. http://wiltonvillager.com/story/466786 The tour schedule is as follows: 10 a.m. Pick up at the Working Families headquarters in Hartford at 30 Arbor St. 11 a.m. Pick up in Bridgeport at the ACORN offices at 2320 Main St. Tour and Protest at AIG Financial Products headquarters, 50 Danbury Road, and executives' homes 2:30 p.m. Return to Bridgeport 3:30 p.m. Return to Hartford |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Thank you, Tim. ...and, Bob, I checked....Rush Limbaugh does not own the Wilton Villager |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike and Tim, quote: I check the source Tim offered. It seems straightforward. It said that the folks in the tour were being pick up in front of ACORN offices. It said nothing about gangs. Nor did the police interviewed in the article. The police said nothing about gangs, and they said nothing about torches and pitchforks. Nor did they say anything about these houses being picketed, though, to be truthful, I have heard from sources that I cannot quote or remember rumors of picketing. I am against such practices, personally, because I don't believe all the information on what happened with AIG is in, and that there has been an over-swift rush to judgement on the part of the public. And an over-swift rush to take positions on the thing by both parts of the political spectrum. My personal opinion. That the folks were picked up in front of ACORN offices does not mean that ACORN bussed them in or organized the response. If they have, I would be disappointed in them. I don't believe they should be doing that sort of thing. Their business is, however, not simply voter-registration, but also community organization, isn't it? I simply feel that this is bad community organizing, if in fact the accusation has merit to it. Facts please? Sincerely, Bob Kaven They may be truthful |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'd like to know how this group got the names and addresses of the AIG employees. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Just a coincidence that they were picked up in front of the Acorn offices, bob? It's hard for me to believe a man of your intelligence would even infer that.... The largest U.S. labor union, the SEIU, and leftist activists from MoveOn.org among others called protests for more than 100 cities the day after President Barack Obama declared, "People are right to be angry -- I'm angry." http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52I7ZP20090319?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews So are you as disappointed in Moveon.Org? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
The pitchforks and torches to me was the common folk going after Frankenstein. In any event, I had initially thought the Obama administration was going to be similar to the Carter administration. Unfortunately, I would welcome the Carter years over the direction it appears we are now heading. Since the President has such a thing for Lincoln, I will use a quote often attributed to Lincoln. "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." I certainly admit to being a moderate Republican. When individuals I know to have strong liberal creditials are getting worried, then it is time to figure out whom is getting fooled. For anyone to argue with a straight face as is still being done that the President is a centrist or left centrist is beyond my simple ability to comprehend. To still believe this administration is engaged in a new form of bi-partisanship would cause one also to believe Raum Emanuel is the tooth fairy. The talk of bi-partisanship is a great slogan. Unfortunately, we have a partisan form of government. Instead of bi-partisanship, we need statesmanship, which is in an extremely short supply. Yes, I am worried for my children and grandchildren. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Explain to me again how peaceful assembly is a bad thing? Or is it only bad when it targets someone else's agenda instead of our own? Any freedom worth having is subject to abuse. If we fail to support that abuse just as vigorously as we would support a legitimate exercise of freedom, there is no freedom. There is only privilege. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It goes a little beyond peaceful assembly, Ron. Do you feel that everyone who got bonuses are evil? They received what their contracts called for and what congress agreed they could have. What about all the hate mail, graphically displaying how the people should be killed (which were read to congress by the AIG head, explaining why he didn;t want to give out names)? Is that peaceful, too? Support abuse? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. ..and when that abuse is spurred on by the President and carried out by the organization he used to work for and was instrumental in his election, it makes it even more distasteful. You can support abuse against innocents if you like. I'll continue to call it abuse. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"If we fail to support that abuse just as vigorously as we would support a legitimate exercise of freedom, there is no freedom." That one I miss. I was brought up to object to abuses of the system. Freedom of speech and the other freedoms so many have fought and died for are the cornerstones and foundations of our country. Certainly ACORN, the Klu Klux Klan, or even Fred Phelps (who Kansans are ashamed of and consider despicable) have the right to peaceable assembly. That does not mean the rest of us are to sit back and applaud the exercise of their constitutional rights. When private individuals are getting death threats and worse and an organization plans a protest to go t0 the private residences of those individuals, knowing full well the intended result (fear and intimidation to the families (including children) living in those residences, then I also have a right as an American to say you have crossed the line. Personally, I think the training videos to go out to rally support for the President, including the use of children, are a wee bit weird and troubling. Others may not, but I have a right to my statements and feelings. Freedom of speech is a two way street. You can say and do it, but the other side has a right to say, hey, wait a minute, you've crossed the line and we object. That is freedom of speech. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, if they want to conduct their "peaceful assemblies" in the right places, they should be going to the homes of Chris Dodd, who amended the bill, and the members of congress, who passed it. THAT would be the proper place for their demonstrations... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Does anyone know how the employee's names and addresses were made available? By whom? To whom? Didn't the CEO say that he would give the names to Congress but requested they not be made public for safety concerns? And didn't Barney Frank say that he couldn't promise to keep them private? Did Frank or someone else in Congress release these names to the SEIU? If so, how despicable is that? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Do you feel the Vietnam war was evil, Balladeer? Or civil rights? How about the picket line down at your local AFL-CIO? Does freedom depend on your opinion? quote: I think a cold blooded killer walking the streets simply because someone forgot to read him his Miranda rights is an abuse of the system, Tim. Do you? quote: Those are illegal, of course, whether to private individuals or to public servants. quote: So, Tim, you think demonstrations resulting in fear and intimidation should be illegal? Like the civil rights marches of the Sixties or the picketing of abortion clinics today? quote: Certainly you have a right to say it, Tim. But you're clearly wrong. Crossing the line means yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Crossing the line means breaking the law and going to jail. When lines are crossed, I'll be the first to dial 911 and report it. If y'all want to prevent people from collectively expressing their opinions, or at least opinions you don't like, you're going to have to make a few changes to the Constitution. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
you think demonstrations resulting in fear and intimidation should be illegal? Like the civil rights marches of the Sixties or the picketing of abortion clinics today? against innocents, Ron? Yes, I do. Many of the people who received bonuses last year are innocents. Their wives and children are certainly innocents. I can't think poorly enough of you to believe you condone such tactics against innocents. If that's what you think the constitution stands for, let me say you are wrong. The thousands of death threat e-mails are also wrong, but they are no different than the protesters on the lawns in intimidation tactics. Don't you feel the protesters would be more properly placed on the lawns of the congressmen who allowed the bonuses to be paid? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So America only gets to protest against people you've decided are guilty, Mike? quote: You keep trying to make it about an issue, Mike. An issue you clearly find distasteful. It can't be about the issue and still be about the essence of freedom. The right to peaceful assembly is either a freedom enjoyed by every American, or it's a privilege granted only to the ones you like. Which is it to be? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, Ron, I consider your argument to be double-speak. Of course it is about an issue. The issue is the bonuses paid out. The protesters are going after the receipients and not the people who granted the bonuses in the first place. You refuse to address that and prefer to talk around it. Only the people I find to be innocent, Ron? Fine....then you tell me how the families and children of bonus receivers are not innocents. Let ANYONE tell me how these families are not innocents. Let groups of people wind up on your front lawn, carrying signs against you, screaming harsh protests against you, insulting you while your wife and children are inside, afraid to go out, and all because they feel that your university salary, the one the university agreed to pay you, is too high, based on the amount of starving people in Gander. Let's hear about how justified you believe their actions are then as you try to explain it to your children. We can simply agree to disagree because there is nothing you can say which will convince me that this vigilante rule, spurred on by the president and orchestrated by his staunch supporters, ACORN and MOVEON,Org is justifiable and, apparently, there is nothing I can say to you to convince you that any repercussions should be laid to the feet of congress, where it belongs. Such is life..... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ohhhh, no, Mike. If you want to be the arbiter of guilt and innocence in America, fine. But don't drag me into the crusade, if you please. quote: Not for me, Mike. The only issue that concerns me is the Constitutionally protected right to peaceful assembly. The rest is just hyperbole and public opinion. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Personally I don’t agree with picketing outside the homes of AIG staff, it‘s not something I‘d be comfortable being involved in. On the other hand as long as the protests are peaceful I don’t believe I’ve any right to dictate whether others should or shouldn’t be doing it. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
