| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/30/2008 11:46:16 AM · #176 |
Why is everyone trying to tie this crisis and the reasons for it with a party (either one)? Simple math can show that you cannot have profit if the only economic activity (the majority of it) is selling things for profit to one another. Enron did that for awhile, and it worked for awhile. At some point, someone has to turn raw materials into a product and create value. Not much of that is happening these days, anyway.
Now, we are blaming reps or dems for not passing this bill. This is the election year, and everything has to do with who will be the supreme ruler for the next 4 years. The fact: republicans (president and his cabinet) came up with a plan to present to democrat-lead congress. Both parties in the congress oppose the plan. The plan is reviewed, but not sufficiently to satisfy both parties. Suddenly, the vote goes on and it is obvious that the republicans are not buying into it.
Now, the realization that republicans are desperately trying to find a way to distance themselves from the current administration. "Maverick", "Agent of change", "I'm not Bush" and similar tone that we're getting from McCain these days can only be strengthened by eventual passing of this bill, if only the dems themselves can bear responsibility for it.
Two birds with one stone - pres fails (he's used to it by now) and the congressional leadership on the republican side ends up being anti-Bush.
We haven't seen it, (fortunately imho). If the bill had passed yesterday, we would have seen the attacks on Obama and dems, and the stories will be full of dems being on the president's side, and how McCain and reps opposed the bad policy.
Grow up people and watch and learn.
I was sickened today when reporters were trying to find a small business owner that will step up on TV and claim how they went to the bank and could not get money. The closest that CNN could come up with is a guy that had his credit line dry up, and he 'assumed that if he'd went to the bank, they probably would not have money'. Not that he's tried.
Stand back, and watch us live through this just fine. Maybe we begin producing something that we can sell in the meantime.
Oh, yes, and lucky us that social security did not get privatized. Imagine what fun we would have today if we could log on to some financial institution web site, and watch our 401(k) and social security race to the bottom. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 11:46:39 AM · #177 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The fact is that the Republican leadership in the house FAILED to deliver the votes of their members. Pelosi's speech is just an excuse for failure and a poor one at that. |
As did the Democrats. |
The Democrats delivered a much greater number and percentage of their party's votes for the bailout than the Republicans. The Dem leadership delievered the votes they promised. The Republicans are the ones who came up short.
Only 1/3 of the Republicans in the House voted yes vs. 2/3 of the Democrats.
Keep in mind that this bill was what the President (a Republican) and the Secretary of the Treasury (also a Republican) wanted to pass and the bill on which John Boehner and the other Republican leaders had promised to persuade their memeber to vote yes. |
Now this is spin. Right off the talking points from last night.
Remember - it is the Democrats who hold the majority. The Democrats who do not need a single Republican vote. The Democrats who failed to pass a measure they brought for a vote and excused their own members (in some cases committee chairs) from voting yes on. And it is the Democrats that tried to play politics with this by first not even informing the Minority leader/whip of the so called "agreement" before going public that they were saving us from ourselves. |
Really? I thought McCain was the one who stopped his campaign, went to DC, and "got 'er done"... Hmmm guess not. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 11:48:17 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
surely you don't think they lack these qualities |
The deficiencies are obvious. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 11:52:21 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Why is everyone trying to tie this crisis and the reasons for it with a party (either one)? |
Because evidently it is easier to gnash one's teeth over the horrible "other" than to be reasonable and objective. Thanks for your interesting post, by the way. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 11:55:36 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm sure that is the real reason, or part of it anyway, along with it just being absolute crap, they must have realized that blaming the Dems made them look even more stupid. |
Won't see me disagree with that at all. In fact, I posted it earlier.
You also won't see me disagree with the fact that Pelosi is someone who couldn't care less about America but couldn't care more than furthering her own agenda of hate. |
And, of course, the Republicans are filled with happiness, joy, love and caring for their fellow man... |
Nope, wasn't what I said was it? Nor are you seeing me try to deflect the fact that neither party voted the way their leaders wanted.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2008 12:03:05 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Nor are you seeing me try to deflect the fact that neither party voted the way their leaders wanted. |
Really? This was supposed to be a bi-partisan measure. From what I can see, the Dems held up their end of the deal and delivered at least half of the necessry votes for the measure to pass and the Reps failed to delieve their half. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 12:04:13 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Phil:
Nor are you seeing me try to deflect the fact that neither party voted the way their leaders wanted. |
Really? This was supposed to be a bi-partisan measure. From what I can see, the Dems held up their end of the deal and delivered at least half of the necessry votes for the measure to pass and the Reps failed to delieve their half. |
Is that really what you're going with? |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 12:10:34 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Phil:
Nor are you seeing me try to deflect the fact that neither party voted the way their leaders wanted. |
Really? This was supposed to be a bi-partisan measure. From what I can see, the Dems held up their end of the deal and delivered at least half of the necessry votes for the measure to pass and the Reps failed to delieve their half. |
Is that really what you're going with? |
Maybe you see it differently. Whatever.
