Hot Spork Chat : Join us in an AIM chat room!
Magic numbers: retirement/investment coffers
Non APPL.O financial/economic mumbo jumbo...
Stan,
I have to disagree with this statement: "They foolishly cling to some false idea that if the government does not authorize the TARP that only the "money guys" will be hurt." most people realize they are going to get hurt too as all they have to do is look at their investments accounts today. I think what people want is a plan where the taxpayers and small investors like myself do not continued to get screwed while the money guys make off like bandits. A couple of ways to do this would be to actually limit executive compensation (the current bill does not really do this as there are so many loop holes that would allow big golden parachutes still), give us regular folks some type of large tax credit towards paying our mortgage (the more people who can pay their mortgage rather then defaulting the less of these toxic assets will be toxic), and give us some of the upside like in the AIG deal where the government (thus us taxpayers) got 80% of the company. Until a fair plan comes out of Congress that helps everyone people are going to continue to be against it.
Daniel
I have to disagree with this statement: "They foolishly cling to some false idea that if the government does not authorize the TARP that only the "money guys" will be hurt." most people realize they are going to get hurt too as all they have to do is look at their investments accounts today. I think what people want is a plan where the taxpayers and small investors like myself do not continued to get screwed while the money guys make off like bandits. A couple of ways to do this would be to actually limit executive compensation (the current bill does not really do this as there are so many loop holes that would allow big golden parachutes still), give us regular folks some type of large tax credit towards paying our mortgage (the more people who can pay their mortgage rather then defaulting the less of these toxic assets will be toxic), and give us some of the upside like in the AIG deal where the government (thus us taxpayers) got 80% of the company. Until a fair plan comes out of Congress that helps everyone people are going to continue to be against it.
Daniel
The definition of "small investor" may as well be"guys who get screwed". But 'screwed' is a relative term...
There is no way that compensation caps can be built in to any system that the Treasury really wants investment to use -- the caps can only serve to funnel the firms away from the system that Treasury knows would be harder to administer, the classic "carrot or stick" method. There is no incentive for executives at firms to take "medicine and get a lashing".
My take is a little different. I say that going back 10-15 years if you did NOT take the opportunity to refi at a lower rate than you MIGHT have something to gripe about, but for everybody else that did refi (or buy new) then that $10,000/household tag is sorta "payback". And a soft sort of payback it is, not hard like the IRS. If the MBSs are held to maturity and the government has to settle 'em up that might be years out, and the cost of borrowing (for the government) is mighty damn small. So I am not really all that worried about such a scenario as I am about the dunderheads in Congress setting off a high speed crash -- it would be a mighty big crash to see the ol' value of my house crater while I have to pay the mortgage I agreed to or get foreclosed while my 401Ks goes to shit and my employer shutters its doors. Thank you Washington DC!
JW I certainly hope that your "mutually assured destruction" scenario is not what anybody is really holding out for. Just for fun lets assume that the value of the Wall Street titan's Park Avenue palaces and Hamptons hideways fall by a factor of 50% -- that'd still make those place well north of $5M. But as for my abode if the value goes down by 50% and I have to pay a mortgage at the full value then...
There is no way that compensation caps can be built in to any system that the Treasury really wants investment to use -- the caps can only serve to funnel the firms away from the system that Treasury knows would be harder to administer, the classic "carrot or stick" method. There is no incentive for executives at firms to take "medicine and get a lashing".
My take is a little different. I say that going back 10-15 years if you did NOT take the opportunity to refi at a lower rate than you MIGHT have something to gripe about, but for everybody else that did refi (or buy new) then that $10,000/household tag is sorta "payback". And a soft sort of payback it is, not hard like the IRS. If the MBSs are held to maturity and the government has to settle 'em up that might be years out, and the cost of borrowing (for the government) is mighty damn small. So I am not really all that worried about such a scenario as I am about the dunderheads in Congress setting off a high speed crash -- it would be a mighty big crash to see the ol' value of my house crater while I have to pay the mortgage I agreed to or get foreclosed while my 401Ks goes to shit and my employer shutters its doors. Thank you Washington DC!
