In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

[Sondrith]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

After doing as much homework as I could stomach on this crisis (and I much appreciated the educational posts in this thread), I figured that Paulson's plan is probably the best thing we can do to avert catastrophe - but I am troubled by this from today's lead story in the Los Angeles Times:

Interesting and also a little bit frightening, but I will aslo add that the article points out a Republican (Rep. Mike Pence) is concerned about just what doors we are opening with this.

But for all the bluster...we do have a Democrat controlled Congress (House and Senate) so lets just see what they do with this.

 

[RandomAccess]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

But for all the bluster...we do have a Democrat controlled Congress (House and Senate) so lets just see what they do with this.

Well, if they attempt to block it they'll be painted as obstructionist and "do-nothing" by the right. Bush has painted the Democrats into a corner on this. They have to pass the legislation (and bear the wrath of people who suddenly realize that nearly 3/4 of a Trillion dollars is being used to the benefit of private investors) or stop the legislation (and be blamed for the catastrophic collapse of the world financial markets). Bush has, in effect, dumped this whole baby in the laps of Congress and absolved himself of any blame!

 

[Sbaraglia]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Well, if they attempt to block it they'll be painted as obstructionist and "do-nothing" by the right. Bush has painted the Democrats into a corner on this. They have to pass the legislation (and bear the wrath of people who suddenly realize that nearly 3/4 of a Trillion dollars is being used to the benefit of private investors) or stop the legislation (and be blamed for the catastrophic collapse of the world financial markets). Bush has, in effect, dumped this whole baby in the laps of Congress and absolved himself of any blame!

Yes, Bush has saddled the next president - and all of us - with both Iraq and this...this...THING! I don't think anyone even understands it yet (even its developers, who are still writing the script as the actors assemble...) - it's kind of a Dick Cheney wet dream, a way to quickly force-feed an explosive growth in Executive power, before anyone has a chance to study it or to argue its merits or dangers...

 

[naked gent]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Interesting and also a little bit frightening, but I will aslo add that the article points out a Republican (Rep. Mike Pence) is concerned about just what doors we are opening with this.

But for all the bluster...we do have a Democrat controlled Congress (House and Senate) so lets just see what they do with this.

Sondrith I can respect conservatives like Pence who don't toss their principles when trouble strikes but I think the reason he won't fine many fellow republicans joining him in standing on principle is that for all the conservative bluster about how liberalism is dead the essential truth is is that when bad things happen americans look to Washington to solve the problem.

Reagan was fond of saying that Washington is the problem but, as this past week illustrated, when trouble strikes Washington, far from being the problem, is viewed as being the solution.

 

[smelter]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON


Stop the elections ..... America has a King .... Henry Paulson!!
DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR MONEY IS?

 

[letme]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Well, if they attempt to block it they'll be painted as obstructionist and "do-nothing" by the right

R.A. The Pugs have nothing to paint.
Read the words of The Speaker & Majority Leader.

Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn't equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can't agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.

Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments -- Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven't ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.

One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that ``no one knows what to do'' at the moment.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the decision of Congress to adjourn. Lawmakers can always be recalled to Washington ``if there is a need to do so,''

Just another fine example of this Do Nothing Congress. Ya okay Harry & Nancy , sit on your hands & hope the blame from the media will shift to "it's GWB's fault. "

 

[Sbaraglia]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

A variety of good columns on the financial crisis, from several different angles:

Sebastian Mallaby, a conservative columnist with The Washington Post, opposed to the Paulson plan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../09/20/AR2008092001059.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

David Lazarus writes the "Consumer Confidential" column for The Los Angeles Times; here he writes in favor of more middle-ground and pre-emptive approaches, rather than a pendulum swinging from too little regulation to too much, and only at times of crises:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus21-2008sep21,1,7689546.column

Donald Luskin is a McCain economics advisor and an officer with an economics consulting firm; in this piece from The Washington Post (on September 14) he argues against the Great Depression comparisons and says that our economy is far stronger than such comparisons claim:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202415.html

Finally, the conservative British historian Niall Ferguson puts things in (his) perspective, in The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091902804.html

 

[RandomAccess]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

R.A. The Pugs have nothing to paint.
Read the words of The Speaker & Majority Leader.

Just another fine example of this Do Nothing Congress. Ya okay Harry & Nancy , sit on your hands & hope the blame from the media will shift to "it's GWB's fault. "

L, if it was a decision that could be made with a couple of pen strokes, you'd have a point. But this crisis is a much bigger magnitude and will require a lot more investigation than can happen in the time allowed. This thing needs to have cooler heads involved than ANY of those in Washington at this very moment. . . from the President on down.

 

[letme]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Yes R.A. I agree ...but when Harry says ... umm I don't know shit...lets take a break and leave town....

He is spineless and a chicken shit Punk.
Did Nancy go back to her Vineyard and stomp some Grapes ?
I am sure they are some sour grapes.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

This is becoming a headache, it's discouraging and makes me sick to my stomach. The divide between the haves and have-nots if growing so large it befuddles me how so many people have their heads stuck in the ground while we continually support practices that encourage a two-tier society. The US is full of bullshit and people ignore the elephant by saying "We're better off than Africa, we're better off than Iraq."

Yeah, but you could say a rape victim is better off than a murder victim cuz they survive the attack.

