It really, really, really is the freekin' ECONOMY, Stupid! [Archive]

usmc1

09-15-2008, 05:10 AM

Last night while watching a movie, I got a phone call from a fellow activist, "Whatcha doin'? Watchin' football?, he asked"

"Naw, just pinnin a flick", I sez

"Well, switch to CNBC, because folks are doing swan dives from Wall Street windows."

"Naw", sez I, "I'm watching Jackie Chan and the Monkey King kick butt on the Jade King, and besides there's this little hottie in it, and I'm hoping for at least one nude swim scene."

"OK", he sez. "But remember that thing you said that time about trickle down really means flowing up? Well, according to what I'm seeing, some of the pain and misery that the rest of us have been feeling is trickling up to the fat cats!"

I hung up thinking about the exchange that Mark and Nacktman had here with several knotheads about a year or so ago, wherein the K-H crowd asserted that there was no recession, and if anyone was suffering or out of work, they had brought it on themselves.

And, I remebered an old truism I learned from my depression surviving granpa, "the republicans always figure out a way to bring about economic despair for the normal people!"

And damn it, there was no nude scene, but the Monkey King did get back his magic staff. Wish things really were that easy.

From this morning's Politico Playbook:

PLAYBOOK MINDMELD: This weekend's banking meltdown shows that the Bear Stearns and Fannie-Freddie debacles weren't isolated slides but the leading edge of an avalanche, and all the snow isn't at the bottom of the mountain.

The employees carrying boxes of personal stuff out of Lehman Brothers' Manhattan headquarters last night, live on CNBC, had to trudge past the idling black Town Cars of the lawyers and bosses. Police were doing crowd control as tourists gathered, waiting for a celebrity to emerge.

The crisis could lead to fundamental changes in the way the nation's financial institutions operate and are regulated.

***This is no longer a Wall Street story but a MAIN STREET STORY: Car buyers, home shoppers and entrepreneurs will have even more trouble getting credit, the oil in the nation's job machinery.

Historically huge two-column, six line banner headline in The Wall Street Journal: 'Crisis on Wall Street as Lehman Brothers Totters, Merrill Lynch Is Sold, AIG Seeks to Raise Cash – Fed Will Expand Its Lending Arsenal in Bid to Calm Markets; Move Caps a Momentous Weekend for American Finance.'

The moving parts:

--Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy – Bloomberg News: 'Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank, succumbed to the subprime mortgage crisis it helped create in the biggest bankruptcy filing in history. The 158-year-old firm, which survived railroad bankruptcies of the 1800s, the Great Depression in the 1930s and the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management a decade ago, has filed a Chapter 11 petition with U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan today.'

--Bank of A buying Merrill for bargain-basement price – AP: 'Bank of America Corp. said it is snapping up Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. in an $50 billion all-stock transaction. The demise of the independent Wall Street institutions came as shock waves from the 14-month-old credit crisis roiled the U.S. financial system six months after the collapse of Bear Stearns. The world's largest insurance company, American International Group Inc., also was forced into a restructuring.'

--Fed acts on Sunday night – NYT: 'Even though the Federal Reserve refused to provide a financial backstop to potential buyers of Lehman Brothers, concerns over what may unfold in the market on Monday led it to dramatically loosen its standards on making emergency loans to major Wall Street investment banks. ... In an obscure but highly important announcement late Sunday evening, the Fed said it would let Wall Street firms post as collateral much riskier assets - including equities, junk bonds, subprime mortgage-backed securities and even whole mortgages - in exchange for emergency loans through the Primary Dealer Credit Facility.'

--Major banks form $70 billion 'collateralized borrowing facility' to provide liquidity to troubled institutions. Per their release: 'A group of global commercial and investment banks, including Bank of America, Barclays, Citibank, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and UBS, today initiated a series of actions to help enhance liquidity and mitigate the unprecedented volatility and other challenges affecting global equity and debt markets.'

--Reuters, 6:45 a.m. Eastern: 'Global share prices sank on Monday after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection, turning up the heat on financial market stress and prompting a sharp exit from risk across assets. The dollar also lost traction, with its recent rally abruptly stalled, setting the yen on track for its best daily performance since 2002. Reflecting a growing sense of panic, futures markets jumped to price in a more than 80 percent chance of a Federal Reserve interest rate cut to 1.75 percent at its meeting on Tuesday. U.S. stock market futures were down between 2.8 and 3.5 percent, pointing to a sharply lower open.'

DOW COULD OPEN DOWN 300.

On a special 8 p.m. live hour on Fox Business News, Eric Bolling asked whether Bank of America just put a 'big fat bull's eye' on its back by taking on Merrill Lynch's questionable, non-transparent assets.

Roger Altman, former Deputy Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, said during CNBC's three hours of Sunday night coverage that the weekend's events are 'historic ... tragic .. disturbing,' producing a 'very, very dangerous financial market environment' – the worst he's seen since he started at Lehman 39 years ago.

usmc1

09-15-2008, 05:23 AM

From electoralvote.com

Wall Street in Turmoil

The financial industry is reeling. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) The venerable Lehman Brothers investment bank has filed for bankruptcy. Insurance giant A.I.G. is close to bankruptcy, and Merrill Lynch only avoided bankruptcy by selling itself to Bank of America for $50 billion. Other financial firms are in the bullseye. This week has been the worst week for Wall St. since 1929.

For people who don't understand what is going on, here is the story in a nutshell. Decades ago, when you wanted to buy a house you went to local bank and applied for a mortgage. If the mortgage was less than three times your annual income and you had a good credit history, the bank would loan you the money and you would pay them interest and some principal every month for 30 years. Then Wall St. got a bright idea: buy up all the mortgages from the banks, collect a few thousand into a pool called a CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation) and sell shares in it. The owner of each share would get a pro-rata share of the incoming monthly mortgage payments, analogous to what a bond owner gets.

What happened? It sounded like a great idea and soon all mortgages were sold and repackaged into shares. It didn't take long before the banks realized that they could issue mortgages of five, six, even eight times the buyer's annual income or sell them to people with terrible credit histories. After all, the shaky mortgages would soon be somebody else's headache. That's what happened. Lehman, Merrill, and others bought billions of dollars of mortgages that the homeowners had no hope of ever repaying on schedule and nobody wanted to buy shares in these worthless CDOs, so the brokers got stuck holding the bag with billions in worthless loans.

What are the political consequences of this meltdown? It is a bit early, but here's the expected pattern. Republicans will say that bankruptcies, however unfortunate, are an absolutely essential part of free markets. When managers make stupid decisions, the market punishes them by driving them into bankruptcy. This warns other managers not to be so greedy. Democrats will say that millions of innocent homeowners and small investors are going to lose their homes and life savings due to misbehavior on the part of rapacious and unscrupulous bankers and that it is the job of the government to regulate the entire financial sector to protect ordinary people who don't know the difference between a CD and a CDO.

One thing that is crystal clear already is that reporters are going to be asking the candidates how they plan to deal with this. John McCain might call for more regulation and when other Republicans scream at him use this to prove his "maverick" credentials. Of course he will be accused of locking the barn door after the prize horse (with or without lipstick) has escaped since he has never been much of a fan of government regulation before. For Obama it will be easier to call for more government oversight. Democrats believe government is supposed to protect people.

NudeAl

09-15-2008, 06:34 PM

The comparisons to another Wallstreet crash almost 80 years ago are inevitable. I seem to recall one of the news anchors saying that today was the single largest market drop ever. We will see if ING can pull together the resources needed to stay in business. I am afraid we are seeing the tip of the iceberg here. Many years of hardship lay ahead.

Naturist Mark

09-15-2008, 09:04 PM

Looks like nearly 30 years of devastating the middle class has bit the overlords in the arse.

Gee, maybe it wasn't a good idea to make the people who buy things poor?

-Mark

usmc1

09-16-2008, 04:43 AM

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/38883/thumbs/r-DOW-CHART-huge.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/obama-slams-mccain-over-t_n_126692.html)
...STOCK MARKET HAS WORST DAY SINCE 9/11... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/stocks-set-to-plunge-afte_n_126417.html)
Obama Slams McCain Over The Economy... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/obama-slams-mccain-over-t_n_126692.html)
McCain: 'Fundamentals Of Economy Strong'... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/mccain-fundamentals-of-th_n_126445.html)

Biden: 'Bush, McCain In Corner Of Wealthy And Well-Connected'... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080915/biden/)
Reid: 'Legacy Of Bush-McCain Economic Policies'... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/reid-pelosi-slam-bush-mcc_n_126591.html)Wall St Shock Shifts Campaign Debate To Issues... (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/15/wall_street_shocks_return_focu.html)Fed Meets Tuesday... Fallout Fears Worsen... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/business/16paulson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

ki4kxq

09-16-2008, 06:22 AM

As usual, you only demonize those that you want to demonize instead of laying the blame with everyone that deserves it.

The mortgage companies and banks got greedy, no doubt. Now a lot of them that played fast and loose are taking their just desserts. That is what needs to happen. But let's look at the other two players in this mess for they are not blameless by any stretch of the imagination.

First, the government. Yep, for years they pressured banks to make housing loans to those folks who did not have the credit or income to buy a house. These people were not getting access to the American dream, so banks started issuing sub prime loans. Sub prime loans were popular with the people that still couldn't afford to buy a house because they gave them the illusion that they could. They were also of course popular with the banks because of the much higher fees, interest rates, prepayment penalties and other rip off terms. They were so popular, other folks started taking out subprime mortgages for not only their primary residence, but investment properties as well. This is what happens when the government steps in to make things "fair".

