Obama's HOPE

[Aranince]

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/blackerton/fgOpYT15xoFKsLKdyU8m80tAAIikneRDdzmQDxWyQDPzSdU4vW1tOshe6S2o/DowHOPE_Feb_16.jpg

I see a lot of hope in that!

[Sky Blue]

oh gawd :rolleyes:

[alexbates]

Hope is all your going to have because it will be falling even more.

[jonbravo77]

is this an anti-Obama thread or a pro-Obama thread. I'm Jewish so I read right to left and that image looks promising to me :D :p

[TuffLuffJimmy]

You're right! Obama did cause this economic crisis. He was the president when it happened and all...

Perhaps you need to look up what "hope" means. It is, after all, not a guarantee.

[miloblithe]

You want to bet he does better than GWB? Over 10,550 when he took office and 7,950 when he left. About a 25% drop over the course of 8 years. He is the first president in history to serve 8 years and have the stock market end up lower on his last day than it was on his first. Even much maligned Carter oversaw a stagnant stock market, equal when he entered and left after 4 years.

Meanwhile, Obama's watch has seen the stock market drop from 7950 to 7552, about a 5% drop.

[Iscariot]

Obviously you don't realize that OBAMA stands for Operational Biomechanical Android Manufactured for Assassination, and HOPE stands for Humanoid Optimized for Potential Exploration. Don't come to a conversation if you don't know the acronyms, man. That's just embarrassing.

[lostfan916]

http://instantrimshot.com/

[SactoGuy18]

Meanwhile, Obama's watch has seen the stock market drop from 7950 to 7552, about a 5% drop.

I think once the stimulus kicks in, we'll see the stock market get back to the 8,500 to 9,000 range by the end of 2009. :)

[jonbravo77]

http://instantrimshot.com/

Well, I had to add that to my bookmark bar, never know when I will need it.. :D

[Dane D.]

It's going to fall even more sad to say. He's the best snake oil salesman yet to run for President. With the help of the clueless Democrats (Socialists) in the House and Senate, they are going to run this country into the ground. God help us, the era of the nanny state has officially started. Check your freedoms at the door and bend over because the government now is telling us how to run businesses.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

It's going to fall even more sad to say. He's the best snake oil salesman yet to run for President. With the help of the clueless Democrats (Socialists) in the House and Senate, they are going to run this country into the ground. God help us, the era of the nanny state has officially started. Check your freedoms at the door and bend over because the government now is telling us how to run businesses.

I just ROFLcoptered...

Republican plans include prolonging a war, fighting stoners (for no apparent reason) and keeping queers from marrying.

At least the dems are trying to benefit the country.

[chrmjenkins]

I often base my opinion of the economic situation for a year by the performance of an average over a 2 hour period. I also eat paste.

[Voidness]

is this an anti-Obama thread or a pro-Obama thread. I'm Jewish so I read right to left and that image looks promising to me :D :p
Haha, good point :D

[Sky Blue]

It's going to fall even more sad to say. He's the best snake oil salesman yet to run for President. With the help of the clueless Democrats (Socialists) in the House and Senate, they are going to run this country into the ground. God help us, the era of the nanny state has officially started. Check your freedoms at the door and bend over because the government now is telling us how to run businesses.

Can't tell if this post is supposed to a piss take on a right wing nutjob or not.

[NT1440]

I often base my opinion of the economic situation for a year by the performance of an average over a 2 hour period. I also eat paste.

Wow. Wooooooooooow!

Someone get this man a cookie, because I literally just hit the floor laughing. I commend you sir!

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Can't tell if this post is supposed to a piss take on a right wing nutjob or not.

he's serious. Ohio and crossbow hunting...

[NT1440]

It's going to fall even more sad to say. He's the best snake oil salesman yet to run for President. With the help of the clueless Democrats (Socialists) in the House and Senate, they are going to run this country into the ground. God help us, the era of the nanny state has officially started. Check your freedoms at the door and bend over because the government now is telling us how to run businesses.

Wheres your outrage at the administration that oversaw the tanking of the economy? The one that cost us what is going to wind up being as much as 3 trillion with a pointless war we are still committed to?

Oh wait, no, its ok as long as your a republican right? Is that how these things work? The second your party isn't in charge its time to suddenly wake up and complain? So where you one of those just "checking your freedoms at the door and bending over" silently for the last 8 years?

But hey, the "free market" cant have flaws right? Conservatism can't fail, only you can fail conservatism right? RIGHT?

:rolleyes:

Ugh, srry for the rant guys.

[chrmjenkins]

I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion at least half of the people that call others socialists don't even understand the definition of the word and are just repeating conservative talking points.

[NT1440]

I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion at least half of the people that call others socialists don't even understand the definition of the word and are just repeating conservative talking points.

+1

Thats the way it works.

[Iscariot]

I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion at least half of the people that call others socialists don't even understand the definition of the word and are just repeating conservative talking points.

It's not Synthetic Operational Construct Intended for Assassination, Logical Infiltration and Scientific Troubleshooting?

[Aranince]

Where do I mention that Bush was better? This economic stuff first started during Clinton.

Second of all, if you know squat about economics(or at least been paying attention to the news) every time the government gets involved in the economy, the economy falls.

Someone in congress or the president talks about the economy, the market dives. This whole economic mess began because the government got involved. Socialism does not work. Government involvement in the economy is the WORST thing. We need to let the economy fall before it can get back up.

[plinden]

Someone in congress or the president talks about the economy, the market dives. ... We need to let the economy fall before it can get back up.

So you think he's doing something right?

[chrmjenkins]

Where do I mention that Bush was better? This economic stuff first started during Clinton.

Yeah, we would have been better off without that budget surplus.


Second of all, if you know squat about economics(or at least been paying attention to the news) every time the government gets involved in the economy, the economy falls.

The economy failed this time because the government didn't intervene and didn't provide the proper oversight to prevent predatory lending.


Someone in congress or the president talks about the economy, the market dives. This whole economic mess began because the government got involved. Socialism does not work. Government involvement in the economy is the WORST thing. We need to let the economy fall before it can get back up.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Last I checked, the vast majority of means of production is privately owned by companies. Private businesses also distribute those goods. Government intervention in these matters are exceptions, not the rule. As for compensation, the only regulation is minimum wage and the guarantee of equal compensation for equal skills regardless of race, gender, religion etc. Other than that, companies can compensate however they see fit.

So, if you think what this country is partaking in is socialism, you have a severely distorted view of the concept. Even the companies that are receiving government funds are expected to return them and revert to running themselves.

[Aranince]

The economy failed this time because the government didn't intervene and didn't provide the proper oversight to prevent predatory lending.


That is half of it. The other half is that the government forced the banks to give loans to people who did not have the means of paying them off.

[jonbravo77]

Where do I mention that Bush was better? This economic stuff first started during Clinton.

Second of all, if you know squat about economics(or at least been paying attention to the news) every time the government gets involved in the economy, the economy falls.

Someone in congress or the president talks about the economy, the market dives. This whole economic mess began because the government got involved. Socialism does not work. Government involvement in the economy is the WORST thing. We need to let the economy fall before it can get back up.

Sorry, but the Socialism that the conservatives define does not work. But if you truly look into what Socialism really is there are a lot of benefits to it. Not saying that it wouldn't need some work to accomplish, but everyone keeps throwing around Socialism like it's the worst thing in the world. So far, Conservatism isn't working that well...

[NT1440]

That is half of it. The other half is that the government forced the banks to give loans to people who did not have the means of paying them off.

Why don't you actually do some reading before spouting off such nonsense which has been debunked almost weekly here?

[yg17]

I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion at least half of the people that call others socialists don't even understand the definition of the word and are just repeating conservative talking points.


Yeah, they hear that fat pill popping tub of lard Rush say something completely asinine then go off and repeat it

[jonbravo77]

That is half of it. The other half is that the government forced the banks to give loans to people who did not have the means of paying them off.

Please site your facts here, all the news stories and things I have seen and read point to the contrary. Mortgage companies were handing bad loans out like candy to build how they look in the market and their own bottom line. The only thing government can be blamed for is sitting on it's butt while this was going on and knowing full well it was happening. Yes, Clinton's era didn't help, but Bush's era knew from the beginning and either chose or just played stupid to the whole thing...

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Where do I mention that Bush was better? This economic stuff first started during Clinton.
That's a lie and you know it. And even if it were true Bush would have had eight years to fix it, so it's in no way Clinton's fault.

Second of all, if you know squat about economics(or at least been paying attention to the news) every time the government gets involved in the economy, the economy falls.
Example? The Great Depression was caused because there wasn't enough regulation of the market. Looks like you don't know anything... PS: by news did you mean Fox News :D:D:D:D

Someone in congress or the president talks about the economy, the market dives. This whole economic mess began because the government got involved. Socialism does not work. Government involvement in the economy is the WORST thing. We need to let the economy fall before it can get back up.

Can you support this claim with any info? At least quit regurgitating what Fox tells you.

[Sky Blue]

Government involvement in the economy is the WORST thing.

Nope.

1. Taking away our guns.
2. Taking away our freedoms.
3. Government involvement in the economy.

[Aranince]

Why don't you actually do some reading before spouting off such nonsense which has been debunked almost weekly here?

Because this is an extremely liberal forum? Same reason why you guys don't listen to extremely conservative/republican/libertarian views.

Socialism is terrible, no matter how pretty you make it. The government owns your stuff. They can do anything they want with it, and you can do nothing to stop it. The government can limit prices: discouraging people from producing and selling products, creating problems.


True Sky Blue

Tuff: I don't. I get my news mainly through Google News which is a mixture of many different sources.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Nope.

1. Taking away our guns.
2. Taking away our freedoms.
3. Government involvement in the economy.

You forgot about gay mexican immigrants bringing drugs into our country and taking our jobs, like preforming abortions.

[Aranince]

You forgot about gay mexican immigrants bringing drugs into our country and taking our jobs, like preforming abortions.

Forgot about that one. *rolls eyes*

[jonbravo77]

Because this is an extremely liberal forum? Same reason why you guys don't listen to extremely conservative/republican/libertarian views.

Socialism is terrible, no matter how pretty you make it. The government owns your stuff. They can do anything they want with it, and you can do nothing to stop it. The government can limit prices: discouraging people from producing and selling products, creating problems.


True Sky Blue

See, you are citing Socialism as portrayed by the right. You are also citing Socialism as it was taken by the Russians and turned into Communism. Seriously look at what the true meaning Marx's meaning of Socialism is. It means a everyone taking care of everyone, no greed, no one class higher than the other. This is going to sound really stupid to some but I chalk up true socialism to the Star Trek world. No poverty, everyone works towards the common good.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Forgot about that one.

Google news is a search engine. It is definitely not a news source...

Why is it that anytime the democrats have power republicans scream socialist? There is no way the US is becoming a socialist state anytime soon. It's such a ridiculous fear mongering statement.

[NT1440]

Because this is an extremely liberal forum? Same reason why you guys don't listen to extremely conservative/republican/libertarian views.

Socialism is terrible, no matter how pretty you make it. The government owns your stuff. They can do anything they want with it, and you can do nothing to stop it. The government can limit prices: discouraging people from producing and selling products, creating problems.


True Sky Blue

Tuff: I don't. I get my news mainly through Google News which is a mixture of many different sources.

What did this have to do with the statement you made? "The other half is that the government forced the banks to give loans to people who did not have the means of paying them off."


And do some reading into socialism before crucifying in such ridiculous terms.

[chrmjenkins]

What did this have to do with the statement you made? "The other half is that the government forced the banks to give loans to people who did not have the means of paying them off."


And do some reading into socialism before crucifying in such ridiculous terms.

Well, I quoted the definition and explicitly explained how our nation is not socialistic and wasn't challenged, so I assume it was accepted as accurate.

[NT1440]

Well, I quoted the definition and explicitly explained how our nation is not socialistic and wasn't challenged, so I assume it was accepted as accurate.

I'm just looking for the OP to finally get that no one was FORCED to hand out **** loans. Its been debunked here countless times.

[jonbravo77]

I'm just looking for the OP to finally get that no one was FORCED to hand out **** loans. Its been debunked here countless times.

That has been debunked everywhere including by the very companies that gave out those loans. In every interview I have ever seen on any station the words "the government forced us" has never been uttered...

[Dane D.]

Wheres your outrage at the administration that oversaw the tanking of the economy? The one that cost us what is going to wind up being as much as 3 trillion with a pointless war we are still committed to?

Oh wait, no, its ok as long as your a republican right? Is that how these things work? The second your party isn't in charge its time to suddenly wake up and complain? So where you one of those just "checking your freedoms at the door and bending over" silently for the last 8 years?

But hey, the "free market" cant have flaws right? Conservatism can't fail, only you can fail conservatism right? RIGHT?

:rolleyes:

Ugh, srry for the rant guys.

The Democrats started this mess, forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay the loan back. During the Clinton years it only got worse. Than after warnings from the GAO and the Republicans, the Democrats refused to hear such things. You people just don't get it, Democrats haven't done a damn thing for this country. They stonewall tax relief, they force more regulation on businesses, won't allow us to drill for oil or build new efficient power plants, they think life has to be fair for everyone. BS, life isn't fair, never has been, never will be. Government screws the economy every time it tries to step in and save us form evil capitalism. Wake up people and read what the founding fathers said about government. The less, the better.

As for your take on a senseless war, your completely mistaken. This is a war against radical Muslims who want to overtake the world. I read all these responses and shake my head in disbelief. I just wonder what the liberal eduction system is teaching these days.

[NT1440]

The Democrats started this mess, forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay the loan back. During the Clinton years it only got worse. Than after warnings from the GAO and the Republicans, the Democrats refused to hear such things. You people just don't get it, Democrats haven't done a damn thing for this country. They stonewall tax relief, they force more regulation on businesses, won't allow us to drill for oil or build new efficient power plants, they think life has to be fair for everyone. BS, life isn't fair, never has been, never will be. Government screws the economy every time it tries to step in and save us form evil capitalism. Wake up people and read what the founding fathers said about government. The less, the better.

As for your take on a senseless war, your completely mistaken. This is a war against radical Muslims who want to overtake the world. I read all these responses and shake my head in disbelief. I just wonder what the liberal eduction system is teaching these days.
Please tell me your taking the piss with your second paragraph.

As for the underlined, EVIDENCE PLEASE.

[jonbravo77]

The Democrats started this mess, forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay the loan back. During the Clinton years it only got worse. Than after warnings from the GAO and the Republicans, the Democrats refused to hear such things. You people just don't get it, Democrats haven't done a damn thing for this country. They stonewall tax relief, they force more regulation on businesses, won't allow us to drill for oil or build new efficient power plants, they think life has to be fair for everyone. BS, life isn't fair, never has been, never will be. Government screws the economy every time it tries to step in and save us form evil capitalism. Wake up people and read what the founding fathers said about government. The less, the better.

As for your take on a senseless war, your completely mistaken. This is a war against radical Muslims who want to overtake the world. I read all these responses and shake my head in disbelief. I just wonder what the liberal eduction system is teaching these days.

Interesting point of view. However, the muslims want to take down democracy not the entire world... And you're very right, less is better, but tell that to the conservatives who have been making more government over the last 8 years. I've said this before, Conservatives used to stand for less government and the liberals for more but at least the last 8 years the roles have been very reversed. But hey, let's just blame the democrats for everything right, the republicans in congress who are refusing to even read this bill is just squeaky clean in all of this mess.

But I am bi-partisan, I blame all of them equally....

Hey NT, I'm not to bright sometimes.. what does this mean exactly, I've seen it a couple of times.. Please tell me your taking the piss with your second paragraph.

[gibbz]

As for your take on a senseless war, your completely mistaken. This is a war against radical Muslims who want to overtake the world. I read all these responses and shake my head in disbelief. I just wonder what the liberal eduction system is teaching these days.

The education system, at least in higher education, teaches people to think for themselves. I guess some are happy to blindly believe the propaganda filled doctrine of any one political party.

When did liberal become such a profane word?
liberal (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal)
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

The higher education system I am in certainly promotes citizens to be free thinking, open-minded, and tolerant. But hey, maybe the Republicans don't like those who dare go against traditional ideas -- much like the "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" mantra.

[NT1440]

Hey NT, I'm not to bright sometimes.. what does this mean exactly, I've seen it a couple of times..

Admittedly I shouldn't be using it seeing as I'm not European (it originates in the UK apparantly) but its basically the equivalent of "you must be joking".

[Iscariot]

Socialism does not work.
Because this is an extremely liberal forum?

You don't know what either of those words mean. You're like a six year old who has heard a big kid using a swear and have been repeating it into a mirror while pretending to be a grown up.
forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay the loan back.

At gunpoint, I presume?

[Dane D.]

Interesting point of view. However, the muslims want to take down democracy not the entire world... And you're very right, less is better, but tell that to the conservatives who have been making more government over the last 8 years. I've said this before, Conservatives used to stand for less government and the liberals for more but at least the last 8 years the roles have been very reversed. But hey, let's just blame the democrats for everything right, the republicans in congress who are refusing to even read this bill is just squeaky clean in all of this mess.
Interesting, when Clinton left office, government was growing about 16% a year in spending, by the time Bush left it was around 1% growth. I'm not a great fan of Republicans, They have the same problem as Democrats, mainly once in office they think they know best for everyone. We as a people need to write our elected officials and speak our minds. I write my representatives often, expressing my opinions and take on matters that come before them in Washington.

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is the role of the liberal media in all this. It's sickening to watch these so-called reporters. They don't do their job at all. The press is suppose to be our watchdog against government abuses. This election was the result of the media falling for Obama and never questioning his past, his mentors, his education and writings in school, his "work" in state government and his year and half in the Senate before starting his campaign. Where's the outrage about that?

[jonbravo77]

Admittedly I shouldn't be using it seeing as I'm not European (it originates in the UK apparantly) but its basically the equivalent of "you must be joking".

Thanks for the clarification. I have been wondering for awhile but was to afraid to look like a schmuck :D Hmmm, wait, might be to late for that... oh well :p

[NT1440]

Interesting, when Clinton left office, government was growing about 16% a year in spending, by the time Bush left it was around 1% growth. I'm not a great fan of Republicans, They have the same problem as Democrats, mainly once in office they think they know best for everyone. We as a people need to write our elected officials and speak our minds. I write my representatives often, expressing my opinions and take on matters that come before them in Washington.

