It's the economy stupid

subtitled: The Republicans have screwed it up again
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street


NEW YORK - A stunning makeover of the Wall Street landscape sent stocks falling precipitously Monday, with the Dow Jones industrials losing 500 points in their worst slide since the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Investors recoiled after a shakeup of the financial industry that took out two storied names: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co.

The pullback, which erased about $700 billion in shareholder wealth, occurred across much of the globe as investors absorbed Lehman's bankruptcy filing and what was essentially a forced sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America for $50 billion in stock.

Do you really think McSames economic policy will make things better? He insists that the economy is fundamentally strong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igAmVs0cvY8 Watch him dodder through this statement today, even as Wall Street giants collapse and the stock market reels.

The really sad news is the top exec got over $40 million in bonus' just last year and leaves with a 5 year income of over $120 million. Laughing all the way to the bank as the economy tanks. And which party does he belong to? http://www.followthemoney.org/

:confused:

So let me see I have this straight. Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy causing the stock market to tumble 504 points and it is the Republicans' fault with a Democrat majority Congress? How so? Any proof?

As far as McCain's economic policy working we would be speculating. He has to get elected first. :lol: In contrast how would Obama's economic policy be any better? Wall Street needed the rude awakening and it is about time. My 401K plans and stocks and look fine to me. The stock market will recover accordingly.

Here is some interesting information to consider.


Sept. 15, 2008
WASHINGTON - Never has a financial crisis of this magnitude hit so close to a presidential election.

So, as people ponder the latest poll numbers — and the numbers in their 401(k) accounts — the question is whether this will change the contest between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain.

Many are wondering how the wizardry of Wall Street financial engineering created such a mess. Even those who don't understand the mechanics of a “credit default swap” could still see frightening turmoil in the stock and bond markets Monday............................................ .................................

Campaign funds from Lehman employees
Obama’s campaign treasury has collected nearly $400,000 in campaign contributions from employees of Lehman Brothers, while McCain campaign has $145,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26723715


Sep 11, 2008
Both presidential candidates have gotten a lot of money from Lehman employees -- Democratic candidate Barack Obama to the tune of at least $370,000, and Republican John McCain, $117,000 -- according to the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.

Speculation was making the rounds on Capitol Hill on Thursday about whether the government would come to Lehman's rescue, fueled by Sunday's federal takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the government-engineered rescue of Bear Stearns earlier this year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters on Thursday, "I'm hoping that Lehman Brothers will turn around. People that I talk to say they think that it will."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1127961720080911?sp=true

Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy causing the stock market to tumble 504 points and it is the Republicans' fault with a Democrat majority Congress?

Wrong. The Democrats do not have a majority in Congress. A basic civics lesson in U.S. Government: The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. To have a majority in Congress the Demos would have to have a majority in both houses. They don't as of yet.

The Republicans not only had a majority in Congress for 6 years, they had a Republican President rubber stamping their legislation and they continue to have enough votes to keep the Democrats from over riding any vetoes. The poor shape of the economy lies solely at the feet of the Republicans .

The Republican's over the last 6 years have tried to recreate the “greed is good” days of President Reagan but like most sequels it was a flop.

Wrong. The Democrats do not have a majority in Congress. A basic civics lesson in U.S. Government: The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. To have a majority in Congress the Demos would have to have a majority in both houses. They don't as of yet.

The Republicans not only had a majority in Congress for 6 years, they had a Republican President rubber stamping their legislation and they continue to have enough votes to keep the Democrats from over riding any vetoes. The poor shape of the economy lies solely at the feet of the Republicans .

The Republican's over the last 6 years have tried to recreate the “greed is good” days of President Reagan but like most sequels it was a flop.

Whoa there buddy...um, don't know how to tell you this. Have you noticed that the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and the Senate Majority Leaders (Harry Reid) are both Demobcrats? That means democrats hold a majority in both houses of Congress.:runaround:

Whoa there buddy...um, don't know how to tell you this. Have you noticed that the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and the Senate Majority Leaders (Harry Reid) are both Demobcrats? That means democrats hold a majority in both houses of Congress.:runaround:

Reid got the nod as majority leader after Lieberman, an independent, went along with the Demos to break the stalemate and seat a majority leader. Now Lieberman flip flops and goes to the RNC and changes sides again. The U.S. Senate is 49 Demos, 49 Repubs. Show me the majority.