Third, the folks that took out loans they knew they couldn't afford. No one held a gun to these people's heads. When you take an interest only loan because it allows you to barely afford the monthly payments on a house you couldn't afford otherwise, you too are being greedy and now are getting your just desserts. You want to help people, then let them learn the lessons here. Teach folks why they lost their house with financial classes so that they don't go out and do it again. But taking money from responsible tax payers, most in the middle class, to bail out these folks is immoral. What about those that saved their money to buy, bought a smaller house so that they could afford the payments? What lesson are you giving them? That they sacrifice to do things the right way instead of spending money they don't have, and then they have to bail out those that bought houses they couldn't afford? That is not compassion, that is outright theft from those that are doing the right things.

None of these companies or people should be bailed out at taxpayer expense. There will be pain in these lessons, but then again, every lesson learned the hard way brings pain. That is nature's way of insuring we don't repeat those mistakes.

I have compassion for those that are losing their homes. However, I believe in helping them the right way when they are ready. We buy Dave Ramsey books by the case and give them away. We have helped freinds do budgets to help them pay down debt, we have helped them get houses sold that they couldn't afford to keep. That is how you help someone, you help them figure out why what they did didn't work and help them through it. Then you show them how to prosper, regardless of their income. Only when someone admits their part in the failure are they ready to turn their own life around.

Naturist Mark

09-16-2008, 02:15 PM

Now I see the folly of our ways.

If we hadn't roadblocked Bush (and McCain's) plans to privatize Social Security, those Wall Street firms now on the rocks would have had all those retirement funds under their management, which might have been enough to let them ride out their current losses.

It's OUR FAULT. How could we be shortsighted?

Please forgive us.

-Mark

Boreas

09-16-2008, 06:17 PM

tree whisper

09-16-2008, 09:21 PM

I'd like to hear from Phil Gramm, the former US senator from Texas. The last I heard he was one of Grandpa McSame's economic advisors. He had to quit that job when he said something about Americans being "whiners" because people are being hurt in this recession. He left the Senate to be a bigwig in UBS, the giant Swiss bank.

I'd like to hear from him because he was such a huge proponent for years of deregulating the "financial industry."

This deregulation happened during President Clinton's last term.

The reporters on Bloomberg financial news have been known to ask hard questions. It doesn't happen often. We know he would never be on Air America or on Democracy Now!

usmc1

09-17-2008, 04:42 AM

ki4kxq, I was thinhing about your post on my drive this morning. It initially struck me as extremely harsh and meanspirited. I am not going to respond to each point (BTW, where is #2?) Anyway, I do agree that we must learn from our mistakes. I do not believe in unecessary rescuing. It does create dependency, and does not help a person at all.

That being said, what about victims of crime? I do not know enough about this situation to judge whether these people are true victims of crime. I do believe that these people have been at the very least, mislead. They were told that this was a way to own a home. They were not told of the risks, and for whatever reason, did not do their homework.

IF they are victims of a crime, do they still need to suffer for their "crimes"? What do you suggest for victims of crime in general? Are you of the belief that need to be blamed for putting themselves in harms way?

I do not like "piling on" posts. However, in this instance, I'm giving you an atta girl.

That post was reflective of the attitude of many, many of the people calling themselves "conservative" who do not bother to avail themselves of the facts and prefer to play the blame game. Usually they target the victims of misfortune.

In this instance it was evident that she had not read either of the posts as she began hers by claiming "demonetization" when actually both of the articles were very balanced and informative on the background of the current economic crises.

Instead of reading and learning, and then offering an informed opinion she launched the same old distracting and diverting attacks that have become part of the conservative bag of tricks when they realize that they have no lucid case to make.

People over-extending themselves to try to have a part of the "American Dream" of home-ownership is not the cause of our nation's economic woes. It is reflective of and a part of those woes, but not the cause!

The unasked questions are why aren't we building affordable housing, and why aren't we creating jobs offering sufficient earnings enabling people to buy those affordable homes, and why do we not regulate in order to make those things happen?

usmc1

09-17-2008, 04:57 AM

I need our conservative acquaintances to explain something to me. Please. Why is it a bad, mean, evil, liberal, stink-pot, commie thing to suggest nationalizing the oil companies which make a hell of a profit, but a good thing to underwrite (nationalize) Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG, which are bleeding like economic hemophiliacs?

Suze Orman: 'Thank God, they bailed out AIG'

Story Highlights
Suze Orman: It's good that federal government stepped in to save AIG
Nation's economic woes stem from total irresponsibility, Orman says
Orman says it's not a good time to enter stock market
Orman warns other financial institutions could go under

(CNN) -- The Federal Reserve Board announced an $85 billion plan Tuesday to bail out troubled insurance giant American International Group Inc.
The federal government decided to intervene after determining a failure of the company, whose financial dealings stretch around the world, could hurt the already delicate markets and the economy.

Personal finance expert Suze Orman appeared on "Larry King Live" on Tuesday to discuss what the AIG bailout means to you and how safe is your money during this economic downturn. The following is an edited version of the interview:

Larry King: A few months ago, you said on this very show that you would be worried if there was another big government bailout. It's now happening. Should the government be helping AIG?

Suze Orman: Well, in this particular case, I have to tell you they should. Bear Stearns, very different. Lehman, very different. AIG (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/american_international_group_inc) is an international giant that just doesn't have ramifications here in the United States. It is worldwide. They're like in 130 countries. They have 100,000 employees. Everybody has an AIG insurance policy. So in this particular case, my opinion, thank God, they bailed out AIG. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gifWatch Orman discuss what AIG's bailout means for consumers » (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Suze+Orman%3A+%27Thank+God%2C+they+bailed+ou t+AIG%27+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=31058483&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2008%2FLIVING%2Fper sonal%2F09%2F17%2Flkl.suze.orman%2Findex.html&partnerID=211911#cnnSTCVideo)

King: What about Barclays and Lehman?

Orman: They're selling Neuberger Berman to Barclays, that's fine. That will all work itself out. The major danger that we had here, which is why you saw the stock markets go up today, is that rumors were circulating that AIG was going to be saved. The big downfall would have been if AIG, in my opinion, had gone under.

King: Sen. McCain is saying this involves fraud -- or let me use another word similar to fraud -- on Wall Street. Do you agree?

Orman: It starts way back when there was nobody overseeing and regulating. Nothing. It's how many times have I said on this program, what were they all thinking? Why were they lending money to people who shouldn't have been borrowing money? Why were they packaging these things? What about the rating agencies? Why weren't the rating agencies rating everything the way they should have been and now they're making matters worse? So whether it's fraud or not, was there deceit going on? I don't know if it was deceit as much as just total irresponsibility is what caused this.

King: Is this a good time to get into the market?

Orman: No. It's not a good time to get in with brand-new money. I would let these markets kind of wash themselves out. On the other hand, if you're investing in a 401k every month with small amounts of money, that's OK as long as you don't need the money for 10, 15, 20 years. If you just got an inheritance and you have $50,000, should you be putting it in the stock market now? Are you kidding? These are the markets that you just sit on the sidelines and wait on the sidelines and stay away from them until everything works out. iReport.com: Are you worried about the Wall Street crisis? (http://www.ireport.com/ir-topic-stories.jspa?topicId=2538)

King: Oil settled down today to $91.15 a barrel. What does that mean? Are gas prices going to go down?

Orman: Yes. Gas prices probably will go down, I hope, to essentially $3 a gallon. What you're essentially seeing here is like a tax rebate for everybody. That's a lot of people that will help them a lot. Lehman, AIG -- I get that's all bad news, but the good news is for the main people that have to get by every single day. Your gas bills, in terms of what you put in your cars, aren't going to be as high. Your heating bills aren't going to be as high. To go from $150 a barrel down to $91, that's significant.

King: The Federal Reserve decided to leave short-term interest rates unchanged today at 2 percent. Good or bad?

Orman: I personally think it was bad. Listen, the banks in the United States of America are in trouble. Anything we can do, in my opinion, to help the banking system so they can make a little bit more money, I think, would have been a good idea. If we had lowered interest rates, the Fed funds rate, the banks would have been making more money on the money that they lent out, which would be helping everybody in the long run. So I think they should have lowered, but they left the same.

King: Could other major financial institutions go under?

Orman: Absolutely, they can. You would think that they couldn't, but when you see dinosaurs -- Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG -- going down the drain, anything can happen. Nothing is beyond the imagination at this point in time.

usmc1

09-17-2008, 05:14 AM

ki4kxq

09-17-2008, 07:17 AM

Boreas, if someone is a victim of a crime, they should be helped. However, that is not what we are dealing with here. How do I know? Because each and every person who took out one of these loans, was given the loan documents to read before they signed them. It was up to them to make sure that they did that before they put themselves and their financial futures on the line. Also, the news media makes it sound as if 95% of the mortgages out their are these subprime loans and most folks are being kicked out of their homes. The numbers are actually the opposite. Most folks have lived within their means and have decent traditional mortgages and are paying those just fine.

Quite a few of these sub prime loans went to investors who were flipping houses for profit. Some went to folks who thought it would be a cheap and easy way to upgrade houses. We are talking houses of 200k on up. By the way, when you sign a loan document for an adjustable rate loan, and mortgage rates are at all time lows, just what direction do you suppose those rates are going to go? It doesn't take a wall street genius to know that with an interest only loan, you will never own the house

Did some of these loans go to those with no credit, no money, and not enough skills to make out a loan document. I'm sure they did. However, it is up to that person to take someone with them that they trust who does know what they are looking at. A family member, boss, pastor, friend, whatever. The thing is, it is still that person's responsibility to understand what they are signing BEFORE they sign it. Almost every church now days offers financial classes for their members and those in the community that are not members.

