Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

The Coming Middle-Class Anarchy Options · View
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:27:04 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
If you agree that giving Wall Street 700 billion dollars of the US Treasury was the right thing to do.

Don't watch this man's documentary. Otherwise......obtain it, watch it. No punches are pulled.





Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
duke61
Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:19:27 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 11
WellMadeMale wrote:
All you thirty somethings and younger, take a gander at this state of the union address.

This President was the last one to lay down some hard cold truth on the world.
He was land-slided out of his incumbency, by The Great Communicator. People
did not like his message and they loved the koolaid the other guy sold them.




Absolutely the WORST President in my lifetime...........even worst than Johnson...Obama is working to pass Carter
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:16:51 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Here's today's depressing reality-check:

Barack Obama: The Oligarch's President



WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:37:17 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States


Thanks for the downer, babe. Back'atcha!



The Bush administration not only vastly underestimated
the cost of the wars but cut taxes twice—in 2001 and 2003—just
as we were ramping up the war effort. This was the first time in
U.S. history that a government cut taxes while also appropriating
huge new sums to fight a war. And the consequence is that the
wars added substantially to the federal debt.


Between 2003 and 2008—before the financial crisis unfolded—the
debt rose from $6.4 trillion to $10 trillion, and, at least one-quarter
of this increase was directly attributable to the wars, first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan.


Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:46:50 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
In a nutshell...this is the game plan of both the Democrats and the Republicans:

But consider the situation more broadly. If the two parties both lie down for Wall Street in roughly equal measure, but fight viciously over other issues, it is possible to construct a stable strategic equilibrium. At the margin, the Democrats are slightly less favorable to business, at least for unionized industries, but nobody upsets the financial sector apple cart.

This angers much of the Democratic base. But the Democrats avoid the epic confrontation that would surely ensue if they were to take on the financial sector, which would retaliate with a massively funded effort.

Instead, the two parties fight furiously, or at least pretend to fight furiously, about a wide range of other social issues that affect many voters deeply -- abortion, gay rights, gun control, stem cell research, creationism, global warming, health insurance and so on. Each side can credibly warn its base that if it deserts the party, apocalypse may follow. So, while some citizens may register as independents, or stop voting, or stop donating to the system, the entrenched establishments of both parties will remain safe.

We are fuckered, folks.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
mercianknight
Posted: Friday, November 19, 2010 7:14:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,027
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
So, QE2 for the U.S. economy is imminent and people still don't believe that it's just prep work for another bank bail out? Christ, are the Americans blind? Once your big banks have screwed you guys they are just gonna take down Europe and the rest of us.

Check out this C-SPAN3 vid on the Mortgage Foreclosure hearing and then listen for the death rattle of the U.S. middle class.

Mortgage Foreclosure hearings

The U.S. government really needs to pull it's finger out from it's own arse! cussing

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, November 25, 2010 12:47:53 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
Is this just meant to placate the masses?

I will believe this when I see it unfolding and hundreds being perp-walked out of Wall Street office buildings.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:54:27 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
J.P. Morgan's prosperity depends upon American economic decline.

JP Morgan is the largest processor of food stamp benefits in the United States. JP Morgan has contracted to provide food stamp debit cards in 26 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

JP Morgan is paid for each case that it handles, so that means that the more Americans that go on food stamps, the more profits JP Morgan makes. Yes, you read that correctly.

When the number of Americans on food stamps goes up, JP Morgan makes more money.


This article/report is so full of fail, I don't know which point to address with the most emphasis.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 9:46:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
WellMadeMale wrote:
J.P. Morgan's prosperity depends upon American economic decline.

JP Morgan is the largest processor of food stamp benefits in the United States. JP Morgan has contracted to provide food stamp debit cards in 26 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

JP Morgan is paid for each case that it handles, so that means that the more Americans that go on food stamps, the more profits JP Morgan makes. Yes, you read that correctly.

When the number of Americans on food stamps goes up, JP Morgan makes more money.


This article/report is so full of fail, I don't know which point to address with the most emphasis.


Sure, it looks bad, but what is the alternative? Unless the government mines the raw materials, purchases it's own manufacturing facility, and handles the administration of the program itself, somebody is going to make profits from food stamp production, and the more people on food stamps, the more profits they will make.

In recessions, grocery stores also do far better, but we don't blame them for the fact that when people have less money, they tend to eat in more than eat at restaurants.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:55:39 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
The unraveling of America mirrors that of Yugoslavia (from article).