Reid got the nod as majority leader after Lieberman, an independent, went along with the Demos to break the stalemate and seat a majority leader. Now Lieberman flip flops and goes to the RNC and changes sides again. The U.S. Senate is 49 Demos, 49 Repubs. Show me the majority.

:confused:

I don't know about that and disagree with your analysis. Obviously the Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate so I agree with Thrasher. Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats regardless of his backing of John McCain for President as does Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont less the McCain part. Bernie Sanders might as well be a Democrat because he almost always votes with the Democrats. Sanders is a democratic socialist. Plus there are procedural matters if they deviate from the agreement to caucus with the Democrats.

That would give the Democrats the 51 votes they need to claim a majority versus 49 Republicans.

They are the majority....period!

how is a the fall of a bank that invested too much sub-prime mortgages the fault of anyone apart from the bank?
The dealings with sub-prime mortgages isn't that grat an indicator of the strength of the economy, it just indicates the risks involved in lending money to people who can't to pay you back and the even higher risk of buying these debts from other banks for the sake of potential profit.

CNN Breaking News ...

-- The Federal Reserve says it is taking over crumbling insurance giant AIG in an $85 billion rescue plan.

They are nuts !
Our Gov. bails/buys out freddy mac and that other realty giant but they cant help out other giants like Lehman Brothers and Bank Of America... :wtf: :confused:

At least my 401 and stocks are safe... for now. :eek:

Bank of America bailed out Merrill Lynch by purchasing it for $50 billion.

The problem with Americans is they are quick to lay blame or do a knee jerk reaction especially the politicians for obvious reasons. The stock market closed up 141 points today.

There are plenty of investment banks in good financial status so no great loss in the matter of Lehman Brothers. Not a single dime of taxpayers money should be used to bail them out. Moot issue anyways since they filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Wall Street needed the rude awakening and adjustment.

It's the greed stupid!!!! :lol:

slightly different.

AIG is used by many other banks worldwide to insure their own credit in their buisness dealings. If AIG fails, then globally, banks are going to be in trouble. In fact, this is why AIG must be saved because even small doubts as to whether or not it can honour super senior credit swaps is going to cause major hurt to banks which is another factor in banks being hurt the most in their share prices right now. That 85 Billion is only about a quarter of what they are contracted to insure.

With Lehman Brothers, Banks are just wondering how much money they are owed and how long it will take to get it back which is why Lehman Brother's demise causing share prices to fall isn't really an indicator of the strength of the economy. It is more to do with the fluidity of transactions in the economy.

Wasn't the buying of Merril Lynch a forced action?
It seemed odd to me that the US government didn't allow (or force) another similar action with Lehman Brothers because some very able banks were very willing to do just that.

I would agree our Gov should Not bail anyone out, its thier own fault they are in bankruptcy. Our tax dollars are spread thin enough as it is.

You know, I havent seen any AIG commercials on TV lately...hummm.. :lol:

Wasn't the buying of Merril Lynch a forced action?
It seemed odd to me that the US government didn't allow (or force) another similar action with Lehman Brothers because some very able banks were very willing to do just that.

:dunno:

Here is the press release from BA and a video of the CEOs explaining the deal.

http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=8255

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtGPm6sh5C0

They are the majority....period!

You sound like my wife now, if you're having your period, but nothing is that absolute in politics. As a Texan you should know better.

You sound like my wife now, if you're having your period, but nothing is that absolute in politics. As a Texan you should know better.

You ought to see mine on the rag. :uhoh:........:lol:

After the 2008 elections since House and Senate seats are up for grabs I'm quite sure there will be another change of scenery......I mean seats. :runaround:


With Lehman Brothers, Banks are just wondering how much money they are owed and how long it will take to get it back which is why Lehman Brother's demise causing share prices to fall isn't really an indicator of the strength of the economy. It is more to do with the fluidity of transactions in the economy.

Excellent analysis. :thumbsup: You're hired! :lol:

well... my point is, the way the banking system works, that owed money will be paid back eventually and is only missing until they've figured out how much and who is going to take over the debts.
It is more a sign of caution in the short term rather than showing overall weakness as ericn1300 is suggesting.

Well, it made more sense when my sister explained it to me....

well... my point is, the way the banking system works, that owed money will be paid back eventually and is only missing until they've figured out how much and who is going to take over the debts.
It is more a sign of caution in the short term rather than showing overall weakness as ericn1300 is suggesting.

Well, it made more sense when my sister explained it to me....