JW I certainly hope that your "mutually assured destruction" scenario is not what anybody is really holding out for. Just for fun lets assume that the value of the Wall Street titan's Park Avenue palaces and Hamptons hideways fall by a factor of 50% -- that'd still make those place well north of $5M. But as for my abode if the value goes down by 50% and I have to pay a mortgage at the full value then...
I don't get it. Yesterday they agreed to a bill that gave everybody most of what they wanted (salary caps, taxpayers having an equity stake etc etc). WTF went wrong???
>Just for fun lets assume that the value of the Wall Street titan's Park Avenue palaces and Hamptons hideways fall by a factor of 50% -- that'd still make those place well north of $5M. But as for my abode if the value goes down by 50% and I have to pay a mortgage at the full value then...
That's assuming that the system stays nice and stable as companies shut down, jobs are lost, safety nets evaporate, and the like happens to our overseas trading partners who find out that we can't afford their goods anymore.
I think at some point the system can flat-out break, and people stop taking credit cards and even start asking questions about cash. I know I'm being excessively apocalyptic, but that's my mood.
"I know not with what financial instruments this crisis will be negotiated, but the next financial crisis will be negotiated with sticks and stones."
That's assuming that the system stays nice and stable as companies shut down, jobs are lost, safety nets evaporate, and the like happens to our overseas trading partners who find out that we can't afford their goods anymore.
I think at some point the system can flat-out break, and people stop taking credit cards and even start asking questions about cash. I know I'm being excessively apocalyptic, but that's my mood.
"I know not with what financial instruments this crisis will be negotiated, but the next financial crisis will be negotiated with sticks and stones."
Tony - did you read the bill those items were so weak and full of loop holes it was ridiculous and the bill did nothing for main-street folks to help them.
Stan - As for the compensation if they want the executives want the firms to survive they need to give something up, right now as it is written they get everything they want and we (the taxpayer) get nothing and get screwed at the same time. A key thing I would like to see are bonuses and such need to be tied to performance so something like what is going on at WaMu does not happen (the CEO is walking away with 20 million for 3 weeks worth of work and the company is going under).
Also if you think the value of your house will not still keep declining, your 401K will not get trashed, etc is going to happen if they pass this bill you are fooling yourself. As it stands right now we are screwed if we pass this bill (get stuck with declining values and a huge bill) and screwed if we don't (get stuck with declining values) and I think Americans are saying you know what if I am going to be screwed I would rather only be screwed with one thing not two. Also people are recognizing that trickle down economics does not work so why should we invest all this money at the top never to see it back. What the government needs to do is take the 700 billion and invest it towards upgrading our infrastructure, getting us off oil etc. this will create new jobs allow people to pay off their homes, increase tax revenue, etc. fixing the problem from the bottom up.
Daniel
Stan - As for the compensation if they want the executives want the firms to survive they need to give something up, right now as it is written they get everything they want and we (the taxpayer) get nothing and get screwed at the same time. A key thing I would like to see are bonuses and such need to be tied to performance so something like what is going on at WaMu does not happen (the CEO is walking away with 20 million for 3 weeks worth of work and the company is going under).
Also if you think the value of your house will not still keep declining, your 401K will not get trashed, etc is going to happen if they pass this bill you are fooling yourself. As it stands right now we are screwed if we pass this bill (get stuck with declining values and a huge bill) and screwed if we don't (get stuck with declining values) and I think Americans are saying you know what if I am going to be screwed I would rather only be screwed with one thing not two. Also people are recognizing that trickle down economics does not work so why should we invest all this money at the top never to see it back. What the government needs to do is take the 700 billion and invest it towards upgrading our infrastructure, getting us off oil etc. this will create new jobs allow people to pay off their homes, increase tax revenue, etc. fixing the problem from the bottom up.
Daniel
I'm divided, of course the drying up credit market is not good, on the other hand, it's probably a good estimation that even 700 billion won't save the system any more. Things have gotten so out of hand that we will probably have to go through a sharp contraction to balance the system again. I'm afraid that this will lead to permanent damage to the economy as we have gotten to know it. The other side is, hopefully positive implications for our ecology as we also use the opportunity to kill some bad habits in the process.