“We are ruled not by two parties but one party,” Cynthia McKinney,
who ran for president on the Green Party ticket, told me. “It is the
party of money and war. Our country has been hijacked. And we
have to take the country away from those who have hijacked it.
The only question now is whose revolution gets funded.”

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
myself
Posted: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:45:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
WellMadeMale wrote:
Yet Jimmy Carter is often denigrated as the most ineffective and the worst US President, ever.
Go figure. Look at the act he had to follow.


I love Carter : )

Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:34:58 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
Ludicrous and Cruel: The new GOP budget proposal - More of the same Voodoo Economics with extra doses of FUCK YOU to everyone but the top 2% (economically speaking).


It's the same warmed over shit that Reagan and his cronies implemented in the early 1980s. Nothing new here folks. Bend over and like it.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:36:00 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 784,831
What specifically do you not like about the Ryan plan?
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:58:02 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
Manny8 wrote:
What specifically do you not like about the Ryan plan?


In particular, the original voodoo proposition — the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue — is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.

A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.

Klugman's words - my sentiments.

The previous administration waged two wars, borrowing against our future to finance their - at the time, present warmongering. They deferred all costs for Afghanistan and Iraq way out, way past his administration, Bush passed the buck to the next poor bastards administrations, Manny. You're aware of that, right? The War costs were never figured into any of THEIR budgets, but by gosh, we all got tax cuts.

First time in US history that we waged war(s) and cut taxes. The GOP plan is to put America deep in debt. Reagan said it himself... 'Debt is good for the economy'...they put us in hock to Japan in the 80s and China in the 90's and 2000s, then to balance the budget, cut taxes even more, and get rid of what they consider to be entitlements. Those programs President Johnson implemented in the 60's (would be an excellent place to start carving). I have seen THEM try this for the last 40 years.

Now when it is time to 'balance' the budge for the next ten or so years, the GOP wants to keep those 'Bush tax cuts' for the top 2% extended and privatize Medicare. In effect giving the same thieves on Wall Street, a chance to plunder that golden calf (they want it as much as they have wanted Social Security to be privatized and 'invested' in Wall Street).

President George Bush (not W) called this Voodoo Economics during the Republican primary campaign in 1980, when he was neck and neck with Reagan. That's one of the few things 41 called correctly.

The Republican's 'town hall' meetings with their constituents are blowing up in their faces recently, have you not observed any of them? The Tea Partiers don't want their medicare touched or trimmed, while guys like Donald Trump pay fewer and fewer taxes.

What do you agree with about Ryan's official GOP proposal, Manny? I'm not a millionaire, are you?

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:38:20 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 784,831
WellMadeMale wrote:
Klugman's words - my sentiments


Thank You for that. Was worried midway through that second paragraph.


WellMadeMale wrote:
the original voodoo proposition — the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue


I'm fixing to blow your mind! Are you ready?

What if I told you, revenues actually did increase during the Bush administration, despite those "EVIL tax cuts for the rich"? From what I can tell, you are convinced that federal tax revenues must of fallen off a cliff once W took office. I guess Paul Krugman never provides a table of historical tax receipts when he goes off on one of his occasional shrill class-war diatribe's. Heritage, Brookings, or even a historical sampling of The Economic Report of The President are good places to find out about these things. Also, a newspaper (preferably the WSJ).

WellMadeMale wrote:
In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade


That would make sense. It would, because the Ryan plan really doesn't go into effect until 2022. It's a misleading stat. Anything can be proven if you pick and choose your base years in a statistical analysis.


WellMadeMale wrote:
waged two wars


They did. And they were more expensive than they should of been. I take it you don't see a relationship between the Bush War's and the Arab Spring? I'd rather spend money giving millions (billions?) of people freedom over their lives, than spending the same amount handing out (in the sense that it's an open-ended commitment) defined-benefit retirement plans, to millions of the most fortunate people on earth.

WellMadeMale wrote:
'Debt is good for the economy'


Alexander Hamilton said that too - and he was right. That is, unless the quote is being presented in an obtuse manner in order to make a cheap point.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Now when it is time to 'balance' the budge[sic] for the next ten or so years, the GOP wants to keep those 'Bush tax cuts' for the top 2% extended and privatize Medicare. In effect giving the same thieves on Wall Street, a chance to plunder that golden calf (they want it as much as they have wanted Social Security to be privatized and 'invested' in Wall Street).