Did your sister explain that Merril Lynch is one of the only two investment banks left in America and is on the verge of being sold to the Chinese? I guess that would be the Republican dream, use the WalMart model for exporting our jobs and money to the Chinese only to come back and buy the heart of American capitalism. If you want to continue the yard sale of America vote Republican.

Blame it on our former president Bill Clinton too,he signed Nafta back in 1992 and that is one reason too,our jobs gone.It is hard for someone getting a job now.

Did your sister explain that Merril Lynch is one of the only two investment banks left in America and is on the verge of being sold to the Chinese?

:shakehead

I don't think that is correct. The two other standalone investment banks aka bulge-bracket investment banks are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. The bigger universal and commercial banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase are assuming the duties of investment banking which make sense.

And Merriill Lynch sold to China? Any links or support?

I just found out today my exwifes retirement plan and 401k is with AIG... that's not good!

I just found out today my exwifes retirement plan and 401k is with AIG... that's not good!

:lol:

Gee, I wonder why. Your secret is safe with me JC. :wink:


BTW - Back to the topic I forgot to mention. The insurance underwriters, commercial banks, securities companies and investment banks were authorized by law to consolidate and do investment banking pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act signed into law in 1999 by Bill Clinton and the Congress, of course the Republicans were the majority in both the Senate and House. It effectively repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. The final bill passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House 362-57-15 which appears to be fairly bi-partisan. And Bill Clinton made no effort to veto the bill.

Depending on how you look at it plenty of blame to go around or maybe it was good thing.

:shakehead

I don't think that is correct. The two other standalone investment banks aka bulge-bracket investment banks are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. The bigger universal and commercial banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase are assuming the duties of investment banking which make sense.

And Merriill Lynch sold to China? Any links or support?

Your right, i got it backwards. BofA bought Merrill lynch, a good move for BofA. Morgan Stanley is desperate for a merger and an infusion of cash and has talks about selling to a Chinese bank.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26764591

From what I've seen it looks like you get everything backwards or put out disinformation. :lol:

Maybe it is time for the standalone investment banks to go the way of the dodo bird.


A growing number of analysts say investment banks, which tap capital markets to fuel their business, need to combine with big commercial banks and their stable pools of deposits if they want to avoid a Lehman-like collapse.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act addressed the issue almost 10 years ago. Obviously some major factors for their demise is a gross case of mismanagement and failure to diversify. Like we all need a stand alone investment bank on every street corner.

From what I've seen it looks like you get everything backwards or put out disinformation. :lol:

Maybe it is time for the standalone investment banks to go the way of the dodo bird.

[/i]

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act addressed the issue almost 10 years ago. Obviously some major factors for their demise is a gross case of mismanagement and failure to diversify. Like we all need a stand alone investment bank on every street corner.

:lol: +1

ABC's 20/20 had a blistering expose on the investment banks in financial trouble tonight. Talk about greed and decadence. :shakehead Anybody watch it?

Here's one about Lehman's business dealings 8 years ago.


Lehman Brothers was identified eight years ago by ABC News and the New York Times as doing business with a company suspected of writing fraudulent mortgages and cheating consumers, but Lehman Brothers company defended its ongoing relationship as appropriate.

Lehman Brothers' collapse today is blamed, in large part, on its heavy involvement in sub-prime mortgage investments dating back to that time.

In a joint investigation in March 2000, 20/20 and the New York Times revealed how Lehman Brothers helped to "bundle" or package millions of dollars worth of mortgages arranged by California-based First Alliance Mortgage, accused by the Federal Trade Commission and several state attorneys general of defrauding homeowners through "predatory lending."

Lehman Brothers helped invent the financing of sub-prime mortgages from companies like First Alliance by taking over the individual mortgage loans and packaging them as high-interest paying investment vehicles for Wall Street, known as "securitization."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5807408&page=1

From what I've seen it looks like you get everything backwards or put out disinformation.

A simple case of a misnomer that I admitted to, and corrected, and is no cause for a personal attack. Please do try to keep the conversation civil.

Maybe it is time for the standalone investment banks to go the way of the dodo bird.

As much as it annoys me we might actually be in agreement for a change in principle, but not necessarily in detail.

I-banking dilemma: Staying standalone or going composite

"To be sure, Merrill or Goldman Sachs are no standalone investment banks; they are practically like banks, which do everything (equities, debt, asset management) that a composite bank like Citibank does, except raising deposits."
http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=334828

A simple case of a misnomer that I admitted to, and corrected, and is no cause for a personal attack. Please do try to keep the conversation civil.