I fully agree with you Daniel that the money would be far better spent in a more sensible way to invest in infrastructure (mass transport anyone?), schools and other things that improve people's lives in general and is geared towards the future. This is something that has become totally neglected in the last 10 years or so where the only thing that counted was the stock price. Something like a new deal is needed, government spending, on useful projects that benefit all, is not at all by default wasteful spending as the Republican mantra is.
I hope for the best, but one thing is for sure; the laissez fair policy that has been standard policy for the last 25 years needs to go. That system has proved itself unsustainable. For good, hopefully.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 05:12PM by tliet.
I fully agree with you Daniel that the money would be far better spent in a more sensible way to invest in infrastructure (mass transport anyone?), schools and other things that improve people's lives in general and is geared towards the future. This is something that has become totally neglected in the last 10 years or so where the only thing that counted was the stock price. Something like a new deal is needed, government spending, on useful projects that benefit all, is not at all by default wasteful spending as the Republican mantra is.
I hope for the best, but one thing is for sure; the laissez fair policy that has been standard policy for the last 25 years needs to go. That system has proved itself unsustainable. For good, hopefully.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 05:12PM by tliet.
We're pretty much screwed until January. Expect leadership challenges at the next session of congress, too.
The short of it:
It's a Bush plan, so it sucked intergalactic levels of vacuum. One faction was of the opinion that it was flawed but fixable once it was in place. Another, much smaller faction, was of the opinion that there was not enough deliberation, and the whole thing stunk like fish on ice because of the power-grab aspect. And then there were the fruit-loops screaming about socialism, who, with the skeptics, were numerous enough to torpedo the whole thing.
So, we're boned until February. Obama's team is already drafting the legislature he'll submit to the next session of congress. It will be far more workable than the Bush Bailout, thus getting factions one and two on board, who will then make most of faction three to play along with a bit of arm-twisting.
In the meantime, the stock market has erased two years of gains in two days of trading. It will get worse. Big ticket item sales will all but freeze as consumer credit gets hit by the spillover, and we're talking record lows for real estate. Expect at least 25 or so banks to go under between now and Christmas, big and small. It will completely break the back of the FDIC. Expect another crappy Bush Plan, naked power grab and all, to bail out the FDIC. That one might be voted down, too. Then. Things. Get. Bad.
We won't see daylight for a year or two.
The short of it:
It's a Bush plan, so it sucked intergalactic levels of vacuum. One faction was of the opinion that it was flawed but fixable once it was in place. Another, much smaller faction, was of the opinion that there was not enough deliberation, and the whole thing stunk like fish on ice because of the power-grab aspect. And then there were the fruit-loops screaming about socialism, who, with the skeptics, were numerous enough to torpedo the whole thing.
So, we're boned until February. Obama's team is already drafting the legislature he'll submit to the next session of congress. It will be far more workable than the Bush Bailout, thus getting factions one and two on board, who will then make most of faction three to play along with a bit of arm-twisting.
In the meantime, the stock market has erased two years of gains in two days of trading. It will get worse. Big ticket item sales will all but freeze as consumer credit gets hit by the spillover, and we're talking record lows for real estate. Expect at least 25 or so banks to go under between now and Christmas, big and small. It will completely break the back of the FDIC. Expect another crappy Bush Plan, naked power grab and all, to bail out the FDIC. That one might be voted down, too. Then. Things. Get. Bad.
We won't see daylight for a year or two.
Sorry I just do not see things in the same light.