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is the role of the liberal media in all this. It's sickening to watch these so-called reporters. They don't do their job at all. The press is suppose to be our watchdog against government abuses. This election was the result of the media falling for Obama and never questioning his past, his mentors, his education and writings in school, his "work" in state government and his year and half in the Senate before starting his campaign. Where's the outrage about that?

To the underlined. You realize that when the spending is MUCH greater, adding more money still equates to a lesser percentage right?

Take 16% of lets say, a million dollars. That's $160,000.
Take 1% of lets say, a billion dollars. That's 10,000,000.

See how mere percentiles mean absolutly nothing?

[jonbravo77]

Interesting, when Clinton left office, government was growing about 16% a year in spending, by the time Bush left it was around 1% growth. I'm not a great fan of Republicans, They have the same problem as Democrats, mainly once in office they think they know best for everyone. We as a people need to write our elected officials and speak our minds. I write my representatives often, expressing my opinions and take on matters that come before them in Washington.

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is the role of the liberal media in all this. It's sickening to watch these so-called reporters. They don't do their job at all. The press is suppose to be our watchdog against government abuses. This election was the result of the media falling for Obama and never questioning his past, his mentors, his education and writings in school, his "work" in state government and his year and half in the Senate before starting his campaign. Where's the outrage about that?

Also interesting that when Clinton left office we had a federal surplus, a surplus that could have grown to $1.8 trillion dollars, well that is dead and gone, But it's Obama's fault, but I think there was a President in between Obama and Clinton, but I can't remember...

And you're right, the media has failed, mainly due to Bush basically pushing them out of the press room and being able to talk to people in the white house like they used to. And yes, that did happen, the media started to get white washed in Bush's administration to keep the hidden, hidden.... And there are plenty of News stations for Obama and plenty that are profusely against Obama. But the biggest thing I must say again and again. Let's not forget the $700 billion Bush put into effect and what good that has done....

[.Andy]

Interesting, when Clinton left office, government was growing about 16% a year in spending, by the time Bush left it was around 1% growth. I'm not a great fan of Republicans, They have the same problem as Democrats, mainly once in office they think they know best for everyone. We as a people need to write our elected officials and speak our minds. I write my representatives often, expressing my opinions and take on matters that come before them in Washington.

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is the role of the liberal media in all this. It's sickening to watch these so-called reporters. They don't do their job at all. The press is suppose to be our watchdog against government abuses. This election was the result of the media falling for Obama and never questioning his past, his mentors, his education and writings in school, his "work" in state government and his year and half in the Senate before starting his campaign. Where's the outrage about that?
Conservatives are the only ones that take responsibility for their actions. It's great that there's an ideology that doesn't try and blame everyone else when things go wrong.

[NT1440]

Conservatives are the only ones that take responsibility for their actions. It's great that there's an ideology that doesn't try and blame everyone else when things go wrong.

HEHEHEHEHE;)

[chrmjenkins]

As for your take on a senseless war, your completely mistaken. This is a war against radical Muslims who want to overtake the world. I read all these responses and shake my head in disbelief. I just wonder what the liberal eduction system is teaching these days.

Man, I'm sure glad we invaded Iraq, to overthrow the secular dictator Saddam Hussein.

[Cleverboy]

It's amusing that anyone can think that "Government" could actually NOT be involved in something. It's like someone thinks there's a magic wand that can somehow remake the application of our constitution retroactively, all the way to its inception.

Extracting "government involvement" from our existing capitalist system is like playing a game of Jingo or house of cards. Play it RIGHT, or the whole thing collapses on itself. Moreover, the statement that "every time the government gets involved in the economy, the economy falls", sounds inherently dishonest or ignorant. If someone can show me how the goverment DOESN'T get "involved", and the economy not failing... I'd love to see it.

My reading is, that every time the economy fails, the government steps in. There are GOOD and BAD steps a government can take. Simply "sitting back" and watching itself burn, doesn't seem to be founded in any rational thought, so much as its founded in opportunistic myth making.

Take a deep breath, and listen or read some more. This economy is failing due to the creation of unregulated financial instruments, or as Warren Buffet called them, financial weapons of mass destruction. The lending didn't simply happen because the government encouraged banks to make bad loans... don't be stupid. No matter HOW strong the recommendation is... a bad loan is still a bad loan... unless... unless you've mitigated your risk. The unregulated financial instruments that were created, allowed ANYONE to essentially take out an insurance policy on assets they did not own, or rather liabilities in properties that were not theirs. These in-turn created a vicious cycle, where a falsified "can't lose" scenario was created... leading to the nebulous risk situation we're now in.

HEADS OUT OF THE SAND TIME.

~ CB

[itcheroni]

It's amusing that anyone can think that "Government" could actually NOT be involved in something. It's like someone thinks there's a magic wand that can somehow remake the application of our constitution retroactively, all the way to its inception.

Extracting "government involvement" from our existing capitalist system is like playing a game of Jingo or house of cards. Play it RIGHT, or the whole thing collapses on itself. Moreover, the statement that "every time the government gets involved in the economy, the economy falls", sounds inherently dishonest or ignorant. If someone can show me how the goverment DOESN'T get "involved", and the economy not failing... I'd love to see it.

My reading is, that every time the economy fails, the government steps in. There are GOOD and BAD steps a government can take. Simply "sitting back" and watching itself burn, doesn't seem to be founded in any rational thought, so much as its founded in opportunistic myth making.

Take a deep breath, and listen or read some more. This economy is failing due to the creation of unregulated financial instruments, or as Warren Buffet called them, financial weapons of mass destruction. The lending didn't simply happen because the government encouraged banks to make bad loans... don't be stupid. No matter HOW strong the recommendation is... a bad loan is still a bad loan... unless... unless you've mitigated your risk. The unregulated financial instruments that were created, allowed ANYONE to essentially take out an insurance policy on assets they did not own, or rather liabilities in properties that were not theirs. These in-turn created a vicious cycle, where a falsified "can't lose" scenario was created... leading to the nebulous risk situation we're now in.

HEADS OUT OF THE SAND TIME.

~ CB

Not true. One point, of many, is that the companies who made the most egregious decisions were the first ones to bankruptcy. Sounds efficient and healthy for the economy to me. The artificial boom was the problem and this recession is the cure; scratching a rash might feel good but it is best to leave it alone.

"If someone can show me how the goverment DOESN'T get "involved", and the economy not failing... I'd love to see it. "

China's been doing well for a few decades now and it is because their government decidedly took a back seat to the free market. They've had the fastest growing economy for how many years running? They've recently had a bailout/stimulus a few months back and we'll see how that goes. But it is very different from the US's situation because China's cost for their stimulus, since they have such a great trade surplus, put them at roughly a balanced trade year. They can make a big mistake because their economy has been that strong. And now China is poised to become the next great empire, whether you like it or not.

And I don't know much about Russia but they've been doing okay since their crash.

By the way, to the OP, it's going to be a while before we can blame or credit Obama with anything. Wait till 2010, but the stimulus, as I suspect, will provide temporary relief in exchange for long term decline. So 2012 might be a better indicator of how Obama does. That chart of yesterday's DOW shows a temporary perception. One problem we have is that people believe that perception is the problem; if only people had more "confidence" they would spend and the economy would improve. No. We have fundamental problems with our economy that can't be fixed by deluding the populace.

[miloblithe]

And I don't know much about Russia but they've been doing okay since their crash.

I assume you mean crash of 1998. Since then, Russia rode the wave of oil and gas and some local industries were aided by imports becoming too expensive. Still, Russia produces little other than gas and oil (and other raw materials). Since last fall, the Rouble has fallen from around 23 roubles to the dollar to over 36 currently. The Russian stock market (RTS) fell from around 2500 in summer 2008 to just over 500 today.

http://www.rts.ru/?tid=541

Does that sound "okay"?

The Russian government is HEAVILY involved in the economy. The same is true in China. If you don't think so, go and try to open a business in freewheeling Russia or China.

[leekohler]

That is half of it. The other half is that the government forced the banks to give loans to people who did not have the means of paying them off.

Would you quit it with that? That's simply untrue and has been proven on this board more than once. Why is it that all you can ever do is put up inflammatory and sensational threads and posts?

[miloblithe]

China's been doing well for a few decades now and it is because their government decidedly took a back seat to the free market. They've had the fastest growing economy for how many years running? They've recently had a bailout/stimulus a few months back and we'll see how that goes. But it is very different from the US's situation because China's cost for their stimulus, since they have such a great trade surplus, put them at roughly a balanced trade year. They can make a big mistake because their economy has been that strong. And now China is poised to become the next great empire, whether you like it or not.

And I don't know much about Russia but they've been doing okay since their crash.

Here's a list by the Heritage Foundation (a very conservative U.S. think tank) ranking countries in the world by how free their economies are. The U.S. ranks 6th, with an 80.7 rating. China ranks 132nd with a 53.2 rating and Russia ranks 146th with a 50.8 rating.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx

Here's an explanation of their rankings:

http://www.heritage.org/index/FAQ.aspx


While it's true that China benefited from greater economic freedom since the 1970s, that's compared to where they were coming from in the 1960s as well as the extreme damage done by the "great leap forward" and the cultural revolution. Regulations in the U.S., however onerous they may appear at times to business owners, have never compared to the level of control over the economy exerted by communist states.

[Rt&Dzine]

That is half of it. The other half is that the government forced the banks to give loans to people who did not have the means of paying them off.

It's not that simple. There are a variety of reasons not just two. I'll agree that democrat Clinton was as guilty as anyone. The unfair China trade/NAFTA plays a big part of it too. The Gramm bill was passed during the Clintons years. The deregulation bill that had the Enron loophole among other things. (Although Gramm was a Republican and Clinton didn't have veto power.) Then Bush took a bad situation and made it worse. The Iraq invasion really pushed the economy over the edge. Look at what Halliburton has gotten away with. Stealing us blind.

[iAthena]

Sorry, but the Socialism that the conservatives define does not work. But if you truly look into what Socialism really is there are a lot of benefits to it. Not saying that it wouldn't need some work to accomplish, but everyone keeps throwing around Socialism like it's the worst thing in the world. So far, Conservatism isn't working that well...

Sure it has benefits ... to those that don't contribute and do receive benefits. The same could be said for a military dictatorship. There's a benefit to the dictator and his toadies. Doesn't make for good government though.

[iAthena]

See, you are citing Socialism as portrayed by the right. You are also citing Socialism as it was taken by the Russians and turned into Communism. Seriously look at what the true meaning Marx's meaning of Socialism is. It means a everyone taking care of everyone, no greed, no one class higher than the other. This is going to sound really stupid to some but I chalk up true socialism to the Star Trek world. No poverty, everyone works towards the common good.

:eek: So, in your ideal world the guy that performs tongue piercings and tattoos should be paid the same as cardiovascular surgeon? Good luck with that.

[atszyman]

You want to bet he does better than GWB? Over 10,550 when he took office and 7,950 when he left. About a 25% drop over the course of 8 years. He is the first president in history to serve 8 years and have the stock market end up lower on his last day than it was on his first. Even much maligned Carter oversaw a stagnant stock market, equal when he entered and left after 4 years.

Meanwhile, Obama's watch has seen the stock market drop from 7950 to 7552, about a 5% drop.

OK, Obama's been in office for a little less than a month... at a 5% drop per month over 8 years....

*number crunching*

That's roughly a 99.3% drop... from 7950 to 0.5...

Of course as we all know performance over the last 30 day period is enough to predict what the stock market will be like in 8 years...

[Veldek]

:eek: So, in your ideal world the guy that performs tongue piercings and tattoos should be paid the same as cardiovascular surgeon? Good luck with that.
Well, in Star Trek nobody is paid anything as money doesn't exist anymore. Humanity is driven by the will to improve. Of course this is a Utopia IMHO.

[obeygiant]

Obama's hope hell yes! If he can turn this around he could be considered a truly great president. I'm willing to let his ideas play out on the state of affairs right now. Although I'd wished the bailout money were even more concentrated on infrastructure.

[Iscariot]

Here's a list by the Heritage Foundation (a very conservative U.S. think tank) ranking countries in the world by how free their economies are.

Interesting that Canada is within 0.2 of the United States, despite being much more heavily socialized.

[miloblithe]

Interesting that Canada is within 0.2 of the United States, despite being much more heavily socialized.

Canada scores higher according to HF on freedom from corruption, fiscal freedom, and business freedom. The U.S. scores higher on government size (ie, smaller), monetary freedom, investment freedom, and labor freedom.

http://www.heritage.org/index/Explore.aspx

The big differences though, according to HF, is that Canada is much less corrupt and the U.S. has a much freer labor market.

[chrmjenkins]

Not true. One point, of many, is that the companies who made the most egregious decisions were the first ones to bankruptcy. Sounds efficient and healthy for the economy to me. The artificial boom was the problem and this recession is the cure; scratching a rash might feel good but it is best to leave it alone.


That's fine and dandy. We all watched Enron go down in flames with pity only for the employees who had no idea of how twisted the higher-ups were. However, when companies start falling right and left and threaten the stability of the entire economy, idleness does much more harm than good. Kissing a severed foot goodbye might seem possible, but it's much better to re-attach it.

[gibbz]

OK, Obama's been in office for a little less than a month... at a 5% drop per month over 8 years....

*number crunching*

That's roughly a 99.3% drop... from 7950 to 0.5...

Of course as we all know performance over the last 30 day period is enough to predict what the stock market will be like in 8 years...

Not to harp on math, but a 5% drop per month would result in a decline to ~57.79 after 96 months from a starting point of 7950. Don't guess that is much better :)

I think we are still way too close to the Bush administration to judge Obama in relation to the stock market. I think that many things were set in place before Bush left that Obama is dealing with. Give it several more months to allow Obama to delineate himself from Bush.

[atszyman]

Not to harp on math, but a 5% drop per month would result in a decline to ~57.79 after 96 months from a starting point of 7950. Don't guess that is much better :)

I think we are still way too close to the Bush administration to judge Obama in relation to the stock market. I think that many things were set in place before Bush left that Obama is dealing with. Give it several more months to allow Obama to delineate himself from Bush.

7950 *.95*.95*.95...etc will yeild 7950*.95^96 no?

.95^96 = 0.007269 or rougly 0.7% left once the drop is complete.

OK, I now see where I screwed up... 0.007*7950 = 57.79... why is it that the harder math works fine for me but I always screw up the simple part?

[CorvusCamenarum]

That is half of it. The other half is that the government forced the banks to give loans to people who did not have the means of paying them off.

Would you quit it with that? That's simply untrue and has been proven on this board more than once. Why is it that all you can ever do is put up inflammatory and sensational threads and posts?

Lee, you can't possibly think that the over 4 trillion-with-a-T ($4,000,000,000,000) dollars worth of CRA loans had nothing to do with the whole mess.

There's a handy chart here (http://www.communityinvestmentnetwork.org/nc/single-news-item-states/article/ncrc-documents-trillions-of-cra-dollars-in-communities-since-1977-cra-commitments-1977-2005/?tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=760&cHash=9fc71fab08). Clinton may have started the snowball, but Bush made into an avalanche with his insane ideas regarding home ownership. Unless you really think loaning $340,000 to someone with a median income of $31,000 to buy an 828 square foot house is a good idea (yes, it really happened).

[atszyman]

There's a handy chart here (http://www.communityinvestmentnetwork.org/nc/single-news-item-states/article/ncrc-documents-trillions-of-cra-dollars-in-communities-since-1977-cra-commitments-1977-2005/?tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=760&cHash=9fc71fab08). Clinton may have started the snowball, but Bush made into an avalanche with his insane ideas regarding home ownership. Unless you really think loaning $340,000 to someone with a median income of $31,000 to buy an 828 square foot house is a good idea (yes, it really happened).

It has yet to be shown how that loan passed through several layers of management who realized the stupidity and were forced by the government to grant it.

[leekohler]

Lee, you can't possibly think that the over 4 trillion-with-a-T ($4,000,000,000,000) dollars worth of CRA loans had nothing to do with the whole mess.

There's a handy chart here (http://www.communityinvestmentnetwork.org/nc/single-news-item-states/article/ncrc-documents-trillions-of-cra-dollars-in-communities-since-1977-cra-commitments-1977-2005/?tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=760&cHash=9fc71fab08). Clinton may have started the snowball, but Bush made into an avalanche with his insane ideas regarding home ownership. Unless you really think loaning $340,000 to someone with a median income of $31,000 to buy an 828 square foot house is a good idea (yes, it really happened).

Of course it did. I take issue with the word "force".

[gibbz]

7950 *.95*.95*.95...etc will yeild 7950*.95^96 no?

.95^96 = 0.007269 or rougly 0.7% left once the drop is complete.

OK, I now see where I screwed up... 0.007*7950 = 57.79... why is it that the harder math works fine for me but I always screw up the simple part?

That is usually my problem. I just finished my thesis and I could do all of the advanced stuff you asked, but I can't tell you how many times I screwed up simple arithmetic in my code :)

[hulugu]

Lee, you can't possibly think that the over 4 trillion-with-a-T ($4,000,000,000,000) dollars worth of CRA loans had nothing to do with the whole mess.

There's a handy chart here (http://www.communityinvestmentnetwork.org/nc/single-news-item-states/article/ncrc-documents-trillions-of-cra-dollars-in-communities-since-1977-cra-commitments-1977-2005/?tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=760&cHash=9fc71fab08). Clinton may have started the snowball, but Bush made into an avalanche with his insane ideas regarding home ownership. Unless you really think loaning $340,000 to someone with a median income of $31,000 to buy an 828 square foot house is a good idea (yes, it really happened).

Of course, but a great number of the failing loans are not covered under either the CRA nor FM/FM. The mortgage industry jumped into this mess with both feet. Furthermore, without the "exotic" use of various CDS schemes, the mortgage debacle would have been fairly limited. That a faltering mortgage in California is destroying value in a French Hedge Fund is also part of the problem. The CRA was just one rock in the avalanche.

It has yet to be shown how that loan passed through several layers of management who realized the stupidity and were forced by the government to grant it.

QFT, while corporations were asked to hit certain CRA "targets" many, if not all, of the mortgage banks and corporations were more than willing to lend out massive amounts of money because they believed they had pushed the risk onto someone else.