The conversation is civil and that was not a personal attack but pointing out mistakes (more than one) you made which are more than misnomers. The problems is you are taking things too personal.

You still haven't produced anything that supports the opening remarks in your first post where it is all the Republicans' fault. See quote below. If you make a blatant unfounded statement like that then you need to support it or otherwise your post amounts to nothing but a troll post. :nono:


subtitled: The Republicans have screwed it up again

LMFAO, “a troll post”? The whole world is taking the meltdown of the the U.S. economy seriously, to the point of huge market losses around the globe and a record price jump in oil prices due to the falling dollar and you call it a troll post?

My subtitle: “The Republicans have screwed it up again” was posted as my opinion and now it seems most Americans agree with me 2 to 1 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/cnn.poll/index.html

If you want to stick to the party line like your friend “flip flop” McSame and try to tell me that the economy is “fundamentally sound” then you're part of the problem.

And how do you support the huge tax increases of the Bush administration. Seven Trillion Dollars of deficit spending is Seven Trillion Dollars of new taxes. New deficits will have to be paid back someday and by who? Taxpayers will have to cough up the money, and how? Taxes. Not new taxes hopefully, just fair taxes. If you have a problem with this statement just substitute the phrase “debit spending” for “raising taxes”, they are the same in the end.

America is getting tired of the spend and tax later attitude of the Republicans. Time for a change and McSame isn't it.

a record price jump in oil prices due to the falling dollar

the oil prices went up because the dollar weakened?
Could've worn the price for one litre dropped 2pence over the weekend over here.

LMFAO, “a troll post”? The whole world is taking the meltdown of the the U.S. economy seriously, to the point of huge market losses around the globe and a record price jump in oil prices due to the falling dollar and you call it a troll post?

Laugh all you want. It is still a troll post with your comment that I pointed out. "subtitled: The Republicans have screwed it up again" The current event part or link would have been fine by itself. Trolling is when you make a comment or post without support or credibility at the original time of posting to bait others into an argument which you have a tendency to like doing at this forum. When you made your first post you had nothing credible to back your opinion at the time it was posted. Opinions are like "A" holes everyone has one. And now you post results from a CNN poll almost a week later. :shakehead

The CNN <---(good laugh) poll does nothing to back your position the Republicans are at fault. Anything from the real financial and economic experts? I'm still waiting. :runaround:

Yeah we might as well blame Bill Clinton for signing the bill into law back in 1999 that some economics experts claim laid the ground work for the sub prime mortgages causing the troubles on Wall Street just so low or middle income families could purchase homes. Or better yet Bill caused the dot.com failure. :screwy: That sounds pretty dumb. Like I said earlier probably plenty of blame to go around but blaming Bush and the Republicans is rather misplaced and gratuitous at this point in time.

The bottom line is my income, stocks and savings plans to include three 401K plans have done quite well the past 8 years under the Republicans and the last two years with a do nothing Democrat majority Congress. :grinyes:

And now you post results from a CNN poll almost a week later. :shakehead

I didn't intend to be prescient on that one, just turned out that way.

The CNN <---(good laugh) poll does nothing to back your position the Republicans are at fault. Anything from the real financial and economic experts? I'm still waiting.

Like the Republican's “ real financial and economic experts” that got us into this mess and want to spend more taxpayer's money to bail out themselves and their friends?

Yeah we might as well blame Bill Clinton for signing the bill into law back in 1999 that some economics experts claim laid the ground work for the sub prime mortgages causing the troubles on Wall Street just so low or middle income families could purchase homes.

Isn't that circular logic? First you claim “Obviously the Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate” now even though it's not veto proof, then you blame Clinton for signing Republican legislation that was veto proof?

The bottom line is my income, stocks and savings plans to include three 401K plans have done quite well the past 8 years under the Republicans and the last two years with a do nothing Democrat majority Congress.

Go ahead and stick your head in the sand. Even though you have more, your dollars are worth less in the international market and shrinking, and the Federal Bank, still under Republican domination, is flooding the market by printing more dollars and, diluting yours at an even faster rate.

Like the Republican's “ real financial and economic experts” that got us into this mess and want to spend more taxpayer's money to bail out themselves and their friends?

Isn't that circular logic? First you claim “Obviously the Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate” now even though it's not veto proof, then you blame Clinton for signing Republican legislation that was veto proof?



