Latest 15 of 88 Total Comments Show All

• 

  Sarge at 12:53 AM JST - 23rd September

  It seems to me that yabits doesn't understand that government is not the solution, it's the problem.

• 

  SuperLib at 01:13 AM JST - 23rd September

  Betzee: if you don't have anything to contribute why bother to post?

  Sure, Betzee. What point would you like me to talk about? Health care benefits for Veterans? Or how about Social Security, the war in Iraq, Clinton. I could address one of the two dozen articles you've linked in. Which "end of capitalism as we know it" angle would you like me to address?

  Sorry, but to me it's all about failed oversight on real estate transactions which has nothing to do with either political party, the war in Iraq, or the fading US empire. But what do I know? I only have a degree in real estate finance and experience working in real estate. I'm finding that although it helps me contribute to credit crunch conversations with others but not so much on this message board... ;)

• 

  Badsey at 02:00 AM JST - 23rd September

  SuperLib:

  The real danger is when banks are holding these long-term notes (30yr loans) and the interest rates rise. =Who will want these loans at 5-6% when banks are paying that out in interest (savings accounts etc)

  You really need to look ahead with the long-term loans and not just at the thousand(s) dollar initial profit.

  Anyway when is the Gov sending me my check? -Oh, I thought they were bailing me out. When they spend 1T you automatically think it affects you.

• 

  Good_Jorb at 02:53 AM JST - 23rd September

  It seems to me that yabits doesn't understand that capitalism is what made the USA the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, and that if Obama gets elected, capitalism will be under attack.

  Either Obama or McCain will inherit a economy that is turning into a corporate welfare state. It's not very capitalistic to write a $700 billion welfare cheque. Capitalism is very much under attack, if you believe in pure Capitalism, the banks should allowed to fail, let the market adjust itself, no government intervention what so ever should have been aloud. But Bush/Republicans are intervening, are not letting the markets adjust themselves and are saving the banks from failing(all attacks on Capitalism). The fact is for the near foreseeable future the US will have a Socialist banking system and I doubt Obama could do that much more to make the US more Socialist then it already has become. Banks are where everyone keeps their capital you know.

• 

  yabits at 05:44 AM JST - 23rd September

  SuperLib writes: "Sorry, but to me it's all about failed oversight on real estate transactions which has nothing to do with either political party..."

  If the oversight failed because people responsible were negligent, you might be right. However, when oversight is purposefully removed as a result of a political philosophy which claims that the "market knows best," your statement is completely wrong. This has everything to do with a bankrupt philosophy that has driven the Republicans along for decades.

• 

  TheNewFed at 06:26 AM JST - 23rd September

  This bailout showed great courage and a deep knowledge of financial markets by Bush.

  People underestimate his intelligence, you don't become president without brains folks.

  The US has the fundamental strength to survive this economic slump and to actually survive stronger, well done President Bush.

• 

  yabits at 08:21 AM JST - 23rd September

  TheNewFed writes: "People underestimate his intelligence, you don't become president without brains folks."

  No. A person like Bush becomes president when a great many people whose intelligence cannot be underestimated find their way in to a voting booth.

• 

  Betzee at 09:26 AM JST - 23rd September

  It's interesting that it's not just the Democrats, but Congressional Republicans, who are getting cold feet about rubber stamping this 11th hour bail-out plan. Wonder why that is? Could it be that GWB will be enjoying a comfy retirement waxxing on about his contributions to spreading freedom while they are left to make the hard choices his deficits will necessitate. Who would trust this guy? Didn't he claim the war in Iraq would cost a mere USD 50 billion?

  What the American people don't need is a massive transfer of wealth to Wall Street in what becomes, in effect, a "Leave No Banker Behind" give away of public money. The next administration will certainly have to try to orient Wall Street away from speculation, a phenomenon deregulation made a lot easier, and toward investing in productive assets. I'm sure one can make a pretty penny "selling short," but I fail to see how that helps grow our economy.

• 

  vukodlok at 11:11 AM JST - 23rd September

  It is worse than you all think. Follow the link below, Comrade Paulson wants unlimited authority, he does not even want his decisions reviewed by a court! Completely unconstitutional. While comrade bush merely looks on in approval. Look at Section 8, it in effect suspends the U.S. Constittution!