There several distinct issues at work in the housing market. Some markets clearly exceeded their historic affordability factors, others were over built, in some areas lenders have had too many buyers go into default. There are a lot of "timeline" factors at work for individuals. I bought my house about 8 years ago, it may have peaked at about double I paid for it some 18 months ago, it is still worth about 50% more than I paid for it, but if things crater I could see it dropping to about half what I paid for it. For people who bought about 2-3 years ago they may already be down 25% or more... There is NOTHING that the Congress can do about that except for the provisions that have already been written regarding tax consequences for "forgiveness" of renegotiated mortgages. \
While at one point the MBS were a factor, the federalization of Fannie & Freddie largely decoupled the mortgage lending landscape from the "toxic debt" that was held by investment houses. If anybdy wants a normal mortgage they can get it, but that is a tenuous situation. The Investment Banks TRIED to create a "Super" Special Investment Vehicle (SIV) to pen-up the MBS but they decided that a) they did not have the capital needed, b) the pooling of the Super SIV would have raised some regulatory issues c) there was not enough incentive to 'come clean' and disclose everything that needed to go into the Super SIV... Essentially the TARP is answer to most of those issues.
If you don't think the MBSs are a real problem than I guess you think the melt down of investment banks, commercial banks and global money center banks is a big deal. I have no illusions -- the people that used to be employees of Lehman Brothers quite literally HAVE NOWHERE TO GO. Very bad for all involved. The problem will expand if efforts to contain it are not soon enacted...
On the specifics of the WaMu compensation, you really need to understand that anytime any company is in a distressed situation special incentives need to be put in place to attract a turn around guy. If the holding company of WaMu does not survive and the contract is not paid out so be it. Chase bought a limited selection of the assets and liabilities off of the FDIC body cart being wielded by the FDIC. That is just how these things work...
On some level it might make sense to talk about "spending the money on infrastructure" but I think that shows a rather naive understanding of how our government spends money. The same sort of mindset drove this spring's "Economic Stimulus Program" . http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329565,00.html The $170B or so that was mailed out basically stalled off the bad news by about 5 months. It might be true that spending about 5x more might delay a shit storm by about two years. If you instead are serious about 'hard' infrastructure you must realize that there are not "ready to go" concrete finishers and welders that will just swarm down and start paving highways and reinforcing bridges. There are months of fighting over whose roads get the work, which engineering firms draw up the plans, which contractors get the winning bids and on and on...
Cordon off this toxic debt now. Free up firms to direct the global capital into the legitimate green technology that WILL help form new industries, create new jobs, lessen the dependency on oil and do all the things that INVESTMENTS generally do.
There several distinct issues at work in the housing market. Some markets clearly exceeded their historic affordability factors, others were over built, in some areas lenders have had too many buyers go into default. There are a lot of "timeline" factors at work for individuals. I bought my house about 8 years ago, it may have peaked at about double I paid for it some 18 months ago, it is still worth about 50% more than I paid for it, but if things crater I could see it dropping to about half what I paid for it. For people who bought about 2-3 years ago they may already be down 25% or more... There is NOTHING that the Congress can do about that except for the provisions that have already been written regarding tax consequences for "forgiveness" of renegotiated mortgages. \
While at one point the MBS were a factor, the federalization of Fannie & Freddie largely decoupled the mortgage lending landscape from the "toxic debt" that was held by investment houses. If anybdy wants a normal mortgage they can get it, but that is a tenuous situation. The Investment Banks TRIED to create a "Super" Special Investment Vehicle (SIV) to pen-up the MBS but they decided that a) they did not have the capital needed, b) the pooling of the Super SIV would have raised some regulatory issues c) there was not enough incentive to 'come clean' and disclose everything that needed to go into the Super SIV... Essentially the TARP is answer to most of those issues.
If you don't think the MBSs are a real problem than I guess you think the melt down of investment banks, commercial banks and global money center banks is a big deal. I have no illusions -- the people that used to be employees of Lehman Brothers quite literally HAVE NOWHERE TO GO. Very bad for all involved. The problem will expand if efforts to contain it are not soon enacted...
On the specifics of the WaMu compensation, you really need to understand that anytime any company is in a distressed situation special incentives need to be put in place to attract a turn around guy. If the holding company of WaMu does not survive and the contract is not paid out so be it. Chase bought a limited selection of the assets and liabilities off of the FDIC body cart being wielded by the FDIC. That is just how these things work...
