Karl Marx and the USA

[jamac]

The free market is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the US government. So much for small government. Every man woman and child owns shares in FAILED companies. Every US taxpayer owes more than most of them will make in 5 years.
This is a result of a FREE FOR ALL and not of freedom.

Republican anti regulatory stance has mostly caused this. Fascism has failed in Germany and it fails (luckily) in the US. It very much looks that soft socialism is a far better choice than soft fascism.

I am in the 5% that will be taxed higher by Obama (I support his campaign to the max allowed). I am willing to pay for new bridges, roads, health care and education and I am willing to pay for our troops to come home. I have 6 employees who get bonuses for a job well done. I run all my businesses on my own energy and we have a small fleet of Priuses. I believe these choices have kept us in the money.

I am not willing to pay for the mistakes of idiots and Seriously Dimwitted Whackos that are clueless. A lot like that roommate who never pays the rent.

How about you?


PS: I regret to admit that I have to come to HATE Republicans. I hope I can get over this in the future.

[@_@ Artman]

You forgot Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73KlhUq1W8).

Ron Paul is one of the lone voices of truth in the Congress. But don't worry, his message is getting out and in turn many young people are learning from him and will be Congressmen and women someday.

That is if there is still a United States.

We are in trouble.

[Outsider]

The term "Free Market" = When rich guys say, "while we are making money, we want no interference, rules or regulations, but when things go apeshit, we need taxpayers money to save our companies"

[Outsider]

The real issue is more regulated or less regulated markets. Free Market is a meaningless term. There is no market in the world even close to being 'free' and/or unregulated.

[Outsider]

One more thing.

If (and I really mean 'if') this financial problem resolves itself with any kind of normailty, what and when can the public, or average Joe, expect any kind of return for bailing out the private sector.

More than likely, what now belongs to the public (ok i know it doesn't), will be sold off cheaply to the very private sector it rescued - and they will make even more money (ie privatized profits, socialized losses) and Joe Public will lose out again.

After losing their houses and jobs to pay for the bail out.

We should at least be invited to stockholder meetings.

[e1618978]

And that statement discloses your misunderstanding of the free market. The free market allows people (and businesses) to fail and doesn't bail them out with money stolen from other people.

Don't blame this shit on the "free market". That is simply wrong. This is all so not free-market is nuts. This is socialism+fascism (in varying degrees or proportions of each).

In this "free market" system, a number of banks became so highly leveraged that they were guaranteed to fail, and so large that their failure would have dragged us into an economic cesspool that it would have taken us a decade or longer to get out of.

We need regulation for investment banks that mirrors our regulation for commercial banks, so that they can't set up this same situation in the future. If the people that took the risks were the only ones hurt, then I would agree with you, but that isn't the case.

[jamac]

We should at least be invited to stockholder meetings.

They are called elections. Much like a corporation the shareholder (taxpayer) has a voice as to who leads.

Unfortunately we are not allowed to sell our stocks and basically Bush is using our money to buy very expensive NOTHING.

Again it comes to Karl Marx: "History repeats itself............" (Damm those french guys, especially when they are right)

I am only invested in energy producing hardware, not stocks. The best thing I have ever done. The wind makes money for me not some Wallstreet Greediot.

[Jubelum]

Republican anti regulatory stance has mostly caused this. .

You're flat wrong. Your above statement is an Obama talking point...
Which party has for years advocated greater oversight and limits on Fannie and Freddie?
Which party has consistently advocated expanding these quasi-governmental organizations?

Harold Raines works for McCain? Jim Johnson too?

Please read this story (http://www.businessweek.com/bw50/content/mar2002/a3776033.htm) with Democratic operative, and Fannie VP, Jamie Gorelick.... Hopefully this will clear up the misconceptions revealed in your post. The genesis of this nightmare? Here you go (http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709), all spelled out.

Every time the GOP TRIED to get a handle on Fannie and Freddie, the leftist Dems screamed about "hating the poor."
To say that Republicans so-called "anti-regulatory stance" cause this is complete and total bovine scatology.

[Jubelum]

I thought Karl was German.

:lol:

Karl probably agreed with you.

[Jubelum]

Apparently then, it isn't the GOP that believes in free-market principles, and is infact operating under guise of communism - which they achieved on an unprecedented scale over the last month.

REPUBLICANS = COMMUNISM (in disguise - preaching that communism is teh-evil™)

WTF are you talking about? Communism? Really? :???:
Advocating better government oversight of an organization that is quasi-governmental in the first place is not communism. How silly. "Under guise of communism..." :lol:

What exactly would you propose that the Administration do?
What about our Democratic Congress, what would you have Madame Speaker do?

[franksargent]

So how much is this socialized bailout going to cost the taxpayer ultimately?

Hundreds of billions of dollars. At least. A trillion dollars (or more). Maybe. :mad:

What sort of return can the taxpayers expect to see from this goobermint bailout of private industries?

0% or -1% or -2% or -3% or -4% or -5% or -6% or -7% or -8% or -9% or -10% or -11% or -12% or -13% or -14% or -15% or -16% or -17% or -18% or -19% -20% or -21% or -22% or -23% or -24% or -25% or -26% or -27% or -28% or -29% or -30% or -31% or -32% or -33% or -34% or -35% or -36% or -37% or -38% or -39% -40% or -41% or -42% or -43% or -44% or -45% or -46% or -47% or -48% or -49% -50% or -51% or -52% or -53% or -54% or -55% or -56% or -57% or -58% or -59% -60% or -61% or -62% or -63% or -64% or -65% or -66% or -67% or -68% or -69% -70% or -71% or -72% or -73% or -74% or -75% or -76% or -77% or -78% or -79% -80% or -81% or -82% or -83% or -84% or -85% or -86% or -87% or -88% or -89% -90% or -91% or -92% or -93% or -94% or -95% or -96% or -97% or -98% or -99% or -100% or hell forbid, even more.

Fuck GWB's goobermint.

GWB certified Worst President Ever (WPE).

I want to see revised 2008 and 2009 estimates of federal receipts from The Worst Deficit Spender Ever (TWDSE) Office of (mis) Management and Budget (deficits). And I want to see revised estimates for the next 4 or 9 out years (2010-2013 or 2010-2018) from either the pukes at OmMBd or CBdO.

TYVM

[FloorJack]

One more thing.

If (and I really mean 'if') this financial problem resolves itself with any kind of normailty, what and when can the public, or average Joe, expect any kind of return for bailing out the private sector.

More than likely, what now belongs to the public (ok i know it doesn't), will be sold off cheaply to the very private sector it rescued - and they will make even more money (ie privatized profits, socialized losses) and Joe Public will lose out again.

After losing their houses and jobs to pay for the bail out.

If you read everything that's going on ... what's going to happen is that the US is going to buy a lot of paper that the market doesn't know how to value right now. They are not going to pay list price for it. So the banks will take a loss. That paper could actually be worth something. If the housing market comes back and banks understand the value of the MBS and what not the US could sell them back into the market at a profit. OR it could go the other way?