Other than your misplaced beliefs and opinions which really do not count you still have not posted anything to support your position the Republicans are at fault for the meltdown. I'm still waiting. :runaround:

The FBI has started a big investigation into the companies involved and the people that ran the companies which is what really counts and where the emphasis should be. Including the Fannie and Freddie debacles. Lets see how it turns out. :grinyes:

FBI Probing Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Lehman in Subprime Collapse (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acZBwgNm6Uxc&refer=home)

FBI investigating companies at heart of meltdown (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown_investigation;_ylt=At8nAqH3B3Aq v1aOjlcqHHGgfbcF)


Just for arguments sake Bill Clinton had no intentions on vetoing the bill even though it was technically veto proof. It was a bi-partisan approved bill. But it is not as simplistic as that and goes deeper. Regardless, the difference between you and me is I am willing to accept the fact that Republicans may be partly to blame whereas you are typically one sided in the discussion as usual and blinded. Your belief is the Democrats can do no wrong or have no blame. :screwy:

For what it is worth and since you want to press the issue about whose fault it really is here is good editorial from Investor's Business Daily. :rofl:


The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Monday, September 15, 2008

Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.

Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.

As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.

In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.

At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.

The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.

There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.

But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.

Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.

While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.

Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20080915/bs_ibd_ibd/20080915issues01

For what it is worth and since you want to press the issue about whose fault it really is here is good editorial from Investor's Business Daily. :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And of course, the INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY would never be biased as regards news of this sort!!!:iceslolan As well as you know, editorials are just just straight facts reporting, and never opinions either.:rofl:

Seriously. I've never laughed so hard at something on this forum before.:wink:

I honestly don't think this is a party issue at all, for one these are companies, and no matter how much finger pointing they do - they can really only blame themselves. Cry all you want about regulation - but companies have shown again and again they are incapable of keeping themselves in check. What they're trying to do is almost akin to saying the "the government wouldn't let me build my house in a flood plain, so I built it inside of a volcano"

If they want less regulation, then they should bail themselves out.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And of course, the INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY would never be biased as regards news of this sort!!!:iceslolan As well as you know, editorials are just just straight facts reporting, and never opinions either.:rofl:

Yeah, I got a good laugh out of it too. Obviously I stipulated the source and that the article was an editorial which is strictly the views of that rag but posted it to so how ridiculous this stuff and speculation is getting and more ridiculous by the minute with our politicians. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Seriously. I've never laughed so hard at something on this forum before.:wink:

In this forum? I've had better laughs through the years. However, the original post that got this thread started takes first prize. :rofl:



I honestly don't think this is a party issue at all, for one these are companies, and no matter how much finger pointing they do - they can really only blame themselves. .

I almost fell out of my chair. We actually agree on something in principle for a change. :uhoh:.......:lol:

I know. It's always easier to blame somebody else, no matter how convoluted you have to make the story. You'd think some of these explanations are written by Basil Fawlty.
I know you knew it was an editorial (afterall I quoted that part) - but the writer's point of view on things is almost farcical, I couldn't read it without laughing.:cwm27:

The FBI has started a big investigation into the companies involved and the people that ran the companies which is what really counts and where the emphasis should be. Including the Fannie and Freddie debacles. Lets see how it turns out.

Did you even read the links you posted? I know you don't read the ones I post so stop begging for more. Quoting from the first one:

attorneys cautioned that the complicated probes could take months, or even years, to complete. They also questioned the timing of the government's leak about the investigations, which came as both Democratic and Republican lawmakers voiced concerns about the Bush administration's $700 billion rescue plan.

``It just shows you that the FBI is a political entity,'' said Michael Volkov, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at the Dickinson Wright law firm in Washington. ``While the administration is seeking an ungodly amount of money with a blank check, the FBI comes right behind it to say, `Don't worry we'll get a few scalps.'''

The Republican majority in Congress won the trifecta when Bush was elected and pursued the mantra of a free market aggressively by deregulating markets and under funding regulatory agencies, stripping them of their ability to enforce the weakened laws left.

The early failures of Global Crossing, Enron, Adelphia, and Worldcom should have come as a warning, but no. In the heady days of greed is good the Republicans did they notice the gathering storm clouds? Nope they went on with business as usual and now we have been reduced to Wall Street begging us to bail them out through the mouth of Bush tonight.

I know. It's always easier to blame somebody else, no matter how convoluted you have to make the story. You'd think some of these explanations are written by Basil Fawlty.
I know you knew it was an editorial (afterall I quoted that part) - but the writer's point of view on things is almost farcical, I couldn't read it without laughing.:cwm27:

That editorial was mostly nonsense. IBT is well known for being so far to the right they can look over the edge and say “yup the world is flat”. Although that editorial hasn't been reviewed yet, others by IBT have been by Media Matters and found to be full of half truths and false hoods.