I'd argue that this entire situation is indicative not of a lack of government nor too much, but rather an incompetent government that failed to be the referee we need.

[Rt&Dzine]

I'd argue that this entire situation is indicative not of a lack of government nor too much, but rather an incompetent government that failed to be the referee we need.

That's the most insightful point in this thread so far. IMHO.

[itcheroni]

I assume you mean crash of 1998. Since then, Russia rode the wave of oil and gas and some local industries were aided by imports becoming too expensive. Still, Russia produces little other than gas and oil (and other raw materials). Since last fall, the Rouble has fallen from around 23 roubles to the dollar to over 36 currently. The Russian stock market (RTS) fell from around 2500 in summer 2008 to just over 500 today.

http://www.rts.ru/?tid=541

Does that sound "okay"?

The Russian government is HEAVILY involved in the economy. The same is true in China. If you don't think so, go and try to open a business in freewheeling Russia or China.

Thanks for the info. Looks like an interesting ranking. Government interference could come in many forms. It is easy to start a business and hire employees in the US, but the US believes it can avoid problems by manipulating the interest rate and these bailouts, keeping the overall economy from achieving viable growth. And as for China, I'm just saying they got less involved, not more, and it has benefited them.

[Rt&Dzine]

And as for China, I'm just saying they got less involved, not more, and it has benefited them.

I agree. It has benefited them. China has benefited unfairly from NAFTA. For one thing, they don't have to follow environmental regulations which allows them to pollute their own people and drove down the cost of manufacturing at an unfair advantage to Americans. (Thank you Wal-Mart.) The pollution will eventually bite them in the ass, but in the mean time they bit us in the ass.

Oh ... and enjoy your toxic food and medicine (raw materials) that come from China.

[miloblithe]

Thanks for the info. Looks like an interesting ranking. Government interference could come in many forms. It is easy to start a business and hire employees in the US, but the US believes it can avoid problems by manipulating the interest rate and these bailouts, keeping the overall economy from achieving viable growth. And as for China, I'm just saying they got less involved, not more, and it has benefited them.

Sure, I agree. But what does this prove? If anything it proves that less regulation/interference than China had in the mid-1970s is beneficial to an economy (actually, it doesn't even really prove that because there's no control offered by a China that didn't make a similar choice in the mid-1970s). It does not at all prove that less government involvement in the economy is inherently beneficial. Indeed, nothing could ever prove that because it's not plausibly true. The example I'd like to give is Somalia. They don't even have a government. How's that economy doing? The reality is that what's necessary is the right balance between good and effective regulation/government involvement and economic freedom/efficiency. And because of innovation (of all kinds), that balance is always going to be shifting. Also different types of economies have different needs. An economy like Hong Kong's (a city-state that's a trading hub) is inherently different from the economy of India.

So that's the real question. How much regulation is effective. What kind of regulation is effective. What is ineffective.

[Lesser Evets]

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/blackerton/fgOpYT15xoFKsLKdyU8m80tAAIikneRDdzmQDxWyQDPzSdU4vW1tOshe6S2o/DowHOPE_Feb_16.jpg

I see a lot of hope in that!

That's not a mystery. Obama and other Democrat leaders have openly said that our entire economy has to slow down and reverse for a while... just because. Everything they say only makes sense from a childish, nihilistic stance related to envirowacky.

Obama, or anyone in the president's position, could have had the market up to 12,000 again within a week by saying very simple words: I am cutting government DRASTICALLY.

[.Andy]

That's not a mystery. Obama and other Democrat leaders have openly said that our entire economy has to slow down and reverse for a while... just because. Everything they say only makes sense from a childish, nihilistic stance related to envirowacky.

Obama, or anyone in the president's position, could have had the market up to 12,000 again within a week by saying very simple words: I am cutting government DRASTICALLY.
Thanks Lesser Evets :). You seem to able to distill complex economic issues down to their core with great eloquence. If you've got time to explain US monetary policy and it's impacts on worldwide financial markets it would be appreciated.

[Ugg]

That's not a mystery. Obama and other Democrat leaders have openly said that our entire economy has to slow down and reverse for a while... just because. Everything they say only makes sense from a childish, nihilistic stance related to envirowacky.

Obama, or anyone in the president's position, could have had the market up to 12,000 again within a week by saying very simple words: I am cutting government DRASTICALLY.

Man, what alternative universe to you live in? The DOW is down because of deep seated problems in the banking industry.

It would be interesting to see your take on his policies when you lose your job.

[NT1440]

Lee, you can't possibly think that the over 4 trillion-with-a-T ($4,000,000,000,000) dollars worth of CRA loans had nothing to do with the whole mess.

There's a handy chart here (http://www.communityinvestmentnetwork.org/nc/single-news-item-states/article/ncrc-documents-trillions-of-cra-dollars-in-communities-since-1977-cra-commitments-1977-2005/?tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=760&cHash=9fc71fab08). Clinton may have started the snowball, but Bush made into an avalanche with his insane ideas regarding home ownership. Unless you really think loaning $340,000 to someone with a median income of $31,000 to buy an 828 square foot house is a good idea (yes, it really happened).

What he and I were speaking out against was the LIE that clinton FORCED banks to give out loans.

[hulugu]

Sure, I agree. But what does this prove? If anything it proves that less regulation/interference than China had in the mid-1970s is beneficial to an economy (actually, it doesn't even really prove that because there's no control offered by a China that didn't make a similar choice in the mid-1970s). It does not at all prove that less government involvement in the economy is inherently beneficial. Indeed, nothing could ever prove that because it's not plausibly true. The example I'd like to give is Somalia. They don't even have a government. How's that economy doing? The reality is that what's necessary is the right balance between good and effective regulation/government involvement and economic freedom/efficiency. And because of innovation (of all kinds), that balance is always going to be shifting. Also different types of economies have different needs. An economy like Hong Kong's (a city-state that's a trading hub) is inherently different from the economy of India.

So that's the real question. How much regulation is effective. What kind of regulation is effective. What is ineffective.

Absolutely, there's a balance between the anarchical free-for-all of Somalia and the statist system of Russia and China. Of course, people like to frame their arguments in certain ways and seem unable to understand that some government regulation is necessary and even desirable, but too much and the system falters.



That's not a mystery. Obama and other Democrat leaders have openly said that our entire economy has to slow down and reverse for a while... just because. Everything they say only makes sense from a childish, nihilistic stance related to envirowacky.

Obama, or anyone in the president's position, could have had the market up to 12,000 again within a week by saying very simple words: I am cutting government DRASTICALLY.

Reference please.

Also, I'm not sure the market would react well to more job losses. But, IANAE.

[CorvusCamenarum]

What he and I were speaking out against was the LIE that clinton FORCED banks to give out loans.

Not forced as in muzzle-to-the-head force, but as the cost of doing business. If a bank wants to open a new branch, or have a merger or somesuch, they have to toe the CRA-compliance line, or it doesn't happen. If I were running a bank that was having to make these loans, I probably wouldn't want to be caught holding the bag either.

You're both absolutely correct in saying that this shouldn't be laid at Clinton's door; whomever raised the original point is misinformed on that score. It was groups like ACORN who were filing or threatening to file CRA complaints against banks unless they promised to pony up significant CRA cash (think WaMu and the like). Bush made it severely worse with his crusade against down payments, wanting to add some 5-6 million otherwise unqualified people to the homeowner rolls to magically turn them into little Republicans.

[itcheroni]

Sure, I agree. But what does this prove? If anything it proves that less regulation/interference than China had in the mid-1970s is beneficial to an economy (actually, it doesn't even really prove that because there's no control offered by a China that didn't make a similar choice in the mid-1970s). It does not at all prove that less government involvement in the economy is inherently beneficial. Indeed, nothing could ever prove that because it's not plausibly true. The example I'd like to give is Somalia. They don't even have a government. How's that economy doing? The reality is that what's necessary is the right balance between good and effective regulation/government involvement and economic freedom/efficiency. And because of innovation (of all kinds), that balance is always going to be shifting. Also different types of economies have different needs. An economy like Hong Kong's (a city-state that's a trading hub) is inherently different from the economy of India.

So that's the real question. How much regulation is effective. What kind of regulation is effective. What is ineffective.

Well it's difficult to find another America to compare to. I don't think free market necessarily means more pollution or corruption. Not having a government doesn't mean it's a free-er market, at least not as I view it. Not letting a company fail and environmental regulation are two different things and effect the market differently. One very significant thing we can do is eliminate the Fed. They don't inherently help the environment or anything and every action they take is an interference with the market.

[Ugg]

Bush made it severely worse with his crusade against down payments, wanting to add some 5-6 million otherwise unqualified people to the homeowner rolls to magically turn them into little Republicans.


I agree that bushco's "ownership society" is really what put the nail in the coffin.

[CorvusCamenarum]

I agree that bushco's "ownership society" is really what put the nail in the coffin.

It wasn't so much what he wanted to do, but rather how he went about trying to do it.

[Dmac77]

I just ROFLcoptered...

Republican plans include prolonging a war, fighting stoners (for no apparent reason) and keeping queers from marrying.

At least the dems are trying to benefit the country.

Funny how the DOW tanked when Obama signed his "stimulus" bill. And it's really funny that Alan Greenspan says that Obama'a "stimulus" is a worthless piece of crap.

Just saying.

Don

[NT1440]

Funny how the DOW tanked when Obama signed his "stimulus" bill. And it's really funny that Alan Greenspan says that Obama'a "stimulus" is a worthless piece of crap.

Just saying.

Don
Funny how the stocks for companies somehow drop after releasing great new products.....

The entire system is based on opinions, which is why it sucks.

[leekohler]

It wasn't so much what he wanted to do, but rather how he went about trying to do it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Bush did a lot of paving.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Funny how the stocks for companies somehow drop after releasing great new products.....

The entire system is based on opinions, which is why it sucks.

Yes, but unfortunately, the January indicator is accurate somewhere just north of 90% of the time. I predict this year will be a good time to buy.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Bush did a lot of paving.
So did the CRA extortionists.

[yg17]

Funny how the DOW tanked when Obama signed his "stimulus" bill. And it's really funny that Alan Greenspan says that Obama'a "stimulus" is a worthless piece of crap.

Just saying.

Don


The Dow will tank if the CEO of a Fortune 500 company farts. That doesn't prove anything.

[Iscariot]

Canada scores higher according to HF on freedom from corruption, fiscal freedom, and business freedom. The U.S. scores higher on government size (ie, smaller), monetary freedom, investment freedom, and labor freedom.

http://www.heritage.org/index/Explore.aspx

The big differences though, according to HF, is that Canada is much less corrupt and the U.S. has a much freer labor market.

Fascinating. Is freedom from corruption freedom from corporate, or government corruption? I would assume the former.

[leekohler]

So did the CRA extortionists.

Look man- prove to me that the banks were "forced" to loan people money. Prove it. I'm tired of this ridiculous rhetoric.

[miloblithe]

Fascinating. Is freedom from corruption freedom from corporate, or government corruption? I would assume the former.

This is the Heritage Foundation, so I'd assume that they're interested in government corruption. Actually, what would corporate corruption be?

Actually, it's based on Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/PDF/Index09_Methodology.pdf

LLast updated 19.8.2008

. The CPI gathers data from sources that span the last two years. For the CPI 2008, this
includes surveys from 2008 and 2007.
2. The CPI 2008 is calculated using data from 13 sources originated from 11 independent
institutions. All sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or
size of bribes) in the public and political sectors and all sources provide a ranking of
countries, i.e., include an assessment of multiple countries.
3. For CPI sources that are surveys, and where multiple years of the same survey are
available, data for the last two years are included to provide a smoothing effect.
4. For sources that are scores provided by experts (risk agencies/country analysts), only
the most recent iteration of the assessment is included, as these scores are generally
peer reviewed and change very little from year to year.
5. Evaluation of the extent of corruption in countries is done by country experts, non
resident and residents. In the CPI 2008, this consists of the following sources: Asian
Development Bank, African Development Bank, Bertelsmann Transformation Index,
Country Policy and Institutional Assessment, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom
House, Global Insight and Merchant International Group. Additional sources are
resident business leaders evaluating their own country; in the CPI 2008, this consists
of the following sources: IMD, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, and the
World Economic Forum.
6. To determine the mean value for a country, standardisation is carried out via a
matching percentiles technique. This uses the ranks of countries reported by each
individual source. This method is useful for combining sources that have a different
distribution. While there is some information loss in this technique, it allows all
reported scores to remain within the bounds of the CPI, that is to say, to remain
between 0 and 10.
7. A beta-transformation is then performed on scores. This increases the standard
deviation among all countries included in the CPI and avoids the process by which the
matching percentiles technique results in a smaller standard deviation from year to
year.
8. All of the standardised values for a country are then averaged, to determine a country's
score.
9. The CPI score and rank are accompanied by the number of sources, high-low range,
standard deviation and confidence range for each country.
10. The confidence range is determined by a bootstrap (non-parametric) methodology,
which allows inferences to be drawn on the underlying precision of the results. A 90
per cent confidence range is then established, where there is 5 per cent probability that

the value is below and 5 per cent probability that the value is above this confidence
range.
11. Research shows that the unbiased coverage probability for the confidence range is
lower than its nominal value of 90 per cent. The accuracy of the confidence interval
estimates increases with a growing number of sources: for three sources, 65.3 per cent;
for four sources, 73.6 per cent; for five sources, 78.4 per cent; for six sources, 80.2 per
cent; and for seven sources, 81.8 per cent.
12. The overall reliability of data is demonstrated in the high correlation between sources.
In this regard, Pearson's and Kendall's rank correlations have been performed, which
provided average results of .78 and .63 respectively.

[Ugg]

Funny how the DOW tanked when Obama signed his "stimulus" bill. And it's really funny that Alan Greenspan says that Obama'a "stimulus" is a worthless piece of crap.

Just saying.

Don

Well, since Greenspan is largely responsible for the mess that landed in Obama's lap, it's not really surprising, is it?

[Iscariot]

This is the Heritage Foundation, so I'd assume that they're interested in government corruption. Actually, what would corporate corruption be?

Actually, it's based on Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/PDF/Index09_Methodology.pdf

Cool, thanks.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Look man- prove to me that the banks were "forced" to loan people money. Prove it. I'm tired of this ridiculous rhetoric.

"Set aside money for loans to the 'underserved' or we'll file a CRA complaint against you" seems pretty cut and dry. Even our Golden President is intimately well versed in this modus operandi.

What you need to get is that in 2005 the CRA underwent another revision, one of the results being that objective standards went straight out the window in lieu of favoring the end results. No more A's for effort, only money actually lent out was what counts.

The final rule established CRA evaluation criteria consisting of distinct lending, investment, and service tests for retail institutions with $250 million or more in assets ("large banks") and a streamlined lending-only test for smaller banks that were not part of a holding company with banking assets of at least $1 billion ("small banks"). The Agencies also agreed to conduct a full review of the rule in 2002, five years after full implementation, to determine whether the rule was effective in achieving its goals, including emphasizing performance rather then process, promoting consistency in evaluations, and eliminating unnecessary burdens.
source (pdf) (http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/developments_in_federal_cra_regulation_review_of_banking_and_finl_services_apr_05.pdf)

Now that that's out of the way, here's where groups like ACORN come into the picture. This is from the Federal Reserve website, under the heading Public Involvement:
To ensure a broad and balanced CRA assessment, examiners routinely conduct interviews with local business people, government officials, housing and consumer advocates, realtors, trade association representatives, and many others. The purpose of these interviews is to obtain information about, among other things, general credit needs of the community, the availability or the lack of availability of credit, and how different institutions respond to those credit needs. The comments of these individuals are factored into the examiners’ CRA rating. (emphasis mine)

It works like this - (and you can look at their Wiki page for some of their "accomplishments") groups like ACORN get banks to front the cash for subprime loans, or they start suing and filing CRA complaints. Not being listed as CRA-compliant means no merger approval, no opening new branches, etc. Can you really tell me that Random National Bank would willingly loan out a huge pile of money on a NINJA loan to someone who they didn't think could pay it back in the first place? Let's be realistic here - the bank doesn't want your house, they want your money, but only if they think they can get it, hence standards of creditworthiness, which being CRA-compliant means you have to selectively ignore.

[NT1440]

"Set aside money for loans to the 'underserved' or we'll file a CRA complaint against you" seems pretty cut and dry.

Didnt you just say it was the groups like acorn that files suit? Thats not the government forcing anyone.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Didnt you just say it was the groups like acorn that files suit? Thats not the government forcing anyone.

Aranince made the original claim of the government forcing the loans, not me. Post #25. I suppose he has a point in an indirect way, as only the government can bestow the vaunted "CRA-friendly" label. To get that stamp of approval nowadays, you have to make so many dollars' worth of risky loans.

[iJohnHenry]

Social engineering, forced on the corporate World, and, in the end, paid for by us.

Anyone that thinks this a "free" society needs a stern talking-to.

[leekohler]

Aranince made the original claim of the government forcing the loans, not me. Post #25. I suppose he has a point in an indirect way, as only the government can bestow the vaunted "CRA-friendly" label. To get that stamp of approval nowadays, you have to make so many dollars' worth of risky loans.

Nothing you posted illustrates the use of "force". Please stop using the term.

[Dmac77]

Well, since Greenspan is largely responsible for the mess that landed in Obama's lap, it's not really surprising, is it?

I agree that Greenspan is largely responsible for the mess that we're in. But, I think he knows a bit more about economics then The Great Hope does. This so called "stimulus" will be a total waste, the only good thing that comes out of $750 Million being wasted is that Obama will lose in 2012.

And today, Obama decides that we should bail people out of their mortgages because they were stupid enough to sign a contract that they couldn't make heads or tales of. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Don

[jonbravo77]

I agree that Greenspan is largely responsible for the mess that we're in. But, I think he knows a bit more about economics then The Great Hope does. This so called "stimulus" will be a total waste, the only good thing that comes out of $750 Million being wasted is that Obama will lose in 2012.

And today, Obama decides that we should bail people out of their mortgages because they were stupid enough to sign a contract that they couldn't make heads or tales of. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Don

so apparently you did not listen to what the President said when he outlined what this $75 billion will go to. To bad.

[Dmac77]

so apparently you did not listen to what the President said when he outlined what this $75 billion will go to. To bad.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123496582087411241.html

It's going to be used to get lenders to modify the rates of mortgages that are in foreclosure.