I'm not really upset that it didn't pass because it was a crappy deal from the start. There are better and less expensive ideas out there that need to be utilized.
I'll be much more interested to see what happens when the government reveals the hedge funds' short sale lists in another couple of weeks.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2008 01:03:27 PM · #184 |
Every member of Congress I've heard interviewed has said that constituent opinion was running any where from 9:1 to 15:1 against this measure -- aren't these folks elected to represent the voting public? I wish it had been voted down by 300 votes.
If these companies need "recapitalization" let them retrieve all executive compensation over the $5 million "McCain Line" and plow that back into their own companies and give them some incentive to do a proper job for a change. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 01:05:11 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every member of Congress I've heard interviewed has said that constituent opinion was running any where from 9:1 to 15:1 against this measure -- aren't these folks elected to represent the voting public? I wish it had been voted down by 300 votes.
|
I've heard the same.
Wonder why they chose this issue to listen to us on. :) |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 01:27:22 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every member of Congress I've heard interviewed has said that constituent opinion was running any where from 9:1 to 15:1 against this measure -- aren't these folks elected to represent the voting public? I wish it had been voted down by 300 votes. |
I suspect constituents' ignorance of the ramifications of inaction follows a similar ratio. The public perceives this proposal as a "bailout of the rich," and that would never win popular support. Our leadership has done an extremely poor job of presenting both the problem and this particular solution IMO. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 01:31:06 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every member of Congress I've heard interviewed has said that constituent opinion was running any where from 9:1 to 15:1 against this measure -- aren't these folks elected to represent the voting public? I wish it had been voted down by 300 votes.
|
I've heard the same.
Wonder why they chose this issue to listen to us on. :) |
Because they're up for re-election. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 01:36:09 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
Wonder why they chose this issue to listen to us on. :) |
Because they're up for re-election. |
Bingo. "Nearly every major political leader in America supported the $700 billion financial bailout bill. The President of the United States. The Vice President. The Treasury Secretary. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Democratic and Republican nominees for president. The Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and the Senate. All of them said the same thing. Vote yes... Asked to take a leap of faith regarding a dizzyingly complex problem, a critical mass of voters refused to trust their leaders, turning down the medicine that was offered. And so the politicians who are most exposed to popular whims have run for cover... Of the 38 incumbent members of Congress from both parties who are considered vulnerable in the coming election, 30 voted against the bill, and only 8 supported the bill. By contrast, members of Congress from relatively safe districts were evenly divided ΓΆ€” 197 for to 198 against." |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 01:42:21 PM · #189 |
| So 198 were safe and they still voted against it? |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 01:46:54 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every member of Congress I've heard interviewed has said that constituent opinion was running any where from 9:1 to 15:1 against this measure -- aren't these folks elected to represent the voting public? I wish it had been voted down by 300 votes. |
I suspect constituents' ignorance of the ramifications of inaction follows a similar ratio. The public perceives this proposal as a "bailout of the rich," and that would never win popular support. Our leadership has done an extremely poor job of presenting both the problem and this particular solution IMO. |
I think that most people know some sort of solution needs to be implemented. It's just that this one is really bad. Just handing over $700 Billion dollars for Paulson to do with as he pleases is beyond foolish.
Doing nothing isn't a good option either, the last time this happened, the "doing nothing" gave us the Great Depression, something I'm sure everyone would like to avoid.
If the taxpayers are expected to bail out these banks, we (taxpayers) should have a right to expect to be stakeholders in those banks, having a say in the operation of those institutions as well as reaping a share of the rewards those institutions generate.
Will it work? Well, it worked for Sweden in 1992 and pretty much everyone admits that the plan that was before the House yesterday was basically a crapshoot. You can call it Nationalization, because, well, that's what it is, the conservatives may not like it, but it's a lot less risky than giving $700B to the baks and hoping it fills the hole.
Message edited by author 2008-09-30 13:48:08. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 02:07:21 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every member of Congress I've heard interviewed has said that constituent opinion was running any where from 9:1 to 15:1 against this measure -- aren't these folks elected to represent the voting public? I wish it had been voted down by 300 votes. |
I suspect constituents' ignorance of the ramifications of inaction follows a similar ratio. The public perceives this proposal as a "bailout of the rich," and that would never win popular support. Our leadership has done an extremely poor job of presenting both the problem and this particular solution IMO. |
When is the last time this administration has been right correct on anything to do with money, other than ensuring their buddies get their share, and yours and mine too? How many net jobs have those tax cuts for billionaires created -- in the US, not outsourced to Bangalore* ...
I think a lot of folks are pretty sure there's a depression coming no matter what, and we don't particularly care whether those stockbrokers have to start flippin' a few burgers for "the King" ...
*Like the Apple technician I spoke with yesterday, before getting handed over to a "Product Specialist" (probably) on a landline from Cupertino to Oakland.