The AIG loan is a two year loan. I'm going to guess that the US wants to sell the dicey paper back into the market in 5 years. Dust their hands off and walk away. That's what happened with the RTC.

Right now everyone is so freaked out about this dicey paper out there that banks wont loan money to each other. This is pushing up the short term loan rate that small business rely on to do business. So they have to get the bad paper out of there or the economy could die. Watch the GDP sink!

But that's what I read and hear.

[franksargent]

Sadly, this little trillion dollar bail-out is just a fraction of the money wasted on the war on 'weapons-that-dont-exist'

I wonder what the return on "WTDE" will be?

Thats Faith-based-politics for you.

The price we pay for electing people that have hotlines to God, believe in Creationism, and think that Jesus is holding their hand as they sign the war-order.

(So with that in mind, why dont we all vote for McCain/Palin!)

You have to admit though, that as far as self-fulfilling prophecies go, the Christian Wingers have done a remarkable job in bringing around the day of judgement. No doubt this is their tribulation...I wonder whats going on at Rapture-ready these days? :lol:

If only they could turn their Obama-Messiah thing around into Obama-the ANTICHRIST, they'd sure be on a winner.

Well according to CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9706) the fake WOT has so far run up $858 billion in debt (FY2009 isn't fully funded yet and will very likely need an additional $100+ billion). So GWB gave us all the trillion dollar (and growing) fake war, expect McCain to add a few trillion to that "fake war" if elected.

Fuck the Republicans and fuck the conservatives.

[screener]

You're flat wrong. Your above statement is an Obama talking point... but it's completely dishonest.
Which party has for years advocated greater oversight and limits on Fannie and Freddie?
Which party has consistently advocated expanding these quasi-governmental organizations?

Harold Raines works for McCain? Jim Johnson too?

Please read this story (http://www.businessweek.com/bw50/content/mar2002/a3776033.htm) with Democratic operative, and Fannie VP, Jamie Gorelick.... Hopefully this will clear up the misconceptions revealed in your post. The genesis of this nightmare? Here you go (http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709), all spelled out.

Every time the GOP TRIED to get a handle on Fannie and Freddie, the leftist Dems screamed about "hating the poor."
To say that Republicans so-called "anti-regulatory stance" cause this is complete and total bovine scatology.
Ah, it's Clinton's fault in your all spelled out link.
according to this story, Clinton just made it to hard (regulations) to get low income people into their own homes and forced the lenders to lower standards.
It's all that fucker Clinton's fault.

I suppose Gramm was on a mission from god huh?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/mccain_and_the_meltdown
McCain's former economic adviser is ex-Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. On Dec. 15, 2000, hours before Congress was to leave for Christmas recess, Gramm had a 262-page amendment slipped into the appropriations bill. It forbade federal agencies to regulate the financial derivatives that greased the skids for passing along risky mortgage-backed securities to investors.
There you go, the tough regulations lightened on those poor lenders and made life good again.

Kinda makes me wonder when these so called bad loans were made, during Clinton's reign or more recent.
A question for the ages I suppose.

Almost forgot, a speech the esteemed George W gave almost 2 years later,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html
And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.
And part of the cornerstone of America is the ability for somebody, regardless of where they're from, regardless of where they were born, to say, this is my home; I own this home, it is my piece of property, it is my part of the American experience. It is essential that we stay focused on the goal, and work hard to achieve that goal. And when it's all said and done,

We can look back and say, because of my work, because of our collective work, America is a better place. Out of evil came incredible good.
So yeah, all Clinton's fault, Republicans' hands are clean.

[jamac]

Every time the GOP TRIED to get a handle on Fannie and Freddie, the leftist Dems screamed about "hating the poor."
To say that Republicans so-called "anti-regulatory stance" cause this is complete and total bovine scatology.

So the GOP had congress, and the presidency for 6 years but still were unable to get this done...?

It takes a lot of believing to be a Republican, knowing makes you a Democrat.

[jamac]

How Right he was.

What no-one has been able to achieve in the entire history of the United States, has been achieved by a couple of unelected, shadowy characters running the show.

America just fell and surrendered without a single shot being fired. (And the big distraction that allowed this to happen was a couple of planes hitting a couple of towers)

Amazing.

Osama bin Laden, the most influential person of all time. He knows how to spot a sucker (GWB) from (literally) 10,000 miles away.

[NOFEER]

You forgot Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73KlhUq1W8).

Ron Paul is one of the lone voices of truth in the Congress. But don't worry, his message is getting out and in turn many young people are learning from him and will be Congressmen and women someday.

That is if there is still a United States.

We are in trouble.

capitalism works, its dysfunctional when business wishing to eliminate or shield itself from competition colludes with government to pervert policy.....pay off the politicians with our money to build power for the company and select corrupt politicians who want more power ...that is our present government. government policies to serve a few hurts many we need an a vigilant people and where is the media which should be our helper and "watchdog" again collusion on the part of the media to be part of the power elite, at our cost government and media, have sold us out.

[FloorJack]

well, SDW, I understand you can get into alot of trouble if you post after having been banned... Just a passing thought!

But on-topic, in regards to the dicey paper, yes eventually it will be worth something (and they all know this - This is why I think this has been planned - Its the biggest Land/property grab in history) - the FED (which is NOT the US (ie, the people or the government) as you state) and the banks holding on to it - will own a vast amount of property and land - especially after we have slipped into depression - and they got it all for FREE - which is something that alot of very prominent figures warned against which I made a list of at the top of this thread.

Not exactly. The fed is a private/public bank(s) created by and act of congress where the board of governors are appointed by the president. The Fed is the US for all intents and purposes.

You might enjoy reading up on the current crisis and the federal banking system since you have an interest in it.

[@_@ Artman]

Let's use (and tweak) your analogy:

Cause A: Someone attempting to design or fix the brakes screws it up.
Cause B: Someone maliciously disables the breaks.

Result: Car drives off cliff (no matter the cause the result is the same)

What I'm saying is that the real root cause here was that you let someone near your brakes who doesn't really care about you, who doesn't really have a stake in the outcome of your braking situation, someone who, if they fail due to incompetence (or maliciousness) in "fixing" your brakes will argue that it's because you didn't give them enough money or control (e.g., to "fix" the whole car) to do the job right.

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.

[screener]

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.
The Ford Pinto huh?
No, that was a faulty fuel tank, I think.

I give up, what company and car.

[screener]

Its the gopmobile
It's always politics with you fuckers.

Friendly banter, bound to edited.

[sammi jo]

At least there is now no doubt whatsoever as to the identities of the real welfare queens.

:wow:

[Outsider]

The Ford Pinto huh?
No, that was a faulty fuel tank, I think.

I give up, what company and car.
It's a quote from Fight Club, I believe. Some lady conversing with Tyler Durden on a plane.

[jamac]

When will Bush's stimulus package $ 600.- checks from the IRS kick in?

I thought that solved the problem!

I didn't get a check, have you?

[screener]

:lol:

oh come on, this is a political thread in a political forum! No offence taken
We'll see if anyone takes offense, by the way, call me what you will, I can take it, some here can't, result, HARD moderation.