That's not the government's job. If these people can't afford to pay their mortgage, then they don't deserve the house anymore. If you can't afford it, you don't get to have it. Why should they get a free pass?

Don

[NT1440]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123496582087411241.html

It's going to be used to get lenders to modify the rates of mortgages that are in foreclosure.

That's not the government's job. If these people can't afford to pay their mortgage, then they don't deserve the house anymore. If you can't afford it, you don't get to have it. Why should they get a free pass?

Don

Because that results in millions of more homeless people. See how that works?

Oh yea, i forgot that caring about individuals and not companies is just wacky liberal talk.

[Dmac77]

Because that results in millions of more homeless people. See how that works?

Oh yea, i forgot that caring about individuals and not companies is just wacky liberal talk.

Why should I care about them? Keep in mind that most people that are facing foreclosure have ARM's. If they were stupid enough to sign into an ARM, that's their own fault. Anyone with a brain had to know that the market would eventually self-correct.

Don

[NT1440]

Why should I care about them? Keep in mind that most people that are facing foreclosure have ARM's. If they were stupid enough to sign into an ARM, that's their own fault. Anyone with a brain had to know that the market would eventually self-correct.

Don

BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE!

Do you enjoy being homeless?

Edit: I guess my caring about people joke holds true when certain people are involved.

[Rodimus Prime]

problem with the bail out is what happens for the people who pay their bills on time, did not buy more home than they could afford, my god had a real emgerncy fund and so on.

Everyone who was doing things right feels like they are getting forgotten about. THey feel like they are getting treated unfairly. Reason being is WE GET NOTHING out of this. Instead everyone who over spent themselves gets all all these hand outs.

Tell me how is it fair that the cheaters are getting hand outs and the people who played by the rules are getting nothing. Makes me kind of want to be a cheater.

[jonbravo77]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123496582087411241.html

It's going to be used to get lenders to modify the rates of mortgages that are in foreclosure.

That's not the government's job. If these people can't afford to pay their mortgage, then they don't deserve the house anymore. If you can't afford it, you don't get to have it. Why should they get a free pass?

Don

Apparently you still don't quite understand who this bill is targeting. Let me splain to you. It is targeting those who were able to pay their mortgage just fine until either A) they lost their job due to cut backs, B) they are "under water" meaning that the house they live in is now worth less than the loan they are paying for and C) who were caught up in bad sub-prime loans even though at the time they could pay for the mortgage but now can't due to the inflated interest rate.

The President did say that this bill will not bail out those people who knowingly went into a loan without the possibility of being able to afford it. He said it is not a hand out it is a helping hand to those who used to be able to afford it but can not now due to the economy and the house market the way it is.

I would say that I hope this clarifies things but I doubt it.

[NT1440]

problem with the bail out is what happens for the people who pay their bills on time, did not buy more home than they could afford, my god had a real emgerncy fund and so on.

Everyone who was doing things right feels like they are getting forgotten about. THey feel like they are getting treated unfairly. Reason being is WE GET NOTHING out of this. Instead everyone who over spent themselves gets all all these hand outs.

Tell me how is it fair that the cheaters are getting hand outs and the people who played by the rules are getting nothing. Makes me kind of want to be a cheater.

How old are you?

I'm 17 and have firmly grasped the concept that life isn't fair.

Anyone else?

[pdham]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123496582087411241.html

It's going to be used to get lenders to modify the rates of mortgages that are in foreclosure.

That's not the government's job. If these people can't afford to pay their mortgage, then they don't deserve the house anymore. If you can't afford it, you don't get to have it. Why should they get a free pass?

Don

I bet if a house you owned was located between two foreclosed homes; and as a result your property value fell by 10 - 15% you would have a different opinion.

The point is, the foreclosure crisis is perpetuating the downward spiral of housing prices (for all home owners in areas where there are abundant foreclosures). House price falls --> equity falls --> ability to get any other loan falls --> banks have no one to lend to --> originating banks don't have good loans to sell --> etc.

You can't on the one hand want the current situation we are in to be fixed, and on the other hand not want to fix some of the underlying causes. It might feel good to say 'screw the people who bought a loan they can't afford,' but when it is occurring at the scale it currently is, the effects are far reaching.

[Dmac77]

BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE!

Do you enjoy being homeless?

I wouldn't know, I've never been homeless.

Look at it this way. I have a custodial investment account (I'm 14). Last year, I made $1500 in profit (even with the downturn), plus dividends. Yesterday my taxes were filed (my Mom's CPA did the taxes). And now, MY money is going to be used to bailout Joe Shmoe who was stupid enough to sign into an ARM, and now he can't afford to pay his mortgage. If Joe Shmoe would have used his brain, and thought that interest rates will eventually go up (the market can't grow forever), making his mortgage too expensive, he wouldn't be facing foreclosure today. It's not my fault that he can't afford his house. It's HIS fault, and he should have to deal with the consequences.

The world's an ugly place, people have to take responsibility for their actions. Not expect someone to come and fix their booboo like mommy did when they were four.

Don

[NT1440]

The world's an ugly place, people have to take responsibility for their actions. Not expect someone to come and fix their booboo like mommy did when they were four.

Don

Says the 14 year old whos got money:rolleyes:

Guess what, not everyone is as well off as you. Why exactly don't you care about people? Stupid decisions aside they are people, homelessness is a day to day fight for survival.

But you dont exactly care do you.

[leekohler]

I wouldn't know, I've never been homeless.

Look at it this way. I have a custodial investment account (I'm 14). Last year, I made $1500 in profit (even with the downturn), plus dividends. Yesterday my taxes were filed (my Mom's CPA did the taxes). And now, MY money is going to be used to bailout Joe Shmoe who was stupid enough to sign into an ARM, and now he can't afford to pay his mortgage. If Joe Shmoe would have used his brain, and thought that interest rates will eventually go up (the market can't grow forever), making his mortgage too expensive, he wouldn't be facing foreclosure today. It's not my fault that he can't afford his house. It's HIS fault, and he should have to deal with the consequences.

The world's an ugly place, people have to take responsibility for their actions. Not expect someone to come and fix their booboo like mommy did when they were four.

Don

Don- wait til you're on your own.

[chrmjenkins]

I wouldn't know, I've never been homeless.

Look at it this way. I have a custodial investment account (I'm 14). Last year, I made $1500 in profit (even with the downturn), plus dividends. Yesterday my taxes were filed (my Mom's CPA did the taxes). And now, MY money is going to be used to bailout Joe Shmoe who was stupid enough to sign into an ARM, and now he can't afford to pay his mortgage. If Joe Shmoe would have used his brain, and thought that interest rates will eventually go up (the market can't grow forever), making his mortgage too expensive, he wouldn't be facing foreclosure today. It's not my fault that he can't afford his house. It's HIS fault, and he should have to deal with the consequences.

The world's an ugly place, people have to take responsibility for their actions. Not expect someone to come and fix their booboo like mommy did when they were four.

Don

Generally, that's correct. But when it happens on such a massive scale that the very stability of the economy is threatened, you start to change your tune.

[NT1440]

Don- wait til you're on your own.

Didn't you read? Hes going to have a nest egg, and will surely be amazing with his own finances!:rolleyes:

[Dmac77]

Apparently you still don't quite understand who this bill is targeting. Let me splain to you. It is targeting those who were able to pay their mortgage just fine until either A) they lost their job due to cut backs, B) they are "under water" meaning that the house they live in is now worth less than the loan they are paying for and C) who were caught up in bad sub-prime loans even though at the time they could pay for the mortgage but now can't due to the inflated interest rate.

The President did say that this bill will not bail out those people who knowingly went into a loan without the possibility of being able to afford it. He said it is not a hand out it is a helping hand to those who used to be able to afford it but can not now due to the economy and the house market the way it is.

I would say that I hope this clarifies things but I doubt it.

If they lost their job, to bad. They still should lose the house. If their house is now worth less then the loan, also to bad. ****** happens, you plan with the notion that it will happen to you. People should not get balled out for any reason. Just like we should have let the banks collapse last fall, instead of helping them out.

Says the 14 year old whos got money:rolleyes:

Guess what, not everyone is as well off as you. Why exactly don't you care about people? Stupid decisions aside they are people, homelessness is a day to day fight for survival.

But you dont exactly care do you.

Says the 14 year old who earned that money working his a** off last summer for a golf course, and babysitting for the last year. Not the 14 year old that got a handout from Mummy and Daddy.

EDIT:

@NT1440-

I didn't say that I'm going to have a huge nest egg, that's going to carry me through life, but I'll have enough money to pay my way through $75,000 worth of college by the time I'm 18 (assuming my portfolio continues to grow at its current rate). Unlike most adults, I manage my own money, I make my own investment decisions, unlike most adults, and I'll probably be able to make a good amount of money through the stock, bonds, and commodities markets in the future. I know what it's like to lose a significant amount of money (I was invested in Lehman Bros. and I ended up loosing $2000 when they went under), so don't act like I'm some stupid little idiot, who doesn't understand what it's like to lose money.

When Lehman went under, I didn't go and say "I want a bailout", and I didn't get one, instead I got $2 per share, when I payed $46 per share when I bought in. People lose, that's life. They should have to deal with it.

Don

[chrmjenkins]

If they lost their job, to bad. They still should lose the house. If their house is now worth less then the loan, also to bad. ****** happens, you plan with the notion that it will happen to you. People should not get balled out for any reason. Just like we should have let the banks collapse last fall, instead of helping them out.


That's not always possible. Not everyone's budgets have these fat margins where they can survive 6 months without a job, yet their kids need a roof and they need a job. Like I said, when the whole economy is going down in flames, it doesn't matter how well off you are individually. You either get reset to zero, or you get a nice target on your head.

[NT1440]

If they lost their job, to bad. They still should lose the house. If their house is now worth less then the loan, also to bad. ****** happens, you plan with the notion that it will happen to you. People should not get balled out for any reason. Just like we should have let the banks collapse last fall, instead of helping them out.



Getting back to my question. WHY exactly do you seem to have to sympathy or compassion?

I really hope its just a part of immaturity.

[leekohler]

If they lost their job, to bad. They still should lose the house. If their house is now worth less then the loan, also to bad. ****** happens, you plan with the notion that it will happen to you. People should not get balled out for any reason. Just like we should have let the banks collapse last fall, instead of helping them out.



Says the 14 year old who earned that money working his a** off last summer for a golf course, and babysitting for the last year. Not the 14 year old that got a handout from Mummy and Daddy.

Don

Don - bottom line:

You don't know what can happen to you until you're on your own. You can plan all you like, but these things can still happen to anyone. I predict by the time you're 25-30, your opinion will have changed.

[jonbravo77]

If they lost their job, to bad. They still should lose the house. If their house is now worth less then the loan, also to bad. ****** happens, you plan with the notion that it will happen to you. People should not get balled out for any reason. Just like we should have let the banks collapse last fall, instead of helping them out.



Says the 14 year old who earned that money working his a** off last summer for a golf course, and babysitting for the last year. Not the 14 year old that got a handout from Mummy and Daddy.

Don

Ok, not saying anything else to you, but this. I truly hope that these things do not happen to you or your family. Because if it does happen, you wouldn't be saying what you are saying...

[Dmac77]

That's not always possible. Not everyone's budgets have these fat margins where they can survive 6 months without a job, yet their kids need a roof and they need a job. Like I said, when the whole economy is going down in flames, it doesn't matter how well off you are individually. You either get reset to zero, or you get a nice target on your head.

And I'm sorry if their kids end up on the streets, but that's not my fault, and I shouldn't be liable for their mistake. The people who made the mistake (and their families) should be liable, if that means that they end up on the street, so be it. Obama's "stimulus" will give them a nice new shelter to go to somewhere.

Don

[leekohler]

And I'm sorry if their kids end up on the streets, but that's not my fault, and I shouldn't be liable for their mistake. The people who made the mistake (and their families) should be liable, if that means that they end up on the street, so be it.

And when that happens to enough people, watch your crime rate go way up, Don. You live in a society. If you would like to live on an island where you are only responsible for yourself, save up your golf course money and buy one.

[chrmjenkins]

And I'm sorry if their kids end up on the streets, but that's not my fault, and I shouldn't be liable for their mistake. The people who made the mistake (and their families) should be liable, if that means that they end up on the street, so be it. Obama's "stimulus" will give them a nice new shelter to go to somewhere.

Don

That's the point though, there's not necessarily a mistake! If your parents suddenly lost their jobs and couldn't get new ones for a year, would their not being able to pay for their house be their mistake? No, they're victims of circumstance. It's not possible to have cash reserves for every possible bad scenario.

[yg17]

And I'm sorry if their kids end up on the streets, but that's not my fault, and I shouldn't be liable for their mistake. The people who made the mistake (and their families) should be liable, if that means that they end up on the street, so be it. Obama's "stimulus" will give them a nice new shelter to go to somewhere.

Don

The major flaw in your logic is that some people did nothing wrong. They made no mistake. They were making their mortgage payments, even with their ARM, with no problem until they either lost their job or lost a ton of money in investments, through no fault of their own.

Yes, maybe some people did screw up and got in way over their head with an ARM, but if my tax money is going to go somewhere, I'd much rather have it go to help these people than to fund an illegal war in Iraq.

[pdham]

I don't think it is a good use of Macrumors time to be debating with Dmac.

To put it bluntly... HE IS 14. Don't expect him to understand. His biggest decision in any given day is if he is going to do homework before or after dinner.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Nothing you posted illustrates the use of "force". Please stop using the term.

Since you'll obviously listen to nothing I offer, which seems to be a theme with you, why don't you share your thoughts on the matter? I'm sure it was the big bad banks taking advantage of helpless people whose lack of personal responsibility and apparently basic literacy just mean they need protecting more than ever now :rolleyes:

[Dmac77]

That's the point though, there's not necessarily a mistake! If your parents suddenly lost their jobs and couldn't get new ones for a year, would their not being able to pay for their house be their mistake? No, they're victims of circumstance. It's not possible to have cash reserves for every possible bad scenario.
I'm pretty sure that the general rule of thumb is that you should always have enough to cover basic expenses for a year in an emergency fund. If you still don't have enough, borrow against your 401(k), after that, declare bankruptcy and don't burden the taxpayers.

The major flaw in your logic is that some people did nothing wrong. They made no mistake. They were making their mortgage payments, even with their ARM, with no problem until they either lost their job or lost a ton of money in investments, through no fault of their own.

Yes, maybe some people did screw up and got in way over their head with an ARM, but if my tax money is going to go somewhere, I'd much rather have it go to help these people than to fund an illegal war in Iraq.

It's still not my fault that they lost their job. Unemployment happens, deal with it.

Don

[chrmjenkins]

I'm pretty sure that the general rule of thumb is that you should always have enough to cover basic expenses for a year in an emergency fund. If you still don't have enough, borrow against your 401(k), after that, declare bankruptcy and don't burden the taxpayers.

Ok, I'll be sure and tell that to all the waitresses, janitors, and millions of other blue collar workers in this country :rolleyes:

There's a stigma to bankruptcy, both social and financial. Someone declaring bankruptcy is going to make it much harder for themselves to be able to get credit. If you think bankruptcy just makes all the problems go away, you forget that the people who are owed that debt need to make it up somehow. They will do it by raising the burden on other debtors in some fashion. The money just doesn't disappear.



It's still not my fault that they lost their job. Unemployment happens, deal with it.

Don

People are trying. We're in a special economic situation here, and exceptions are made. Do you not understand that it doesn't matter how well off you are if the whole economy goes down around you?

[Dmac77]

Ok, I'll be sure and tell that to all the waitresses, janitors, and millions of other blue collar workers in this country :rolleyes:

There's a stigma to bankruptcy, both social and financial. Someone declaring bankruptcy is going to make it much harder for themselves to be able to get credit. If you think bankruptcy just makes all the problems go away, you forget that the people who are owed that debt need to make it up somehow. They will do it by raising the burden on other debtors in some fashion. The money just doesn't disappear.




People are trying. We're in a special economic situation here, and exceptions are made. Do you not understand that it doesn't matter how well off you are if the whole economy goes down around you?

I understand that bankruptcy is not a fixall solution. And as for the waitress, and the janitor, and the blue-collar workers, they don't deserve the house if they don't have enough in savings to pay their way while unemployed. If that makes me a heartless wretch, so be it.

Don

[pdham]

I'm pretty sure that the general rule of thumb is that you should always have enough to cover basic expenses for a year in an emergency fund. If you still don't have enough, borrow against your 401(k), after that, declare bankruptcy and don't burden the taxpayers.

Don

Lets do some math:

My wife and I both hold masters degrees and work in professional fields.

Our PITI (principle, interest, taxes and insurance) is less than 18% of our monthly income. Not because we live in a really cheap city, but we bought a fixer-upper in a 'transitional' neighborhood. Anything less than 30 percent is considered affordable.

We currently save 30% (401K, Money Market, etc) of our after tax monthly income - not too shaby if I do say so myself. Sounds like we are being responsible. So, given all that, at our current rate of saving we would need to save for almost three years, with no other unforseen expenses to gather enough to cover a year of expenses. Of course that isn't including the health care costs we would incur without employment. Oh yea, we don't have any kids or car payments either...

[atszyman]

Since you'll obviously listen to nothing I offer, which seems to be a theme with you, why don't you share your thoughts on the matter? I'm sure it was the big bad banks taking advantage of helpless people whose lack of personal responsibility and apparently basic literacy just mean they need protecting more than ever now :rolleyes:

Sure it was. When you can put together a portfolio of questionable loans and sell them to someone else on the premise that the houses would be worth more even if the customer banks had to foreclose, it was in the banks interest to create the portfolios regardless of the soundness of the loans.

Many people were talked into mortgages they couldn't afford by bankers who did or should have known better.

The bankers aren't supposed to want to loan you the money if they don't think you can pay them back so why shouldn't I believe the banker when he tells me I can afford a better house?

What we really need is a high school level class that teaches basic finance and how to handle budgeting, credit, and loans so that in the future people can decide how much they can afford for themselves rather than believe people whose motives might not be altruistic in nature.

[yg17]

I understand that bankruptcy is not a fixall solution. And as for the waitress, and the janitor, and the blue-collar workers, they don't deserve the house if they don't have enough in savings to pay their way while unemployed. If that makes me a heartless wretch, so be it.