But did anyone in the government, whether it was someone in Congress or someone in the Executive Branch, have the right to release the names and home addresses to the SEIU for the purpose of facilitating protests? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I've no idea Denise - Probably disgruntled workers leaked the handful of details that got out. I did read this while searching - I didn't notice any pitchforks or torches mentioned - seemed quite peaceful as protests go. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/nyregion/22working.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, Ron, I'll try it one more time, not that I think it will do any good. Without the bonuses, there would be no protests, therefore the bonuses are the issue. You have two participants... (1) The congress, who approved the bonuses (2) The employees who received them. Where do the protests belong? I say the congress, which you refuse to answer. If you want to say both, I give it to you but you appear to say #2, which makes no sense to me at all. If you were to say #1, which is the logical response, then the demonstrations against #2 and not #1 make no sense. Ok, I'm done..... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I wouldn’t go for either Mike, the bonuses were pre-arranged and mostly went to people who played no part in the problems that AIG got itself into. I think Ron’s point though is that if you demand the right to protest when and where you want protest you can’t demand that the same right is taken away from everyone else - you either allow the freedom to peacefully protest or you don’t. It’s not about the issue it’s about whether people should have the freedom to peacefully protest regardless of how wrong you think they may be. Like I said, personally I wouldn’t be picketing either of your proposed targets but if anyone wants to protest against either they should feel free to do so. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Mike, my point is that YOU don't get to say where or how someone else protests, not so long as they're assembling legally. I won't pick your number one or two, because in my opinion neither is justified. My understanding, which is sorely limited, is that the bonuses were contractual obligations. Where I come from, when you say you're going to do something, you do it. Our government has a nasty habit of signing contracts (and treaties), and then changing their minds later. Go ask an Indian. Now, the government apparently wants to force American business to operate under the same "flexible" guidelines? The time to protest a contract (or treaty) is before it's signed, not after. Nonetheless . . . how I feel about the issue shouldn't prevent you from protesting against Congress for giving AIG the money to pay the bonuses. Just as your feelings about the issue shouldn't prevent ACORN or anyone else from protesting against the executives taking the bonuses. We're all allowed to disagree. What we're NOT allowed to do is try to silence each other. I'm just saying. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yep, I understand, Grinch. I guess it just irks me that this situation was instigated by Obama with his "The public should be angry - I'm angry" comments, then carried out by his cronies at ACORN and MoveOn.Org, all over an action which Congress approved....and they all get a free pass while the families of ordinary people get the brunt of it. I find the entire scenario offensive. Obama was angry....fine. Did anyone even ask him why he wasn't mad at Congress for approving it? I haven't seen that anywhere. It's all ridiculous. Switch political parties and I think the comments here would have been quite different. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
It irks me too Mike. The biggest irk being that the whole issue regarding the bonuses is essentially a none issue blown out of all proportion. The media cried foul, the Republican’s raised a torch and pointed the finger at the Administration and the Democrats picked up a pitchfork and followed the crowd. Given time hopefully they’ll all wander back into town and get back to the job of fixing up the store. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike And Tim, Very fast to blame and take sides, very slow to look at whatever information is coming in. Almost everybody. I include myself here. I'm fairly sure that you, Mike, were in a sizzling fury about any sort of bail out bill at all when it came up last Fall, weren't you, and you were willing to let everybody go down in flames. I thought and said that you were too quick off the blocks then. There really are some things that are too important to allow to fail if anything can be done to prevent the failure. Like the campfire in lion country, I suppose. I am not happy with AIG, but I have no idea how much of their outcome came from which decisions. Nor do I know what the bonuses that were paid out were actually for. For all I know, they may have been for making sure that key parts of the business didn't go entirely down the tubes when they were at risk for doing so. That's entirely possible. And it's unlikely we're going to find out until some sort of investigation is allowed and completed. I do know, however, that Mike's Hyperbole was hyperbole indeed, and that he hasn't come up with any news stories documenting pitchforks and torches. If there were death threats, I am very sorry. I think that they were not only illegal but that they were immoral and stupid as well. However equating The President saying he was mad with other people making death threats is a leap in not only degree but in kind. That is, Anger does not equal murderous rage; and verbal acknowledgement of anger in reasonable discourse does not equal making the threat of death, which as I understand it is, in itself, an assault misdemeanor in many states. Different in both kind and degree. Confusing them doesn't serve to further truth or understanding, only chaos and confusion. Give me information about Move-on and I will give you a more considered reaction. Telling me that I'm too smart not to agree with you suggests that you believe I'm perhaps too vain to overlook an appeal to my intellect. Alas, Mike, I'm bright enough to know how stupid I'm capable of being as well. Would that you were right. Of course congress approved of the bail out. Weren't you one of the people who was making fun of the democratic representative to was saying he didn't want to be rushed, and wanted more time to look at the bill? And said that the administration wasn't exerting any pressure, even though the guy was complaining of it at the time? Not that this lets the Democrats off the hook, Mike; it doesn't. By the congress and the administration was handed a very hot potato by the last folks in power — Wasn't that Carter? I think you said it was Carter somewhere. Or maybe Clinton. Yeah, that's right, Hillary Clinton was that President's name, wasn't it? I think we all need to keep our eyes on the ball here, Mike. We are in a mess. We've tried supply side economics to try to deal with it, and that doesn't seem to work. Some variation of it might, Mike, I don't know, I'm not an economist, but from what I've seen it doesn't look good that way. It looks like the last administration . . . well, it's probably better if I don't go there right now. If we don't work together on this, it's more than twice as hard. I still say Obama is Republican lite, because he doesn't seem to be working at any particularly left wing solutions to any of this, but he does seem to be giving things a shot. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Well gun sales are up, as usual, for fear of further restriction. Ammo prices have gotten ridiculous. Nothing really unusual there, but Russia is investing in our engineering savvy, on our soil!!! Should produce several new jobs in the area. Many things are still moving. The Dow ain't dead yet, even while bloody red. People are still living a bit high on the hogola. Cruises, holiday packages, expensive home renos, swanky new swimming pools, etc. I'm seeing that, though I'm also seeing many take pay cuts, layoffs, job loss, home loss, and college/retirement funds are now dust. I think it's a matter of who had what where and for how long when the money train derailed. Oh, and why is Congress allowed to tax AIG's bonuses 90% for sucking when they suck 100%? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You got that right, regina! They should tax congress 100% of their salary.. What about the fellow who got millions in bonuses for his spectacular work with fannie Mae? Of course that won't come up because it's Barney's friend.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
|