On some level it might make sense to talk about "spending the money on infrastructure" but I think that shows a rather naive understanding of how our government spends money. The same sort of mindset drove this spring's "Economic Stimulus Program" . http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329565,00.html The $170B or so that was mailed out basically stalled off the bad news by about 5 months. It might be true that spending about 5x more might delay a shit storm by about two years. If you instead are serious about 'hard' infrastructure you must realize that there are not "ready to go" concrete finishers and welders that will just swarm down and start paving highways and reinforcing bridges. There are months of fighting over whose roads get the work, which engineering firms draw up the plans, which contractors get the winning bids and on and on...
Cordon off this toxic debt now. Free up firms to direct the global capital into the legitimate green technology that WILL help form new industries, create new jobs, lessen the dependency on oil and do all the things that INVESTMENTS generally do.
>Tony - did you read the bill those items were so weak and full of loop holes it was ridiculous and the bill did nothing for main-street folks to help them.
No, I only read a brief newspaper snippet saying "lawmakers agreed to blah blah blah - I didn't get the fine print.
Why are republicans blaming Nancy Pelosi for this?
No, I only read a brief newspaper snippet saying "lawmakers agreed to blah blah blah - I didn't get the fine print.
Why are republicans blaming Nancy Pelosi for this?
Tony:
The blame is SQUARELY on Pelosi. I was watching CSPAN and I was flabbergasted. What she did was bizarre in the extreme. BEFORE the vote she attempted to blame the whole mess AND ballooning federal deficeits on the GOP. Now if this was just a nutso rant and she had a LOCK on all the votes she needed then I might have understood, but apparentely she did not. Speaker Pelosi apparently DID need some GOp votes but she literally throw grief at the people she needed to woo. Total screw-up!
The blame is SQUARELY on Pelosi. I was watching CSPAN and I was flabbergasted. What she did was bizarre in the extreme. BEFORE the vote she attempted to blame the whole mess AND ballooning federal deficeits on the GOP. Now if this was just a nutso rant and she had a LOCK on all the votes she needed then I might have understood, but apparentely she did not. Speaker Pelosi apparently DID need some GOp votes but she literally throw grief at the people she needed to woo. Total screw-up!
History passes the first time as tragedy, the second time as farts. - Roy Edroso
Tony, Here is her speech in entirety.
and here is the sane response to boener. i mean, really. the president and the minority whip can't line up enough votes on a "critical" piece of legislation, and they're blaming their failure on some non-policy-affecting words? sure, play the victim card. some mean bully pelosi is. suffer those wounded feelings, don't man up and do what you said was the right thing.
that said, i'm glad it was voted down. you can guess whether i was agreeing more with the club for growth nuts or the lefty nuts.
ddt
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 08:24PM by ddt.
that said, i'm glad it was voted down. you can guess whether i was agreeing more with the club for growth nuts or the lefty nuts.
ddt
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 08:24PM by ddt.
I am not sure I would blame this on solely on Pelosi as some of the republicans who voted no are saying that her speech was not the reason: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/gop-rep-republicans-compl_n_130446.html
While it did not help I had a feeling that the GOP was going to stop the bill either way so that they could use it in the campaign basically pointing out how great they were for stopping this bill that no American wants while all the Democrats voted for it. See how wasteful they are, how they want to increase your taxes, etc. and guess what it worked and a lot of people are already starting to believe it was the Democrats fault. Either one of two things will happen we will get a much much better bill (we can dream can't we) or more likely in a few days I expect they will pass the original bill that Paulson proposed, after the Democrats give up trying to negotiate a better one.
Daniel
While it did not help I had a feeling that the GOP was going to stop the bill either way so that they could use it in the campaign basically pointing out how great they were for stopping this bill that no American wants while all the Democrats voted for it. See how wasteful they are, how they want to increase your taxes, etc. and guess what it worked and a lot of people are already starting to believe it was the Democrats fault. Either one of two things will happen we will get a much much better bill (we can dream can't we) or more likely in a few days I expect they will pass the original bill that Paulson proposed, after the Democrats give up trying to negotiate a better one.
Daniel
The blame is SQUARELY on Pelosi.
Good God, Stan. Don't you think you're being a tad dramatic?
There is ONE inflammatory sentence in her entire speech (the second sentence below).
“Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?
It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies—policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.
Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.
And while that's a blunt sentence, it's also fairly accurate. It's also a sentence that quite a few fiscal-conservative republican congressmen would heartily agree with (quite a few are more than a tad pissed with GWB's spending). Given the sorry mess and tangible voter/taxpayer anger over this affair, I think she was entitled to say one angry sentence.
The rest of the speech is benign. The mythical "12 lost republican votes" is a bit rich too IMO.
The GOP voted this down and they don't have an alternative proposal. A pox on them and the Dems that felt they had to make a "protest vote".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 08:55PM by Tony Leggett.
Good God, Stan. Don't you think you're being a tad dramatic?
There is ONE inflammatory sentence in her entire speech (the second sentence below).
“Madam Speaker, when was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?
It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies—policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.
Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.
And while that's a blunt sentence, it's also fairly accurate. It's also a sentence that quite a few fiscal-conservative republican congressmen would heartily agree with (quite a few are more than a tad pissed with GWB's spending). Given the sorry mess and tangible voter/taxpayer anger over this affair, I think she was entitled to say one angry sentence.
The rest of the speech is benign. The mythical "12 lost republican votes" is a bit rich too IMO.
The GOP voted this down and they don't have an alternative proposal. A pox on them and the Dems that felt they had to make a "protest vote".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 08:55PM by Tony Leggett.
DPBD!
The speech I've quoted above is the draft of Pelosi's speech, not what she actually said. Still, her actual speech, while a bit padded out, was not that much more inflammatory.
I still blame the 94 Democrats for trying to appear populist when they needed to be more of a Burkean liberal. They should have passed the bill today and worked on additional changes after the election.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 09:24PM by Tony Leggett.
The speech I've quoted above is the draft of Pelosi's speech, not what she actually said. Still, her actual speech, while a bit padded out, was not that much more inflammatory.
I still blame the 94 Democrats for trying to appear populist when they needed to be more of a Burkean liberal. They should have passed the bill today and worked on additional changes after the election.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 09:24PM by Tony Leggett.
But of course it's the Democrats fault, it's always the fault of the Democrats. It's always the fault of someone else, the Republicans had nothing to do with governance in the last 30 years. Blame Clinton!
No, they had it coming, this is pure and simple the boy who cried wolf one too many times and now the villagers don't believe the boy any more.
As for the investment in infrastructure and in technology to wean the US off its overconsumption of natural resources? I'm not sure what's so weird about it. I think it's weirder to bail out failed financial institutions and buy up their garbage while not getting anything in return.
Pretty bad that the workers of Lehman Brothers have nowhere to go. Aauuw, no more fresh flowers every day, I almost feel his pain.
BTW, I think it was me who said back in the spring that the Economic Stimulus Program was the same as the bank giving one last credit card to someone who's been on a spending spree for 10 years.
No, they had it coming, this is pure and simple the boy who cried wolf one too many times and now the villagers don't believe the boy any more.
As for the investment in infrastructure and in technology to wean the US off its overconsumption of natural resources? I'm not sure what's so weird about it. I think it's weirder to bail out failed financial institutions and buy up their garbage while not getting anything in return.
Pretty bad that the workers of Lehman Brothers have nowhere to go. Aauuw, no more fresh flowers every day, I almost feel his pain.
BTW, I think it was me who said back in the spring that the Economic Stimulus Program was the same as the bank giving one last credit card to someone who's been on a spending spree for 10 years.
-Swine Flu free since...cough, cough...
Stan,
I'm sorry but I've tried to take some comfort in the current crisis in your lengthy words that everything is going to be ok, but it's increasingly clear that you are not correct and that your answers seem to change as the events change. But the death blow, or to use the TV term "when you jumped the shark" is when you blamed Pelosi. That's a punch line, not a well thought out analysis. Do you seriously think that lawmakers, in this time of crisis, are so shallow that they let their hurt feelings take the economy down? And if they did, that's her fault and not theirs??
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2008 02:53AM by Dr Phred.