[franksargent]

capitalism works, its dysfunctional when business wishing to eliminate or shield itself from competition colludes with government to pervert policy.....pay off the politicians with our money to build power for the company and select corrupt politicians who want more power ...that is our present government. government policies to serve a few hurts many we need an a vigilant people and where is the media which should be our helper and "watchdog" again collusion on the part of the media to be part of the power elite, at our cost government and media, have sold us out.

Don't know what the heck you are saying above and all in one breath even.

Cue up Alex Jones neocons piracy tin foil hat dogma ...

Blame the media? :lol: No.

Blame the taxpayer? :lol: No.

Blame the goobermint? Yes, the GWB goobermint, that is.

Blame the corporations and capitalists? Yes.

Ba Ha Ha Ha Ha ...

[screener]

It's a quote from Fight Club, I believe. Some lady conversing with Tyler Durden on a plane.
Probably right, but the Pinto was notorious as one of the most dangerous cars made when getting into a rear ender. Crash is what's meant.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657866,00.html
http://img.timeinc.net/time/2007/50_cars/ford_pinto.jpg
The Pinto is at the end of one of autodom's most notorious paper trails, the Ford Pinto memo , which ruthlessly calculates the cost of reinforcing the rear end ($121 million) versus the potential payout to victims ($50 million). Conclusion? Let 'em burn.
For eight years they built this coffin on wheels, and people still bought them.

[Northgate]

God it must be nice to be a Republican. Nothing is EVER their fault.

I'm sure Phil Gramm and his wife is now their ultimate heroes, aren't they?

[FloorJack]

God it must be nice to be a Republican. Nothing is EVER their fault.

I'm sure Phil Gramm and his wife is now their ultimate heroes, aren't they?

It must be great to be a Democrat. Everything is their fault.

[Northgate]

2+2=5

[screener]

It must be great to be a Democrat. Everything is their fault.
Forget it, it'd be pointless.

[Jubelum]

So yeah, all Clinton's fault, Republicans' hands are clean.

Clean? No.

If you look at the explicit context, I was responding to the tripe that "Republicans' anti-regulatory stance" led to all of this.

[Jubelum]

So the GOP had congress, and the presidency for 6 years but still were unable to get this done...?

Imagine if they had made it harder for people to get loans... people who were unqualified and never should have had a chance at them in the first place. You libs would be first out there running ads about how Republicans hate the middle class, and want them to live in cardboard boxes, or be eternally beholden to rich GOP landlords. You simply cannot have it both ways.

[BRussell]

Imagine if they had made it harder for people to get loans... people who were unqualified and never should have had a chance at them in the first place. You libs would be first out there running ads about how Republicans hate the middle class, and want them to live in cardboard boxes, or be eternally beholden to rich GOP landlords. You simply cannot have it both ways. It's a pretty cool trick to pose a hypothetical reaction on the part of liberals and then claim hypocrisy on the basis of the hypothetical. The fact is, liberals like Eliot Spitzer (when he wasn't boning hookers) saw it as banks taking advantage of consumers through predatory lending practices and tried to stop it, but the Bush administration saw their attempts as meddling government regulators and would let them. Read this editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html) from 6 months ago.

[Outsider]

Oh yeah, lets start making up scenarios now.

edit: never mind BRussell beat me too it. This is what happens when you have to make some chocolate milk for your 3yo... ;)

[Jubelum]

It's a pretty cool trick to pose a hypothetical reaction on the part of liberals and then claim hypocrisy on the basis of the hypothetical.

I was a conservative through the early 90s. I remember "killing old people" and "elderly eating dog food" and "people die from GOP policies" and the like, not to mention the racial bullshit like the James Byrd Jr ad run in areas of the country. Hypothetical? Specifically, yes. Taken with a long history of unhinged and unfair demonization? Not out of the realm of possibility. Really, what would you guys have said at the time had the GOP seriously tightened the supply of money available to "sub-prime" borrowers? I think we both know the spin that would have been put on it.

The fact is, liberals like Eliot Spitzer (when he wasn't boning hookers) saw it as banks taking advantage of consumers through predatory lending practices and tried to stop it, but the Bush administration saw their attempts as meddling government regulators and would let them. Read this editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html) from 6 months ago.


OK, great. An article, in the Washington Toast, written by the very liberal hack that is at the center of the story. This is the world as he sees it, no doubt. But it is not necessarily objective. Spitzer, Obama, and the rest of the DNC has been planning for a year or more to pin this on Bush. This article is really no surprise.

Also, there are two issues here... Spitzer is talking about predatory lending. The posts I have made to this point have related to Fannie and Freddy, and the democrats being neck-deep in both entities, both as political supporters of a busted system, and as personal beneficiaries to the tune of millions of dollars. And now we're doing the exact bailout that the GOP warned us about in 2002.

[NOFEER]

Imagine if they had made it harder for people to get loans... people who were unqualified and never should have had a chance at them in the first place. You libs would be first out there running ads about how Republicans hate the middle class, and want them to live in cardboard boxes, or be eternally beholden to rich GOP landlords. You simply cannot have it both ways.

down payments are considered "racist" any restrictions in getting the "american dream" was deemed racist, so the politicians fell to the racist industry and we got "new non racist considerations" confirming income--racist....credit history--racist ----- markets correct themselves.....governement never corrects itself....complete lack of accountability in government policies of.......FAILURE the seeds were sown and we reap the massive "rewards"

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/15375/?ck=1

[Northgate]

Liberals used to be big bad meanies. That's why they adore Rove.

[Northgate]

down payments are considered "racist" any restrictions in getting the "american dream" was deemed racist, so the politicians fell to the racist industry and we got "new non racist considerations"

WTF?

Is that what Kentuckians really think?

[franksargent]

A: Union of Soviet America

[franksargent]

A: Union of State Socialist Republicans

[franksargent]

down payments are considered "racist" any restrictions in getting the "american dream" was deemed racist, so the politicians fell to the racist industry and we got "new non racist considerations" confirming income--racist....credit history--racist ----- markets correct themselves.....governement never corrects itself....complete lack of accountability in government policies of.......FAILURE the seeds were sown and we reap the massive "rewards"

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/15375/?ck=1

Glenn Beck is a ... racist ... racist ... racist ... racist ... racist ... racist ...

[Jubelum]

Like clockwork.

[NOFEER]

see that's the problem.....read the entire article
it seems calling someone "racist" is just a ploy to avoid recognizing corruption

[Outsider]

Um, you were the first to bring up "racist" in this thread. (I have no idea why it's in quotes, but whatever.)

[Northgate]

I'm confused as to how racism is why the housing bubble popped?

[screener]

Imagine if they had made it harder for people to get loans... people who were unqualified and never should have had a chance at them in the first place. You libs would be first out there running ads about how Republicans hate the middle class, and want them to live in cardboard boxes, or be eternally beholden to rich GOP landlords. You simply cannot have it both ways.
You really are hittin' 'em outta the park tonite.