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Please be specific about bonuses and "Barney's friend." Do you mean Elaine Noble or somebody else? And since when is being a friend of Barney Frank a bad thing; and why? Having lived cheek by jowl with his district for a while in Massachusetts, I can tell you that he was well thought of and highly respected and that there were more than enough folks there who were proud to be thought of as friends of Barney Frank to have elected the man. I would be happy to be thought of as a friend of his; as I would be happy to be thought of as a friend of Ted Kennedy, whom I voted for every time I had a chance as well. Both men were/are fine representatives for their constituencies. If you have any specific things you wish to criticize them of, we can discuss those, should you wish. The way you state things here, however, sounds like a generalized smear without specific grounds, guilt by some sort of distant association. If this is not what you intend, specifics would go a long way in clearing this misunderstanding up. Should this in fact be your intention, then I find myself at a loss. . . . Sincerely, Bob Kaven Dear rwood, quote: I'm sure there must be, but who are they and what's the point you're making here by bringing them up? Am I supposed to be be furious or envious? Okay. But I'm unclear how that helps me beyond making me feel small and bitter and wretched, which doesn't feel very good at all. I think the Democrats are having a tough time getting anything through congress and getting any cooperation now. I don't want to feel mean and angry at them; they're doing the best they can. The Republicans have been bamboozled by the very far right for quite a few years, and I don't want to blame them. They're still trying to figure out which way is up after having been taking for a one-way-ride by the neo-cons for quite a long time; and they're still trying to get a grip on how to include something closer to the center into the middle of what has been and should be again a very fine group of folks. Surely there ought to be a way that we can all try to find some common language that allows us to talk with each other instead of at each other. There ought to be some point where we can all say, I don't care who's to blame; what about we try to figure out what the issues are in language we can all agree on (instead of polarizing language) and try to come up with solutions that require each of us to do something first, without waiting for the other guy to take blame or responsibility or first action. If we wait for the other guy, the situation is out of our control. If we take some sort of constructive action, then we are in control and we can affect things on our own. If the other guy wants to join in, then so much the better. At least this way we can break the stalemate, and get some sort of movement back into the economy and the country as a whole. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: I pointed out that there are many people still living it up, even though the Dow is down. My statement is not out of context and such is a completely factual argumentative stance against our current economy being likened to the Great Depression—I’ve not seen anyone making their clothing from flour sacks, watering the milk to stay alive, and trading crop goods and livestock for medicine and tools, yet. Who are these fortunate people I mentioned? The millions who still have great job security, capital gains and any kind of investments that are still worth something. I work for several of these people. Or they could simply be people like me who are still able to eat and afford decent shelter and clothing. I can’t add an Olympic sized swimming pool to my property or park a 4th Lexus in a 5 car garage. I don’t even have a garage. But it doesn’t take much to make me happy. I like simple. Round here? I can ride my 1979 tractor mower down the road for fun. It still works like a prized plow mule. Surely, no, Bob? Wrath and envy are up there on the 7 deadly list. And I trust you do not feel “small, bitter, and wretched” in light of those that are maintaining whatever quality standard of living they can. Defining quality is: each to his own. Even my online activity I count as a luxury. Our sharing, in itself, is a blessing in that our messages are not delivered via the hands of a 12 year old child who was sent out from the family to work and fend for his self, as many were during the Great Depression, including my Grandpapa who slept in barns and made his own way from the age of 13. If he were still living, he’d rectify the comparison with a truth that would slap the fiction clear out of people’s minds. The Dow is down but I don’t believe it’s out. I’ve lost 40%+ of my retirement and there was little there to start with. Obviously, I’m not ready to lie down and die over it. My kids will be extremely lucky there’s anything left to split if I do. quote: They are?? I’d like to be too anointed to be disappointed, but the truth is its own language and it’s become foreign to most. Sorry, Bob. I shall not go quietly into the night or this drizzly day with passive language about the snafu BOTH parties are now at banquet with. Congress can’t cooperate. They’re as snaf’d as the fu for what to do and still, somehow, justify their own wages. They are the biggest corporate letdown to our country. They should change the two houses’ titles to the Senseless and the House of Flatulence. Ok, that was mean, but my question is still valid: “Why is Congress allowed to tax AIG's bonuses 90% for sucking when they suck 100%?” BY their own assessment!! Productivity! They make their own rules and don’t play by them. AND: Did you know that the Dems are levying to double-dip the fortunately unfortunate with the reinstatement of an Inheritance Tax, which would have been phased out by 2010? And did you know that the very act of the Dems repealing the enforcement of the Death Tax COSTS US $71.6 billion a year??? Linkage Is that the best they can do? To cost us more billions while levying to bilk the well-to-do, if they are still well-to-do after the Dems also get done with raising Corporate taxes and enforcing a Maximum Wage, too? If the Dems had their way they’d tax Christianity due to believers inheriting the Kingdom of God. If you believe in reincarnation, they’d tax each of your prospective lives with penalties for any record of bad karma and base it upon future projections. The Reps would veto every effort except for a blank-check stimulus they could hand to the Four Horsemen to cover their asses during the apocalypse. Neither party represents our country to the best of their ability and congress is just a mirror image of itself in, yet another, 20 years: Decrepit and in need of a full body political lipo-lift. quote: That would be sublime. Except the situation has been reeling out of control for years, Sir. Not just the last eight, either. At this point, a fair and dignified game of chess seems impossible when the board is flimsy, and both parties are first inclined to cheat the other while all the pieces we represent end up socialized. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Surely you jest, Bob! Are we speaking of the same Barney Frank who, when told in 2004 that Fannie Mae had problems, screamed that it was all a right-wing smear and that fannie was alive and well? That Barney? If you doubt that, you can find the actual videos on youtube... Barney Frank cares about Barney Frank...period. He is a detriment to the country. If you would be proud to be his friend, that's up to you. btw, if the Democrats are doing the best they can do, God help us if they ever do the worst they can do |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Four Fannie Mae execs to get big bonuses updated 1:00 a.m. EDT, Thu March 19, 2009 NEW YORK (CNN) -- Troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae planned to pay four top executives retention bonuses ranging from $470,000 to $611,000, according to a February SEC filing. Executive vice presidents Kenneth Bacon, David Hisey, Michael Williams and Thomas Lund will be receiving bonuses of close to half a million dollars each. Bacon supervises community development for the company, Hisey is its deputy chief financial officer, Williams is its COO and Lund oversees the single-family mortgage business. On Tuesday, two key senators announced a plan to impose a hefty tax on retention bonuses paid to executives of companies that received federal bailout money or in which the United States has at least a 50 percent equity interest -- including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG. "Millions of Americans are losing their jobs. Millions. And to some degree they're losing their jobs because of actions taken by some of these firms," said Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and Senate Finance Committee chairman. "At the same time, they're giving themselves bonuses. I mean, give me a break. What are these people thinking? That's part of the problem. They're not thinking." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/fannie.bonuses/ Opinion, Bob? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