Again, it is not the governments job to bail people out of their personal financial messes. What's next, bailing out the folks that are maxed out in credit card debt? Those whose homes are in foreclosure due to taking out a line of credit everytime they wanted something?

I believe that the mortgage companies should work with their customers that are in distress by rewriting their loans, if that would help those folks be able to make their payments. That is good business as it would help not only the customer, but the lender at well. However, they should not be forced by the government to do so.

Listen, everyone is to blame here. Lenders, banks, regulators, home buyers, and republican and democrat politicians. Oh yeah, them too. Everybody was extolling the virtues of all this home ownership, even with those who couldn't afford those homes. That helped fuel the massive lending to those who shouldn't be borrowing for anything, and by end result, the spiraling housing prices as real estate became HOT!! All you had to do is fog a mirror to get a loan, now those chicks have come home to roost. It is tragic for everyone, but we can't let those off the hook just because we feel sorry for their situation. It is the wrong thing to do.

Sorry if that sounds mean spirited, it is not meant to be. But we have got to stop blaming other folks for our personal misfortunes. If you have the time, go get either "You're broke because you want to be" or "Shut up, quit whining, and start living". This will give you some insight as to my logic.

garbo

09-17-2008, 07:45 AM

This in one of those topics that, frankly.. for me, that is a little hard to follow! As an artist and not a pervayer of the corporate culture, I listen to the news as we all do or until I can't take it any more. I am interested to understand the whys and wherefores but can't get into the political jargon without getting depressed. I also listen to friends and acquaintences in the business and banking communities. Everyone seems to walking on eggshells these days.

How widespread is this mortgage meltdown anyway? Is it solely reponsible for the dismal economic picture these days? Why are so many companies today cash starved by the banking community? Will the overall malaise and distrust of corporate power cause people to just hold back spending which will paralyze our manufacturing and distribution networks? Is there anyone out there that can explain what the hell is going on in simple terms?

The upper eschelon is a culture of excess and greed. Ok, we know that. They lobby for policies and tax incentives that enable them to position themselves to their best advantage. They have the money to do that. Money is power. When it is all about excess, we fall victim to a meltdown that is affected by all. The money brokers are now paying for their greed. The fall of some of the biggest financial institutions is representative of misappropriations and the belief they could do no wrong. Permitting people with average incomes to by luxury homes for hundreds of thousands of dollars and burdening them with variable mortgages which they can't afford simply makes no sense. Did the financial geniuses not see this coming?? Government bailouts of the some of the largest banks and other financial institutions is designed to prevent a global meltdown. So much for less government, Sen. McCain!

I have stock in Lehman Bros. which are supposed to be guaranteed by Goldman Saks. Goldman Saks had securities guaranteed by some other financial giant. It all seems like big intertwined conglomerate out of control!

Back to the common man. He does not.. no, can not understand what is going on in the ivory towers. We have been misled, hoodwinked, lied to and overall manipulated to the point where no one knows which way is up. Cash starved banks have literally cut off all but the most secure mortgages, lines of credit have literally dried up preventing economic growth in small and medium size businesses, the markets are going crazy and people are scared! And, why not, who knows where this is going? And Bush sits in his White House telling us the economy is fundamentally strong! What an insult to our intelligence. No matter who wins the election this fall, he will inherit a financial mess larger and more complicated than anything seen in modern history. He will not only need to create stability in our markets but attempt to regain consumer confidence.

Makes you want to just rip your clothes off, put your sunglasses on and lay out on the beach, doesn't it!

Qikdraw

09-17-2008, 07:55 AM

Why isn't McCain talking about how great privatising Social Security would be right now?

Just curious...

ki4kxq

09-17-2008, 07:57 AM

ki4kxq

09-17-2008, 08:08 AM

Why isn't McCain talking about how great privatising Social Security would be right now?

Just curious...

Would love for him to. Privatizing social security is still a much better deal. NO 10 year period has seen the stock market lose money. 97% of all 5 year periods have made money. Retirement is a long term investment. Still with this blip in the radar screen it's a much better deal.

As bad as this is, and in all reality, if you are one that has control of your finances, it is no big deal in the long term, things will turn around. They would have turned around without government bailouts as well.

Remember, these companies if you have 401k's and such through them are only the managers of your portfolio. If you have Lehman or AIG stocks or bonds and they go under, that is a bad thing. However, your average retirement investment in mutual funds, which is what most folks have is safe. You may just need to get another broker when all the dust settles.

Boreas

09-17-2008, 10:54 AM

Listen, everyone is to blame here. Lenders, banks, regulators, home buyers, and republican and democrat politicians. Oh yeah, them too. Everybody was extolling the virtues of all this home ownership, even with those who couldn't afford those homes. That helped fuel the massive lending to those who shouldn't be borrowing for anything, and by end result, the spiraling housing prices as real estate became HOT!! All you had to do is fog a mirror to get a loan, now those chicks have come home to roost. It is tragic for everyone, but we can't let those off the hook just because we feel sorry for their situation. It is the wrong thing to do.

I think garbo said it best:

The upper eschelon is a culture of excess and greed. Ok, we know that. They lobby for policies and tax incentives that enable them to position themselves to their best advantage. They have the money to do that. Money is power. When it is all about excess, we fall victim to a meltdown that is affected by all. The money brokers are now paying for their greed. The fall of some of the biggest financial institutions is representative of misappropriations and the belief they could do no wrong. Permitting people with average incomes to by luxury homes for hundreds of thousands of dollars and burdening them with variable mortgages which they can't afford simply makes no sense. Did the financial geniuses not see this coming?? Government bailouts of the some of the largest banks and other financial institutions is designed to prevent a global meltdown. So much for less government, Sen. McCain!

------------------

Back to the common man. He does not.. no, can not understand what is going on in the ivory towers. We have been misled, hoodwinked, lied to and overall manipulated to the point where no one knows which way is up. Cash starved banks have literally cut off all but the most secure mortgages, lines of credit have literally dried up preventing economic growth in small and medium size businesses, the markets are going crazy and people are scared! And, why not, who knows where this is going? And Bush sits in his White House telling us the economy is fundamentally strong! What an insult to our intelligence. No matter who wins the election this fall, he will inherit a financial mess larger and more complicated than anything seen in modern history. He will not only need to create stability in our markets but attempt to regain consumer confidence.

It is all well and good to blame the little guy. Sometimes the structures of society help to create the pickles that mere mortals find themselves in. They (the folks who orchestrated this mess) need to be held accountable. Some bailing out of the banks will need to happen in order to prevent more catastrophes.

Hopefully some suitable regulations will be put into place to prevent this from happening again. Hopefully people will have learned from this mess.

usmc1

09-17-2008, 11:12 AM

Would love for him to. Privatizing social security is still a much better deal.
I doubt that you can cite any source other than McCain/Bush and a scant handful of neo-com fellow-travelers who would support that statement. In fact, I challenge you to tell us, in your own words, how borrowing billions from the Chinese, Japanese, or Mexicans in order to hand Social Security over to the croupiers of Wall Street is a "better deal" than the most successful program in our nation's history which merely needs a slight tweaking to accomodate coming generations as effectively as it has past generations.

Qikdraw

09-17-2008, 03:57 PM

Qikdraw

09-17-2008, 04:09 PM

Croydon

09-17-2008, 05:14 PM

Naturist Mark

09-17-2008, 05:21 PM

Privatizing social security is still a much better deal. .

Sure! Like I said before, if only Wall Street had control of our SS funds, they might have had enough dollars on hand to paper over their losses. The top guys at AIG, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, and hey maybe even Bear Stearns would still have their jobs. We could have prevented the unemployment of several dozen millionaires!

If only we had listened to McCain. Such a shame.

-Mark

Qikdraw

09-17-2008, 05:25 PM

I LOVE LOVE LOVE Chris Matthews. The man speaks and I just goose bumps. Anyone who goes on his show should know that he is an aggressive bull. If you don't come prepared, he will make a fool of you.

A lot of people do not give him credit: he is very intelligent and knowledgeable about politics and politicians.

Yes he is, but he carried water for this administration for a long time, and only now is coming back and being a real reporter. Lets hope he keeps up with this style for the next 8 years.

ki4kxq

09-18-2008, 06:58 AM

Sorry to burst your nice "look at all the bad guys beating up on the little guys conspiracy party", but it just doesn't wash. Everyone was caught up in the "if you can fog a mirror we will lend you money for a home" high. Congress and the Bush admin were happy because they could both point to the high numbers of those buying homes and pat themselves on the back. Btw, haven't heard anybody ask where was Barney Frank during this mess. Refresh my memory but isn't he the Chairman of the Banking committee?

Simple version: Loans were made to those that could not afford to make the payments. People now armed with a mortgage approval went house shopping in droves. Demand for houses went through the roof, so, house prices went up. Real estate values were inflated beyond their actual values because of this sudden and lengthy demand. As folks got into trouble because they couldn't pay their mortgages and the rest of the bills, they borrowed more money on their homes in the form of home equity loans. As the trouble was looming on the horizon, and loans were going in default, the excessive loan to value problems started kicking in. Homeowners couldn't sell their homes because they owed more than they were worth. Banks were also in trouble because instead of secured loans, they had loans that were only partially secured. Add to that the other part of the credit equation, people having more debt on other things than they could pay, and it didn't take long before the whole thing started to collapse.

One thing that added to the fallout was the fact that banks used to have to keep a pretty strong cash position in relation to their assets. That regulation was removed some time ago.(don't know exactly when) With that gone, banks and lenders were able to over-extend themselves just like their customers. When the borrowers started to fail, the banks didn't have a big enough cash position to weather the storm. Are there some actual crooks in the equation? Yep, but few and far between and on BOTH sides of the equation.