The article you linked to claimed Clinton made it too hard and something about penalties that weren't described if they didn't get these poor unqualified people into their own piece of the American Dream.

In came Gramm, after Clinton was out of office, and made it possible for these people who should never have gotten their pie, let alone eat it, just taste it.

Along with Bush's speech 2 years later, praising Fannie and that other guy, how the fuck is that not republicans favoring deregulation.

Deregulation goes back to Reagan and the argument that Democrats stifle free enterprise with too much regulation and let the market regulate itself.

With Gramm's slight of hand, and Bush accepting it and continuing the push to get home ownership levels among low income people higher.

How in hell can you claim, by posting a link claiming it was Clinton's fault and describing the article as the "genesis" of where the problem started.

The only problem with Clinton's initiative was the republicans fucking it up.

[BRussell]

I was a conservative through the early 90s. I remember "killing old people" and "elderly eating dog food" and "people die from GOP policies" and the like, not to mention the racial bullshit like the James Byrd Jr ad run in areas of the country. Hypothetical? Specifically, yes. Taken with a long history of unhinged and unfair demonization? Not out of the realm of possibility. Really, what would you guys have said at the time had the GOP seriously tightened the supply of money available to "sub-prime" borrowers? I think we both know the spin that would have been put on it. I just don't buy it. You can whine about the mean liberals all you want (and as I'm sure you're aware it's easy enough to point out all the insane things conservatives have said about liberals over the years), but I've never heard liberals complain about trying to stop banks from scamming customers with bogus mortgages. Giving low-income first-time home-owners a subsidized rate on a 30-year mortgage? No problem. But that wasn't what caused this mess. It was rogue banks scamming borrowers and scamming each other, Enron-style. The idea that providing incentives for mortgages to minorities and the urban poor forced the unwitting innocent banks like Countrywide to scam people is truly absurd.

OK, great. An article, in the Washington Toast, written by the very liberal hack that is at the center of the story. This is the world as he sees it, no doubt. But it is not necessarily objective. Spitzer, Obama, and the rest of the DNC has been planning for a year or more to pin this on Bush. This article is really no surprise.

Also, there are two issues here... Spitzer is talking about predatory lending. The posts I have made to this point have related to Fannie and Freddy, and the democrats being neck-deep in both entities, both as political supporters of a busted system, and as personal beneficiaries to the tune of millions of dollars. And now we're doing the exact bailout that the GOP warned us about in 2002. And you have one Investor's Business Daily editorial, making an argument that I've seen nowhere else and doesn't seem consistent with any of the facts - the argument that Freddie and Fannie were somehow responsible for the mortgage crisis. They weren't the ones selling people scam loans. They weren't responsible for the housing bubble bursting. By all accounts they were and continue to be in decent financial shape, and to the extent they're having problems, it's as a result of the mortgage crisis, not a cause.

[shetline]

And that statement discloses your misunderstanding of the free market.
{Ad hom} The point was that many of those who talk glowingly of "free markets' interpret the phrase in conveniently self-serving ways, which, yes, as you felt the need to unnecessarily point out, aren't truly free markets.

[tonton]

$700 Billion. Unfuckingbelievable.

That's $700 Billion that does not help the lower classes or middle class directly, but helps the investment class immensely (who "trickle down" economists will claim will help the lower and middle class).

What I never understood with this kind of voodoo economics is... if the goal is prosperity to the lower and middle class then why not simply eliminate the middle man?

[FloorJack]

Conceivable the lower middle class were helped by having sub prime loans to buy houses they could not afford otherwise. Now the danger is that the small business that needs a short time loan to complete a contract and keep people working wont be able to get it because money is too tight.

The investment class took a huge hit and some of these lower rated securities should be canceled representing a total loss for the billionaires that bought them. That would be my preference.

We could spread the misery around. We'll see what's going to happen when congress stops chewing its cud.

[midwinter]

This American Life + Nightline: The Giant Pool of Money (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242)

[jamac]

$700 Billion. Unfuckingbelievable.

That's $700 Billion that does not help the lower classes or middle class directly, but helps the investment class immensely (who "trickle down" economists will claim will help the lower and middle class).

What I never understood with this kind of voodoo economics is... if the goal is prosperity to the lower and middle class then why not simply eliminate the middle man?

Some math:
There are ~150 Million people who file tax returns in the US. Every tax payer has to contribute ~ $4,700 to come up with 700 Billion. Of course McCain will cut taxes and simply start shitting $$.

I couldn't find numbers for how many Wallstreet brokers there are. I guess maybe 100,000.
These few "friends" generated this loss. $ 7 Million per broker using your 401K and your Money market account.

Does anyone feel like they all should be sent to Guantanamo. After all the damage is much greater than all the terror in the world has caused since Christ birth.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.whiterabbitcult.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/soviet-palin-poster.jpg

In Alaska, Russia sees you! :D

[FloorJack]

...

Does anyone feel like they all should be sent to Guantanamo. After all the damage is much greater than all the terror in the world has caused since Christ birth.

I don't think they killed anyone. Right?

[@_@ Artman]

I don't think they killed anyone. Right?

Yeah, right. (http://www.news.com.au/files/mosaic_large.jpg)

[screener]

Some math:
There are ~150 Million people who file tax returns in the US. Every tax payer has to contribute ~ $4,700 to come up with 700 Billion. Of course McCain will cut taxes and simply start shitting $$.

I couldn't find numbers for how many Wallstreet brokers there are. I guess maybe 100,000.
These few "friends" generated this loss. $ 7 Million per broker using your 401K and your Money market account.

Does anyone feel like they all should be sent to Guantanamo. After all the damage is much greater than all the terror in the world has caused since Christ birth.
In their zeal to expand predatory lending, Gramm was again enlisted,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html
A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.

Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.

During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.
Who needs pesky rules that just might protect those that are ripe for the plucking.

And for those who might have forgotten,
“Sen. Gramm was one of dozens of folks whom Sen. McCain has consulted on the housing issue, including Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman from eBay," said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. "They've been friends for years, and he values Sen. Gramm's advice."

[screener]

I don't think they killed anyone. Right?
Ugh, most of the detainees are suspects, deemed dangerous by opinion.

Undermining your country's financial system through greed is so American and should be excused as nothing more than largess.

Home ownership did grow, so the end justifies the means, in some weird universe.

Aiding such philanthropy should be rewarded, I suppose.

[jamac]

Home ownership did grow,

Yeah, banks never owned so many houses before.

[FloorJack]

Yeah, right. (http://www.news.com.au/files/mosaic_large.jpg)

Ugh, most of the detainees are suspects, deemed dangerous by opinion.

Undermining your country's financial system through greed is so American and should be excused as nothing more than largess.

Home ownership did grow, so the end justifies the means, in some weird universe.

Aiding such philanthropy should be rewarded, I suppose.

I'm talking about the wall street guys. They didn't kill anyone. Like the terrorists did. You know that whole 9/11 thing and KSM. Or this this Trooffer Forum?