That was funny. Thieves! Plunder! Golden Calf! The moral indignation from the prattling leisure-class-nobody's concerning this countries financial industry is beyond the pale. Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity.




And stepping away from Marshal Mcluhan and back to the Ryan Plan (really the only plan, unless you count The Simpson-Bowles plan - Obama takes his "committees" seriously, huh?): I like the fact that it replicates the Medicare Part D plan which is one of the few government programs that has come in at much less than expected cost. I like that it gives states power over how they spend their funds (Medicaid as it is, has too many restrictions on how the funds can be spent, making it a completely inefficient system). I like that it gives individuals a choice. I like that it doesn't actually take money from Medicare, just to be spent on Medicaid like ObamaCare does.

I strongly believe in free markets and individual liberty, therefore I like this plan.


















LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 9:59:30 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Manny8 wrote:

I'm fixing to blow your mind! Are you ready?

What if I told you, revenues actually did increase during the Bush administration, despite those "EVIL tax cuts for the rich"? From what I can tell, you are convinced that federal tax revenues must of fallen off a cliff once W took office. I guess Paul Krugman never provides a table of historical tax receipts when he goes off on one of his occasional shrill class-war diatribe's.


What if I told you that I found information that says the exact opposite of this?

Here's a list of quotes from various officials, starting with a contrary statement from that ass-clown Mitch McConnell, that say the exact opposite*:

Quote:

On July 13, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, asserted that there was no net revenue loss from any of the Bush tax cuts, in defense of an earlier comment by Senator John Kyl, R-Arizona, that all spending increases must be offset so as not to increase the deficit but tax cuts must never be offset. Said McConnell:

“There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”

Bush administration economists, however, never made any such claim. Following are a few of their statements regarding the revenue feedback of the Bush tax cuts.

Andrew Samwick, chief economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during George W. Bush’s first term, in a January 3, 2007 blog post:
“You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one. If I'm wrong, show me the evidence ... and tell me why the tax cuts were so small given their effects on revenues.”

Alan Viard, senior economist at Council of Economic Advisers during Bush’s first term, as quoted in the Washington Post on October 17, 2006:
“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.”

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department during Bush’s second term, as quoted in the Washington Post on October 17, 2006:
“As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.”

Edward Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in Bush’s second term, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, September 28, 2006 (p. 11):
“Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today.”

At his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing on June 27, 2006, Bush’s nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, was asked if he thought that tax cuts paid for themselves. He replied (p. 18):
“As a general rule, I do not believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.”

In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Public Economics, economist Greg Mankiw, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers during Bush’s first term, estimated the long-run revenue feedback from a cut in capital taxes at 32.4 percent and 14.7 percent for a cut in labor taxes.

A 2006 analysis of extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts by the Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation estimated that only 30 percent of the gross revenue loss would be recouped through behavioral effects and macroeconomic stimulus.

A 2005 Congressional Budget Office study during the time that Republican Doug Holtz-Eakin was CBO director concluded that a 10 percent cut in federal income tax rates would recoup at most 28 percent of the static revenue loss over 10 years. And this estimate assumes that taxpayers have unlimited foresight and know that taxes will be raised after 10 years to stabilize the debt/GDP ratio. Without foresight and no compensating tax increases or spending cuts, leading to an increase in the debt, feedback would be negative; i.e., causing the revenue loss to be larger than the static revenue loss.

The 2003 Economic Report of the President during Bush’s first term stated (pp. 57-58):
“Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run), it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”

The actual data show pretty convincingly that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue rather significantly.




So who is right? Brookings? Heritage? Americansfornotaxeswhatsoever.com?

This is the problem with research-and-debate: you and I can each bring our own set of 'irrefutable facts' to the table. I think the short answer is that it's complex and not decisive or obvious either way. I get the feeling more factors are at play than simply saying "the tax cut cause revenue to go up/down."


Manny8 wrote:

I take it you don't see a relationship between the Bush War's and the Arab Spring? I'd rather spend money giving millions (billions?) of people freedom over their lives, than spending the same amount handing out (in the sense that it's an open-ended commitment) defined-benefit retirement plans, to millions of the most fortunate people on earth.


So, which is it? I was previously admonished for suggesting that 'those on the right' would ever consider doing away with entitlement programs, but here we're discussing the merits of overseas wars vs. those entitlements? If you're saying you'd rather do one than the other, is it an empty point, since surely you wouldn't consider doing away with the latter anyway (and how dare anyone suggest otherwise)?