No, I don't agree that the common man is automatically a victim of those in the ivory towers. That is ridiculous. If you take charge of your finances, this whole state of affairs is not even affecting you unless you are directly invested in one of the bankrupt companies stocks or bonds. If you are following sensible investing strategies, you are probably in mutual funds which are a great diversification. But let me make this point, if you truly believe you are a victim of anybody, you will be. Everyone has a choice to avail themselves of the info out there, most of it free. When you perpetuate the lie that the common man is just a victim of those that have money, you keep some of those folks from even trying to do more with their lives. That is why I detest most of those politicians in the democrat party. They make their way by telling people "you are too stupid and weak to help yourself, so you must have us in office to take care of you". What a crock of crap!!

ki4kxq

09-18-2008, 07:13 AM

Sure! Like I said before, if only Wall Street had control of our SS funds, they might have had enough dollars on hand to paper over their losses. The top guys at AIG, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, and hey maybe even Bear Stearns would still have their jobs. We could have prevented the unemployment of several dozen millionaires!

If only we had listened to McCain. Such a shame.

-Mark

I am sure you know that the statement you just made is false and misleading. Meant to give the impression that money invested within retirement accounts is directly controlled by the firms mentioned. It is just meant to confuse those who don't know how those firms make their money and to make them think money invested through those firms is at risk. Shame on you.

Those companies are simply acting as managers of accounts for the vast majority of retirement accounts. They do not own the funds within those accounts, the account holder does. The job of the broker that works for those companies is to work with the investor to determine what level of risk is appropriate, suggest different investment strategies, and facilitate any trades within the portfolio. People should never give any broker cart blanche in making trades and most working folks should never invest in single issue stocks for retirement. It is far too risky. That makes the role of the brokers in this instance very small indeed. The companies from these types of investors make their money off of the trades when you buy shares of stocks and/or mutual funds.

Some of these banks also have investments available with their stocks and bonds. Those customers are indeed probably going to take a bath as they are directly invested as either an owner (stock) of the company, or a creditor (bonds) of the company. At least if you own bonds, you will get paid before stock holders but I wouldn't hold my breath.

For the guy that said he wasn't sure how it worked. Think of your retirement portfolio as a group of rental houses. You now hire a management company to collect rents, make repairs, screen tenants, etc. That management company goes bankrupt. You still own your houses, they haven't lost value. You just go out and find a new management company to manage your houses. In most cases as outlined above, that is what is going on here with respect to 401k's and retirement accounts.

Boreas

09-18-2008, 07:31 AM

I am more convinced now that we should not be worshiping at the altar of capitalism and "The Free Market".

Greed at its worst.

Navigator

09-18-2008, 07:34 AM

Unless you are some Wall Street tycoon, you shouldn't invest in single issue stocks anyway. Too risky for most mom and pop investors. Also, you should only invest in mutual funds money that you can leave sitting for at least 5 years. It would be too risky to do otherwise. Therefore, for those investing in mutual funds within their 401k, IRA's, etc, the stock market is on sale. Keep investing the same amount weekly or monthly. The last thing you want to do is sell while the market is down.

I suspect your advice was great for the 1950's. But today we're heading into the Bush depression and it will be far worse than the Great Depression. The drops you're seeing now, in debt and equity values, are the early stages of a deflationary debt spiral that will take down the value of almost everything to levels that were unimaginable by most of the mainstream media just months ago.

The Bush administration's use of taxpayer money to bail out favored corporations...which is one of the financial aspects of fascism...will just exacerbate the problems caused by Bush's easy money/weak dollar policy which he implemented in order to give the appearance of presiding over a successful economy.

I will be very surprised if we don't see DOW 8000 and S&P 800 in the very near future and I doubt if we'll recover for a decade, if ever.

I suspect your investment advice is a recipe for losing the bulk of your assets.

The internet is full of articles with similar viewpoints. Here's one:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/worst-yet-come-investment-strategist/story.aspx?guid=55B21789-3A26-495A-B0D3-5AF3F6ABDA18&dist=SecMostRead

ki4kxq

09-18-2008, 07:47 AM

I doubt that you can cite any source other than McCain/Bush and a scant handful of neo-com fellow-travelers who would support that statement. In fact, I challenge you to tell us, in your own words, how borrowing billions from the Chinese, Japanese, or Mexicans in order to hand Social Security over to the croupiers of Wall Street is a "better deal" than the most successful program in our nation's history which merely needs a slight tweaking to accomodate coming generations as effectively as it has past generations.

Let me explain this again. When you invest in mutal funds for the purposes of retirement, it is one of the safest ways and most profitable ways to secure a retirement of wealth. When you invest in mutual funds, you invest in a wide variety of large, medium, and small companies within the US and overseas. You invest in a wide variety of industries. That makes your risk very low. Did you know that NO mutual fund company has ever gone bankrupt or out of business? You do not hand over your money to the "croupiers of Wall Street", they do not take over your money, you still own it and should never authorize trades without your approval. When you invest in 3 or 4 mutal funds, with long track records, you buy shares of that mutual fund. The fund managers buy and sell stocks within the fund. Quite a few funds have historys of 10, 20, 30 years. Most of these funds with the long track records average 12% return when held for a period of time. Since retirement funds are invested for 20 years or more on average, it makes social security with it's paultry 2% return look like what it is. A huge rip off ensuring that congress gets the use of the money and the power that goes with that while seniors living off of social security can barely afford to pay the rent and eat. Please explain to me how giving congress the money is worse than the "croupiers of Wall Street"? At least most of the time Wall Street knows how to make money. Social security is set up as a classic "ponzi scheme", new investors pay off old investors. If I set one up, I would be jailed.

So here it is in my words. If I were allowed to take my 15% and put it into growth stock mutual funds, my money even in bad years will keep up with the growth rate of social security and in most years will far surpass it.

My money is invested in companies. That in turn helps those companies grow, which allows them to hire more folks. Those folks will then pay income tax and also invest their retirement dollars.

My retirement portfolio belongs to me and not the government. That is a biggie. Black men historically lose the most with social security. They tend to die relatively soon after retirement and that money that they put in, goes back to the government unless they leave a widow or minor child. Which brings another point, if a husband and wife worked and put into social security, and he dies shortly after retirement, she can pick which check she wants to receive, his or hers. She can't get both. What a rip off? And you endorse this system as fair? Since a private account is mine, upon my death what I worked hard for all those years is mine to give to anyone I choose. I could give the money to my labs and their well being.

I cannot understand how anyone who can add or subtract can HONESTLY think social security is a good deal for seniors. With most folks, if you took what they invested into SS all their working lives and gave them a very minimum return on their money in a private account, most would retire with monthly checks a minimum of 3x their SS checks. That is tragic for those that have to live on that. Plus, they would control their money and their money would be part of their estate when they died. SS is nothing but a ripoff, period.

Let me ask you this USMC-1, are you just counting on your social security? If not, why? It's such a great deal and all. I doubt that you are. Wall Street you say is such a ripoff, why not send extra to the government to invest for you at 2% return.

Give seniors a chance to retire in dignity. Get rid of social security. I understand we will have to honor committments made to those already receiving and close to retirement, but let the rest of us out. Keep the money I have already contributed and use it to abolish this theft of peoples future financial security.

ki4kxq

09-18-2008, 08:41 AM

I suspect your advice was great for the 1950's. But today we're heading into the Bush depression and it will be far worse than the Great Depression. The drops you're seeing now, in debt and equity values, are the early stages of a deflationary debt spiral that will take down the value of almost everything to levels that were unimaginable by most of the mainstream media just months ago.

The Bush administration's use of taxpayer money to bail out favored corporations...which is one of the financial aspects of fascism...will just exacerbate the problems caused by Bush's easy money/weak dollar policy which he implemented in order to give the appearance of presiding over a successful economy.

I will be very surprised if we don't see DOW 8000 and S&P 800 in the very near future and I doubt if we'll recover for a decade, if ever.

I suspect your investment advice is a recipe for losing the bulk of your assets.

The internet is full of articles with similar viewpoints. Here's one:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/worst-yet-come-investment-strategist/story.aspx?guid=55B21789-3A26-495A-B0D3-5AF3F6ABDA18&dist=SecMostRead

The Bush Depression? What? We are still in a growing economy. I know the news media and the Obama camp want to really stretch the truth on this one in their bid for the White House, but you really need to stop listening to what they say and look at the numbers yourself.

The Bush easy money was really signed into law under Bill Clinton in the 90's. He's the one who started the "banks need to give home loans to those without the standard documentation". You know, pesky little things like income verification, credit reports, etc. Everybody loved this and the Bush admin was no exception. It made them ALL look good. So let's give credit where credit is due shall we.

I remember when Enron and Worldcom faild. It was the same old dribble. The sky is falling, we will all be broke and never recover. Hmmm, not so much. The government intervention in private business is what started this whole debacle, keep government out of business ownership and bailouts.

All of you who are thinking of selling now, you are nuts. This market will recover, like it always does. As for us, we will still make money and invest. Stocks are on sale now!!! The rest of you can go ahead and put the colander on your heads and run around screaming like Chicken Little. The news media will help you. Just remember, the media has predicted 31 of the last 2 recessions, which is almost as good as their hurricane prediction record! Seems like not much fun to me so I don't think I'll participate in this recession/depression.

usmc1

09-18-2008, 08:45 AM

Let me explain this again. When you invest in mutal funds for the purposes of retirement, it is one of the safest ways and most profitable ways to secure a retirement of wealth....
Give seniors a chance to retire in dignity. Get rid of social security. I understand we will have to honor committments made to those already receiving and close to retirement, but let the rest of us out. Keep the money I have already contributed and use it to abolish this theft of peoples future financial security.