[screener]

I'm talking about the wall street guys. They didn't kill anyone. Like the terrorists did. You know that whole 9/11 thing and KSM. Or this this Trooffer Forum?
I got that, why lump me in with Artman?

Lumping in the detainees with those that did the deed and those associated with the deed and the majority of detainees who have been detained for years without charges because of what, fear, hidden proof the accusers don't care to share?

In some circles, most of the free world, that some don't feel have the right to form an opinion because of the with us or against of mentality, is akin to the very authoritarian, dictatorial regimes your government claims are evil and practice the same excuse for their prisoners.

[franksargent]

$700 Billion. Unfuckingbelievable.

That's $700 Billion that does not help the lower classes or middle class directly, but helps the investment class immensely (who "trickle down" economists will claim will help the lower and middle class).

What I never understood with this kind of voodoo economics is... if the goal is prosperity to the lower and middle class then why not simply eliminate the middle man?

And that's not even half of the rest of the story:

1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac federal bailout, public debt ceiling raised $800 billion dollars ($9.8 trillion to 10.6 trillion debt ceiling)
2) AIG bailout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group#Federal_Reserve_bailo ut);

On the evening of September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank)'s Board of Governors announced that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank_of_New_York) had been authorized to create a 24-month credit-liquidity facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Credit-liquidity_facility&action=edit&redlink=1) from which AIG may draw up to $85 billion.

3) The aforementioned $700 billion Bush bailout (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803347);

It would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to make room for the massive rescue.

4) Now go to The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np) at Treasury Direct (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/tdhome.htm) or OMB or CBO and look at the actual and projected national debt.

That brand new, soon to be raised debt ceiling of $11.3 trillion would have hit us by FY2011 anyway, but that's apparently not fast enough, so let's bump it forward two fiscal years to FY2009, because you know, the feds just love printing funny money.

Now go back to the Debt to the Penny and download the entire time series dating back to January 4, 1993, and then look at just the fiscal years that Hoover 43 (err, I mean Bush 43) submitted budgets, or had direct control over federal spending, FY2002 to the present day. Or dammit, look at the entire time series, where you will see that the total public debt virtually flat lined during the last five years of the Clinton administration.

Anyway, the Hoover 43 (err, I mean Bush 43) public debt trend line is rock solid linearly increasing (R^2 = 0.99784) at a rate of $1,542,150,345.92/day (blame Excel for all those digits) or $563 billion/year.

WHAT THE FUCK!

Now extend that trend line forward in time, and it hits the CBO and OMB future fiscal year projections extremely well, but alas, those future projections suddenly become overly conservative (those CBO and OMB projections were made before the proverbial financial shit hit the proverbial financial fan), given the $1.5 trillion rising of the debt ceiling this FY alone.

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck ...

Hoover 43 (err, I mean Bush 43) certified Worst President Ever.

But wait, all is not lost, the Hoover-Bush-Hoover-Cheney-Hoover-McCain-Hoover-Palin-Hoover administrations will put Fort Knox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bullion_Depository) up for sale on eBay, which will reduce the public debt by all of roughly $150 billion (or 1.3% of $11.3 trillion). Whew, if it weren't for all that gold in Fort Knox, why we'd be royally screwed.

:lol::mad::lol::mad::lol::mad::lol::mad::lol:

[franksargent]

http://www.whiterabbitcult.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/soviet-palin-poster.jpg

In Alaska, Russia sees you! :D

That one is a definite keeper. :lol:

[e1618978]

And that's not even half of the rest of the story

I think you are failing to understand how these bailouts work - It is likely that they won't cost anything in the end, and the government will probably make a profit because they are doing a reverse auction to buy all this destressed debt at a discount.

Likewise, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac will probably produce a profit, and AIG already has. The only one that was a true giveaway was the $29 billion assumption of risk for Bear Sterns, and that probably won't cost anything because JP Morgan can afford to hold the debt to maturity.

[franksargent]

I think you are failing to understand how these bailouts work - It is likely that they won't cost anything in the end, and the government will probably make a profit because they are doing a reverse auction to buy all this destressed debt at a discount.

Likewise, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac will probably produce a profit, and AIG already has. The only one that was a true giveaway was the $29 billion assumption of risk for Bear Sterns, and that probably won't cost anything because JP Morgan can afford to hold the debt to maturity.

What you fail to understand is that the government isn't in this for profit, never has been, and never will be, period, end of discussion.

Also, the fact that these will immediately add to the federal deficit, and the public debt, in the short term at least, that's a known fact, otherwise why raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.

If the government is going to make money then they should lower the debt ceiling. Right? :rolleyes:

Huh? Answer that one for me will you. Huh? Huh? :lol:

Savings and loan crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_Crisis)


The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_association) (S&Ls) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government—that is, the U.S. taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_Crisis#cite_note-autogenerated1-0)—which contributed to the large budget deficits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_deficit) of the early 1990s.

The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990–1991 economic recession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession). Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).

Deja vu anyone? :wow:

[e1618978]

What you fail to understand is that the government isn't in this for profit, never has been, and never will be, period, end of discussion.

Also, the fact that these will immediately add to the federal deficit, and the public debt, in the short term at least, that's a known fact, otherwise why raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.

If the government is going to make money then they should lower the debt ceiling. Right? :rolleyes:

Huh? Answer that one for me will you. Huh? Huh? :lol:

Of course it will raise the debt ceiling short term. The key there is short term - who cares about short term?

[franksargent]

Of course it will raise the debt ceiling short term. The key there is short term - who cares about short term?

You didn't answer my question.

Also define short term.

Short term as being two months, two years, or twenty years. I'm guessing 20 years unless we happen to start a major global conflict in the meantime.

Read my reply again where I added the facts of the previous S&L crisis.

Does the addendum above sound even vaguely familiar to today's situation?

I happen to think it does, and I happen to think the same end result will occur.

I will be keeping my eye on the government financial over the next few quarters (say like 13 quarters), we'll see what really happens then now won't we? :lol::lol:

And then I'll be back and say "It ain't so Jack."

[franksargent]

One thing you can be sure of.

Right now, before the solution has even been finalized - the Republicans, the speculators and the corrupt financial instututions....

...are planning ways to make profits from this, and leave some poor bastards who already have nothing to pick up the tab.

You can bet your bottom dollar collapse on that one. :D

Even if the government get's these at "pennies on the dollar" they'll eventually take 1.1 times "pennies on the dollar" and the private sector, whomever they shall be, will make 11.1 times "pennies on the dollar."

Count on that happening.

Definitely count on that happening.

The government screws the pooch, meaning you and me, the average taxpayer.

[FloorJack]

What you fail to understand is that the government isn't in this for profit, never has been, and never will be, period, end of discussion.

Also, the fact that these will immediately add to the federal deficit, and the public debt, in the short term at least, that's a known fact, otherwise why raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.

If the government is going to make money then they should lower the debt ceiling. Right? :rolleyes:

Huh? Answer that one for me will you. Huh? Huh? :lol:

Savings and loan crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_Crisis)



Deja vu anyone? :wow:

Huh? Have you read the proposal?