Are our 'poor people' better off than poor people in say, the Congo? Of course, but that benefit-by-comparison is meaningless. People that languish in terrible conditions, without the means to get basic care or find decent shelter don't care that they aren't living under a tree, they only care that their quality of life is terrible. Let me guess, "they should have saved money their whole life"? Cue the personal responsibility arguments, I guess.


Manny8 wrote:

WellMadeMale wrote:
Now when it is time to 'balance' the budge[sic] for the next ten or so years, the GOP wants to keep those 'Bush tax cuts' for the top 2% extended and privatize Medicare. In effect giving the same thieves on Wall Street, a chance to plunder that golden calf (they want it as much as they have wanted Social Security to be privatized and 'invested' in Wall Street).


That was funny. Thieves! Plunder! Golden Calf! The moral indignation from the prattling leisure-class-nobody's concerning this countries financial industry is beyond the pale. Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity.


LOL. The behavior of Wall Street has been beyond the pale. Inscrutable instruments, invented to swindle money from nothing, leaving the stockholders and taxpayers holding the bag is beyond the pale. There's frankly not enough indignation in the general public about all of this. I love how Republicans spin the entire crisis as having been caused by people buying loans they couldn't afford. That, Manny-ocho, is beyond the pale. Class warfare? If it's against criminals like those that are allowed to steal in plain sight in our 'leading financial institutions', then you're damn right I want class warfare. The sooner the better. Fuck them, hard and fast- and fuck the lack of regulation that allowed them to act with such impunity.


Manny8 wrote:

I strongly believe in free markets and individual liberty, therefore I like this plan.


I have serious questions about free markets. As far as individual liberty goes, who doesn't? It's an easy platitude to espouse a love for. But to give somebody a voucher in an amount that everyone knows damn well won't cover the actual costs is intellectually dishonest. Who the hell cares about 'choice' if all the choices are bad at best?


*http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1864/republican-tax-nonsense?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CapitalGainsAndGames+%28Capital+Gains+and+Games+-+Wall+Street,+Washington,+and+Everything+in+Between%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 10:16:23 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 784,831
really so impressive..i learn so much here.
Chase
Posted: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 1:38:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/21/2011
Posts: 695
The whole point of, and the clear history of, socialism is the annihilation of the middle class. Make everyone poor, everyone equally miserable, and hand power to the few paternalistic elites who know what is best for everyone.

As to Michael Moore, the gadfly, will never earn a red cent from me directly. Take a look at what has been discovered about his investments.....all the big corporations he excoriates, and he is a blue-chip stockholder. Granted, we are all hypocrites in some part of our lives, but here is a guy who makes his fortune and his name on tearing down and castigating various institutions or practices, and then he turns around and profits again....no, no thanks.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 6:38:30 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 784,831
ladyx wrote:
This is the problem with research-and-debate: you and I can each bring our own set of 'irrefutable facts' to the table


You actually cited the same “fact” as me. Namely, the budget figures from the CBO which clearly show an absolute increase in federal tax receipts from 2001-2008. The rest of that epic quote of Bruce Bartlett (that guy is stillon a vendetta against the Bush economic team. Just sayin: always examine the motives) is filled with innuendo, politically guarded speech from congressional testimony (if you’re up for appointment, all you try to do is not say something controversial) and a failed attempt to get Gregory Mankiw on one’s side. That’s hardly a conclusive argument especially given the fickle nature of the economics profession (ask five economists a question you get 20 answers). I was not trying to be misleading or sneaky, but it is fact that federal tax receipts increased on an absolute basis during the presidency of George W. Bush.



LadyX wrote:
So, which is it? I was previously admonished for suggesting that 'those on the right' would ever consider doing away with entitlement programs, but here we're discussing the merits of overseas wars vs. those entitlements? If you're saying you'd rather do one than the other, is it an empty point, since surely you wouldn't consider doing away with the latter anyway (and how dare anyone suggest otherwise)?

Are our 'poor people' better off than poor people in say, the Congo? Of course, but that benefit-by-comparison is meaningless. People that languish in terrible conditions, without the means to get basic care or find decent shelter don't care that they aren't living under a tree, they only care that their quality of life is terrible. Let me guess, "they should have saved money their whole life"? Cue the personal responsibility arguments, I guess.