Stop banging your head on the wall Bloke, some people will never move out of the 50's.

Did you even read the links you posted? I know you don't read the ones I post so stop begging for more.

:rolleyes:

Did you? Well, obviously you haven't been reading or comprehending nor putting into context any of the links and information I had to post wasting my time and effort responding to your speculation and B.S. You still have not posted any credible, reliable, and factual information supporting your misplaced position the Republicans are fault for the mess on Wall Street which is the theme of your post. You have not posted anything relevant or worth reading other than your unfounded opinions which are still clearly misplaced. Lets cut the subterfuge and excuses. If you had something worth looking at and not laughing at you would have posted it. Next, I'm not begging and insist. I have asked you repeatedly and you failed to do that. :runaround:

BTW - For your information the FBI investigations and other SEC and IRS investigations started way before the latest Wall Street meltdown especially into the subprime mortgage lenders and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae where all roads lead concerning this debacle. It is quite obvious you are blinded by your politics. Simple research even from liberal publications or even conservative :eek: like below would show that these troubles go back to the Clinton administration but contrary to your position which is way out in left field, my position is these companies and Wall Street are to blame.

Bush inherited the mess from Clinton. Sad part is Bush's legacy is tied into Clinton's legacy neither of which does looks too good now. Even your buddy Obama agrees with the 700 billion dollar bailout plan in principle. Gee, I wonder why. McCain and Obama's running mate Biden actually opposed it initially.



Government Intensifies Mortgage Investigation

New York Times
Published: May 5, 2008

Federal agencies are intensifying a criminal investigation of the mortgage industry and focusing on whether some lenders turned a blind eye to inflated income figures provided by borrowers.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the criminal division of the Internal Revenue Service have formed a task force to examine mortgages that were made with little or no proof of the earnings or assets of borrowers, a government official who had been briefed on the matter said Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/business/05lend.html?ref=patrick.net



Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

New York Times
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt



Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’

Los Angeles Times
By Ronald Brownstein
May 31, 1999 in print edition A-5

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807



Analysis: Reckless Mortgages Brought Financial Market to Its Knees

September 18, 2008
By John R. Lott, Jr.

Surprisingly, research done by economists a decade ago in 1998, particularly by Professors Ted Day and Stan Liebowitz at the University of Texas at Dallas, predicted the current problems and tried to warn people of a different cause. Starting during the early 1990s, mortgage-underwriting standards have been consistently weakened. Many of the names involved in the forefront of those changes, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as Countrywide and Bear Stearns, have been the most prominent financial entities to become insolvent.

Others did not share these economists' concerns. The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than ‘concern about housing.'"

The changes in underwriting standards were pushed to accomplish what many called a "noble goal" -- an increase in home ownership among poor and minority Americans -- but the changes created a time bomb that was set off as soon as property values began to decline. The new rules involved eliminating verification of income or assets, little assurance of the ability to pay the mortgage, and virtually eliminating down payments.

Making it possible for otherwise unqualified people to buy homes increased demand and increased the price of houses. As long as housing prices rose, the problems inherent in not requiring down payments or relaxing other standards were hidden. While prices rose, no one had to default. Instead, if someone was unable to pay the mortgage, the obvious option was to sell the house at a profit. As long as prices continued to rise, people could accurately claim that the new standards did not have an appreciably different default rate than the old standards.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424945,00.html

Honestly, I didnt read it all.... :lol:

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/3/a/9/3a973400fc819a02769ae25339296e12.gif

I hate to admit it but Obama sure looks economical. :rofl:

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/87/1113kh6.png








versus Palin.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/201/1112qt0.png

http://gallery.viperclub.org/data/500/medium/Palin3.jpg
Viper



or McCain :lol:


http://www.dyna.co.za/cars/Ford_15_Model_T.jpg

Well at least we know McCain is still strong enough to start a ford with his own hands.:2cents: :biggrin:

And God Bless Obama, he's even riding an American made bicycle :smokin: (I kind of have to wonder if his PR people were like "make sure it's not one of them dang foreign makes you're seen on")

I hate to admit it but Obama sure looks economical. :rofl:
(pic delted)
versus Palin.
(pic delted)
or McCain :lol:
(pic delted see the previous post)


:) And I have to admit, as you pointed out, she's a MILF.