OK, let's deal with this:

First, if pigs had wings they could fly. Then we could all get rich investing in car wash equipment because things would be an even bigger mess than Bush has created.

Secondly, you are confusing (on purpose or lack of knowledge) an insurance program with an investment program. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, by me and others, Social Security is not an investment program. It is a "safety-net" social insurance program preventing the elderly, retirees, widows, widowers, orphans and disabled workers from slipping into poverty. It is not all about retirees or retirement.

Thirdly, participation in Social Security provides a guranteed coverage. And participation prevents no one from any sort of an investment program they might choose!

And, here for you to continue to ignore (look up the root word and see where that takes you) ten very good reasons, with sources, as to why privatization of Social Security is a bad idea.

1. Does nothing to strengthen Social Security’s solvency<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Would Borrowing $2 Trillion For Individual Accounts Eliminate $10 Trillion In Social Security Liabilities?” December 2004 http://www.cbpp.org/12-13-04socsec.htm (http://www.cbpp.org/12-13-04socsec.htm)
<o:p></o:p>
2. Cuts guaranteed benefits, regardless of whether or not you choose a private account<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “So-called ‘Price-Indexing” Proposal<o:p></o:p>
Would Result in Deep Reductions Over Time in Social Security Benefits,”<o:p></o:p>
January 28, 2005 http://www.cbpp.org/12-17-04socsec.htm (http://www.cbpp.org/12-17-04socsec.htm)
<o:p></o:p>
3. Gambles Social Security benefits in the stock market and leaves them open to corporate misconduct<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Source: Brookings Institution, “Privatize Social Security? No.” November 2004<o:p></o:p>
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/aaron/20041101.htm (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/aaron/20041101.htm)
<o:p></o:p>
4. Costs more than the current system of guaranteed, life-long benefits of Social Security<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Source: The Century Foundation, “What Would REALLY Happen Under Social Security Privatization?” December 2001 http://www.tcf.org/socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=324 (http://www.tcf.org/socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=324)
<o:p></o:p>
5. Explodes the national debt and creates new debt future generations will have to pay<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Source: Business Week, “The Budget Mess Bush Can No Longer Ignore.” November 2004
<o:p></o:p>
6. Undermines Social Security’s family protections, causing more disabled workers and retirees to live in poverty<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Source: LCAO, “Social Security Privatization.” December 2003 http://www.lcao.org/legagenda/ss/ss_privatization.htm (http://www.lcao.org/legagenda/ss/ss_privatization.htm)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
7. Forces workers to pay higher costs for the same insurance benefit Social Security offers<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Source: Economic Policy Institute, “Social Security Facts at a Glance.” September<o:p></o:p>
2002 http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_socsecfacts (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_socsecfacts)
<o:p></o:p>
8. Diverts funds for Social Security beneficiaries into management fees and administrative costs for Wall Street firms<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Source: American Progress, “Let Us Count the Ways: The Cost of Privatization is in<o:p></o:p>
the Details.” November 2004 http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/socialsecurityreport.pdf (http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/socialsecurityreport.pdf)
<o:p></o:p>
9. Creates an immediate financial crisis for Social Security by draining money from the Trust Fund
<o:p></o:p>
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “New White House Details Show the<o:p></o:p>
Proposed Private Accounts Would Worsen Social Security’s Finances,” February 2004, http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05socsec.htm (http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05socsec.htm)
<o:p></o:p>
10.Destroys the guaranteed, inflation-proof benefits of Social Security, and replaces with private accounts that reduce benefits and put workers’ money at risk<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Source: American Progress, “Let Us Count the Ways: The Cost of Privatization is in the Details.” November 2004 http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/socialsecurityreport.pdf (http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/socialsecurityreport.pdf)

ki4kxq

09-18-2008, 08:56 AM

I am more convinced now that we should not be worshiping at the altar of capitalism and "The Free Market".

Greed at its worst.

May I kindly ask what you suggest? Socialism, communism? Just curious. Capitalism when left alone is still far and above better than anything else. Are there some that are greedy, sure. But at least in capitalism everyone has a shot at being greedy, from the smallest common man to the wealthy tycoon.

Also in capitalism, when others do stupid in spades, it normally does not affect those that don't. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is true. Mortgage companies are still issuing mortgages for those that are truly qualified. That is how they make their money and will help them out of this mess. Therefore, if you are in the market for a house and are credit worthy with some cash in the bank, you can find some great deals out there. It can actually be a great way to move up to a house that used to be out of reach price wise. Only now they can do it the right way, by buying at a lower price instead of buying at a price out of reach.

We just bought a spotless Dodge dually diesel pickup to haul our 5th wheel RV around. Because oil prices shot up and people have overextended themselves, they are selling these kinds of vehicles. Bought the thing for $9700, incredible deal. May just replace our suburban with a newer model while people are in "sell it cheap" mode. By the way, we paid CASH. Things drive much better when they are not dragging a huge payment book behind them.

ki4kxq

09-18-2008, 09:16 AM

usmc1

09-18-2008, 10:14 AM

Social security was indeed started as an insurance policy, but was quickly pushed as a retirement vehicle conning folks into thinking that SS was all they needed to retire with dignity. Therefore, a good number of folks are living on social security alone.

Your opinion, please present your source! But, FYI, over two-thirds of SS recipients do not live on SS alone. Slightly less than one-third do. Those who do are mostly disabled persons, low-income elderly and retirees, and survivors.

Does nothing to strengthen SS. That's the point. It needs to be gone. SS is nothing but a poorly run ponzi scheme.

Your opinion, please present your source!

Costs more than the current system? A private system is people investing their own money. That doesn't cost the system anything. Yes, at first we are going to have to bite the bullet to pay benefits to those that are receiving benefits now or are close to retirement. That is the price we are going to have to pay to get out from under this government boondoggle.

Your opinion, please present your source!

Even with paying fees for some funds, people will still have a much higher return on investment. They would just about have a higher return on investment by putting the money in a CD. They would at least have total control of their retirement dollars. And, those dollars would be part of their estate. I love how you just completely ignore that under a private system the retiree is able to pass on his money, not have the government suck it into a black hole.

Your opinion, please present your source! But, just to give you some much needed guidance, survivor's benefits are a substantial portion of the program.

By investing their own money, with guidelines, they can divert some of the money going into SS now into private disability insurance which is much better than SSI. I do believe that the same 15% should be invested toward retirement and disability, but the individual should own the account and make the decisions as to where it goes. This of course means that some investments will not be allowed, only reasonably safe ones.

Your opinion, please present your source!

More folks will live in dignity, not poverty. You live in poverty when you have to depend on someone else for your care. Not one point you raised is a reason to give the government your money and hope they take care of you when the time comes. People can do a much better job of staying out of poverty and building wealth when they control their money.

Your opinion, please present your source! But again, nothing about Social Security prevents people from investing. Yes, the money I pay into car insurance could be earning me a better return, unless....

Which is the point that you ignore, and which really nullifies all your unsubatantiated opinion. Social Security is not an investment program, it is a social program, an insurance program preventing the elderly, retirees, widows, widowers, orphans, suvivors, disabled people and disabled workers from being forced into poverty.

Your unsubstantiated claims otherwise prove nothing other than that you really do not have a clear understanding of the program or its issues.

At a personal level, it obvious you referred to none of the sources I provided you and chose to ignore the facts. Additionally, you offered no expert rebuttal to those sources.

.................................

Navigator

09-18-2008, 10:46 AM

The Bush Depression? What? We are still in a growing economy.

This market will recover, like it always does. As for us, we will still make money and invest. Stocks are on sale now!!! Just remember, the media has predicted 31 of the last 2 recessions,... Seems like not much fun to me so I don't think I'll participate in this recession/depression.

OK. Enjoy your mutual fund statements.

garbo

09-18-2008, 02:13 PM

I have always been the eternal optimist. History has shown that as a country we are resiliant. We have always risen above adversity and came out smelling like a rose.

I don't have a good feeling about this one! The effects of our greed and excess are not limited just to our country any longer. We will recover from this financial crisis but I believe with a whole new set of rules. CHANGE better work and better happen quickly or the effects of this breakdown will spread like wildfire. Washington isn't the only thing broken as we are witnessing every evening on the news! We need to start turning things around not just for us but for future generations. It looks like we will be burdening our citizens of tomorrow with a debt they could NEVER repay and a world even more unstable than what we have witnessed in the last few years! I don't blame Pres. Bush and the congress for creating this mess, but I do feel they were negligent in placing stop gap measures to prevent a breakdown in the system. If Bush were the head of a private corporation, he would be out on his behind faster than you can say.. ENRON!

Having spoken recently to friends and family living in other countries.. Sweden, Israel and Switzerland, we really are a global laughing stock and butt of many jokes. A cousin of mine living in Geneva (Switzerland) indicates that Bush is sometimes portrayed in their media as a baffoon! I believe the home of the brave and the land of the free is having a rude awakening and it may take a miracle to recover from the collapse of our financial markets and regain our place as a world leader again.

ki4kxq

09-18-2008, 02:31 PM

rone

09-18-2008, 02:35 PM

The title SZ it all. USMC-1 has a lot of opinions, and says them all here, apparently.

Yes USMC-1 it is my opinion as well as the opinion of others. Just like the sources you listed, those are their opinions. Others have run the figures and can justify their position of privatizing social security. It is ideology. You can twist figures to back your agenda, I just believe that the people, not government should control their own financial futures.