I’m afraid you misread what I was trying to say. The previous discussion in which I stated conservatives have little interest in terminating social safety net programs? I still stand by everything I said there. You seem to be lumping all federal non-defense spending into ‘entitlement spending’ (or close to it) which apparently is a class of government that republicans are going to gang-bang when they get back in power. For the most part, us conservatives understand the necessity of social security, medicare, and Medicaid (The Big 3 of social safety net spending). Our big gripe is that these programs are being morphed into vehicles of wealth transfer in exchange for political support. We would like to see them run smarter and more efficiently. Nobody who is being taken seriously is talking about abolishing the social safety net.

But with regards to the quote concerning the Arab Spring: I was merely contrasting the trillion+ dollars used to finance wars in the Middle East and the potential gain for humanity as a direct(?) result, against the trillion+ dollars which could very easily end up financing the retirement of our Viagra-popping, Oprah watching, and “stop driving your golf cart all over the damn fairways!” soon to be retiring leisure class. Defined Benefit Plans of course ultimately being backstopped by the federal government through the PBGC (which George W. somehow made worse through a dipshit appointee), which wouldn’t be too big a deal except for the fact that they are massively underfunded and almost certain to implode in the near future save for a few more fed orchestrated asset bubbles. But I digress………..

ladyx wrote:
LOL. The behavior of Wall Street has been beyond the pale. Inscrutable instruments, invented to swindle money from nothing, leaving the stockholders and taxpayers holding the bag is beyond the pale. There's frankly not enough indignation in the general public about all of this. I love how Republicans spin the entire crisis as having been caused by people buying loans they couldn't afford. That, Manny-ocho, is beyond the pale. Class warfare? If it's against criminals like those that are allowed to steal in plain sight in our 'leading financial institutions', then you're damn right I want class warfare. The sooner the better. Fuck them, hard and fast- and fuck the lack of regulation that allowed them to act with such impunity.


Ugh. There’s this pit-bull nature about you that I’m so impressed with, which causes me to look forward to every one of our interactions, but then you go and do that thing you just did above. Why are you making it so hard for me to like you :)?

So in rapid fire style: They’re inscrutable because they’re not supposed to be understood by the layperson who watches CNN/MSNBC/FoxNews instead of Bloomberg. The layperson doesn’t know shit about basic finance, why would they know about the esoteric side? Taxpayers made money off their loans to the banking industry. The gov. is supposed to act as lender as last resort when credit markets freeze. Thankfully for the taxpayer, the government was able to lend to banks during the financial crisis at exceedingly high margins with very little credit risk. Basically, the US taxpayers were LP’s in a very large distressed credit hedge fund which made money. You want blood because of this, why? Straw man sighting re: the republican spin. That lack of regulation? Off the top of your head, can you name the two most heavily regulated companies in the financial industry? I’ll give you a hint: their regulator is OFHEO. Of course it’s FRE & FNM, and look at the giant clusterfuck those two inbreds turned out to be. Regulatory capture and moral hazard will never go away. We can deal with them smartly or just start smashing shit. Are we gonna be more like Vinny, or more like Ronny? /fistpumps.


ladyx wrote:
I have serious questions about free markets. As far as individual liberty goes, who doesn't?



We can’t have one without the other. Whoever doesn’t see that will find themselves in a philosophical finger-cuff.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 6:59:17 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 784,831
As to Michael Moore, the gadfly


The Michigan State hat and his constant harping about how he's from Flint (I'm familiar with the city. Michael Moore is not from Flint) always crack me up. I'm starting to thing he's a self-indulgent monster that sustains itself on its own smugness (smugness being high in calories).
Rembacher
Posted: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 7:21:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Manny8 wrote:


ladyx wrote:
LOL. The behavior of Wall Street has been beyond the pale. Inscrutable instruments, invented to swindle money from nothing, leaving the stockholders and taxpayers holding the bag is beyond the pale. There's frankly not enough indignation in the general public about all of this. I love how Republicans spin the entire crisis as having been caused by people buying loans they couldn't afford. That, Manny-ocho, is beyond the pale. Class warfare? If it's against criminals like those that are allowed to steal in plain sight in our 'leading financial institutions', then you're damn right I want class warfare. The sooner the better. Fuck them, hard and fast- and fuck the lack of regulation that allowed them to act with such impunity.


Ugh. There’s this pit-bull nature about you that I’m so impressed with, which causes me to look forward to every one of our interactions, but then you go and do that thing you just did above. Why are you making it so hard for me to like you :)?