OFHEO Wants Fannie Mae Bonus Money Returned http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/6152006_Fannie_Mae_Bonuses.asp Remember Franklin Raines? In December 2004 he and Timothy Howard were very much in the news as they "retired" or "resigned" or were fired, depending on which version one was reading as CEO and CFO of Fannie Mae. Their sudden unemployment followed probes, lawsuits, and audits that revealed that Fannie Mae had cooked the books over a three year period of time in such a way as to "smooth" income and expenses. One reason suspected at that time was to ensure that the Corporation's net income every year was sufficient to match the benchmarks necessary to trigger large performance bonuses to its executives. On the way out the door, Raines and Howard collected severance packages that turned more than a few heads. At that time it was reported here that Raines would receive pension payments of $114,393 per month for the rest of his and his surviving spouse's life and Howard would receive $36,071. In addition, both men were to receive lifetime medical and dental coverage for themselves, their wives, and any dependents under age 21 and corporation paid premiums on substantial life insurance policies. Mr. Raines' medical insurance premiums were to be paid; while Mr. Howard was to pay at the reduced rates provided to all retirees. The report stated that Raines had earned more than $52 million in performance and other bonuses from 1998 through 2003. This was in addition to some $38 million in salaries and other compensation. Now the acting director of OHEO has made it clear that Fannie Mae had better act to retrieve some of that bonus money from Raines and others or the federal government will do it for them. Current Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd is among other officers whose compensation during the questionable period is also being reviewed. He earned a total of over $26 million from 2000 to 2003. Not bad, huh, Bob? 26 million for taking Fannie down the tubes....nice work if you can get it... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Fannie Mae to Withhold Bonus Pay for 46 By BLOOMBERG NEWS Published: February 21, 2007 Fannie Mae, the largest United States mortgage finance company, will withhold $44.4 million in long-term incentive pay to former and current executives, including its chief executive, Daniel H. Mudd, the company said yesterday. After reviewing three-year periods ended in 2003 and 2004, the company, which is government-chartered, said it would deny the bonuses to 46 former and current executives, a Fannie Mae spokeswoman, Janis Smith, said after the company submitted a federal filing. In December, Fannie Mae said it overstated earnings from 2001 until mid-2004 by $6.3 billion. Mr. Mudd, who has been with Fannie Mae since 2000, will not receive $4 million in pay from that period because of the inflated performance. The chief business officer, Robert J. Levin, will be denied $2 million, and the chief operating officer, Michael J. Williams, will not get $1.85 million. Franklin D. Raines, the former chief executive who was ousted in 2004 because of the accounting mistakes, will be denied $11.2 million, Fannie Mae said. The company will also keep $3.37 million from a former chief financial officer, J. Timothy Howard, and $370,000 from a former controller, Leanne G. Spencer. “The board concluded that the then-management team did not meet the prescribed performance standards,” the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight said in a statement. The decision “was not directed at any specific individual.” Ofheo is Fannie Mae’s regulator and has the authority to review the company’s compensation practices. Fannie Mae’s board will determine bonuses for periods ended in 2005 and 2006 after the company has completed its financial reports for those years, Ofheo said. Fannie Mae, which has not kept up with timely reporting since 2004, has said it will provide results for 2005 and 2006 by the end of December. The board decided not to award the pay after a “review of qualitative and quantitative analyses of company performance,” Fannie Mae said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. Fannie Mae ousted Mr. Raines and Mr. Howard in December 2004, shortly after Ofheo said that executives used improper “cookie jar” reserves and deferred expenses to smooth earnings and reach targets for executive bonuses. Interesting, no? The February SEC filings granted bonuses to Fanni execs and look what happened in the pre-Obama days of 2007, that was apparently overturned. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, yes, friend Barney.. Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist / September 28, 2008 http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/ Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing. Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Economic Stimulus plans aside, isn't it true that Obama's total spending exceeds that of the Bush Administration ... even when projected over the next 8 years? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: As you'll note when you check, my question was"Please be specific about bonuses and "Barney's friend." Do you mean Elaine Noble or somebody else? " You were kind enough to offer the names of four executives getting bonuses, which I do appreciate, but no explanation of who "Barney's Friend" might be. "The Fellow" that you originally mentioned in the original posting has apparently grown to four, so I have some uncertainty as to whether you are talking about the same situation or not. I am also uncertain why you find the situation with AIG bonuses to be a matter that you take issue with (you may recall that I expressed concern about not having enough information to condemn the AIG executives on accepting bonuses, and that the public was rushing to judgement on insufficient information in this matter) and yet seem entirely ready to fry the Fannie Mae people on information that seems no more complete. Perhaps you have sources of information that aren't available to the rest of us that would suggest that the one is wrong and the other is right. I would suggest to you that you don't. Or that if you have, you haven't presented it. I don't know that Congress should be allowed to tax AIG bonuses at 90%. This seems to me to be a Bill of Attainder, and as such unconstitutional. I suspect the ACLU might agree, though I don't know for sure. Congress may be feeling its oats after being forced to stay in the box over the past eight years while Presidential power has been played up. I think this is not a great way to get Congressional power re-asserted. Were I Republican, I would try to present it in those terms, in constitutional terms. I think a lot of Democrats might be swayed by such an argument. Or we should be. Barney Frank is a fine Liberal congressman, and as such I think he upsets a lot of folks. However you may feel about Barney Frank, his advocacy for Fannie Mae seems to me to have been fair enough. The majority of the bad loans didn't go through Fannie or Freddie, only a small percentage of them did; though much has been made about the percentage that did go through. My understanding is that most of the difficult and questionable mortgages went through deregulated banks and were sold on the derivatives market like sausage. I'm always interested in learning differently; but I believe that these were the result of deregulation pushed for by the banking industry itself. Somewhat like the backlash of the Savings and Loan deregulation fiasco from the Reagan Era. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I don't know, it very well might. The Republican's have, of course, a chance to offer budget alternatives which they seem to have wisely eschewed this time around. They seem to understand that given what they've done to create the current situation, any actual plan they might offer would make only too clear where their actual priorities lay, and that it's simply better to suggest that the Democrats are rotten for spending anything to clean up the current mess. If the current situation is in fact to be cleaned up, though, how do you go about it, Stephanos? Stimulus is probably necessary, and we also have to pay back the debt run up over the past eight years. If the Republicans aren't going to suggest how to do it and don't want to be part of formulating a plan, do you really want to stigmatize the people who were elected to actually tackle the problems that the Republicans created. To be fair, I have to say that if the Democrats had been doing their job well, there would have been a lot more screaming and hollering over the previous eight years, and there would have been a lot more legislative initiatives over the past two years. The fact that the Republicans were able to block most of those moves, even over the past two years is not really much of an excuse. Let's see what will happen over the next year and a half or so. Hopefully yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Actually, I read somewhere that his total spending exceeds that of ALL the previous presidents combined since George Washington through George W. Bush. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Yeah I were is all that money coming from? -China- and china take that money and invests in sudan and regiems that support terrorism. Personally, we need to become independent from china more than the middle east. -Juju -Juju |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting, isn't it, Denise, that the same people supporting global warming as a great benefit to our "children and future generations" have nothing to say about Obama's spending spree burying those same children under a mountain of debt they will have to live with. That's selective logic, I must assume. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I'm less partisan than you might guess. Its my humble observation that too much spending was the problem with the Bush Administration ... and the pot is calling the kettle black. Yes, the bail-outs were necessary (if it is true that toxic mortgages and systemic risk is as bad as they say). But it seems like the Obama administration amounts to very big spending, or more of the same that got us into the mess. It's not a blame game for me. I just want to see someone do better. Forget unrealistic tax cuts for political appeal (the bane of the Bush administration), but also forget overblown budgets that don't reflect reality (Dems and Republicans). I am just a homeowner and the "president" of a family, and experience/observation tells me it won't work. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: Man, I guess so. The only folks with policy supporting Global Warming seem to be Republican. They're in denial, pretty much, that there's any such thing. They remain loyal to use of fossil fuels and believe that there actually is such a thing as "The New Clean Coal" while they rolled back legislation on pollution controls for power plants. Woops! You must have your data from someplace that doubles as Disneyland here, Mike. I don't see any benefit to global warming to our children. They may even survive it. Heaven knows, I'm rooting for them. The Democrats haven't been tough enough on the environmental degradation issues. If that's what you mean, I'd have to agree enthusiastically; but they haven't been supporting global warming. Remember your anger with VP Gore? That's one of the things you were angry about. Perhaps you've forgotten? As for China, I haven't heard a single word out of you for quite a while. I"m glad that you're now willing to condemn the Bush funding policies. Where were you while they were going on, and where a protest might have curbed the excesses? I did warn you, you might remember, that somebody was going to have to pay back the drunken spending spree that characterized the last eight years. Your reply, as I recall, was that nobody was having any problem so that the finances must be fine. Even as recently as last fall, that's what you were saying, despite all evidence to the contrary. You had a chance to help curb the idiocy or at least acknowledge it at the time and maybe lessen the impact of the over-spent credit card bill that we now all have to face. As I recall, O even mentioned the mountainous size of the debt, and how much more difficult it would be to get out from under the longer we waited to cope with it. Debt does that, you know: Interest and all; less favorable terms. You ridiculed me. Your reaction of complaining about what we need to do to pay off the debt your folks ran up feels a bit like the Menendez Brothers throwing themselves on the mercy of the court because they were orphans. You're blaming Obama? That's your solution? The guys cleaning up eight years of Republican government at its finest and after less than 90 days, it's his solution that's the problem? Your solution is what? To go back to the policies that got us in the mess in the first place? Tax cuts for the rich? Gag me with a Dragon! You know you may be right about the stuff you're talking about in terms of AIG. It's too soon to tell, and we don't have enough information about the decisions they made and why they made them. Certainly I think laws about taxation aimed at those executives alone is basically wrong. It is a temptation when you're talking about money that large; I must admit that, simply because it feels obscene. That doesn't make it wrong. "Selective logic" is what happens when you take a piece of reasoning that describes AIG's situation, and then forget to notice that it fits Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well. That doesn't mean it has to fit both. I could well be wrong in both situations. I don't have enough information to make a good call in either case, though I wish I did. Sincerely yours, Bob kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I wish I were smarter and more educated in this sort of stuff, but I confess the process of educating myself in it is pretty daunting. Like Sanskrit: Wish I could read it, what a pain to study and learn it! I think, though the the analogy of Family/ Country breaks down in some places, as does the analogy of Business/Country. Structures have similarities on different levels of complexity, but it doesn't appear that they work quite the same way on, say, the quotidian and the quantum levels. Same, I think, with country and family. What this means or how this fits in with General Systems Theory, I don't know. I suspect that you probably have trouble jump-starting the finances of a family, though, while it seems possible to jump-start the finances of countries under certain kinds of conditions. That seems to be the logic with what Obama's doing here. The money being spent seems to be targets in places where it's more likely to feed back directly into the economy most quickly; in this case on the lower levels where folks need food and shelter. This money seems to go pretty directly into the economy because there's no place else for it to go. These folks are in trouble and frequently in debt; it's not going under anybody's mattress or into a savings account. That money gets businesses going and workers back to work. If it went back into the economy on the high end, it wouldn't work that way. There's a curve called the Laffer curve the describes how the money spent priming the economy actually returns to the treasury in terms of taxes. At this point on the Laffer curve, tax cuts to the rich actually cost the government money, though when the tax rate was higher, back in Kennedy's time, the treasury actually made money, about $1.35 for every $1.00 cut in taxes for those on the upper end. Now they lose money. But they do make money by giving money to the poor. That's my understanding of the deal at this point, but you should check for yourself. Sincerely yours, Bob |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, you are right, Bob. i inadvertently said "in support of global warming" as opposed to "in support of reversing global warning". my mistake. i would think anyone who has followed my views in that topic in the past would know what I meant but then that wouldn't have been as much fun, would it? As far as the rest of your reply.....I see no reason to even bother responding. it's the same rehashed rhetoric being warmed over once again. As far as the Laffer curve is concerned, I think it is well-named |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I like the comment about the Laffer curve, though being a Liberal, I did want to be respectful of this staple of supply side economic theory, and I find myself somewhat surprised to see you crack a joke about it. I guess it's better coming from a Republican. From a Democrat it would only sound mean-spirited. quote: Actually, since my comments were about how there had been a flip-flip on Republican positions about spending and debt and the restraint needed in both over the past several years, and since you have reflected this in your postings, this is not the case, is it? Had the Republican position been consistent on the matter, or had you chosen to differ from the Republican position on these matters in general, you would indeed have had a well taken point, and I would have had to admit it here. The Republican position until the Recession was too far along for anybody to possibly ignore was that there was no recession and the economy was wonderful, as I recall. You voiced those sentiments on at least two occasions that I recall, and on one occasion you challenged me to go out and find people who were complaining about the economy, and I spent several weeks doing research on the matter. Perhaps you've forgotten. So the thing of it is, Mike, that I actually have followed your views on the matter for quite a while, and they are reflective of the general Republican views on the matter. I don't know that the Democratic views on the matter are the best views that I've run across, what with the recent business with AIG about which I do have disagreements with the party leadership. I have mentioned those here, and I think you are reasonably up to date on those. If I've been less than clear, please let me know. I am sometimes confused or undeveloped in my thinking, and that does reflect in what I say and the way I say it. I cannot say that I found the exchange "fun," however. I'm still interested in knowing exactly who "Barney's friend" might be, and in exactly what context you were using the phrase. I don't believe you've gotten around to that as yet. And if you misused phrasing about global warming and I had some trouble navigating around your usage of the concept in this context, I am sorry. Some of the fault there is mine. Some , however, you might consider taking responsibility for, since I can't recall seeing you actually offering any acknowledgement that global warming was real; and to see you using it in a context that implied its reality — which I take for granted on the basis of the preponderance of the accepted scientific evidence appearing to support that position — was something of a disorienting surprise. Here, knowing your position, I was having difficulty accepting the evidence that seemed to present itself. My mistake. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Very interesting indeed, Michael. As is the fact that the folks who were so concerned that the Bush tax cuts and spending on the war efforts were going to destroy our children's children's economic future aren't saying a word about Obama's deficit spending plans, which are so much worse than Bush's were. The guy can do no wrong in their eyes, I guess. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Well Denise I'm happy to say that although I admire Obama greatly I do not agree with his (or Brown's) huge spending packages. In fact I think they are sheer lunacy. I actually thought Bush's tax cuts were a whole lot more sensible both on timing and on quantum. And I didn't admire Bush. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
At the end of the G-20 conference today a joint communique was issued by, I believe, most if not all members, doing two things. On the one hand, it said that more regulation was needed was needed to rectify the excesses of the last several years to bring the banking system into line. On the other hand, it said that there were no plans in the works to change the direction of the current banking talks. These, under the control, more or less, of the bankers themselves, appear to be leading in the direction of further deregulation. Unless the President comes down on the side of regulation in this matter, as his rhetoric has been over the past months, we may be in considerable trouble. I wonder what's going on about this? Just thought Mike and Denise especially would like the extra information, especially because I find it frustrating, and thought they might find it interesting, even if only for that reason. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