Bush inherited the mess from Clinton. Sad part is Bush's legacy is tied into Clinton's legacy neither of which does looks too good now.

my position is these companies and Wall Street are to blame.

I agree, it's a bipartisan mess brought about by the best government Wall Street could buy, regardless of party.

But enough of that agreeing nonsense. $700 billion dollars in new taxes combined with the biggest power grab by the executive branch, and who profits? Not “We the people”.

What you call the “do nothing Democratic majority” is still dependent (until November) on the Republican's to get anything done on their own and I'm afraid they'll go along with the fear mongering of Bush and Paulson to push through a half assed plan.

I could go into a litany of reasons to verbally abuse both parties, but this is a time for unity. Are you a Republican or an American first?

And where the heck is Cheney in all this? I thought he was one of daddy's darlings that would bring credence to the current administration by providing the smarts Bush Jr. lacked. Guess he went back to his “undisclosed location” to keep his name out of this. Oh, yeah! That's right, he is the smart one.

I agree, it's a bipartisan mess brought about by the best government Wall Street could buy, regardless of party.

But enough of that agreeing nonsense. $700 billion dollars in new taxes combined with the biggest power grab by the executive branch, and who profits? Not “We the people”.

:dunno:

No doubt in my mind Wall Street has the power over our politicians and Wall Street is calling in their markers. Personally, I'm not for the so called bailout. I think that is true for most Americans but that could be due to a lack of understanding or trust. But I guess we have to put it into perspective and I do not think the average American really knows what the bailout plan really is although there is no question taxpayer money is involved.

From what I understand especially after watching the ABC evening news is technically it is not a cash type blank check bailout but more like loans and a shuffling of assets. The government is going to buy these notes (distressed mortgages) from various institutions and then hold on to them to sell at a later time to investors or when things supposedly get better in an attempt to make a profit. See link below.

Click here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21qanda.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

The weird part is the House Republicans are the ones dragging this out or putting up the fight on the plan. Everyone else has rubber stamped it with very few concessions or they got what they wanted out of it.

Other interesting news is Washington Mutual goes under and gets taken over by the Feds. The assets sold to JP Morgan Chase for $1.9 billion. The market didn't even burp over this news and it didn't even phase the banking industry. :screwy:

Other interesting news is Washington Mutual goes under and gets taken over by the Feds. The assets sold to JP Morgan Chase for $1.9 billion. The market didn't even burp over this news and it didn't even phase the banking industry. :screwy:

As I heard it "most of the assests" were sold to JP Morgan. So just what are the "rest of the assets" the taxpayers get stuck with in this one?

As an aside, my wife got a junk mail from WaMu the same day as the take over for another credit card.

As I heard it "most of the assests" were sold to JP Morgan. So just what are the "rest of the assets" the taxpayers get stuck with in this one?


Here are the details. Touted as the biggest banking failure in history. JP Morgan Chase got whatever it wanted out of it for a steal. WaMu's total assets was $307 billion.


Washington Mutual, the giant lender that came to symbolize the excesses of the mortgage boom, was seized by federal regulators on Thursday night, in what is by far the largest bank failure in American history.

Regulators simultaneously brokered an emergency sale of virtually all of Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings and loan, to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion, averting another potentially huge taxpayer bill for the rescue of a failing institution.

The move came as lawmakers reached a stalemate over the passage of a $700 billion bailout fund designed to help ailing banks, and removed one of America’s most troubled banks from the financial landscape.

Customers of WaMu, based in Seattle, are unlikely to be affected, although shareholders and some bondholders will be wiped out. WaMu account holders are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to $100,000, and additional deposits will be backed by JPMorgan Chase.

New York Times Article on WaMu (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26wamu.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Well so much for the bailout plan. The House failed to pass the plan. :dunno:





The Dow Jones industrials suffered their biggest one-day point loss ever after the House of Representatives narrowly failed to approve a $700-billion rescue plan for the nation's financial system.

The rescue bill failed by a vote of 207 to 226; 218 were needed for passage. About 60% of Democrats voted for the bill; only 33% of Republicans supported the bill.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches-092908.aspx

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown;_ylt=Ajzk0NRMkv2zstv5DnhDR3ub.H QA

Well so much for the bailout plan. The House failed to pass the plan.

The people have spoken, no more bailouts and huge transfers of wealth. The party is over.

From your link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown;_ylt=Ajzk0NRMkv2zstv5DnhDR3ub.H QA

“In the face of thousands of phone calls and e-mails fiercely opposing the measure, many lawmakers were not willing to take the political risk of voting for it just five weeks before the elections.