Treasury’s Financial-Bailout Proposal to Congress
(http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/)

Certainly the government is not doing this for the profit. But they may very well get a profit from it. It remains to be seen if this dicey paper has real value and the treasury has the balls to sell it back for what it's worth. When the treasury reports to congress they can ask how much money's been made or lost.

[franksargent]

Huh? Have you read the proposal?

Treasury’s Financial-Bailout Proposal to Congress
(http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/)

Certainly the government is not doing this for the profit. But they may very well get a profit from it. It remains to be seen if this dicey paper has real value and the treasury has the balls to sell it back for what it's worth. When the treasury reports to congress they can ask how much money's been made or lost.

I sure as heck did.

Especially this part;


Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

[@_@ Artman]

I'm talking about the wall street guys. They didn't kill anyone. Like the terrorists did. You know that whole 9/11 thing and KSM. Or this this Trooffer Forum?

Oops. No. Sorry. I was still waking up.

But I recall a documentary on 9|11 and a stock broker recalled that the Stock Market that day was of course interrupted that day, but he said he and the others kept on trading while watching the towers burn and fall on TV.

Life goes (went) on. :\

[tonton]

I suspect the government will actually pay full, or very close to full price for the toxic mortgages and loans - simply because if they dont, then the banks are not in a much better position than when they started.

Which means that it will be atleast 25-30 years before the stuff the government owns is worth what it is today.

It might well be longer than that.

A recession is obvious - but I think a depression is just as likely - and the era of continued economic growth as we have seen in large part since ww2 is over for some time.

At best we can see 5 years of recession followed by about 10 years of zero (average) growth, with the following 10 years of mild 1-2% growth, then a little boom followed by a mild recession.

So thats the next 25 years accounted for. We aint going nowhere.

But you see the deal is that while the banks get paid for the loans, the debtors get nothing. The family with the mortgage is still going to have their house repossessed, bail-out or no bail-out.

That's where this whole thing hurts the most.

The banks, and their investors, get paid. The guy who was cheated by the bank gets nothing. And they've lost everything they were tricked into paying in so far.

This is wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich.

[e1618978]

You didn't answer my question.

Also define short term.

You edited your post after I replied. Short term is 3 years, IMHO.

[FloorJack]

But you see the deal is that while the banks get paid for the loans, the debtors get nothing. The family with the mortgage is still going to have their house repossessed, bail-out or no bail-out.

That's where this whole thing hurts the most.


Well no. Only if they don't make their loan payments.



The banks, and their investors, get paid. The guy who was cheated by the bank gets nothing. And they've lost everything they were tricked into paying in so far.

Well no. The banks don't get the full cost of the loans. The loans are worth pennies on the dollar and so the banks will take a loss.



This is wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich.

Well no again. The poor don't pay income taxes. Only the middle class and rich do. The top percentages earners pay way more than the rest. So the rich will pay off the increase debt.

[@_@ Artman]

^^^

I wish there was a facility to save posts like that, so that we could come back in 5 years time to laugh so hard we'd cry.

Here it is

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1311836&postcount=115

The post number link, upper right, bookmark it. This has been done here before, much to the embarrassment of the poster and hilarity to the rest of us. :smokey:

[FloorJack]

This is something I alluded too earlier, and I just noticed Artman posted a piece in another thread saying the same thing.

The bailout absolutely has to pay full-whack or as near as damn-it for these dodgy mortgages or else the banks will not be in any better position than they were before the bail-out.

There is no point spending $700 billion to achieve nothing.

Unless

As I believe, this whole episode has been 'designed' - First as many people as possible have been led down a trap to get tied into buying something they cant afford.

Then the banks go bust - and consolidate as we have been seeing.

Then the bail-out with tax-payers money occurs - but crucially leave the banks crippled (which is what will happen IF the loans are not bought at full price)

The banks eventually go bust.

The Fed buys the lot - with taxpayers money.

Incidently, this money - is not tax payers money at all. It is the Fed's Money which you borrowed off them - therefore your debt.

All that has happened is that the fed has called in the debt - by which, they have converted worthless bits of paper they printed themselves - into real assets and land - and now they own *everything*.

Including your asses.

Exactly how Thomas Jefferson and others told you would happen if you ever created a Federal Reserve.



WAKE UP SHEEP! THIS IS HAPPENING FOR REAL

Well no. It remains to be seen. From what I read the banks want to get the dicey paper off the books. How much they are willing to take to get that dicey paper off the books; It remains to be seen.

Congress can ask "How much did you pay for this dicey paper." So let's not pretend there's not oversight.

[@_@ Artman]

Scary thought dollarcollapse™. What if we all do drop our remotes, mice and cell phones and rise up from the sofa in a rage and riot.

Makes one wonder what this is all about...

Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1 (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/) (I'm copying and pasting this because it seems the link is getting shuffled around on the site)

3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
By Gina Cavallaro - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 8, 2008 6:15:06 EDT

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”

The command is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., but the soldiers with 1st BCT, who returned in April after 15 months in Iraq, will operate out of their home post at Fort Stewart, Ga., where they’ll be able to go to school, spend time with their families and train for their new homeland mission as well as the counterinsurgency mission in the war zones.

Stop-loss will not be in effect, so soldiers will be able to leave the Army or move to new assignments during the mission, and the operational tempo will be variable.

Don’t look for any extra time off, though. The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment.

The 1st of the 3rd is still scheduled to deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in early 2010, which means the soldiers will have been home a minimum of 20 months by the time they ship out.

In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” said Cloutier, describing the experience as “your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body.

“I’m not a small guy, I weigh 230 pounds ... it put me on my knees in seconds.”

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).

“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Cloutier, who took command in July. “We’ve been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home ... and depending on where an event occurred, you’re going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones.”

While soldiers’ combat training is applicable, he said, some nuances don’t apply.

“If we go in, we’re going in to help American citizens on American soil, to save lives, provide critical life support, help clear debris, restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it’s kind of a different role,” said Cloutier, who, as the division operations officer on the last rotation, learned of the homeland mission a few months ago while they were still in Iraq.

Some brigade elements will be on call around the clock, during which time they’ll do their regular marksmanship, gunnery and other deployment training. That’s because the unit will continue to train and reset for the next deployment, even as it serves in its CCMRF mission.

Should personnel be needed at an earthquake in California, for example, all or part of the brigade could be scrambled there, depending on the extent of the need and the specialties involved.
Other branches included

The active Army’s new dwell-time mission is part of a NorthCom and DOD response package.

Active-duty soldiers will be part of a force that includes elements from other military branches and dedicated National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams.

A final mission rehearsal exercise is scheduled for mid-September at Fort Stewart and will be run by Joint Task Force Civil Support, a unit based out of Fort Monroe, Va., that will coordinate and evaluate the interservice event.

In addition to 1st BCT, other Army units will take part in the two-week training exercise, including elements of the 1st Medical Brigade out of Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade from Fort Bragg, N.C.

There also will be Air Force engineer and medical units, the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Initial Reaction Force, a Navy weather team and members of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

One of the things Vogler said they’ll be looking at is communications capabilities between the services.