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?ref=business

• 

  SezWho2 at 01:08 PM JST - 23rd September

  SuperLib,

  Would it then be fair to say that you hate people whose attitudes and beliefs are different from your own and to then invite others to consider what your talking points are?

  Once again you take the liberty of characterizing me and talking about me rather than talking about the points that I have made. This is the essence of ad hominem argument no matter how politely or preciously you effect it.

  Let's see, on this thread my talking points have so far been:

  (1) Both Republicans and Democrats seem to me to be missing the point. The point is that we cannot go on mortgaging our future prosperity--for if we do there won't be one.

  (2) It is pointless to rail about how great and powerful we are--pointless and perhaps self-destructive. We can destroy ourselves in the pursuit of an impossible mission, which is what being permanent numero uno is.

  (3) Our goal as a country should be to be a strong and viable nation, not a great and powerful one.

  Now, guess who avoided all of those points and chose instead to characterize me as a hater?

• 

  zurcronium at 08:37 PM JST - 26th September

  Furthermore, one non-rank-and-file Republican, Senator John McCain, is apparently playing spoiler. Earlier this week, while refusing to say whether he supported the Paulson plan, he claimed not to have had a chance to read it; the plan is all of three pages long. Then he inserted himself into the delicate negotiations over the Congressional plan, insisting on a White House meeting at which he reportedly said little — but during which consensus collapsed.

  The bottom line, then, is that there do seem to be some adults in Congress, ready to do something to help us get through this crisis. But the adults are not yet in charge.

  Krugman again right on point. The incredible failure that is the mccain campaign lumbers on from mistake to mistake. Its one thing to be a maverick, its another to be stupid.

• 

  zurcronium at 08:41 PM JST - 26th September

  Sarge says It seems to me that yabits doesn't understand that government is not the solution, it's the problem.

  Tell that it Freddie Mac and Fannie May and AIG and Bear Sterns and Wamu and many more to come. In this case the government is the solution and the problem is the make-believe free market that reagan and his dopey followers believe in like children in the tooth fairy.

• 

  Alinsky4prez at 08:50 PM JST - 26th September

  Trouble is, zurcronium, even Clinton is blaming the Democrats.

  I don't understand.

• 

  DXXJP at 12:02 PM JST - 27th September

  Seams to me Sarge and all his alter egos were just three weeks ago spouting how stable and strong the economy was. Now for the kick to the groin

  In 1982, the same year John McCain entered the Senate, a bill was put forward that would substantially deregulate the Savings and Loan industry. The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was an initiative of the Reagan administration, and was largely authored by lobbyists for the S&L industry -- including John McCain's warm-up speaker at the convention, Fred Thompson. The official description of the bill was "An act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans." Considering where things stand in 2008, that may sound dubious. It should.

  Seven years later, the S&L industry was collapsing. What was the cause? Garn-St. Germain handed the S&Ls a greatly expanded range of capabilities, allowing them to go head to head with full service banks, but it didn't give them the bank's regulations. Left to operate in an anarchistic gray area, S&Ls chased profits, indulged in amazing extravagances, and cranked out enough cheap mortgages to fuel a real estate boom. They also experimented with lots of complex, creative -- and risky -- investments, even though they didn't have the economic models to really determine the worth of the things they were buying. The result was a mountain of bad debts and worthless "assets." Does any of that sound eerily (or nauseatingly) familiar?

  It wasn't a foregone conclusion. In 1985, three years after the deregulation of the S&Ls, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board saw that the situation was already looking shaky, with the potential to become much worse. He instituted a rule to limit the amounts and types of investments S&Ls could carry on their books in an effort to head off disaster. However, many savings and loans -- among them Lincoln Savings & Loan Association of Irvine, CA, which was headed by a fellow named Charles Keating -- promptly ignored these rules.

  Im sorry I have lost the link to the complete story but I will post is as soon as I can find it.

• 

  Sarge at 12:11 AM JST - 28th September

  DXXJP - "Seams to me Sarge and all his alter egos..."

  My alter egos?

Register or login to add a comment!