or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Nationalize the Banks???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nationalize the Banks??? - Page 2

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

As I have pointed out many times before, the U.S. financial system was deregulated under your guy's watch and with the stroke of his pen. (Love the source, don't you?)

Even Clinton acknowledges his role in this and is currently claiming that the "deregulation" you claim is the problem isn't really the problem at all.

So get your story straight. Either Clinton is lying or his deregulation is the actual problem.

On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. I can't blame (the Republicans). This wasn't something they forced me into. - William Jefferson Clinton

Ok let's just look at the facts shall we. End of the Clinton administration ( which had overcome a bad economic situation from a previous Bush administration ) coming off the longest running bull market in history, heading into a recession ( and a new Bush administration ) but with a balanced budget, a surplus, and a much smaller deficit. Six months into the Bush administration the surplus is gone and the spending has just begun.

Fast forward to this : http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/...c.2fe559a.html

Quote:
Republicans ushered in bad economy

And you know recent polls show that most americans blame them also. And why not? It's a no brainer. They were in charge ( for a long time ).

Quote:
Who's to blame for the current economic crisis?

http://www.newsvine.com/_question/20...?pc=20&sp=1280



Now here we are moving into a new democratic administration ( coming off of the 8 years of the Bush administration ) and the economy's in the toilet, no surplus, and a bigger deficit than ever!

See a pattern? I do.

It's one of the reasons they lost the election. The american people have had enough!

And you know Frank777 the old " Look over there at them not at us " MO of the Bush years doesn't work anymore. Time to pay the piper.

Is it any wonder so many say now days " Sorry guys. Been there done that ! " ?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ok let's just look at the facts shall we. End of the Clinton administration ( which had overcome a bad economic situation from a previous Bush administration ) coming off the longest running bull market in history, heading into a recession ( and a new Bush administration ) but with a balanced budget, a surplus, and a much smaller deficit. Six months into the Bush administration the surplus is gone and the spending has just begun.

Except for the whole wrong facts bit, you might have a point.

The economy was already out of recession by the time Clinton took power. His tax increases had nothing to do with it. The first Bush agreed with the Democratic Congress at that time and raised taxes as well.

I've asked several times and you've never once addressed the fact that the first Bush did everything you claim a Republican ought to do and his reward was to be turned out of office in one term and the economy still tanked. He raised taxes. He had his very quick and focused war sanctioned by the U.N. He even appointed David Souter to the Supreme Court for goodness sakes. When Bush lost to Clinton on election day, his approval rating was 37%.

How ridiculous is it to keep suggesting that Republicans needs to be bipartisan, put our defense at the approval and mercy of the U.N. and allies, and raise taxes on the few to solve our spending problems when the guy who did that was incredibly unpopular and lost in one term?

Please address this before you dare to repeat your 8 years bullshit again.


Fast forward to a letter to the editor? Why would I give a damn about that?

Quote:
And you know recent polls show that most americans blame them also. And why not? It's a no brainer. They were in charge ( for a long time ).

Aging must be a terrible thing. The pattern is already very clear about spending with a Democratic Congress. I banged around with it some using this graph.



I should fix the red circle caption. The Republicans controlled the Congress four out of those six years. (Still 50% of his term.) The first two years where the debt is going up under Democratic control of the Senate (Jeffords defected for those of us with a memory) Bush got control of both houses in 2002 and Republicans held both houses until 2006. You can see the deficit going down those four years. The second we have a Democratic Congress, the spending and deficit explode.

All of the years associated with deficit going down are due to Republican Congress.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoMan01 View Post

Of course, I would offer to bring that money back through a major change in our tax laws, but also include other changes to our financial system:

1. Up the minimum margin requirements for trading commodities and stock futures to at least 20%, with even higher percentages if you trade in critical commodities. That weeds out all the speculators that drove up and down the price of crude oil like a fast-moving elevator, for starters!

2. Put in a LOT more "teeth" into enforcing our securities laws to watch for and stop fraudulent schemes like what Bernie Madoff pulled off.

an open free market attracts trade. It's a catch 22 with too many restrictions investors will shop else where. There's a huge amount of money from over seas in the US, what if that were to leave? Having an account, on say Jersey, will encourage saving, which in short supply generaly, that money might well be spent or lost in a risky investment if it wasn't for the tax savings. But much of that money, whatever it really is, is likely to be spent in the US and in some cases paid into death tax. It's certainly plausible to change the tax system to keep money in the US (much needed too), but I would expect goverment revenues overall to drop if they provided enough tax breaks to overseas investments. That money would certainly help lending but the government won't give up that much pie.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #44 of 55
The whole "speculators" thing was debunked but you wont read about that at Huff Po or NYT.
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Except for the whole wrong facts bit, you might have a point.

The economy was already out of recession by the time Clinton took power. His tax increases had nothing to do with it. The first Bush agreed with the Democratic Congress at that time and raised taxes as well.

I've asked several times and you've never once addressed the fact that the first Bush did everything you claim a Republican ought to do and his reward was to be turned out of office in one term and the economy still tanked. He raised taxes. He had his very quick and focused war sanctioned by the U.N. He even appointed David Souter to the Supreme Court for goodness sakes. When Bush lost to Clinton on election day, his approval rating was 37%.