I'm sorry but I've tried to take some comfort in the current crisis in your lengthy words that everything is going to be ok, but it's increasingly clear that you are not correct and that your answers seem to change as the events change. But the death blow, or to use the TV term "when you jumped the shark" is when you blamed Pelosi. That's a punch line, not a well thought out analysis. Do you seriously think that lawmakers, in this time of crisis, are so shallow that they let their hurt feelings take the economy down? And if they did, that's her fault and not theirs??
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2008 02:53AM by Dr Phred.
I watched CSPAN all weekend (as you can imagine this has some negative mental health consequences...) what I saw was an unprecedented flurry of activity to approve this bill AND a whole host of rule changes, voting exemptions, calendar changes and everything else you can imagine that would be needed to get the bill passed. There was pretty much no "blame gaming" or name calling UNTIL the SPEAKER had her craziness. Seriously, it was a bizarre move. If she had a LOCK on the Dem votes that MIGHT have made sense, but the commentators and even some law makers have said that there was supposed to be some kind of agreement to get some kind of balance in the votes. Pelosi destroyed that agreement with her rant. Pelosi is either just TOTALLY incapable of being the leader of the House, or merely so warped that she does not realize that an agreement to give BOTH sides cover AND bipartisan support means that you do NOT stab the people on the other side of the aisle. Her whole rant did not have one positive mention of ANY non-Democrat. She was playing leader of her party, NOT leader of the WHOLE House of Representatives. If she wanted to torpedo this thing I cannot thing of a more effective way to do so. If she wanted to pass the thing she absolutely should have SHARED THE BLAME.
There is just no sane way to link the growth of deficits / switch from surplus without admitting that given the unprecedented devastation that 9/11 had on the US Capital of Finance and the massive new TSA, and anti-terror efforts in Afghanistan there was a lot we had to spend. Granted there are legitimate points of disagreement over whether the Iraq front was prudent, and it too has added to the spending insanity -- but the very mention of Iraq should highlight exactly why Pelosis was WRONG to open up a fusillade. It also highlights why majority and minority leaders from BOTH parties said over a week ago that "it would not be helpful to get the whole of the Legislative Branch adding into the TARP legislation".
Frank has been THE CENTRAL figure in the expansion of subprime lending. It is pretty clear that he is in deniable about lack of regulation -- he was the number one supporter of not extending the regulatory oversight of Fannie & Freddie. The "pile on" that Pelosi engaged was not just about her tone being impolite. It was clear that she was attempting to lay out a plan that would hurt those that did bow down before her. It is also clear that the Dems will NOT reform anything that will hurt their friends -- Rahm Emmanuel is only the most visible of those who have made out like bandits being able to get access to the titans of Wall Street. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3913.html You can rest assured that Wassermen did not give him $16M because anything he learned as a ballet dancer or even working on his Communication degree at Northwestern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel#Early_history
What Pelosi was doing was to stick a pin in the eye of the GOP and say on point after point and policy after policy "when we win you guys are going to be our toilet paper". They did what I would hope any MINORITY PARTY would do -- tell the BULLYING Majority Party to go wipe your own asses!
If Pelosi wants to pass this thing she has to figure out whether she is going to pull the cover from a dozen of her party's members or do the harder thing and try and make nice with at least that many GOP lawmakers.
The ball is in her court.
There is just no sane way to link the growth of deficits / switch from surplus without admitting that given the unprecedented devastation that 9/11 had on the US Capital of Finance and the massive new TSA, and anti-terror efforts in Afghanistan there was a lot we had to spend. Granted there are legitimate points of disagreement over whether the Iraq front was prudent, and it too has added to the spending insanity -- but the very mention of Iraq should highlight exactly why Pelosis was WRONG to open up a fusillade. It also highlights why majority and minority leaders from BOTH parties said over a week ago that "it would not be helpful to get the whole of the Legislative Branch adding into the TARP legislation".