Don


Then where the hell do you expect them to live? Anyone who can't afford to have enough savings for a year to pay their way while unemployed should just be homeless? Yes, you are a heartless wretch, and fortunately, people like you are not in the majority in the government.

Lets do some math:

My wife and I both hold masters degrees and work in professional fields.

Our PITI (principle, interest, taxes and insurance) is less than 18% of our monthly income. Not because we live in a really cheap city, but we bought a fixer-upper in a 'transitional' neighborhood. Anything less than 30 percent is considered affordable.

We currently save 30% (401K, Money Market, etc) of our after tax monthly income - not too shaby if I do say so myself. Sounds like we are being responsible. So, given all that, at our current rate of saving we would need to save for almost three years, with no other unforseen expenses to gather enough to cover a year of expenses. Of course that isn't including the health care costs we would incur without employment. Oh yea, we don't have any kids or car payments either...

Well then clearly, you don't deserve to own a house :rolleyes: :D

[hulugu]

I'm pretty sure that the general rule of thumb is that you should always have enough to cover basic expenses for a year in an emergency fund. If you still don't have enough, borrow against your 401(k), after that, declare bankruptcy and don't burden the taxpayers.
...

When you go out on your own, you'll find that sometimes plans can run aground against reality. Sometimes expenses will suddenly appear: medical expenses, for example, can chew through a family savings account like a cuisinart. It's very easy to assemble plans when you're 14 and living at home (and I'm very impressed at your financial acuity), but nonetheless I don't think you've yet grasped the daily reality of wage and expenses with a family. I consider myself lucky and I'm fairly comfortable, but I'm not deluded into thinking that a few bad hands can't hurt me enough financially that I could be in trouble and need assistance.

Since you'll obviously listen to nothing I offer, which seems to be a theme with you, why don't you share your thoughts on the matter? I'm sure it was the big bad banks taking advantage of helpless people whose lack of personal responsibility and apparently basic literacy just mean they need protecting more than ever now.

That's not fair. Lee's correct in pointing out that the use of the word "force" is polemical at best. It's clear that the banks were pushed, but they seemed to forget their reluctance very quickly and not only moved CRA-loans, but thousands of other, even more problematic loans, up through the system hoping, as I stated earlier, to pass the risk up to someone else through the Credit Default Swap. It's clear that the mortgage companies, banks, and other various financial entities were just as confused about the danger of their own products as their customers. And, yet we're supposed to forget the "moral hazard" argument when it comes to banks, who didn't understand their own risk assessment or ignored it, and hold average home owners to a different standard.

Like any good debacle, we can see hundreds of mistakes and miscalculations often made by people who couldn't see pass their own perceived advantage.

The CRA-loans are just a dusty corner of this problem and it gets a surprising amount of focus. ACORN was incorrect, but they weren't operating to destroy the US economy, they were trying to stop red-lining (the sin that created the CRA in the first place) and trying to get minorities into home-ownership. A positive idea that may have backfired because it was, as you correctly pointed out, rejiggered to help further a political goal.

To sum up my long winded post, the word "forced" doesn't fit with the relationship between banks and the government, but it does dovetail with a certain political viewpoint. IMHO.

[jonbravo77]

You know what, I'm sorry. But Dmac77 you are way over your head on this one. You have no basis to say what you say since you are not even old enough to pay taxes and have a say in what the government does with the money. I know that sounds harsh and belittling but it's the truth.

And yes, you do sound very heartless. You are ranking right up there with CEO's that would rather pocket $18 billion in bonuses then keep their own company afloat and then go to Washington to ask for a bailout.

A lot of people are hurt by what is going on to no fault of there own and if you can't understand that than I respectfully ask you to butt out of a conversation you can't relate to. I am willing to bet that most people on this forum are feeling quite heavily the force of what is going on in today's economy including myself.

I am not trying to flame you are insult your intelligence but when you sit there at your computer and say "so what" or "it's there own fault" let them suffer which is what you are implying I am tempted to report you for trolling. I say again, you have no life experience to have the position you have. I will say again, I hope that this does not happen to you and your family.

[Rodimus Prime]

Like other said Dmac77 you are in over your head. You do not know what it is like to handle daily life. While it is impressive the amount you have put away and honestly almost unbelievable that you put that much away with out some type of seed money but that is another story.
You still do not understand daily life and day to day cost. I have been out of college 1 year. I have saved roughly 5 months of cost of living this year and I could push 9 months if I type my credit cards and am very conservative with my money.

That still would put me under a huge strain trying to go month to month. Most people CAN NOT match my rate of savings because they do not make as much as me so I know it is a struggle. I have friends who are struggling to get by month to month and $100 in extra cost can break them and compare to me who can take unexpected last min $500 in a month and still come with out typing my savings because of my income.

Living on your own is very expensive and is not cheap. There is a long list of things that can completely throw you off. Savings is not as easy. I doing great but I do not have the things draining my account either.

While I agree people who bought more than they could afford and got in over there head they deserve what they get. I do not like that fact that a lot of idiots are getting bailed out but people like me who played by rules get nothing but more taxes. I can accept people who lost there jobs and have to go a few months with out one I can understand. People who are upside down on their loans. Sucks to be you. I have little sympathy for them it happens. At the time you should be able to afford your home so the drop in prices is nothing more than a damn.

[Dmac77]

You know what, I'm sorry. But Dmac77 you are way over your head on this one. You have no basis to say what you say since you are not even old enough to pay taxes and have a say in what the government does with the money. I know that sounds harsh and belittling but it's the truth.

And yes, you do sound very heartless. You are ranking right up there with CEO's that would rather pocket $18 billion in bonuses then keep their own company afloat and then go to Washington to ask for a bailout.

A lot of people are hurt by what is going on to no fault of there own and if you can't understand that than I respectfully ask you to butt out of a conversation you can't relate to. I am willing to bet that most people on this forum are feeling quite heavily the force of what is going on in today's economy including myself.

I am not trying to flame you are insult your intelligence but when you sit there at your computer and say "so what" or "it's there own fault" let them suffer which is what you are implying I am tempted to report you for trolling. I say again, you have no life experience to have the position you have. I will say again, I hope that this does not happen to you and your family.

I'm afraid that you're wrong. A minor is subject to the "kiddie tax" on all earnings. Any money that I make at a job has to be reported (ie, summer golf course job), and any profit that my portfolio makes must be reported. As long as my portfolio makes under $1900 the earnings are taxed at my tax bracket, anything above $1900 is taxed at my parent/guardian's rate (In this case, my Mom). Now, my Mom could pay my taxes, but she makes me pay my own, and pay for the CPA's work on my taxes. Source (http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/planning/college_planning/custodial_account?cmsid=P-2027787&lvl1=planning&lvl2=college_planning)

I understand that people have gotten hurt by the recession (I even have), but at the same time I don't think that it's fair that my money is being used to bail people out (even if they didn't make a mistake). And yes, I am saying let them suffer, because it's not my job or anyone else's to help them. If you want to help them by all means go ahead, but don't force me to help them.

Don

[CorvusCamenarum]

Sure it was. When you can put together a portfolio of questionable loans and sell them to someone else on the premise that the houses would be worth more even if the customer banks had to foreclose, it was in the banks interest to create the portfolios regardless of the soundness of the loans.
What do you expect when you have federal regulations demanding that you make those loans, and ACORN threatening to file suit against you to force compliance if you don't? You either pony up or you get smeared in the court of public opinion and your business suffers (see: redlining).

As a parallel example, if I were to buy a mutual find, I'd be sure to research what that fund was buying before I sent them my money. No one was questioning these derivatives because the money was too good [to be true].

I've never maintained that it was just groups like ACORN, or just president X, or whatever that caused this mess. But that seems to be the elephant in the room, at least around here. Once the elevator started going up, everyone wanted to ride and turned a blind eye to basic common sense.

Many people were talked into mortgages they couldn't afford by bankers who did or should have known better.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, and anyone who's old enough to sign a mortgage contract should know this.

The bankers aren't supposed to want to loan you the money if they don't think you can pay them back so why shouldn't I believe the banker when he tells me I can afford a better house?
I thought banks were in the business of making money, not looking out for my best interest. Should it come down to a choice between the two, I know who I'm going to believe. Anyone with basic math skills and a $30 financial calculator can run the numbers for themselves.

What we really need is a high school level class that teaches basic finance and how to handle budgeting, credit, and loans so that in the future people can decide how much they can afford for themselves rather than believe people whose motives might not be altruistic in nature.

On this point, at least, you'll get no argument from me, although I'd include a primer on mortgages, refinancing, and so forth.

[jonbravo77]

I'm afraid that you're wrong. A minor is subject to the "kiddie tax" on all earnings. Any money that I make at a job has to be reported (ie, summer golf course job), and any profit that my portfolio makes must be reported. As long as my portfolio makes under $1900 the earnings are taxed at my tax bracket, anything above $1900 is taxed at my parent/guardian's rate (In this case, my Mom). Now, my Mom could pay my taxes, but she makes me pay my own, and pay for the CPA's work on my taxes. Source (http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/planning/college_planning/custodial_account?cmsid=P-2027787&lvl1=planning&lvl2=college_planning)

I understand that people have gotten hurt by the recession (I even have), but at the same time I don't think that it's fair that my money is being used to bail people out (even if they didn't make a mistake). And yes, I am saying let them suffer, because it's not my job or anyone else's to help them. If you want to help them by all means go ahead, but don't force me to help them.

Don

And welcome to the new generation everyone the "I don't really care what happens to anyone else, it's not my fault" generation. Sorry Don, but just because you pay a "kiddie tax" does not give you the right to be insensitive to others pain.

[SmartIndianKid]

I understand that people have gotten hurt by the recession (I even have), but at the same time I don't think that it's fair that my money is being used to bail people out (even if they didn't make a mistake). And yes, I am saying let them suffer, because it's not my job or anyone else's to help them. If you want to help them by all means go ahead, but don't force me to help them.

Don

And if you lose your job, what happens to you? You continue living with your parents. I know, because I do too.

Now what if someone in the real world loses their job? They're unable to afford car payments, their mortgage, food, health insurance, etc. The scenarios are starkly different.

[.Andy]

And welcome to the new generation everyone the "I don't really care what happens to anyone else, it's not my fault" generation.
It's not a generational thing. There are sociopaths in every generation. You'll find that Dmac's attitudes would be entirely foreign and antagonistic to the majority of his generation.

[hulugu]

I'm afraid that you're wrong. A minor is subject to the "kiddie tax" on all earnings. Any money that I make at a job has to be reported (ie, summer golf course job), and any profit that my portfolio makes must be reported. As long as my portfolio makes under $1900 the earnings are taxed at my tax bracket, anything above $1900 is taxed at my parent/guardian's rate (In this case, my Mom). Now, my Mom could pay my taxes, but she makes me pay my own, and pay for the CPA's work on my taxes. Source (http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/planning/college_planning/custodial_account?cmsid=P-2027787&lvl1=planning&lvl2=college_planning)

I understand that people have gotten hurt by the recession (I even have), but at the same time I don't think that it's fair that my money is being used to bail people out (even if they didn't make a mistake). And yes, I am saying let them suffer, because it's not my job or anyone else's to help them. If you want to help them by all means go ahead, but don't force me to help them.

Don

Again, under the aegis of your parents its very easy to launch spitballs about fairness and reality. Why don't you volunteer at a homeless shelter? Or sleep under a bridge for a night? Talk is cheap. Try understanding the harsh reality of letting people suffer so your little nest egg can be protected.

It's not a generational thing. There are sociopaths in every generation. You'll find that Dmac's attitudes would be entirely foreign and antagonistic to the majority of his generation.

I don't think he's a sociopath, rather it's an abstraction. He's sheltered and lives in a well-educated household. He's also in an affluent area with affluent friends and associates. He understands economic realities as well as someone who plays Counterstrike understands combat.

[atszyman]

What do you expect when you have federal regulations demanding that you make those loans, and ACORN threatening to file suit against you to force compliance if you don't? You either pony up or you get smeared in the court of public opinion and your business suffers (see: redlining).

As a parallel example, if I were to buy a mutual find, I'd be sure to research what that fund was buying before I sent them my money. No one was questioning these derivatives because the money was too good [to be true].

I've never maintained that it was just groups like ACORN, or just president X, or whatever that caused this mess. But that seems to be the elephant in the room, at least around here. Once the elevator started going up, everyone wanted to ride and turned a blind eye to basic common sense.

They're pressured to make the loans, but that doesn't mean that they had to be so outlandishly out of the means of those obtaining the loans. Somewhere someone approved those loans and it wasn't solely due to pressure from the government or lawsuits that would lead to any sane person granting some of those loans to people in those income brackets.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and anyone who's old enough to sign a mortgage contract should know this.


I thought banks were in the business of making money, not looking out for my best interest. Should it come down to a choice between the two, I know who I'm going to believe. Anyone with basic math skills and a $30 financial calculator can run the numbers for themselves.

And if the banks are in the business of making money and they agree to give someone a huge loan based on the financial data provided. Given the average people you know, how many of them would tell the bankers that they were nuts?

On this point, at least, you'll get no argument from me, although I'd include a primer on mortgages, refinancing, and so forth.

That's the point of covering budgets, loans, and credit.

[Dmac77]

Again, under the aegis of your parents its very easy to launch spitballs about fairness and reality. Why don't you volunteer at a homeless shelter? Or sleep under a bridge for a night? Talk is cheap. Try understanding the harsh reality of letting people suffer so your little nest egg can be protected.
I don't care about Joe Schmoe and his family (and that's the truth). If they end up on the street because of the recession, to bad, it's the harsh reality of life, not everyone can win. And people who lose, lose, it's not anyones job to help them. People should help themselves, not expect help from other people. If people want to help them, fine with me. But don't force me to help someone that I don't want to help.

I don't think he's a sociopath, rather it's an abstraction. He's sheltered and lives in a well-educated household. He's also in an affluent area with affluent friends and associates. He understands economic realities as well as someone who plays Counterstrike understands combat.
Fine, yes, my family is affluent. But that's not why I think people should have to deal with their own problems. It's because I've been raised to think that people need to help themselves, not expect handouts. If someone falls on bad times, oh well, deal with it and try to pick yourself backup, don't ask for someone to pull you up.

Don

[.Andy]

I don't care about Joe Schmoe and his family (and that's the truth). If they end up on the street because of the recession, to bad, it's the harsh reality of life, not everyone can win.
That's not the harsh reality of life at all. The reality of life is that the world has more wealth than ever before and no one need be in poverty or sleep on the street in any country. Everyone can win against poverty. Unfortunately they can only win if we can overcome selfishness. Which we can. You're views are thankfully peculiar.

[Dmac77]

That's not the harsh reality of life at all. The reality of life is that the world has more wealth than ever before and no one need be in poverty or sleep on the street in any country. Everyone can win against poverty. Unfortunately they can only win if we can overcome selfishness.

But it's my money, and it should be my choice. If I don't want to give it to someone, that should be my choice. What you're promoting is socialism. People have a right to be selfish, and horde their money. People shouldn't be forced to give their money to other people.

Don

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't care about Joe Schmoe and his family (and that's the truth). If they end up on the street because of the recession, to bad, it's the harsh reality of life, not everyone can win. And people who lose, lose, it's not anyones job to help them. People should help themselves, not expect help from other people. If people want to help them, fine with me. But don't force me to help someone that I don't want to help.


Fine, yes, my family is affluent. But that's not why I think people should have to deal with their own problems. It's because I've been raised to think that people need to help themselves, not expect handouts. If someone falls on bad times, oh well, deal with it and try to pick yourself backup, don't ask for someone to pull you up.

Don


Don you have effictly admitted right there in this post that you do not understand how the real world works. You are still living in a sheltered life and never had to cover your own expensives for day to day life.

I have stated my spot and have admitted that I have a savings and can go a few months. I had to deal with my own wake up calls when I had to balance my own finances in paying for just life with things like rent and bills.

you are throwing spit balls but have no clue what you are talking about.

I think in 10-15 years time your view will completely change when you have to deal with some hard times and have to think OMG where is the money for this going to come from. let me tell you it is not fun trying to figure that stuff out. Having to think can I make it to the end of the month when I get my influx of cash.

Go live on your own for a few years and get back to us.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

But it's my money, and it should be my choice. If I don't want to give it to someone, that should be my choice. What you're promoting is socialism. People have a right to be selfish, and horde their money. People shouldn't be forced to give their money to other people.

Don

Why do we have doctors? If people get sick, tough luck tuff luff. It happens.

[Rodimus Prime]

But it's my money, and it should be my choice. If I don't want to give it to someone, that should be my choice. What you're promoting is socialism. People have a right to be selfish, and horde their money. People shouldn't be forced to give their money to other people.

Don

I might like to point out that a purely Capitalism society does not work nor pure does socialism. There is a balance point in between. You have a pure capitalism view but wiht out the understanding of the flaws of capitalism and not understanding the balance point.

Some thing Capitalism will just not cover and their needs to be a government to do things for the greater good of everyone. Our roads and highway system is an example, hospitals, schools and so on. Those things taxes have to cover for the greater good.

Like I have said before Don you are trying to argue about something you have little understanding of.

[.Andy]

But it's my money, and it should be my choice. If I don't want to give it to someone, that should be my choice.
If you think that buying luxuries is more important that yoru fellow human dying unnecessarily that's your imperative. It's speaks volumes of your character and your ethics.

What you're promoting is socialism.
To be blunt you don't know what socialism is. In fact you have an embarassing misunderstanding of socialism is.

People have a right to be selfish, and horde their money. People shouldn't be forced to give their money to other people
Nobody is forcing anybody anything. But people do have an ethical obligation to help others.

[Dmac77]

If you think that buying luxuries is more important that yoru fellow human dying unnecessarily that's your imperative. It's speaks volumes of your character and your ethics.
Fine, I'm an unethical person. But I don't think that other people should get any of my money. My money should be mine to do what I please, with.

To be blunt you don't know what socialism is. In fact you have an embarassing misunderstanding of socialism is.
So one of the aspects of socialism isn't where you take from the rich and give to the poor?

Nobody is forcing anybody anything. But people do have an ethical obligation to help others. Philanthropy is proven path to happiness.
By taking the taxes (that I am legally obligated to pay) and giving them to someone else, I am being forced to be philanthropical.