How ridiculous is it to keep suggesting that Republicans needs to be bipartisan, put our defense at the approval and mercy of the U.N. and allies, and raise taxes on the few to solve our spending problems when the guy who did that was incredibly unpopular and lost in one term?

Please address this before you dare to repeat your 8 years bullshit again.



Fast forward to a letter to the editor? Why would I give a damn about that?



Aging must be a terrible thing. The pattern is already very clear about spending with a Democratic Congress. I banged around with it some using this graph.



I should fix the red circle caption. The Republicans controlled the Congress four out of those six years. (Still 50% of his term.) The first two years where the debt is going up under Democratic control of the Senate (Jeffords defected for those of us with a memory) Bush got control of both houses in 2002 and Republicans held both houses until 2006. You can see the deficit going down those four years. The second we have a Democratic Congress, the spending and deficit explode.

All of the years associated with deficit going down are due to Republican Congress.

You're not anywhere close to old yet.

It took most of the 90's to get out of the economic slump that republicans put us in. It really doesn't matter when they declare " The recession is over ". Just like it didn't in the last one when it took forever for employment to recover. And when it did the people that had good jobs before got to " manufacture " hamburgers!

Here's a sample of the recovery in the early 90's : http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1994/06/art1exc.htm

From that page :
Quote:
By most economic measures, the 1990-91 downturn was mild compared to previous contractions. Yet, several factors unique to this recession and its aftermath made its impact on the U.S. work force quite severe:

The labor market continued to deteriorate long after other economic indicators began to improve and the official ending date of the recession was chosen. During earlier business cycles, in contrast, the turning points for nonfarm employment and for unemployment were nearly coincident with the official trough months of recessions.
Employment declines were more widespread across the major occupational and industry groups in the 1990-91 recession than in past contractions. White-collar workers in general, and workers in the finance, insurance, and real estate industry were at greater risk of losing their jobs in the early 1990's than at any time in the past. Also, the rate of employment decrease in both wholesale and retail trade was nearly twice that of the averages of prior contractions.
A much smaller share of the unemployed who lost jobs in the recent recession expected to be rehired when the economy improved than was the case for workers losing jobs in other downturns.

Hmmm? Kind of like the recession recovery we experienced with Dubya!

Bottom line trumpy. Clinton's terms did much better than Bush. Really no comparison.

The rest of your argument is just sophistory. You'll say anything to avoid blaming the republicans. Who had the most control for the bulk of the Bush years? Answer The republicans! Yes they got total control in 2002 just in time to put us in a useless war that cost billions and many lives. I wouldn't be too proud of that fact if I were you.

Quote:
first Bush did everything you claim a Republican ought to do

I've never said that was totally a good thing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #46 of 55
Of course Clinton had a Republican congress to help him out.
post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Of course Clinton had a Republican congress to help him out.


Oh please not that old chestnut again!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh please not that old chestnut again!

I didn't know chestnut was code for "factual crap that I want to ignore."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I didn't know chestnut was code for "factual crap that I want to ignore."


Yes I suppose they helped.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

an open free market attracts trade. It's a catch 22 with too many restrictions investors will shop else where.

But given the current economic situation I think even investors have learned their lesson and with most of the world likely to go to tighter minimum margin requirements people will invest in a far more sane manner, looking for longer-term gains than short-term gains. The fiasco with the price of oil zooming up to US$148 and back down to US$40 in less than a year should sober up investors on the problems of low-margin speculation.
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoMan01 View Post

The fiasco with the price of oil zooming up to US$148 and back down to US$40 in less than a year should sober up investors on the problems of low-margin speculation.

No, you have that all wrong. The problem is that the commodity market is small relative to the stock and bond markets, and when money managers start dumping loads of money into it, it ends up with big price fluctuations - nothing to do with margin at all.

The best solution for oil is (1) more transparency so that we can see when speculation is driving up the price, and (2) the use of the strategic petroleum reserve as a "bubble popping" mechanism, sell oil whenever speculation starts to ramp the price up. We really need to expand the size of the strategic reserve also.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #52 of 55
Apparently, the banks can check out of TARP anytime they like, but Barack won't let them leave.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Apparently, the banks can check out of TARP anytime they like, but Barack won't let them leave.

/singing

Welcome to the Ho-tel Bar-ack O-bam-a....

It's a lovely place.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #54 of 55
It's sad when I hear or read a little blurb about a government taking over or "regulating" a private business and I assume it's my own government until stated otherwise.

Remember when the PEOPLE ran businesses in this country? Ah...those were the days.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Sorry to go all Sammi-Jo on the forum, but the more I look at how this is playing out, the more this looks like a crisis that has been engineered by design to align world banking powers and rules under the direction of a select few.

You really do not have to apologize for (a) making a sensible comment (b) invading the comfort zones of the 4th graders, weasels, deniers on the board, and (3) recognizing that human nature has a habit of prompting people in positions of power and unaccountability, to do things that are both illegal and plain wrong, that they know they can get away with. This is a closed feedback loop made even worse because the legions of weasels, deniers and 4th-graders are unable and unwilling to recognize that there are flaws in both human nature and the systems that we create.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Nationalize the Banks???