quote: I'm just popping in to express my admiration and glee at the line, and confess I wanna steal it.   |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ahhhhh Bob, I take no pleasure in anyone else's frustration, and I am positive that Mike doesn't either. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent – 1 hr 28 mins ago LONDON – At his summit debut, President Barack Obama failed to persuade foreign counterparts to commit to fresh and lavish spending to boost economic revival. And the success he did achieve in finding common ground was as much the result of modified goals as swaying other countries to bend to U.S. priorities. Still, the leaders, many wary of piling up debt, did not sign off on large new stimulus packages for their own countries. Obama's administration had initially pushed for such a commitment, but backed off in recent days as European opposition solidified. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eu_obama_121 No one, outside of democrats, see anything good about Obama's incredible spending spree....and when you have European countries warning the US not to turn socialistic, when countries like Russia and China also join in, when England warns you not to go to socialized health care.....when Europe will not follow your lead to initiate srimulus packages......you are doing something wrong. Obama is doing something wrong and the world knows it. Too bad many people here can't see that... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Which European countries have warned the United States not to turn socialistic, Mike? And where do you get that reference. My Grandfather was a proud and happy socialist and a personal friend of Eugene Debs; my father taught the first course on Unions in the state of Virginia when he taught at UVA. Obama is about as Socialist as you are. You've been paying too much attention to what you've be been told and not enough attention to any sort of accurate understanding of what socialism actually is. Have you read any socialists? Which ones? Or are you depending on what your Republican buddies are telling you that socialists think? Socialists have championed such spawn of the devil ideas as the 40 hour work week, universal suffrage and the ban on child labor. Stuff that we take for granted as part of what we think of as the American system today. Any of those things you'd seriously like to repeal? Say, working 8 year olds to death in mines? Do you think those gains were easily come by? As for socialized health care, who in particular is warning us against it other than the folks who make a large amount of money from health care the way it's practiced now? I haven't noticed that English doctors were inferior to American doctors from the experiences my wife and I have both had with them. They weren't so quick to order unnecessary tests as here, and they talked to us and explained why. If we'd wanted them, they would have ordered them. We decided not to together. When my wife needed cough syrup, she got cough syrup with substantial doses of opiates in it. It was the most effective. Nobody was shy about it, or prissy. Our health care system is the most expensive and the least efficient in the industrialized world. Republicans are quick to tell stories about the problems of the Canadian health care system. They don't mention the complaints the Canadians have about the American abuses of the Canadian system. Why do you think that Americans go to Canada to buy so many of their drugs? Socialized medicine my zoot suit. If own medical system is the best in the world, how come so many of our emergency rooms are closing? How come so many patients are being shipped off to other hospitals in the hopes that they might be treated there? How come so many of our folks don't have health coverage, and have to use high cost emergency-room care for what should be low cost health maintenance issues? Use of the magic scare word "Socialism" should no longer be enough to make people stop thinking. People should actually want detailed explanations instead of listening and watching other yell BOO! and wave red flags. It may actually be time for folks actually to demand the logic behind the scare tactics, and ask for explanations so they can make up their own darn minds. This may not be to much to ask for those of us who aren't Republican. Maybe some of us who are Republican have some curiosity and interest in the matter. There are some bright curious and free-thinking Republicans about. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You caught me, Bob. One of my greatest desires is to see 8 year olds being worked to death in the mines. I've tried so hard to keep that quiet! As for socialized health care, who in particular is warning us against it other than the folks who make a large amount of money from health care the way it's practiced now? Who? You mean like the fellow (and, unfortunately I didn't get his name), a candidate for the prime ministership of England, who, last night, warned on tv against the US going to socialized medicine. He quoted the recent ruling by the committee in England which governs the health program which dictates that breast cancer procedures in England will be discontinued because they are too expensive. It's was late at night and I only caught part of the speech but I'll research it further. Is that the road you prefer our health care system go down? You think we have a bad health care system? Then you disagree with the many millions, including me, who feel that it's the BEST health care system in the world. When foreigners with the means need the best health care system in the world, they don't go to a socialized, government-run doctor or hospital. They come to the United States. If you feel that socialism is a good thing and socialized health care is the way to go I'm curious as to why you choose to live out your days in this capitalistic, bad health care country when there are so many others that will give you the lifestyle you champion. So many people knock the US from within....but they never leave. They say one can always tell the value of a country by counting those who come to it, as opposed to those trying to get out. Regardless of what you may feel, the USA is the greatest country in the world I know with regards to opportunity, individual freedom, and caring. If it becomes socialistic, it will follow the same road as several countries in Europe and around the world followed....those countries in which citizens emigrate to the United States. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 Putin Warns US Democrats Against Socialism (Video) "We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism... Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake. True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent... In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated." Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin Opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland January 28, 2009 Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”. Putin also cautioned the US against using military Keynesianism to lift its economy out of recession, saying, “in the longer run, militarization won’t solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead of finding better and wiser uses for them.” Putin’s comments come in sharp contrast to Russia’s own military buildup and expansion. UPDATE: The Chinese communist government issued another warning to Democrats today-- "Increased borrowing by the United States to fund its massive stimulus package could cause the depreciation of U.S. dollar-denominated assets." http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/putin-lectures-american-democrats.html There's also a good video on that link, Bob, you may consider viewing. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Wow, Bob. Mike speaks very well for himself, but I’ll debunk your understanding by raising ya a revisit to 1776, and I gotta call your bluff bunk. I don’t need to read a single socialist author. I have family that lives under a socialist regime. They are not Free, as citizens. That is all the info I need. Socialists can champion any dang thing they want over their people. That’s the concept, Bob. Citizenry Repeal isn’t normally allowed in a socialist society. It’s not provided in their control budget. “Man is not free unless government is limited--Ronald Reagan.” quote: Socialism is a red flag of threat to the opportunity of free-thinking when it basically supports a “Let Go and Let Gov. take responsibility” for everything we are or are not. Why wouldn’t that scare Americans? Even if we don’t think for ourselves all the time, we still have the opportunity to without it being assigned to us by the only ones with the guns and funds. quote: We are not born a political party member, but our political state does matter! There are millions of “bright and curious” children born each year that must grow to protect our forefather’s legacy of freedom and opportunity. All historic records of socialism prove that it does not work, in any country, to any encompassing degree. Is welfare working for us? Is social security? How about the Board of Education? HUD? Ag subsidies? Medicare? Are we in control of these socialist features, or are they out of control with failure, mediocrity, and gross federal budget spending issues? Here’s a Index Dependency Chart of federally funded social services from 2007, and I’m sure its numbers have greatly elevated. They’ve risen 138% since 1980. If socialism works, why are the numbers more each year than less if such is supposed to promote a securing foothold in society??? "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition"—Thomas Jefferson. Some socialist societies may have decent health care, but when I check their unemployment rates, assigned employment and wages, their tax rates, housing, food, and industry, their human & civil rights policies? I’m not left thinking how pretty. and I feel even more blessed to be American. The free market is still proven most sound, even if capitalism is floundering on the basis of derailed responsibility, its recoverability has already been proven 100fold from Black Tuesday’s days. The economic regression to socialism does not spell Independence. It would continue to grossly encapsulate an already ample mediocrity and to enslave all generations it willingly wings for a precious price. quote: |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That English bloke you mentioned Mike is probably David Hannan MEP. He’s a minor player in British politics famous, or infamous, for being expelled from the EEP party for being too right wing. Recently a three minute video of a speech he made criticising the British government hit the “most viewed” list on YouTube, it was subsequently picked up as a worthy news story by right wing news sources in the US. Oddly it was almost totally ignored by the UK media, perhaps because they know him. quote: Hmm.. I’d be very careful taking that one at face value if I were you, it’s a gross oversimplification of a complicated issue and his statement is very misleading. I can explain the issue from both sides if you like but it’s probably better done in a separate thread - probably in philosophy because it’s one of those “you are right from your side - I am right from mine” subjects. Let’s just say there is a very logical and thought out reason why certain procedures aren’t available on the NHS. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Rwood I live in a country where the government describes itself as a "democratic socialist party". You’d imagine that Churchill wouldn’t like living here - but he did. Nobody seems to worship the state, nobody tells you where you must work or what you can say and the police are, by and large, a friendly bunch, about as far away from the Gestapo as you can get. Maybe there are degrees of socialism and Churchill was talking about an extreme. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Grinch, though I think you're awesome, I'd have to decline a trade-out in permanent residences. No matter how utterly picturesque Kate Winslet's English cottage seemed in the movie "The Holiday." Well I dunno. Jude Law might make all the difference. LOL I imagined you spoke the Queen's English, but I wasn't sure. Most countries boast a confusing terminology in their system of government, including ours, and the word democracy seems obscenely stretched in efforts to hide the marks of socialism. Germany is a federal parliamentary republic. Um, sure. Ok. I liked the police nationale in Paris, France, too. They were quite friendly and even pranksters, which I would have found them to be more comical if I could overlook their heavily ammo-ridden shoulders and automatic weapons. The citizens seemed very in control of their movement as if there was nothing strange at all about having to dodge a gun barrel while making room in an elevator. What, if anything, would you change about your system? How are they handling the rising rate of unemployment?? Raising your taxes?? What about homelessness? Do tell. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
What would I change? I’d change the social security system to force the self-unemployed to work for their money and to stop them draining the social security system. I’d raise the level of redundancy payments to stop companies jumping on the bandwagon and shedding jobs because they can get away with it in a recession and it’s an easy way to massage their bottom line. Unemployment over here is rising because of the above. Taxes are stable with the signs being they’ll go down. (VAT has gone down). Homelessness? Hmm.. That depends on what you mean by homeless. If you mean people without a permanent home, there’s about 100,000 according to the last figures I saw but most of them aren’t sleeping under the stars most of those are in temporary accommodation. Over here local government councils are required by law to supply accommodation to anyone that requests it according to need. If you’re a family with kids that could mean jumping the queue to get a council house or being put up in a bed and breakfast or hotel (at the council’s expense) until one is available - but you're still counted as homeless. Single males over the age of eighteen and under sixty are the bottom rung on the housing ladder but even they’re not forced out onto the streets most are housed in hostels. There certainly aren’t any Hooverville encampments - at least not yet. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Does the NHS provide breast cancer treatment or not, Grinch? Yes or no? Yes but with age or other restrictions or not at all? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes. My mother was treated on the NHS for breast cancer, twice. The first time it was successful but only after several different procedures and eventually a mastectomy. The second time she was diagnosed and treated but unfortunately the treatment wasn’t successful. Are there restrictions? Yes. If a treatment hasn’t been clinically proven to have a high success rate and costs £20,000 a pop then the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which agrees the treatments available on the NHS, may decided not to offer that particular treatment. All standard procedures are available and free at the point of need. That’s not to say that alternate treatment isn’t available, if you decide to blow £20,000 on a treatment with a 5% success rate you’re perfectly free to do so, you just have to pay for it yourself or through private insurance policies. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, grinch. Your replies are very informative... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: Perhaps you'd care to show me somebody who's trying to get out of the country, Mike. All I see is somebody who doesn't agree with you. In order to be allowed to live in Canada with my folks in the late 60's, I had to get Landed Immigrant status there. It was the way Canadian law was written. If I'd wanted to leave, I could have left at that time. My dialogue with the government was at a much more strained level then than it is now, and I decided to remain a U.S. citizen. I like the Canadians enormously, and the English as well, by the way, but I've always been an American and my quarrels with the government have always been the quarrels that an American has with his government. Much like the quarrels you are having with the government right now. I don't suggest you are un-American for having them. Nor do I suggest or imply that you should get out of the country if you don't agree with me. I support your right to have them. I hear you knocking the Government from within and I don't expect you to leave for heaven's sake. I think this is the most American of things to do. Nor do I confuse the political system, Democracy, with the economic system the the country has adopted, a modified sort of Capitalism with some regulation thrown in. Democracy is not Capitalism, though you speak of them as if they were the same thing, and you confuse them in your rhetoric a lot. There are loads of countries who have people who want to live in the United States. I want to live in The United States. That doesn't mean that our health care is better. In many cases it's not. My folks lived in Scotland for six to eight months, and they thought the health care there was better than here. They had pretty complicated health care needs at the time. It was cheaper and better run. I liked it in England, that I saw of it. I have a friend who worked in Boston as an RN for two or three years before she moved back to London. She practiced in both places and thought the practice was better in England. There are private hospitals there which can compete with any hospitals here for specialized medical care, as there are in a number of countries. I don't wish to speak against our fine physicians. We do tend to be a bit top heavy, though, in specialists, where the need for the country is for good General Practitioners and Hospitalists. Grinch has spoken more directly to some of the other issues than I ever could. I'll try to address some of the other stuff later. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Perhaps you'd care to show me somebody who's trying to get out of the country, Mike. Sure, Bob. How many Mexicans can you count? How many Asians can you count? As often happens, you misunderstood my comment entirely. The US is the country so many are trying to get IN...other countries are where poeple are trying to get OUT. Where are they trying get to? HERE! Maybe our country is not so bad, after all, even with it's shortcomings. Your earlier comment is a perfect example of why Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and the others are so popular. When conservatives speak of the country, they speak in positives. When Democrats, or liberal talk shows, speak of America, they speak in negatives. If there is a Rebublican white house, they speak in negatives against the administration. If there is a Democrat in the white house, they speak negative about life in America, be it health care, big business or anything they can point to and preach that it could be better if their government had more controls. They say things like "our health care is the least efficient in the industrialized world", as you just have. Do you REALLY think that, Bob? I've been in quite a few countries myself and I can assure you it's not. If you want to be negative, trying being negative about the fact that your children and grandchildren are going to be burdened by a debt they will have to pay, thanks to Obama's spending spree. Now THERE is something to be negative about.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: My fault here, Mike, apparently I didn't express myself well. I was talking about our conversation, where I felt you were asking if I was trying to get out of the country. I was not, which is the reason for the conversation about my time in Canada with my folks. I'm sorry you misunderstood. If I'd been talking about folks trying to get into this country, I'd have used a different article, such as "this." I might even have used a pronoun such as "our." It's not your job to know that, however. Oddly, it turns out I didn't misunderstand you at all; you misunderstood me. Instead of getting huffy about it, I'm trying to apologize. I'm the writer. I'm the one responsible for communicating clearly. My goof. One thing I was quite clear about. That was that I think America is a good place, and that I love it. That does not obligate me to love everything my country does. The man who said, "My country Right or Wrong!" at least in that truncated version of the quote, was mistaken. Otherwise we'd still be practicing slavery now, wouldn't we? And criticism of it would get you beaten to death on the floor of. . .was it the House or the Senate? That was a wrong the founding fathers committed intentionally to bring about the signing of the Constitution. We still feel the effects of that decision today. Since when is it unpatriotic to acknowledge reality and to either correct the problems or to change the situation in some other way. I happen to find denial of reality and the embrace of fiction in living to be a poor political survival strategy in the world today. If indeed it ever was. I have no problem with speaking about the country in positives; I simply want the positives in which we're speaking about the country to have some relationship with reality, and preferably not one of opposition. The United States if a Fine country, perhaps the Greatest. I love my country. A lot of other country feel the same way about theirs, but I feel that my Country is special, and I'd offer my vote to her in the