Philanthropy may make some people happy, but it doesn't make me happy. I'm perfectly happy as I am, with my money, and belongings.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

So one of the aspects of socialism isn't where you take from the rich and give to the poor?

No, that is not one of the parts of socialism. I think what you're thinking of is where the well off willingly GIVE to the needy.

[Ugg]

I might like to point out that a purely Capitalism society does not work nor pure does socialism. There is a balance point in between. You have a pure capitalism view but wiht out the understanding of the flaws of capitalism and not understanding the balance point.

Some thing Capitalism will just not cover and their needs to be a government to do things for the greater good of everyone. Our roads and highway system is an example, hospitals, schools and so on. Those things taxes have to cover for the greater good.

Like I have said before Don you are trying to argue about something you have little understanding of.

You'd think he lives on a desert island or something.

This bailout unfortunately isn't about roadbuilders or hospitals or whatever but greedy financial organizations who think they're above government oversight.

I think dmac feels that roads and schools and hospitals and airports and the military are all entitlements and anything else simply a handout.

[chrmjenkins]

So one of the aspects of socialism isn't where you take from the rich and give to the poor?

In a purely socialistic state, neither exist, so there's your first misunderstanding.


By taking the taxes (that I am legally obligated to pay) and giving them to someone else, I am being forced to be philanthropical.

I'm pretty sure the definition of philanthropy involves help freely given. You give your money out of legal obligation, not a desire to help others.

Moreover, that money is not given as a simple handout. It is given out in the recognition that the system is inherently flawed, and some people will be dealt a bad hand by no fault of their own. It's also one of the fail-safes we have to protect people who are convinced that having their own money to themselves is more important than living with the direct consequences of poverty all around them.


Philanthropy may make some people happy, but it doesn't make me happy. I'm perfectly happy as I am, with my money, and belongings.

For your sake, I hope you feel the emptiness this attitude will cause sooner rather than later.

[Ugg]

So one of the aspects of socialism isn't where you take from the rich and give to the poor?




Um, getting your definitions of the various ideological isms from Robin Hood cartoons isn't exactly a sign of financial acumen.

[chrmjenkins]

Um, getting your definitions of the various ideological isms from Robin Hood cartoons isn't exactly a sign of financial acumen.

It helps a little bit if you imagine it with an English accent.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Um, getting your definitions of the various ideological isms from Robin Hood cartoons isn't exactly a sign of financial acumen.

I can't believe that he gets his info from Robin Hood, yet is on the side of the Sheriff of Nottingham!

[Rodimus Prime]

You'd think he lives on a desert island or something.

This bailout unfortunately isn't about roadbuilders or hospitals or whatever but greedy financial organizations who think they're above government oversight.

I think dmac feels that roads and schools and hospitals and airports and the military are all entitlements and anything else simply a handout.

I was using them as easy examples of where the goverment has to cover things.

But it does show in his post he for a pure capitilism point of view which does not work.

for things more along the lines he is used to we have unemployment which is government funded and required by law and a very needed type of program.

Just in post after post he makes it shows he does not have an understanding of the real world. Just his sheltered world.

[Dmac77]

In a purely socialistic state, neither exist, so there's your first misunderstanding.
Right, so taking my money to help someone else's financial situation isn't income redistribution (which is socialistic)?


I'm pretty sure the definition of philanthropy involves help freely given. You give your money out of legal obligation, not a desire to help others.
Well, the government considers any money that the government has to be the taxpayers money. So they are taking my money, and giving it to someone else without my permission. I can't think of a better term then forced philanthropy. If you can think of a better term, please tell me.
Moreover, that money is not given as a simple handout. It is given out in the recognition that the system is inherently flawed, and some people will be dealt a bad hand by no fault of their own. It's also one of the fail-safes we have to protect people who are convinced that having their own money to themselves is more important than living with the direct consequences of poverty all around them.
The system is not flawed, not everyone can be wealthy that's the truth. Some people come out on top, some in the middle, and some on the bottom. It all depends on your opinion. I personally think that capitalism is the best solution, and is not inherently flawed.


For your sake, I hope you feel the emptiness this attitude will cause sooner rather than later.
I have a loving family, good friends. How could I feel empty?

Don

[NT1440]

Many people were talked into mortgages they couldn't afford by bankers who did or should have known better.

The bankers aren't supposed to want to loan you the money if they don't think you can pay them back so why shouldn't I believe the banker when he tells me I can afford a better house?

What we really need is a high school level class that teaches basic finance and how to handle budgeting, credit, and loans so that in the future people can decide how much they can afford for themselves rather than believe people whose motives might not be altruistic in nature.

It austounds me how many of the worlds problems could be avoidable if education was better.

[itcheroni]

In a purely socialistic state, neither exist, so there's your first misunderstanding.

I'm pretty sure the definition of philanthropy involves help freely given. You give your money out of legal obligation, not a desire to help others.

Moreover, that money is not given as a simple handout. It is given out in the recognition that the system is inherently flawed, and some people will be dealt a bad hand by no fault of their own. It's also one of the fail-safes we have to protect people who are convinced that having their own money to themselves is more important than living with the direct consequences of poverty all around them.



Interesting. Is it the role of government to do this? Is it even good to do it?

[jonbravo77]

I have a loving family, good friends. How could I feel empty?

Don

This is the point that should end this discussion with Don... Please, we are all spinning our wheels with this one. Don, I hope you never feel empty, I hope you never feel loneliness, or fear of losing what you have worked very hard for. I truly hope non of this ever happens to you, because if it does you will have a very very long way down to fall from that big pedestal you have put your life upon.

I hope you can remain in your world for as long as you can, it seems like a nice world where the rich keep getting richer on the backs of the poor. Me me me, is just a great attitude to have going through life and leads to the crisis we are in. If everyone thought like you do we would have never made it out of the stone ages.

[itcheroni]

It austounds me how many of the worlds problems could be avoidable if education was better.

Because if they only had education and money they would all act just exactly like you?

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/10/62-knowing-whats-best-for-poor-people/

[CorvusCamenarum]

They're pressured to make the loans, but that doesn't mean that they had to be so outlandishly out of the means of those obtaining the loans. Somewhere someone approved those loans and it wasn't solely due to pressure from the government or lawsuits that would lead to any sane person granting some of those loans to people in those income brackets.
I saw an ad in the WSJ about 2 weeks ago from Bank of America detailing how they just unveiled a 10 year, $1.5 trillion guarantee of funding to these crap loans. Were it not for the federal bailout money, BoA would be looking to share office space with the Titanic about now. If that doesn't reek of CRA backscratching, I don't know what does.

And if the banks are in the business of making money and they agree to give someone a huge loan based on the financial data provided. Given the average people you know, how many of them would tell the bankers that they were nuts?
The average people I know were smart enough not to get in over their heads. A buddy of mine in particular decided to stay in his trailer rather than take on a potentially risky loan. Then again, he's got two kids to look after and figured that in the event of something unforeseen, a mobile home he knows he can afford is preferable to sleeping under a bridge.

That's the point of covering budgets, loans, and credit. Fair enough, but if it were me writing the syllabus I'd pay extra attention to mortgages as a subset of loans in general as it's the typically the most expensive and important purchase most people will ever make.

[gibbz]

Well, the government considers any money that the government has to be the taxpayers money. So they are taking my money, and giving it to someone else without my permission. I can't think of a better term then forced philanthropy. If you can think of a better term, please tell me.


Yeah, it is called your civic responsibility. You are complicit by paying your taxes, so it is not without your permission. If you don't like what they do with your taxes, vote them out or stop paying taxes and go to jail. Jail would suck, but a principled guy such as yourself would certainly find such an act a worthy sacrifice for the capitalist ideals.

I hate to be blunt, but please stop this nonsense of "my taxes are being given to others." Frankly, your kiddie tax isn't paying for ******.

[Ugg]

The system is not flawed, not everyone can be wealthy that's the truth. Some people come out on top, some in the middle, and some on the bottom. It all depends on your opinion. I personally think that capitalism is the best solution, and is not inherently flawed.



Pure capitalism has never existed in this country and it never will. It didn't exist in the signing of the USC nor during the Civil War nor during the Teapot Dome Scandal nor during the Great Depression. And there's not been a single decade since that has shown that unfettered capitalism isn't seriously flawed.

[NT1440]

Because if they only had education and money they would all act just exactly like you?

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/10/62-knowing-whats-best-for-poor-people/
I was saying if you made finance classes mandatory in high school people wouldn't be as gullible and would probably be able to make better choices in there lives.

[itcheroni]

I was saying if you made finance classes mandatory in high school people wouldn't be as gullible and would probably be able to make better choices in there lives.

I know, my response was just a joke.

[Ugg]

I saw an ad in the WSJ about 2 weeks ago from Bank of America detailing how they just unveiled a 10 year, $1.5 trillion guarantee of funding to these crap loans. Were it not for the federal bailout money, BoA would be looking to share office space with the Titanic about now. If that doesn't reek of CRA backscratching, I don't know what does.


Can you post some firm numbers? I'd be really interested in seeing just how many loans BoA was "forced" to make.

It's funny how CRA was almost entirely forgotten these last two decades and now it's being resurrected as the cause of all our problems.

Why didn't the Republican pres or Congress get rid of it it then? Oh, Yeah, it's something to do with bushco's "ownership society", isn't it.

[chrmjenkins]

Right, so taking my money to help someone else's financial situation isn't income redistribution (which is socialistic)?

If you were in a purely socialistic state, you wouldn't have extra income to redistribute. What's the point of compensating you more if everyone gets the same amount in the end? Bragging rights?


The system is not flawed, not everyone can be wealthy that's the truth. Some people come out on top, some in the middle, and some on the bottom. It all depends on your opinion. I personally think that capitalism is the best solution, and is not inherently flawed.

Capitalism as a system assumes a minimum amount of unemployment at any given time. Humanity generally recognizes that those who have the ability to work would like to to be able to provide a means of survival for their families. If the system will not allow for this to happen to everyone at any given time, that's a flaw.


Interesting. Is it the role of government to do this? Is it even good to do it?

It's certainly not a stated intention, but if it isn't one of the effects, I'd be particularly surprised. Of course, the way I phrased it adds particular flavoring.

[quotemeas]

It's going to fall even more sad to say. He's the best snake oil salesman yet to run for President. With the help of the clueless Democrats (Socialists) in the House and Senate, they are going to run this country into the ground. God help us, the era of the nanny state has officially started. Check your freedoms at the door and bend over because the government now is telling us how to run businesses.

I guess you are cool with the Patriot Act then huh?

[CorvusCamenarum]

Can you post some firm numbers? I'd be really interested in seeing just how many loans BoA was "forced" to make.

It's funny how CRA was almost entirely forgotten these last two decades and now it's being resurrected as the cause of all our problems.

Why didn't the Republican pres or Congress get rid of it it then? Oh, Yeah, it's something to do with bushco's "ownership society", isn't it.

Liam McGhee of BoA is quite proud about halfway down the page (http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/index.php?s=speeches&item=202)

I think your missing piece is that CRA loans weren't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things in terms of dollars lent up until the mid 90's or so. Reference the chart I posted several pages ago. They really started taking off post-1995, when the compliance standards changed to measuring actual dollars lent.

Out of curiosity, are you averse to the notion of home ownership? You seem to sneer at the idea an awful lot.

[Ugg]

Liam McGhee of BoA is quite proud about halfway down the page (http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/index.php?s=speeches&item=202)

I think your missing piece is that CRA loans weren't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things in terms of dollars lent up until the mid 90's or so. Reference the chart I posted several pages ago. They really started taking off post-1995, when the compliance standards changed to measuring actual dollars lent.

Out of curiosity, are you averse to the notion of home ownership? You seem to sneer at the idea an awful lot.

Absolutely nowhere in either the PDF or the public relations statements from BoA is there any mention of how much money went to individual mortgages. A lot of CRA money was loaned to developers and communities and businesses. I've also been unable to find the default rate on those loans. My guess is that so far at least, it's much lower than loans to individuals.

The changes in the OTS also took place under a Republican administration and Congress.

I can't remember exactly, but I believe that bushco's "ownership society" was pushing for a home ownership rate of ~80%. Given that home prices skyrocketed over the last decade while household income has mostly remained stagnant and even plummeted for many people, it would seem impossible without additional massive government intervention.

Does that seem to be an intelligent decision? I hardly think so.

[ravenvii]

Capitalism as a system assumes a minimum amount of unemployment at any given time. Humanity generally recognizes that those who have the ability to work would like to to be able to provide a means of survival for their families. If the system will not allow for this to happen to everyone at any given time, that's a flaw.

I'm just curious.

Which is more worthwhile to you in a economical system, equality and survival for all, or progress of mankind, both technologically and intellectually?

[.Andy]

I'm just curious.

Which is more worthwhile to you in a economical system, equality and survival for all, or progress of mankind, both technologically and intellectually?
They're synergistic goals. Equality and survival for all boosts technological and intellectual advancement, and technological and intellectual advancement strives towards equality and survival for all.

[atszyman]

Philanthropy may make some people happy, but it doesn't make me happy. I'm perfectly happy as I am, with my money, and belongings.

Then all the childless couples should be able to stop paying their property taxes that go to schools and we'll see how you and your parents enjoy the hike on your local taxes to fund your education.

Right, so taking my money to help someone else's financial situation isn't income redistribution (which is socialistic)?


All taxes are wealth redistribution. If we didn't have any sort of safety nets in place what do you think would happen when the poor got desperate? You think people will quietly die off as their families starve or will they resort to whatever means necessary? Who do you think their targets will be? Safety nets go a long way towards keeping your comfy cozy lifestyle both comfy and cozy.

The average people I know were smart enough not to get in over their heads. A buddy of mine in particular decided to stay in his trailer rather than take on a potentially risky loan. Then again, he's got two kids to look after and figured that in the event of something unforeseen, a mobile home he knows he can afford is preferable to sleeping under a bridge.

Then you know above average people. You have to remember that for ages 25 and above less than a third of the population has a degree beyond High School.link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#General_attainment_of_degrees.2Fdiplomas)

Fair enough, but if it were me writing the syllabus I'd pay extra attention to mortgages as a subset of loans in general as it's the typically the most expensive and important purchase most people will ever make.

I'd agree with you, but if you can do basic loan math, you can do mortgage math. You can cover them fairly well together or focus more on mortgages when talking about loans, which I'd definitely have no problem with.

I hate to be blunt, but please stop this nonsense of "my taxes are being given to others." Frankly, your kiddie tax isn't paying for ******.

In all fairness he's young enough right now, that his tax monies will most likely be funding this bailout since we're borrowing the money now and eventually will have to pay it back. Hell, at this moment, none of us is paying for this bailout.

[chrmjenkins]

They're synergistic goals. Equality and survival for all boosts technological and intellectual advancement, and technological and intellectual advancement strives towards equality and survival for all.


Thanks for picking that one up. Basically, you don't have to ignore one goal completely to pursue the other. You insert a compensation mechanism, and over time, it will get better as a result of the overall progress.

[hulugu]

Then all the childless couples should be able to stop paying their property taxes that go to schools and we'll see how you and your parents enjoy the hike on your local taxes to fund your education.

I thought about this too, but I'd bet that Dmac77 enjoys a private school. Of course, there's also the city grid, city water and sewer, garbage collection, police and firehouses, not to mention the numerous services needed to get Dmac77 from his nice house to his school. It's interesting how much attention gets paid to social services when the phrase is wealth redistribution and how little focus is given to these other facts.

All taxes are wealth redistribution. If we didn't have any sort of safety nets in place what do you think would happen when the poor got desperate? You think people will quietly die off as their families starve or will they resort to whatever means necessary? Who do you think their targets will be? Safety nets go a long way towards keeping your comfy cozy lifestyle both comfy and cozy.

Oh, but Dmac77 has said "I don't care about Joe Schmoe" the modern version of the apocryphal "Let them eat cake." Surely, the poor and indigent will be polite enough to starve to death under the bridges of this country so as not to ruin the grand vistas of the wealthy secure in their homes in the hills. ;)

They're synergistic goals. Equality and survival for all boosts technological and intellectual advancement, and technological and intellectual advancement strives towards equality and survival for all.

Nice post.

[zap2]

They're synergistic goals. Equality and survival for all boosts technological and intellectual advancement, and technological and intellectual advancement strives towards equality and survival for all.

Thank YOU!


People promote this individual is all powerful! Everything should be up to him or her.

And then people like Dmac77 even go on to say, I don't care if it is their fault or not, screw 'em!

Terrible outlook that will undermine what our society should seek to do. Progress


Oh Dmac77 a quote for you!
"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity, nothing exceeds the criticisms made of the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed."

[mactastic]

Well, first off, it's been fantastically amusing to read all these good little conservatives praising the economies of China and Russia, with the implication that we should be more like them. Awesome! :p:D

Since you'll obviously listen to nothing I offer, which seems to be a theme with you, why don't you share your thoughts on the matter? I'm sure it was the big bad banks taking advantage of helpless people whose lack of personal responsibility and apparently basic literacy just mean they need protecting more than ever now :rolleyes:
I'm sure you'll tell me that the people who invented the credit default swap and related investment vehicles, and then proceeded to ensure that they were as free as possible from government regulation were just helpless people who didn't really know what they were doing? And who need protecting now more than ever? :rolleyes:

[itcheroni]

I'm sure you'll tell me that the people who invented the credit default swap and related investment vehicles, and then proceeded to ensure that they were as free as possible from government regulation were just helpless people who didn't really know what they were doing? And who need protecting now more than ever? :rolleyes:

So, repeat after me, the government should stay out of it and let them fail. You're finally getting it.

[SactoGuy18]

If I were President Obama, I would do the following as a mixture of conservative and liberal policies:

Financial

1. Seriously look at fixing the woefully broken Federal income tax system. Americans are going to spend in 2009 over US$350 BILLION to comply with the 2008 Internal Revenue Code, and there's got to be a better way. We could reduce the maximum marginal tax rate to 20% with far few deductions and credits, simplify it to a 4-6% no-deductions flat tax, or replace the whole Internal Revenue Code with a true consumption tax system (something like FairTax).

2. Impose a 20% minimum margin requirement for commodity and stock futures trades, with the requirement as high as 35% for strategic items like crude oil, certain foodstuffs like wheat, corn, soybeans and rice, and certain metals like gold, silver, platinum, iron, nickel, copper, and aluminum.