“It is a concern, and we’re trying to check that and one of the ways we do that is by having these sorts of exercises. Leading up to this, we are going to rehearse and set up some of the communications systems to make sure we have interoperability,” he said.

“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,” Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home.”

Not sure whether to get my tinfoil hat ready or not. :smokey:

[@_@ Artman]

More and more I start to realize the real doctrine being used in Washington DC, the Shock Doctrine (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/20/174632/740/168/604957)*.

It's not even October yet. So we ain't seen nothin' yet. :no:

*The Shock Doctrine | Naomi Klein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kieyjfZDUIc)

[franksargent]

You edited your post after I replied. Short term is 3 years, IMHO.

That would be my guess also.

But here's the problem;

Q: When was the last fiscal year that the total federal public debt actually decreased?

A: FY1969 when the total federal public debt decreased by a whopping 0.79%.

Q: Prior to FY1969, when was the last fiscal year that the total federal public debt actually decreased?

A: FY1957 when the total federal public debt decreased by a whopping 0.16%.

Q: Are there any other fiscal years, since 1940, when the total federal public debt decreased?

A: Yes, FY1956 (0.61%), FY1951 (0.61%), FY1948 (1.99%), and FY1947 (5.11%).

So basically, you need to go back 60 years to find a time when the total federal public debt decreased significantly (say 1% or greater).

The same can be said about the statutory limits on federal debt, which has never gone down significantly since 1940, and when it did go down it was a small short lived decrease.

There is nothing in the historical fiscal record, going back 68 years, that would suggest that things will be different this time, with respect to either the statutory limits on federal debt or the total federal public debt.

Nothing.

The debt ceiling and public debt will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, there is nothing that would suggest otherwise.

:lol::mad::lol::mad::lol::mad::lol::mad::lol:

[franksargent]

Well no again. The poor don't pay income taxes. Only the middle class and rich do. The top percentages earners pay way more than the rest. So the rich will pay off the increase debt.

Wrong, no one will pay down the public debt incurred in this fiasco.

The public debt will only increase, and increase significantly.

The historical federal fiscal record speaks for itself.

Saying something doesn't make it so.

. :mad:

[franksargent]

More and more I start to realize the real doctrine being used in Washington DC, the Shock Doctrine (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/20/174632/740/168/604957)*.

It's not even October yet. So we ain't seen nothin' yet. :no:

*The Shock Doctrine | Naomi Klein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kieyjfZDUIc)

http://www.redsnapr.co.nz/images/stockprod.jpg

A citizen prod, also called a citizen shocker, is a handheld device commonly used to make people or other livestock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock) move by striking or poking them, or in the case of a Hot-Shot-type prod, through a relatively high voltage, high current electric shock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock).

Next up, Citizen Camps aka Hoovervilles, when you have no place left to go;


http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t029/T029195A.jpg


During the presidential campaign of 2008, a circular published by the Republican Party (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0841571.html) claimed that if John McCain (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760615.html) won there would be "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage."

[FloorJack]

Wrong, no one will pay down the public debt incurred in this fiasco.

The public debt will only increase, and increase significantly.

The historical federal fiscal record speaks for itself.

Saying something doesn't make it so.

. :mad:



Well no. It remains to be seen if treasury can sell back these dicey papers for more than they bough them. Those proceeds would pay off the increased debt.

[franksargent]

Well no. It remains to be seen if treasury can sell back these dicey papers for more than they bough them. Those proceeds would pay off the increased debt.

The federal government totally lacks any proven track record in that regard.

The. Federal. Government. Totally. Lacks. Any. Proven. Track. Record. In. That. Regard.

The S&L bailout just reinforces the fact that the total federal public debt will only continue to increase, astronomically even.

I don't believe or have faith in doG, much less our federal government, with it's proven track record of continuously increasing federal debt over the past 40 consecutive years.

D'oh!

[FloorJack]

The federal government totally lacks any proven track record in that regard.

The. Federal. Government. Totally. Lacks. Any. Proven. Track. Record. In. That. Regard.

The S&L bailout just reinforces the fact that the total federal public debt will only continue to increase, astronomically even.

I don't believe or have faith in doG, much less our federal government, with it's proven track record of continuously increasing federal debt over the past 40 consecutive years.

D'oh!

Well no. At the very least when the fed bailed out chrysler it make $400 million on the deal.

[franksargent]

Well no. At the very least when the fed bailed out chrysler it made $400 million on the deal.

Unsubstantiated claim.

{Ad hom removed}

This needs an actual factual link to a government website, not some undoubtedly op-ed piece in a rag such as the Wall Street Urinal, or some such.

And if true, $400 million over what period of time, five years, ten years, or more? :lol:

The Chrysler Corporation on September 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_7), 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979) petitioned the United States government for US$ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_dollar)1.5 billion in loan guarantees to avoid bankruptcy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy).

Hmm, circa FY1980, total federal public debt at the time? $909.041 billion

$400 million / $909.041 billion = 0.044% :lol::lol:

You just proved my point for me, thank you very much. :D

0.044% * $11.315 trillion = $5 billion

In other words, pocket change for the federal government.

Do you have any other killers such as this one? :)

[franksargent]

Detroit wants its bailout too (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/news/companies/detroit_bailout.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote)

GM, Chrysler, and Ford want at least $25 billion in guaranteed loans; critics want to know where the money is going.

In the Public Interest: Statement on Auto Industry Bailouts (http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/09/18/auto-industry-bailout/)


The Big Three are in big trouble, and they have themselves to thank for it.

Ford and General Motors have reported substantial losses in the second quarter amounting to $15.5 billion, and $8.7 billion, respectively, while Chrysler, which was bought off last year by a private equity firm, Cerberus, refuses to reveal its financial standing.

[FloorJack]

Unsubstantiated claim.

{Ad hom removed}

This needs an actual factual link to a government website, not some undoubtedly op-ed piece in a rag such as the Wall Street Urinal, or some such.

And if true, $400 million over what period of time, five years, ten years, or more? :lol:



Hmm, circa FY1980, total federal public debt at the time? $909.041 billion

$400 million / $909.041 billion = 0.044% :lol::lol:

You just proved my point for me, thank you very much. :D

0.044% * $11.315 trillion = $5 billion

In other words, pocket change for the federal government.

Do you have any other killers such as this one? :)

So you admit that you were wrong? The fed got their money back plus $400M. Not a bad return on 1500B in loan guarantees. Rather than say there is "no track record" you now know there is at least one example where a bailout paid off in the black.:D

[midwinter]

I would like to be bailed out.

[e1618978]

This thread stinks of irrational fear - I can't believe some of the things I am reading here, very little brain engagement as far as I can see (is it an ad-hom when I am insulting everyone?). I'm out.

[@_@ Artman]

I can think of several groups of people who will have profited from the sub-prime disaster:

1. Property owners who got out of the market after selling for obscene prices

2. Developers, who built houses and sold them for outrageous amounts of money

3. Mortgage brokers, who sold the mortgage for commission and passed on the risk

4. Those who held the riskiest of mortgages, and received obscene interest rates until the money ran out

5. Bank employees, who received obscene bonuses until the money ran out

So, which one is you e1618978?