The bill went down, 228-205.”

How many times do the piggies have to keep coming back to the public trough before the people revolt? I think we might have found out.

Uh oh - the government listened to the people. Who saw that coming?

...and already Wall St is down One Trillion Dollars.

That's a lot of frickin money Mr Bigglesworth.

Good thing I don't own stocks or work in a publicly held company.

Anyway, here's some Ron Paul talking sense about the economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy6SlUpbnIU

(seriously, McCain over Ron Paul? folks?)

Anyway, here's some Ron Paul talking sense about the economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy6SlUpbnIU

(seriously, McCain over Ron Paul? folks?)


Paul makes some good points for what it is worth but to put the video into context what bill was he referring to? It sounds like HR 3221 aka the Housing Bailout Bill which was a Democrat sponsored bill which dates back a few months on the last version as far as passage. Obviously that wasn't the mother of all bailout plans especially compared to the latest one that failed to pass.

H.R. 3221: Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3221)

BTW - Neither Obama or McCain voted for or against the Senate version.

Paul makes some good points for what it is worth but to put the video into context what bill was he referring to? It sounds like HR 3221 aka the Housing Bailout Bill which was a Democrat sponsored bill which dates back a few months on the last version as far as passage. Obviously that wasn't the mother of all bailout plans especially compared to the latest one that failed to pass.

HR 3221 may not have been “ the mother of all bailout plans” but it was forward looking and quite prescient. Some people can see what's coming, even when the Republicans try to pull the same blinders they use themselves over the eyes of the general public.

(seriously, McCain over Ron Paul? folks?)Yeah no kidding man. The problems happening today are the same thing that Ron Paul has been trying to educate people about for 20 years.

Then you guys will like this one. I somewhat agree with what he said towards the end. I'll let you figure that out.

Congressman Ron Paul discusses 700 Billion Bailout (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcuppSvQ1-Q)

I can't help but be a little cynical about this.

I've heard many people say that quite simply, you can be against the bail-out but if nothing is done then the consequences for the world economy, not just the U.S would be next to catastrophic (or something to that effect).

with that in mind and knowing what that means to share prices, I am left wondering how much money could've been made by those who said "no" to the initial plan.

anyone know what kind of protection there is against this sort of thing?

On a related side note; party leaders here in the UK has been calling, or otherwise referencing the rejection of the initial plan as, a mistake at their respective party conferences.

He's right, too much overseas spending, too much reverting to socialism when wall street fails - and of course he's going to be voting for himself.

The U.S. really hates the idea of smart presidents.

He's right, too much overseas spending, too much reverting to socialism when wall street fails - and of course he's going to be voting for himself.

Of course he's going to be voting for himself, intellectually masturbating to the correctness of his message as the rest of the world, that with the exception of a few geeks, will take no notice.

Yeah no kidding man. The problems happening today are the same thing that Ron Paul has been trying to educate people about for 20 years.

There is no doubt that Ron Paul has some fantastic positions as well as positions that are totally ludacrious. When he goes on his libertarian vent, I'm behind him one hundred percent. When he turns in to conspiracy theory 101, people can't get away from him fast enough.

I'd love to have the guy in charge of economic and social policy - but thats it.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I can't help but be a little cynical about this.

I've heard many people say that quite simply, you can be against the bail-out but if nothing is done then the consequences for the world economy, not just the U.S would be next to catastrophic (or something to that effect).

Who can't be cynical about it. I guess that is called being stuck between a rock and hard place. Obviously global markets will be affected. How has this affected the UK?

I really don't see much affect on Mainstreet at least in my part of the U.S. so far. You can still get a car financed, loans and gasoline prices are dropping.

I called my stockbroker and this is what he told me:

"If you go to Walmart on a Saturday at around 12:00 p.m. (noon) and see the parking lot empty then it is time to worry."

Now that was reassuring. :lol:

The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171

yea ! I guess my children should start saving for retirement now. :rolleyes:

I called my stockbroker and this is what he told me:

"If you go to Walmart on a Saturday at around 12:00 p.m. (noon) and see the parking lot empty then it is time to worry."

Main street has been shopping at Walmart since, oh about the same time the Republicans started moving their jobs to China. Shopping there is a sign of desperation in hard economic times.

Start watching the Walmart parking lot to see if your stock broker is shopping there, that would be a more telling sign and with all the jobs lost on Wall Street it might not be long.

Is your broker doing right by you? Walmart sure isn't http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/