3. Dramatically provide more enforcement power for the SEC and FTC to monitor the equities market more closely to look for potential fraud schemes.

4. Replace the Sarbanes-Oxley Act with something that doesn't discourage initial public offerings (IPOs) in the USA but still have more strict accounting reporting requirements.

5. Create the 2009 equivalent of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to buy up all the distressed mortgages and sell them off in an orderly fashion.

6. Eventually, look at merging the US dollar with the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso to create (in an orderly fashion!) a "super dollar" by 2020 to better compete against the Euro.

Social

1. Legalize the registered domestic partner definition nationwide to accommodate gay couples, giving them rights (and responsibilities! :) ) of a normal marriage.

2. De-criminalize cannubis and treat it in the same way we define alcohol and tobacco. Just this would be a major killjoy to most of the street gangs out there! :D

3. Re-affirm the woman's right to an abortion, but put in limits on when an abortion can be done (e.g., discourage abortion as a convenient means of contraception) and encourage more use of today's safer birth control methods.

4. Require that within 20 years high school graduates have to be high-school senior level fluent in more than one language. This means you have to be able to read and speak English and one other language fluently, whether it's Spanish, French, Beijing-region Mandarin dialect Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, etc.

[mactastic]

So, repeat after me, the government should stay out of it and let them fail. You're finally getting it.
How does the government staying out of this and letting the country go down in economic ruin make things better?

We've been inching ever closer to the government "staying out of it", and it hasn't helped.

So repeat after me, the government "staying out of it" hasn't helped, and has indeed made things worse. You're finally getting it.

Helluva persuasive argument, isn't it? :rolleyes:

[jonbravo77]

So, repeat after me, the government should stay out of it and let them fail. You're finally getting it.

I posted this is another thread. I'm all for letting companies fail as far as free-markets go. But what I think gets overlooked is how tied into the global economy these failing companies are. If a big company fails like AIG or Citigroup or the others what do you think will happen to the global economy, and what do you propose we do with the 10's of thousands or more people who will lose there job because these companies are allowed to fail and close down. If this was 50-60 years ago it would probably be a bit easier to let them shut down, but our economy is tied deeply into the global economy and now it's much harder to just have the attitude of "let them fail oh well". Just a thought...

[itcheroni]

How does the government staying out of this and letting the country go down in economic ruin make things better?

We've been inching ever closer to the government "staying out of it", and it hasn't helped.

So repeat after me, the government "staying out of it" hasn't helped, and has indeed made things worse. You're finally getting it.

Helluva persuasive argument, isn't it? :rolleyes:

So we need those big corporations more than ever? Because without them, we're goners? So we hate them but we'll give them all the money they need because we really need them. I'm just trying to follow your logic, which is difficult to do.

[itcheroni]

I posted this is another thread. I'm all for letting companies fail as far as free-markets go. But what I think gets overlooked is how tied into the global economy these failing companies are. If a big company fails like AIG or Citigroup or the others what do you think will happen to the global economy, and what do you propose we do with the 10's of thousands or more people who will lose there job because these companies are allowed to fail and close down. If this was 50-60 years ago it would probably be a bit easier to let them shut down, but our economy is tied deeply into the global economy and now it's much harder to just have the attitude of "let them fail oh well". Just a thought...

You make a good point but it is even more of a reason to let these companies fail because eventually they're going to bring us down with them. By giving them money, we're intwining ourselves even more. And by giving these failing companies money, America is investing, not in ourselves as the arguments goes, but in the absolute worst companies. There are also some banks who didn't make dumb decisions(or didn't make as many of them) who, with Citi and B of A out of the way, could have gotten more business and hired more people. No business is too big to go bankrupt, and no country either as we might learn in a few years.

http://www.iousathemovie.com/

[miloblithe]

If I were President Obama, I would do the following as a mixture of conservative and liberal policies:

Financial

1. Seriously look at fixing the woefully broken Federal income tax system. Americans are going to spend in 2009 over US$350 BILLION to comply with the 2008 Internal Revenue Code, and there's got to be a better way. We could reduce the maximum marginal tax rate to 20% with far few deductions and credits, simplify it to a 4-6% no-deductions flat tax, or replace the whole Internal Revenue Code with a true consumption tax system (something like FairTax).

2. Impose a 20% minimum margin requirement for commodity and stock futures trades, with the requirement as high as 35% for strategic items like crude oil, certain foodstuffs like wheat, corn, soybeans and rice, and certain metals like gold, silver, platinum, iron, nickel, copper, and aluminum.

3. Dramatically provide more enforcement power for the SEC and FTC to monitor the equities market more closely to look for potential fraud schemes.

4. Replace the Sarbanes-Oxley Act with something that doesn't discourage initial public offerings (IPOs) in the USA but still have more strict accounting reporting requirements.

5. Create the 2009 equivalent of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to buy up all the distressed mortgages and sell them off in an orderly fashion.

6. Eventually, look at merging the US dollar with the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso to create (in an orderly fashion!) a "super dollar" by 2020 to better compete against the Euro.

Social

1. Legalize the registered domestic partner definition nationwide to accommodate gay couples, giving them rights (and responsibilities! :) ) of a normal marriage.

2. De-criminalize cannubis and treat it in the same way we define alcohol and tobacco. Just this would be a major killjoy to most of the street gangs out there! :D

3. Re-affirm the woman's right to an abortion, but put in limits on when an abortion can be done (e.g., discourage abortion as a convenient means of contraception) and encourage more use of today's safer birth control methods.

4. Require that within 20 years high school graduates have to be high-school senior level fluent in more than one language. This means you have to be able to read and speak English and one other language fluently, whether it's Spanish, French, Beijing-region Mandarin dialect Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, etc.

What's conservative here?

As for Social #4, as much as I'd love to see that, I think it's the most unrealistic of your proposals. In many states, kids graduate without taking a single semester of foreign language. Fluency is completely unrealistic. It may be realistic for Spanish in LA, but not for a kid in rural Idaho who's trying to learn Chinese. Make it something like conversational and you might have something.

This would also require two track high school. Lots of kids would never be able to achieve this.

[SactoGuy18]

What's conservative here?

As for Social #4, as much as I'd love to see that, I think it's the most unrealistic of your proposals. In many states, kids graduate without taking a single semester of foreign language. Fluency is completely unrealistic. It may be realistic for Spanish in LA, but not for a kid in rural Idaho who's trying to learn Chinese. Make it something like conversational and you might have something.


#1, #4 and #5 are conservative things to do on the financial side. These three would go a LONG to start an economic recovery.

As for my suggestion of bi-lingual high school fluency, that's why I suggested it about 20 years from now, with good reason: students will have to learn to be fluent in the language probably as early as the second grade in grammar school, and be demonstrate bilingual fluency to graduate from high school. Extra credit for college will be available if the student can achieve high-school level fluency in three or more languages. Essentially, one of these languages will be required beyond English for bilingual fluency: Arabic, Mandarin-dialect Chinese, French, Spanish or Russian (these five languages plus English are the official languages of the United Nations in their official business). Technically, if you can speak English, Spanish and/or French fluently, you can pretty much travel the world (Spanish is of course useful throughout Latin America, and French is very useful in much of Africa because French is probably the ONLY common language among Africans used to a long list of local tribal languages).

[mactastic]

So we need those big corporations more than ever? Because without them, we're goners? So we hate them but we'll give them all the money they need because we really need them. I'm just trying to follow your logic, which is difficult to do.
It's not my problem if it's difficult for you. Sorry, but life's not fair, right?

My feeling is that we need to address the problem created by allowing companies to get too big to fail. If we would move forward by not allowing companies to get that big again, then I would be happy to allow them to fail.

So would you be willing to allow the government to have the power to regulate mergers and acquisitions so that companies don't get "too big to fail", if they were then allowed to fail when run poorly?

[itcheroni]

It's not my problem if it's difficult for you. Sorry, but life's not fair, right?

My feeling is that we need to address the problem created by allowing companies to get too big to fail. If we would move forward by not allowing companies to get that big again, then I would be happy to allow them to fail.

So would you be willing to allow the government to have the power to regulate mergers and acquisitions so that companies don't get "too big to fail", if they were then allowed to fail when run poorly?

Since no company is too big to fail, sure.

[NT1440]

Since no company is too big to fail, sure.

The term "too big to fail" doesnt mean it cant go bankrupt, it means if it goes down it takes thousands of jobs and a nice chunk out of the economy.

[mactastic]

Since no company is too big to fail, sure.
Now do you understand why the people -- whom you would call "statist" -- spoke out against allowing all these crazy mergers, particularly among banks, but also throughout the economy? Because the inevitable price of capitalism run amok is this kind of bailout. And make no mistake, this was capitalism run amok.

But now you're here blaming the "statists" for handing out all this money, when it was the inevitable consequence of what the "corporatists" like yourself advocated.

[itcheroni]

The term "too big to fail" doesnt mean it cant go bankrupt, it means if it goes down it takes thousands of jobs and a nice chunk out of the economy.

I have the same understanding of "too big to fail." My argument is that these companies now are too big not to fail. If you use tax money to prop up a company that wouldn't exist without that tax money, you also take a nice, even bigger, chunk out of the economy.

[NT1440]

I have the same understanding of "too big to fail." My argument is that these companies now are too big not to fail. If you use tax money to prop up a company that wouldn't exist without that tax money, you also take a nice, even bigger, chunk out of the economy.

But keep hundreds of thousands employed.

[mgguy]

But keep hundreds of thousands employed.

Why is it necessarily the government's responsibility to keep people employed? At some point the government may have to bow out and let the market forces have their way.

[itcheroni]

But keep hundreds of thousands employed.

By keeping how many more unemployed? And the loss of purchasing power? The government doesn't have any money; the money that they take would have been in the economy anyway (either by tax or inflation). We will replace the problem of unemployment with poverty. I don't think people want to work just to work, they work for purchasing power. Once inflation has really set in, by the end of Obama's term, we will probably hear stories of people with full time jobs unable to pay for all their necessities, including food.

[mactastic]

Why is it necessarily the government's responsibility to keep people employed? At some point the government may have to bow out and let the market forces have their way.
This problem is a direct result of the government bowing out and letting market forces have their way. To do more of what got us here in the first place would be sheer folly.

[ravenvii]

This problem is a direct result of the government bowing out and letting market forces have their way. To do more of what got us here in the first place would be sheer folly.

Some argument goes the other way, as well. We got into this because of government regulation. To do more of what got us here in the first place would be sheer folly.

[zap2]

Some argument goes the other way, as well. We got into this because of government regulation. To do more of what got us here in the first place would be sheer folly.

Well that argument is wrong, so I don't know why you would follow it

The government wanted to regulate banks, the banks wanted their own way. Banks got loosened regulations....now we're screwed over!

[mactastic]

Some argument goes the other way, as well. We got into this because of government regulation. To do more of what got us here in the first place would be sheer folly.
Sure, you can make that argument. It's silly, but you are free to make it, just as you as free to say that we never landed on the moon, or that 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

It's a free country, after all.

[ravenvii]

You absolutely sure you need to say that three times, mactastic? ;)

Yeah, I know, I don't necessarily believe that myself, I'm just sayin'.

[Lesser Evets]

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/blackerton/fgOpYT15xoFKsLKdyU8m80tAAIikneRDdzmQDxWyQDPzSdU4vW1tOshe6S2o/DowHOPE_Feb_16.jpg

I see a lot of hope in that!

It's under 7000 today for the first time in almost 12 years.
At this moment it is almost below 6900!
Naturally, it's Bush's fault and has NOTHING to do with Obama and the Democratic Legislature.

This is all the fault of Republicans! ALL THE FAULT OF REPUBLICANS....
Because they fell back into the "country club" mentality and stifled the conservative message getting them elected to limit government.

I don't think any Liberal even understands those words. It's like a jumble of confusion to those political tools fighting to shuffle power to their political masters who do nothing for them aside from providing propaganda.

OH! It just went below 6900! What a surprise.
NO TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! He cried.
(Instead we'll shovel it at rich bankers and industrialists despite their businesses failing.) He did.

[atszyman]

It's under 7000 today for the first time in almost 12 years.
At this moment it is almost below 6900!
Naturally, it's Bush's fault and has NOTHING to do with Obama and the Democratic Legislature.

This is all the fault of Republicans! ALL THE FAULT OF REPUBLICANS....
Because they fell back into the "country club" mentality and stifled the conservative message getting them elected to limit government.

I don't think any Liberal even understands those words. It's like a jumble of confusion to those political tools fighting to shuffle power to their political masters who do nothing for them aside from providing propaganda.

OH! It just went below 6900! What a surprise.
NO TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! He cried.
(Instead we'll shovel it at rich bankers and industrialists despite their businesses failing.) He did.

If Clinton's boom times were the result of Reagan and Bush I, then how in the hell can anyone make the argument that the current problems are somehow Obama's fault after a little over a month on the job?

We've been told over and over that the problems Bush had were Clintons fault after 8 years in office, yet somehow when the Dems manage to get control for about 40 days, everything they do is instantly reflected in any negative market moves, but any good that occurs is the result of the previous Republican administration.

It was always a wonder how Carter got blamed for everything bad that happened in his one 4 year term but Bush II got away with everything over an 8 year span by blaming it on Clinton.

[mactastic]

The Bush recession just keeps getting worse and worse...

[itcheroni]

It's under 7000 today for the first time in almost 12 years.
At this moment it is almost below 6900!
Naturally, it's Bush's fault and has NOTHING to do with Obama and the Democratic Legislature.

This is all the fault of Republicans! ALL THE FAULT OF REPUBLICANS....
Because they fell back into the "country club" mentality and stifled the conservative message getting them elected to limit government.

I don't think any Liberal even understands those words. It's like a jumble of confusion to those political tools fighting to shuffle power to their political masters who do nothing for them aside from providing propaganda.

OH! It just went below 6900! What a surprise.
NO TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! He cried.
(Instead we'll shovel it at rich bankers and industrialists despite their businesses failing.) He did.

This isn't at all about Republicans or Democrats. If you see economics along party lines, you'll be blind to your party's mistakes. Our current problem is a result of too much spending by government and consumers and too little exports spanning the last 40 years. Our lifestyles do not reflect our ability to produce, just like a person who always spends more than they make, it has caught up to us. The housing bubble and Bush just tipped us over. If you listen to the last episode of This American Life, they even mention that spending might be the last thing we need right now and the main thing that the government is encouraging us to do.

[Blue Velvet]

So... since the DOW jumped almost 6% today, we can assume that Obama's doing well this week? :rolleyes:

This thread is full of political and economic illiteracy.

[Cleverboy]

If you listen to the last episode of This American Life, they even mention that spending might be the last thing we need right now and the main thing that the government is encouraging us to do. With all due respect, you sound like you literally listened until you heard a scrap of opinion that made sense to you, and that's what you've worked into your comment. If you want to point to some great episodes of This American Life, regarding this crisis... go listen to:

#355. The Giant Pool of Money (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio_episode.aspx?sched=1242)
#365. Another Frightening Show About the Economy (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263)
#375. Bad Bank (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=375)

What I've gotten out of some of this excellent episodes, is that this problem has developed out of opaque financial instruments that have turned out to be fundamentally flawed. Government spending has next to NOTHING to do with anything. Bad spending is bad spending. Some of the most wasteful spending has come out of the Bush administration. Right now, we're attempting to stabilize the economy, and that requires a lot of spending to return confidence to the market. If opaque instruments had not clouded the waters, this confidence would not be necessary.

~ CB

[itcheroni]

With all due respect, you sound like you literally listened until you heard a scrap of opinion that made sense to you, and that's what you've worked into your comment. If you want to point to some great episodes of This American Life, regarding this crisis... go listen to:

#355. The Giant Pool of Money (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio_episode.aspx?sched=1242)
#365. Another Frightening Show About the Economy (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263)
#375. Bad Bank (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=375)

What I've gotten out of some of this excellent episodes, is that this problem has developed out of opaque financial instruments that have turned out to be fundamentally flawed. Government spending has next to NOTHING to do with anything. Bad spending is bad spending. Some of the most wasteful spending has come out of the Bush administration. Right now, we're attempting to stabilize the economy, and that requires a lot of spending to return confidence to the market. If opaque instruments had not clouded the waters, this confidence would not be necessary.

~ CB

I've listened to all of those episodes. And I don't think I'm being selective. If you remember the giant pool of money episode, the giant pool of money regularly rested in US T-bills and bonds. When Greenspan lowered interest rates to 1% (I think someone on the show described it as a big F you)because of the tech bubble burst, that giant pool of money looked elsewhere and found mortgage-backed securities. You wouldn't be wrong to say deregulation caused this by allowing these derivatives but I also am not wrong in saying credit manipulation caused this. If Greenspan kept interest rates at a normal, even if low, rate, the giant pool of money probably would have stayed put. 1% was unprecedented. It "got us out" of the tech bubble recession. It caused us to overspend. Now the rate is virtually 0% and no one is spending for good reason. And now that we won't, the government will do it for us. And I suspect the results will be similar, temporary relief with a severe long term down turn.

By the way, I certainly know how badly Bush contributed to our current economy. I voted for Nader in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Obama this time around. I was against every economic "stimulus" Bush created too and all his tax cuts. Just because I think Obama's economic plan is crap doesn't mean I'm republican. The fact that our economics problems are not tied to a party was the point of my previous post.

[mactastic]

Raising and lowering interest rates is supposed to be a tool at the Fed's disposal in managing the economy. The fact that there was a place for money to go that was opaque and inherently unstable is the problem, not the fact that the Fed lowered the interest rates.

[ErikCLDR]

I really hate Obama's phrase "HOPE".

I really think "ACTION" is a much more substantial term. We can sit around and hope, or we can act...

Sorry just a pet peeve of mine.

[Blue Velvet]

I really hate Obama's phrase "HOPE".


Wasn't Bill Clinton the Man from Hope? Besides, it sprung from his book 'The Audacity of Hope'.

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Audacity_of_Hope#Origin


Action sounds awful. He would have been called 'Action Man' within minutes and become a national joke.

[CalBoy]

I really hate Obama's phrase "HOPE".

I really think "ACTION" is a much more substantial term. We can sit around and hope, or we can act...

Sorry just a pet peeve of mine.

Then you'll be happy to know that his first two months in office have seen a dramatic amount of action.