[midwinter]

I think it is very important that we give $700b to the people who fucked the American and European banking system up. I mean, I just can't think of any other way to get the banks lending money to one another again.

[@_@ Artman]

You know, the last time someone pushed through legislation after a "disaster" we got the Patriot Act. I wonder how long this bill's been sitting around waiting for the right moment.

[midwinter]

You know, the last time someone pushed through legislation after a "disaster" we got the Patriot Act. I wonder how long this bill's been sitting around waiting for the right moment.

I would be surprised if it had, since it's pretty specific, as I understand it. If the banks aren't lending to one another because everything's an unknown quantity, the gummit buying up the bad loans a X on the dollar means that the bank can now value things and begin lending money.

BUT.

This is a blank check to the people who fucked all this up, and unless I'm missing something, basically comes with no strings attached, totally blows moral hazard out of the water, and contains no penalty. And on top of that, it's being rammed through as a kind of "OMGWTFBBQ!! WE HAVE TO FIX THE EKONOME RIGHT NOW OR THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!" when that's simply not the case.

[@_@ Artman]

Some lawmen in DC is reading it this way...

Yes, There Are Deeply Angry Democratic Members of Congress (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8374)

This email is from a lawmaker and it should give you a flavor for what's going on right now in Congress.

Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression (that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.

Nancy said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.

Henry Waxman has suggested corporate government reforms, including CEO compensation, as the price for this. Some members have publicly suggested allowing modification of mortgages in bankruptcy, and the House Judiciary Committee staff is also very interested in that. That's a real possibility.

We may strip out all the gives to industry in the predatory mortgage lending bill that the House passed last November, which hasn't budged in the Senate, and include that in the bill. There are other ideas on the table but they are going to be tough to work out before next week.

I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.

I'm open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them.

I like the way this guy thinks. It should absolutely be done.

Some compulsory tests for the big honchos to prove they are capable of providing the services they turn out not to be able to pay for. Let them appreciate what it's like when you're trying to put food on the table while the bank fucks you over with obscene fees and fraudulent practices.

Let them feel that it's not so nice when it happens to you.

There must be real panic if they have Paulson doing the rounds of the talking heads to sell this idea to the public. In order to save the tax payer we have to ruin the tax payer. Sure, wonderful. Thanks a lot Hank, we'll send you a turkey for Thanksgiving.

[FloorJack]

I can think of several groups of people who will have profited from the sub-prime disaster:

1. Property owners who got out of the market after selling for obscene prices

Maybe. Who were those people?

2. Developers, who built houses and sold them for outrageous amounts of money

Kinda agree. The housing market is a free one. If you don't like the price you can rent. It's not a crime to sell something for a price that someone is willing to pay.

3. Mortgage brokers, who sold the mortgage for commission and passed on the risk

We agree!!! Lenders should hold on to the risk they take. When the sell that risk the buyer should know what it is and not look for a bailout.

4. Those who held the riskiest of mortgages, and received obscene interest rates until the money ran out

That doesn't compute or me. Even if the interest is high the loan is still not payed off when "the money runs out". That's why it's a crisis.

5. Bank employees, who received obscene bonuses until the money ran out

So, which one is you e1618978?

Chump change. Let the billionaires that took the risk take the loss, i say.

[franksargent]

So you admit that you were wrong? The fed got their money back plus $400M. Not a bad return on $1.5 billion in loan guarantees. Rather than say there is "no track record" you now know there is at least one example where a bailout paid off in the black.:D

Substantiate this unsubstantiated claim. The $400 million part, also what amounts were loaned out and at what prevailing rate(s) at that time.

Corrected $1500B to it's correct value of $1.5 billion, a misplacing of the decimal point by three orders of magnitude or O(1000).

That bailout did not involve increasing the federal statutory debt limit to the tune of $1.5 trillion.

In fact the federal statutory debt limit was not raised $0.01 in the case you mention.

Remember, I'm talking exclusively about the public debt here, as I've been doing throughout my posts.

Hmm, I wonder if the CPI (aka inflation) has increased 99,000% ($1.5 trillion/$1.5 billion as a percentage point increase) since the the Chrysler bailout?

No! :no: In fact, inflation has risen in those ~28 years only ~145% not 99,000%, so your one example, is quite frankly, an one apples to 683 oranges comparison. :D:lol::grumble:

[franksargent]

I would be surprised if it had, since it's pretty specific, as I understand it. If the banks aren't lending to one another because everything's an unknown quantity, the gummit buying up the bad loans a X on the dollar means that the bank can now value things and begin lending money.

BUT.

This is a blank check to the people who fucked all this up, and unless I'm missing something, basically comes with no strings attached, totally blows moral hazard out of the water, and contains no penalty. And on top of that, it's being rammed through as a kind of "OMGWTFBBQ!! WE HAVE TO FIX THE EKONOME RIGHT NOW OR THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!" when that's simply not the case.

Exactly.

Some people truly have their you know what shoved up their you know what.

The warmongers (err, I meant fear-mongers) are out in full force again! :no:

I'm trying to remember an era when conservatives have been so nonconservative. I can't for the life of me though.

Heck, the conservatives are starting to sound just like Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists, and all at the same time even. :no:

[e1618978]

So, which one is you e1618978?

None of them, my house is still on the market unsold, I'm not a bank employee, developer, mortgage broker, or investor in mortgage backed assets (that I know of). I have a pretty big vested interest in not having the economic system collapse, however, just as everyone does.

[@_@ Artman]

None of them, my house is still on the market unsold, I'm not a bank employee, developer, mortgage broker, or investor in mortgage backed assets (that I know of). I have a pretty big vested interest in not having the economic system collapse, however, just as everyone does.

Thanks for the reply. We all have that vested interest.

Clinton thought he could prevent/solve it (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n25_v45/ai_14779796/print?tag=artBody;col1).

Bush thought he could prevent/solve it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo).

Whether Obama or McCain have an idea, let me know. This economic system collapse seems to have decades of government/corporate fingerprints on it.

McCain hasn't even read the 3 page proposal (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/_What_liberals_are_up_in_arms_about_this_morning_. html?showall).

The document was probably on a computer. :\

[e1618978]

OK - call me a flip flopper, but I am starting to have second thoughts about this bailout. If we end up with a transparent market for these securities, where true price discovery takes place, then the government will make a ton of money and we will have a lot of bankruptcies, but I think that mergers and such will keep capital flowing.

But the more I read about this, the more I suspect that this reverse auction will be a sham, and the government will end up paying higher than market rates. I would rather have the stock market crash, and a mini-depression, than reward risk taking behavior like that.

Also, the $25 billion auto industry bail out makes me sick - the only way to kill the unions is to let the big three die, but if the government keeps bailing them out the unions will never kill their host.

And the head of the SEC should be fired:

http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2004/20040428_Headline08_Drawbaugh.htm