Message edited by author 2008-09-30 14:09:14. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 02:14:19 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
When is the last time this administration has been right correct on anything to do with money... |
When was the last time the president, Warren Buffet, both presidential candidates, and the leaders of both parties agreed on anything?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...we don't particularly care whether those stockbrokers have to start flippin' a few burgers for "the King" |
If that were the only consequence, it WOULD have been voted down by 300 votes. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 02:21:04 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If that were the only consequence, it WOULD have been voted down by 300 votes. |
Shannon,
I am willing to take the risk and wait a bit longer to see what are the real consequences of non-action. Let's wait until Nov 15th, for example. Mind you, there are banks out there with enough money to buy those failing institutions. I'm also pretty sure that credit-worthy people/companies will be able to get a credit. Unless there is an evidence that a substantial number of individuals/companies with good credit rating and healthy business plan has been denied a loan, then I won't believe the panic spreading mouths spitting nonsense...
Now, after the elections, heads will be cool and we will be able to get a much better plan, (if we end up needing one after all).
|
|
|
|
09/30/2008 02:23:45 PM · #194 |
It's not the only consequence, of course, but I think the mutineers are gonna make darned sure the captains go down with their ships. Just because a bunch of engineers agreed the Titanic was unsinkable didn't make them right ...
Sure there's going to be "some kind" of plan -- but it should look nothing like this. Speculators are panicking, but if these folks are to be believed about anything at all it's that -- over the long run -- "the markets" will appreciate. Following daily stock market numbers is a waste of time. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 02:27:00 PM · #195 |
Aha... The USA is weak, and ripe to be conquered. The populace is fearful and confused. Canada is preparing for victory.
All your base are belong to us. Make your time.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2008 02:38:18 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
I'm also pretty sure that credit-worthy people/companies will be able to get a credit. Unless there is an evidence that a substantial number of individuals/companies with good credit rating and healthy business plan has been denied a loan, then I won't believe the panic spreading mouths spitting nonsense... |
It's certainly possible that the unanimous opinions of Warren Buffet, the Treasury Secretary, Fed chairman and SEC chairman are wrong on matters of the economy, but it's probably fair to say none of us here have enough real knowledge of the situation to label it nonsense. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 02:47:26 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Aha... The USA is weak, and ripe to be conquered. The populace is fearful and confused. Canada is preparing for victory.
All your base are belong to us. Make your time. |
"Revelations" indeed ...
 |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 03:02:45 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by srdanz:
I'm also pretty sure that credit-worthy people/companies will be able to get a credit. Unless there is an evidence that a substantial number of individuals/companies with good credit rating and healthy business plan has been denied a loan, then I won't believe the panic spreading mouths spitting nonsense... |
It's certainly possible that the unanimous opinions of Warren Buffet, the Treasury Secretary, Fed chairman and SEC chairman are wrong on matters of the economy, but it's probably fair to say none of us here have enough real knowledge of the situation to label it nonsense. |
I certainly would not go as far as calling bs on Warren Buffet. What I'm talking about is the representation of the perceived state of the affairs by people with the agenda. To make things worse, those people (media) have no agenda of their own, they play for someone or something that they think is good.
All I'm saying is, all those people you mentioned had the job of following the affairs. (Including Mr. Buffet, who did not work for the gov't but is definitively working in the industry.)
And we are suddenly led to believe that these people suddenly realized that the shit hit the fan, while 30 days ago it was business as usual. This type of crisis does not happen overnight. Enron, maybe. If I had the time (and I might do that tonight), I'll find a thread on this very site where we've discussed credit crisis in the US and the ultimate inability to maintain the spending rate at which we were going. If we here were able to suspect that, I must imagine that someone up there had a hunch along the same lines.
Why not wait till november, and try again?
I do not buy the crisis until I see it. I do not see it. I only see handwaving and I need concrete examples. Kinda like God/god. Maybe I should just believe. |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 03:06:59 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by srdanz:
I'm also pretty sure that credit-worthy people/companies will be able to get a credit. Unless there is an evidence that a substantial number of individuals/companies with good credit rating and healthy business plan has been denied a loan, then I won't believe the panic spreading mouths spitting nonsense... |
It's certainly possible that the unanimous opinions of Warren Buffet, the Treasury Secretary, Fed chairman and SEC chairman are wrong on matters of the economy, but it's probably fair to say none of us here have enough real knowledge of the situation to label it nonsense. |
It doesn't take a financial genius to see that handing over giving $700B dollars to Paulson, who will have absolute discretion over its use is letting the fox guard the henhouse. If you're looking to place blame for the current mess, he should be one of your prime targets.
I'd also wager that none of those people are worrying about the impact on the ordinary person as they are on the wealthy (themselves). |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 03:08:13 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Aha... The USA is weak, and ripe to be conquered. The populace is fearful and confused. Canada is preparing for victory.
All your base are belong to us. Make your time. |
Hey, bring a case of beer when you come over. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 02:48:51 PM EDT.