No I do not have time to go and look at endless links and get my own, so what. On average, I move this truck 600 to 700 miles a night. When I am done, I have to do the bookkeeping involved, then I come on here to argue with you fine folks. Again, these are matters of ideology, who do you believe should manage peoples money. I think that is best done by the people who earn the money, you think it's government. OK, but don't try to assert that yours are the only figures out there when you know that's not true.

Naturist Mark

09-18-2008, 04:02 PM

Capitalism when left alone is still far and above better than anything else.

Nope. Capitalism when left alone devolves into monopolies and robber barons. When lightly but properly regulated free markets are a marvel - thank God for FDR and the FTC and SEC and the Glass-Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) (RIP) for saving capitalism last century. Capitalism works when existing businesses cannot erect barriers to entry to prevent new competition. Capitalism works when companies cannot undercut competition by saddling the public with their externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities) - such as pollution, or in the case of Walmart - by increasing local Medicaid costs.

People who equate economic regulation with socialism understand neither.

-Mark

usmc1

09-18-2008, 04:51 PM

Yes USMC-1 it is my opinion as well as the opinion of others. Just like the sources you listed, those are their opinions. Others have run the figures and can justify their position of privatizing social security. It is ideology. You can twist figures to back your agenda, I just believe that the people, not government should control their own financial futures.

No I do not have time to go and look at endless links and get my own, so what. On average, I move this truck 600 to 700 miles a night. When I am done, I have to do the bookkeeping involved, then I come on here to argue with you fine folks. Again, these are matters of ideology, who do you believe should manage peoples money. I think that is best done by the people who earn the money, you think it's government. OK, but don't try to assert that yours are the only figures out there when you know that's not true.

Yeah, right! Until you support your unsubstantiated opinions with fact, they remain--unfounded, unsubstantiated, uninformed, unsourced and utterly and dismally incorrect opinion.

You make many claims, but can't back them up. Our neighbors over in Louisiana would describe that as having an alligator mouth and a mullet butt!

By the way, I'm thinking you may have told us about your 700-mile days almost as many times as your boy MCain has told us he was a POW.

Boreas

09-18-2008, 05:50 PM

The Bush Depression? What? We are still in a growing economy. I know the news media and the Obama camp want to really stretch the truth on this one in their bid for the White House, but you really need to stop listening to what they say and look at the numbers yourself.

You are the only person I have heard (seen) say this. Can I have some of those drugs? I'd love to live in that world.

Going into a depression, or having a financial crisis does not mean no recovery. Countries can and do recover.

Boreas

09-18-2008, 05:56 PM

May I kindly ask what you suggest? Socialism, communism? Just curious. Capitalism when left alone is still far and above better than anything else. Are there some that are greedy, sure. But at least in capitalism everyone has a shot at being greedy, from the smallest common man to the wealthy tycoon.

There you go with black and white thinking again. My point is that putting captialism (or corporatism now adays) above all else is not good. It is of course a valid PART of society. Too many people are measuring success in terms of dollars and cents. There are other measures of success that go alongside the dollar value.

We just bought a spotless Dodge dually diesel pickup to haul our 5th wheel RV around. Because oil prices shot up and people have overextended themselves, they are selling these kinds of vehicles. Bought the thing for $9700, incredible deal. May just replace our suburban with a newer model while people are in "sell it cheap" mode. By the way, we paid CASH. Things drive much better when they are not dragging a huge payment book behind them.

Black and white again. Perhaps the people you bought the gas guzzling pig from over-extended themselves. Others are deciding that they do not want to guzzle so much gas and pollute the atmosphere.

BTW, in case you haven't guessed, the acquisition of toys does not impress me. Especially when that acquisition is being used to try to impress.

Boreas

09-18-2008, 05:58 PM

Nope. Capitalism when left alone devolves into monopolies and robber barons. When lightly but properly regulated free markets are a marvel - thank God for FDR and the FTC and SEC and the Glass-Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) (RIP) for saving capitalism last century. Capitalism works when existing businesses cannot erect barriers to entry to prevent new competition. Capitalism works when companies cannot undercut competition by saddling the public with their externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities) - such as pollution, or in the case of Walmart - by increasing local Medicaid costs.

People who equate economic regulation with socialism understand neither.

-Mark

:applause: Well said.

usmc1

09-18-2008, 06:32 PM

There you go with black and white thinking again.

Yep, gotta be capitalism or socialism or communism. Doesn't allow for some of the others: transnational capitalism;,in neo-corporatist relationships between the state and private enterprise<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[/URL]</sup> or the economic policies of Social Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#cite_note-4).[U] Or for corporate/state economies so favored by facists, or for my favorite, plantation economies. Yassuh massa, steppen' lively now boss!

ki4kxq

09-20-2008, 08:56 AM

You are the only person I have heard (seen) say this. Can I have some of those drugs? I'd love to live in that world.

Going into a depression, or having a financial crisis does not mean no recovery. Countries can and do recover.

It is not drugs, it is fact. The US economy is still growing, albeit very slowly. We have not even reached a recession yet, (2 consecutive qtrs of neg growth) how in the world are some people classifying this as a depression?

There are indeed some sectors of the economy and the nation that are having a very hard time. However, I have the luxury of traveling this country on a daily basis. Malls are still filled with shoppers, restaurants still have waiting times, movie theatres are still being filled, sporting event tickets are still selling out at very hefty prices. I said to go look at the actual numbers. Anybody that does will think saying we are anywhere near a depression is stupid.

That being said, do Americans need to look at what is happening and wake up. Yes!! They need to stop spending like their congressmen, pay off their debt, and start saving a little money. However, to run around and scream we are in a depression, is not only wrong, but it is grossly irresponsible. Keep saying it long enough, and the people will be scared enough to make it come true.

ki4kxq

09-20-2008, 09:14 AM

Black and white again. Perhaps the people you bought the gas guzzling pig from over-extended themselves. Others are deciding that they do not want to guzzle so much gas and pollute the atmosphere.

BTW, in case you haven't guessed, the acquisition of toys does not impress me. Especially when that acquisition is being used to try to impress.

My point was, that what is hard times for some people or areas of the country, can be quite good for others. The object then is to fix only what is wrong with the golden goose, not hack it to death with senseless regulation and so called fixes because it's not working for everybody. Also, as much as I know you hate to hear it, some people are hurting because of their actions. They are the same ones that will make the wrong decisions even when the economy is good.

As far as the gas guzzling, I like others, even quite a few noted scientists, believe that man made global warming is a crock. Therefore, we choose not to drive a prius or anything similar. The Glenn Beck show one day was having a contest as to who had the biggest carbon footprint besides the global warming guru himself, Al Gore. We finished pretty close to the top as the big truck gets somewhere between 6 and 8mpg. We drive it on average 1300 miles per day (without carbon credits).

Sorry about poking you in the ribs with that one Boreas, but sometimes it seems that those who spout being non judgemental, are the first ones to admonish someone for not living the way they think is appropriate. (ie "gas guzzler cars) If that wasn't your intent, then I misread your statement, the observation stands though.

Naturist Mark

09-20-2008, 09:58 AM

It is not drugs, it is fact. The US economy is still growing, albeit very slowly. We have not even reached a recession yet, (2 consecutive qtrs of neg growth) how in the world are some people classifying this as a depression?

If it isn't a recession when everybody except a select few are getting poorer - you need a new definition of recession.

If you put 9999 homeless men and Warren Buffet in a room - on 'average' they are all multi-millionaires. Meaningless. It is much more accurate to use medians and percentile rankings. The median income of Americans is on a 7 year decline - over 90% of Americans bring home less real income.

Business might be doing well - on average - but that isn't 'trickling down' to the employees.

And I'd like to see some figures on the median gross revenue of US businesses. I have a feeling that main street isn't really all that prosperous.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

09-20-2008, 10:12 AM

The Glenn Beck show one day was having a contest as to who had the biggest carbon footprint besides the global warming guru himself, Al Gore.

Oh geez, not Beck again. He is not a cite - when he provides sources for his version of reality - cite them. The only reason Al Gore even has a carbon footprint in Beck's scenario is because Beck chooses not to believe in carbon offsets.

It is very convenient to live in a world where reality is subject to dismissal on the basis of what you choose to believe.

If you want to debate global warming - go to this topic (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=11422)

-Mark

Navigator

09-20-2008, 10:13 AM

I like others, even quite a few noted scientists, believe that man made global warming is a crock.

You might want to consider listening to something a little more substantive than the entertainers on Clear Channel stations while you're driving that truck.

Even the quickest searches...like this one below, from Wikipedia...tend to disagree with your belief.

"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies."

At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities or risk losing funding." -end Wikipedia quote-

Still, I'm open minded...and curious about the "noted scientists" you mentioned whose opinions are the basis for your beliefs.

Have they published anything on global warming in peer reviewed scientific journals that you can point me to? Do they publish anything at all on any subject in peer reviewed journals? If they've published at all, did Exxon-Mobil pay them for the articles? Can you pass along 2 or 3 of their names?

Thanks...

jon71

09-20-2008, 12:21 PM

I've seen a little Glenn Beck. He can't be taken seriously.

Qikdraw

09-20-2008, 01:35 PM

I just saw this on tv..

Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxed_Out:_Hard_Times,_Easy_Credit_and_the_Era_of_ Predatory_Lenders)

Everybody should watch this.