So in rapid fire style: They’re inscrutable because they’re not supposed to be understood by the layperson who watches CNN/MSNBC/FoxNews instead of Bloomberg. The layperson doesn’t know shit about basic finance, why would they know about the esoteric side? Taxpayers made money off their loans to the banking industry. The gov. is supposed to act as lender as last resort when credit markets freeze. Thankfully for the taxpayer, the government was able to lend to banks during the financial crisis at exceedingly high margins with very little credit risk. Basically, the US taxpayers were LP’s in a very large distressed credit hedge fund which made money. You want blood because of this, why? Straw man sighting re: the republican spin. That lack of regulation? Off the top of your head, can you name the two most heavily regulated companies in the financial industry? I’ll give you a hint: their regulator is OFHEO. Of course it’s FRE & FNM, and look at the giant clusterfuck those two inbreds turned out to be. Regulatory capture and moral hazard will never go away. We can deal with them smartly or just start smashing shit. Are we gonna be more like Vinny, or more like Ronny? /fistpumps.


ladyx wrote:
I have serious questions about free markets. As far as individual liberty goes, who doesn't?



We can’t have one without the other. Whoever doesn’t see that will find themselves in a philosophical finger-cuff.


Admittedly, I'm an outsider looking in, so I don't have a full understanding of the way your country works, but it would seem that if Goldman Sachs is allowed to short sell a product that it is also recommending its customers buy;http://www.slate.com/id/2292070/ it is not operating in an ethical manner, and could use far more regulation. I find it hard to believe this activity was limited to Goldman Sachs, but far more likely that it is reflective of an industry out to make a buck at any cost.

And this ties in to the whole individual freedom/free market argument as well. In America you, as I do in Canada, have the freedom to do whatever you want, provided that you do not infringe on anyone else's freedoms. You do have regulation. And I believe you want it that way. You don't want someone taking your tv out of the house since they have just as much freedom take it as you do to have it. You want the regulation of the police to arrest the person for steeling your tv. So then why is it so bad to have regulation in business? To create a set of rules that are fair for everyone, and enforced to the full extent?

*For those who are not aware, short selling is a market process where you basically borrow a financial product (stock, future, etc) with the intention of immediately selling it, and then pay it back at a later date. You do this if you expect the product you are selling to drop in price over time, because then you can repay the debt at a far lower price. (Such as short selling 100 shares of RIM for $100 each, then seeing it drop to $50 per share before you repay. You initially receive $10,000 for the stock, but to repay the 100 shares it only costs you $5,000 so you make $5,000 profit on RIM going down.)
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 7:44:05 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 784,831
jebru wrote:
Admittedly, I'm an outsider looking in, so I don't have a full understanding of the way your country works, but it would seem that if Goldman Sachs is allowed to short sell a product that it is also recommending its customers buy;it is not operating in an ethical manner, and could use far more regulation. I find it hard to believe this activity was limited to Goldman Sachs, but far more likely that it is reflective of an industry out to make a buck at any cost.


I'm assuming you and the former governor are referencing the Abacus deals and the resulting settlement with the SEC? If so, they didn't 'short' a product in the way you explained. Abacus was a brand of CDO which had the reputation of Goldman behind it. John Paulson (with help from Paulo Pellegrini) pretty much gave goldman a fee to pick which securities went into the CDO. He bought a small position in the equity tranche and then bought CDS protection on the mezzanine and subprime tranche's. Goldman meanwhile sold the CDO to mostly foreign investors (IKB) who did not understand what they were buying. Greg Lippman over at Deutsche Bank as well as JPM and others did the same stuff. It was hedging. If they didn't do these things they would of failed.

Watching the total idiocy of our 'regulators' prosecute Goldman was both hilarious and horrifying. The knowledge gap between the regulated and regulator should not compete with Mandingo in size. Until it's a two year old boy in a cold bath, we shouldn't hand them the keys to the economy.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:52:36 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States


http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/ceo-executive-pay-layoffs

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, July 3, 2011 10:58:23 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
From December 2010.





Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Kornpopper
Posted: Monday, July 4, 2011 9:16:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/7/2011
Posts: 108
Location: I am here, You are there!
In my opinion it's taking to long for this revolution to begin. What happened to looking out for each other and making sure everyone is alright. We have had to stand by and do nothing but watch as more and more of our freedoms are being taken away by the wealthy. These so called special interest groups are a big part of the problem. When these banks and corporations create a monopoly for themselves they neglect to realize that the vast majority of their income comes from the consumers. If they keep screwing with their consumers then eventually the consumers will leave them alone without anything and give their money to the corporations that deserve it.

The government on the other hand needs to be overthrown. I may only be 26 but even I know that our government was enacted By the people For the people and to Serve the people. I think it was around the civil war when it turned more toward making itself stronger. The government no longer works for the country they only work for themselves. I do not vote and would not waste my time voting because you are only voting for the mess to continue with a new face holding onto the reighns and guiding a blind horse. If you get a chance go to you tube and search George Carlin Doesn't Vote. What he says in that segment is so very true with the way our country has become.

In conclusion we need to take a step back in time and be more like our ancestors. We need to take responsibility for our actions, own up to our mistakes, and take credit for what we deserve. This is our country and we as the taxpayers deserve respect and should demand that our money be used wisely and to our benefit and not to make anyone richer.

The decisions we make dictate the life we have.
Follow your dreams, for those that do not will only try to discourage others.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, July 7, 2011 12:52:05 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
Bob Lutz, former vice-chairman of General Motors, says there is no excuse to not bring back jobs to American soil. Video interviews included on site.

"There is a dawning awakening on the part of most Americans that we cannot maintain the wealth of the nation by being bond traders [and] lawyers," he tells Aaron in the accompanying interview. "At some point the country has to get back to work and create wealth through mining, agriculture or manufacturing."

In his new book, Car Guys vs Bean Counters: The Battle for the Soul of American Business, Lutz makes the case for why there is now a "historic window of opportunity" for the United States to regain is leadership as the world's top manufacturer and exporter.

The fiat-money traders/movers are the only people making any money (basically legalized loan sharking/casino operations) in the USA. They make nothing of any substantial value or long term use. (except more coin for themselves). Millions of the working Americans have suffered loss of income, stagnant incomes or outsourcing and substantial loss of income. Without that income which was available in the 70s, 80s, 90s...it's no wonder that people are also losing houses, unable to purchase big ticket items, overextending their credit and filing bankruptcy with zeal. A shrinking (to eventual nothingness) of the middle class will soon result in total indentured servitude for 99% of Americans. - my opinion.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, December 8, 2011 1:53:04 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
I just watched C-Span and Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, give a very impassioned speech in front of the Senate today. Who knows how many actual US Senators were even there to listen to him.

Here's another he gave (in December 2010). I wish my state Senators were more like this fellow.



Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Buz
Posted: Thursday, December 8, 2011 8:12:53 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 10,512
Location: Atlanta, United States
Unfortunately Jimmy Carter was a very honest but very naive man and ineffective as a leader. He was sabotaged more by his own party, the Democrats, than by the Republicans.
Ted Kennedy opposed him at every turn.

Hey! I have actually met Jimmy Carter. He is a very nice man in person.

Wells Fargo and Bank of America are 2 real shits. Right now they are more interested in turning fast profit than long-term profit and the welfare of the nation. I despise those two corporations.

Everyone watch out for the scam insurance the banks and insurance companies are offering up. Its a mortgage insurance that you pay in case your spouse dies or you become disabled or even lose your job. It does not reduce any mortgage debt, it does pay payments for a certain pre-determined time but that's all and it is highly overpriced.




LadyX
Posted: Friday, December 9, 2011 9:14:26 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Our banking and investment industries are run by complete pieces of shit, then they ask us to carry water for them by equating flag waving patriotic bullshit with permission to continue defunding the remainder of this country. How many of us are stupid enough to buy into it, and proclaim that the way things are done now are "the American way"? A lot of us, apparently.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:15:36 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,801
Location: Cakeland, United States
Rootstrikers is a network of activists fighting the corrupting influence of money in politics.

We're a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. <-- You know the drill.

President Obama will raise more than $1,000,000,000.00 to fund his campaign in 2012. Where does this money come from?

Oil and gas companies gave over $13,000,000.00 to lawmakers in the last election cycle. Does money buy results?

Wall Street spent over $700,000,000.00 on lobbying in the past decade. Did it pay off?


99% of us have more in common than that which we argue over and allow to keep us bickering and separating us. All while the US Supreme Court rules that corporations are people and establishes other moronic, perpetuating bullshit..designed and implemented to further enslave us all.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.