2 major spending bills, dozens of executive orders ranging from environmental policy to Guantanamo have been signed.

The Obama Administration has moved with incredibly alacrity in most regards; if we consider where the Bush Administration was in March of 2001, you would be amazed at how much Obama has done so far.

[EricNau]

I really hate Obama's phrase "HOPE".

I really think "ACTION" is a much more substantial term. We can sit around and hope, or we can act...
It's not about hoping, it's about providing hope. There's a difference.

[Blue Velvet]

The original purpose of this thread was to draw a relationship between Obama's policies and the performance of the Dow, so with that view in mind:

Former White House spokesperson Dana Perino said on Sunday that the Bush administration, while presiding over the start of the current recession, nevertheless deserved some credit for the modest uptick that Wall Street experienced this past week.


...here's a helpful guide to the rules of market watching, as they relate to partisan politics:

When the market went down on Bush's watch before the 2008 elections, this was Bill Clinton's fault.

When the market went down on Bush's watch between November 2008 and January 2009, this was Barack Obama's fault.

When the market went down during Obama's first seven weeks in office, this was definitely Barack Obama's fault.

And when the market rallies on Obama's watch during the second week in March, George W. Bush deserves at least some of the credit.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017299.php

[mgguy]

The original purpose of this thread was to draw a relationship between Obama's policies and the performance of the Dow, so with that view in mind:

Quote:
Former White House spokesperson Dana Perino said on Sunday that the Bush administration, while presiding over the start of the current recession, nevertheless deserved some credit for the modest uptick that Wall Street experienced this past week.

No, you're wrong. She didn't say that, the author of the article did. What she was quoted in the article as saying was:

"You were just speaking earlier about the possibility that since we had a little bit of a better week on Wall Street does that spell a turnaround?" Perino said. "Can all the credit go specifically to President Obama? Well, I would say no. We are just going to have to take a while to let all of this settle down and let the policies that our administration and the new administration are trying to put in place have a chance to work."

All she said was that Obama shouldn't get all the credit, and he shouldn't because there are innumerable factors at work here including investor sentiment. She is also right in saying that it will take awhile to let the prior Bush and Obama policies to be put in place. Yes, that includes some things that Bush and his Treasury department set in motion (bailout of the auto industry, financial rescue of banks, etc.).

[Blue Velvet]

No, you're wrong..

Stop fudging. I think it's pretty clear what she meant.


Appearing on CSPAN's Washington Journal, the last of Bush's press secretaries said it was "not a secret" that the current economic mess started under her boss's watch. But, she cautioned, the public had yet to realize the full extent to which the past president's policies "alleviat[ed] the downturn." Take, for instance, the improvement in the Dow Jones Industrial average this week.

"You were just speaking earlier about the possibility that since we had a little bit of a better week on Wall Street does that spell a turnaround?" Perino said. "Can all the credit go specifically to President Obama? Well, I would say no. We are just going to have to take a while to let all of this settle down and let the policies that our administration and the new administration are trying to put in place have a chance to work."

The Dow Jones Industrial Average had gone, roughly speaking, from a high of 14,000 to a low of just over 9,000 in the last two years of Bush's tenure. It rose from slightly below 7,000 to slightly above 7,000 this past week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/15/perino-bush-deserves-cred_n_175062.html


Not that I care one whit about the Dow, nor do I think it's a key indicator of the true state of the economy but the main point about this ridiculous set of double standards still stands and is only fit for mockery... or perhaps you could tell us how we are "yet to realize the full extent to which the past president's policies "alleviat[ed] the downturn."

Downturn? The largest financial collapse for eighty years, more like. Funny how Republicans are never responsible for anything that happens on their watch.

[mgguy]

Stop fudging. I think it's pretty clear what she meant.

Not that I care one whit about the Dow, nor do I think it's a key indicator of the true state of the economy but the main point about this ridiculous set of double standards still stands and is only fit for mockery... or perhaps you could tell us how we are "yet to realize the full extent to which the past president's policies "alleviat[ed] the downturn."


You are putting words in her mouth. You can't divine what she meant to say, since you can't get into her head. All you've done is repeat the same quote, which does not say what you claimed it (or her) to say. She did not say that the uptick in the market the other day was due to Bush. She is correct in saying that we have yet to realize the full extent to which Bush's past policies and action may have alleviated any downturn that may otherwise have been there. The financial "bailout" package that TS Paulson succeeded in getting through was believed by all to be palliative against a much worse outcome that people, including Obama, believed would occur if no action had been taken. And, yes, the effect of that is still playing itself out, in conjunction with the influences of Obama's policies and the actions he had taken thus far.

[itcheroni]

I can't believe anyone is trying to take credit for a bear market rally. It just reaffirms my belief that politicians are completely clueless about the economy.

Raising and lowering interest rates is supposed to be a tool at the Fed's disposal in managing the economy. The fact that there was a place for money to go that was opaque and inherently unstable is the problem, not the fact that the Fed lowered the interest rates.

That is the crux of the problem. Why should the Fed be able to set the interest rate? What good did lowering the interest rate do? All it did was spur the housing bubble and absolutely nothing else. Like I've said before, they lowered it to avoid a recession so Bush could win in 2004, but in "avoiding" it gave us our current mess. The reason I believe interest rate manipulation is more important than deregulation is because bubbles and other problems can form elsewhere besides housing. Right now bonds appear to be getting out of hand. Rather than trying to spot problems one at a time(all spurred by the Fed's actions in my opinion), we could end a lot of potential problems by letting the market decide interest rates. When home sales were soaring, the interest rate should have naturally gone up, but the Fed kept it low for a very long time and what good did that do? It takes a very long time for economic policies to show their true effect. Bush's and Greenspan's policies from 2002 are the main reasons for our current economy. How can anyone credit Obama with anything, good or bad, after a few months?

[CalBoy]

That is the crux of the problem. Why should the Fed be able to set the interest rate?

Who else would set the Federal Funds rate?

At least the Fed board is appointed for 4-year terms, confirmed by the Senate, and doesn't obey any political party.

[itcheroni]

Who else would set the Federal Funds rate?
Nobody. I think interest should be set by the market. I know the market is a four letter word here but I hope whoever wants to rebuke me actually has a reason why the rate should be controlled by anyone.


At least the Fed board is appointed for 4-year terms, confirmed by the Senate, and doesn't obey any political party.

They are also unaccountable to anyone which I find to be the most frustrating. And they are a for-profit company. And are you seriously implying people like Greenspan and Bernanke are not partisan? Do you also believe judges are non-partisan? Someone that is appointed by a politician and affirmed by other politicians are somehow non-partisan simply because the politicians that appointed and confirmed them say so? (I'm not hysterical though three rhetorical questions in a row may make me sound like it :o) It is exactly the same with judges. We are told they are impartial but the judges who get appointed are the most partisan, or else the people who appoint them wouldn't have even considered them. Just a small reason why I became severely depressed and quit law school. :)

[hulugu]

Nobody. I think interest should be set by the market. I know the market is a four letter word here but I hope whoever wants to rebuke me actually has a reason why the rate should be controlled by anyone....

It was my understanding—and this is truly a layman's understanding—that while interest rates were once controlled by the market, this induced a volatility (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1804131) that was difficult to manage. The Fed was made to smooth out this volatility, and enact a single currency, etc.

[CalBoy]

Nobody. I think interest should be set by the market.

You are aware of what the Federal Funds rate is right?

It can't be set by the market because it's the rate a specific bank (the Fed) has chosen to lend its money at.

I know the market is a four letter word here but I hope whoever wants to rebuke me actually has a reason why the rate should be controlled by anyone.

The Fed doesn't set all interest rates in the economy. It sets a handful of rates over which it has control, and that essentially establishes the floor for the money market only because no one can do it for cheaper.

If you want to be rebuked, I suggest you take a look at the history of panics that occurred in the US economy from the end of the Civil War until the Fed's establishment. The market didn't do so well on its own, and that's why the Fed is there to keep things in line.

They are also unaccountable to anyone which I find to be the most frustrating.

They are held accountable since they can be kicked out at the end of their term.

Beyond that, who would you hold them accountable to? All elected officials are partisan, so any system that holds the Fed's leaders accountable to an elected official would essentially resemble the policies of a Zimbabwe or any other nation that pressures its central bank for more money.

And they are a for-profit company.

They are a quasi-government entity. Any "profit" that the Fed makes goes directly into the Treasury.


And are you seriously implying people like Greenspan and Bernanke are not partisan?

They can have political views as anyone else, but historically speaking, Fed chiefs have not acted differently under different partisan presidents. Volcker continued his policies the same when Carter was replaced by Reagan. Greenspan did the same when it came to Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.

Do you also believe judges are non-partisan?
I don't need belief when I have evidence to marshall to my side.

In Supreme Court cases from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), US v Nixon (1974), Clinton v City of New York (1998), Clinton v Jones (1997) and the infamous Bush v Gore (2000), and even in the founding case of American law, Marbury v Madison (1803), justices voted against their partisan affiliation.

There are many more cases, of course, but unlike you, I haven't been to law school yet to have them all under my belt. ;)

Someone that is appointed by a politician and affirmed by other politicians are somehow non-partisan simply because the politicians that appointed and confirmed them say so?

No, they carry out their duties in a non-partisan manner because it is what their oaths demands of them. They are also free from political pressure, so they have no real reason to obey parties like an elected official does.


We are told they are impartial but the judges who get appointed are the most partisan, or else the people who appoint them wouldn't have even considered them.

If that's the case, you have to wonder why Scalia voted to uphold flag burning and why he also held that the use of infrared cameras on a marijuana grower without a warrant is unconstitutional.

You also have to wonder why Thomas voted in favor of California growing medical marijuana, and why Ginsburg and Breyer did not.

Outside of SCOTUS, you have to think for a moment why 3 Republicans (out of six total) voted in favor of same-sex marriage, even though all the governors who appointed them are (or were) against gay rights at the time of the judges' appointment.

Why did the Dover Area School Board lose its intelligent design case before a federal judge appointed by George W Bush if Bush has strong feelings towards the Bible?

The point is, even if politicians choose judges to be partisans, judges themselves have not played that game very much.

[hulugu]

An interesting article (http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/13/watching_the_spreads) from Foreign Policy magazine, the health of the economy isn't indicated by the movements of the stock-market, rather the TED and LIBOR tell us more.

In this financial crisis, the TED and LIBOR have said it all -- far more telling than the daily oscillations of the stock exchange. A rising TED spread heralded the beginning of the financial crisis a year and a half ago, breaking 100bp on Aug. 10, 2007. At the height of trouble 14 months later on Oct. 10, 2008, the spread hit 463bp as the cost of borrowing on the London interbank market rose sharply. Aggressive and unprecedented liquidity actions on the part of global central banks, intended to flood financial markets with the dollars that banks were hoarding, combined with capital injections by U.S. and UK governments, helped ease the crisis.

[.Andy]

I really hate Obama's phrase "HOPE".

I really think "ACTION" is a much more substantial term. We can sit around and hope, or we can act...

Sorry just a pet peeve of mine.
Given the proportion of American's that are overweight and obese, ACTION would fail on the grounds of sounding too physically exhausting. ;):D! One doesn't need to do anything or build up a sweat to HOPE.....

[hulugu]

I really hate Obama's phrase "HOPE".

I really think "ACTION" is a much more substantial term. We can sit around and hope, or we can act...

Sorry just a pet peeve of mine.

I've heard this before and to be honest I think it's a bizarre sentiment. All action is predicated on hope, we act because we are moved to do so by the idea that our actions and our work will lead to something. Hope is not an empty wish or prayer, but rather a desire to make something happen.

Hope is a meaningful term, synonymous with optimism and aspiration, possibility and ambition.

I always thought hope was a beautiful word.

[itcheroni]

You are aware of what the Federal Funds rate is right?

It can't be set by the market because it's the rate a specific bank (the Fed) has chosen to lend its money at.


The Fed doesn't set all interest rates in the economy. It sets a handful of rates over which it has control, and that essentially establishes the floor for the money market only because no one can do it for cheaper.

If you want to be rebuked, I suggest you take a look at the history of panics that occurred in the US economy from the end of the Civil War until the Fed's establishment. The market didn't do so well on its own, and that's why the Fed is there to keep things in line.


They are held accountable since they can be kicked out at the end of their term.

Beyond that, who would you hold them accountable to? All elected officials are partisan, so any system that holds the Fed's leaders accountable to an elected official would essentially resemble the policies of a Zimbabwe or any other nation that pressures its central bank for more money.


They are a quasi-government entity. Any "profit" that the Fed makes goes directly into the Treasury.



They can have political views as anyone else, but historically speaking, Fed chiefs have not acted differently under different partisan presidents. Volcker continued his policies the same when Carter was replaced by Reagan. Greenspan did the same when it came to Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.

I don't need belief when I have evidence to marshall to my side.

In Supreme Court cases from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), US v Nixon (1974), Clinton v City of New York (1998), Clinton v Jones (1997) and the infamous Bush v Gore (2000), and even in the founding case of American law, Marbury v Madison (1803), justices voted against their partisan affiliation.

There are many more cases, of course, but unlike you, I haven't been to law school yet to have them all under my belt. ;)


No, they carry out their duties in a non-partisan manner because it is what their oaths demands of them. They are also free from political pressure, so they have no real reason to obey parties like an elected official does.



If that's the case, you have to wonder why Scalia voted to uphold flag burning and why he also held that the use of infrared cameras on a marijuana grower without a warrant is unconstitutional.

You also have to wonder why Thomas voted in favor of California growing medical marijuana, and why Ginsburg and Breyer did not.

Outside of SCOTUS, you have to think for a moment why 3 Republicans (out of six total) voted in favor of same-sex marriage, even though all the governors who appointed them are (or were) against gay rights at the time of the judges' appointment.

Why did the Dover Area School Board lose its intelligent design case before a federal judge appointed by George W Bush if Bush has strong feelings towards the Bible?

The point is, even if politicians choose judges to be partisans, judges themselves have not played that game very much.

You obvious have a lot more knowledge under your belt than me even without having been to law school. :) I don't have an answer to most of your example because I don't know the intricacies of the each or simply don't remember them anymore. But I think conservative/liberal and partisanship can't be assumed in the holdings. For example, when Scalia wrote the decision to hold the use of infrared devices to catch marijuana growers, I believe he's acting conservatively because a major conservative tenet is the right to privacy in one's own home and Scalia, being one of the most conservative judges on the Court is one of the most ardent defenders of the home. He is much less amenable to such privacy applied outside the home, where more liberal justices would be more inclined to apply it. This is, I guess, due to his originalism; homes were around 200 years ago, so the intent was clear, whereas cars and mobile homes and such aren't as clear for originalists. I also view Bush v. Gore differently from you, because I view it as an example of partisanship. I'll reread the case and tell you why. :) And I also view Marbury v. Madison as partisan as well. Marshall's appointment was one of the last things Adams(?) did before leaving office to leave a lasting Federalist influence. Every Federalist was voted out and Jefferson and the Rep-Dems or whatever they were, were coming in. Jefferson was pissed at the decision. And the major reason the decision is so important is the establishment of judicial review.

Maybe if you give me reasons why Bush v. Gore and Marbury v. Madison are example of impartiality, I can better form a response or simply understand. The other cases you mentioned are vaguely familiar but I don't remember them well enough to speak of them substantively. I'd be willing to read them again.

And though Stevens is an example of a Republican who rarely sides with Republican values, he is, for the Republicans, an example of making the wrong appointment-giving us Roberts and Alito. And, for the most part, those two have ruled as expected. For Roberts, I think the Seattle School Board case is an example of following doctrine over impartiality.

I think where we differ is our concept of partisanship. I believe a justice could disagree with a President of the same party and still be biased based on political doctrine. And I don't think every justice/judge is partisan, just a depressing large number of them.

Calboy, I really like your responses, they're full of actual facts and you never let me get away with anything (thought I'm not often up for the challenge of rereading cases and such). :p My problem (although I don't necessarily see it as a problem) is I allow myself to forget facts after I digest a whole case/event/history. I wind up remembering how I felt about them and not being able to remember the facts to back it up. Especially since I've left, I've doused myself with thc to forget. I think you'll make a better lawyer than I ever could have.

I haven't smoked in a few days so my thoughts are coming out so much clearer!

[Iscariot]

All action is predicated on hope

I think most action is predicated on necessity or desire, and very little actually predicated on hope.

[CalBoy]

when Scalia wrote the decision to hold the use of infrared devices to catch marijuana growers, I believe he's acting conservatively because a major conservative tenet is the right to privacy in one's own home and Scalia, being one of the most conservative judges on the Court is one of the most ardent defenders of the home.

His originalism is definitely at work in that case, but note how Reagan, his appointer, was very much a "law and order" President who was especially tough on drugs. The partisan aim wasn't achieved in that case, and that's really the point here.

I also view Bush v. Gore differently from you, because I view it as an example of partisanship. I'll reread the case and tell you why. :)

Part of it was and part of it wasn't.

7 of the 9 (and Breyer was a part of the 7) agreed that the Florida recount method violated the 14th Amendment.

The real partisanship came into play when the Court considered whether or not a remedy was available given the time constraints before the electors had to meet.


And I also view Marbury v. Madison as partisan as well. Marshall's appointment was one of the last things Adams(?) did before leaving office to leave a lasting Federalist influence. Every Federalist was voted out and Jefferson and the Rep-Dems or whatever they were, were coming in. Jefferson was pissed at the decision. And the major reason the decision is so important is the establishment of judicial review.

Note, however, that Jefferson won in Marbury despite the fact that the Court was packed with Federalists. Marshall could have stuck his judicial review argument in any number of other cases. Marshall played his hand to strengthen his branch, not his party.



I allow myself to forget facts after I digest a whole case/event/history.

So we can go back to the Federal Funds rate and the whole "free market" idea?

Since you do remember the emotional aspects of events, you should be keenly aware of how bad the credit markets were in the 1880s.

[itcheroni]

Since you do remember the emotional aspects of events, you should be keenly aware of how bad the credit markets were in the 1880s.

I wasn't alive back then. Let me read up on it and agree/disagree with you then.

[theheadguy]

You want to bet he does better than GWB? Over 10,550 when he took office and 7,950 when he left. About a 25% drop over the course of 8 years. He is the first president in history to serve 8 years and have the stock market end up lower on his last day than it was on his first.Isn't it actually more because of inflation?