Boreas

09-20-2008, 02:31 PM

Sorry about poking you in the ribs with that one Boreas, but sometimes it seems that those who spout being non judgemental, are the first ones to admonish someone for not living the way they think is appropriate. (ie "gas guzzler cars) If that wasn't your intent, then I misread your statement, the observation stands though

Actually I was being judgemental. I do not see any reason for driving a big truck unless work demands it. You drive a tractor trailer. Fair enough. That is something that is necessary. I find things like Hummers to be the most obnoxious vehicles out there. There is no reason to drive a gas guzzling pig like that, in my opinion.

For the record, I live in the land of the big truck. 1 ton Fords, Dodges and Chevys abound here. This is oilpatch country. This is the part of the country for manly men who love their gas guzzling toys. With the rising gas prices, have come the more fuel efficient vehicles. Thank goodness. Now people are starting to look down at us driving small vehicles, and will see us from their lofty perches. If I worked in the oilpatch, or had a farm, or another reason to drive a truck I would. I will not just drive one for status or to be "more protected" if I hit a moose. I will definitely not drive one as a status symbol. I have no need to prove my worth by driving a big expensive vehicle.

I have never claimed to be non-judgemental. As you have noticed, I do have areas where I am quite judgemental. :sneaky:

As for the comments about global warming, others have responded beautifully. I have no need to add to their comments right now.

Naturist Mark

09-20-2008, 10:10 PM

I find things like Hummers to be the most obnoxious vehicles out there. There is no reason to drive a gas guzzling pig like that, in my opinion.

Oh gee-wizz Boreas. You said "pig". Now you'll be accused of saying nasty things about Sarah Palin. I mean - what else could you have been referring too? (Keeping in mind that the context of you remarks no longer matter).

You darn liburls, always spouting the hate, sexism and racism.

Yarrgh!

Boreas

09-21-2008, 07:12 AM

Oh gee-wizz Boreas. You said "pig". Now you'll be accused of saying nasty things about Sarah Palin. I mean - what else could you have been referring too? (Keeping in mind that the context of you remarks no longer matter).

You darn liburls, always spouting the hate, sexism and racism.

Yarrgh!

:rofl:

:o Yes, I guess we are. ;)

I am Canadian too though. I don't seem to have the same pig metaphor as you folks do down there. :sneaky:

ki4kxq

09-21-2008, 08:58 AM

Oh gee-wizz Boreas. You said "pig". Now you'll be accused of saying nasty things about Sarah Palin. I mean - what else could you have been referring too? (Keeping in mind that the context of you remarks no longer matter).

You darn liburls, always spouting the hate, sexism and racism.

Yarrgh!

No, she did not even mention the word lipstick, so how could she be talking about Gov Palin?

ki4kxq

09-21-2008, 09:05 AM

Actually I was being judgemental. I do not see any reason for driving a big truck unless work demands it. You drive a tractor trailer. Fair enough. That is something that is necessary. I find things like Hummers to be the most obnoxious vehicles out there. There is no reason to drive a gas guzzling pig like that, in my opinion.

For the record, I live in the land of the big truck. 1 ton Fords, Dodges and Chevys abound here. This is oilpatch country. This is the part of the country for manly men who love their gas guzzling toys. With the rising gas prices, have come the more fuel efficient vehicles. Thank goodness. Now people are starting to look down at us driving small vehicles, and will see us from their lofty perches. If I worked in the oilpatch, or had a farm, or another reason to drive a truck I would. I will not just drive one for status or to be "more protected" if I hit a moose. I will definitely not drive one as a status symbol. I have no need to prove my worth by driving a big expensive vehicle.

I have never claimed to be non-judgemental. As you have noticed, I do have areas where I am quite judgemental. :sneaky:

As for the comments about global warming, others have responded beautifully. I have no need to add to their comments right now.

We live in Texas. Once you get out of the city limits of Dallas and/or Austin, hybrids are illegal!!! LOL

We have 2 diesel guzzlers and 1 gas guzzler. However, we have 2 labs to cart around, scuba gear that takes up an enormous amount of space, usually 2 or 3 people going with us, or towing either an RV or something else. Actually, my brother-in-law drives a Hummer, but then again he is an evil conservative like I am. I also have a 72 Super Beetle Conv if that gives me any brownie points, but then again, it really isn't all that fuel efficient compared to today's cars.

ki4kxq

09-21-2008, 09:22 AM

You might want to consider listening to something a little more substantive than the entertainers on Clear Channel stations while you're driving that truck.

Even the quickest searches...like this one below, from Wikipedia...tend to disagree with your belief.

"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies."

At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities or risk losing funding." -end Wikipedia quote-

Still, I'm open minded...and curious about the "noted scientists" you mentioned whose opinions are the basis for your beliefs.

Have they published anything on global warming in peer reviewed scientific journals that you can point me to? Do they publish anything at all on any subject in peer reviewed journals? If they've published at all, did Exxon-Mobil pay them for the articles? Can you pass along 2 or 3 of their names?

Thanks...

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Above is a link to icecap.us. The article is about John Coleman, founder of the weather channel. He believes that man made global warming is nothing but a scam to part you from you money.

When you're done with the article, go to FAQ's and Myths. Maybe that will give you some new insight.

Boreas

09-21-2008, 10:04 AM

I prefer the term Climate Change to Global Warming. Even still, that is too big a concept for this little brain. I prefer to look at the local level, and at my own personal "environment" and how that is affected.

I have become increasingly sensitive to chemicals in things like perfumes, laundry detergent, household cleaners and even in foods. If these chemicals affect our bodies, what are they doing to the bigger environment? It can't be good.

I chose to recycle, partly because there is very good evidence that landfills are filling up to over flowing. Why do we need to do this? If there is an alternative, then I am willing to try it. Yes recycling has its issues too. I hope it is the lesser of the evils.

I do some work with First Nations people here. When you listen to elders' stories about how things have changed in this area, it is scary. This is oil and gas country. We have oil and gas wells dotting our beautiful landscape from here to the Yukon border, and all over Alberta. The wildlife is drinking contaminated water, and now their meat tastes like oil or gas. There are also reports of increased cancers, birth defects and miscarriages, among other health concerns. This is on a local level. What is happening on a global level.

A huge portion of British Columbia is covered with dying pine trees that have been eaten by the Mountain Pine Beetle. Apparently this is a critter that has existed forever. Recently though, it has been allowed to survive and thrive because there have not been the extreme cold temperatures to kill them off in the winter. This is one reason, another is forestry control methods that have made sure their favourite foods (pine trees of a certain age) are plentiful. Seeing the miles and acres of red pine trees is very disturbing.

I personally do not know about the intricacies of global warming, or climate change science, and do not wish to comment on that. I personally do prefer to live in a cleaner environment. I will do what I can. I know that gas is a limited resource, so I will use it wisely. I drive a small car. I do though, still fly or drive to distant places, so I am not pure or virtuous. I just prefer to take the steps I can right now. I have also changed to more "environmentally friendly" cleaning products because my lungs and overall health benefits from these. If they help the larger environment, that is good too.

Instead of arguing over the existence of the problem, why not do something to make the world a better place?

Qikdraw

09-21-2008, 11:24 AM

Link (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09192008/watch3.html)

BILL MOYERS: From our offices here in New York, we look out on the tall gleaming skyscrapers that are cathedrals of wealth and power — the Olympus ruled by the gods of finance, the temples of the mighty, the holy of holies, whose priests guard the sacred texts of salvation containing the secrets of sub-prime lending and derivatives as mysterious and elusive as the grail itself.

This last couple of weeks, ordinary mortals below could almost hear the ripcords of golden parachutes being pulled as the divinities on high prepared for soft, safe landings. All this while tossing their workers into the purgatory of unemployment, like sacrificial lambs. Yes, the billionaires who fed during the fat years of speculation are long gone, to their yachts and offshore islands.

During the last five years of his tenure as CEO of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld's total take was $354 million. The current chairman of Merrill Lynch, who's been on the job just nine months, pocketed a $15 million signing bonus. His predecessor, Stan O'Neal, retired with a package valued at $161 million after the company reported an 8 billion dollar loss in a single quarter. And remember Bear Stearns chairman James Cayne? After the company collapsed and was up for sale at bargain prices, he sold his stake for more than $60 million. And the former heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the gods who failed, are fighting to keep severance packages of close to $24 million combined on top of the millions in salary each earned last year while slaughtering the golden calf. As it is written in the gospel according to me first, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

But let's change our metaphor for a moment. Let's go to our sports desk. Because if religion is no longer the soul of capitalism, we have to look somewhere else to understand this new gilded age. And there it is, just a few miles north of Wall Street, the "House that Ruth Built". Babe Ruth, the Sultan of Swat, who ruled Yankee Stadium and sired generations of princes after him: DiMaggio and Gehrig, Mantle, Maris, and Jackson. Yankee Stadium, as fabled a place to Americans as Ilium was to the Greeks.

But believe it or not, this Sunday — weather permitting — the Yankees will play their last game here. The stadium's being demolished, to be replaced next year with a brand new one. What a history to disappear down the memory hole.

On opening day, in 1923, New York Governor Al Smith threw out the first pitch and John Philip Sousa led a big brass band playing his famous marches. It was the roaring Twenties, when the money flowed like bootleg whiskey, the pride before the fall. The year after the market crashed, as the Great Depression began, Babe Ruth was taking home $80,000 a year, more than the President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. "Why not?" Ruth asked "I had a better year than he did."

Yankee star Alex Rodriguez had a better year than both of them. This season, A-Rod is making $28 million. Just part of an annual Yankee payroll of $200 million-plus, the richest in baseball. Their owner, George Steinbrenner, is one of the country's richest tycoons, among the Forbes 400. But when it came to paying for the new pleasure dome costing $1.3 billion, the millionaires on the field and King Midas in the skybox came up with some razzle-dazzle plays to finance their wealth machine. Tax-free bonds, requiring ordinary citizens to subsidize the construction, and hundreds of millions more for new parking garages, a train station and parks. Those parks, by the way, will supposedly replace the ones seized by the city to make room for the new stadium. The little league games that used to flourish on sandlots just outside the old ball park have been moved miles away, sent down to the minors on a long road trip.