Frank has been THE CENTRAL figure in the expansion of subprime lending. It is pretty clear that he is in deniable about lack of regulation -- he was the number one supporter of not extending the regulatory oversight of Fannie & Freddie. The "pile on" that Pelosi engaged was not just about her tone being impolite. It was clear that she was attempting to lay out a plan that would hurt those that did bow down before her. It is also clear that the Dems will NOT reform anything that will hurt their friends -- Rahm Emmanuel is only the most visible of those who have made out like bandits being able to get access to the titans of Wall Street. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3913.html You can rest assured that Wassermen did not give him $16M because anything he learned as a ballet dancer or even working on his Communication degree at Northwestern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel#Early_history
What Pelosi was doing was to stick a pin in the eye of the GOP and say on point after point and policy after policy "when we win you guys are going to be our toilet paper". They did what I would hope any MINORITY PARTY would do -- tell the BULLYING Majority Party to go wipe your own asses!
If Pelosi wants to pass this thing she has to figure out whether she is going to pull the cover from a dozen of her party's members or do the harder thing and try and make nice with at least that many GOP lawmakers.
The ball is in her court.
As of last night, I'm moving to let wall street die.
(sorry, had a bad evening)
Agrarian economies are nothing if not honest. :)
(sorry, had a bad evening)
Agrarian economies are nothing if not honest. :)
Thank you for making so elegantly the main point in all this: it is crucial for the government to keep its meddling fingers out of the markets, because it is precisely this sort of pointless bickering which makes governments so inept. The markets can sort this out quite nicely by themselves. Show a little trust in real people, rather than those who breathe the rareified air of Washington. After all, what does it matter if your house loses 50% of its value. Is is suddenly going to cease functioning as a shelter against the elements?Quote
I watched CSPAN all weekend (as you can imagine this has some negative mental health consequences...) what I saw was an unprecedented flurry of activity to approve this bill AND a whole host of rule changes, voting exemptions, calendar changes and everything else you can imagine that would be needed to get the bill passed. There was pretty much no "blame gaming" or name calling UNTIL the SPEAKER had her craziness. Seriously, it was a bizarre move. If she had a LOCK on the Dem votes that MIGHT have made sense, but the commentators and even some law makers have said that there was supposed to be some kind of agreement to get some kind of balance in the votes. Pelosi destroyed that agreement with her rant. Pelosi is either just TOTALLY incapable of being the leader of the House, or merely so warped that she does not realize that an agreement to give BOTH sides cover AND bipartisan support means that you do NOT stab the people on the other side of the aisle. Her whole rant did not have one positive mention of ANY non-Democrat. She was playing leader of her party, NOT leader of the WHOLE House of Representatives. If she wanted to torpedo this thing I cannot thing of a more effective way to do so. If she wanted to pass the thing she absolutely should have SHARED THE BLAME.
There is just no sane way to link the growth of deficits / switch from surplus without admitting that given the unprecedented devastation that 9/11 had on the US Capital of Finance and the massive new TSA, and anti-terror efforts in Afghanistan there was a lot we had to spend. Granted there are legitimate points of disagreement over whether the Iraq front was prudent, and it too has added to the spending insanity -- but the very mention of Iraq should highlight exactly why Pelosis was WRONG to open up a fusillade. It also highlights why majority and minority leaders from BOTH parties said over a week ago that "it would not be helpful to get the whole of the Legislative Branch adding into the TARP legislation".
Frank has been THE CENTRAL figure in the expansion of subprime lending. It is pretty clear that he is in deniable about lack of regulation -- he was the number one supporter of not extending the regulatory oversight of Fannie & Freddie. The "pile on" that Pelosi engaged was not just about her tone being impolite. It was clear that she was attempting to lay out a plan that would hurt those that did bow down before her. It is also clear that the Dems will NOT reform anything that will hurt their friends -- Rahm Emmanuel is only the most visible of those who have made out like bandits being able to get access to the titans of Wall Street. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3913.html You can rest assured that Wassermen did not give him $16M because anything he learned as a ballet dancer or even working on his Communication degree at Northwestern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel#Early_history
What Pelosi was doing was to stick a pin in the eye of the GOP and say on point after point and policy after policy "when we win you guys are going to be our toilet paper". They did what I would hope any MINORITY PARTY would do -- tell the BULLYING Majority Party to go wipe your own asses!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.