The divide: last I recall, 90% of the wealth in the U.S. was in the hands of less than 2% of the people.

That sounds a lot like Latin America....

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

The divide: last I recall, 90% of the wealth in the U.S. was in the hands of less than 2% of the people.

That's not accurate and I really wish people wouldn't toss around these kinds of numbers without knowing what they are talking about (no offense).

Here's a more accurate breakdown.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The top 1% actually holds less wealth today than they did in 1980. Still a huge percentage though.

To account for 90% of the wealth you have to expand the top group to greater than 20%, so 2% is off by more than an order of magnitude.

 

[G-Lexington]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

No - it's capitalism.

Lex

 

[NineOfClubs]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

and so it'll be tough to convince the rank and file Americans that this mess has the Democrats' fingerprints all over it.

Lex

Love you, G-lex.

But I've only heard "rank and file" applied to union members.

I hope I'm never a "rank and file" American, what ever that is.........

 

[naked gent]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

That's not accurate and I really wish people wouldn't toss around these kinds of numbers without knowing what they are talking about (no offense).

Here's a more accurate breakdown.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The top 1% actually holds less wealth today than they did in 1980. Still a huge percentage though.

To account for 90% of the wealth you have to expand the top group to greater than 20%, so 2% is off by more than an order of magnitude.

hotatlboi I really wish you would follow your own advice. The link you supplied says that from 1983 to 2001 the wealth owned by the top 1% dropped four tenths of a point to 33.4% but since 2001 the Bush administration enacted two tax cuts which primarily benefitted the rich.

As a result of those tax cuts I think its fair to say that today the top 1% hold more wealth than they did in 1980 not less.

Kul overstates the numbers but you understate them.

 

[smelter]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Whether or not the Hank Paulson plan to stopgap a run by depositors on the financial institutions will work, I am amazed at the reaction on CNBC by the talking heads. They all agreed on friday that it was necessary, now they are bemoaning the fact that the government has put a 10 day hiatus rule against short selling.

Short selling brought Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and others to bankruptcy and was threatening to do the same to giants AIG and Goldman Sachs. They want it both ways! These greedy pigs are still hungry and they want a full trough, slopped this time by you, the taxpayer!

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

hotatlboi I really wish you would follow your own advice. The link you supplied says that from 1983 to 2001 the wealth owned by the top 1% dropped four tenths of a point to 33.4% but since 2001 the Bush administration enacted two tax cuts which primarily benefitted the rich.

As a result of those tax cuts I think its fair to say that today the top 1% hold more wealth than they did in 1980 not less.

Kul overstates the numbers but you understate them.

Ok, you're right that graph only goes to 2001, so there probably has been an increase since then. But it's an unknown really. I'll try to find a more recent source. I just meant that what he said was a gross overstatement. If 2% of the people really had 90% of the wealth, that would be more like the 1800s where there was a rich aristocracy and hardly any middle class. If >20% have it, that basically means 1 in 5 people have done very well for themselves, which is not a bad statistic at all imo for a capitalistic society.

 

[G-Lexington]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

>>>But I've only heard "rank and file" applied to union members. I hope I'm never a "rank and file" American, what ever that is.........

rank and file - n. 1. The enlisted troops, excluding noncommissioned officers, in an army. 2. The people who form the major portion of a group, organization, or society, excluding the leaders and officers.
(emphasis mine)

Lex

 

[Inwood]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

After doing as much homework as I could stomach on this crisis (and I much appreciated the educational posts in this thread), I figured that Paulson's plan is probably the best thing we can do to avert catastrophe - but I am troubled by this from today's lead story in the Los Angeles Times:

Just another way for this administration to wipe their collective asses with the Constitution.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

To account for 90% of the wealth you have to expand the top group to greater than 20%, so 2% is off by more than an order of magnitude.

It's still obnoxious, and it's the reason for my position on the "death tax": I oppose it, but would replace it with a maximum a person/estate can bequeath to any individual or individual entity -- say, McCain's $5 million.
So a person with a wealth of $5 billion would have to split the fortune at least 1,000 ways.
I know that would still leave most wealth concentrated in a minority, but I think it would expand the size of that minority considereably.

Love you, G-lex.

But I've only heard "rank and file" applied to union members.

I hope I'm never a "rank and file" American, what ever that is.........

I was a rank and file marching band member once.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Whether or not the Hank Paulson plan to stopgap a run by depositors on the financial institutions will work, I am amazed at the reaction on CNBC by the talking heads. They all agreed on friday that it was necessary, now they are bemoaning the fact that the government has put a 10 day hiatus rule against short selling.

Short selling brought Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and others to bankruptcy and was threatening to do the same to giants AIG and Goldman Sachs. They want it both ways! These greedy pigs are still hungry and they want a full trough, slopped this time by you, the taxpayer!

It seems to me that if the taxpayer is rescuing these folks, the taxpayer ought to get a return.
Treat it like a rescue from/by another corporation: the rescuer gets a substantial slab of stock in the rescued company, right?
So we take chunks of stock proportionate to the value of the rescue being provided, and drop it into the Social Security fund. In the future, SS would get dividends right along with all the other stockholders.
Or it could be auctioned off, and the proceeds tossed against the debt -- but I like the first notion better.

Tell the Republicans it's a small step towards "privatizing" Social Security.