That's okay, you may think, there will be plenty of room for the tax-paying public to come root, root, root for the home team — even the coliseum in ancient Rome had bleachers, for the commoners. But in fact there will be 5,000 fewer seats in the new stands.

And while the Yankees reportedly have promised that half of what's left will cost $45 apiece or less, those seats that used to cost $250, right behind the dugout, will cost you $850. And if you want to be near home plate, you'll have to cough up $2,500...per game.

Meanwhile, there will be more luxury suites and party rooms where the fat cats gather, safely removed from the sweaty masses. Corporations and wealthy individuals will be able to rent the luxury suites for anywhere from $600,000 to $850,000 tax deductible dollars a year, assuming they haven't filed for bankruptcy this week.

GEORGE STEINBRENNER: "We are all here today to celebrate the new Yankee Stadium. It's a pleasure to give it to you people. That's what we're doing. This is for you people."

BILL MOYERS: Why aren't the fans and tax payers giving the Yankees a Bronx Cheer? They are. But city officials rolled over them while making sure local politicians stay in the line up. The pols are getting their own luxury suite at the new stadium for free and first shot at buying the best available seats.

And so this Sunday evening we will bid farewell to dear old Yankee Stadium, and await the new colossus to rise from its ruins. It will cast its majestic shadow across one of the country's poorest neighborhoods, whose residents will watch from the outside as suburban drivers avail themselves of 9,000 new or refurbished parking spaces. Never mind all the exhaust, even though in this part of town respiratory disease is already so high they call it "asthma alley."

Not that the well-to-do in the infield seats will have to hear that wheezing. They'll have access to a private club, a private entrance and a private elevator. Totems of this Gilded Age. Let the games begin.

That's it for the Journal. Don't forget to check out our website at pbs.org. And remember the first presidential debate is coming up and we want to hear what questions you'd like to ask the candidates. Be in touch with us at pbs.org. I'm Bill Moyers.

Pretty pathetic isn't it?

Navigator

09-21-2008, 12:39 PM

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Above is a link to icecap.us. The article is about John Coleman, founder of the weather channel. He believes that man made global warming is nothing but a scam to part you from you money.

Thanks...interesting citation, although Mr. Coleman doesn't appear to have had much (read..any) experience writing peer reviewed scientific analysis...but, of course, you have the right to base your beliefs on anything you want.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this quote below, from the article you cited, is pretty much the heart of his "argument" against global warming or climate change.

"I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid."

So...to summarize the scientific views that you say formed your belief that global warming is a "crock"...this San Diego TV weatherman read about global warming, thought about it, talked about it, decided it's a "scam" and...oh, lets not forget...claims lots of people with far better credentials than his agree with him...although he doesn't name any.

And you buy that.

OK...but somehow, I'm no longer surprised that you haven't heard about the coming financial market meltdown and the ensuing Bush Depression.

Qikdraw

09-21-2008, 01:23 PM

This is scary (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/21/9322/74248/245/602838)

BOB MOON: OK, I'm about to unload some numbers on you here, so I'll speak slowly so you can follow this.

The value of the entire U.S. Treasuries market: $4.5 trillion.

The value of the entire mortgage market: $7 trillion.

The size of the U.S. stock market: $22 trillion.

OK, you ready?

The size of the credit default swap market last year: $45 trillion.

KAI RYSSDAL: That's a lot of money, Bob.

Boreas

09-21-2008, 01:40 PM

It is currently 1:36 Pacific time here, and Rex Murphy is on Cross Country Check Up on www.cbc.ca (http://www.cbc.ca) (if you care to listen, you'll find it in there somewhere.)

They are talking about the mess in the US, and I think how it affects this country and others. The guest was saying that the organizations that sold the sub-prime mortgages, do not actually own them because they sold them to investors. Also, these investors do not know what they have bought, because the sellers have clumped mortgages in with car loans and other things.

I am not listening to this right now. I think I need some denial and blissful ignorance. :surprised:

Does anyone know about this? This information plus what Qikdraw has posted makes me think that these folks need to be held accountable for the mess they have created. Instead, they seem to be walking away with huge nest eggs.

And to think that some would blame the little guy. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/rolleye/rolleye0018.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/freesmiley.php?smiley=rolleye/rolleye0018.gif)

usmc1

09-22-2008, 10:11 AM

HOW WE GOT IN THIS MESS

This is a very good read, and I heartily suggest it to anyone with a real interest beyond the rhetoric and spin.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/21/9322/74248/245/602838

Qikdraw

09-22-2008, 02:20 PM

usmc1

09-22-2008, 06:40 PM

Proof that usmc1 never reads my posts. :D

:stick:
Huh, get that damned stick out of my ribs.

Did I miss this somewhere. I saw your Moon blurb, did you put the whole link up somewhere? Sorry.

They had me in New Mexico Friday and Colorado Saturday, and I missed some of the posts, so if I stepped on your lines, sorry.

Qikdraw

09-22-2008, 08:14 PM

Huh, get that damned stick out of my ribs.

Did I miss this somewhere. I saw your Moon blurb, did you put the whole link up somewhere? Sorry.

They had me in New Mexico Friday and Colorado Saturday, and I missed some of the posts, so if I stepped on your lines, sorry.

LOL :D

Look up at the top of the page, or a few posts of mine up, and you'll see the same link. :)

No need to be sorry, I was just poking fun at you. :stick:

hehe

Naturist Mark

09-22-2008, 08:51 PM

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." - Section 8 of the Wall Street bailout bill (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/)

Nothing to be alarmed about - unless you think giving unchecked power (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.html) and funds to the people who allowed this meltdown to happen in the first place is ... problematic. And gee ... wouldn't it be easy to steal if no one can oversee what you are doing and no court can hold you accountable? It's not like we haven't seen a billion dollars or 12 slip through the cracks before.

And then there is this - Welcome to the final stages of the coup... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/welcome-to-the-final-stag_b_127990.html) which sees this as the fulfillment of Prescott Bush's Business Plot (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml) to overthrow the US Government and replace it with a fascist regime. And even if this 'enabling act' fails, they still have this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html).

Here's some mood music to listen to while checking out the links:

Steve Earle - The Revolution Starts Now
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3247397568-audio-player.swf?audioUrl=http://www.sharkthang.com/tbrsongs/RevolutionStarts.mp3" allowscriptaccess="never" quality="best" bgcolor="#DEB678" wmode="window" flashvars="playerMode=embedded" width="400" height="27"></embed>

Billy Bragg - All You Fascists - lyrics by Woodie Guthrie
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3247397568-audio-player.swf?audioUrl=http://www.suddenlyeverythingsucks.com/jukebox/billy_bragg_all_you_fascists.mp3" allowscriptaccess="never" quality="best" bgcolor="#DEB678" wmode="window" flashvars="playerMode=embedded" width="400" height="27"></embed>

-Mark

usmc1

09-24-2008, 03:51 PM

What do you do when you’re getting your arse kicked? Hell, down here in Texas you yell “Calf Rope!” (http://www.pbs.org/speak/words/trackthatword/ttw/?i=1194) I guess over in Arizona it’s, “Let’s cancel the debate and focus on the economy, instead”. I think the Republican phrase is to, "cut and run".
 <o:p></o:p>
But, the rules are, if you yell “calf rope” it means you’re confessing to getting a butt whipping, and just don’t want no more. Kids on my boyhood playgrounds called it, “King’s X”, or “time-out”. It all means the same thing, the other fellow is up on you, and you need some relief.
 <o:p></o:p>
So now we have McCain, who is slipping further and further behind in every poll, whose vice-presidential selection has become the staple of late night jokesters, and whose campaign manager is revealed to be a lobbyist tied to a Wall Street firm which is under FBI fraud investigation, calling for a postponement of the Friday debate, in order for him to “focus on the economy” ie. "Calf Rope".
 <o:p></o:p>
Finally, we have some transparency in government. This is as transparent as it gets. McCain is getting a right proper little butt whipping and looking for way out in order to once again regroup. And, to merely say he is taking an arse whipping misses the point.
 <o:p></o:p>
Just a day or so ago, conservative mossback pundit, and all around twit, George Will, acknowledged that McCain’s behavior was frightening, and did not bode well for the country (I add—the entire freaking world) should he be elected. Will admitted that Obama’s supposed “lack of experience” was highly desirable to McCain’s “erratic” utterances and behavior.
 <o:p></o:p>
Now, there comes a time in every parent’s life when you have to encourage a tearful child to hang in and not give up, and that sometimes you have to take a few knocks, and not yell King’s X”, no matter how bad you want to. It looks as though McCain missed that lesson.
 <o:p></o:p>
“Let’s stop the campaign and focus on the economy”, sounds uncannily like my sixth grade buddy, Bobby Half-pint, up at the Water Tower Playground, while in the middle of a losing fist-fight, taking off, and while running away up the hill, crying out that he could hear his mother calling him home for dinner.
 <o:p></o:p>
Someone needs to advise McCain that the moment for his “taking care of the economy” was lost about the time got himself enmeshed with the Keating Savings and Loan boondoggle (http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?p=8), and subsequent years of deregulation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR2008092001746.html?hpid=topnews), and that a president really has to deal with more than one thing at a time.
 <o:p></o:p>
After all, try telling Putin “Kings X”, I’m busy with something else right now—Cindy wants me home for dinner.