sweepstakes, yeah. I understand that a lot of other folks would disagree with me, though. Our country is the freest country in the world. It's up there. There are a lot of Democracies that would like to claim the honor as well, though. It would depend on what criteria your using. Certainly we'd loose if we looked at the percentage of people in jail in our country. We have a very high proportion of Americans in jail compared to England and Canada. That doesn't sound like the freest to me. Am I not supposed to be aware of this, Mike? Is my criticism of this wrong? I happen to think that it's something we really don't understand, but that it's not wonderful. I want to understand it and to change it. I'd like America to be the freest nation on earth. So what's better, Mike? to assert that we are when it's not true, or to acknowledge we aren't and try to fix it? I know what my answer is to that question. I want to fix things. The right wing obsession with this sort of thing even leads to the denial of the best science we have on climate and climate change. Not to mention population and population density and resource use. This is stuff that any high school sophomore should have a good grasp of from a basic class in biology, and a whole political party in the United States of America has, en masse, embraced fringe science on the matter and stuck their heads in the ground. Near as I can tell from listening to the rhetoric of some of the Right Wing Guys, they do it Proudly. To speak truthfully about the state of life in America gets translated by the Right as speaking negatively about Life in America. But the last that I heard the truth is neither negative nor positive, it is objective fact. You may make judgements about the meaning of these facts that are negative or positive. But to get angry at the folks who insist on looking at the facts as a basis for joining conversation is fallacious as shooting the messenger. He didn't make the facts. He may in fact dislike the facts as much or more than you do. The right wing solution here is to get rid of the messenger and assume that in nobody knows about the facts, that the facts aren't there. We will have weapons of mass destruction where we said there would be. The financial policies of the Bush administration and the debt the ran up would not get more and more difficult to deal with the longer they went unacknowledged and unaddressed. The environment would not get worse while we passed bills misleadingly called "Clear Skies." Hello? Is there anybody out there? I think that U.S. Healthcare is very poorly run. In fact, it is not run at all. Costs are very high, and if you'd like we can look up the relative costs of health care per person. Having lived in quite a few countries yourself, have you ever had the experience of talking with any hospital administrators in this country about what they think of the current health care system here? About the costs of drugs? About the cost of treatment? About the cost of malpractice insurance? About the effects of capitation? Capitation is a great subject to get hospital administrators going on. Check out the amount of time it actually takes to have an antidepressant drug start to work. (Often ten to 14 days, sometimes more, sometimes a little less) Check out how frequently the first drug tried is effective for a particular patient. (the odds of any single drug for depression are about the same, the last I heard, and that was 66%.) Now check on how long Insurance companies allow for hospitalization for Depression. (Most frequently, 3-4 days.) It's not uncommon for patients to need 3-4 drug trials to settle on a decent drug combination for treatment of depression. Frequent causes for admission are suicide attempts. Some drugs will actually increase the number of suicide attempts as the patient begins to improve because they now begin to have some energy and ability to plan while they are still profoundly depressed, and the combination is frequently lethal, They have energy to do what they only dreamed about doing before. This is part of what you get when you have hospitalizations designed for profit and not patient care. There are also plusses, which are important. Hospitals are not great places to be sick, on the whole. Countries who have actually planned for these things rather than planned for how much money they could make off of these things have consistently done better than the United States in terms of patient outcomes. Countries where the bonuses come from increased numbers of surviving patients rather than for the physician who uses the fewest hospital days will also tend to do better in patient and family satisfaction and efficiency, don't you think. Our system tends to reward for fewest hospitalizations. Again, this is not totally screwy, since hospitals are not the greatest places for patients to be on the whole. But they should be there when it's necessary. Some things, by the way, work better under government controls. We've had some examples of that in Iraq, at least one of which I discussed with you before. Privatization of the dining facilities was terrible. The Army had them set up for the way they thought would work best for the troops. Halliburton was, I belief, the contractor on this one, and right away they saw places where significant savings and profit might be achieved. Most clearly, this business of running all these small kitchens in the field was clearly less profitable than running larger, more concentrated units. They didn't listen to Army objections. Of course the army objections were there for good reason. You don't want to leave smaller places unmanned long enough to move troops to larger facilities and you don't want to concentrate troops in large facilities in hot zones because they make very enticing targets. Iraqi insurgents attacked at least one such dining facility in, I believe, Bagdad, with predictable and unnecessary loss of life. One might look at other Halliburton operations for other such examples of the failure of private enterprise to do the job that government does better. Treatment and safety of both prisoners and guards have become, I believe, issues in privately run prison facilities. Cost cutting in some of these situations means placing people into increasingly more dangerous situations for the profit of the few. You could no doubt think of some examples yourself. Lastly, I was negative about the spending spree from the beginning, while Bush was running up the debt and the situation that we are now having to deal with. Perhaps you don't remember my negativity about that, and my warning that it might lead to something like this? I warned that the mess wouldn't clean itself up, and that it would only get more difficult to clean up as we went along. I confess I'm happy to see you joining your voice to mine at this somewhat later time, when things have gotten so much worse and actions so much larger have become necessary to clean up the mess that would have been very painful to clean up even back then. I can only imagine what dreadful things must have happened for you to have realized that we have to do something. Think of how much worse it will get if Obama doesn't do anything now and the situation continues to get worse. Think of how much larger a payback will be needed at that time, one that will make even this madness look like a walk in the park. And that's if this fix, by some stroke of fortune actually manages to work and be enough to turn the problem around. I suspect it's probably too little too late, but who knows, only time will tell. It's already spread well outside U.S. borders where Obama could hope to have effective control over it, and it doesn't appeared the the other world leaders are very interested in doing very much. I guess they figure, we broke it, we should fix it. I think that's pretty short sighted on their parts. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
When did this thread become about Bob and Mike? Let's please stick to the issues, gentlemen, and avoid talking about each other? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Few people are as interesting as Mike, Ron, you have to admit that, and I suspect that each of us can't help but get the other going a bit. You are, however, right, and I must say that I got too focused. The notion, however, that being a Liberal is unpatriotic is one that should not go unchallenged. Criticism of policy or the actions of the country or the government is useful, as the Right Wing acknowledges every time it takes a shot at Social Security or the New Deal or any of the other reasonably well accepted Liberal programs they've been trying to roll back or eliminate. Criticism of the size of government or the spending of government is something that they've tried to direct at the Left Wing exclusively, using such catch phrases as "Tax and Spend Liberals." Despite warnings about the consequences of the fiscal practices of the past eight years and reminders that somebody would be required to pay off the drunken right wing spending binge, the Right Wing House and Senate minority leaders are expressing shock and dismay that the size of the budget and rescue package are as large as they are. Apparently the notion that money borrowed and money given away must be repaid has been beyond their ability to process for the past eight years. This may be because so much of it has been funneled into the pockets of Right Wing partisans. The noise of feeding at the trough is occasionally loud enough to deafen those who have bellied up or those who are doing the feeding, so it is perhaps understandable that the Right Wing has heard none of the warnings. The Right Wing Senate and House Minority leaders will tell you that they are shocked and dismayed (SHOCKED and DISMAYED, they will tell you again) at the terrible jam the country has landed in in the last day or two of the Bush administration. It's those Tax and Spend Liberals who are trying to bankrupt our children by paying off the debts that somebody or other ( exactly who that might be is uncertain, but it's almost certainly a Democrat, say, Barney Frank, who was in the minority at the time; but never mind the details) ran up while all good Right Wing folks were doing something else. Best to all, Bob Kaven |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
